I get a lot of grief for stating that I don't believe in the 2nd amendment, or more accurately, that I don't believe it means what it is widely believed to mean. Could it just be mass ignorance of English grammar, willful or otherwise, at the root cause for all of the gun related injury and death in the U.S.?
I say this because when I read the 2nd amendment it seems painfully obvious to me, and I mean so plainly obvious you'd need be an idiot not to see it, that the amendment is guaranteeing a well regulated militia and not guns specifically. Though the two were nearly synonymous at the time in which it was written, the distinction is very clear.
So what do the grammarians on DK think? Is this just a case of nearly everyone knowing the true intent and just feigning ignorance to secure their political goals, or is there a real case to be made for it actually intending to secure the right to bear arms? If so, does that mean all arms? Why not?
If the amendment was intended to secure the right to bear arms then hasn't it already failed? Couldn't it also be argued that this could never be considered wisdom on the part of our Founding Fathers since they had to have known that this would be doomed to fail from the start. Think about it, if you allow any and all arms to everyone then you are arming your future conquerors, ensuring continued strife and eventual chaos, it is only a matter of time.
If you only view the part of the amendment that says "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." then you'd have to concede that it already is infringed, every day that you are denied your own tank or surface to air missile. To argue that we can't restrict ownership of firearms is absurd since we already do so on a daily basis, thankfully.
I think the 2nd amendment is actually an unnecessary anachronism these days since it is satisfied (at least) three-fold by a local police force, national guard, and the U.S.military forces.
A question to ponder: I'm surely not the only one that believes this, probably quite a lot of people do. So why not attempt to promote this view and educate people who may have never taken the time to think about it? I never hear any politician or T.V. personality state this clearly. Why not? I think the country is ready for an honest grammatical interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
At the very least, why isn't there a bigger discussion on the internet? This argument is at heart a grammar argument, and so seems almost designed to be grist for the Internet argument mill.
This is an edited version of a something I posted on G+:
I thought I'd share it with the Daily Kos community as well.