In this case, I am referring to the Supreme Court hearing arguments on the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment, as written in the Constitution, is as follows... "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." (Note that third and last comma.)
A year or so ago, I was arguing with a person over the meaning of the Second Amendment -- whether or not the amendment provides rights for a militia, and not individual gun rights -- when he pulled out a pocket Constitution, seemingly out of nowhere. Who carries these?
I leafed through the pocket Constitution and to my surprise (or not), the Second Amendment was printed incorrectly. It read, "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." Notice the difference? Without that third comma, the meaning seems different. It now seems like a list of freedoms, rather than a description of one. (I wonder if all pocket Constitutions have this flaw, since the entire pocket Constitution industry caters to the gun nut crowd, and it probably helps their sales.)
In the correct reading of the Second Amendment (should I be capitalizing this?), the amendment states that "a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed." It describes that a militia is "necessary to the security of a free state" and that a militia provides "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." It's pretty simple when you break it down.
I know I've written this before, maybe not exactly, but at least in part or in spirit.
In 2003, in my second month of blogging, I blogged... "The conservatives, the portion of this society that is tough on crime, believes the mention of the 'right to bear arms' in the 2nd Amendment allows for despicable creatures free access to cop-killer bullets. Where do cop-killer bullets fit in to the security of a free state? Where do cop killer bullets fit into a well regulated militia? The 2nd Amendment states: 'A well regulated militia, [...]' The amendment in its entirety states a whole purpose, not reckless abandon of order."
In October 2005, I blogged one of my favorite posts, Guide To Determine If Your Talking To A Conservative, in which I wrote... "If [conservatives] cannot defend the gun industry (few can) they certainly won't fight against them. The second amendment may say nothing about owning guns and everything about well-organized militias, but the third amendment was right on: our government cannot force the quartering of her troops in our homes. (Sounds harsh, actually.)"
And in March 2006, in a post about George Mason, I started, "I have long made the argument that the second amendment says everything about the right to a well-regulated militia and nothing about the right to own guns, and I stand by that today."
No wonder I feel deja vu when items like this come across the headlines. I've blogged about it before -- more than once -- and I am not sure if I should re-blog my same opinion, or if I should only blog the subject if my opinion changes, or if I should simply point links to past content.
Either way, on this particular issue, the Court will most likely strike down the D.C. handgun ban, without validating the meaning of the Second Amendment, and we will be discussing this same issue again in a few years, and I will wonder then, just like now, if I have ever blogged about this before.
Labels: law
