In the local paper, a local says, well, I’m not sure what her point is as it’s not spelled out very clearly. There are about six paragraphs of peace, love, and dope. And the rest seems to just be spewing random anti-gun tidbits that are poorly understood. So, I’ll try to address the points I think she’s trying to make. But the title is Sandra Rini says we should rethink term “Militia” , so we’ll go with that.Says Sandra, after quoting the second amendment:

This outdated provision from a Congress that never envisioned the modern military we have today is more fiercely protected than any other amendment in the Bill of Rights. America has more guns in the hands of private citizens than any other nation; an estimated 300 million. And the National Rifle Association boasts that we add 4.5 million annually.

I know. Those darn outdated provisions. We don’t really need a third amendment either, since it never comes up. And those dumb founders never envisioned that there would be advances is technology. That was just crazy talk back then. So, we should limit your right to speak only to pen, paper and a printing press since they didn’t imagine that Al Gore would give us the Internets. And all the amendments seem to be under attack these days (except maybe the third, which we’re not using so it should be repealed too).

And there is, of course, Sandra’s inability to read. After all, it’s pretty clear from the amendment that the the right to bear arms is not tied to militia service. You can get a grammar lesson here. And the fact that the supreme Court recently ruled exactly that. She goes on:

If another country invades the U.S. or our own government turns on its citizens (the things a Militia was intended to guard against), those 300 million guns may as well squirt water for all the impact they’ll have against such an attack.

The militia was intended to do that. And to quell rebellions. And to, if necessary, be a police force. Regarding guns not impacting an invading force, has she heard of a country called Iraq?

Six paragraphs of peace, love and dope omitted because you got better things to do.

And:

America’s first Congress ensured the future of the militia in the Bill of Rights with the Second Amendment.

Two centuries later, our well-regulated militia is called the National Guard, and the states provide the arms.

Sandra should maybe try doing a bit of research. She’d then realize that the militia is comprised of:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

No need to rethink militia since it’s pretty clearly defined in USC. But we can’t have facts getting in the way of all that peace and love. And:

The security of the states is debatable; the safety of its citizens a fading memory.

Why is it you seem to think citizen safety negatively correlates to my right to keep and bear arms? Particularly, when there’s no such indication supported by, well, anything credible.

Sadly, we’re in the midst of a gun epidemic that kills 30,000 Americans every year.

Her number is, of course, misleading. More than half are suicides.

And the Second Amendment lives on.

And as long as I breathe, it will.

Posted in uncategorized on September 16th, 2008 by SayUncle | RSS 2.0 |