With a tip-o'-the-hat to Paul Kennedy, here, below, is the long version of what I now post beneath any news story, or in any forum, or in any newsgroup, or beneath any blog posting I see, or an an article-in-chief in response to anything which talks about such as yesterday's awful Sikh temple massacre in Wisconsin, or last month's awful theater shooting in Colorado, or Gabby Giffords 2011 shooting, or any other similar event either in which or beneath which gun ownership rights advocates make ridiculous Second Amendment arguments. If I'm not permitted enough characters, then I shorten it; but this, at least, is the long (and, therefore, most complete) version...
I have two responses.
First of all, the Second Amendment...
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
...has never said what the NRA claims. Anyone who has ever taken -- and actually paid attention to -- high school or college English knows that it is a single sentence constructed of two parts, the first of which...
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."
...is a dependent clause; and so, as such, may validly be restated by placing the word "because" at its beginning, and then adjusting all dependant words (in this case, simply changing "being" to "is," not because it changes meaning but, rather, to create syntactic agreement) to accommodate it, to wit...
"Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state..."
...then we instantly recognize that it's also a prepositional phrase; that is, it is a sentence fragment that serves as a modifier of the main clause...
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Once you see the parts that way (and any English teacher on the planet -- except maybe a gun-toting one -- would confirm that it's grammatically and syntactically correct to so do), then you realize that the rules of English (and even the law, truth be told) allow you to validly switch them around without changing meaning one single bit. In fact, so doing actually enhances one's understanding of said unchanged meaning. At that point, then, the Second Amendment's truly-intended meaning becomes painfully clear:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,
because a well regulated miltia is necessary to the security of a free state."
No person who hasn't fallen on his/her head too many times in life (and/or who isn't a member of the NRA) could possibly not agree that that, and this...
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
...convey exactly -- precisely, in fact -- the same thing. The Second Amendment, then, was intended by our nation's founding fathers to ensure that citizens could keep and bear arms, but only for the express purpose of their using same in their role as members of a regulated militia -- an army -- charged with the hopefully rarely-required task of defending the nation.
It's important to remember that in 1789 when the 2nd Amendment was submitted to the nation as part of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution (the Bill of Rights); and then when it was finally ratified in 1791, and then for another 20 years thereafter, most Americans -- Federalists and Anti-Federalists, alike -- did not want a standing army. Instead, they wanted local county sheriffs, constables, night watchmen, and others similar to enforce the laws and, by so doing, effectively protect the nation.
In fact, for the first few years after the ratification, said persons were largely unarmed, and had to do their jobs with just clubs and their fists to protect themselves. If a war broke out, the public wanted a formal army -- a militia -- to be formed only for the temporary purpose of fighting it, and then, at the end of the war, said militia would be dissolved. There were no weapons caches, no armories, and no ammunition stockpiles like there typically are whenever there's a standing army.
Only later in the 20-year period following the ratification of the 2nd Amendment were law enforcement officers allowed to routinely carry guns; and even from the beginnin, if a sheriff formed a posse for a special purpose, then said posse was armed.
In 1792, though, despite public sentiment about standing armies, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States," which specified that every able-bodied male aged from 18 through 44 had to join, and then acquire certain specified equpment (knapsacks, clothing, blankets, and, of course, a certain kind of long gun, with bayonet and ammunition); and they had to be available both for occasional training and drills, and/or also to be called to active duty at a moment's notice in the event of a war or insurrection, or to keep the peace. That, though, was still not a "standing army" as we understand that term today. There were still no weapons caches or armories. It was more of an on-call army, wherein the militiamen first acquired and then stored and maintained their necessary militia weaponry in their homes (so it woudl be at the ready, if needed, because, again, there were no armories, like we have today), which weaponry was only to be used during official militia actions.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment, then, was simply to ensure that neither the government, nor any entity under its direct or indirect control or influence, could lawfully impede any of that specifically militia-related activity. It did not guarantee that everyone had a Consitutional right to own guns. Only ignorant, right-winged, knuckleheaded Republicans argue, with a straight face, otherwise.
