SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The Second Amendment supports those of us who would CONTROL guns---and
thus prevent the insane slaughter that compromises our security.
James Madison and the Founders of this nation would be enraged to see
the Second Amendment being used to put guns in the hands of the Tucson
shooter and so many others like him.
The debate over the violent hatespeak of Sarah "Lock & Load" Palin and her Foxist ilk is long overdue.
But so is a careful national reawakening to what the Second Amendment actually says:
"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."
Of the first Ten Amendments, this is the only one that contains a rationale for what it requires.
The Bill of Rights is the law of the land, clearly stated. Guarantees
of religion, speech, assembly, the press, freedom from torture and so
much more are natural rights, inherent to the human condition.
But the right to bear arms is granted only in the context of a well-regulated militia and thus the security of a free state.
A National Guard, yes. Heavily-armed lunatics roaming the streets unregulated? Never.
Lawyers and the courts have been fighting over guns for 220 years, since
that great day in 1791 when this magnificent document was ratified.
The essence of the Founders' intent was embodied in the Supreme Court's
1939 Miller decision, the prevailing judicial view until the recent
coming of a hard right NRA-based court very much out of synch with the
sane balance our nation has tried to maintain between gun rights and the
public good.
As we've just seen in Tucson, these faux "conservatives" have allowed
renegade ownership of rapid-firing instruments of wholesale slaughter.
This imbalance clearly threatens "the security of a free state." The
Second Amendment says access to these weapons must be strictly
regulated.
As a free and lawful people, we have the legal duty to end this unconstitutional madness.
Make no mistake: this murder and mayhem has been made possible by the claim to a Constitutional right that is not there.
The assassins and mass murderers who continue to threaten our national
security make ever so clear the reason for the Founders' demand that gun
ownership be regulated.
These are dark times for those who demand sane regulation of gun
ownership. But courts come and go. Public opinion and political power,
like the common law, change and evolve. These murders in Tucson--just
the latest in a long, horrifying, thoroughly avoidable procession of
senseless, gun-inflicted tragedies--underscore once again that this is a
struggle we can never abandon.
And in continuing to do this work, gun control advocates must not cede a
legal inch. We are the the ones with a more accurate "Second Amendment
remedy"... the clear Constitutional demand for a "regulated" gun
ownership that serves rather than destroys the "security of a free
state."
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The Second Amendment supports those of us who would CONTROL guns---and
thus prevent the insane slaughter that compromises our security.
James Madison and the Founders of this nation would be enraged to see
the Second Amendment being used to put guns in the hands of the Tucson
shooter and so many others like him.
The debate over the violent hatespeak of Sarah "Lock & Load" Palin and her Foxist ilk is long overdue.
But so is a careful national reawakening to what the Second Amendment actually says:
"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."
Of the first Ten Amendments, this is the only one that contains a rationale for what it requires.
The Bill of Rights is the law of the land, clearly stated. Guarantees
of religion, speech, assembly, the press, freedom from torture and so
much more are natural rights, inherent to the human condition.
But the right to bear arms is granted only in the context of a well-regulated militia and thus the security of a free state.
A National Guard, yes. Heavily-armed lunatics roaming the streets unregulated? Never.
Lawyers and the courts have been fighting over guns for 220 years, since
that great day in 1791 when this magnificent document was ratified.
The essence of the Founders' intent was embodied in the Supreme Court's
1939 Miller decision, the prevailing judicial view until the recent
coming of a hard right NRA-based court very much out of synch with the
sane balance our nation has tried to maintain between gun rights and the
public good.
As we've just seen in Tucson, these faux "conservatives" have allowed
renegade ownership of rapid-firing instruments of wholesale slaughter.
This imbalance clearly threatens "the security of a free state." The
Second Amendment says access to these weapons must be strictly
regulated.
As a free and lawful people, we have the legal duty to end this unconstitutional madness.
Make no mistake: this murder and mayhem has been made possible by the claim to a Constitutional right that is not there.
The assassins and mass murderers who continue to threaten our national
security make ever so clear the reason for the Founders' demand that gun
ownership be regulated.
These are dark times for those who demand sane regulation of gun
ownership. But courts come and go. Public opinion and political power,
like the common law, change and evolve. These murders in Tucson--just
the latest in a long, horrifying, thoroughly avoidable procession of
senseless, gun-inflicted tragedies--underscore once again that this is a
struggle we can never abandon.
And in continuing to do this work, gun control advocates must not cede a
legal inch. We are the the ones with a more accurate "Second Amendment
remedy"... the clear Constitutional demand for a "regulated" gun
ownership that serves rather than destroys the "security of a free
state."
The Second Amendment supports those of us who would CONTROL guns---and
thus prevent the insane slaughter that compromises our security.
James Madison and the Founders of this nation would be enraged to see
the Second Amendment being used to put guns in the hands of the Tucson
shooter and so many others like him.
The debate over the violent hatespeak of Sarah "Lock & Load" Palin and her Foxist ilk is long overdue.
But so is a careful national reawakening to what the Second Amendment actually says:
"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."
Of the first Ten Amendments, this is the only one that contains a rationale for what it requires.
The Bill of Rights is the law of the land, clearly stated. Guarantees
of religion, speech, assembly, the press, freedom from torture and so
much more are natural rights, inherent to the human condition.
But the right to bear arms is granted only in the context of a well-regulated militia and thus the security of a free state.
A National Guard, yes. Heavily-armed lunatics roaming the streets unregulated? Never.
Lawyers and the courts have been fighting over guns for 220 years, since
that great day in 1791 when this magnificent document was ratified.
The essence of the Founders' intent was embodied in the Supreme Court's
1939 Miller decision, the prevailing judicial view until the recent
coming of a hard right NRA-based court very much out of synch with the
sane balance our nation has tried to maintain between gun rights and the
public good.
As we've just seen in Tucson, these faux "conservatives" have allowed
renegade ownership of rapid-firing instruments of wholesale slaughter.
This imbalance clearly threatens "the security of a free state." The
Second Amendment says access to these weapons must be strictly
regulated.
As a free and lawful people, we have the legal duty to end this unconstitutional madness.
Make no mistake: this murder and mayhem has been made possible by the claim to a Constitutional right that is not there.
The assassins and mass murderers who continue to threaten our national
security make ever so clear the reason for the Founders' demand that gun
ownership be regulated.
These are dark times for those who demand sane regulation of gun
ownership. But courts come and go. Public opinion and political power,
like the common law, change and evolve. These murders in Tucson--just
the latest in a long, horrifying, thoroughly avoidable procession of
senseless, gun-inflicted tragedies--underscore once again that this is a
struggle we can never abandon.
And in continuing to do this work, gun control advocates must not cede a
legal inch. We are the the ones with a more accurate "Second Amendment
remedy"... the clear Constitutional demand for a "regulated" gun
ownership that serves rather than destroys the "security of a free
state."