Different ways to interpret the 2nd Amendment

I wrote this a couple of years ago.  Figured that today would be a good time for a re-post. 

There's usually a lot of noise and confusion surrounding the 2nd Amendment, the section in our Bill Of Rights which, in my opinion, gives me the right to own guns. 

The amendment reads 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.


There it is, sitting in the second seat of the bus, with all the other restrictions on government power. 
Every other bullet point in the Bill Of Rights is designed to limit the power of government in relation to the governed, and we drift off into silliness when we try to see Amendment #2 through any other lens.   The 2nd Amendment, just like all the others, is meant to protect us from government, just like the other nine amendments in the Bill Of Rights. 

Unfortunately, after years of court cases brought by the Nanny State, this is how many of us now see the original intent of the amendment:

Since our government needs an army to preserve freedom and ward off foreign invaders, we grudgingly admit that members of our primitive Citizen Militias should be allowed to own weapons. 

And since we no longer have a Citizen Militia that has to get out of bed in the middle of the night to fight the Redcoats, we no longer have a need for guns in our homes.  Or so they would have us believe. 

The guys who composed the Bill Of Rights wanted to put some severe limits on government power.  They knew that if left unchecked, without ironclad protections, the governing class would try to restrict freedom.  I don't understand the mindset of nannies and busybodies, but the last 10 years have seen an alarming rise in those pesky species of political varmints.   Most libertarians share that concern with The Founders.  Mostly because they believe that the 2nd Amendment, just like all the others, is meant to protect us from government, just like the other nine amendments in the Bill Of Rights !!

Go here and browse through the complete Bill Of Rights.  Look at how they're worded.  Many of them have a little disclaimer that grudgingly admit that, dammit, some level of government is necessary.  But look at the phrases used:

....but in a manner prescribed by law.
....but upon probable cause....
....unless on a presenment or indictment....
....shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


In these amendments, The Founders are saying that because of the necessary evils of courts, trials, responses to emergencies, and the occasional need to search a house, there are going to be certain rules in place to ensure that government doesn't go too far. 

In Amendment #2, The Founders agree that the government needs a militia.  The militia is a necessary evil, no more, no less. 
But because the government gets to have a militia, and government always needs to be held in check, guess what?  Well, the right of everyone else to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 
Here's an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that I believe is much closer to the original intent:

Since a government militia is an unfortunate necessity, and we have a distrust of government in all its forms, the citizens who are not members of the militia have a duty to keep and bear arms.  Just in case the government's militia starts getting uppity. 

If you read that version in the context of the other nine government restraints in the Bill Of Rights, the wording makes a lot more sense, doesn't it? 

The 2nd Amendment cartoon came from here. 

Get your kids and small animals out of the room before watching this one

In which Bill Moyers gives Paul Krugman a nice, long, loving tongue-bath. Not for the faint of heart. Warning: toward the end of the video, both men praise the Depression era's WPA art projects.

Trickle Down Economics Doesn't Work

Between bars, taverns, restaurants, Facebook, McDonald's drive-thru's, and work, I somehow find myself in arguments with lots of Statists. 

After they get through saying GEORGE W. BUSH!!!! and SARAH PALIN!!! they will usually say something about the need to protect us all from Big Bidness.  I usually hit that one out of the park.  Big Bidness doesn't send me an invoice for a huge chunk of my income every year. 

If the discussion goes on long enough, Obama's Representative Of The Sheeple will then go waaaaay back into his talking points database and triumphantly say TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS DOESN'T WORK !!!!!!!!!, and then sit down, exhausted, the way Leonard Bernstein used to crumple at the podium after conducting Beethoven's 9th, letting the waves of adoration and applause wash over him. 

Here's how you respond:

Sir, I agree somewhat, but would like to expound on that a bit.  "Trickle Down Economics" isn't an economic phrase, it was just a marketing phrase for a government policy.  "Government Involvement In The Economy" is what doesn't work. 

When Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi gave out billions and billions and billions to big banks and big corporations in the form of The Stimulus Package (instead of just cutting a check to each of us little people for $6,000.00), it was because they believed that "Trickle Down Economics" works. 

Same thing for what The Fed is doing with the money supply. 

Neither of those is working. 

You're right, sir.  "Trickle Down Economics" doesn't work.

The Statist will act like he didn't hear a word you said, and will then reply "But Who Will Build The Roads?" 
Keep fighting the good fight, folks !!!

A long rant about Paul Krugman

If Barack Obama/Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid and Co. were to break into Fort Knox, throw all the gold into the Atlantic,  then shoot the CEO of every Productive (i.e.  non-green) company, and then, as a follow-up, pour radioactive waste into every functioning oil well in North America, I wonder what Paul Krugman of the New York Holy Times would do to justify it.  Because he would find a way to justify it.    

If the only way to hire one more government bureaucrat involved adding 3 trillion to the national debt, selling our children to China as household slaves, and worsening the condition of every low income family in the nation, I wonder what Paul Krugman would write to justify it. 

Because he would find a way to justify it. 

There are people in politics that I admire.  I think Ron Paul is as close as they come to being an American hero.  But he plugged in the occasional earmark here and there.  Ask him why, and he'll say that that's how the game is played.   It's what the system requires.  He shouldn't have done the earmarks. 

He also should've paid more attention to his newsletters in the 80's, and not allowed any racist commentary to get in.  If you want to be president, you've gotta keep your eye on the ball. 

See???  I just criticized Ron Paul.  I think it helps my objectivity a bit. 

I think the world of former New Mexico governor and LP presidential candidate Gary Johnson, and would probably volunteer to be the mother of his next child.  But I totally disagree with his stance on privatizing prisons, and I don't care how much money it saved the state of New Mexico.  The government should have a monopoly on initiating force.  It's that simple.  I think Gary Johnson is wrong, wrong, wrong on this issue. 

But Paul Krugman?  If Barack Obama were to start locking up people for bing left-handed, confiscating their illegally earned left-handed incomes, and sending them to Montana for "re-education", I truly believe that Paul Krugman would write a column about how this will eventually help the economy. 

Jesus Christ Almighty, what a puppet....