Okay — let’s take another look at the second amendment. It says, “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.”
Let’s leave aside the “well regulated militia” clause for a moment, which in my mind clearly establishes the government’s authority to regulate arms — and what would a militia be without arms? As the NRA and its field representatives (otherwise known as legislators) keep reminding us, the second amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Notice — it says “arms,” not “guns.”
As we all know, the government already regulates arms, everything from automatic rifles and machine guns to nuclear weapons. Some restricted small arms may be available with special permits, but no one gets to keep and bear a rocket-propelled grenade or an A-bomb. And everyone I know seems fine with this arrangement.
Which takes me back to the “well regulated militia” part, because regulating a whole host of weapons is totally in keeping with the second amendment. Restricting the sale of “assault-style” weapons would be no more unconstitutional than restricting the sale of an Abrams tank or an F-18.
But of course all this is far too logical for staunch “second amendment” supporters to wrap their heads around. Even legislators in the NRA’s pocket won’t admit to understanding this rationale, although some of them may secretly acknowledge its truth.
So the bottom line is this: the government either has the right to regulate all arms if it sees fit, or none. If you vote for “none,” you may have another reason to avoid walking on your neighbor’s lawn — because it might be mined.
Liberal Buzz 