Back Talk

The Second Amendment reads: "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 amendment has always a legal question for laymen and scholars alike. It seems to provide ammunition (sorry) for both sides of the Liberal versus Conservative views of the gun ownership issue. This terse declarative has two separate clauses, one about militias and the other about gun ownership rights. Gun control supporters believe the first clause allows only for the militia to have guns; however, if that were true, it would cancel out the second clause, which one could reasonably argue was not what the founders intended. Gun owners hold onto the second clause as their lifeline to continued right of ownership. Lest the gun control crowd get their panties in a twist, this decision by no means opens the road to unlimited gun use across the country; it merely strikes down an overly strict Washington law that was unconstitutional in the first place. Many gun laws will remain intact as constitutionally valid; many states ban carrying concealed handguns, require registration, gun training, and trigger guards, to name a few. So much ink has been streamed over this issue, I wouldn’t even think of adding to it, except to suggest that this issue will live on to eternity. To the squeamish, pacifists, we will never return to the wild, wild west blasting away with our Colt six-shooters out at the corral. To the gun owners, Hillary, as President, is not going to confiscate everything in your gun safe but your fly swatter – although she may try just as soon as she scopes out how to keep Bill away from the interns