Rant Alert

I can't imagine that there is anyone who doesn't think that yesterday's shooting of the Congresswoman in Arizona was appalling, repulsive, and completely the opposite of everything America stands for.

For those who like to cite the Constitution -- I'm one of those -- here's the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We can all see that what the Congresswoman was doing -- what she did most weekends, I've heard -- was peaceably assembling with her constituents, as was her and their Constitutional right. Yes?

Here's 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.

I have never understood why this is so hard to understand, or how on earth it justifies any idiot with a grudge from getting his hands on a gun. In colonial times, everybody did have a gun, mostly because they hunted for their food, and in times of national emergency, these people came together, brought their guns, and defended the country. As part of a well-regulated Militia. So how does this sound?

Let's really tighten up our gun laws so that people who want to hunt or legitimately use guns for recreation (skeet, target shooting, etc.) can still get guns for those purposes, but without creating arsenals. Let's make guns either really expensive, or hard to get, or something. Prohibition of alcohol didn't work, but look how nicely cigarette smokers are being turned into outcasts. That kind of strategy might work with guns, too.

But here's the really important part. Theoretically, we will still need a well-regulated militia. Anyway, I think we do. What's the difference between a militia and the armed forces? I believe that over time, the distinction has come to be that our armed forces are deployed around the world. A militia is deployed here at home. In colonial times, they thought militia before they thought standing army because they were only fighting here at home. Where is our militia now?

You know where they are. Each of our states (I believe) has its own militia, generally known as the National Guard. They serve many functions. If there is a natural disaster, the National Guard is sent in to help citizens in trouble. I remember that during the riots in the 1960s, the New Jersey National Guard was widely deployed in our cities to keep peace. And now, National Guard units from all over this country are deployed in the Gulf. Who is protecting us at home?

So, let us have some nice new laws, and perhaps a new amendment, that makes it illegal to deploy National Guard troops outside the United States. In fact, no Guard troop should be deployed outside its state without the special permission of that state's governor and/or legislature, for example, to assist in a crisis in another state or even in a nearby country. (Each state would have to pass its own rules and legislation for that.)

A well-regulated militia, then, firmly established in each state. The armed forces of the country could still be deployed elsewhere, sent off to war, if Congress so decides. What if there aren't enough of them? Well. Maybe someone will think twice before invading anyone if we don't have enough troops to get it done. More to the point, maybe someone will think twice before invading us if they know we have plenty of troops to defend the home front.

Honest hobbyists should be happy to continue to own guns legally, once the militias are established. The Second Amendment would stand, fulfilled.

What the hell is wrong with that?

(As for that other little detail in the First Amendment, Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, well I may get to that later on today or tomorrow. It deserves its own rant.)