This latest mass-shooting the USA, despite suggestions of political culpability, is really a product of this so-called ‘right to bear arms.’ But how many of the US defenders of that ‘right’ are aware of the actual wording of the infamous Second Amendment? The key passage is:
"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.”
Clearly the Amendment was to support the existence of a citizen militia in those formative years after the War of Independence. Further, the 1792 Militia Act required all ‘free, able-bodies, white, male citizen’ between ages 18 and 45 to be enrolled in their local militia.
This US militia is long gone. It has a massive regular defence force, supplemented by its National Guard. There is no need for the citizens militia any longer and the concept of mandatory service outside of wartime is long gone from the US statute books. So why retain this massively outdated amendment?
Exactly how does having enough guns present to make it easy for gang bangers to go armed for drive-by shootings, support a free state? Or enough guns to make it easy for depressed teenagers to go on shooting rampages at their school? Or an eight year-old being able to play with an Uzi sub-machine gun at a gun show and blow his head apart? Or this latest deranged man having access to the firepower to kill and injure people at a political rally?
Surely it is time for the US to show some real leadership for a change and finally do something about gun control?
Ironically, the subject of Saturday’s attack, Gabrielle Giffords, claims to own a 9mm Glock pistol, stating she is “a pretty good shot.”