Rights, Responsibilities, and Red Herrings

One day, early in my adulthood, my father took me outside into the woods behind our home in rural Connecticut. He brought with him an antique over-under Remington rifle. He fired a shot at a red oak about 30 yards away, handed me the rifle, and told me to shoot at the mark. After I fired, he took the rifle back from me, and we walked back to the house.

I am sharing this story to convey to you that I am not opposed to mentally competent citizens owning firearms for the purpose of hunting, sport, or even self-protection. I am opposed to a misconstrued interpretation of the Second Amendment for the purpose of 'arming' the masses, with weaponry that goes beyond hunting, sport and self-protection, for the purpose of creating a red herring of chaos and fear.

The Second Amendment grants the right of a well regulated militia. Implicit in this statement is the notion that the right to bear arms requires responsibility. The right of ordinary citizens to bear arms is for the purpose of forming a well regulated militia should it become necessary to do so. And the purpose of the militia is to provide emergency law enforcement, to protect a community, its territory, and laws. The Second Amendment does not give ordinary citizens and crackpots the right to bear arms for the purpose of committing acts of terror and sedition.

Currently, gun laws are regulated, often not so well, by individual states within the framework of existing federal firearms laws. Since no one, including Palin, Huckabee, and McConnell, wants to violate the Constitution, and put weaponry in the hands of crackpots and anti-government individuals, let's set up a militia, similar to the ROTC, in each state. In order for an individual to exercise his right to bear arms, he or she must serve in a WELL REGULATED militia. In these times of economic woe, I'm sure all states will welcome the voluntary services of these American patriots.