The Bill of Rights is Packing Heat

For the second entry in this series, I decided to examine the second amendment. I know, it's a radical idea, but bear with me.

I believe that this is probably the least understood of the big ones -- you know speech, religion, and guns.

Amendment 2: 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.

There are a number of important elements to examine here. First, the crappy English that confuses the hell out of a lot of people. Much like what you read here on this blog. For me, the worst part of the language is how easily it lends itself to cutting up the amendment and, say, excluding the first part.

This amendment addresses two issues not contained in the Constitution prior.

First, it acknowledge that the framers felt that a "well regulated" militia was necessary to push back against tyranny. A "well, huh?" you ask? Oh. Look at that. A well regulated militia. Hmmm. So the founders recognized that we -- the states -- needed to be able to protect ourselves from tyranny, but that to do so it must be in the confines of a regulated militia. So some wacko, say, hold up with his family on a mountain, say Ruby Ridge, doesn't get to -- on his own -- decide that he's gonna topple our* government.

The second part, Charlton Heston's favorite part, says that everyone gets a gun whenever they want one, whereever they want one, for whatever purpose they want. Which is fine and dandy, if you ignore that first part. And that what's Heston, the NRA, and David Koresh do (or did or Koresh's case). They ignored the first part.

(Those very same fucknuts pick and choice what they read from the Bible, so really, how should the Bill of Rights be any different.)

Those of us who are right on this issue rarely call for the total outlaw and banning of firearms. We ask for some controls, some regulations. You might say we seek a "well regulated militia" as deemed "necessary" in the "Bill of Rights." We want you to wait a few days. You know, in case maybe you are outraged about something that would cause you to act rashly. We want to make sure you've never been convicted of a violent crime. (In many places, convicted felons are stripped of their civil rights. If we won't let you vote, not letting you have a gun seems like a good idea, too.) Simple stuff really.

Unless you are the National Rifle Association. They would like fully automatic machine guns to be sold at the 7-11. Or at least they did before September 11th. Now, they'd probably prefer the guns be distributed at their Megachurches or Klan meeting. Did I say Klan meeting?

In my reading of the BOR, I learned something interesting. The amendment as I am most familiar with it ain't the one that passed in the House and Senate and was ratified in the states. The one I'm used to has some different puncutation. Here it is:

"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."

More confusing.

All in all, I have little problem with the concept of the right to bear arms. What I have concern about is how one defines the "tyranny" that one uses those arms against.

It would seem that "tyranny" for the gun nuts typically includes:

1. tax increases
2. gay marriage
3. illegal immigration

Yep. That's about it. I define "tyranny" as:

1. violence against the weak, powerless or poor
2. silencing dissent
3. arresting freedom
4. oppressing the minority -- or the majority
5. curtailing guarenteed liberties
6. rejecting history

Here's the deal. You keep shooting Republican fundraisers and lawyers in the face and we'll shut up about gun control. Deal?



*Why do the most "patriotic", country loving folk find it so easy to seperate themselves from the republican (small R) form of government they have elected to represent them? We need more ownership. An ownership society. I think I heard President Bush say that somewhere.