“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.’ What the hell does that mean? It’s been the subject of endless debate. Does that mean a collective right? How many commas are there? What is a militia? Were muzzl loading weapons what the founders were talking about? Men like Jefferson and Franklin who were inventors surely thought firearms would evolve. The second amendment is an anachronism but the first recognizes word processors and online gaming, quill pens aren’t used anymore. Biden thinks large capacity magazines aren’t necessary for hunting and says deer aren’t wearing Kevlar vests and large capacity magazines haven’t been legal for a century or more. The second isn’t about duck hunting. The spin cycle goes on.

Why is the second amendment so poorly written? It turns out that is a good question to ask the great god of Google. Interesting response. The reason the amendment could be unclear is because it went through a number of revisions in the House of Representatives and then more in the Senate before the Bill of Rights was sent to the states for ratification. The second amendment that the House passed 24 to 22 read: “A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render service in person.”

What came out of the Senate eliminated the part of the militia as being “the body of the people” and protection for conscientious objectors. In the interest of expediency to get ratification wording was consolidated.

Back in the days before smarter-than-you phones and history was actually taught in American schools you were introduced to terms like Minutemen. One if by land two if by sea, Paul Revere and all that stuff. You know, the ones who gave the middle finger salute to King George at Lexington Green and fired a shot heard around the world. They sure as hell weren’t any national guard or state militia. They were citizens of the British empire and they said, “no more.” We kicked King Georgy’s butt and got on with trying to form a union. We are still stuck with Megan and Harry, though.

It was contentious. Some of the Founders debated each other, writing under pseudonyms in the federalist papers. The had recent experience with strong executives under the king and didn’t trust federal power. They liked checks and balances, three equal branches of government. Having just defeated a monarchical dictatorship with a large standing army, centralized power was viewed with suspicion. One argument was that a standing army composed of 30,000 federal troops was a threat to liberty. The counter argument was that a mere 30,000 federal army was no match for 500,000 armed civilians. In other words, an armed populace was a barrier to tyranny.

You can probably hear a collective gasp from the liberal gun banning I-5 blue streak part of the state. There is just too much gun violence. The idea of an armed populace is incomprehensible. So naturally pass an initiative to try and start the process of disarmament. Around 40,000 backlog for gun permits is evidence that the rural population believes this. Is it a rerun of history like patriots collecting arms at Concord?

When I was 19 my country gave me a free M14, and I carried seven 20-round magazines with a foot-long bayonet and a few bandoliers. Now if I have to drive to a VA hospital I have to go unarmed and there are cute little signs on the wall saying, “for your protection, no guns or knives are allowed.” A clear violation of the second amendment since the Supreme Court has ruled a homeless man can have a gun in his tent but a combat vet can’t have one in his car. Measure 114 is supposed to prevent suicides, but does it? The VA sends out regular notices on their “apps” saying if you are depressed get help. Call this number. Trouble is, 114 and other laws have “red flag laws.”If you are a danger to others or yourself, you could have your guns confiscated. So, what is a vet to think? He might think, I’m depressed and am thinking about joining the 22 or so vets who kill themselves every day. It looks like if I call for help there might be somebody show up and try to protect me by taking my guns. Think I’ll pass. He might end up as a suicide and of course the liberals will call it gun violence. Seems like when liberals try to think, things backfire. Oregon has shown the gun banners the way. Washington’s Inslee wants a Measure 114 with an “assault weapons” ban. And it appears that the Oregon formula has gone nationwide. You know, background checks that have been in place for decades, banning the magazines that came with the firearm when purchased, and of course everyone needs “training,” doesn’t matter if you had training in the military or even in combat. A total disrespect for veterans and they wonder why some decide to cash it in.

Steve Culley

La Grande