Friday, May 11, 2012

Guns, Guns, Guns!

Here's the thing, nobody's doing ANYTHING to Nugent. Since President Obama took office, NO federal gun laws have changed one bit, and no cases have been decided related to gun laws by the Supreme Court. He's the one having a giant, violence inciting hissy fit for absolutely no reason ... well there are obvious reasons, but I'm not going to get into that.

Here's what I will get into - I think it would be a good idea for people to actually understand the 2nd Amendment.

The "right to bear arms" has nothing whatsoever to do with personal defense or hunting. Let's take a look at the meaning of the amendment when it was actually written, as originalists like Justice Scalia are so fond of doing. Having a gun during the time of the founding fathers was a given. People couldn't survive in that wild land without guns to hunt and defend themselves against wild animals, native American attacks, etc.

No, The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not talking about defending yourself against bears or burglars. They are talking about "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."

Here's the problem with that, case law has established that the legal definition of "arms" is anything you can carry in your arms. The founding fathers certainly never foresaw nuclear weapons, missile launchers, etc. All the handguns in the world are not going to stop those weapons. So, if you were to follow the founders meaning to it's modern equivalent, then by that logic, yes, your neighbor should be able to have a rocket launcher in his garage, and you can build a missile silo in your back yard. I sure as hell don't want to live on that street. Imagine what Ted Nugent would do with those weapons.

By the same token, concealed weapons, are not something the founders would have envisioned as a necessity of "a well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state." That's utterly absurd.

The Constitution is not some infallible, sacred document that cannot be improved with time and advancements. Otherwise, I'd still be a non-person who is little more than a piece of property in this country. I've heard many times that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact," and "it is a living document." I believe both of those things to be absolutely true, and if the founders were alive today, they most certainly would not want their neighbors having missile silos in their back yards. That would be insane.

However, the founders are not alive today - we are. We are the self-governed. They gave us a great foundation for liberty, and some pretty terrific ideas. It is up to US to maintain and nurture what they started, and we're doing a pretty sh*tty job IMO. Not since The Civil War have we been so polarized, and usually based on nothing of substance. In fact, we seem to think polarization IS governing and refusing to compromise or think for ourselves is patriotism. Nothing could be farther from the true. WE are our country, not so much dirt and trees, and WE are our government. It's what we do together, as a government, for the common good - that's what patriotism is all about, what we have in common, not out disagreements. I can't figure out how that got so confused.