Some thoughts about guns and the 2nd Amendment from Daniel Kirk, professor of NT at Fuller Seminary:
“What’s on my mind right now is that the guns most likely to fulfill the purpose and intent of the Second Amendment are the very guns most likely (and needed) to be outlawed in our country.
I’m thinking that the Courts need to stop allowing for revisionist readings of the Second Amendment and we need to revoke or rewrite it entirely:
“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.”
These are not three separate amendments! What I mean is this:
Your hunting shot-gun is not what the Second Amendment guarantees.
The “target range” pistol you have isn’t what it guarantees.
The point of this Amendment is for States to have citizens who can summon a call to arms. This was written in a time, as a friend commented [recently], when the farmer and the soldier shot with the same weaponry.
The dynamic equivalent today would be assault rifles, grenades, and helicopters. (One might would add: anti-ballistic missiles, drones, various explosives, tanks, nukes, etc.). The Second Amendment is not one we’re willing to transfer into the arms with which wars are fought today. We need to own up to that as a society.
If what we want to protect is people’s rights to kill deer (hey, if I had a farm I’d probably want to shoot deer 366 days a year and twice on Sunday) then we need to repeal the 2nd Amendment and write a new law for a new day.
This could be done while protecting State’s rights to have militias to guard against that dastardly tyrannical government…”
It’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? We go to great lengths to interpret important ancient documents according to what they meant when they were written, but somehow avoid it when it comes to the Constitution. Maybe it’s time.