This is the interpretation set forth by the United States Congress, not in 1776, but last week. In an amicus curiae brief (pdf) signed by 55 Senators and 250 Representatives, the Congress has taken a stand in favor of individual liberties.
In sum, the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. Recognition of that right promotes the well regulated militia necessary for a free State’s security.
They’re not the only ones, either.
The following is excerpted from a brief (pdf) filed by the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists:
Gun control leaves a society vulnerable to tyranny, as observed by James Madison and Joseph Story. Their concerns were tragically confirmed in the 20th century, when gun control was repeatedly followed by genocide or dictatorship, or both. To the extent the medical profession has any special insight here, it is to alert this Court to the horrific result of gun control in emasculating a society and rendering it vulnerable to genocide. It is essential that the individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment remain a vital safeguard against the unintended consequences of gun control. The sweeping D.C. gun control statutes-which prohibit certain gun possession, even in one’s own home-cannot stand.
This may be a reaction to the fallacious attempt at social engineering (pdf) that was put forth by the American Academy of Pediatrics, in which the authors claim,
Accordingly, regardless of whether the Second Amendment protects the right to possess guns for private purposes, for the reasons described below, and based on their collective interest in preventing handgun injuries to children and youth nationwide, AAP SAM, CDF, WAGV, and YA! respectfully urge the Court to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
This is an echo of the District’s original petition, which stated, “whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the District to stand by while its citizens die.” Again, we’ve got an argument that civil liberties should be curtailed in the name of untested and unproven social policy.
Words like “regardless” and “whatever” may work in the academic world, but they reek of cowardice in a real debate, which is what the petitioners are in for when they face the Supreme Court. Who are the authors, anyway? Well, the American Academy of Pediatrics is associated with the American College of Preventive Medicine, who in turn get their money from the Joyce Foundation. Imagine that.
Perhaps in response to this, the AAPS brief states,
In particular, contemporary medical studies about the benefits and harms of gun ownership should have no effect on interpreting a provision of a Constitution enacted over 200 years ago. Yet the amici briefs filed by the medical groups APHA and AAP implicitly argue for interpreting the Constitution in a manner that is subject to the latest claims of one-sided studies deficient in credibility, as discussed below.
–from Argument 1, entitled “The Interpretation of the Constitution Cannot Depend on Politicized Views of Medicine.”
Until recently, the medical field has treated the disarmament of the American public as their own unified crusade. I’m heartened to see that’s no longer the case.