Taking the Second Amendment ...

... off the Reservation.

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's it, 27 words, one sentence, adopted December 15, 1791, just one day shy of exactly 221 years before the massacre in a Connecticut elementary school. Based at least partly on these words, our society is rapidly abandoning any pretense of being a first world, civilized society. Lead by these words there is virtually no chance that the people of the United States will ever take a rational approach to guns and violence. So, just for my own curiosity, I thought I would take these words off the Reservation, see how they fair.

According to Webster: Militia -

1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
   b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Though I have read this Amendment many times as the years have rolled by and the death toll mounted, I was a bit thunderstruck at having missed something blindingly obvious. There is no militia in the United States. There is a military, but that is not the same thing. Whatever the Founding Fathers were thinking about 221 years ago, it clearly has no parallel in the country today. None of the weapons sold today are going to a well regulated militia that adds to the security of our free state. NONE! The first four words of the Second Amendment render it completely immaterial to any gun policy or law up for consideration. This does not mean it would be a good policy to ban every gun in America. But if we did decide to pass a law banning every gun in America the Second Amendment would not have any bearing.

(I think it would be a great policy, but I'm pretty sure I am in a minority of one. Truth to tell, if I could council some god somewhere to get off his ass and lend us a hand, I would suggest he need do only one thing; say the word that no gun anywhere in the world would fire and that no armed missile of any type would fly.)

Though there is no militia in the US (thankfully) this isn't to say there are no militias in the modern world. Al Qaeda is a militia. The Taliban are a militia. Hamas. They have a chain of command. They have propaganda departments, intelligence networks, supply lines, training facilities. Yet somehow they don't come across as establishing the security of free states. Indeed, their very existence is a threat to free states, and free people, all over the planet. There are other militias as well, like the private armies of war loads. These are often intertwined with the drug cartels. None are concerned with the security of anything other than the power and greed of the war lords and drug kings.

No free state could last long if it allowed an organized,armed opposition to the government to exist inside its own boarders. (Think The Muslim Brotherhood and the still born democracy of the Egyptian revolution.) What ever militias might have been in the year 1791, in the year 2012 they are terrorist organizations. It is shear lunacy to think the the Founding Fathers would amend the Constitution so an armed militia that acted apart from, and in opposition to, the democratic government they were working so hard to establish, could exist.

The next nine words, "being necessary to the security of a free state..." also struck me with something glaringly obvious, they are simply not true. Free states exist all over the planet. Some of them have militias, but those that do regulate the snot out of them; weapons registration, recurrent training, a solid chain of command tied directly to the government. But many a secure state has no such militia. Militias a just not necessary for security.

There are a lot of things that are. Among them is the rule of law, an independent and uncorrupted judicial system, and checks and balances built into the governing bodies. Perhaps most important is a respect of the citizens for each other, and an appreciation that there is a shared responsibility in building and maintaining a civilized society. Armed-to-the-teeth citizens shooting up the place are not.

But they are a threat to a free people. Those living in the Wild Wild West figured that out more than 100 years ago, and passed the first gun laws keeping weapons out of their towns. Wyatt Earp would throw David Keene in jail.

And so we come to the only phrase the NRA knows, " the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. It is clear that the right is based on there being a need for a well regulated militia to secure the state. Yet there is no militia, and there is no need. It follows that there is no right. Once again the Amendment is not applicable to any debate on gun control.

The most basic of freedoms is the freedom to remain alive. The dead have no freedoms at all. Yet guns in the US have done little to save lives. I know the NRA claims otherwise. I heard again today the claim that, in some country where guns were outlawed the murder rate went up. There are a lot of people in the US that believe this is so. But it can't possibly be true. If it were places like Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Sudan, and the United States would have the lowest murder rates. After all, we have the most guns. Places like Canada, Japan, and Australia would have the highest murder rates since they have the least guns. Yet this is not the case. It is also not the case that weapons inside the house make those in the house safer. In all probability if the gun is used, it will be used on a family member or a friend, not on an intruder. Putting a gun in your home makes you less safe, not more.

So the NRA "statics" can only be pure propaganda. If you believe that more guns leads to less murder and less guns to more murder, or you think your family is safer because of the 9mm you keep under your pillow, you are being played for a fool by the gun manufactures and the NRA. Or you are stupid. I would be much obliged if you would figure out which. A fool with a gun or a stupid person with a gun, neither are necessary for providing the security of a free state. Just the opposite is true. Both are a threat to a free state, and a free people.

Off the reservation, outside of the propaganda sphere of the NRA, apart from the Supreme Court Justices and away from Representatives bought and paid for by the gun manufacturers, the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is complete bullshit. It starts with one false assumption, moves on to one out-right lie, and stumbles to a dubious conclusion.

On the reservation of course, it is as worshiped as any verse in the bible. Which is kind of fitting. Religion is the act of believing things even when the evidence suggests the truth lies elsewhere. Worshiping guns is very much the same. And like the gods, many innocents, including a disproportionate number of children, are sacrificed on the alter of the gun manufacturer's greed.

Just as sad worshiping guns, like worshiping gods, often turns out to be fatal. It proved so for Nancy Lanza. Mother of a murderer who killed her first, she is now reported to have been arming up so she could survive an economic collapse. The muzzle flash from the assault rifle that the NRA and gun manufacturers told her would provide protection from the advancing hoards, was the last thing she ever saw. She believed the lie and it cost her her life. The character of Jesus in the bible is reported to have said, "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword." Perhaps, were the story written for today, he would say, "She who lives by the Bushmaster .223 assault rifle, dies by the Bushmaster .223 assault rifle." Not as poetic as the original, but more apropos to today's world.

One would hope the NRA is proud of Ms. Lanza. In addition to the assault rifle she had a Sig Sauer, and a Glock. Maybe they will put her picture up on some billboards, or name some piece of pro-gun legislation they pass though one of the state legislature's they own after her. It hasn't been reported, but I would bet a good cup of coffee she was a member in good standing. If she wasn't maybe the NRA will grant her special, posthumous, life-time membership? It seems the least they could do. (I know that sounds a bit silly, buy hey! This is an organization that claims god wants all of his churches packed with people who are packing; "take your assault rifle to Sunday School" kind of people. Giving a life time membership to a dead person would not count as crazy with this bunch.)

There is some truly twisted irony, and maybe just a hint of justice, in that the person who was the source of the high-tech killing machine used to butcher 20 six and seven year old children, was also the weapon's first victim. Her worship of guns not only got a bunch of people dead, it helped to fuel the illness that is killing a once civil society. Guns are the threat, not the salvation. The Second Amendment will not save the country. Instead those 27 words are hastening its demise.

p.s. The truth is I don't know that much about such weapons, so I looked up the respective manufacturer's web sights; here they are in case you are interested. To paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart, "I shall not today attempt further to define ... hard core pornography. But I know it when I see it. I think I just saw some.


http://www.bushmaster.com/index
http://www.sigsauer.com/catalog/pistols
http://us.glock.com/