There is hope . . .

[TX1911fan]

I have renewed hope for the Second Amendment, and for America's future. Because I am an attorney, I was asked by a local scout troop to come and talk about the Constitution and our duties to help the boys fulfill one of their requirements. I spoke generally about the Constitution, its history, and our duties as citizens. Once of the scouts asked about the Bill of Rights, so I explained that many of our Founders were concerned that the Constitution provided only an explanation of the system of government, but did not contain any provisions specifically protecting individual freedoms. Hence, the BoR was amended to the Constutition. When we got to the Second Amendment, I was asked what it meant. I sent the question back to them, and asked them if they thought it meant that only the National Guard or the Military should be allowed to have guns, or if it meant that ordinary people are allowed to have them as well. I expected a variety of answers, but mostly "I don't know" in that bored 12 year old voice. What I got surprised me. Most of the boys said that they think it means that everyone should be allowed to have guns (I am in Texas, so maybe I shouldn't have been so surprised, but they all go to public school). One boy, however, blew me away and helped me to refine my 2A arguments (I told him this too, and he was impressed that an adult would learn something from a kid). He said "Well, the BoR was to protect individual rights, not the government." I had never framed it as simply as that. Most, if not all, of the Amendments to the Constitution protect individuals against encroachment by the government. Why would the 2A be completely opposite? It makes no sense. When anyone asks me about the 2A now, I just state the obvious. The 2A protects individual liberty just as all other Amendments to the Constitution do.

 

[Maxwell]

Now we just need judges and politicians that are at least as smart as 12 year olds.

 

[ARperson]

It nevers ceases to amaze me that people think "people" refers to individuals in 1, and 3-10, but refers to the militia (which originally was the group of individuals anyway) in 2.

Reminds me of the idiots you see in "Jaywalking" on Leno's show.

 

[armoredman]

Wonderful, thank you for the lift, sir.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Good job, counselor. Thanks!

lpl/nc

 

[Robert Hairless]

That young person does think clearly. Not only was the Bill of Rights intended to protect individual rights against possible infringements by a federal government but there was no need for the Second Amendment to protect the government's right to have arms from possible infringement by individuals who might think otherwise.

No one could possibly conceive of an individual Englishman arguing that the King of England had no right to arm the forces of England, for example, and who in his right mind would argue that Johnny Jones in Massachusetts could keep and bear a musket while the Commwealth of Massachusetts' militia couldn't? No amendment would have been needed to safeguard any government's rights to keep and bear arms, then or now.

Thanks for your post.