Saturday, December 15, 2012

Musings on Mass Shootings, Part 1: The Second Amendment

After a few conversation threads on FB, I've had several thoughts about the shooting in Connecticut and, well, all the other shootings we've had (so far) this year and all the gun deaths that go unreported because they're not good-looking, affluent, and/or white people dying.

First, let's get this one out of the way: the big hullabaloo is about The Almighty Second Amendment.

As one FB friend pointed out, we don't give much of a hoot these days on what The Founding Fathers' original intent was regarding the rights of women or Black people (we've allowed President Obama to be elected president TWICE, and he's not even supposed to be a FULL PERSON according to the Original Intent of The Almighty Founding Fathers!!! oh, wait... is that why Congress has refused to work with the Prez? Because he's only three-fifths of a person?) We've realized The Founding Fathers, omnipotent and all-knowing as they were, were... um... how can I put this... WRONG about some things.

*watches for lightning*

*none strikes*

*carries on*

Isn't the whole idea of amendments to the Constitution kind of proof that The Almighty Founding Fathers kind of... knew that they did not know EVERYTHING? That things may change and changes may need to be made as things change?

If the right for citizens to own personal arsenals were that key to the existence and success of this country, shouldn't that have been part of the original Constitution, instead of merely an amendment?

However, let's leave all that over there for a second.

The Almighty Second Amendment, according to the National Archives, reads as follows:

Amendment II
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.

(That must have been a severe comma surplus they had going on back in Revolutionary times. Were they that angry with the King they had to not only whoop his army, but also butcher his language? But I digress...)

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" because we need those people to be "a well-regulated militia" because such "well-regulated militia" is "necessary to the security of a free State."

Have the people clamoring about the Second Amendment read the Second Amendment? Doesn't it say right there "well-regulated"?? So why are we against regulations? Good ones, that would keep the militia, these armed people who keep and bear arms, well regulated?

Oh, yeah... and that "militia" part? Doesn't that clearly indicate that the people who keep and bear arms are in this "well-regulated militia" (because that's the reason we're not infringing on their right to keep and bear their arms)? So... are all gun owners enlisted in the Army Reserves? And if not WHY NOT?? Don't you want to make The Founding Fathers proud?? Don't you want to honor their wishes and Original Intent??

How can you be a "well-regulated militia" if you're not in an organized group, like the Army Reserves? Or better yet, actual military service? You can't sit in your house with your guns and claim to be part of "a well-regulated militia." Sorry, NO.

The Founding Fathers, your buddies, gave you (after they thought about it for a while, since they didn't include it in the real document to begin with) the right to defend your country, not your house. Don't put words in The Founding Fathers' mouths, just because they're dead. That's not nice or fair.

Look, I'm not saying that I personally believe every person who wants to own a gun needs to enlist in the Army (or other Armed Forces) in order to earn the privilege of having a gun in hir house. All I'm saying is that if you're going to use the Second Amendment as your reason, then you'd better know what it says and what it means. Unless you're ready to discuss establishing some good regulations on gun ownership and perhaps imposing some civic duty components into gun ownership, please STFU about the Second Amendment.

(PS: I'm sure none of what I've written here is original or revolutionary. But it's the first time I've thought of it and the first time I've said it, and this is my blog so there. I get to say what I want, no matter how many other great minds have said the same thing before me.)

This post got kind of long (who, me, rambling?? What?? Who'd a thunk it...) so I'm going to stop here. (That, and I sort of forgot my other brilliant thoughts while posting this one. Let me revisit those FB threads and take notes this time.) But hey, kids, stay tuned!


  1. Your ignorance is clear.

    The "militia" as defined in the second amendment, by the co-author of that amendment -

    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the WHOLE PEOPLE. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

    On interpreting the Constitution -

    "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." ~ Thomas Jefferson

    And I guarantee your uneducated self, that I own a gun with the intent to kill anyone who would infringe on my right to life by trying to [illegally] kill me, or the right of others to live by trying to [illegally] kill others . Number one rule of guns - Never point unless you intend to shoot. Never shoot unless you intend to kill. Does this make me a killer? No. It makes me a defender - AND part of the militia as defined.

    Now, unless you are credentialed as an authority on Constitutional history and law, why don't you STFU about the 2nd Amendment?

  2. PS. up on what the militia was and is. Here's a hint - it has nothing to do with the standing army of the Federal Government, and everything to do with protecting your house, and the houses of others.

    As for more laws and regulations, why doesn't Barack Obama apply consistent logic? He did not vote for the "Born Alive" act as an Illinois senator because he said there were already laws on the books that prohibit withholding life saving treatment from a baby that is born alive after a botched abortion - therefore, consistent logic would demand the need to veto any law restricting legal gun ownership because there are already laws on the books that prohibit murder.