The Second 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.”
Did our forefathers’ right to bear arms intend to give citizens the right to mass kill and injure, with high firing power and multiple shot ability, semi-automatic rifles and pistols?
Pursuant to the stated intent of the Second Amendment, is not being a member of a “well regulated militia,” a condition precedent to the right of a citizen to possess and bear arms?
In present times, are not a citizen-authorized, city, county and state, police forces, state National Guard and federal defense forces, considered to be well-regulated, free protection?
Digital Access for only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
Does the thinking and needs of our citizens of 1791 really correspond to 2016?
As to self-defense and hunting: What kind of arms are needed and how much killing power is required?
The time has come to consider the consequences and unintended consequences of the right of citizens to bear arms, as well as intelligent limiting regulations in respect thereto. The unconscionable gun deaths and injuries cannot go on. (Google gun deaths and injuries for 2014, 2015 and 2016.)
H.T. Bryan, Santa Barbara