The actual original intent of the Second Amendment

I highly appreciate the November 17 news article "Some common points in controversial gun controversy" and fully support bipartisan attempts at gun control. However, as long as those who violate gun control believe that the second amendment is on their side, we will never find a consensus. This lie is often strengthened by the media. Responsible reports on the second amendment and firearm issues should recognize that the discussion is based on the original intention rather than promoting such unilateral interpretation.

Mr. Nathan Kozuskanich pointed out that in an excellent paper by Journal of Constitutional Law, "There is no doubt that the assessment of its possibility depends on accurate reflection of history, regardless of how to regard primitivism as a theory." . Through a thorough investigation of the newspapers, pamphlets, and public records at the time, the term "carrying weapons" is reserved for military operations and individuals have the right to possess guns for hunting or personal defense It never was used. For example, Rhode Island tells a man between the ages of 16 and 50 that "we are obligated to bring weapons to the corresponding training band, which states that they should be their own in law." .

Mr. Kozskanic's paper was published before the Court of Justice of Colombia vs. Heller Supreme Court, among which the "primitiveist" judge Antonin Scalia, in order to limit the management of firearms in this area He won five to four. That's right. It is not only because someone says they are original. The constitutionalists of our country are never meant to restrict the rights of states that manage firearms.

The best comments and conversations published by Washington Post every Friday. Join the conversation

Those who wish to question the original intention of the second amendment and who wish to exercise an excessive burden on the rights of citizens possessing weapons say they can find weapons that criminals can always be hurt and killed Forget about that. The second amendment has been part of our constitutional structure over the centuries and still protects innocent people, not criminals. There is no doubt that criminals prefer victims who are helpless and not armed. Our legal system should not adversely affect the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.

I have three guns, but I admit that the second amendment means that the citizens have the right to have a basic gun for protection under the law, It is not the main purpose of the second revision. It is mainly to protect individual countries and countries. The founder's father does not even believe that America's emerging economies can afford to buy resident forces. There are locally armed people demanding the most realistic solution in case of a military emergency. Therefore, the second amendment actually requires "well-supervised militia".

The ninth amendment will record directly those who exaggerated the second amendment and other specific amendments.

This phenomenon is very interesting, but it is not the subject of this article. My aim is narrower. I will discuss the history of the second amendment and try to determine its original intent. I do not suggest that the original intention is dominance. At this point, George Washington said, "When an individual enters society, we must renounce the freedom of sharing to protect the rest, the importance of the sacrifice is that ACLU has agreed to the long-term interpretation of the Supreme Court The right to possess weapons applies only to the protection of properly managed militia and has weapons that are not protected by the Constitution in addition to legitimate police and military purposes, There is no constitutional obstacle to monitoring.