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.
We have quite a bit of controversy about what this sentence means.
Most of the controversy stems from a poor education system that no longer emphasizes the proper use of tense and punctuation within the confines of teaching our national language.
It is fed by the acceptance of only a shallow cursory teaching of the history of our nation.
It is tempered by an independent philosophy totally removed from the original intent and the actual words of our constitution designed to bastardize what our founding fathers envisioned and turn our country into a corporately owned hellhole where armed anarchists kept the population in line by instilling fear in the citizens to conduct everyday business. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO BE AN INDIVIDUAL ARMED TERRORIST WRITTEN INTO OUR CONSTITUTION. I know i'm yelling. But be clear, if things are to change, they will change because rational people calmly examine what we have become and decide to change it.
First lets examine the sentence it self. It has a double subject. What that means is that both subjects are tied to the predicate by a common thread. We have the right to form and arm Militias within our society in order to secure our freedom. The second point about the subject that always seems to get lost is this. It is plural. A militia is a group of people, not a disgruntled individual. "The people" is just that, people, more than one. It does not give you or I the right to own a weapon, except in the context of our involvement with a militia to defend our freedom. The structures of the militias themselves are left to state and local governments, per the U.S. Constitution. The city of Knoxville has the right to opt out of the state militia as a conscientious objector and ban some weapons and regulate others within the city limits. The Supreme Court has ruled on it. That's the way it's written and that's the way it is.
Within the structure of a sentence the first subject listed in a sentence with multiple subjects is considered dominant and given preference. In other words a"well regulated Militia" would have dominance over "the right of the people". The folks running the militia, in Tennessee that's the National Guard, have the duty to regulate the weaponry within their jurisdiction, in such a manner that it best insures the ongoing security of a free state. If we reach the point where we, both as individuals and as a group, are less secure in our freedom with unrestricted gun laws, then our local and state governments are constitutionally mandated to regulate guns, not to ensure that every whacko walking the streets has access to one. It is the state of Tennessee's duty to regulate its own militia.
Finally, I have a pet peeve about handgun regulation. Sidearms are for officers and war zones. Unless one has a recognized aptitude for leading a group of men within a military structure,specifically our state militia, your right to own a handgun does not exist, even in a theoretical sense. Again, it's about what this stuff says, not what the gun nuts want to pretend it means.
Over the course of the last fifty years, Americans have distanced themselves from the harsh reality that freedom entails responsibility. It is this way with wealth and armaments. We are moving in that direction with education. I will conclude with this observation. The 8th grade ACTs came back this week. My son had perfect scores in math and english usage. He was in the 97% percentile for science and the 94% for reading comprehension. His career path report that came with it said he should be a waiter. The same sort of thinking that goes toward that kind of idiotic conclusion has built a series of gun laws that favor the criminal element and access to arms for the mentally ill, over the law abiding citizen. When one has to arm oneself in order to reasonably function, one lives in a war zone. It is time for realistic, reasonable gun regulation.
- Justice? (29 replies)
- Google Fiber advancing in Nashville? (4 replies)
- Companies accuse Haslam of leading Pilot Flying J fraud (7 replies)
- FYI: Don't buy a teenage boy a sports car (59 replies)
- Citizenfour at Downtown West (6 replies)
- Latest UT athletics drama (9 replies)
- UT dropping "Lady" from "Lady Vols" (58 replies)
- Sad pet store story (5 replies)
- Ravitch: Education reform is a hoax (1 reply)
- Local Presbyterian church in turmoil over same-sex marriage (11 replies)
- UT discontinues Lady Vols Hall of Fame (8 replies)
- BlueCross premium hike (16 replies)