18 February 2008


I have to admit the last place I saw nearly as much security as currently exists in the US was when I was in Ulster. At least the US hasn't gotten to the point where you are searched pretty much everywhere you go. Probably because people would scream about their freedoms being trampled.

Why this comment? Because other people are talking about the hypocritical war on terrorism because nothing is being done to control firearms.

One person can rack up a body count of 33 bodies, yet nothing is done about it. A couple of people and a rifle (John Lee Malvo and John Allen Muhammad) had the US capital area in an lock down for three weeks. The body count racks up in senseless killings, yet we are told this is the cost of freedom.

Hey, if this is your idea of freedom, pal, I think the alternative isn't so bad. I mean, this is beginning to feel more and more like a totalitarian state because people are scared. Yet, the voice of the people is being silenced by some loud squeaky wheels who are not working toward "the security of a free State".

On the other hand, three people can die from eating spinach and it all gets yanked from the stores.

What is wrong with this picture? The Second Amendment talks about "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State". Sure there are people who want to take the last part out of context and say it has something to do with self-defence. The problem is that the Second Amendment addresses Security of a free state and relates back to Article I, Section 8 the militia is a body that is "to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." It is "organized, armed, and disciplined...according to the discipline prescribed by Congress".

It is ridiculous to say that the Second Amendment is to prevent a tyrannical government, or to allow for waging war upon a tyrannical government since Article III, Section iii states that doing just that is TREASON!

Sorry, if there is a personal right, it is that you must be allowed to be a member of the National Guard. But the Dick Act of 1901 got rid of the Universal Militia because most people didn't want to give up their free time for militia duties.

As I have pointed out, the Second Amendment is an anachronism. It is irrelevant to modern society since most people aren't willing to accept the need to belong to a militia organised under Article I, Section 8 to be able to accept that right. The RKBA crowd wants to divorce "the security of a free State" from the equation and make it a licence for anarchy.

Unfortunately, "the security of a free State" is the most important part of the Second Amendment and to demand freedom from the responsibilities which come with the right is to totally negate the Second Amendment. It is to continue to see high body counts from senseless gun violence because people who don't understand the right to bear arms demand unfettered access to firearms.

Show me the words "self-defence" in the Second Amendment and I will grant the RKBA crowd their point. The Second Amendment does not mention self-defence and it is an irrelevance to tie that concept to the Second Amendment. It is even more absurd to tie the ability to revolt against the government to the Second Amendment.

We are not dealing with loose cannons, we are dealing with loose firearms. Loose firearms which are just as much a threat to society as is Al-queda. I would probably say that the cost of gun violence takes more of a toll on US society than Al-queda has ever done, yet nothing is done about it.

Until we have a leader who has the guts to say that the Second Amendment only guarantees the right of the militia to be armed, we will continue to lose the war on terrorism.

No comments: