A New Twist to the 2nd Amendment

Here’s something to chew on. We’ve all heard it at some point in our education; “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.” And we all know what that means. Or do we? It seems obvious that U.S. citizens are guaranteed the right to own firearms, but is that the true extent and intention of this controversial amendment?

Perhaps the founding fathers had intended something of a broader meaning. Some have argued that the right to keep and bear arms is synonymous with the common law of the Right to Self-defense. I submit that it’s possible that the true intention of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the right of its citizens to defend their person, their loved-ones and property from unlawful invasion, with lethal force when necessary, from not only threats foreign, but domestic as well.

If this interpretation were enacted through Law, just imagine what the consequences might be. What if every criminal knew that the instant they committed a crime, their intended victim had the legal right to kill them in self-defense? That every rape, mugging, car-jacking or home invasion they commit could easily end with their untimely death. No Miranda rights, no due process, no innocent till proven guilty. Just swift and brutal justice.

The threat of capital punishment, while arguably somewhat effective, doesn’t seem to have brought the rate of violent crime to a screeching halt. I believe this is mostly because that particular threat is far removed from the “here and now” in the criminal’s mind. Couple that with an extremely prolonged sentencing and execution phases and you can see why a death sentence is not the great deterrent you would think it should be. But if criminals knew that justice and retribution could come instantly and permanently by the hand of their not-so-defenseless intended target, perhaps it may give them pause to reconsider their actions.

Let me go on record as saying that I am not in favor of capital punishment in most cases. All too often new evidence surfaces to exonerate death-row inmates, sometimes coming too late to save them from an unjust fate. So, in lieu of that option, perhaps we should just rethink how we interpret the Second Amendment and how this would affect our current laws and particularly the rights of the victims.
-

Infantile Hypocrisy

Far too many people throw a huge tantrum when a woman chooses to have an abortion. “How dare you play God with a human life!” they declare. “Only the Will of God can give or take life, only He can rightfully make that judgment.” Isn’t that also the argument against contraception as well? That you’ll get pregnant if and when God wills it and not to impede His will with contraceptives?

Yet do you ever hear these same people complain when an infertile couple employs artificial insemination in order to conceive a child? Aren’t they “playing God” by using technology to overcome their biological nature? So apparently, it’s OK to break the natural/biological laws that God sets down for each one of us, so long as you are doing it to create life, but not destroy or prevent life. Either you leave your reproductive fate up to God or you don’t. Come on bible-thumpers, you can’t have it both ways!
-

A Futile Proposition

I recently read about the “sectarian cleansing” in Dora, a section of Baghdad. Sunnis are threatening all Christians to either convert to Islam or leave under threat of death. Let’s face it, if these people had their wish, they would force everyone world-wide to convert as well. Throughout history various religions have sought to forcible convert the non-believers in their midst. This has never really worked. Not really.

I find the threat of “convert or die” a very foolish and futile proposition. An individual’s religious beliefs are anchored in the heart, as well as the mind. You may talk to and teach someone about your religion and maybe you might eventually convince that person to willingly convert to your religion, but you can never compel someone to truly convert. A forced convert may outwardly show obedience, but they will always retain their true beliefs in their heart.

So I can only conclude one of two things; either these extremists really do believe that threat of death can force a true change the hearts and minds of “infidels” or that all they really care about is forcing others to pay insincere lip service to their chosen belief system. Either way, I’m afraid they are sadly misguided.

-