More ACLU and the 2nd Amendment

Although not surprised, I was disappointed when I read the ACLU's position on the Second Amendment.

Here are more snippits from the webpage that states their position:

The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

That seems all well and dandy, but it is not a "neutral" position. Registration is not a "neutral" position in the least. What is the purpose of a registration? To know who keeps arms, just for the heck of it?

And what is the definition of "reasonable" regulation?

Finally, let's not forget that cars are not dealt with in the Bill of Rights. Arms, however, are. We are told that we have a right to keep and bear arms.

Let's look at the 2nd Amendment:

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 are two categories referenced in this amendment: the militia, and the people.

What is the right of the people? "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms." What about this right? It "shall not be infringed."

If the ACLU indeed believes "the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership," then it must believe the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of free speech. Their favorite amendment, the First Amendment, states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Is there any difference between "not infringing" on the right of the people (a la 2nd amendment) as opposed to "not prohibiting or abridging" on the right of the people (a la 1st amendment)?


Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't concern itself with bazookas and nuclear warheads. The 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791. "Arms" were, in that era, defined as items like knives, muskets, rifles, etc. Arms could be stored at your house, and they could be carried on your person.

In contrast, "ordnance" included items like cannons, and that did not receive 2nd Amendment protection. But "ordnance" did not equal "arms."

The ACLU is employing silly reasoning - of course the 2nd has nothing to do with missles, nuclear weaponry, and the like - but these are not "arms" as the Founding Fathers' understood "arms." These items fall into the "ordnance" category. BIG difference.


The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

I thought the 2nd amendment said that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." I didn't realize that the question was left open by the Constitution. It sure didn't seem to be an issue for almost 200 years.


Tags: Guns , 2nd amendment , Bill of Rights