Guns. Lots of Guns.

I freely admit that I'm pretty opinionated, and that I have something to say on pretty much any topic. I prefer great taste over less filling. I like classic Chevys more than Fords, and Toyotas more than both put together. I like ARs more than AKs, and would take an M1A over either. I generally support the Republican party, but I don't really consider myself a Republican. I could go on and on, right up to my position on pointless shit like Cake vs. Pie (pie) and Pirates vs. Ninjas (ninjas).

But while I really do have an opinion on pretty much everything, and am not shy when it comes to telling you all about it, I like to think that most of my positions are based on rational analysis, rather than any ingrained programming or the toeing of any party line. Bad beer is not really made better by being able to drink a lot of it. It's a lot easier to replace an HEI chip than to fuck around with ignition points, and better still to have a car that doesn't break. Living in the desert, I like the ability to shoot accurately beyond 200 yards, preferably with a slug heavy enough to retain energy. I like Republican economic conservatism, but cannot support any party that opposes brilliant emerging technologies (notably stem cell research) based on esoteric religious dogma. A well made cake is never bad, but pie has SO many more options, and ninjas are highly trained professional assassins, whereas Pirates are almost always just waterborne thugs. On most subjects, there are reasons why I feel the way I do.

As a corollary to this rational approach, I like to think that I can see the other side of most arguments, even if I don't agree. If you have bad beer, good to be able to drink a lot of it. Fords are good cars, AKs are good guns, and Democrats sometimes have the right idea (in small doses). Both cake and pirates have their undeniable moments of greatness. (Black Forrest and Jack Sparrow, respectively.) For the most part, I can at least understand the other side of the debate on pretty much any issue you'd care to choose.

Except one.

No matter how hard I try, and no matter how loudly the other side yells, I cannot find the slightest bit of merit in any argument against the Second Amendment. It is just overwhelmingly mind-boggling that any American could EVER endorse a state of affairs where it is somehow okay for our government to tell us that we, as law-abiding citizens, are not allowed to be armed. Every argument I have ever heard on the subject strikes me as abject bullshit, contrived by people who oppose guns simply because they don't want them, and - if they don't want them - then nobody else should be allowed to have them either. It's circular bullshit, based on nothing more than personal preference, and people don't seem to realize that although they are free to exercise their CHOICE to not own firearms, the RIGHT to own them if they so choose is - and should be - inviolate, both as a matter of law and as a matter of political practicality.

Lets look at the law. 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." The most common argument you hear against the Amendment is that it is outdated. That there is no more militia in this country, and that such militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state. These arguments are, in a word, BULLSHIT. The militia DOES exist, and IS necessary for a free state. Didn't you read the Amendment? The Amendments are second only to the Constitution in defining what IS in this country, and that's what the Amendment says. A militia is necessary. Unless you change the Amendment, that is the legal reality.

Going further, and still sticking to matters of law, there is ABSOLUTELY an American Militia. Under the Constitution (Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 16), Congress has authority to form a national militia, and the language of the Amendment essentially mandates the existence of the Militia as a necessary legal entity. Congress has expressly endorsed that existence, and - whether you realize it or not - militia membership includes just about every law-abiding adult male. It is the law, and I am not just making this up. The American Militia includes every law abiding American male between the ages of 17 and 45, excepting only those in military service, and others already Federally employed. The militia DOES exist, based on express published law of the United States. It can be called upon by the President to respond to dangerous situations, almost exactly the same way the Armed Forces or Reserves might be.

Considering that any member of the militia might legally be summoned to duty to respond to, for example insurrection, or situations were civil order has broken down, it's probably a good idea if the members of that militia are appropriately equipped to deal with the situations they are sent to handle. Look up The Children's Crusade for details about what happens when armies march armed with nothing but idealism. Can you imagine people being sent unarmed and unequipped into post-Katrina 'Nawlins to restore order? The legal option was there to ORDER simple male citizens in to deal with it. According to the law, any American male age 17-45 can be sent to fight as a militiaman, even without being drafted into the Armed Forces, and independent of normal military channels, (including independence from military supply channels, from which they might gain things like equipment). If that means you, don't you think it might be a good idea to have a decent rifle and reliable pistol? If you were sent into post-Katrina 'Nawlins to help restore order, would you have felt safe with a bolt-action hunting rifle?

