Gunnuts are pretty satisfied with their “interpretation” of what the Founding Fathers meant by the Second Amendment – that they have the right to bring their firepower with them any fucking place they choose. They cling to the second part of the second amendment like a teabagger to a Slanket. To say gun control is part and parcel ex post facto law that is explicitly banned by the Federal Constitution means you didn’t bother to/or can’t read or understand the first half of the fucking sentence with its wordy and inconvenient dependent clause. But who cares, right? It’s just “words” (Rush Limbaugh was just saying “words” when – sounding more and more drug addled – he croaked out that the Batman movie was part of a liberal conspiracy to defame Mitt Romney). Some more words from our Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Interpretation: Unarmed Americans, have the right to not have to live in fear of being shot wherever they fucking go. Shockingly, the Constitution applies to non-gunnuts, also. How can the government ensure our “domestic Tranquility”, and how are they promoting our “general Welfare” by allowing assault weapons, will-nilly, in fuckall, and by promoting agendas that leave us at the mercy of every illiterate moron, unhinged brute, child molester, disgruntled husband, and psychopath roaming around with bloodlust, with their legally purchased firearms? In our freaking schools and zoos and movie theaters? When are we-the-people, the unprotected, unarmed Americans going to stand up and say that it is unconstitutional to be forced to live in a country where we have to live in fear of being fucking shot by our fellow citizens? How come the right to protect oneself, family, and friends properly does not work the other way around?
What happened to us since 1939, when the Court heard the the broad question of individual versus state-militia rights, ultimately deciding that individuals have in effect no right to keep and bear arms under the amendment, but only a collective right having “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia”? At one time, lower courts have consistently applied this decision in upholding various gun-control laws. The SCOTUS revisited this in 1980, reconfirming that
“these legislative restrictions on the use of firearms do not trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties.”
Then Chief Justice Burger and Chief Justice Rehnquist both supported that interpretation, denouncing the NRA’s edited version of the amendment as a “fraud.” I contend that the legislative lack of restriction on the use of fireman DOES trench upon my Constitutionally protected liberties”. When Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed with the inalienable Right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, a reasonable inference would be that those Rights include an assumption THAT I WILL NOT BE SHOT.
I read a little history of gun control in Colorado, the most interesting fact being that back in the 1990’s, Colorado Republican state legislators introduced a bill to eliminate the requirement that gun purchasers undergo a background check via the State’s “Insta- Check system” – which presumably would weed out psychos and known dangerous individuals – the “thinking” being that those buying guns already get checked out by federal authorities – putting its citizens safety at the mercy of the communication between the state and federal background check databases. The state Legislature allowed the InstaCheck system to expire despite warnings from the FBI and CBI that the federal check alone was inadequate. In no time, a Colorado man bought a 9mm handgun with only a federal background check — which did not catch the restraining order his wife had filed against him. He shot and killed his three young daughters before engaging police in a deadly shootout. Then Colorado Gov. Bill Owens quickly signed an executive order reinstating the system. But that was THIRTEEN YEARS AGO. Surely, the good people of Colorado have forgotten those little dead girls by now? Three months ago, the NRA-backed legislation to repeal the exact same bill that led to those girls murders, what the NRA calls the “unnecessary state-run background check system”. It passed in the Colorado House with bipartisan support. Wait, what?
In a world without an “NRA”, the second amendment would be adapted to civilian gun use in today’s modern age: varmint hunting, recreational shooting, collecting, private local militia (anti government paranoid Paultards), groups and home self-defense. The context of the amendment as it was written 220 years ago was for all white males to own a gun and drill in local militia for the purpose of defending the local populace from foreign (European armies) and Domestic (Teabaggers) threats, slave uprisings, preform policing actions and to aid the colonial army in times of war. The nation has changed (I was about to say “evolved”, haha), since then and we have a well equipped, overfunded funded army, national guard (“state militia”) and organized law enforcement forces. Implied threat of resistance is funny, as it would be armed law officers, “infringing on your freedumb”, comin’ to git your gun, prepared with body armour and means to fend off your pathetic one man stand. The moronic gunnut’s ultimate fantasy is one where liberals come and snatch up the guns – because law enforcement personnel are evil robots willing to take up arms against their fellow citizens without due cause. If you’re thinking that you’re going to overthrow the US government with your “guns” – I’m looking at you, Sharron Angle – unless your home arsenal includes anti aircraft weaponry capable of shooting down the Air Force, enough fire power to stand up to special ops helicopters and armored vehicles, biological weapons, rail guns, and gps guided artillery shells, well, the rest of the country has means to promptly crush you like bugs.
There’s a British law that defends the right of residents of Chester to shoot Welshmen within the city walls with a crossbow. You’d have a hard time wrapping yourself in that law, if you decided to pull a Robin Hood. A documented Constitution is all very well as with any fundament of law, but to say that it persists without the need to change with the world’s situation is psychotic and unethical. But, the odds of bringing the lauded 2nd Amendment up-to-date with respect to the non-existence of citizen militias (when has ANYBODY you know been enrolled in the militia by the Captain or Commanding officer of the company, within whose bounds they reside?), in any meaningful way, are slightly better than the odds of a GOP turning down the opportunity to deep throat a corndog. Because in the minds of these illiterate gunnuts, the Constitution is nothing more than an idol that enshrines whatever rules they already believe in, and selectively misinterpret the text to confirm their preconceived views. They worship it with a vague but passionate zealotry, but with no understanding at all. It’s just like the room of chimpanzees typing Shakespeare sonnets. Or the way Christians treat the Bible.
A majority of Americans agree with the statement, “Although the Constitution provides the right to bear arms, our situation has changed radically enough that it is too dangerous for this right to continue as originally written”. So, let us – the unarmed majority – demand our Constitutional rights be recognized – the right to domestic tranquility and the right to a reasonable expectation for the general welfare of ourselves, our friends and families.
Who’s with me?
(pardon typos and run-on sentences, I wrote this really fast, over a bowl of chili).