Did you ever wonder what it was those assault rifle toting NRA libertarians were getting so upset about? If I recall I think its the second amendment which 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.

Now its always been my opinion that the aforementioned libertarians thought their militia was to defend themselves from the government. That's why they always got so upset when the government tried to take away their right to bear arms. But isn't this amendment really about enabling the people to defend the freedom of the State?

Maybe I'm a little confused about what it means by "the State", is it "State" as in one of the States in the United States, or State as in the nation State also know as The United States of America? Regardless, doesn't it mean the people have carte blanche to do what it needs to do to defend the country from all threats to it? If a cabal of misanthropes and corporations conspires together to bring down the State then shouldn't the people be ready to bear arms to defend it?

Well, call me a radical but having just read Garrison Keillor's "We're Not in Lake Wobegon Anymore" that was the impression I got. He says:

"The Union is what needs defending this year ... This is a great country, and it wasn’t made so by angry people. We have a sacred duty to bequeath it to our grandchildren in better shape than however we found it. We have a long way to go and we’re not getting any younger."

Now if that wasn't a call to arms then I don't know what is.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment