The Second Amendment: Clarity

In honor of those who have used arms to defend our rights...


The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

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.

What is the law of the land?

The Second Amendment is made up of two clauses.  The first clause reads, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," and is known as the prefatory clause.  The second clause reads, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  This is known as the operative clause.

A straightforward reading of the Second Amendment clearly shows that the first clause is not operational law.  It is merely a preface to the law, written to explain why this amendment was created.  Only the second clause is operational law.  The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld this understanding:

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
District of Columbia v. Heller (1)(a)

Therefore, with the understanding that the first clause is only a preface to the law, we see that the operational supreme law of the land simply declares that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

We often try to look to other writings from our founding fathers in order to put their laws into context.  This piece will contain several quotations from those involved in the writing of the Constitution.  However, it must be understood that not all of these great men agreed with each other.  The content of the Constitution was hotly debated, and that certainly includes the Second Amendment.  Context is helpful, but contextual writings are not law.  We must remember that only that which has been codified into law is law.

What does it mean to be regulated?

Despite the fact that the prefatory clause is not operational law, we can better understand the intent of the Second Amendment when we clarify this clause.  First, let's look at what it means to be regulated.

In this context, the word, "regulated," refers to the competency of the militia.  It is an adjective form of the word, "regular" - a professional soldier.  (example: The regulars are supplemented by auxiliaries to form a larger, combined unit of soldiers.)  It would be similar to saying, "well trained" and "well equipped."  It does not refer to regulation in the sense of restriction by law.

This understanding is further supported by the fact that the operative clause states that the right shall not be infringed.  A restriction of a right is, by definition, an infringement.  This form of regulation would put the prefatory clause at odds with the operational clause.

Furthermore, if the first clause of the Second Amendment was operational and it referred to regulation in the sense of restriction by law, the amendment would contradict itself.  If the logical law of noncontradiction were violated, the Second Amendment would be absurd - nonsensical.  Ultimately, it is clear that the Second Amendment in no way supports any restriction on the right of the people to bear arms.

What is a militia?

Our understanding of the Second Amendment can also be strengthened by clarifying what a militia really is.

Just before the American Revolution, the colonies were protected from external threats by two primary forces: the regular British troops and the colonial militas.  The British Regulars were controlled by the British Crown to defend the entire British Empire, but the colonial militias were managed separately by each colony.  One of the hottest political issues of the day was whether the colonies needed regular British soldiers stationed in the colonies or their own militias were sufficient.  Regular troops were expensive, and this tied into the taxation without representation problem.

By contrast, the members of the colonial militias were not full-time soldiers; they had their own occupations and provided for their own living.  They were usually required to equip themselves; private firearm ownership at this time was commonplace and expected.  In times of peace, they only assembled about three times per year for training.  Some colonies required that all able-bodied men participate in their local militias.  They were not used to "police" the citizens; they were formed by the citizens to deal with threats outside of their localities.

In times of need, especially in the tense period just before the Revolutionary War, minutemen were formed as a more dedicated portion of militia.  They made up a fraction of all the militia, and underwent more training and preparation than the rest.  Rather than display their capabilities publicly, they often hid supplies and ammunition from the British.  Basically, the purpose of the minutemen was to respond quickly to any sudden armed threat from the Crown's troops.  They were used to prevent British raids of supplies.  They served as short-notice soldiers, and that is how they earned their famous title.

After the war had actually begun, it was determined that local militia forces were not up to the task of fighting a sustained conflict.  A Continental Army of full-time regular soldiers was formed.  Throughout the war, the army was often supplemented with militiamen.

Why was the Second Amendment created?

In the context of the American Revolution, it seems clear that the minutemen are the inspiration for the wording in the first clause of the Second Amendment.  They were well trained, well equipped militiamen.  They were used to maintain the freedom of the colonies against armed abuse by the British Crown.  To put it more plainly, they kept an overreaching government in check.

It must also be noted that our founders understood militia participation to be a fact of life as a citizen instead of a specific occupation.  The goal of protecting the freedoms of the people was intended to be accomplished by allowing all citizens to be armed.  The operative portion of the Second Amendment grants a right to the people, not just a subset of those people.

The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
District of Columbia v. Heller (1)(b)

Today, this "new world" has been tamed and we live in times of relative peace.  However, modern examples of overreaching governments can still be found across the world.  If local citizens had been well trained and well armed, many of those abuses could have been prevented.  Our founding fathers understood this concept all too well, and I hope it is a lesson we never have to learn for ourselves.