So. Legal arguments that the milita no longer exist and no longer have any legal basis to be armed are absolute bullshit, and arguments to the contrary amount to "yeah, but" arguments against the letter of the law. As a matter of law, a comprehensive firearms ban would require massive amendment of American law, or else leave an established part of the American military not only unarmed, but legally barred from bearing arms. The militia DOES exist. While that legal reality that might be changed, it cannot be ignored.

Besides overlooking those legal realities, people (intentionally or incidentally) also tend to misread the the intention of the Second Amendment. The expressed purpose is to maintain the security of a FREE state. Which is not necessarily the same as maintaining the United States. Bear in mind that the existence of the American militia predates the founding of the United States. Look at history: In many ways, it was the Militia that CREATED the United States, rather than vice versa.

The founding fathers' highest goal was to create a nation free of tyranny, where every citizen had standing in the government, and freedom to live as they saw fit. They wanted assurances that no government was going to step into the place of George III and start telling them how they were going to live their lives. For some time prior to the establishment of any American political structure, the American Militia was fighting for that freedom. The founding fathers were, at heart, militiamen. The simple fact of the matter is that when you consider the ideal of democracy, with every citizen taking an active role in the political system, and standing up (or fighting) for their rights and freedoms, what you are imagining is the early American Militia. If you believe that such bold traditions and mindsets endure, you have to recognize that the American people are not so much the militia as the militia is the ideal of the American people: politically active citizens, involved in the defense of their rights and the support of a free country.

Going further in the idea that the Militia IS the people rather than being made up of the people, note that the duties of the militia are not limited to defense against foreign powers. The Oaths of Service and of Citizenship, for example, includes swearing to defend against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. Now here's the important part: as outlined in Federal law, the Oath is not to defend the American GOVERMENT. The Oath is to defend THE CONSTITUTION. This is more than just splitting hairs: The founding fathers, rebels themselves, were absolutely aware that the greatest threat to freedom is not the tyranny of a conquerer, but the tyranny of those already in power. Barack Obama represents a VASTLY more substantial threat to the American way of life than Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Osama Bin Laden all put together.

The ultimate goal of the United States was (and is) a FREE state. A nation where the people dictated the terms of the government, not vice versa. Where government operated with the leave of the people, rather than the people operating with the leave of the government. Under the Constitution, the government does not control the populace, but is instead controlled by the populace. To whom does the American President really have to answer to, other than to the People?

Now then: how can you, even for a second, claim to live free under a government that tells you that you cannot be armed? The sole difference between living under the control of the government and living by the leave of the government is the ability of the populace to keep the government under control. When people are divested of their ability to engage in effective armed conflict (which will ALWAYS be the final recourse of diplomacy), they are no longer free. Rather, they are at the mercy of those who CAN engage in armed conflict, and rest assured, the United States as a government is pretty good at it. Talk all you want about enlightened societies, but the fact of the matter is that those who can and will kill ALWAYS exercise control over those who can not, or will not. Politicians will absolutely send armed men to enforce their will. Happens every day. How to stop them from gathering ever more power to themselves (at your expense), when your arguments lack teeth? The difference between a plea and a demand is the ability to take further action should the petition fail. If you live unarmed under under an armed government, all rights and freedoms that you have are simply discretionary.

To any American, that is unacceptable. The reason the Second Amendment exists to to ensure that American citizens, even if they consent to the control of another, never live by the leave of another.

The militia, established as a legal entity by Congress through the Constitution, and armed pursuant to the terms of the Second Amendment, IS THE PEOPLE, AS AN ARMED POLITICAL BLOC. The Second Amendment makes it so, as a check and balance to ensure that our rights do not fall victim to our own leaders. An armed Militia exists for the benefit of a FREE state, including the benefit of American people in curbing the excess of American politicians. The Militia does not exist or operate at the whim or leisure of the President, or of the Courts, or of any party (foreign or domestic) other than leaders directly elected by the people, and it is charged with supporting a free state against anyone acting in violation of the Constitution. An armed militia, formed of the populis, is the final recourse of the American people against tyranny. Just as it was in 1776.

The People ARE the Militia. Disarmament of the Militia means the end of the people's power to defend their own freedoms. The founding fathers themselves were men who, following the failure of process and diplomacy, took up arms and stood tall in support of freedom and inalienable rights. Again, the Militia's defense of American freedom predates the United States! It is the ultimate embodiment of the idea that, as Americans, we as individuals will stand and fight against those who would oppress us. And it works. The Militia's track record already includes defeating the greatest military power on the planet at the time (the English). Hopefully, the defense of freedom will not require the Militia to repeat that feat against the United States.