Second Amendmen't / 2-10-11

Just in time for Valentine's Day, a post on guns. Because how better to express your love than with the gift of violence?

Self-inspired by my thoughts on what God isn't, (yes, I do know how self-absorbed that sounds), this is a post on what the Second Amendment does NOT state.

Oh, I know what it SAYS all right. I have it memorized; after a certain number of debates, that's advisable. (You can believe me, or you can imagine that I dialed up www.usconstitution.gov/billofrights/amendment2.htm and cut-and-pasted it, but don't do that, because I probably just made that web page up.)

Amendment No. 2 says, "A well regulated militia, being essential to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Alternately, in the version ratified by the states, "A well regulated militia being essential to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Much brainpower has been dedicated to what meaning the commas, or absence of commas, bring to the text. I used to obsess on this topic, but have nothing new to bring to the discussion. Scholars argue that the commas either limit or enhance the amount of individual liberty regarding gun ownership. Naturally, whichever way these brilliant scholars interpret the commas reflects their own bias, or the case they are trying to advance at the time. Curiously, some propose this neat little theory: the commas are inconsequential, that the framers had commarhea, if you will. (Groan.)

No, commas are boring. (Disclaimer: I love this book, which is the second result on Google auto-complete if you enter "Eats.") Instead, I want to waste my time tonight doing some more of that negative thinking. I'm putting up a list of erroneous conclusions that can be drawn from the Bill of Rights, Chapter Two. Then at the end, I'll offer my own interpretation of the text, because I can't help myself.

The Second Amendment does NOT say:

"Return your guns to the government."

"You can have as many semi-automatic submachineguns as you want."

"A waiting period for handguns must be in place."

"Federal legislation supersede local laws."

"Militias are awesome! Go put one together! And government oversight is optional."

"Heavily regulated ownership of firearms make our country safer."

"An armed society is a polite society."

"Because the government owns stealth bombers and nuclear submarines, our collective security is assured, and we should all get rid of our hunting rifles."

"City handgun bans are unconstitutional."

"Concealed weapons in bars, that sounds like a good idea."

"It is illegal to hunt deer with an AK-47."

"Anyone can keep and bear a Glock."

That was fun.

What DOES it say, though? I'm roughly 10 percent as smart as the dumbest guy in the room at the time they were concocting the Bill of Rights. Therefore, I'm qualified to paraphrase. (The commonly accepted threshold for bloggers is 0 percent.)

The best I can come up with is:

"Threats to our collective security abound, not only on the national level, but also on the borders of our states, and from even within our own population. It is evident that a tyrannical government might still arise from our experiment in representative democracy, as we are embarking on a seldom-traveled political journey while living on a continent populated with both friends and enemies. For these reasons, it is vital to our survival that reasonably regulated armies of citizens be allowed to form. It follows, logically, that citizens may own firearms."

Discuss.

Observacations / 1-17-11

Been out of the office for a while. But now, break time's over, ladies and laddies.

So, did anything happen since we last spoke?

Oh. Uh-huh. Mm. 'K.

Well then, I'll touch on three topics, but not at once, because my attention span isn't what it used...

Yeah. Three rounds of politics today. A sports trifecta tomorrow. Spirituality season starts Wednesday. Then we'll be all caught up, you and me.

HOLY BEDFELLOWS, BATMAN

Well, in smack-myself-across-the-forehead news, I found myself, this holiday season, agreeing with -- wait for it -- Pat -- wait for it some more, juuust a little tiny bit more -- Robertson. Not once, but twice.

The first time was no shocker: When P-Rob declared that 2011 would not mark the end of the world, I co-nodded graciously. (No matter how many times a public figure says God likes to kill people for other people's behavior [here's your link, you're welcome], there comes a time when something resembling reason is bound to exit his speaking organs.) And after all, the man has probably read his Mayan Calendar 2012 (365 apocalyptic thoughts for every situation, $399.95 on Amazon.con), so best check back in with him for all your Armageddon needs in a year.

But the second time he and I linked minds... that was stupefying. Said Robertson: "I just believe that criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of a few ounces of pot and that kind of thing, I mean, it's just costing us a fortune and it's ruining young people." Even after his spokesman managed to float a near-lie to backtrack, claiming Pat "unequivocally stated that he is against the use of illegal drugs," I find myself aghast at my tattered and shredded view of the religio-conservative icon. He even went on to suggest that treatment, not incarceration, could be a better reaction to weed possession.

For twenty years, I've denounced the man. (Get it? 420 years?) And now he does this? Jerk.

That one took me a while to recover from.

RAINBOW WARRIORS

Speaking of things that failed to cause the end of civilization, discrimination against gay soldiers is officially on its way out. And none too soon. Turns out that the judicial, legislative and executive branches all have struck it down; thus, the DoD is phasing it out over the next few months. Let's be real: polling shows that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Do Discriminate" (not the policy's actual name) had fallen seriously out of favor with a vast majority of the population. As such, the policy's demise was inevitable, but nonetheless, I'd like to advance a theory that casts Democrats in a favorable light here.