Lest there be any doubt that the founders intended the Second Amendment to protect the people from an abusive government, see some of their own words provided at the end of this piece.  The Second Amendment guarantees all the others.

What are arms?

Now that the why has been established, let's take a closer look at the what.

It has been suggested that "arms" only refers to the weapons available at the time of the writing of the Constitution, such as flintlock firearms.  If we took this same logic and applied it to the First Amendment, we would not be able to read the news on the internet.  Furthermore, our armed forces would have a very tough time combating foreign enemies.  Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court has maintained that these claims are utter rubbish.

Despite this fact, the people of the United States are very limited as to what arms they can actually bear.  Why is this? Both the intent of the Second Amendment and the codified operational wording of the second clause point to a very broad definition of the word, "arms."

The founders clearly intended for the Second Amendment to give the people the power to keep the government in check.  Therefore, it follows that the arms available to the people must be, at the very least, equal to the arms available to the federal armed forces.

The wording of the second clause states in no uncertain terms that the right shall not be infringed.  As has already been stated, a restriction of a right is the very definition of an infringement.  Restricting some types of arms, therefore, violates the operational wording of the Second Amendment.

One could claim that it would be crazy to allow any citizen the right to wield nuclear weapons.  Our founding fathers knew that they could not see all ends, and provided a way for the Constitution to be modified in a case such as this.  (This is clarified later.)  However, such modification has not yet taken place.  At it stands right now, the Second Amendment grants the people the right to bear whatever arms they might acquire.

Furthermore, in keeping with the spirit of the founders that gave us this amendment, it might behoove us to ask, "Why must the government of, by, and for the people have access to a weapon that the people are not allowed to bear?"

What does it mean to bear arms?

The term, "bear arms," is very broad.  Transporting a rifle for hunting is a subset of bearing arms.  Storing a shotgun in the closet for home defense is a subset of bearing arms.  Carrying a handgun in one's pocket is a subset of bearing arms.  The Second Amendment lacks specificity on this matter, and ensures that specificity would be a violation by stating that the right shall not be infringed.

It must be clarified that actual use of arms is not a subset of bearing arms.  For example, a law that forbids murder with a weapon is not an infringement of the Second Amendment.

What if I think this law is ridiculous?

You would not be alone.  Furthermore, you do have options available to you.

The United States Constitution, to a degree, was designed to be a living document.  The Constitution can be modified.  Article V of the Constitution states that it can be ratified by two thirds of both houses of the federal congress and three fourths of the states.  This is no small feat, but it has been done many times in the past.  Contact your legislators.  If these super majorities cannot be reached, perhaps the law is not as terrible as some might think.

If the supreme law of the land will not be changed, you could also remove yourself from the land in one of two ways: expatriation or secession.  The former, expatration, is simply the giving up of your U.S. Citizenship.  There are many other countries with much more strict gun control laws.  The latter, secession, is the removal of your state (or other locality) from the union.  This would be much more difficult to successfully accomplish, but you may certainly contact your local legislators nonetheless.

If none of these options suits you, then your only legal alternative is to simply accept that this is the law of the land.  It was put there for good reasons, and it just might be the case that they are still good reasons today.

Relevant thoughts from our founding fathers:

First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments in the community to be avoided. [...] But, say gentlemen, the general militia are for the most part employed at home in their private concerns, cannot well be called out, or be depended upon; that we must have a select militia; that is, as I understand it, particular corps or bodies of young men, and of men who have but little to do at home, particularly armed and disciplined in some measure, at the public expence, and always ready to take the field. These corps, not much unlike regular troops, will ever produce an inattention to the general militia; and the consequence has ever been, and always must be, that the substantial men, having families and property, will generally be without arms, without knowing the use of them, and defenceless; whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
Richard Henry Lee, Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican - Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788

The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.
James Madison, The Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.
Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Federal Gazette on June 18, 1789

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. [...] Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.
Elbridge Gerry, 1 Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789


Disclaimer: I do not claim to be an expert on history or law.  I am simply attempting to generate healthy discussion.  I will update this as necessary.

Little Ones and Lobotomy

The Incident

Two weeks ago, our two-year-old daughter ran into a table and smacked her head.  She hit it pretty hard, and this resulted in a painful headache.  We decided a medical professional should look at the injury to make sure it was properly cared for, so we took the girls and drove to a medical clinic.  (If you haven't heard about this yet and are starting to freak out, don't.  Everything is just fine; but please keep reading.)

