How We Eat Ourselves Alive

The country gets all wrapped up in the stupidest questions.

The Supreme Court meets today, to

clarify for the first time what the "the right to bear arms" means in the U.S. Constitution's second amendment.

Supporters of gun rights say the constitutional amendment is an endorsement of the individual's right to own a gun. But proponents of gun control laws say the "right to bear arms" refers to a state's right to have an armed militia. -- VOA, 18 Mar 08

So if you believe you are a liberal and thus enlightened enough to understand that the Second Amendment refers only to "well-organized" militias (i.e. the National Guard), tell me why the First Amendment doesn't apply only to well-organized (i.e. well-financed and state-sanctioned) media outlets? Why is the First an individual right if the Second is not?

The wording confuses some people.

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.

That is the wording passed by Congress. As ratified by the States, it is a little clearer.

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.

Either way, the question is raised as to the relevance in the modern world. Our well-ordered and civil society, with its thorough courts and professional policemen and fringe of nuclear weapons, really doesn't need every man to be a Minuteman. In other words, we never again need to watch out for our neighbors. Trust the anonymous men in body armor, they are here for our protection.

Sorry, I get ahead of myself. I look at other countries and go, hmm, that could happen here some day. Obviously I'm crazy. Too much imagination. Should take a pill and sleep it off. Let's all just sleep. That's the ticket.