Adam Freedman in the NY Times this morning wrote about “Cause and

Effect.” He was commenting on the way a simple comma could change the meaning of an important phrase in an important document.  He was referring specifically to the Second Amendment and the words that laid out the right of citizens to participate in a “well-regulated militia” while there should be no infringement of said citizens to keep and bear arms.  It seems pretty clear to me, without paying much attention to the commas in that phrase, that I have the right to go over to where the militia meets and join up with them.  I can bring along my musket or use one of the ones they keep there for those who do not keep and own weapons.  Then there are the hunters.  In the past they used their weapons to put food on the table and clothing on the backs of their families.  I have nothing negative to say about them except that they should be expected to do their own butchering.

But, I am a simple scribbler. I am not a scrivener or notary who verifies what someone else has written down.  Spoken words are not important here.  Only those written down and then there is all the argument about what is meant by them other than what appears on the face of the document or in memories about what was said about the meaning of the written word.  I write essays on issues, ideas and my reflections on the times in which we live.  It is hard to reflect on the times when words contemplated by the Supreme Court were written into the Constitution.  No one is alive today who was alive then who can attest to the REAL meaning of the words which are at the base of contention about the owning, use of or potential for lethal purposes guns are intended for. Or, maybe crystal clarity was not intended.

The Constitution has been copied many times.  This does not change the meaning of the words in that document.  We argue today about owning, keeping and using weapons. It should be crystal clear to all that no citizen needs a rapid firing, heavy duty military rifle to protect home and kith and kin.  It should be also crystal clear that we have modern militias each state maintains, National Guards. We also have armories where weapons are stored in case of need.  So, where and why have gun lovers fired up, so to speak, the issue about “regulation” of ownership and use of weapons by ordinary citizens?

I think we agree that the police should be licensed to carry guns.  The Brinks guard who came over to look in my window when I parked behind his truck had his hand on his gun in its holster until I saluted him and he returned it.  He is especially careful today because of the spate of robberies of money wagons and banks.  It seems that this is in response to all the guns brought to the scenes of robberies and break-ins by crooks, thieves and evil doers who may or may not realize the difference between using weapons against other citizens and, or their property and what it says in the Constitution.

But, I am only a scribbler and write as I please.  No one is seriously affected or impaired by what I write. But, I believe owning and using bullets should be severely regulated.