“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.”
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I’m gonna go there, but I promise it won’t be boring. The 2nd Amendment has become such an obstruction to the left, and a sacred cow to the right that it boggles the mind examining, and re-examining the many interpretations presented by the opposing parties. Now, I’m not going to cite Supreme Court rulings (and there are many) because it confuses the issue. I’m just going to analyze this issue from the vantage point of a Simple Ol’ Boy From Austin so save your fork, this is gonna be good!
This main issue seems to be the complexity of the terms “militia,” and “people.” Folks, this is what happens every time you get politicians involved in anything. I learned at the Libertarian convention that there is English, and then there is “their” English. For instance, the difference between “will” and “shall.” Now, on the surface, folks like me and you think it’s an either/or situation, with “shall” being a kinder, gentler version of “will.” Au Contraire! In legal speak “will” means, “You either do this or we’ll sent the cops to kick your butt!” “Shall,”, on the other hand, means,”Hey, y’all don’t have to do this if you don’t want to.” Well, that’s the reasoning that gets all tangled up in the 2nd Amendment.
What is a militia? Common sense would say that a militia is a bunch of guys, not in the Army, who turn out during time of need to defend the town, state, country, whatever. A “well regulated” militia means that when they do turn out somebody has to be in charge, and make sure everybody is shooting in the same general direction. “Being necessary to the security of a free state,” is an admission of, well, we have to do this at times, but we don’t like it. Every now and then people have to leave their jobs, get the shotgun out of the closet, and go run off the Indians, British, Muslims, or whomever. Then, they come home. See how that works? They put the shotgun back in the closet.
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms.” This is where it gets tricky. Is the militia the people, or is it a separate entity? The sacred cow syndrome kicks in here. If you even suggest changing the words of the amendment the NRA starts running that clip of Charlton Heston waving that musket around, talking about his “cold dead hands!” But, look at this.
“While a well regulated Militia, is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
In other words, we have to put up with this now and then, but it has nothing to do with us as individuals. Still, you can see the intent of the original which could be interpreted as, “If you’re gonna have a militia on call, and we make up the militia, we simply have to keep our shotguns in the closet!” The left has burned the midnight oil for years trying to divorce the militia from the people. People means people! And, you can’t quality people. Now, there are some who say, and it makes a little sense, that we have to regulate the definition some. For instance, do people include those convicted of a crime? Common sense would say that no one in their right mind would want a convicted bank robber to be able to buy a gun the day after he makes parole, and that’s all well and good until you begin to quality. Sure, the bank robber should be excluded, but what happens when the qualifications morph up into, “Those on a no fly list?” You may swat them bees now. There is a flock of nit-wits who tried to shove that through the Senate yesterday! Suddenly, being a people becomes subjective, defined by whomever is doing the defining at the time. This is the way legal speak works, folks. If you can’t get around the simple message of a one sentence amendment, just redefine or qualify the words, and that sentence can mean anything you want it to. But, you can’t re-define the right of the people! There is a vast difference between telling a girl that her beauty is timeless, and telling her that her face could stop a clock!
Natural law says that people have a God given right to preserve their life. The right of the people. Even if you’re an atheist you can understand the stupidity of cowering under a table while some maniac goes around shooting everybody in sight because he doesn’t want to admit he’s gay, and thinks Allah will get him seventy-two virgins on the other side. Then we come to regulation. The opponents claim that the founding fathers never envisioned the type of weaponry we have today, therefore, while agreeing that the people have a right to self defense, it must be a regulated defense. Their possession of guns can never approach the level of the army, or the FBI, or even a police officer on patrol. That’s called “infringement” folks. You’ll notice that word in the amendment. You see, when you say someone can have a gun, but you can have a bigger gun you’re just controlling the guys with little guns, and that’s exactly what the 2nd amendment is set up to prevent. It’s not there for deer hunters. Deer are not mounting an offensive across our southern border right now. Deer did not burn down Mount Carmel, and deer did not shoot LaVoy Finnicum. Guns don’t kill people, out of control governments kill people! It’s the right of the people to life, liberty, happiness.
I have a solution. With all this back and forth I will concede that it might be time to scrap the 2nd Amendment. I know, I know, but just like weaponry has changed over the years, so has understanding. In an era where we have open restrooms by redefining gender, and a tiger can marry a chair we seriously need to update the wording of the amendment so as to make it abundantly clear. I have that wording. It’s in Tex-ese, so you northern folk may have to consult your old DVDs for translation, but I think this would work just fine. And it fits perfectly with the right of the people.
“Hey! Y’all can have guns, OK?”
Bill the Butcher