This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ed Poor (talk | contribs) at 08:11, 14 March 2002 (Have I stated the gun control position fairly? I'm afraid I may have used loaded words unintentionally.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 08:11, 14 March 2002 by Ed Poor (talk | contribs) (Have I stated the gun control position fairly? I'm afraid I may have used loaded words unintentionally.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Second Amendment
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
- See also : United States Constitution
Interpretations
Some interpreters, notably gun control advocates, interpret "militia" as a government-led body. On this grounds, these interpreters assert that the Second Amendment does not give citizens the right to bear arms. They see bearing arms as a privilege granted to private citizens at the discretion of government.
Other interpreters maintain that the term "militia" in the Colonial Era referred to the armed citizenry as a whole (as distinct from a goverment-led body such as a standing army). On this grounds, these interpreters assert that the Second Amendment does give citizens the right to bear arms whether the government agrees or note. These interpreters generally agree, however, that certain unqualified people such as the certifiably insane or convicted violent felons should not be permitted arms. They also usually have little or no objection to licensing of gun owners, as long as the licensing provisions are no more difficult than, say, getting a driver's license.