I submit:

House Democrats, late in the lame-duck session, cleverly fooled congressional Republicans into believing they would block the extension of the Baby Bush tax cuts for another two years. This after the Senate had declined to consider lifting DADT. AND after President Obama had come out supporting a tax cut extension, however tepidly. But what did the outgoing House D's have to lose? They were already about to lose their majority -- at least they could go down swinging while satisfying the far left. (Me!) While pissing off incoming Weeper of the House John "Boo-Hoo" Boehner (R-Ocryo).

Well, when negotiators discussed how to break the impasse, Democrats said that another vote in the Senate on DADT would probably pacify. Republicans, knowing popular opinion would only continue to cut against them, and wishing to fry other fish in the upcoming session, acquiesced, and framed the issue to cast moderate Republicans (in blue states) as the driving force.

And DADT dies.

It's a pretty theory. One that allows my wing to look good, and astute, too, while much, much, much more importantly, concluding another contemptible chapter in Amalgamated American Institutional Discrimination Against Gays, Inc.

CIVILITEA PARTY

In the wake of yet another mass shooting (yes, I'm gingerly approaching the Tucson mess), the usual voices have made / will make themselves heard.

"We need more gun control!" (True, but get real.)

"We need more guns!" (Seriously?)

"Give him the death penalty!" (Iron. E.)

"It's her fault!" (Not the time or place, idjits.)

"It's not my fault!" (Shut up.)

"He's a right-wing terrorist!" (5... 4... 3... 2... 1...)

"He's a left-wing terrorist!" (Toldja.)

"What we need is more civility." (Pshaw--wait, what?)

We'll get more civility in our political discourse, actually. Just like we did after 9/11. Then with the distance of time, we'll revert to our hyper-partisan ways, present company included, and it'll be as if Tucson never happened. Then, fatalistically, the process will restart with another tragedy. You can hope that it doesn't take place in your neighborhood. Good luck with that.

Happy New Year.

144 or Less, Vol. VI / 11-28-10

Openly Gay Republican Running For GOP Presidential Nomination! Read All About It!

My confidential sources tell me it's possible to be homosexual AND a functional member of the Republican Party. Besides, in an ironic twist, the Democratic president's Justice Department is currently fighting a conservative group (the Log Cabin Republicans) for the right to keep enforcing the military's homophobic DADT policy. More on that some wordier day.

Which got me thinking: what would disqualify one from capturing the Republican nomination? Badmouthing the NRA, I'd think.

Which got me thinking: if the gun nuts run the R caucus, which interest group owns the D party? My conclusion: the teachers' union.

Which got me thinking: I'd much rather be held hostage by the people trying to educate the country than by the people trying to put bullets in anything that moves.

(Word count: 142)

Park yer gun / 5-20-09

"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."

Or:

"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."

Both are "official" versions of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Perhaps you've heard of it.) Bonus trivia: there are two versions above because Congress passed the first, the states ratified the second.

Reasonable people disagree on the precise meaning of each term and each clause. If you're on the side that claims the Second Amendment gives ordinary citizens the right to have a gun or two or more, I have to give you your due and say that's a legitimate reading of the text. I mean, it DOES say "shall not be infringed" right after the part where it presumably grants people the right of gun ownership. I do have rudimentary literacy skills, and I'm not in complete denial.

Still, punctuation matters, and so I'd like to offer that the right to "keep and bear arms" is contingent on the necessity for a militia. (And a well-regulated one at that.) To be brief, the first 13 words matter as much as the last 14. Prove to me this country's security depends on a militia of private citizens, and I will drop all argument. Until then, I do NOT think the Second Amendment bestows on pretty much everyone the right to own a gun.

But again, you do have the words of the text on your side and all I have is interpretation, so I can't very well say you're definitively wrong.

OK, now that our detour is complete, let's get on with it: Both houses of Congress have now cleared the way for citizens to legally carry loaded and concealed firearms into national parks.

I should be more upset about this, but I'm not. I should be foaming at the mouth, enraged at the NRA's repugnant takeover of a supposedly Democratic-controlled legislative branch. Except I think it's good legislation, from a purely constitutional point of view, if you believe strongly in individual gun rights.

I think it's horrible legislation on its face, and it makes me more reluctant to take my family camping in a national park, but if you believe the Second Amendment provides rights, and if you think concealed weapons should be legal for qualifying Americans, then you kind of should not mess with that right.

Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn (yes, he's a Republican) snuck this in as an amendment to the hugely popular credit-card consumer rights bill that passed this past week; since President Obama insisted that the main bill get to him quickly, the Democratic congressional "leadership" elected to not start the whole process over again. Coburn brazenly said, on the Senate floor no less, that the move "isn't a gotcha amendment." Okay.

And existing state laws trump the new gun law, so there's always that to fall back on.

In the end, though, people will die as a result of this legislation. We'll see if that ends up mattering.