Would you become an indentured servant to exercise your right to keep and bear arms?

Just when you thought the debate over the Second Amendment couldn’t get any dumber, along comes a drooling, cross-eyed imbecile who wants you to become an indentured servant if you have the unmitigated gall to want to exercise your right to keep and bear arms. To be clear, he wants Congress to pass the “Military Induction for Licensing, Instruction and Training In Arms” Act – the MILITIA Act – which would require anyone purchasing a gun to enlist for military reserve service, spanning the entire period of their gun ownership.

Let’s put aside the fact that a right which requires you to serve – in any capacity and no matter how noble the service – in order to exercise it is not a right at all.

Let’s also ignore the fact that mandatory military service in exchange for exercising our rights would preclude people with disabilities from keeping and bearing arms – people who could arguably benefit most from armed self defense because their physical disabilities would make them easier prey for violent savages.

This drooling defective actually believes that’s exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted.

Gun advocates tend to talk about the Second Amendment as if it provides the unlimited freedom for any individual to own and carry weapons. The actual language is very different: “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.”

The actual language says exactly what it says without libidiot interpretations. According to the late Roy Copperud, who before his death spent a lifetime writing for newspapers, taught journalism at USC, was on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, was cited as an expert in language by Merriam Webster’s Usage Dictionary, and whose fifth book on usage, “American Usage and Style: The Consensus,” has been in continuous print since 1981.

The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people. The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence. The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated.

When it comes to the proper use and interpretation of the English language, I’ll take the expertise of a giant such as the late Mr. Copperud over the inane blatherings of someone who boasts a podcast, types opinions for CNN, and once co-wrote Jackie Chan’s autobiography.

“A whole 60 nations have mandatory military service,” he squeaks, citing recent Pew research. Of course, he conveniently forgets that the number constitutes fewer than a third of the nations in the world, and many of those countries aren’t exactly bastions of freedom, such as Russia and North Korea.

I doubt he wants to go there.

“But this proposal isn’t a turning back of the clock to the days of the draft,” says the moron. “It preserves our fundamental goal of having a volunteer armed forces. It just specifies that choosing to own a firearm should be equivalent to deciding to join our nation’s ‘well-regulated militia.'”

Volunteer. I’m not sure he knows the meaning of the word.

We already have volunteer armed forces, shitslurper. Forcing an individual to become an indentured servant merely for the privilege of exercising his or her rights is morally abhorrent. In addition, we already have the definition of a “militia” per US code.

(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.

Yes, we are all the militia, so the only reason for this particular proposal is to deprive people of their basic rights, while claiming they are too chickenshit to own firearms. It’s not like we all grow halos the moment we join a military service. There are plenty of folks in the military who commit crimes as well, so the proposal is not in any way meant to reduce crimes committed with firearms. It’s simply meant to prevent as many people from being able to purchase guns as possible.

By suggesting forced compulsory military service on people wishing to exercise their fundamental rights, this assclown is proposing to negate the very ideal of natural rights.

And as an active duty veteran as well as a former National Guardsman, I don’t want anyone serving with me who does not 100 percent want to be there. That’s the whole point of a volunteer force. I wouldn’t trust anyone who was forced into indentured servitude by the government to have my back. Sorry!

“How different would our gun debate be today if the focus weren’t on the selfish right to personal protection but on our responsibility to serve our country?” asks the ignorant would-be tyrant who doesn’t understand the concept of rights and wants to redefine the right to defend one’s own life as selfish in the most negative sense.

Redefining the concept of a fundamental right as something you are only granted when you become an indentured servant to the government is not only obnoxiously stupid, but also immoral.

In other words, liberal.

Welcome Instapundit readers!

Featured image via Pixabay. Creative Commons License 2.0.