I  currently do not exercise them, but I support our Second Amendment rights without qualification or restriction. The Founding Fathers wanted armed citizens, not only for service in the militia but to fight off the Indians whose lands we were stealing and to provide for food and personal defense. Perhaps most importantly, they didn’t want unarmed citizens going up against an armed government, something we feel remains a consideration today.

Let’s take a look at the Second Amendment. It’s only 27 words long and like a lot of our Constitution it is brilliantly ambiguous in its brevity:

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.

Does the Second Amendment refer only to bearing arms in the context of militia service, or does it allow citizens to own whatever weapon they want? Taken in the context of the times that inspired the Bill of Rights and the English laws and customs that influenced them, I think the answer is both.

Now, eventually, a weary nation will want to discuss modifying or even eliminating the Second Amendment. It’s inevitable. We have suffered too much carnage from too many mass shootings for too long. Those of us who support the Second Amendment must be active participants in this discussion and not merely by blindly trotting out a copy of the Second Amendment.

Please, feel free to leave your comments below.

Gaylon