Nothing is more debated than the interpretation of the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
If you follow my posts and/or activities, you may know that I am quite the fan of definitions.
So this can be fun.
To keep on point, here is the outline-
1. The Second Amendment‘s original meaning
2. The Constitution- Living or static?
Let’s dig in!
The Second Amendment’s Original Meaning
A Supreme Court Justice went on NPR and explained this subject in extreme detail about why the second amendment was there in the first place. It turns out, it was a state vs. federal argument with Jefferson and Hamilton. Jefferson, the Virginia representative, and Hamilton, the advocate for the federal government. Jefferson wanted the second amendment in there so the federal govt. could never seize the arms of state militias, and leaving them vulnerable for military takeover. Hamilton, who was gung-ho for a national army, thought that was absurd, since creating a union state militias, Hamilton believed, would go on the way side.
Jefferson won the argument, and the second amendment went in.
Is the Constitution a living document?
Now the next topic. In 2011, there are now active state militias. So based on the original interpretation of the second amendment, it is no longer relevant.
Unless…we make it relevant.
The Supreme Court is meant to interpret the law of the land as they see fit.
In that case, the answer is yes, the U.S. Constitution is a living document.
With the recent tragedy of the Arizona Congresswoman, the gun control policy of the United States will come into the limelight, with emphasis on what the second amendment really means. The issue is not going to be resolved until the High Court rules on it. Until then, as it is happening now, I see no issue with state regulation. Can you create a parallel with individual protection and state militia? It’s a stretch, but I can see it. Can the Court make a case that gun control is regulated by the federal government because of the new federal mandate of protecting the free world includes domestic protection? I can see that as well.
I have no opinion on what’s right or wrong (if everybody had a gun, it would in essence be as if no one had a gun, theoretically speaking) but there obviously a need for society to be given an answer.
Or, a definition.