Today saw yet another of the Nation’s sad plethora of school tragedies. In this occurrence, two young children were murdered and 19 were seriously injured, as reported by the national media. The horrific event was another painfully exasperating tribute to the confluence of pathological lust for profits by the gun industry and their lethal, propagandic program of misleading the Nation, sadly, inclusive of citizens and the misled government, of the purported existence of a constitutional right to bear arms. We have been puzzled and greatly disturbed by the ubiquitous acceptance of this false and tragically lethal chestnut.
The tactically intentional perversion and induced understanding of the Second Amendment’s language, purportedly, to grant the legal franchise to the “People” to bear arms, has been successfully employed in a distorted, propagandic interpretation, analogously hateful, and perhaps more lethally effective than the radio efforts of Japan’s “Tokyo Rose” during the Second World War. To exacerbate our outrage and frustration, we still impatiently await; an exposition of the truly intended legal intent of the relevant constitutional provision, which, to no degree, grants a franchise to the American citizen to own a gun.
What we find especially endlessly unnerving and frustrating is that, a mere cursory reading or, reasonable familiarity with the Nation’s early formative history would easily be convincing of the context and situational application of the relevant grant endorsed by the subject Amendment. Our irrepressible anger and systemic angst are fueled by the rational presumption that, despite any publically tactical statements of purported constitutional legality, all parties, including the profit-seeking and irresponsible gun industry, know it; such information being readily accessible..
It requires but a cursory reading of early American history, contemporaneous with the inclusion of the thematic, “Gun Rights” Second Amendment, to conclude that it does not, in fact, grant American citizens the right to own and operate firearms.
The specific intent of the Second Amendment, instead, related to the early formation of the Nation, relating to the historical,-roiling debate between the “Federalists” who favored a central government and the opposing believers in the singular sovereignty of the individual States (“States Rights”).
The historically established, definitional right of sovereignty essentially consisted of the authority to raise and maintain an army. The Nation’s early dispute over Federal versus separate State sovereignty was empirically resolved, as provided in the Constitution’s Second Amendment, which articulates the parties’ compromise; providing for a central government albeit with the right of the individual States (“the People”) to raise and maintain independent standing militias which had the right to “bear arms.” The “People,” The written words, singularly referred to the subject grant to the individual States of the right to arm their federally authorized militia; it is inaccurate and irrational to contend that the kindly, peaceful and benevolent Founders intended to franchise the entire American citizenry with the right to be gun-slingers.
The Nation does not need gun control; it desperately needs the forbidding of these ghastly instruments whose sole utility is grievous human injury and death.. We are inconsolably distressed at the accessibility of the accurate history and the false and sociopathic propaganda of gun proponents. We may be more frustrated at our fellow gun opponents, especially the so-called “pundits” in failing to employ the remedial. historical solution.
-p-
plinyblogdotcom 