i do not think that word means what you think it means

Initially, I had to think that this article by Steven Mrozik was some obscure form of parody, and that there would be a cute little “gotcha” right at the end. Unfortunately, I was sadly mistaken, and now we can have a grand old fisking party! (Especially now that the website has put the article behind a log-in barrier.)

The founding fathers bestowed many unalienable rights. They are most commonly known as part of the “Bill of Rights.”

Wow. Apparently Steve cannot even make it through the first sentence of the first paragraph of his little article without looking like a completely ignorant fool. The founding fathers bestowed nothing. Not a gorramed thing. Didly. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nil. Unalienable rights simply exist… that is why they are “unalienable”, dontcha know? Now, the founding fathers did identify and attempt to secure and protect those unalienable rights by writing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but did they bestow/create/grant them? Hell no, and were they capable, they would raise up from their tombs and collectively smack Steve on the back of the head for such a stupid thought. Which, really, would kind of hurt a little… there were a lot of founding-father-types, and they are probably all skeletony and bony these days.

One of these unalienable rights is the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution — the right to bare arms.

It was this particular comment that made me think this article was going to be some grand form of parody. Read it again.
Where is the problem? Hm…

bare: to open to view; reveal or divulge: to bare one’s arms; to bare damaging new facts.

As opposed to…

bear: to carry; bring: to bear gifts; or to have and be entitled to: to bear title; or to have and use; exercise: to bear authority; to bear sway.

I will give you two guesses as to which word the Second Amendment actually uses.
Furthermore, we have a continuation of the previous problem. The unalienable right is not the Second Amendment. Rather, the Second Amendment identifies the unalienable right (the whole “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”) and then strives to keep it from being subverted, undermined, or otherwise infringed (that being the key word in “shall not be infringed“). Well, at least Steve is consistently ignorant

The right to bare arms means the right to own a weapon, which is generally assumed to be firearms.

BEAR, you dolt. BEAR! Like the big, fuzzy, clawed beast… only a verb. Hell, he cannot even blame spellchecker for this one… this is all his fault.

A gun can be a tool of death and destruction in the hands of the wrong person, and a lifesaver in the hands of the right person.

Well, on that one sentence, he and I actually agree. Something tells me we are going to have problems when he comes to his definition of the “right person”, though…

While the line between the wrong and right is often gray, we can still agree that many people who own firearms have no need for them.

… and it turns out I was right. I am sorry, but did I somehow miss the word “need” in the Second Amendment? *checks* Oh, nope, that word occurs absolutely nowhere within that particular Amendment. So how, exactly, does “need” factor into a bloody thing? A lot of people drink who have no need of alcohol. A lot of people own SUVs who have absolutely no need for them. A lot of people have massive houses who have no need for the space. A lot of people make a whole lot of money and they certainly have no need for all of it.
So, unless Steve is a full-fledged socialist and simply wants to “spread the wealth” when it comes to firearm inventories, how, exactly, does “need” fit into any argument concerning the Second Amendment? Oh. Right. It does not. Moving on.

The founders of our nation lived during a completely different time and had lived in a different culture in different circumstances than we do today.

Well thank you for pointing that out, Captain Obvious! I never would have guessed otherwise, considering that they lived, oh… 230+ years ago.

Guns were a huge part of their lives. They carried rifles to hunt their food and to protect them from wild animals that could attack them. They defended themselves from native inhabitants of the Americas.

And how is that different from Americans today? For some Americans, firearms are a significant part of their lives. A lot of Americans go hunting with their firearms, and an almost-as-large group would carry firearms with them into parks and natural areas if it were legal. And a very signficant percentage of Americans currently carry firearms on a daily basis to defend themselves from their fellow native inhabitants of the Americas, myself among them.
Wow. I guess our circumstances and cultures really are not that different. Huh. (Of course, if you define our temporal and cultural differences as narrowly as Steve unwittingly did, it is easier to find the flaws in the argument…)

The times they lived in were treacherous, you fended for yourself in the wilderness. There weren’t cities and developed areas everywhere; it was forests and plains. The need for weapons was obvious and it was that need that directly influenced the second amendment.

Are you really trying to say that cities and developed areas today are more safe and secure than the wilderness, forests, and plains of our founding fathers’ times? Seriously?
Do you have any idea at all how patently stupid that argument makes you look? Hell, the case could easily be made that inner city residents need firearms for self-defense significantly more than people living out in the boonies and in the small towns around America – the crime rates in their regions are significantly higher, and they are “fending for themselves” far more than most these days.

What we must realize now is that the writers of the Constitution also wrote it in such a way to prevent the abuse of the rights given to us.

No, they did not. The Founding Fathers viewed the rights of the people as absolute, and the Second Amendment possibly more absolute than others. Here is what they actually had to say about citizens, firearms, and the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights:
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. – Thomas Jefferson.
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks. – Thomas Jefferson.
[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them. – Zacharia Johnson.
The whole of that Bill is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of. – Albert Gallatin
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. – Patrick Henry
[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it. – Richard Henry Lee
Need I go on? Granted, that absolute stance has changed over the years, but Steve was initially speaking about the Founding Fathers, not jurisprudence over the past 200+ years.

The Constitution states that a “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.”

Wow, here is a second sentence on which we both agree. Granted, most of it is copy-pasted, but, hey, at least he managed to spell “bear” right because of it!

This same rule doesn’t apply to every person as many claim it to be.

Now this, ladies and gentlemen, is a downright scary comment. “Some people deserve the protections granted by the Second Amendment, but not every person.” I wonder how Steve would feel about replacing the word “Second” with “First”, or “Third”, or “Fourth”, or…

According to the Constitution, guns are to be used to protect the citizens from danger, and that the people in charge of protecting us oversee the “militia” and make sure no one is infringing on others’ rights by misusing the weapons they were given.