Before going any further, I should explain that I have a pretty radical philosophy when it comes to medical treatments.  I believe the following:

1) A medical treatment must not be performed unless it provides a benefit.
2) If a medical treatment has risks associated with it, it must not be performed unless the benefits are greater than the risks.

These are very simple and reasonable standards, but I have found that many parents as well as many medical professionals do not follow them.  As my daughter's father, I believe it is my duty to ensure, to the best of my ability, that any medical treatment performed on her meets these criteria.  That belief was put to the test during this incident.

On the way to the clinic, I knew we were going to be facing a difficult decision.  You see, in cases such as this, it is a standard medical procedure to perform a lobotomy on the part of the brain that is causing the pain.  This is done to prevent the pain from causing larger problems later on.  In fact, most children of this age have already had that part of the brain severed as a precaution.  Knowing that this is a controversial issue (many medical professionals are against this practice), my wife and I had previously done some independent research on the risks and benefits of this particular procedure.  The results of our research led us to refuse the procedure for our children up until this point.

We got to the clinic, checked in with a nurse, and waited for a doctor to show up.  While we were waiting, I decided to call our daughters' pediatrician.  I am not a medical professional, and I had come to trust his expert medical opinion.  Even though I had done my own research, I wanted to confirm with him that a lobotomy was not necessary in this particular case.  Indeed, he told me that as our daughter's pediatrician, and with the information I gave him, he did not see a need for the lobotomy.  He also confirmed that it is a standard procedure in cases such as this, and that I was correct to assume that the doctors at this clinic would recommend the procedure.  He did not actually make a recommendation, but told us that it was perfectly fine for us to decide which course of action to take.

A doctor came and looked at our daughter.  As I expected, she asked us why we had not allowed her to have a lobotomy until now.  I answered simply and clearly, "Statistical analysis."  Looking slightly surprised, she went on to explain that she would recommend we have the lobotomy done.

I should add that, during my research, I discovered that these procedures usually include severing multiple parts of the brain at once, in order to kill many birds with one stone.  Therefore, I asked the doctor, "Will you only operate on the portion directly related to this injury?"  She clearly answered in the affirmative, which surprised me a little.  I told her that we would have to discuss it.  We had time to think about it because our daughter's wound needed some cleaning and an X-ray to ensure no bone was damaged, which they were going to do soon.

That doctor left.  A few minutes later, another doctor came in and introduced herself as the supervisory doctor of the clinic.  She told us a little more about the lobotomy.  She also added that many of "those studies" about medical procedures are flawed because they do not take into account collective immunity.  For example, polio (which she mentioned specifically) does not spread much anymore because much of the population has been immunized against it.  This makes the virus seem less dangerous than it would be if the immunization had never been created.

If you're asking yourself what the spread of viruses has to do with a non-contagious headache resulting from an injury, congratulations!  You are more intelligent than the supervisory doctor of a medical clinic.  I'm.  Not.  Kidding.

Anyway, I was not about to get into an argument with the very people that were trying to help our daughter who needed medical treatment.  Therefore, I simply told her that we wanted to wait until our visit to the pediatrician in a few days before making a decision about the lobotomy.  Our daughter was given a temporary treatment for the pain that would last until then, so an immediate decision was not necessary.  The doctor didn't seem satisfied, but she left anyway.

A while later, a nurse came in to clean the wound.  She asked my wife, "Is it okay with your religion if I use this cleaning solution on her?"  Not once did we make any reference to religions or belief systems, but by now the entirety of the clinic staff probably thought they had a bunch of extremist nut jobs on their hands.  As I said, I clearly cited statistical analysis as my justification for questioning the medical treatment.

Later on, one of the nurses told us that our pediatrician was on the phone.  Obviously, the supervisory genius of the facility couldn't accept the fact that any self-respecting doctor would allow some religious whackos to deny medical treatment for a child in favor of simply praying that God will magically heal the injury.  I'm assuming she tried to talk some sense into him and insisted that he convince us to get the lobotomy done.

When I picked up the phone, he repeated that we were free to make whatever decision we were comfortable with.  He also added this juicy tidbit: if the operation were performed at this clinic it would actually affect other parts of the brain, not just the one relating to the current injury.  Oh, really?  While this confirmed what I had learned in my own research, it was contradictory to what the first doctor told me when I asked her about it in no uncertain terms.

At this point, we just wanted to get out of the clinic.  The doctors were very reluctant to let us go without making a decision regarding the lobotomy.  (How is one to make an informed decision without time to gather information?)  I told them that I knew we were going against the standard procedure, but I insisted that we take it up with our pediatrician.

