(The following is an excerpt from Tea Pain’s book, “American Tweetheart.”)
Nothin’ breaks Tea Pain’s heart more than news of a school shootin’. Them poor kids, full of hope and promise, their whole lives ahead of them, struck down before they even got started. It’s a cryin’ shame.
Conscientious folks that fight to prevent the next shootin’ must ultimately do battle with the NRA, one of the most well-organized, best-financed political lobbies in America.
Before we jump into one of the most hotly contested political issues on social media, Tea Pain’s gonna take us to church on the second amendment.
Tea Pain would wager you that 98% of “Second Amendment enthusiasts” have never read the entire Constitution. To top that, Tea’d bet you even money less than half of those folks ain’t never read the entire Second Amendment for that matter, cause it’s easily one of the most tortured sentences in the history of the English language.
Now Tea Pain ain’t no scholar, but he worked awfully hard to get his GED. Not to brag, but he was the first Pain to ever have one. Gettin’ it before his 41st birthday was just icin’ on the cake!
One of the things Tea Pain remembered from his book learnin’ was sentence structure. There’s subjects, verbs, objects, nouns… all kinds of interestin’ stuff. One of the things they teach you is that the subject of a sentence is usually near the beginnin’. The Second Amendment is a perfect example: “A well-regulated Militia”.
Now if the Second Amendment was supposed to give folks the right to tote their guns to Chipotle, don’t you reckon it would have said that instead? See, it’s mighty clear we’re talkin’ about local and state militias. And not just any militia, mind you, but a “well-regulated” one. “Well-regulated” refers to rules and policies, controls over how the militia is to act and behave. Ain’t it funny that the one part of the Constitution that allegedly gives everyone unregulated gun rights has the phrase “well-regulated” in it?
There’s a parlor trick 2nd Amendment fanatics try to play relyin’ on the fact that the proposed version had 3 commas and the ratified version has 1 comma. They think they have discovered some mystical secret like the DaVinci code that radically changes the whole meanin’ of the Constitution. Think of it this way.
A functionin’ brain stem, being necessary to use Twitter, the rights of the user to use Twitter shall not be infringed.
Congratulations! Usin’ their “logic”, if you remove two commas, you no longer need a brain stem to use Twitter! (Which would explain some folks’ tweets) The commas were removed from the proposed version as a matter of style and changes nothin’ to the fact it deals with the authority for state militias, much like today’s National Guard.
Now ask yourself another question. If gun rights were the cornerstone of Constitutional freedom, why did they “forget” to put it in the first draft? They actually had to include it later as an amendment, an afterthought. There’s a simple reason for that: The Second Amendment has nothin’ to do with private gun ownership!
If these hillbilly “Constitutional experts” had actually studied American history, they’d know that ol’ King George had outlawed state militias, due to the fact they were part of the colonial rebellion against the crown. The framers of the Constitution became concerned that one day an American “king” might rise wishin’ to do the same thing to protect his own abuse of power, so they made sure that well-regulated militias were codified in writin’ – that way Americans were guaranteed by law that they could protect themselves against tyranny. And that, friends, is why the Second Amendment was born: to allow us to bear arms to protect our “free state,” but within the bounds of a well-regulated militia. See how simple things can be when you just read the words and know a little history?
Then what about gun rights? Ain’t we allowed to own guns to hunt and protect ourselves with? You’re dang right we are, because guns are covered under normal private property laws just like everything else we own. The government has no more right to take away our guns than our television sets or our blenders.
When Tommy Jefferson helped draft the Virginia Constitution, he wrote, “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements.” Just like Tea Pain said. Guns is for huntin’ and protectin’ and are covered under laws of personal property. But outside of our “lands or tenements,” gun use is within the purview of federal, state and local governments.
People will fuss at Tea Pain and say this “weakens” gun rights. Oh contraire! There is no stronger cornerstone to the United States Constitution than ownership of personal property! America’s founders understood clearly that private property is the foundation not only of prosperity but of freedom itself. True gun enthusiasts would be wise to line up behind this immovable pillar of American democracy and stop torturin’ the poor Second Amendment!
When Wyatt, Virgil and Morgan Earp tried to keep the peace durin’ the Wild, Wild West out in Tombstone, Arizona, they made a law that it was illegal to carry guns outside of your home within the confines of Tombstone city limits. No one would ever accuse Wyatt Earp of bein’ a gun hatin’ liberal, at least not to his face. That law was within their jurisdiction and never violated the personal property laws of gun ownership.
In closin’, Tea Pain’s gonna use one of the Republican’s most beloved arguments against ‘em. Gun use, outside of our homes and property, is most often a matter of “states’ rights.”
That’s not to say that states have sole jurisdiction over gun regulations, but – referencin’ the 10th Amendment – anything not covered by the federal government is automatically left up to the states to decide. To sum up, private gun ownership is rock solid. Takin’ your guns to town, on the other hand, is up to federal, state and local governments. Yes, patriots, it’s that simple. Sensible gun control in the public square is achievable and 100% constitutional. Remember, you heard it here.