Friday, February 1, 2013

A guest blog by a gun owner friend, William Schiff

Shoot the Second Amendment!
It’s past about time that someone actually seriously addresses those (like Wayne LaPierre) who repeatedly claim that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution supports the rejection of any constraints on gun possession and use.
1. Those who quote (or misinterpret) our Constitution (like the SCOTUS – e.g., in”Citizens United”) seem to forget, that unlike the Bible, which was, of course, penned by God on her laptop, the U.S. Constitution and its amendments were written by mere people, who are sometimes wrong, wrong, wrong. Most current people (excluding the Far Far Right) think the F#%*Fathers screwed up the parts dealing with slavery, for one example. Yet, the 2nd Amendment continues to be held up to the holy light, like the biblical prescriptions for executing adulterers, and other gems of ecumenical wisdom. But even if we accept this absurd practice of enforcing, by current law, some of the outdated concepts of Holy Scriptures, there remain several objections to slavish support of the 2nd Amendment to mean something it doesn’t.
2. If one actually reads the 2nd Amendment, it suggests that the PURPOSE of not infringing on “the right of the people to bear arms” is to provide for a ready “standing” army (of the State or Nation, depending on how one interprets “State”), of citizens to defend the “security” of our fair nation. Did they have in mind pickup trucks full of crazed people toting single-shot muskets? Disturbed kids with bulletproof vests toting Bushmaster assault weapons? Or farmers and field-hands with muskets, who might be drafted or entreated to drive off a despot or two. One can’t be sure, of course, but I suspect the last is closest to the true case. Thus, the claims often heard that the 2nd was meant to provide for protection against our own government(s) seems unlikely. It seems unlikely that weekend field “exercises” with anti-tank weapons, flamethrowers, RPGs, and Bazookas was what the F#%* Fathers had in mind. Surely, one would prefer the trained Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force to do the job. Face it guys, you couldn’t hold off a company of regular army (with helicopter gunships, etc) if you wanted to! And those military-style assault weapons enthusiasts who roam our byways and more remote regions to shoot at targets containing pictures of their political enemies hardly constitute the “…well-regulated militia…” that is referenced in the 2nd. The weekend warriors who so often quote the 2nd (if they can remember it) are closer to anarchists and cultists than “well-regulated militia.”
3. Where in the 2nd Amendment does one see specified WHAT SORT of ARMS the People are entitled to bear? Surely, not poison gas grenades, RPGs, machine guns (already illegal), flame throwers, rockets, or tactical nuclear weapons! What then? Hunting rifles? Sure! Shotguns? Of course! Large-magazine rifles, pistols, or even shotguns? I don’t think so. Since that issue of “what kinds of arms” remains unspecified, the 2nd Amendment seems mute, and thus has no bearing on outlawing the sale, purchase, or possession of the weapons at issue…weapons of war, which have no place in a civilized society. Now, all we need is a civilized society!
~ GeezerGab, Former member of the NRA, and “Expert Rifleman”

No comments: