The Second Amendment is so clear and simple that only liberals, aided
by a half-wit liberal law school professor-tariat that is to real
lawyering as Jerry Nadler is to Chippendales, could pretend to be
confused about its meaning with a straight face.
“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.”
The
whole “shall not be infringed” part is a real problem for the left,
since collectivist Castro-channelers prefer that we Americans be
defenseless serfs existing at the government’s (i.e., their)
mercy when we should be armed, freedom-loving citizens with the personal
firepower to veto their pinko utopian schemes. So, they fixate on the
2A’s passing reference to the militia, spinning a prefatory statement
that recognizes that a militia is a good thing into a directive to
cancel out the whole “citizens having guns” part of the Second
Amendment.
In other words, to defeat its very purpose.
It’s a silly
interpretation, and one that’s not even remotely asserted in good faith,
but why not put aside all the constitutional arguments supporting our
right to pack heat and just call their militia bluff? Maybe we should
reinvigorate the concept of a militia in our great nation, if only to
annoy liberals.
So, pick up your weapon and fall in. Let’s do this thing. America, let’s get our militia on.
What
is the “militia” anyway? It’s not goofy dudes in camo playing army.
It’s the American people. It was those farmers, blacksmiths and other
assorted non-hipsters who the Brits tried to disarm and who got all
shooty in response. Today, it’s us, you and me, regular citizens with
military arms so they can cap criminals and tyrants like bosses just as
Nature intended.
That “well-regulated” part is what the Second Amendment Truthers focus
on, but their analysis here (as with everything) is all wrong. They
think Congress can well-regulate the militia into oblivion, presuming to
misuse the clause to regulate away any right of actual citizens to have
firearms with the ultimate goal of a militia that can’t be militant.
That violates the longstanding principle that you do not interpret
Constitutional provisions in such a way as to negate them, but liberals
hate the Bill of Rights so what do you expect?
Read more:
No comments:
Post a Comment