COMMENTARY: The Founders and firearms

To Mr Halbrook's discussion I would add the use of the comma in the Second Amendment. "...a well regulated militia,...security of a free state,...the right of the people, etc. Websters defines a comma as a "Mark of punctuation used to indicate a slight separation of sentence elements; commas are used to set off nonrestrictive or parenthetical elements." In other words one part of the sentence has little bearing upon the rest of it. As masters of the English language the Founding Fathers certainly knew this. The Founders also knew that pushing an armed populace too far can be extremely hazardous to one's heath. This I believe to be the true purpose of the Second Amendment. After all they did start and so motivate their own little shooting war otherwise known as The American Revolution

An outstanding article, with one exception. Webster's reference to "bear arms in a coat" almost certainly referred to the heraldic "coat of arms," rather than to carrying pistols in a civilian garment. Worth a chuckle, but doesn't detract from the value of the message.

I wonder if Mr. Halbrook thinks I should be able to own a shoulder fired anti-air missele since I can 'bear' that piece of arms? If not, then he would agree that some form of regulation is necessary. Therefore the only real issue is to what degree the gov't should regulate the possession of arms. Nothing Orwelian going on here. Just debate to which degree the gov't should restrict the purchase and possession of fire arms. Should we interpret the 2nd amendment to only arms that would have been understood by the framers? Therefore simple rifles and pistols should not fall under gov't regulation. Would the framers have understood the need for a fully automatic 16 shot handgun? How about a fully automatic assualt rifle? However the 2nd amendment clearly included the phrase regarding militia. As understood by the framers the possession of firearms was required for a militia to be maintained. However that is clearly not the case anymore. See, nothing Orwelian going on. Real issues requiring real interpretations, requiring real debate. No need for this simplistic nonsense and false arguments designed to lead us down dead ends and reach pre-determinded conclusions. Hence the very real need for our court system and legislatures to argue and debate how to interpret the 2nd amendment in the 21st century.

The courts have previously determined that the arms in question are those "in common use at the (current) time" and also those that are "suitable for military use." KC asserts "Mr. Halbrook thinks I should be able to own a shoulder fired anti-air missile" I seriously doubt that that is Mr. Halbrook's position although the "rocket launcher" or "nuclear bomb" is always the ad absurdum straw man of the anti gun advocates. KC wonders "Would the framers have understood the need for a fully automatic 16 shot handgun? How about a fully automatic assault rifle?" Probably, yes...as they are the proper weapons for contemporary defense and insurrection; although few of even the most pro gun advocates suggest that the 1934 NFA should be overturned and I think KC probably means "semi-automatic" or "auto-loading" (not fully automatic) which ARE frequently the targets of the anti-gun advocates.