If you listen to the whining and wailing of the National
Rifle Association, Obama and his minions on the left are trying to give last
rites to our second amendment rights.
Ah, the 2nd amendment, so trickily worded, so
misunderstood. People read into it
whatever they want to, regardless of what it says. Let’s examine the reason for
including the 2nd Amendment in our Bill of Rights before we analyze
the wording of the amendment itself.
After
gaining their independence in the Revolutionary War, the colonies in 1781
formed a very weak government under a document known as the Articles of
Confederation. It was exactly the kind
of weak government that Tea Party Republicans now yearn for. Only one problem: it was so weak that it didn’t
work. The straw that broke the camel’s
back came in the form of Shay’s Rebellion in Massachusetts in 1786 and
1787. A weak central government could
barely defend itself against a "mob" of disgruntled citizens.
And
so it came to be that delegations from each state met in Philadelphia in the
summer of 1787 to write our present Constitution, a document whose goal was to
strengthen the federal government while protecting the liberties of
citizens. Those protections came in the
form of a Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, designed to secure
the new government against another Shay's Rebellion. That amendment reads (with
my word mark-ups) as follows:
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.
|
Let’s scrutinize the words of this amendment:
Militia:
·
What is the purpose of the “militia”?
o
To provide for the "security of a free
state."
§
Which free state?
·
The state created by this new Constitution, the
USA
·
Who are the members of this militia?
o
“the people” i.e. the citizens of this “free
state” created by the Constitution
·
Who regulates the militia?
o
“the free state” i.e. the government of the
Constitution, the USA. The framers must
have been a bit leery of the militia they created, because they wanted them,
not just regulated, but “well-regulated”.
Arms
o
Does the word "arms" mean guns?
§
"Arms" includes not only guns, but any
weapon, including tanks, bazookas, flamethrowers, grenades, bombs, planes,
drones
§
For the Framers, arms were probably limited to
muskets, knives and your own two fists
Infringed
o
What does “infringed” mean?
§
It means “limited.”
o
Right! So
the government can’t limit the amount or types of guns we own.
§
Wrong! It
is your “right” to “keep and bear arms” that can’t be infringed or limited. The
kinds of arms you have a right to bear can be designated by those who “well
regulate” the militia, namely the “free state” which was established by the
Constitution. That “free state” is the
USA.
o
The Supreme Court would consider the banning of
any weapon as unconstitutional, a violation of the 2nd amendment.
§
Not so.
In the 1930s the Supreme Court validated the government’s ban on machine
guns and sawed-off shotguns. Very
conservative Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia has stated that the government
can ban certain weapons. Banning all
weapons would be unconstitutional.
Now let's examine the following
gun lobby beliefs:
o
Banning assault rifles and large magazine clips
won't prevent mass shootings by the mentally unstable.
§
That is true.
However, banning these weapons will reduce the number and severity of
these shooting events. It is like saying
that setting speed limits and imposing mandatory safety items like seatbelts on
cars won't prevent fatal accidents. That
is also true. However, those very
measures reduced the number of accidents and fatalities by almost half.
o
We don’t need new gun laws; we just need to enforce
the laws we already have.
§
This is truly diabolical. The gun lobby has successfully blocked the
appointment of a leader of the ATF, the chief federal enforcement agency for
those laws. Moreover, they have held
back funding for the agency to the point where they are understaffed. Then they have the audacity to complain about
lax in enforcement of current gun laws.
o
It is a slippery slope. If one weapon gets banned, before you know
it, another weapon will be banned until all guns are banned.
§
This is a deeply held belief of the gun lobby. Banning guns intended for hunting,
self-defense, or target shooting would be a violation of the "right"
"to keep and bear arms", an infringement that would require changing
the Constitution, a very difficult thing to do.
The banning of machine guns 75 years ago did not lead to a mass banning
of firearms for hunting or self-defense.
o
Banning assault rifles won't keep them out of
the hands of criminals.
§
True, but it would make them harder to find and more
expensive to buy. And it would make it
much harder for the mentally unstable to acquire these guns.
o
I just love to shoot military weapons. For me, this is recreation. Why deny me this pleasure?
§
Cars that are capable of doing 180 mi. /h are
banned from the highway in many places.
However, you can go to a racetrack and utilize these cars in a safe
environment. We could do the same for
military weapons. You go to a safe
facility, rent your weapon, do your thing and then return the weapon to the
facility, which would be in charge of its safe storage.
Such common sense solutions are
difficult to find in times of hysteria.
Most hunters I know have no use for an assault rifle and would have no
objection to seeing such a weapon banned.
However, this is not the age of
common sense in America. Rather, it is
the age of hysteria, where reality is replaced by delusion. The government is coming after our guns! Oh my God!
A black socialist from Kenya is out to disarm us and take away our freedoms! Hear that!
Helicopters! The UN is coming after
us!
Buy your guns and ammo now while
you can, boys! Stock up on food, the end
is near! Nullify federal laws! Secede from the evil US government!
And so the nonsense goes. Home of the brave? Feels more like the home of a bunch of
frightened puppies.
May God bless America by
spreading a little common sense in the hearts and minds of her people.
