The original to be passed out to states and ratified by them reads as follows:
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.
The admendment passed by the House & Senate reads as such:
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.
The only difference between the two the punctuation and capitalization
What is your interpretation of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution?
I was talking to a Political Science professor and he insists that the people, citizens in general, do not have the right to bear arms. He went on to say that the Amendment only applies to the Militia, active duty or reserve personnel, and it's at the discretion of the government whether or not they will allow a regular citizen to own a gun. Of course I agree with him about the governments discretion, however, if you're a law abiding citizen I don't see a problem. But I disagreement that the Amendment only pertains to the military personnel and I gave him my reasons why. It is a known fact that before and after the Constitution was written historical figures would "settling their differences" in duals, many of whom were not in the military themselves. According to the professor the sentence has one part, and the Militia and the People are the same. But if that were the case I think they would've said Soildier instead of the people. In every historical document I've read whenever the words "the People" are mentioned it is the inclusion of everyone (with the exception of slaves, but that's another story). The Amendment passed by the House and Senate has two parts, a prefatory clause, beginning with "A well regulated Militia", I believe they done this for a reason. Why would it be necessary to tell the militia that they have the right to bear arms (carry guns) anyway? A gun is necessary for a soildier to perform his duties, why would we need an Amendment to tell them this? It makes no sense. What are you guys thought on this? Do you believe its a "right" set aside only for the military or for everyone?
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.
The admendment passed by the House & Senate reads as such:
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.
The only difference between the two the punctuation and capitalization
What is your interpretation of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution?
I was talking to a Political Science professor and he insists that the people, citizens in general, do not have the right to bear arms. He went on to say that the Amendment only applies to the Militia, active duty or reserve personnel, and it's at the discretion of the government whether or not they will allow a regular citizen to own a gun. Of course I agree with him about the governments discretion, however, if you're a law abiding citizen I don't see a problem. But I disagreement that the Amendment only pertains to the military personnel and I gave him my reasons why. It is a known fact that before and after the Constitution was written historical figures would "settling their differences" in duals, many of whom were not in the military themselves. According to the professor the sentence has one part, and the Militia and the People are the same. But if that were the case I think they would've said Soildier instead of the people. In every historical document I've read whenever the words "the People" are mentioned it is the inclusion of everyone (with the exception of slaves, but that's another story). The Amendment passed by the House and Senate has two parts, a prefatory clause, beginning with "A well regulated Militia", I believe they done this for a reason. Why would it be necessary to tell the militia that they have the right to bear arms (carry guns) anyway? A gun is necessary for a soildier to perform his duties, why would we need an Amendment to tell them this? It makes no sense. What are you guys thought on this? Do you believe its a "right" set aside only for the military or for everyone?