Tuesday, April 1, 2014

I've seen the error of my ways!

Yes, it's true.   I think that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with a Well-Regulated Militia despite the fact that it begins:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
Seriously, why not say something in the second part of a sentence that has absolutely no relation to the first part.  Non-sequiturs make perfect sense.

Also, it has nothing to do with Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution.  You know the part that give congress the power:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Yes, even though when you go back and read the original founders quotes in their entirety that show this was a concern and they even quote that passage, the fact that congress has the power to arm the militia has no relation to the Second Amendment.

Nope. the concepts of civilian control over the military establishment and conflicts between militias and professional, standing armies in 17th, 18th, and 19th Century political thought are well documented, that has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

And the concept that more guns means less crime is really persuasive as well.

I mean look at all those defensive gun uses.

Yep, I've changed my tune.  The pro-gun arguments make a hell of a lot of sense.

1 comment:

  1. I had some libertardlican tell me, just this morning, that the Constitution provides for police and "private" militias. I told him that he was full of shit, but I doubt that he educated himself.