The (distorted) view from Canada

Toronto lawyer Tom O'Driscoll, not being a politician in the U.S., doesn't have to even pretend to have any respect for the Second Amendment. So, he doesn't.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Twenty-seven ill-chosen words, three badly-placed commas, one unrivaled legislative botch-up.

And that's just the first sentence.

Opponents in the gun-control debate ascribe very different interpretations to the amendment. To gun-control advocates, it is nothing more than the protection of a state's right to maintain a militia; to the pro-gun gang, it is nothing less than confirmation of an individual's constitutional right to own a gun.

So those who advocate forcible citizen disarmament are "advocates," while those of us who oppose it are a "gang." And here I am not even knowing what colors I'm supposed to wear (I suppose it would be camo, but which camouflage pattern?).

While we admittedly have our fair share of gun-control issues and controversy in Canada [you don't say!], at least our law-makers aren't faced with an arguable gun-ownership right being inscribed in our constitution in all-but-indelible ink.

What the HELL does he mean by "all-but-indelible"? Maybe he should just try erasing the Bill of Rights (he wouldn't be the first to try), and see where that gets him. Oh, by the way, the gun-ownership right might be "arguable," but I'd hate to be one of the poor saps arguing for the other side.

Incredibly, if the questions and comments from the Court during the D.C. vs. Heller hearing last March are any tip-off, that is about to change: The Court appears ready, by a five-to-four margin, to rule that the amendment gives individuals the right to own a gun.

If SCOTUS does rule that the Second Amendment "gives" individuals the right to keep and bear arms, the justices need to demand a refund on their law school tuitions. Preexisting, fundamental human rights aren't given--they're honored.

Isn't the amendment's thirteen-word preamble a clear-cut indication of a militia-related purpose?

And doesn't "the people" mean the people (I don't remember seeing anything about "the right of militias to keep and bear arms")?

Shouldn't the social context in which it was passed -- a fledgling nation, having spit the bit of imperial oppression and wary of replacement tyranny -- be examined in interpreting its meaning?

Has tyranny, and the possibility of its return, ceased to exist since the 18th century?

Needn't notice be taken that firearms were already blazing away in 1789, thus the "fire" prefix -- if intended to apply to "arms" -- could have easily been inserted?

As arguments go, that one (as tough as the competition is) might take first place, in terms of stupidity. We are to believe that because the Founding Fathers didn't limit the protected arms to firearms, firearms were thus not included?

If the intent of the amendment was to confirm the right to own a gun, why didn't it simply state that?

It did, you sniveling dolt.

Sadly, only this is quite clear about the Second Amendment: Whoever drafted it shoulda been shot.

Ah--the last refuge of "non-violence" advocates.