Defensive
lineman sums up the problem negotiating with National Kneeball League players
Referencing PDJT’s and NKL comish Roger Goodell’s opinion that NKL players should stand for the Anthem, D-lineman Gerald McCoy said: “I think it’s gonna be an uproar if that is to happen because you’re basically taking away a constitutional right to freedom of speech.”
I know when I go to breakfast after church on Sunday
I don’t expect to see a waiter wearing a “F-Catholics” t-shirt - although it’s perfectly
within his right to do so. The only
things preventing that experience are common sense, decency, decorum, respect
for your employer and customers, and the absolute right of the employer to fire
any employee bent on destroying the business.
No doubt, some of these NKL player azzbags will
strike if made act like grown men during the Anthem. Let ‘em. Hire new players and
move on. Half measures will not do
now. That's how ths mess got started. Failure to crush NKL employees who fail to comply will just PO both side and make
the matter worse.
Lex takes on the meaning of the word “militia” in
the Second Amendment
In an interesting letter, John F. McRea believes
that because the National Guard is the militia, and because the grammatical structure
of the one sentence the makes up the entirety of the Second Amendment limits
the right to keep and bear arms to the militia, the language of the Second
Amendment no longer applies.
Lex corrects McRea’s mistaken notion. McRea’s letter is included under Lex’s
response.
Re: John F. McRea’s letter of Oct. 11, 2017,
Second Amendment Due for Modern Review
McRea’s “cause and effect” argument, that
because the National Guard is the militia, the language of the Second Amendment
no longer applies, tells only half the story.
The National Guard is but one element of the
militia codified into US law. The
National Guard is the “organized militia” established by the Militia Act of
1903. McRea conveniently omits the second class of militia established by the Militia
Act, the “unorganized militia.”
“Unorganized” in this case does not mean
haphazard or careless. It means that the militia is not under the control of
state or federal authority thereby making it more in keeping with the founders’
original intent and the historic understanding of the term “militia.”
The proof for this is the dog that is not
barking in the 2nd Amendment:
“A well-regulated
militia being necessary…” The founders
could have just as easily mandated that “A federally
regulated militia being necessary…” They didn’t. The intent was that militias would be
self-regulating local entities outside the control of possibly tyrannical state
and/or federal authorities that the militia might be formed to resist.
That brings to mind the old
adage: Freedom is a government that
fears its citizenry. Tyranny is a citizenry
that fears its government.
McRea’s interesting grammar lesson
aside, unless he or other detractors can point to anywhere else in the
Constitution where the term “the people” refers to something other than eligible
US citizens as a whole, the plain language of the 2nd Amendment
applies to all eligible US citizens.
The language of the 2nd
Amendment is as relevant today as ever, maybe even more so given the Left’s pique
over the election of President Trump. I
find it odd that the same class of people who refer to President Trump as a
tyrant are now advocating for disarming themselves in the face of the very
tyranny they are warning us about. Fine,
turn yours in.
McCrea’s understanding of “well-regulated”
is also only half correct. It means much
more than well-trained. Well-regulated
has to with leadership and the moral underpinning of the force as well.
Second Amendment due for modern review
In the next few weeks, we're going to be
hearing a lot about gun control (or a lack thereof). Part of the conversation
will naturally be about the constitutional right to bear arms, so it's
important to look closely at the language and, specifically, at the grammatical
construction of the single sentence that comprises the Second Amendment, as it
is a window into the purpose of the framers.
The Second Amendment reads: “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.”
This adheres to the rhetorical form of a
periodic sentence, which typically presents a string of modifying elements
introductory to the main clause. Here, the modifying element is the phrase “A
well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” which
is what grammarians call a nominative absolute. The function of the absolute is
unique in that it does not modify any word or phrase in the main clause
directly; its function is to establish the context, situation or cause for the
action of the main clause, in this case, “the right of the people to keep and
bear arms.”
Clearly, according to the language of the
Second Amendment, the reason for keeping and bearing arms was so that a
“well-regulated militia,” drawn from the ranks of male citizens, could be at
the ready. In the late 18th century, the militia in the U.S. was made up of
ordinary citizens who became “well-regulated” by regular training, which was
voluntary (and not mandatory as it is in Switzerland today – which is why
there's a gun in every Swiss household).
Today, the “militia” is the National Guard, a
supplemental fighting force, among other things, which, while drawn from the
ranks of citizen volunteers, does not in any sense owe its effectiveness to all
citizens keeping and bearing arms. I would argue that, by extension, the
cause-and-effect relationship in the language of the Second Amendment no longer
applies.
The laws regarding our right to bear arms
should be reviewed and revised to fit the needs of modern society.
John F. McRae
Fort Wayne
No comments:
Post a Comment