Response to Sam Graves

This week Congressman Sam Graves focused on the Second Amendment’s core phrase, “shall not be abridged,” as seeming absolute. Is it? Maybe not. Our Constitution, as amended must be interpreted as the Supreme Court, its final arbiter, shows by rendering few unanimous decisions.

Ratified in 1789, the Bill of Rights provided additional clarification to the original idea, simply stated as, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union …” was followed by amendments and laws providing needed specificity to the core concept.

Two questions — Who can own guns? Which ones can they own? — are answered by The Gun Control Act of 1934 and National Firearms Act of 1968, respectively.

At issue is whether they are currently sufficient. One argument against added restrictions is that a right given should not be abridged. While background checks should not be a problem when conducted according to current laws, the concern about which weapons should be restricted is more contentious.

It may be helpful to assess the original conditions in 1789: There was no viable standing army, hence militias were necessary, and the most rapid fire weaponry was the flintlock which took 10 seconds or more to reload.

Today we have an excellent defense, one Congressman Graves joins with others in keeping strong, which I support, but who should own which weapons under what conditions is the issue addressed by President Joe Biden. It deserves an open debate.

–– Gordon Hill, Maryville