Alternative interpretation of the 2nd
I thought this was cute. found it at:
http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/firearms/humor/
Alternative Interpretation of Militia
From William A. Arvola ([email protected]), University of North Texas Department of Mathematics, (817) 565-4701, Denton, TX 76203:
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states: “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 classical pro-firearms doctrine states that “well-regulated militia” means “well-trained armed citizens.”
My objection is that I resent being told by a bunch of dead guys what it means to be a “well-behaved citizen”. I am one of the sovereign people of Texas after all. On the other hand, I thoroughly endorse their criteria for what it means to be a “well-behaved government”. So, I got out my “big” dictionary and looked up “well-regulated militia”.
“Regulate” comes from “regula” meaning “law” or “order”. Hence, “regulate” means “to bind by law” or “to put in good order”. So, “well-regulated” means “law-abiding”, “orderly” or “well-behaved”. So far so good. But now: “Militia” is the plural of “miles” meaning “soldier”! “Soldier” comes from “soldare” meaning “to pay”. In other words, “militia” = “soldiers” = “paid agents”!
The Second Amendment now reads: “Well-behaved soldiers being necessary to …”. I can hear the voices of indignation already. But hold your criticisms for one moment more, I ask. The Amendment calls for good behavior by government agents and provides a remedy for bad behavior: “As a defense against badly-behaved paid agents of the government, these being a threat to liberty, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
So if they wish to say that “militia” = “National Guard”, I say fine! And if they ask what is “bad behavior” for an agent of the government, I point to the rest of the Bill of Rights. Note that no burden is placed on the right or the people. The burden is on the government, as it should be. Perhaps Mason and Madison snuck in Jefferson’s “right to revolt” after all!