tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post142264220787324065..comments2023-12-28T06:30:48.808-05:00Comments on The Rule of Reason: Justice Stevens's Liberty-Destroying Amendments: Part IIIUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-42004781933652680862014-05-09T19:13:29.703-04:002014-05-09T19:13:29.703-04:00GDW: Unfortunately, a little bit of thinking is ei...GDW: Unfortunately, a little bit of thinking is either beyond the ken of the average politician, or his enemy or a nemesis. Most anti-gun advocates sense that if they gave the issue a bit of thinking, they'd realize what they were hankering for. So, they repress thought. Edward Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12160209827969614964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-9160187636495052952014-05-07T23:54:31.483-04:002014-05-07T23:54:31.483-04:00I've never understood what's so difficult ...I've never understood what's so difficult to understand about The Second Amendment. For one thing <i>it's in The Constitution</i>, so that should tell people something about it already (specifically, that if it were about anything other than limiting government power - not granting it - then it wouldn't be in a document that was created for no other purpose than to protect people from improper uses of government power). But more than that, the wording is really quite simple.<br /><br />The phrase "A well regulated militia" has two vital considerations. First, "militia" - in those times - was synonymous with "military." The country was in it's infancy, and the various state militias were just as much of - if not more of - America's overall military might as The Continental Army was. Second, "well regulated" refers not to regulations concocted by men, but by those inherent in nature (eg: a tomato is "regulated" by gravity to fall of a table should it be pushed over the edge. Cause and effect is actually the "regulation" applicable here). <br /><br />The second phrase - "being necessary to the security of a free state" - has it's own considerations. First, "being necessary" means that a military/militia necessarily has to be regulated by something (regulated by what? That is addressed shortly) - and second, "the security of a free state" is simply a fancy way of saying "making sure that America remains a free state/country" (as opposed to some other kind of country).<br /><br />Combine all of this and, in plain English, it simply says the following: "The military needs to be kept in check if America is to avoid becoming a tyranical country" - and then it provides a way for that to happen. How? By ensuring that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In other words: if the government knows that everyone - by right - can own and carry arms, then they're also going to deduce that many people will exercise those rights... which means that they had better not try to use the military to oppress the people... because if they do, the people will rise up and use force to "alter or abolish that government."<br /><br />It's really that simple. All it requires is a bit of thinking - and, more importantly, honesty. Great article, Mr. Cline.GDWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09996586199024780592noreply@blogger.com