Well it seems Mr. Klein has trouble understanding the Constitution of the United States. I'm not the smartest guy in the world-but-I have never had trouble understanding the Constitution. It's not like trying to read the original version of the King James Bible which-with its arcane English-can be a bit daunting for modern English readers.
Actually the Constitution is pretty clear and straight forward. I know a lot of folks have already written miles of commentary about this video,but,I want to draw your attention not to what Klein says in the above video but rather to what he had to say in a related article in the Washington Post!
It seems Mr. Klein has-as most liberals do-a problem understanding the "right to have and bear arms"
Here is what he had to say in the Washington Post concerning that right...
"My friends on the right don't like to hear this, but the Constitution is not a clear document. Written more than 200 years ago, when America had 13 states and very different problems, it rarely speaks directly to the questions we ask it. The Second Amendment, for instance, says nothing about keeping a gun in the home if you've not signed up with a "well-regulated militia," but interpreting the Second Amendment broadly has been important to those who want to bear arms. And so they've done it."Lets examine this statement. Mr. Klein says that the Constitution "rarely speaks to the questions we ask it".
What? It speaks quite clearly about freedom of the press,freedom of religion,freedom of assembly to name but a few of the questions we could ask of it,and,it speaks very clearly about the right of the people to have and bear arms.
In fact why don't we let the Constitution speak for itself...
"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."Yep looks pretty clear to me. The constitution says "the right of the people to have and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The part about a well regulated militia is in their to give justification for the people to be able to possess guns.
It doesn't say a thing about being "enrolled in a militia". The founders had just gone through a revolution where ordinary citizens had formed themselves into voluntary militias in order to fight the British. They were not supplied by the government. However they did place themselves at the disposal of the Continental Congress.
The founders vision was that free citizens would voluntarily continue to form militias to protect their freedom.
How could free men come together to protect themselves if deprived of the right to arms!! Lets listen to the Founding Fathers in their own words...
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
-- James Madison, The Federalist Papers
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
Very clear words indeed from the very men who had a part in drafting the Constitution but none more clear than Patrick Henry...
" Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788
This last quote- more than all the others- makes it clear that the people themselves WERE the militia. Who better to be trusted with arms than law abiding patriotic citizens!!
No the Constitution is not confusing. Actually the Constitution is quite clear. The real problem is the confused and fuzzy thinking of folks like Ezra Klein and his fellows on the left!!