The annual goat show referred to as the NRA convention has concluded. The way it went lends substance to my view that the driving purpose of the NRA is not to preserve our Second Amendment entitlements but to protect the “guns, guns, more guns” mentality of its spoiled-brat membership. As reported in several media accounts, the biggest attractors at the convention were the assault-rifle displays. Concurrently with the convention, NRA leader Wayne LaPierre was back at it, claiming that these gun-control measures would violate the Second Amendment: Restrictions on magazine capacities. Universal background checks. Bans on assault rifles.
As a few Herald editorials have pointed out (with solid logic), none of these controls would infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I’ve come to the conclusion that most NRA advocates need a course in remedial English to enable them to interpret the Second Amendment in terms of its grammar and syntax. “...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is not a stand-alone, independent clause. Syntactically it is modified by this introductory clause: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state ...” Clearly, unless you are an NRA illiterate, the Second Amendment is asserting that the people have a right to keep and bear arms as members of a regularly trained militia. I certainly do not see the NRA as a well-regulated militia seeing to the security of our free state. Do you?
Tom Wright
Aztec
