We have been covering the US Constitution line by line. When Republicans wave their paper props and parrot their vile machinations, we will be prepared to expose the lies. We have finished the main body of the Constitution. Now we continue the Amendments. You can find the last article on the main body of the Constitution here. It has links to all the others. The text comes from The US Constitution. Previous articles in the Amendment series:
Article I
Article [II]
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.
There appears to be some connection between the right to bear arms and the use of those arms in a well regulated militia, which is under Presidential control per Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution. In modern times it is the National Guard. Private militias are not included here. The Amendment does not state whether the right extends to gun ownership outside the militia. Over the years, the Court has ruled that it does. Republicans usually interpret the right as absolute. They are wrong. Some on the extreme left would outlaw gun ownership altogether. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Like other rights, this one has limitations. I don’t have the right to own a howitzer, not even a small one. Machine gun ownership is illegal. The question is this. Where do we draw the line? I think we need to strike a reasonable balance between legitimate gun ownership for sport or self-defense and irresponsible gun ownership. Personally, I think it reasonable to license gun ownership, subject to a background check and training in gun safety, but that’s just mo own opinion.
Of one thing, I am certain. This right does not include the Second Amendment solutions that Republicans are threatening, if they do not get their way in the upcoming elections.
Article [III]
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
This Amendment is straightforward. It is especially notable in that it and Article II are the only parts of the original Bill of Rights that Bush and the Republican party have not violated.
12 Responses to “Constitutional Amendments: Articles II and III”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The article III section dealing with militias should be drilled into the heads of Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Sharon Angle, that machine-gun-toting bimbo running for Congress from Arizona, and all those loud and ignorant teabaggers!
Rigat, Jack, except its II not III. 🙂
There is nothing wrong with having a background check and a 3 day waiting period to get that check done. If you needed a gun that damned badly, you should have thought of it 3 days ago. Concealed carry is another issue – why would anyone need a concealed carry unless you were a cop? And unless you have a holster, carrying it in your pants is just a good way to shoot your balls off. Open carry fine – you want to show the world how tiny your dick is, open carry away. But again, there should be reasonable restrictions – not in church or bars (that’s a good way to get yourself shot because alcohol and guns mix so well) or on school grounds, etc.
I have a gun that has a trigger lock on it and it’s in a safe that requires a key and a combination. If I ever needed it for protection, I’d have to say to the person “Hey, could you give me a few minutes to get my gun? You don’t mind do you?” I got the safe when I had kids, before that I kept it loaded with hollow points in my nightstand. My theory was if you came into my room, you were gonna be wallpaper. But I did have a big dog who would have probably scared off most people. When you came to the door, he sounded like he was gonna rip your arm off, but when you opened it, he’d lay down and let you pet his belly. Wuss. I’m sure that if someone tried to hurt me, he’d rip their arm off. Once I had kids, NO ONE could touch them without him growling at them, even the neighbors. I still miss him.
Lisa, I can even see concealed carry for people who regulary have to carry large amounts of cash.
I don’t get the whole gun thing, is it like having a real expensive sport car or one of them Humvees.
You no making up for what’s lacking somewhere else.. Wink wink
My guns bigger than yours?
For me the gun thing was hunting. Game is far healthier than factory meat.
In this day and age, how many of us really need a gun for self-defense? How many would really be saved if they had a gun? And in order for it to be effective for self defense, you would have to have it very close at hand.
Jerry, the evidence bears you out. people are more likely to be harmed with their self-defense guns than they are to harm a criminal.
At that time, there was no Army, no money for weapons, or ammo. if the colonies needed to be defended, it would have to be the colonists. So they we given a right to own guns, and bring them with them. to fight.
So someone in the National Guard (other armed services) would be allowed to own a gun and bring it with them to fight.
Since we now pay taxes to supply our defense forces, I see no reason (according to the wording of the amendment) any one has a right to own a gun.
Founding fathers would have seen it as a given, that people would have guns to hunt and put food on the table, and protect themselves againt hostiles (mainly Indians).
They did not write that into the amendment, although I’m sure they would agree that Americans should have the right to own a gun, and so do I.
Had the founding fathers a chance to see our society today, I doubt they would object to reasonable restrictions.
I think we should have stricter restrictions on guns.
Every right in the Constitution has restrictions.
Tom, I agree. Great analysis.
A tale of two Countries…..
Just plain Sad….
Yes it is, Tim.