Pat,
If I had to guess, and I do, I'd guess that the writers of the amendments wanted to leave their descendants some room to maneuver. The amendments weren't part of the original constitution because those who wrote it believed that some things should be either understood or left open to interpretation: they had, after all, just finished the war for independence, and had seen first hand how easily the common men could be stirred up and set to march, so it's my guess that they were a little afraid of having an absolute right to bear arms.
Nonetheless, the amendments were written and passed. I feel, though, that the second amendment was _suppossed_ to be vague: those who wrote it had heeded the lesson of the constitution's original authors. No one would advocate an absolute right to bear arms: a crazy man should not be able to buy a firearm, let alone bear or use one.
A "Well Regulated Militia" is, of necessity, a _group_ of soldiers, not an individual. My interpretation of the amendment is that it was intended both to give citizens the right to band together in armed groups when needed to protect their other rights, and also to prevent individuals from claiming the "right" to show up at town meeting with a flintlock.
Speaking of which, let's remember the class of firearms available in that era: single shot, muzzle loaded, non-rifled muskets which are, in comparison to today's machines, laughable. I don't and can't be made to believe that any of the amendment's authors would advocate a right of any private citizen, and probably not even of a militiaman, to have a submachine gun or even a Glock semi-automatic pistol.
The Founding Fathers were, above all else, mindful of "The Last Argument of Kings" -- a phrase engraved on one manarch's canons -- and I think they wanted this to be a never-ending debate. They got their wish.
FWIW. Your caliber may vary.
Charles Cryderman wrote:
It's no surprise that Mr. Jennings didn't believe in a "right" to have guns: for most of his life, he was a Canadian citizen.
That said, I'll also add that Mr. Jennings was a competitive television reporter, and he knew that telling people what they don't want to hear is a shortcut to the ratings cellar. I think he steered away from the topics because his polsters told him it was sure to offend a major portion of his viewers no matter what was said.
This won't be popular, but it needs mentioning anyway: Peter Jennings was a reflector of public opinion, not a creator. The attention paid to his death amazes me; I haven't bothered to check, but I'd bet that there were at least ten people more worthy of our admiration and remembrance who died on the same date. We have confused popularity with statesmanship, and glibness with oratory.
No matter what my opinion is of Mr. Jennings, the issue of gun "control" _deserves_ attention, and I'll ask you to ask yourself one question:
Do you know someone who would be dangerous if they owned a gun?
William (Filter noise from my email address for direct replies.)
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Define 'dangerous' in your context. As in taking _my_ life, for example? Is that supposed to be a major issue? Anytime it is my turn to go, I can assure you I will; there is nothing to be afraid of. Death is actually the last thing I worry about.And your theory on the Second Amendment is good, and worth considering. But I still want to know: the other nine (of the original ten 'basics') all address the protections given to _citizens_ in this land. Why should number two be an exception, and given the government the 'right to bear arms' (if well-regulated militia is taken to mean Army, National Guard, etc). The citizens have the right to speak, to have the religion they want, to be free from being searched or seized in their homes, etc. And then number two says 'the _government_ has the right to bear arms' ? Personally, I do not think so.
I have heard these folks who say (in a real pissy, whimpering tone of voice) "Well, we citizens do not have to bear arms, that is what the National Guard and Army is for." Usually I tell those folks "well, in that case we do not need free speech either; we have the New York Times and the Washington Post and Katherine Graham's News Weak magazine, and TELECOM Digest to do our speeches. Why do you need the right to speak also?"
And regards the 'final argument of Kings' that is also the final argument of the government is it not? Oh, we do not see them most days, and we 'voluntarily' do as we are told by the government, but the final solution, the gun, is back there waiting, is it not? And as needed, it will be produced and used. PAT]