2nd Amendment

No matter which side of the Second Amendment people come down on, over the years it has become abundantly clear that the hot button issue is guns and not the protection of the Union as envisioned by our founders.

For those who espouse "Strict Constructionist" beliefs, the amendment begins with the concept of a regulated militia, and then appends that conceptual frame with how a regulated militia may be considered organized and for what purpose(s). The U.S. has a substantial Air and Army National Guard force existing in each state - a force which can be activated for federal service by order of the Commander-in-Chief (PRESUS).

At the time of the signing of the Constitution, our newly formed nation of 13 states had been forced to elicit quasi-military protection from amongst the Colonists who came forward in response to the call for action by the fledgling nation's emerging leadership. It was that cohort of armed individuals who came to be viewed as our "regulated (and armed) militia. The National Guard, although created many decades after the Constitution was created, is considered by most military historians as the off-shoot of that early militia which won and ensured our independence.

My personal belief is that the Second Amendment has been used to hammer away at any effort to bring the amendment into some degree of conformity with the 20th and 21st Century - and this effort has been mounted by both well- and ill-advised citizens. Perhaps it is time to amend the amendment so that an "organized, regulated armed militia is not used as some sort of justification for our civilian individuals and groups to arm themselves with all sorts of weaponry including arms which are not designed for sport such as hunting wild animals.