It took until 2008 for the US Supreme Court to finally undo at least some of that. In In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, even if it has nothing to do with the militia. And two years later, in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the state's hands are just as tied as the Federal government's when it comes to trying to limit the rights established in 2008's ruling. Both rulings are, to Americans who understand the 2nd Amendment, and its original intent, contrary to what the founding fathers had in mind...
...just like in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010). But that's a rant for another day.
Second of all, singer-songwriter Cheryl Wheeler said... er... rather... sang it best:
If It Were Up to Me
Words and music by Cheryl Wheeler
Maybe it's the movies, maybe it's the books
Maybe it's the bullets, maybe it's the real crooks
Maybe it's the drugs, maybe it's the parents
Maybe it's the colors everybody's wearin'
Maybe it's this President, maybe it's the last one
Maybe it's the one before that, what he done
Maybe it's the high schools, maybe it's the teachers
Maybe it's the tattooed children in the bleachers
Maybe it's the Bible, maybe it's the lack
Maybe it's the music, maybe it's the crack
Maybe it's the hairdos, maybe it's the TV
Maybe it's the cigarettes, maybe it's the family
Maybe it's the fast food, maybe it's the news
Maybe it's divorce, maybe it's abuse
Maybe it's the lawyers, maybe it's the prisons
Maybe it's the Senators, maybe it's the system
Maybe it's the fathers, maybe it's the sons
Maybe it's the sisters, maybe it's the moms
Maybe it's the radio, maybe it's road rage
Maybe El Nino, or UV rays
Maybe it's the army, maybe it's the liquor
Maybe it's the papers, maybe the militia
Maybe it's the athletes, maybe it's the ads
Maybe it's the sports fans, maybe it's a fad
Maybe it's the magazines, maybe it's the internet
Maybe it's the lottery, maybe it's the immigrants
Maybe it's taxes, big business
Maybe it's the KKK and the skinheads
Maybe it's the communists, maybe it's the Catholics
Maybe it's the hippies, maybe it's the addicts
Maybe it's the art, maybe it's the sex
Maybe it's the homeless, maybe it's the banks
Maybe it's the clearcut, maybe it's the ozone
Maybe it's the chemicals, maybe it's the car phones
Maybe it's the fertilizer, maybe it's the nose rings
Maybe it's the end, but I know one thing.
If it were up to me, I'd take away the guns.
(P) October 1, 1997 Penrod and Higgins Music/Amachrist Music
ACF Music Group International Copyright Reserved
SEE: http://www.cherylwheeler.com/songs/iiwutm.html
Written in response to the Jonesboro Schoolyard Massacre in 1998, and brought to everyone's mind again after the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, this song has not only been recorded by Cheryl, on Rounder Records, and played at nearly all her concerts since 1997, but a watered-down version has also been covered by Garth Brooks for the motion picture "Behind the Life of Chris Gaines" (originally intended to be called "The Lamb"). Several others, including Holly Near, have now also covered the song; and gun control activists and groups repeatedly use it for raising both fund and awareness.
SEE ALSO: http://www.cherylwheeler.com/discog/gbgaines.html
SEE ALSO: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0331880/
To hear Cheryl performing the song, with lyrics, see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c65EsngpABY
Gregg L. DesElms
Napa, California USA
gregg at greggdeselms dot com
Anyone reading this who's a liberal/progessive and who isn't arguing in favor of 2nd Amendment rights (and so, therefore, against such as gun control)...
...in other words, anyone who's on the correct side of this argument (that being in favor of gun control and all that that implies), is welcome to use all or part of the above as long as this page is somehow linked back to, or referenced, if possible, in the process. If it's not possible, though, don't let that stop you from using the above however you must in order to make the points. Getting the points made is more important than who gets credit.
