The Orwellian Logic of Wayne LaPierre

[Uncle Joe]

Most strong advocates of the 2nd Amendment claim it's necessary for an individual right to bear arms to maintain the security of a "free state."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text

As passed by the Congress:

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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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.[8]

(snip)

The right to have arms in English history is believed to have been regarded as a long-established natural right in English law, auxiliary to the natural and legally defensible rights to life.[9] The English Bill of Rights emerged from a tempestuous period in English politics during which two issues were major sources of conflict: the authority of the King to govern without the consent of Parliament and the role of Catholics in a country that was becoming ever more Protestant. Ultimately, the Catholic James II was overthrown in the Glorious Revolution, and his successors, the Protestants William III and Mary II, accepted the conditions that were codified in the Bill. One of the issues the Bill resolved was the authority of the King to disarm its subjects, after James II had attempted to disarm many Protestants, and had argued with Parliament over his desire to maintain a standing (or permanent) army.[10] The bill states that it is acting to restore "ancient rights" trampled upon by James II, though some have argued that the English Bill of Rights created a new right to have arms, which developed out of a duty to have arms.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court did not accept this view, remarking that the English right at the time of the passing of the English Bill of Rights was "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms.[12]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=344462

National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre defiantly blamed violent video games and movies, the media, gun-free zones in schools and other factors during the organization's first public statement following the elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn. last week.

LaPierre, who was interrupted by Code Pink protesters twice during a statement (during which he refused to answer questions), said that the students in Newtown might have been better protected had officials at Sandy Hook Elementary been armed. He said that putting a police officer in every single school in America might make schools safer.

This begs the question what is the definition of a "free state"?

If the 2nd Amendment is an individual right having nothing to do with service to a militia as the Supreme Court decided in 2008, then logic dictates a "free state" must pertain to the individuals living in said state, not the state itself.

So the proposition put forward by LaPierre in effect that the 1st Amendment should be curtailed and that government; teachers, guards and police should arm themselves in schools against the people smacks of Big Brother love.

LaPierre doesn't really care for individual liberty so much as for promoting an arms race in which his organization and their clients will profit, in this they're no different than the military industrial complex's wet dream for eternal war or Cold War just to rake in blood money.