Ready, Aim, Misfire

Although I have never marched around dressed up funny with a bunch of weirdos, I have studied the Constitution.

I find it amazing how people that haven’t displayed any particular education in or affiliation with government, history, law enforcement, responsibility, weapon use, constitutional law or the English language are convinced of their expertise on all of these subjects.It may be a bit presumptuous of me to speak to this subject. My credentials are meager. They include only a major in history, having served in the army, having served as a commissioner of police (voted best in the state by the Fraternal Order of Police), having held elective public office, having appointed a judge and having some actual familiarity with the Constitution.

Perhaps, I should post the 2^nd Amendment before looking into it, our subject for today.

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.

I find it logically difficult to see these staunch “supporters” of the Constitution as such when they insist on ignoring the Constitutional justification of their favorite part.

The only stated reason for allowing people to own arms is for the maintenance of a well regulated militia and the security of a free State. So, let’s look at what constitutes a militia, shall we?

A militia is a military force. A bunch of individuals running around packing heat, shivering in a duck blind or standing watch over a salt lick or otherwise trying to impress themselves with their putative manliness, has nothing in common with a “military force.”

A militia is for the purposes of defense of the community or enforcing the law. While individuals make up the community, one doesn’t organize a militia for the benefit of an individual. That’s another thing: a militia is organized.

There is a small but important consideration to be found in the passage of the Amendment. As passed by the Congress, the word people is not capitalized. As ratified by the states, it is. Meaning? The final version reflects with very specific intent that the Amendment is for “the People” not a bunch of individuals.

That part about enforcing the law is interesting. The rabid supporters fear the government and feel the need of protection from it. I always thought it was the government that established the laws that need to be enforced. That would seem to require that the militia act in concert with, and for the benefit of, the government, not as an antagonist.

The second half of the introductory phrase gives further support to the logic of the above. It states that a militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

There is the justification. There is no room for additional, paranoia-inspired, extraneous, verbal contortions to make the Constitution support its enemies.

I have heard some of the new members of Congress and others claim that the Founding Fathers gave us the right to bear arms because they were sufficiently prescient to realize we would one day need to fight the government. Wow!

Accepting that really puts the Founders in a weird position. Instead of the obvious explanation that they wanted to protect the system they were laboring so hard to develop, they were really providing a way of arming its enemies. Is it possible that the people in tinfoil hats today see something the Founders intended but forgot to include?

Did the Founders really expect their handiwork to become the enemy? Did they risk their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor so some modern-day clowns could parade their guns in every public venue, scaring children, little old ladies and other rational people shopping at Walmart?

What if the Founders really did expect the Amendment to be needed by a group individuals, who are smarter than the rest of us, for the purpose of carrying on a war with our government? Will they repel the government with a Colt 45, a Glock, a shotgun or even an Uzi? I can’t figure out how.

To take on the most powerful military force this world has ever known, I would recommend a few tanks, bazookas, helicopters, attack submarines, missiles and thermonuclear devices. Could they get by without satellite support for their GPS-guided weaponry?

Rambo, Dirty Harry and the former Governator will not be able to provide much help. More than celluloid and duck tape will be necessary to take on the Pentagon.

The biggest problem with an unlimited interpretation of the Amendment may be the very ones who consider guns so important. How is that? They may have become excellent marksmen. They may be able to impress you with their mastery of the nomenclature of these weapons. Still, they don’t understand the most basic aspects of handguns.

Let me make certain that people know that both the national organizations of police commissioners and police chiefs are strongly in favor of fairly stringent gun control laws.

An idiot congressman from Arizona refuses to retreat from his public statement that he wishes there had been one more gun at the recent shooting aimed at his fellow congressperson. There was another gun in the crowd.

Think about it. A handgun is for the purpose of getting the drop on one or more others. If someone already has the drop with his weapon, bringing another handgun into the situation is more than likely to increase the body count. A weapon used in a robbery, for instance, may be intended only for intimidation. Introducing another weapon significantly increases the possibility of gunfire.

The man in the aforementioned crowd pulled his gun. He says he was within a second of firing at the guy holding the gun. Fortunately, he realized that the person he was aiming at was holding the gun because he had just disarmed the shooter. In such a confusing situation, it is possible for such mistakes to happen. Or, did the congressman prefer that the person disarming the shooter be killed?

Another consideration is that more than 90% of the shots fired by police miss their target. That does not mean they don’t hit someone. It only means that they don’t always hit the right someone. Remember, that accuracy rate is from trained, experienced police officers.

Almost all of these “supporters” of the 2nd Amendment received their understanding of weapon use from television, movies and comic books. For some reason, I don’t find that overwhelmingly reassuring.

There is the matter of self-protection, of course. The death rate in homes with guns is far, far higher than in those without a gun. One study showed the likelihood of being killed in your home 26 times as great if a gun were kept in the home. We too frequently see a news report of a child accidentally killed in a home with a handgun.

A domestic disagreement often escalates to homicide simply because a handgun was available. The problem there is that such events are only local news. On average, several of these incidents occur daily across the country.

Now these yo-yos want to carry handguns in bars, in churches, even the floor of Congress. That should give you a good indication of how far they reside outside of reality.

Keep in mind, whenever you hear someone advocating the absence of gun control, you are likely hearing the absence of sense. Even when written in an opinion of the Supreme Court, it is probably the result of ignorance of handguns, ignorance of history, paranoia-based excursions from the real world, a dupe of those people or a pandering politician.

These people have no concern for your freedom or your safety. Their concern is for their deluded desire for power and/or their other political agenda.

With few exceptions the people constantly campaigning against gun control are your enemy. My hope is that you never become their victim.

Puzzle Me This

I’ve heard it ad nauseum. You’ve heard it too.

They say that guns don’t kill people. They say that people kill people. Is that really true? If so, why do so many people spend all that money buying guns? It just seems redundant and wasteful to me.

Guns may be used for target practice. They may be used as paperweights. They don’t work very well as flower pots. Whatever, they are designed to kill.

People may kill but if they were designed for that purpose I would guess that someone expurgated that from Genesis.

.

Tagged as: amendment, arizona, bazooka, congress, constitution, control, dirty harry, duck blind, enemy, force, founding father, glock, governator, gps, gun, handgun, military, militia, paranoia, pentagon, police, rambo, salt lick, second, shotgun, supreme court, tank, uzi, victim, violence, weapon