Number Two With A Bullet January 10, 2011Posted by voolavex in common sense, despicable, illegal, peasants, Politics & Religion, Scalia, Social Issues.
Tags: 2nd amendment, bear arms, choix du roi, framers, guns
Twelve years ago my husband was pistol whipped where he worked. The assailant hit him several time on the left side of his head leaving him with a closed head trauma, permanent disability, severe headaches and laundry lists of ongoing side effects that have gotten worse instead of better. For many years we thought this injury was caused by a closed fist until an eyewitness mentioned it had been a gun butt that was used. The men were armed. That is the full disclosure part.
When the framers wrote our constitution the second amendment was logical to me. A war had just been fought, trespass and killings still were a part of the landscape of 1776. Added to that many Americans shot for food. Disallowing guns to me seemed like a bad idea. I often think today we confuse the framers with the store front fortune tellers who can see all and tell all for a price. The men who wrote the constitution were not seers. They did not appear to have divine vision neither did they claim to have insider future info that guided them. I think they wrote a damn fine outline for a new and revolutionary country. An untried experiment. Until the American and French revolted royalty pretty much called the shots and it was an iffy business. In France (pre-1789), the birth of prince and then a princess was called the “choix du roi”. First you have an heir and then you marry off your daughter to another crown prince and gain more of everything. Marie Antoinette was an arch duchess of Austria. So one of the jobs of the framers was to abolish this entitlement of one ruling class and make everyone equal (sort of). What I’m not sure of is how long they expected this country to last or grow. Certain inalienable rights however were declared and bearing arms was one of them. You did not have to be a soldier of the king to strike fear into people who threatened your sovereignty.
Sadly the folks who like to shoot guns and desire to own and wear them are not always the good citizens. The bad guys too are equally entitled to have them. The 2nd amendment said nothing about shooting nor did it specify under what circumstances the arms could be used. Talk about your open to interpretation clause. The framers simply (I think) did not want Mr. John Q. American to be invaded by gun-toting foreigners who were going to steal their land and freedom. And I agree.
I am confused today about guns and gun laws and killers (well – not the killers). I do not own a gun for one reason only. I fear I would use it and I do not want that responsibility. Like the bell, once the bullet leaves the chamber it has its own path and once it’s on it, people can get hurt or killed. Like yesterday. So while I respect the second amendment for its desire to protect Americans from all enemies, foreign and domestic – I am not sure enough people really understand and truly respect the amendment and how profound it is. We live in confusing times. And as an aside – I think it is time for SCOTUS member Scalia to have at least the Minnesota Multiphasic