“The right to Keep and Bear arms”

< 2^nd 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.