We have read many exchanges in the Verde Independent “Letters” section concerning the 2nd Amendment and the people’s right to keep and bear arms.
Gun advocates hang their Constitutional hats on the “...shall not be infringed...” wording. For these people, The Constitution is the immutable Final Word.
On the other hand, folks who prefer gun regulation reference the 2nd Amendment’s “...well regulated militia...’ wording as indicating gun control is constitutionally allowed.
A few have opined -- with strong disagreement from man y-- that part of the intent of the 2nd Amendment also had to do with slavery.
As in tennis or ping-pong words fly back and forth.
Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution states that Congress shall have the power: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”
Since an ‘insurrection’ is “resistance against civil authority or an established government,” besides British loyalists still in the colonies, what other insurrection(s) could the Founding Fathers possibly have feared?
They certainly could have been thinking about their slaves.’
If some of those who hide behind the ‘militia’ wording start an insurrection against new Gun Laws, will other “militia” types raise up to fight that “insurrection” to protect “the Laws of the Union,” as mandated in the Constitution?
Several sheriffs and Arizona State Senator Crandell advocate ignoring the law if any are passed limiting weapons.
Aren’t those stating they will ignore “the Laws of the Union” advocating insurrection?
Gee, what is a militia to do?
There are others beside the government who advocate ‘tyranny.’
We live in interesting times.