Saturday, February 12, 2011

“The right to Keep and Bear arms”

< 2nd Amendment, U.S. Constitution >

The interpretation of this one small phrase has been
growing in length and breadth since its penning.
As with the entirety of our Constitution, the imagined
intent of the document’s creators is commonly the
center of any debate regarding said Document.
Historically, this one phrase has allowed some subtle,
and not so subtle, defense of our Country. This is not
going to turn into an American History discussion.
There are four (4) words in “the Right to Keep and
Bear Arms” that should be examined for their
 definition , and probable intent.
v First, the word “Right”; I doubt anyone
           has a skewed assessment of this word.
v Second, the word “Keep”; meaning to
           have, possess, be at the ready, or be
           available for use.
v Third, the word “ Bear”; meaning to
           hold, carry, brandish in self-defense.
v Fourth, the word “Arms”; in this case,
           fire-arms, individual weaponry.
The Federal Government, and to some degree each
State, is charged with the Defense of our Borders
 and Interests. To that end, we have the need for a
standing Defense Force, and, of course, they need to
be sufficiently “armed” to defend our Country against
 any, and all, attacks. It is they, and they alone, who
have the “right” to carry Military style firearms;
semi-automatic, fully automatic, individual or crew-served.
It seems so very obvious that our Founding Fathers did
not intend for Billy Bob Johnson, from Arkansas, to
own and carry a “Glock-9” anti-personnel, assault weapon.
The same rings true for Juan Fredrico Gonzales from
Miami, Antonnio “three fingers” Lapessio, from Brooklyn, NY,
and an unnamed 10 year old from Ohio. There are an
 over-abundance of weapons that do safely and reasonably
 fit this small phrase to a tee. Military and Military style
weaponry is for the Military, not the General Public.
Based on shear numbers, and the realities of enforcing any
sort of restrictive law, there are too many gun purchasers
 and too many guns to attempt prosecution of these levels.
The only logical solution is to restrict the Manufacturers
form distribution of Military style firearms to the Military.
I understand the hurdles of doing this, but the gun
manufacturers in this Country, and abroad, are quite literally
killing us: especially our children.
A piece of the Nation dies with each shooting of each child.

No comments:

Post a Comment