Guess what. The Second Ammendment isn't clear on gun ownership for individuals, and the Third Amendment is 'obsolete'.
Who knew?
From Personal Liberty Digest:
The host website is www.senate.gov, the official Web presence for the U.S. Senate. If you visit the page and click on the “Reference” tab in the top right-hand corner, you’re taken to a second page that links to a number of jumping-off points for learning about the Nation’s founding documents.
One of those links connects you with a full text copy of the U.S. Constitution, which is presented, in columnar form, alongside an “Explanation” commentary that purports to offer insight on the meaning of each Article and Section, as well as each amendment. Here’s a direct link.
Remember, this is hosted on an official publication of the U.S. Senate, with all the probity that implies.
So scroll down to the “Amendments” section (or simply click on the “Amendments” link at the top of the page to jump directly to the Bill of Rights.
There it is: “Amendment II (1791).” By heart, you know what it says. So what does the Senate’s “explanation” have to say?
“Whether this provision protects the individual’s right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia has long been debated.”
Makes you want to read through the entire “explanation” column, to see what else the Senate wishes to tell Americans about how government reinterprets its own charter, does it not?
You don’t have to read very far. The very next “explanation,” for the 3rd Amendment, glibly calls the amendment “virtually obsolete” and insinuates it had only transitory value because it arose out of a specific set of circumstances. Does that mean it doesn’t function in 2013, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, in “extending the ground of public confidence in the Government,” as the preamble states?
Perhaps it does to the U.S. Senate — or to whoever has been designated to reimagine the Constitution on its behalf.
No comments:
Post a Comment