Isn't the Second Amendment a package deal?

I finally started to read Akhil Amar's [I][American's Constitution: A Biography/I] . Professor Akhil is a very liberal commentator who has appear numerous times on MSNBC has made a compelling case for private gun ownership.

He notes that although the Founders used as a template of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 for the entire US Bill of Rights. The notion of militia had to be seen in the 1789 context and not the 20th and 21th Century context.

Every white male rather than a professional force that is today's National Guard. That said, the second amendment is unclear regarding individual rights.

What is less unclear is that in the aftermath of the civil war, the Republicans that gave us the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments hinted that there is an individual right to bear arms.

My argument is that the fact that Union leaders allowed their troops to take home their weapons-many if not most of their personal weapons were purchased by the soldiers and also allowed surrendering confederates to keep their arms as a condition of their surrender.

My conclusion is that if one accepts the fact that there is a 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to be consistent and logical one should accept the right to bear arms as a private right.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Isn't the Second Amendment a package deal?