Eventually, they let us go.  Our one-year-old suffered little more than boredom.  Our injured two-year-old was a real trooper - the only time she got really frightened was during the X-ray, but it was quick and I was able to sort of hold her while wearing protection.  At my request, she said, "Thank you." to the clinic staff on the way out, which was really cute.  They gave her a toy to keep, too.

If you suspect that parts of this story are made up, you would be correct.  A similar event did occur, but I changed the injury and treatment in order to make a point.  The same logic still applies to the actual injury and the treatment that was actually offered.

The Soapbox

You may have wondered why anyone in their right mind would perform a lobotomy just to eliminate the silly prospect of serious complications resulting from headache pain.  The chances of such a thing happening must be almost non-existent!  And obviously, a lobotomy has serious risks associated with it.

If someone tried to tell you that most doctors agreed this standard procedure was actually beneficial, wouldn't you ask to see some statistical data to back up that claim?  If they told you that the procedure had been thoroughly tested, wouldn't you demand to see the evidence that the benefits outweigh the risks?  If this was really tested, the results should surely be available to the public, right?  Yet parents, medical "professionals," and others often fail to ask such simple questions.

In many cases, it is hard or impossible to find statistical justification for controversial medical practices.  You can read about how difficult it was for me to investigate this particular treatment here.  If the treatment is as good as many claim it is, why is it so difficult to gather this data?

Again, justification must meet these criteria:

1) A medical treatment must not be performed unless it provides a benefit.
2) If a medical treatment has risks associated with it, it must not be performed unless the benefits are greater than the risks.

There are no exceptions.

I don't care about looking up some hippie's website and finding that all vaccinations are evil because they give everybody autism.  The onus is not on me to prove that the treatment is too risky; it is on the medical community to prove that the treatment is justified.  If such justification cannot be produced, you can bet I'll exercise my right to refuse treatment for my children.

Just ask why.  Ask for justification.  It's not a complicated request.

If you don't, shame on you.  Especially if you are responsible for the medical care of another.

The Golden Bridge

Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (Scipio, for short) is considered to be among the greatest generals in the history of the world. About 200 years before Christ, he ended the greatest threat to ever face the Roman Republic by defeating Hannibal of Carthage in Hannibal's own land without any military or financial aid from Rome.

Scipio is credited with being the first recorded man to promote the use of what is sometimes called the golden bridge. According to Vegetius:

"Most people ignorant of military matters believe the victory will be more complete if they surround the enemy in a confined place or with large numbers of soldiers, so that they can find no way of escape. But trapped men draw extra courage from desperation, and when there is no hope, fear takes up arms. Men who know without a doubt that they are going to die and will gladly die in good company.
For this reason, Scipio's axiom has won good praise, when he said that a way should be built for the enemy to flee by. For when an escape-route is revealed, the minds of all are united on turning their backs, and they are slaughtered unavenged, like cattle. Nor is there any danger for the pursuers once the defeated have turned round the arms with which they could have defended themselves. In this tactic, the greater the numbers, the more easily is a mass cut down. For there is no need of numbers in a case where the soldiers' minds, once terrified, wish to avoid not just the enemy's weapons but his face. Whereas trapped men, though few in number and weak in strength, for this very fact are a match for their enemies, because desperate men know they can have no other recourse. 'The only hope of safety for the defeated is to expect no safety.'"
- Vegetius, Epitoma Rei Militaris III, xxi

The golden bridge is the perceived route of escape. It gives people a reason to stop fighting and try taking the easy way out. What they don't realize is that it's actually a trap that ensures their defeat more easily and soundly than fighting to the last man.

If you corner the bear, you get mauled. If you let it run, you get a free shot at its back.

Now, I'm going to throw a thought out there, and I'm sure it's not going to be very popular. Here goes:

In the United States of America, the vote is your golden bridge.

That's not to say that you shouldn't vote. Every American citizen ought to diligently consider exercising this freedom. The key is to not let it fool you into ignoring the deeds that can actually bring about change for the better. As to what those other deeds are, I'll leave that for you to dwell on.

We must not get caught up in the mindset that situations will improve if we just get enough of the right politicians in office. Ain't. Gonna. Happen. Digging up dirt on this politician or campaigning for that poitician are only ways of treating the symptoms of a system that is broken at its core, and those who are truly in control want you to believe that you're really making a difference if you just do these things. As you run across the golden bridge they have set up for you, your back is exposed and they don't have to worry about defending themselves.