Fail. On multiple counts. Thankfully, the Supreme Court of the United States already handled the vacuous “militia” argument, in District of Columbia et al v. Heller:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th Century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

However, even ignoring DC v. Heller, who, exactly, is the “militia”? Well, thankfully, that answer has already been granted, in the form of United States Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 13, Section 311:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

(Emphasis added.) Huh. Basically, all fully-functional males over the age of 17 fall under the clause of “unorganized militia”. How shiny is that?
Of course, since Steve has an infatuation with the founding fathers, we can also turn to them for help:
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. – Tenche Coxe
Well, Steve, it is looking like the “militia” argument is a fail from multiple directions. But, sadly, that is not your only error in the above sentence. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that firearms are to be used to “protect citizens from danger”. Nowhere. Period. And, again, thankfully the Supreme Court handled that, by specifically stating that arms can be used “for traditionally lawful purposes”, such as hunting, self defense, target practice, etc. And your third screwup comes with the phrase “people in charge of protecting us”. No one, not a bloody soul, is in charge of protecting “us”. You are in charge of protecting yourself. I am in charge of protecting myself and anyone else I choose to. But there is no over-arching entity looking out for the little people. Nothing. Oh, sure, there is the government, but if you think it was established to “protect” anyone, you are a fool. Our governments is there to protect rights, and enforce law (though it has been falling down on those jobs, of late). Protection… that is a wholly different matter.

These firearms can be found across America in thousands of homes, many of whom have little or no proper training with them.

… and? The same could be said of bows and arrows, generators, computers, gas stoves/ovens, automobiles (Are you really going to tell me that the licensing system we have now is a comprehensive and thorough educational process concerning automobiles? Honestly?), knives, lawn mowers, and hundreds of other tools, implements, devices, and machines that could cause varying degrees of injury, death, and destruction. Where is your feigned outrage about those?
Unfortunately, at this point, the article pretty much veers into complete and utter stupidity (as opposed to the outright ignorance it displayed before), but we may as well stay the course.

If the use of firearms was limited to police officers and military servicemen, we could prevent thousands of gun-related crimes every year and create a safer and more peaceful society.

Completely and absolutely wrong. Wrongwrongwrongwrongwrong. Wrong. First, there is a name for a society where only the police has firearms: “police state”. Second, yes, you might prevent gun-related crimes… at the cost of raising every other form of crime out there. I say “might” because firearm bans are not working so well.
Firearms do not cause crime. Firearms are not the problem. Crime is the problem. Criminals commit crimes. Criminals are the problem. How hard is this to understand? Simply magically getting rid of firearms will do no such nonsense as “create a safer and more peaceful society”… criminals will simply use other tools and implements to do their dirty work. Firearms are not magical. They have no mind-controlling crystals in them (or, at least, if they do, mine are defective). And getting rid of firearms does not stop crime. Hell, it does not even guarantee that criminals will not have firearms, as England and D.C. and Australia all found out.

With reduced crime would also come less of a need for firearms as a means of protection.

Again, crime will not go down simply because we get rid of firearms. It has not gone down in other places that have gotten rid of firearms… sure, firearm-related crime might have gone down, but overall? Not so much. Which would lead people like me to believe that having a firearm for protection sounds like a mighty good idea. Sorry, but your cyclical logic does not hold water.
Furthermore, firearms are not only a means of protection… they are also a means of recreation, a means of relaxation, and multiple other applications. You are focusing on too narrow of a point, making it the entire point, and failing because of it.

The people who acquire guns to steal and kill wouldn’t have them to commit such heinous acts in the first place.

Right. Because that is working so well elsewhere. And so well here in the States.

This amendment should be more stringently interpreted to the means in which the founding fathers intended it to be.

You are right, Steve, the Amendment should be more interpreted to align with what the Founding Fathers wanted for it… but it has become painfully obvious that do not even have the slightest of clues concerning the Founding Fathers’ intentions.

Many people and groups, such as the National Rifle Association, promote the use and ownership of firearms for protection and claim it is our Constitutional right.

Well, if that is what they are claiming (and most of them are not), they are wrong. What the National Rifle Assocation, myself, and other pro-gun-rights advocates (along with the aforementioned Supreme Court) state is that the use and ownership of firearms for protection (and other purposes, to boot) is a Constitutionally-protected right, and one not open to infringement by you or anyone else.

I say that once the option of using firearms is eliminated, we are ensured the right our forefathers gave us: protection.

And, unsurprisingly, you bring your entire craptacular column to an idiotic end. Firearms will never be eliminated. Period. The technology has already been developed and made mainstream – hell, given a basic toolshop and some relatively common chemicals, I could probably produce a rudimentary firearm in a day or less. You may as well shed that uselessly utopian dream, and get back to the real world with the rest of us.
And the Founding Fathers were never about “protection” in the way you are using the word. They wanted a minimalistic government, wherein people could do as they pleased, with as little influence and interruption as possible. They never would have desired the Big Brother-esque monstrosity we have developed for ourselves, much less the even larger nanny-state you are proposing. You are wrong.
Steven Mrozik, if I had a gold star to give out for cases of remarkable hybridizations of outright ignorance and absolute stupidity, you would receive about 23. Sadly, I do not have such stickers, so my admiration for your impressively erroneous views on our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and our Second Amendment will have to suffice.
Oh, and Uncle, damn you for pointing me towards this singularly moronic column today.
Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, DragonLady’s World, Shadowscope, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, NN&V, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, , third world county, Faultline USA, Woman Honor Thyself, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D’ITALIA, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.