The second amendment is not about:
- hunting
- tradition
- home defense
- personal defense
The constitutional literalists are not much different from biblical literalists...in that...they cherry pick.
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.This does not translate into "Anybody can have any kind of weapon, at any time, for any purpose, without any restrictions or qualifications whatsoever."
In this regard, the second amendment is similar to the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.The first amendment does not translate into "Anybody can say anything they want in any circumstance or place no matter what the consequences may be."
The cherry-pickers always quote the second amendment after the first comma.
It seems to me that a militia should be allowed to have a level of weaponry that makes it a credible deterrent to a possibly corrupt federal government. This would include tanks and artillery, for example. But it also seems to me that we have such a militia already and it is called the National Guard.
No? You disagree? Okay then...we need to define militia and make allowance for it in our society. But it is still true that the second amendment does not mean:
"Anybody can have any kind of weapon, at any time, for any purpose, without any restrictions or qualifications whatsoever."And so our stunning, but obvious, conclusion is simply this:
The current gun control debate has nothing to do with the second amendment. It has everything to do with individual gun ownership.
The current gun control debate is about how to regulate a dangerous reality...weapons owned by individuals...in a way that ensures the greater good of society. It is no different from the regulation of drugs, alcohol, driving privileges, firecrackers, or pets.
Speaking of pets...most states prohibit the trade in wild animals and restrict the kinds of animals that can be legally owned...or stipulate guidelines that must be followed if you wish to own a cobra or a tiger...for example. This is just common sense...not a violation of constitutional rights.
Guns are no different.
And finally, I think it is important to provide a very simple guide to the vocabulary of weapons. Here is a rough and ready classification so that you know what you are hearing on the news:
Automatic...means that you can squeeze and hold the trigger and the weapon keeps on firing...machine gun...rat a tat tat.
Semi-Automatic...means that you launch a new bullet every time you squeeze the trigger. If you have a fast finger, then you can still shoot a lot of bullets in a very short time. Put this together with a high-capacity magazine...and that is called an assault rifle. AR-15 (and if you put an assault rifle together with a bump stock, then you have an automatic weapon...a machine gun)
Manual Action...means that you squeeze the trigger and launch one bullet...and then...you gotta do some other mechanical action, like using a lever or bolt handle to discharge the empty bullet casing and then load another bullet and then you squeeze the trigger for the second time. It means that you can't do rat a tat tat or anything close to it.
And here's a fact, Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK with a manual action rifle. It is unrealistic to think about banning manual action weapons, but even manual weapons can do a lot of damage. ALL weapons are dangerous and should be carefully regulated.Semi-automatic rifles (assault rifles) are only proper in the military and have no place in:
- hunting
- tradition
- home defense
- personal defense
2 comments:
Beautufully written. You are a word wizard.
Beautifully 😱
Post a Comment