“Perhaps the deterioration of American education is illustrated by the high correlation between the number of years a person has attended school and his inability to understand the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It is more likely, though, that those who interpret the Second Amendment to preclude an individual right to own guns are driven by their political agenda. Whichever the case, they do themselves no credit when they tell us that a simple, elegant sentence means the opposite of what it clearly says.”

To see "The Deterioration of American Education" just take a look at the teachers strike in Chicago going on now. Judging from pictures of these striking "teachers", I suspect that the kids are getting a better education with this bunch out of the classroom.

It takes few words to tell the truth. What does that say about a 12-year 'education' program in which students have been groomed to be perfect stooges? '1984' was required reading in the old days -- I bet it isn't required in Chicago public schools (although I bet a fair amount believe 2+2=5 -- including the teachers).

Said clearly and accurately. WOW and when you consider the inordinate percentage of Chicago students that don't even graduate -' they have the same political agenda as those of the (using the term loosely) educated teaches with out the ability to read the term "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Jerry, thanks for the liberty star ratting from Chicago

What the author has quoted is a sentence fragment. The original sentence is neither simple nor elegant and it has all of that preliminary stuff about 'a well regulated militia being necessary for the common defense' preliminary to the simple and elegant fragment the author chose.

The MAN with No Name, OOPS! The "well regulated militia" of the same clause absolutely supports the simple eloquence and accuracy of the plainly understood phrase. FYI; militia was a completely understood and well settled term meaning an armed gathering of individuals for a common defense (by way of modern day example: the Korean families during the L.A. riots). In an individual civilian setting, it would be said "well armed". In a formally gathered group, forming a militia, the proper verbiage used for the scenario would be "well regulated". The founders and writers of the Constitution were literate men, as is adverse to those that would change the meaning of words and phrases today. Weather the well armed individual stands alone or, well regulated individual stands in common with other individuals ("well armed = well regulated") the weaponry remains that of the individual - the right to keep and bear arms (a lot of regulation) shall not be infringed ! ! ! is inherent in the self preservation of the individual and species ! ! !

It is understood further, because the weaponry is the sole property of the individual (owned in personal allodium - without third party interference or otherwise limitations and infringments), if the individual joins the common defense of the militia with out his personal arms / regulation, he goes into battle unarmed / without regulation. The original sentence / phrase / clause / fragment(s) is simple, elegant and exceedingly clear to the read and understanding of and by the noble freeman. Only when malefactors try and take away freedom, liberty, and individual inalienable rights does the clause, or any fragment thereof, become a stumbling block of confusion.

Thanks, Mike!

This is a true example of political correctness gone mad. A slavish adherence to 'right' enshrined in a political document despite its contemporary dangers and detriments.

Mick, please understand that the US Constitution is a rule book for the government, not the People. The powers granted to the government are specific and numerable, and there are several prohibitions upon the subject government. This is not political correctness, this is the law! To act outside of the specific bounds of these laws is treasonous. There is no compromise -- either change the rules lawfully or pay the price for breaking them. Congress shall make no law abridging the rights to possess military arms -- what part of "shall make no law" is not clear? The dangers and detriments are to those that seek power over others, that's why they never cease to undermine the foundation of liberty. In America, the citizen is sovereign, and the government subject. In Manchester, the Queen is sovereign, and the citizens subject. The two ideologies are completely opposite each other at their very foundations. The Muslim mayor's response to the Manchester bombing is the epitome of political correctness -- nothing to see here, folks, move along, get used to it, it's completely normal ...

Archer, I presume you mean Mr Kahn who is Mayor of London and was commenting on the potential alarm caused to Londoners by the increase in number of armed police on London Streets - an uncommon sight - and not the atrocities of London Bridge and Borough Market (not Manchester). President Trump's 'tweeted' remarks were outrageous in the circumstances and completely misinformed; as you are also apparently. The Queen in the UK has no political power or influence. Even the most ardent royalist could not deny that she has no more than a tokenistic role. British citizens are subject to the rule of law facilitated by acts of parliament over which Queeny has no input or real influence. Britain has no written constitution and is therefore not saddled with historical anachronisms such as the right to bear arms. You seem to imply that if we had such a right then things would somehow have been better!! If guns are freely available in society then the carnage is much worse.