Guns are the great equalizer — and nobody on the Left likes equality. This is why the Left twists itself in knots to avoid the implications of the 2nd Amendment. Here are Penn & Teller with one interpretation:
There’s a differing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that also sees the comma being just as important. During the 18th century, a militia was a people’s army, as opposed to a government’s standing army. Under that understanding, the 2nd amendment reads, “Because a people’s army is absolutely vital to protect individuals from a government’s standing army, the government may not take people’s weapons away.” Considering that the newly founded United States had just fought a war in which the people’s militia turned its guns on Britain’s standing army, it’s not a stretch, either grammatically, historically, or vocabulary-ily, to appreciate that the language says what it means and means what it says.
Either way, the 2nd Amendment is as clear as clear can be.
As regular readers know, back in my liberal days, I was totally for gun control, a feat I managed simply by ignoring the 2nd amendment, or by saying that our government-controlled army was “a well regulated militia” (which still didn’t deal with that comma). By 9/11, I’d pretty much changed my views, but the nail in the coffin for me when it came to turning my back on gun control was Hurricane Katrina. I finally figured out then that law abiding citizens must be able to protect themselves. Also, I’d finally figured out that, in places with strict gun control, law-abiding citizens morphed into fish packed tightly in barrels, just waiting for the criminal class to come and pick them off.Email This Post To A Friend
12 Responses to “No matter how you read the Second Amendment, it comes up favoring guns in citizens’ hands”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.