Since you all know the story, here’s the short version:

Newsweek publishes a story — a false story, no less — about a Koran being desecrated in an attempt to rattle some prisoners. This causes an uprising. People are killed. People blame Newsweek.

I’m sorry… what?!

If Christians had rioted and killed nine people over, say, this, the news media would (quite rightly, I might add) be blaming those who rioted. Why the hell can’t they hold Muslims responsible for their actions in the same way? Actually, it’s funny how the news media and liberals claim that it’s the Conservatives who have no respect for Arabs and Muslims, yet it’s the news media and liberals who act as though these people aren’t responsible for their own actions. You know what we call people who aren’t responsible for their own actions? Children. It’s time for the media to stop being so condescending to every minority racial and ethnic group.

Especially in the aftermath of the 60 Minutes “Memo-gate” scandal, Newsweek should absolutely be raked over the coals for publishing a story without doing everything in its power to confirm whether it was true. That doesn’t make them responsible for these deaths.

Banana Oil! is on my blogroll, but I don’t get to visit it quite as often as I’d like (too many favorite blogs, too little time… or too much World of Warcraft. Whatever).

So, I missed Ian’s challenge on Friday:

If you favor gun control of any stripe, please read and attempt the following:

A well regulated Intelligentsia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.

Convince me, using only the text above,

• that this sentence does not guarantee an individual right, only a “collective” right; or
• that this sentence means that the only legitimate intelligentsia is the one controlled by government; or
• that this sentence allows the government to decide which books are safe and which are dangerous, and permits it to ban those it does not approve, and to dictate how all books under private ownership must be stored; or
• that this sentence permits the government to require the registration of all books and book owners.

I can’t deny that I agree with Ian’s stance — the first clause simply explains why (and only one of the many reasons, at that) the right must exist. The Founding Fathers would never have dreamed of taking arms away from the people — anyone who didn’t have the capability of defending themselves in the 18th century would have found themselves at the mercy of wild animals, to say nothing of the savagry that they’d face from other humans (even if you accept the revisionist history that implies that Native Americans were completely peaceful, it’s not like there was a well organized police force in the 18th century).

The clause “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” is in the First Amendment for emphasis. In addition to the normal reasons why everyone should be free to bear arms, they wanted us to remember that there was another reason for individuals to be free to bear arms: the security of a free State. This clause isn’t only meant to inform us that the well-regulated militia is necessary to defend the people from other nations, but from the State itself — the people will only remain free as long as they don’t turn all of their defense over to the State.

A commenter, Don, mentions Article I, Section 8, which defines the powers of the Congress, and includes the following two clauses (Source):

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

While I can see how some might read these clauses to imply that the Militia is a state-run army, there are a few problems with that argument. First, the fact that the Congress is calling forth the Militia implies that it exists independently of the government. Secondly, the second clause (the one directly mimicked by Don) says, “…and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States…”. There’s no implication that the Congress created the Militia, but rather that the Congress can, if necessary, call forth part of the Militia (that part that “may be employed in the Service of the United States”). These clauses set forth the ability of Congress, in times of desperation, to draft Militia members into the army.

Who is the Militia? Based on various history books I’ve read, I believe the common understanding of the word at the time was that the Militia consisted of every able-bodied man. My understanding is that this clause was intended to be a balance to the official state army, but I’m not an expert by any means.

Incidentally, the current United States Code (Title 10, Chapter 13, Section 311) has this to say about the militia:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are–

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The emphasis above is mine. Paragraph (a) may be a bit sexist, but it seems to imply that the Militia is the people. Paragraph (b) definitely makes it clear that “Militia” isn’t just the standing Armed Forces and the National Guard.

The fact that Congress has the power to utilize the Militia to help bolster our defense doesn’t change the fact that the Second Amendment gives the People a right to keep and bear arms.

Another commenter, Paul, gives us a very fine explanation for what is wrong with the system today:

First, I want to disabuse people of the idea that anyone uses strictly the Constitution to interpret the Constitution. Many contemporary writings, judicial precident and other manner of reasoning are used for courts to tell us what their read on the documents that started this country are.

While I acknowledge that Paul is correct that we use other materials to interpret the Constitution, I adamantly refuse to concede that we need to do so, or that we should do so. The Constitution was written in very clear language, and any decision regarding the Constitutionality of something should, by the very definition of the word, go back to the Constitution.

Considering what others have said about the Constitution and how it applies to the issue you’re considering is all well and good, but in the end, the Constitution speaks for itself (as the law should). The practice of letting the Courts modify the law (by changing the accepted definitions of words), rather than just ruling yes or no to the legality of the law in question, is an affront to the intentions of the original Constitution’s signatories.

Read all the comments over at Banana Oil!. Even the most of the ones I disagree with are at least worth reading and considering.

( þ The Smallest Minority)