Right to bear Arms

As an historian and constitutional scholar I probably rank a notch above Michele Bachmann and Penn Jillette. You remember Michele professed our Founding Fathers fought to abolish slavery, and more recently Penn gave his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in a pro-gun commercial.

The 2nd Amendment talks about a well-regulated Militia and right of the people to keep and bear arms in the same paragraph. I hope this whole debate doesn’t hinge on where the comma was placed. Penn believes the right to bear arms and a Militia are separate rights and issues.

Several things are not in dispute. Arms mean weapons. Weapons in 1791 consisted of swords, cannons, flintlock muskets and pistols, and rocks of course. The Palestinians still use rocks and I keep one at home. Cannons are still in use at football games and circuses. Colleges fire cannons after a touchdown. They do not use cannon balls. There have been no reports of anyone using cannon to rob a bank or a 7-Eleven.

The Militia, as I understand the term, was to aid in the defense of the U.S. not to protect us from our own government. The Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act, was initiated following the Spanish–American War of 1898, after the war demonstrated weaknesses in the militia, and in the entire U.S. military. The Militias of today who train in the backwoods of Kentucky, to protect us from the Federal Government or Sharia Law are known as Dick Heads.

With our Armed Forces, including the Reserves and the National Guard there is not much need for a well-regulated militia, unless you honestly believe the Commander-in-Chief has plans to disband the Congress and the Supreme Court and institute Sharia Law. We definitely don’t need an unregulated militia.

The Constitution as well as the Bible are amazing for the fact that so much of the concepts in both documents are apropos today. Times do change. When “thou shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” was written, Halle Berry didn’t live next door. The right to bear arms did not even imagine the weapons of today from automatic guns to nuclear bombs.

Most rational people agree there is no reason for any individual to own an automatic gun or a magazine that holds more than ten rounds. The only argument offered is that they have a 2nd Amendent right to own one. I have a right to buy lots of things, but I don’t buy anything I don’t need. This is why I don’t have a dog.

In conclusion we need reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, while still guaranteeing a person's right to own a gun. Background checks are needed but only can do so much if you’re stupid enough to give your gun to someone else or to not lock it up so a child can’t get at it.