There are plenty of bizarre and cockamamy theories abound regarding the 2nd Amendment, many of which have emanated from the left’s unruly hatred for the important piece of American liberty.
The issue for the liberals has nothing to do with the import of the entire ideology of owning firearms. Instead, this is a political fight where the right v. left is all that truly matters. As Americans, we all must agree that the 2nd Amendment is not only important to our safety as a population, but to our security as a nation. As liberals, however, the fight against the 2nd Amendment comes solely from a need to please the voters.
Now, an historian is claiming that the original intent of the Founding Fathers has been mangled by centuries of political infighting, and is even going so far as to call American gun owners an “unruly mob” unworthy of the amendment itself.
“Groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) are wrongly claiming that protecting gun rights is the key to protecting all other forms of liberty, says the new book Armed in America: A History of Gun Rights from Colonial Militias to Concealed Carry.
“But in fact, that bears no relationship to the original meaning of the Second Amendment which specifically linked gun ownership to membership of a well-regulated militia, claims its author.
“Patrick J. Charles, a Marine veteran and historian, accuses NRA chairman Wayne LaPierre of ‘rewriting history’ and says the Founding Fathers would consider modern day gun owners to be an ‘armed mob’, in his book that was released Thursday.”
Then, Charles relies on a bizarre insistence that the training of the militia is paramount to the usefulness of the 2nd Amendment.
“In the book he says that ‘every political and legal commentator from the Glorious Revolution through to the American Revolution agreed that the right to arms was useless, unless the militia was properly trained and disciplined’.
“One unnamed mid 18th Century writer cited in the book summed up the dangers of a poorly trained militia.
“He wrote: ‘Should you take your Fire-Arms along with you, that John in the Rear will be firing his Piece into the Back-side of his Friend Tom in the Front or, which would still be worse, blow out the Brains of his noble Captain… “
Of course, what Charles is proposing would completely negate the amendment altogether by implying that the militia may not be trained sufficiently without the assistance of a regulated organization…most likely, the government.
It is highly unlikely that the American people will be welcoming to this strange interpretation of the Bill of Rights, and the insinuation that patriotic Americans have somehow lost the meaning of their own Constitution.