Days of Change

We Are the Militia | December 23, 2015

Steven Crowder has an interesting video up responding to internet (and failed TV) talking head Cenk Uygur. Uygur’s argument is that the Second Amendment only grants the right of gun ownership to the people who are already granted the right to own and use weapons by the government. Essentially, cops and soldiers can have guns, but regular people don’t really have that right. The argument itself is circular. The Bill of Rights expressly grants citizens protection again the intervention by government. Why would one of them do the opposite by enshrining the ability of the government to rule over citizens as the only legal gun owners?

As someone who uses a lot of dependent clauses, I know that the first part of a sentence can reinforce the second part. Legalism has taken over the interpretation of language and people get caught up in the words. For example, the word militia in the Second Amendment.

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 don’t know about dumb people, but I take this as meaning that a free state requires both a regulated militia and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. To that end, those two things are not to be infringed. Infringed means that these rights should not even be encroached on. In fact, infringement is a verb than can only be applied to one word in the Amendment, “right.” The right shall not be infringed.

So, what the hell is a militia, you may ask? A militia is a group of citizens who are not full time soldiers or law enforcement, that can be called to serve when needed. If you think those don’t exist any more, find the nearest adult male and ask him about Selective Service. Ironically, a liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment would mean that women can’t own guns. However, the right to own and use guns belongs to the citizenry because militias may not have time or resources to distribute guns as needed. Much like personal privacy and the right not to quarter troops, Americans have the right to also act in a military capacity.

Lastly, a free State is not necessarily the protection of the State. If the government chooses tyranny, the Constitution allows for an “anti-government” response. This is a touchy subject, because civil war is considered insanity and potentially racist. The fact is that many governments had civil wars and used them as an opportunity to work things out. Realistically, the government would have to do something incredibly authoritarian to get popular support. For example, they could try to ban all firearms.

Advertisements

Posted in Uncategorized

1 Comment

  1. civil war is considered … potentially racist.

    Yeah? So what!
    ——————————————-

    Adolf obama wants us helpless.

    Comment by Mary — December 24, 2015 @ 6:32 am


%d bloggers like this: