WHO NEEDS THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN THE MODERN AGE?

Here we are again fighting over the Bill of Rights. The very fact that we keep bumping up against it proves how important it is. The Founders could hardly have been clearer: "Congress shall make no law..." Spot the ambiguity? There is none. The prohibition is absolute. How about this one  "...shall not be infringed." Doesn't seem squishy, does it? But here we are in 2010 still fussing over what these phrases could possibly mean.

Would it asking too much to interpret them to mean what they say?

OK, it would have taken great minds to foresee in 1787 what our society would have evolved into in 223 years. But our Founders, with the help of God, had such great minds. Just because we can put humans on the moon doesn't mean we should insert exceptions into our Constitution. There is a procedure for amending the Constitution. That procedure is not to submit your proposed amendment to the Supreme Court for ratification by nine wise persons.

The Founders knew what they were doing when they made their prohibitions absolute. They knew that leaving them open to interpretation was leaving them open to extinction. They knew there would be strong opposition to their prohibitions. That's why they made them absolute. The First Amendment wasn't made to protect pornographers, butu we tolerate that in order that it protect more important political expression. The Second Amendment wasn't written to protect hunters, it wasn't even written to protect householders against murderers. Clearly it was written to protect against government -- our government. 

The Constitution is not a social compact. It is a political pact. It must be read as such. Why does a state require a militia? The first clause mentioning a militia takes nothing away from the second clause containing the prohibition. It amplifies it by explaining the need for it. Why can't the states just rely on the national military? Because the commander-in-chief of the national military could turn it against us with the stroke of a pen, and the Founders didn't want us defenseless against the national government. This is very serious business and must be understood in order to properly understand the Bill of Rights. 

Any other consideration is frivolous. The Founders didn't worry about one man or even one gang or clan coming after you with hate in their hearts. That is relatively trivial. That can be handled locally. But were the national government to use its apparently limitless resources against an unarmed people, it would be irresistible. They knew they could not prohibit formation of a national military. That would risk being conquered by foreign forces. But they also would not allow the national government to have an exclusive right to hold the ultimate means of control: armed force. That's what the Second Amendment is all about. And it is every bit as alive in that meaning today as it was in 1787. Munitions may have changed, but the hearts of men have not. Given the opportunity, the strong will seek to conquer the weak. Our Founders wanted The People never to be weak, never to invite potential aggression, foreign or domestic.