America is confused. Too many people make their decisions to support something because people they don’t like are opposed to it. So it goes with the gun issue: liberals want to control guns and the conservatives want no control at all because the liberals do and the liberals do because the conservatives don’t.
GOK who comments here called my attention to this NRA video. A young black woman tells how she doesn’t care what others think of her but she says: “I’m the National Rifle Association of America, and I’m Freedom’s Safest Place.”
Have you ever sat back and asked yourself what the NRA has to do with American freedom? The suggestion that having no control over who owns guns makes America free is ludicrous. Personal ownership of guns has nothing to do with American freedom.
Have you ever read the First Amendment. Here it is: 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.”
What about the Third: “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”
The Fourth: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The Fifth: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
You have to admit they are pretty straight forward. The framers of the Bill of Rights which contain the first ten amendments to the US Constitution put a lot of time into setting our the rights of the people. The did not mince words and, as William Strunk taught, made every word tell.
Oh, what? I missed one. Let’s go back and look at that.
The Second Amendment: “[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Just like all the other amendments. A straight forward assertion of the rights of the people in America. No shilly-shallying around for them. No problem with anyone misunderstanding what they wrote. The writers meant what they said and obviously said what they meant. Today, that is the way the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment as if it were written as above.
The problem is that is not how it was written but would have been if that was what was intended. Before the words telling of the right to bear arms were these words: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, . . . “
If the intent was just the second part why was the first part written? Do you think it might have had some bearing on the words that followed? Our Supreme Court doesn’t since it just interprets the Second Amendment as if it only had the last part.