Photo credit: Rev. Xanatos Satanicos Bombasticos (ClintJCL) (Creative Commons)

In recent years, the Second Amendment right to bear arms has come under attack by countless sources -- including public school textbook authors -- through misleading and outright false contentions about its original intent.

One group that should have a firm grasp on the scope of this important right is the U.S. Senate. Incredibly, though, that body's website offers nothing more than a noncommittal summarization.

Instead of firmly bolstering the language our founders thoughtfully included in the Bill of Rights, a page on the site dedicated to the U.S. Constitution includes a nebulous entry beside the Second Amendment.

"Whether this provision protects the individual's right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia has long been debated," the page states.

While it is true there are two sides to the issue of gun ownership, the U.S. Senate should base its official comments on law rather than public opinion. Each of the amendments included in the Bill of Rights has been debated to some extent; however, the mere existence of dissent does not change the legal protections contained therein.

One need look no further back than 2008, at which time the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in no uncertain terms an individual's right to bear arms.

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia," the ruling states, "and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense."

Those who helped argue in favor of that decision now say that the Senate is disregarding it in favor of perpetuating the ongoing dialogue surrounding gun ownership.

Bob Levy was a lawyer involved in that lengthy case and contends that the high court "unequivocally resolved the long-standing debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment."

Leftists have a uniquely convoluted opinion of the Supreme Court. When a ruling upholds a tenet of the modern progressive movement (i.e. abortion and ObamaCare), that ruling is touted as the final word in a particular debate. When the same court rules that Americans have a constitutional right to defend their own lives, an official government website asserts that the issue is still up for discussion.


Photo credit: Rev. Xanatos Satanicos Bombasticos (ClintJCL) (Creative Commons)