Something's Missing

What a great bit of history. Too bad it all points to an incorrect conclusion. Mr. Parry dances all around the logical conclusion, but doles out some wrong-headed, hare-brained, ninny drivel instead.

The reason for the right to "bear arms" was to have citizens who could fill the ranks of "a well-regulated Militia" for the purpose of maintaining "the security" of the states and country. Indeed, the key words for understanding the Framers' intent are "militia" and "security." This was never intended as a "libertarian" right to wield whatever weapon someone might wish to own for the purpose of insurrection. Instead, it was meant to support "a well-regulated Militia" responsible for ensuring the "security of a free State."

Yes, Mr. Parry, you are correct about of what words comprise the Second Amendment. But taken as a whole with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and decisions by the Supreme Court you seem to highly dislike, there's a larger picture coming into view. Also, the Second Amendment doesn't grant anything, it enumerates a pre-existing right that all people possess at birth. So, what's missing? That would be Mr. Parry missing the entire point of this 200+ year exercise. Let's review.

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.

Now then, check out the oath of office that the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate takes to protect the Constitution in odd-numbered years.

“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

-United States Code  Title 5 › Part III › Subpart B › Chapter 33 ›Subchapter II › § 3331

Within the Second I agree that the key words are "militia" and "security." The Second Amendment doesn't grant the "right to wield whatever weapon someone might wish to own for the purpose of insurrection." No one has said anything about insurrection. The Constitution is the paper that specifies what boundaries should be held to keep our States free. How would a free man go about protecting the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic? Legislators legislate and armed citizens take up arms. Pretty simple. If the legislators of this nation can't or won't protect the Constitution and the rights of the people then the free people of the United States will be forced into action to provide their own security. 

Go read it.