1
Note: Julian Walker of the Virginian Post suggests we have a new problem. Terrorists may use the second amendment against the US.
See: click here
Personally, my interpretation of the second amendment is that patriot founders wanted well-regulated militias run by Generals like George Washington to route the British. The Amendment never meant to support Benedict Arnold-splinter militia groups to put Patriot police in the cross-hairs of terrorists. Nor did early Patriots envision arming hostile crips with Saturday Night specials or rapid-fire machine guns. Thomas Jefferson did not envision the Capone gang, nor did Benjamin Franklin celebrate an Annual Valentine Massacres. Columbines do not appear to be part of the Federalist papers.
Well, now we have a new
twist: the al-Qaida wants the right to equally bear arms in the USA. Given the
Sarah Palin interpretation of our right to bear arms, how could we stop the
arming of al-Qaida sympathizers within the US? Do some Americans have the right
to arms, and others don't? Would Palin allow white America to bear arms, but
deny that right to Muslim-Americans? A right is a right after all. We do not
racially profile any constitutional rights. 
Incredibly, al-Qaida spokesman Adam Gadahn claims that minions in the West they are "perfectly placed" to do "major damage to the enemies of Islam" and suggests one way to do that is to acquire deadly weapons.
"America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms," Gadahn states.
Apparently al-Quida had been closely following the statements of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, who have been advocating "second amendment" solutions to the problems America faces.
I have always been a "first amendment" civil libertarian. The right to free speech and freedom of conscience is my highest priority. I value solutions that do not involve guns. "Second amendment" Americans, on the other hand, apparently stress the right to bear arms over all other rights.
The pen is mightier than the sword- or is it? The Roberts Supreme Court appears to favor guns over all.
George Washington won his war with amazing self-control, and by avoiding large battles. His strategic acumen was more valuable than his muskets in winning freedom. "The shot heard round the world" was a well-placed shot by a single musket- not a strafe of random rapid-fire assault bullets.
Given the debate over Paul Revere's ride precipitated by Sarah Palin's bizarre remarks, it is time to return to the original intent of the forefather's concept of "well regulated Militias."
Washington believed in discipline. He did not allow splinter groups commanded by Benedict Arnold to have unlimited guns. Neither would Washington allow gangs, thugs and terrorists have access to unlimited muskets.
We need to rethink the true intent of the second amendment. Washington must be turning over in his grave when America's enemies come to America to be easily armed by America to torment American police and American citizens.
Sarah Palin was apparently motivated to make a point that Americans would not give up their guns when she made her gaffe about Paul Revere. Now, it is time for Palin to fess up. None of the original Patriots would have allowed terrorists to be armed as an enemy within America.
My guess is that Palin would object to arming al-Quida sympathizers in America. But I have no idea how she would justify that some Americans have an absolute sacred right to own any gun regardless of destructive power, but other Americans, such as from the middle east, did not.
Palin learned the hard way what Paul Revere was doing through his ride to warn patriots. Now, new Paul Reveres must ride to warn the country of the danger of unbridled, unregulated guns awash in the USA.
1 | 2
