Mobiles, Shakespeare, Standards, Usability, Security.

Mitt Romney And Gun Control

I wrote this before the Presidential election. I didn't publish it because it looked like Obama was going to win without my help. Also, it feels unseemly to meddle in another country's politics. Recent events have stirred me into posting.

I don't know much about Mitt Romney's position on gun control. It doesn't seem to have come up much in the run up to the election. I can, I think, infer his thoughts on the matter after watching this exchange he had with Bob Garon, a Vietnam veteran who was having breakfast with his husband.

You can jump to 1:50 to hear the exchange I think is so illuminating.

The quote from Romney is:

I think at the time the constitution was written it was pretty clear; that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Now, as far as I am aware, the United State Constitution has nothing to say on the subject of marriage. The Bill of Rights - written around the same time as the constitution - is also silent on the issue. It does, however, have this to say about guns:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Using Mitt Romney's logic, it seems pretty clear that "Arms" refers to muskets, bayonets, maybe small cannon. Doesn't it?

Or, do we perhaps accept that things change. That our laws need to be updated to societal and technological norms.

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Those seem like fine goals.

There's no life when cruelly ended by war machines. There's no happiness when love is banned. There is no liberty when people are held hostage to the tyranny of their forefathers' limitations.


A picture of Noncoformistradical Noncoformistradical

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I think they forgot the bit about a well-regulated militia - I see nothing well-regulated about a 'society' which values the right of any old tom, dick or harry to own guns above the risk of those guns being used to kill innocent people and wreck the lives of the families of those innocent people.

A picture of markrendle markrendle

I see "signatures" on message boards that say 'what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?'

I always want to respond 'what part of "well-regulated militia" do *you* not understand?'

If being a member of a well-regulated militia were a pre-condition of gun ownership, the Bill of Rights would remain honored, but one might hope that the number of tragedies such as happened in Connecticut yesterday would fall.


What do you reckon?

%d bloggers like this: