Ok... I realize
I left off last week in the middle of the First Amendment, but I'd
like to take a different direction this week, because the Second
Amendment is what's close to all our lips right now.
I really
thought about neglecting the Second Amendment altogether because
quite frankly, people tend to go apeshit over this one. Crazies on
both sides of the debate tend to blow EVERYTHING out of proportion,
and some of them have the tendency to shoot people who they see as
“gun grabbers.” Let's just be clear, here... I'm neither a
“gun-grabber” nor a “gun nut.”
I like guns
just fine. I don't own one myself, but I'd like one; if no other
reason than to blow off some steam at any soda cans who have in some
way offended me or gave me funny looks as I drained them of their
usefulness.
Let's just
refresh our memories here with the text of the Second Amendment, so
we're all on the same page... ok?
“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.”
The
first thing I notice is something that's never discussed in public
form when regarding this Amendment. Two words: “militia” and
“people.” Both terms signify a plurality of people; not a single
person. Think about it... the term “one man Army” has been
loosely thrown around, usually in the context of Action movies, but
think about how ridiculous that ACTUALLY sounds... there's really no
such thing as a “one man militia.” The only person who might be
given that description is the Unabomber, and is he REALLY someone
that should be looked up to?
The
way I read the Amendment, it sounds like the “militia” has the
right to keep and bear arms, being that the militia is a plurality of
persons. Furthermore, how can we say for sure that “the people”
isn't a LEGAL reference, as in “The People vs. PeeWee Herman?”
If “the people” is in reference to the taxpayers (as it is in the
context of legal proceedings), then doesn't it sound more like there
should be some kind of arms depot somewhere, where dangerous weapons
are stored so that "the people" can get to them when they need them?
Lots
of people like to point out that weapons technology has changed A LOT
since the framing of the Constitution, so they think that the Amendment should
only really reference weapons available at that time, such as muskets.
If
you ask me, that's just as crazy as the people who scream “ARM
EVERYONE!!!”
The
people who crafted the Constitution were no idiots... they understood
history. As such, they knew that until gunpowder was invented in the
9th Century, we were throwing rocks and sticks at each other, and
swinging edge-weapons. They were aware that technology would
continue to develop, and that we would develop new weapons and ways
to kill one another.
What
the Founding Fathers didn't count on was the fact that the sad folly
of humanity is that humanity is self-destructive. They wanted to
believe the best of humanity. Sadly, that was a mistake.
People
are emotional beings. As such, our emotions tend to overflow, which
causes us all to lose our minds at one time or another. Everybody
(except Gandhi) has at least one thing they would kill for.
Threatening that one thing may induce an emotional over-reaction,
resulting in someone “exercising their Second Amendment rights”
against another person, employer, business, or organization.
People
have done it to protest war (ironically).
They've
done it in the name of love.
They've
done it in the name of God.
They've
done it in the name of their country.
They've
done it in the name of their race.
They've
done it in the name of their gang.
They've
done it in the name of money.
They've
done it in the name of drugs.
They've
done it in the name of territory.
They've
done it in the name of justice.
They've
done it in the name of their ideology.
Mostly,
they've done it in the name of their own ego.
People
will ALWAYS kill each other, for one reason or another. However,
that doesn't mean that we should make it any easier.
That
doesn't mean taking guns away from people... ok... maybe SOME
people... SOME people are simply too stupid, too crazy, or too
emotionally unstable to have guns.
On
that note, I think that most of the people who think that the
government is coming for their guns because they might have to fight
AGAINST the government are probably too crazy to have them. In that
respect, they're right... the government SHOULD come for their guns!
Let's
not forget, people... the Amendment DOES read “well-regulated
militia.” That doesn't mean that people should be able to buy any
gun they want... that doesn't sound very “well-regulated” to me.
However,
if someone wants an assault rifle, then they should be able to have
one... as long as they keep it at the gun range where they're going
to use it. Let's be honest here... not one single person... NOT
ONE... NOBODY... has ever used an assault weapon to defend their
home... it's just never happened. Whether you want to believe it or
not, it's true. Therefore, if people want them, they should stay
locked away until they're going to be used. That doesn't sound
unreasonable to me. If someone wants to keep a handgun around for
their own protection or enjoyment, there's nothing wrong with that.
If someone wants to have hunting rifles for their intended purpose,
that's JUST FINE. Shotguns? No problem!
Assault
rifles, however, tend to draw personalities who want them in case
they “have to” shoot lots of people at one time. Seriously...
how often does that happen? IT DOESN'T HAPPEN!!! Therefore, if
people want them, then they should have them in a place where the
weapons can be monitored, so we know they're not going to be used in
any more movie theaters, malls, or schools.
Furthermore,
there is no evidence that the “zombie apocalypse” is coming. If
that's something that you fear, you probably fall into the “crazy”
heading, as well. It's one thing to joke about it, but another thing
to BELIEVE it.
To
change directions a little bit, it occurs to me that the same people
who complain that “the criminals will always get guns” are the
same people who promote cutting law enforcement budgets (just like
they want to cut EVERY budget). Let me make this CRYSTAL clear
here... if you don't want the criminals to have guns, you can't keep
slashing the budget for law enforcement. You say you don't want the
criminals to have guns, and yet, you put a stranglehold on finances
so that the criminals have MORE availability to get guns... you can't
have it both ways, idiots... if you don't want the criminals to have
guns, you want MORE cops on the street... not LESS!
Seriously...
the hypocrisy runs deep in some people.
We
all know that this represents what may very well be the ugliest era
in American history. Slavery is a big, fat, undeniable scar on our
record. As such, when we discuss issues that have at least some root
in slavery, we should consider the relevance of the fact that the
Second Amendment was put in place partly to keep a race of people “in
their place.”
I
think that certain acknowledgements need to be made in the
Congressional record. Let's be honest... part of the Second
Amendment WAS written with purely malicious intent. If we're not
honest about the historical intent, then it's just like denying it's
there.
It's
no different than people who think that the Civil War was actually
about “Northern Aggression.” They deny that slavery was even an
issue in the war, and that's no different than condoning slavery NOW!
The
Second Amendment is an open wound in American discourse. We'll never
make any progress in the “well regulated” part of the Amendment
until the psychos on BOTH sides of the issue SHUT THE FUCK UP and let
the “adults” in the room talk. The problem is, both sides have
become so emotional and reactionary that both sides are fast
approaching the point at which they would embrace the primitive
inhuman condition of humanity: killing in the name of killing.
