Having just read the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution the umpteenth time, I’ve reaffirmed the wording is as mirky as mud water.
“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.”
Nevertheless, we know what the amendment was intended to say: That the founding fathers of America recognized that in order to maintain a free and secure country it was necessary for its citizenry to have guns.
Is the 2nd Amendment still necessary?
I’m a defender of the Constitution and have a DD-214 to prove it, but this is one amendment that should have been revisited by lawmakers a long time ago. Ions before everyone started packing weapons and the newsfeed was filled with multiple mass-shootings every weekend.
Here’s the obvious reason why the 2nd Amendment needs to be updated: We haven’t needed a militia since America gained her independence and don’t need a militia today because we have a well-equipped military force.
This commonsense rationale should wipe out the primary reason used by those who are adamant about fighting to preserve their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. But of course, no commonsense reason will.
Because many Americans hate their own government. In other words, they’re stockpiling guns while under the spell of a conspiracy that their own government is the enemy. Which means, they also believe many of their fellow citizens are the enemy.
This is unpatriotic
While there are a few countries in the world where its people live under authoritarian rule, America is not one of them—not yet anyway. Our government, to include its various branches and the people who serve in them, don’t represent our enemies.
So, contrary to right-wing propaganda, it’s unpatriotic to believe otherwise. There’s nothing patriotic about distrusting our governmental institutions, discrediting the role of our intelligence agencies, being unsupportive of our military and its personnel, or hating one’s neighbors because they align themselves with a particular political party.
—Yes, there are plenty of good reasons to keep a watchful eye over what our government is doing. Our government functions to serve the will of the people. But there is no evidence to suggest it has become as corrupt as a third-world dictatorship.
What would Jesus say about the 2nd Amendment?
I don’t presume to know, except that Jesus hinted to his disciples that sometimes having a few weapons on hand might be useful for personal protection.
Paraphrasing Luke 22:36-38 . . .
Jesus said to his disciples, “I need all of you to go out and buy swords. Use the money in your purse or sell your clothing to buy one. The reason is, it was prophesied that people will treat me as though I were a criminal, and they might try to harm me. That time has come, and we will need weapons to keep ourselves safe.” A few of the disciples replied, Lord, check it out. We already have two swords!” And Jesus said, “that’s enough weaponry to meet our needs.”
Note: Jesus did not tell his disciples to go out and put together an army, and fill the nearby caves with swords, spears and slingshots so they could defend themselves. Why? Because Jesus was sensible enough to know that it was not his role as a spiritual leader to overthrow the government or to compel people to follow his gospel by force.
Let this be a lesson to the members of anti-government extremist’s groups operating in America who do so under the guise of Christianity.
I mentioned above about how unpatriotic it is not to support America and its institutions. It’s also irrational for a person to think they could succeed at toppling the American government by force. To reiterate, America is defended by the greatest of military weaponry and soldiers in history. Only a fool or group of misfits thinks they could ever stockpile enough weapons to topple our democracy.
It’s time to ban assault weapons
Back in the Old Testament the story is told of the young boy David defeating Goliath with a sling and rock. In 1776, Americans fought for independence with a crude rifle called a musket. In the past 200 years gun manufacturers have invented a slew of flesh-ripping, stomach-piercing, mind-blowing forms of lethal weapons. These days, assault weapons and high-capacity cartridges are the preferred choice of weapon for mass-shooters and a few gun lovers alike.
Questions to ponder:
In 1791 when the 2nd Amendment was written, Americans were given the right to have muskets. Many claim this right now extends to possessing assault weapons. In the coming years what level of lethal weaponry will Americans claim falls under the protection of the 2nd Amendment?
In other words, will defenders of the 2nd Amendment tomorrow argue that citizens have the right to own a M-1 Abrams tank? The PHASR rifle? A fleet of MQ9 Reaper drones?
Does keeping the 2nd Amendment mean that citizens must always arm themselves with the quality and quantity of arsenal that we have allowed to flood our streets and neighborhoods?