Let's be honest. Your right to vote has driven you to complacency. You have used it as an excuse to throw up your hands and say, "I did my part."

If you're one of the sorry creatures that gets upset or depressed when an election doesn't go your way, if you place all your hopes for the future of this country on what the polls are telling you about the next election, you are the problem. Your favorite party isn't going to fix what is actually broken. It isn't driven by moral obligation or patriotic duty, and it's certainly not driven by you. The fact that you and the rest of this country don't recognize the golden bridge for what it is ensures the fate of this land just as the fleeing soldier ensures the victory of his attacker.

Jesus Rifles

- Somewhere in Afghanistan -

"Akhmed!  I am mortally wounded!"

"D'oh!  What ever shall we do, Sarge?"

"Did you catch the serial number on that rifle?"

"ACOG4X32JN8:12, Sir."

"Ack!  That is obviously a reference to John 8:12.  Pull out your NIV and read it to me!"

"No need, Sir.  I can recite it from memory. 'When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, 'I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.''"

"It is just as I feared!  I have been shot by a Jesus rifle.  Avenge me in the name of Allah!"

"But Sir, isn't Jesus one of Allah's great prophe-"

"DO IT ANYWAY!!!"

- Back to Reality -

I know, it's ridiculous, but according to ABC News, this is exactly what Michael Weinstein of the inappropriately named Military Religious Freedom Foundation claims is happening:

"It allows the Mujahedeen, the Taliban, al Qaeda and the insurrectionists and jihadists to claim they're being shot by Jesus rifles, ... We're emboldening an enemy."

Getting shot may or may not tick you off, but if it's a Jesus Rifle (TM) you're sure to be angry.  It's almost like they haven't already decided the States are "the great Satan."

Seriously, though, worshipers of religious censorship "freedom" are making two primary claims when discussing this story.

Claim #1: It violates the separation of church and state.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

A violation of the separation of church and state is not necessarily a violation of the U.S. constitution (or any national law, for that matter) because the words "church," "state," or "separation" do not exist in the "establishment" clause.  This issue has nothing to do with congressional laws, so it gets the Bill of Rights nod of approval.

Claim #2: It violates U.S. military rules by proselytizing to the people of foreign nations.

The funny thing about this claim, similar to the one above, is that the people crying about injustice won't actually quote the rules.  Here is what the Uniform Code of Military Justice says about proselytizing:

"Military officials must ensure that service members are neither punished for their beliefs nor subjected to unwanted proselytizing or evangelizing from military chaplains or senior officers and noncommissioned officers, even if the proselytizing or evangelizing is intended as a good-faith effort to salvage the spiritual health of the service members."

What does this regulation have to do with protecting foreigners from harmful messages of love and forgiveness?  Right.  Nothing.

[Edit: Actually, there's more.  For a discussion of General Order No. 1, see the comments below.]

In addition, if you wanted to make the claim that service members are being subjected to unwanted evangelizing from officers, go ask your local serviceman if he'd rather have the Bible-stamped scope from Trijicon or the basic hunting model from Wal-Mart.  (Go on.  It's okay.  They're actually nice once you get to know them.)  I guarantee he'll agree with the officers that signed the contracts for these excellent pieces of American technology.

A private company has every right to stamp references to Bible verses, quoted Bible passages, crosses, or whatever on its products.  And if that company's products are the most effective at saving American lives, the armed forces have every right to purchase them.  Isn't the rule of law wonderful?

Besides, I have it on good authority that Trijicon only hires the very best productivity engineers.  Trijicon is one of, what, two? businesses in Michigan that are successful right now.  Perhaps the media could benefit from the use of some scopes to zoom in on actual problems instead of shooting themselves in the feet.

Truth is Absolutely Unrelated to Consensus

In light of the recent issue of "Climategate" I hope people are understanding how other areas of science may be impacted by similar problems.  If you think this problem is isolated to a few rogue scientists, you simply have not been paying attention to academia in our country and in the world.  The fields of environmental science, historical science, and medical science are all damaged by corruption, greed, and deception.  Even my own area of expertise, computer science, is not immune to these vices.

Facts are not factual just because people believe them to be true.  Consensus is completely independent of truth. In addition, credentials have nothing to do with trustworthiness.

C. S. Lewis lamented the fact that the proper use of logic is no longer taught to our children.  I lament with him, but I will not allow my own children to suffer the same harm.