Of the many "civil rights" that are guaranteed by the United States Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms is one of the most clearly defined. Yet there seems to be confusion about it. If people have trouble understanding the 2nd Amendment, is it any wonder that they have trouble understanding anything? Is this misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment real or faux (that's a fancy French word for phony)?
If the misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment is honest, or due to plain ignorance, then clarification is readily available—thanks to the internet. However, if it's an intellectually dishonest interpretation, I suspect it's because the concept of freedom is so demanding of personal responsibility that it presents too large a challenge to the undisciplined amongst us—and those who represent them in Congress. The irony is that lack of discipline is what makes the 2nd Amendment even more relevant today than it was in 1791.
Or, is there something more sinister going on? Maybe we'll know more about that possibility when the investigation into the 'Fast and Furious' scandal is completed.
Just wondering...
-fl