- FISA Court Colludes with NSA to Allow Unconstitutional SurveillancePosted 10 months ago
- Ron Paul says U.S. Gov’t Considers its Citizens to be the EnemyPosted 10 months ago
- U.S. Officials don’t know how much Secret Material Snowden TookPosted 10 months ago
- Nancy Pelosi: We Should Give up Liberty for Security, Snowden a Criminal – Booed by AudiencePosted 10 months ago
- US Officials Leave 700 Troops in Jordan, Patriot Missiles and Fighter Jets – Escalation of Syrian WarPosted 10 months ago
- If Obama Wants No More Snowdens, He Should Stop Spying and Assassinating, Says WikiLeaksPosted 10 months ago
- EFF Sues NSA, DOJ Over Secret Surveillance ProgramPosted 10 months ago
- Yahoo Was Reportedly Forced to Join PRISM By a Secret CourtPosted 10 months ago
- the Organic Review: Final Verdict for Raw Milk Farmer – $1,000 Fine & No Jail TimePosted 10 months ago
- US Deepens Fight in Syria; Many Skeptical of Chemical Weapons, Ron Paul says Same Rhetoric as IraqPosted 10 months ago
Senate Website Displays Controversial Interpretation of 2nd Amendment
by Ali Papademetriou
For some time now, especially for a little over a year, the gun debate in the United States has grown into a controversial battle involving morality, questions of intentions, and true liberty. It comes as no surprise to many that Washington has picked the side of pro-gun control.
Even though the Supreme Court has ruled that the understanding of the Second Amendment is that Americans have a right to bear arms, it seems as though the Senate is either a little confused about what the Amendment means, or is intentionally skewing it.
The 2nd Amendment, of course, states, “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.” While there may undoubtedly be some question over very specific aspects of its text, considering it was written in the 18th century, its overall meaning should be obvious.
On its website, though, the Senate’s interpretation is as follows:
Whether this provision protects the individual’s right to own firearms or whether deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia has long been debated.
This isn’t the first incident in recent news involving a misinterpreted take on the 2nd Amendment. Last month, TSW reported on a textbook being used at a Texas public high school for advanced placement American History students, having a slanted view on the Second, one that is similar to that of the Senate’s.
“The people have a right to keep and bear arms in a state militia,” is what students were gaining from the textbook – clearly a very different version of its true meaning. This angered students’ parents, and many argued that it implied that the Amendment was restricted to only the state militia.