The official executive orders are out and people are either slapping their foreheads or nodding in agreement. Is Obama infringing upon the rights of United States citizens? What does the Second Amendment mean? I offer my feeling on the subject, which I’m sure some will disagree with, but that’s what blogs are for, right?
My view is simply this: the Second Amendment should be viewed in the light of the Framers mindsets and plain common sense. When viewed in this matter, the Amendment has limits. Jefferson and Adams, two political polar opposites with extraordinary minds, could not have imagined tanks, grenades, and stealth fighter jets. Hell, they hadn’t even invented rifling yet (that’s the grooves inside a barrel that make the bullet spin and fly true for those who don’t know). All they knew was smooth barrel, inaccurate rifles and swords. Thus, to suggest the Founders meant for the Right to be inclusive of all weapons is as ridiculous as suggesting pans on the head is a religion worthy of protection (yes, I know, that was actually a case and Peter Pan Head won…remarkable). The point is: there does have to be a line. I want my neighbor to be armed (as am I), but they don’t need a tank or, in my opinion, an AR-15.
We also have to keep in mind that the Amendment was written to protect the people from our own government “when,” as Jefferson believed, it becomes corrupt. The Founders believed that their taking up arms against the British would happen again and foresaw a time when we would go toe-to-toe, gun to gun again. Technology has nullified this, however. Our guns won’t take over a corrupt government. They have stealth jets and bombers; they have missiles; they have ships the size of cities. We can’t win. The legislative purpose is now meaningless.
In sum, I believe in the Second Amendment. With limits. Where that line should be drawn is another story.