The Coffeespy

Glenn Reynolds brings attention to another Second Amendment challenge, this time it could be for the whole ball o’ wax.  I highly recommend the Instapundit’s rather lengthy and wholly cerebral article on the Second Amendment.

There are some simple truths to the Second Amendment.

The Bill of Rights was written to protect the people from the government.  It grants rights to the people of the United States and denies the government the option of removing those rights.  Man has only those rights which he can defend, and only those rights.  Remove the ability to rise up and topple an oppressive regime and we lose the rights granted us over two centuries ago.

The Second Amendment:

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.

For some reason, certain people seem to get hung up on militia.  Well, even by today’s standards, a militia is an informal army of the people.  Darth Sadr can certainly provide an example of that.  But beyond those much maligned famous first four words, it reads “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

There’s no plainer language.  We the people… shall not be infringed… it’s simplicity itself.  The only time the right to bear arms is ever called into question is when scholar-lords deign to bestow upon the mortal masses a convoluted tale of words and history.  Then they try to fog you with crime statistics and finish off their assault with a plea for “the children.”

I’m more interested in keeping my children in a state of liberty.  When my sons and daughters grow up, I want them to have the same rights I had.  And to be sure, man has only those rights which he can defend, only those rights.

Follow up: Where’s the ACLU?  Oh yeah, here they are.  The ACLU believes this particular right to be “anachronistic.”  So, gun rights are for the collective while free speech rights are… not?  Or does the ACLU believe gun rights are to “police and military purposes” as free speech rights are to the “credentialed press?”  Hope not, for the blogosphere’s sake.