Ah the Second Amendment, the one most likely to be misinterpreted, misunderstood or not even read at all by those spouting their 'right to bear arms' rationale.
Consider this article.... At Starbucks, Gun Owners Push Right To Bear Arms...Dale Welch recently walked into a Starbucks in Virginia, handgun strapped to his waist, and ordered a banana Frappuccino with a cinnamon bun. He says the firearm drew a double-take from at least one customer, but not a peep from the baristas. The article goes on to explain that there are people who want to exercise their alleged right to bear arms, even in a public place and private property. Now, I don't know about you but I would find someone coming into any establishment carrying a firearm just a little unnerving. I mean, what is your first thought? Law Enforcement? Maybe. Criminal? Maybe. A jerk acting 'big'? Maybe. Law abiding citizen showing off his weapon just to prove a point? Not likely. I mean, what do we know about this person? Does this person even have the 'right' to carry a weapon like that? What do you do, call the Police and have them come and check the guy out? How would the Police handle a person carrying a weapon into say, a Starbucks and a patron calls 911? Are we not asking for trouble? If carrying a weapon becomes common-place, there won't be enough Police to investigate these kinds of calls, so I would imagine that criminal would pick up on this and figure, why not? It's so commonplace that now one would even question it. Is there a danger looming? I think so.
Interestingly, I cannot walk into a public or private place and light up a cigarette in most places in this country. Hell, I cannot smoke where I live, yet cigarettes are legal and regulated with more stringent rules than firearms. In fact cigarettes are taxed by far greater than firearms and firearm supplies. Yet both are 'legal'. Oddly, I could carry a Bushmaster into a Starbucks and that would be okay, but walk in with the weapon and fire up a cigarette, well we all know what would happen. The question remains, which is more threatening? 33% of those folks would not be intimidated or threatened by me lighting up. How many of the people in a Starbucks would feel intimidated or threatened or maybe a little scared by the sight of a weapon that 'looks' like an assault rifle?
Food for thought.
Oh, the Second Amendment reads..."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 for an example of what was considered a 'well regulated militia'.
An Act for the better regulating and disciplining the Militia, April 1757:
"WHEREAS it is necessary, in this time of danger, that the militia of this colony should be well regulated and disciplined...And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That every person so as aforesaid inlisted (except free mulattoes, negroes, and Indians) shall be armed in the manner following, that is to say: Every soldier shall he furnished with a firelock well fixed, a bayonet fitted to the same, a double cartouch-box, and three charges of powder, and constantly appear with the same at the time and place appointed for muster and exercise, and shall also keep at his place of abode one pound of powder and four pounds of ball, and bring the same with him into the field when he shall be required...And for the better training and exercising the militia, and rendering them more serviceable, Be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That every captain shall, once in three months, and oftner if thereto required by the lieutenant or chief commanding officer in the county, muster, train, and exercise his company, and the lieutenant or other chief commanding officer in the county shall cause a general muster and exercise of all the companies within his county, to be made in the months of March or April, and September or October, yearly; and if any soldier shall, at any general or private muster, refuse to perform the command of his officer, or behave himself refractorily or mutinously, or misbehave himself at the courts martial to be held in pursuance of this act, as is herein after directed, it shall and may be lawful to and for the chief commanding officer, then present, to cause such offender to be tied neck and heels, for any time not exceeding five minutes, or inflict such corporal punishment as he shall think fit, not exceeding twenty lashes.
Now, as many learned people know, the National Guard replaced the state militias. However if the Second Amendment folks would rather use contemporary, for the time interpretation of a militia and the armaments requirements, I am all for it. I particularily like the twenty lashes part.
No comments:
Post a Comment