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.
--Second Amendment, United States Constitution
--Second Amendment, United States Constitution
With Antonin Scalia and his fellow "strict constructionist" justices, the Constitution has been elevated to the status of a holy book, and all the answers are found in the writings of antiquity. So it is strange that, looking at the actual sacred text, there is little ambiguity: The only weapons our 18th century founders guaranteed to the people are military weapons, i.e., weapons needed by militiamen.
It is really remarkable how much meaning is packed into a single sentence. The purpose of guaranteeing the right of American people to keep and bear arms is clearly stated: To provide security for the state, for a free state. Not to provide security for the individual. The individual is nowhere mentioned. The right is extended to a group, "the people." And not just any people, but the people who are members of a militia, and not just any old militia, but a "well regulated militia." So the powdered whig founders precluded guns for Syrian wild type militias. You had to be a militia which is out there to protect the state, the free state.
Do you really need 3 years of law school to read this sentence and interpret its meaning? Do you need a black robe or a spot on the supreme court to understand this sentence?
Once you read the various Supreme Court opinions which get you from this sentence to the idea that what this sentence means is every single individual in this nation is entitled to buy, stockpile and carry ("bear") attack rifles, grenade launchers and Sig Sauers, you have got to understand how determined the Scalia gang has been to arrive at a place which was never even dreamed in the minds of the authors of the holy scripture Justice Scalia claims as his sacred text.
Do you really need 3 years of law school to read this sentence and interpret its meaning? Do you need a black robe or a spot on the supreme court to understand this sentence?
Once you read the various Supreme Court opinions which get you from this sentence to the idea that what this sentence means is every single individual in this nation is entitled to buy, stockpile and carry ("bear") attack rifles, grenade launchers and Sig Sauers, you have got to understand how determined the Scalia gang has been to arrive at a place which was never even dreamed in the minds of the authors of the holy scripture Justice Scalia claims as his sacred text.
So, it is clear the concealed handgun is not protected, because you cannot use a Sig Sauer to defend a state--for that you need a rifle, or an AR-15. Cannot imagine a company of militia charging across a field firing Glock 9's at the Redcoats or the Hessians.
The AR-15 can be fitted with a grenade launcher easily, and would be a very effective part of a militia's mission.
This morning, on The Squawk Box, a Congresswoman from Connecticut debated a conservative commentator. The conservative commentator noted that with the last assault rifle ban, which lasted 10 years, the Department of Justice studied the "effectiveness" of the ban in reducing deaths by assault rifles and found no efficacy. The law had no buy back provision--simply outlawed new sales. He suggested the solution is to allow psychologists to report potential crazy mass murderers to the police. The Congresswoman said the solution to the problem was to ban assault weapons without abridging second amendment rights, and also to place a trained expert psychologist in every school to identify potential mass murderers.
The psychologists have been all over the idea that more money ought to be sent the way of psychologists: Pay for a psychologist in every school in the country.
Politicians are falling all over themselves, looking for experts who have answers, or at least places to spend money with great alacrity so they can hold up something, anything, to the TV cameras to show how "proactive" they can be. They are proposing spending more money to prevent the next mass murder event. Plans for this money vary.
Mad Dog is still out here listening to his neighbors, some of whom are gun enthusiasts. The gun enthusiasts say things like, "You'll have to pry my dead cold fingers off my gun," and they like shooting things, making big bangs, feeling big, and their guns are a big part of their self esteem. They also like playing video shoot 'em up games and posing for photographs with their guns.
Mad Dog says: 1. The Constitution is a "living document," which means we can decide the 2nd amendment means whatever we want it to mean in the 21st century--which is exactly what the four thugs in black robes on our Supreme Court have done. 2. We can ban all weapons, if we want to. 3. We can hire psychologists and make them report whatever they learn about potential mass murderers to the police, to the school board, to the media, to whomever we want, if we want to.
Mad Dog is not sure if any of this will help, but at least it may make us all a little less pickled in horse manure.
Mad Dog,
ReplyDeleteI do try and be objective(with varying degrees of success depending on the subject) but who in their right mind besides GI Joe would want or have any use for the guns pictured above- what would you do with them? You couldn't enter the forest with one of those and call it sport-what a bunch of nuts out there!!
Maud
Maud,
ReplyDeleteJust listen to CNN call in shows in the morning. I was listening to a citizen from Oklahoma this morning. He says he needs his gun to defend his country. He last used a gun to defend his country during the Vietnam war. He's waiting for his next big chance.
Mad Dog
Mad dog has this all wrong. Previously and for nearly 200 years,SCOTUS has held that the second amendment was not an individual right. Only recently has this changed.There currently is no verbiage on assault weapons being protected. In fact assault weapons are already regulated and have been since 1934.Semi-autos have been in common usage for over 100 years. They are not unusual nor any more dangerous than any other firearm.Most transcripts of the framers indicate they wholly supported free men possessing arms. The second amendment was not a constraint on the people but was clearly a constraint on the federal gov't in reference to the states. There simply was no controversy relating to private ownership of weapons, it was in fact encouraged. You sir would have been likely fined for not having a weapon. Liberals need to stop pontificating and need to read. I could care less what your opinion is on what people should be armed with. The fact is that the lower 48 has nearly 300 million guns floating around.so if arent comfortable with that return to mother England and take both Piers Morgan and Martin Bashir with you!
ReplyDeleteMr. Lynch:
ReplyDeleteMad Dog is a humble private citizen, reading the single sentence which is the 2nd amendment, and like Justice Stevens, in his withering dissent (D of C vs Heller) , finds a simple statement and sees a simple truth.
Apparently, you are informed by reading the transcripts of the framers, and your mind is more subtle and expansive than Mad Dog's, and you see an amendment which does not contain the explanation clause, but simply says, "the government shall not abridge the right of any citizen to keep and bear arms."
Mad Dog fully agrees about one thing: with 300 million guns on or in American soil, practically speaking, it doesn't matter what the 2nd amendment says.
As a practical matter, clamping down on ammo would make more sense to Mad Dog.
--Mad Dog