Willful Ignorance

   News Items:
   In Colorado, two legislators who had the temerity to vote for tightening gun laws -- more background checks on buyers and limits on magazine capacity -- were recalled and replaced by NRA favorites.
   In Missouri, legislators want to void federal gun laws and have local police arrest any federal agent who attempts to enforce them.

   The National Rifle Association's goal seems to be this: No gun controls of any kind, anywhere, under any circumstances, ever. A campaign slogan in Colorado was this: "Tell them your Second Amendment rights are not for sale!" Not sure what that means, but it sounds good, aimed at building support for the cause.
   In fact, it was NRA money that bought the recall votes, through a massive advertising and publicity campaign. So what's all this fuss about legal and government policy "not for sale"?

   Read the Constitution and the Second Amendment fully:
   It says nothing about a mob of disorganized rabble waving high-capacity assault weapons at whoever they choose.
   It says nothing about individuals buying, selling and owning as many guns as they want, every month.
   It says nothing about rapid-fire automatic rifles and pistols, or grenade launchers, mortars, cannons or any of that ilk. In fact, bolt-action rifles had not been invented. Most weapons available when the Constitution was written in 1789 were muzzle-loaded weapons, not breech-loading guns with rifled barrels that offered greater accuracy. Moreover, most weapons available at the time were notoriously inaccurate.

   The Constitution does say, quite specifically, in the Second Amendment, that "A well regulated militia (is) essential to the security of a free state."

   So the Colorado movement, supported by the manufacturer-controlled NRA, ignores the "well regulated militia" phrase in the Constitution.
   As for the Missouri action, this is a matter of "who's in charge." Are we to have a strong central government, supported by the various states, or a patchwork of separate states, with a variety of conflicting laws, each state acting as if they are fully independent nations?
   That's why the Articles of Confederation were abandoned, to be replaced by a Constitution and a federal system.
   That's why the Civil War was fought, to establish the strength of a central, federal government and to preserve the union. There were other issues, of course, including the matter of slavery as a source of cheap labor for the agricultural South, and the economics of being able to sell the cotton crop to foreign mills rather than to textile manufacturers in the North.
   For some, however, the issue of states rights has not been resolved, and the War Between the States isn't over.
   Consider this: Was it a Civil War, a War Between the States as it is still known in the South, or was it a struggle to establish the authority of a central, federal government over a disorganized gang of individual states.?