|Most of you have probably heard about the football player who killed his girlfriend and then went to his team offices and killed himself in front of his coaches. The whys and wherefores of those events are not important, but are a necessary lead-in to this post. During halftime on Monday Night Football, Bob Costas expounded on how guns should be banned and the 2nd amendment is specifically to blame for the previously fore-mentioned "tragedy".
I have news for Mr Costas - it's not the gun's fault that someone picked it up and used it to commit a crime. It's also not the 2nd Amendment's fault. It's the fault of the as*hole that USED the gun that way. This is fodder for another thread, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention the severe backlash that has resulted from his comments, and the NFL and NBC are going to suffer as a result (not that I'm at all heart-broken over that silver lining).
Following that broadcast, Mr. Morgan tweeted the following:
“Quite incredible that Bob Costas makes an impassioned plea for less handguns, and Americans go crazy with indignation,"
"He's 100% right."
“The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles, Fact.”
I'm really tired of foreigners expressing their uneducated opinions about our constitutional rights. Here's a FACT for Mr. Morgan:
The framers of our Constitution were highly reluctant to support the idea of a standing army due to the government's ability to wield said army in any way that was deemed to fulfill the government's purpose, or the possibility that the military would attempt a takeover of the duly elected government.
The 2nd Amendment was put in place as a compromise toward that idea. The first part of the 2nd Amendment clearly illustrates that they recognized the necessity of a standing army (a *well regulated* militia) to provide for the country's defense from foreign aggression:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State,..."
Some people are interpreting this to mean that the militia must be "well regulated", as in controlled and registered, and this interpretation couldn't be more wrong. In the era in which this document was written, it was common practice to refer to soldiers in an organized army as "regulars", because they were "well regulated" in terms of training and provisions (ammo). This means that the first four words were intended to mean that the militias - as opposd to the idea of a standing army - must be well trained with *modern battlefield-capable weapons of the time* and supplied so that they might be called up to defend the country.
The second part of the amendment puts the ultimate power solidly into the hands of "the People" (civilian citizens):
"...the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
In other words, the right of the people to keep and bear arms was seen as a natural right, and was stated as such in order that they might participate in the previously referenced militia for the purposes of resisting/putting down an out-of-control federal government that either usurped the Constitution (currently underway), or that might use its standing army as a vehicle for oppression of said citizens, or worse, a military that attempted to take over the government by force, or repel an invading army.
I assert that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment really has nothing to do with defending and providing for one's family and/or property, although that's a happy accident involving the right to keep and bear, and was probably assumed by the men of the time to be a logical extension of having a firearm, thus it was not overtly mentioned. Instead, it's about defending the principles set forth in the Constitution and to preserve the ideology as stated in the Declaration of Independence against a standing army - and/or nefarious abuse of said ideologies by the federal government, and perhaps equally as important, to protect those principles and ideologies from ourselves.
Finally, I see the 2nd Amendment as a mandate to all Americans, that they are responsible for the continuity and security of the republic that we fought to create and continue to fight to keep, and that this sometimes requires the use of force. It's a fact that the 2nd Amendment is what kept Japan from invading the US in WW2, and I'm convinced that it's the only thing keeping Mexico from trying to militarily take control of Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.
I'm prepared to accept that some folks may not agree with my interpretation, and that's fine. But when you consider the 2nd Amendment in the context of the lives and times of the men who authored it, I fail to see how anyone can possibly come to any other conclusion. In my opinion (and because of my analysis of the 2nd Amendment), talk of "assault weapon" bans and ANY other gun control measures are in DIRECT violation of the 2nd Amendment, and I consider any attempt at gun control as an infringement on my rights. You may now talk amongst yourselves (the 1st Amendment in action). How can we - as veterans, public servants, and even more importantly, as AMERICANS - be expected fulfill our promise to support AND defend the Constitution if we don't have the proper tools with which to do so?
ALL of the original Constitutional amendments were established to specifically address the very things they experienced and that led up to the resulting revolution. The framers wanted to establish guarantees that those things could never happen in America (even though the Constitution has been subjected to agenda-based interpretations ever since).
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997