Have you seen the lunatics like Alex Jones who have come out as a leader for gun advocacy on the Piers Morgan show? How about James Yeager, the CEO of Tactical Response? He is not just a gun advocate, he is also a civil war advocate and is willing and ready to start killing people as soon as the government does anything to reduce his access to guns. (Of course just yesterday he pulled a Mitt Romney and reversed his position by saying it was not the right time yet for such actions.)
Now don't get me wrong. I don't think that all gun owners are psychotic lunatics. Only those who think the United States Government, with all its checks and balances, it's constitution, being a government of, for and by the people, would ever consider of its own volition, turning into a militaristic dictatorial monarchy.
Reasonable gun owners exist everywhere and recent polling shows that a large majority of American citizens want some sort of gun controls legislated by the United States government. So why does the Republican Party leadership appear to be as adamant as the lunatic gun owners in their statements against gun regulation? Why does the Republican leadership do anything anymore? Who knows? I warned you about them in earlier blogs. Rand Paul has recently come out against gun control, calling the administration a monarchy if they think they can control guns. Another Republican accuses President Obama of exceeding his constitutional rights making him impeachable if he uses his Presidential power of Executive Order to initiate gun control.
And I say "so-called" entitlements because there is still confusion about the true meaning of the second amendment. I believe an interpretation of the second amendment that does not extend individuals rights to guns. The amendment as adopted by Congress states:
"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."
|Supreme Court Building|
The first words of the Amendment's text "a well regulated militia" show the focus of the amendment's creators. A militia is an organized group of armed individuals with a paramilitary purpose, intended to physically defend the people under their jurisdiction. When our early fragile government was first created, there was concern that the Loyalists or some other group loyal to the King of England might rise up to take the country back for the British. The second amendment creates the establishment of a militia to help prevent that from happening. Since the subject of the second amendment is the militia, we can assume that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" stated in the latter part of the amendment is meant to define the right to such a militia and not individual gun ownership rights. I believe that this was how the founding fathers intended it to be. Only if every member of the citizenry was a member of the militia, could the second amendment imply that they would all have the right to guns. I don't believe the creators thought that all members of the citizenry would be members of a militia.
Even if I am wrong or if the creators intended for the second amendment to grant individuals rights to guns, it leaves open how the states should regulate the whole process. We still need to define who should be allowed to possess guns and which guns they should be allowed to possess. So regulations of this type at least, should not be considered infringement.
The NRA represents weapons manufacturers. Weapons manufacturers are large corporations that operate wholly on the profit motive. As a general rule, corporate America strongly fights against anything that might affect their profits. The deaths of innocent children might have been avoided if gun regulations had already been in place that prevented a lunatic from getting hold of a military type weapon. Gun regulation will help. Let's not make it necessary for others to die so that the weapons manufacturers can prosper.