What :dry:

Ok. I can understand why Akin might be disturbed at the presence of security at churches. In a more perfect world, there would be many places that should be sanctuaries from evil. Your house, your church, your mall, your school. Wouldn't that be just great? But we don't live in a more perfect world. Akin doesn't quite come out and say "guns are bad, mmm kay?" but I'm uncomfortable with his acceptance of the fact that places once held sacred are now fair game for "disturbed and deranged gun-totting death-mongers" and his near complete pooh-poohing of Ms Assam's role in stopping the carnage.

Further feeding my cognitive dissonance are two statements: He says:

"...one is also concerned about a [...] trend towards armed security at churches. Surely, not to keep church-goers in order, but who knows?"

after stating:

"The plurality of this statement is evident in that one person cannot constitute a militia, that it is to be regulated would mean that the militia would be under the control of some organised organ of the free state.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, - not everyman - then derives from membership of the well regulated militia that acts to secure the free state."

Something just isn't right there. How is it he thinks that if agents of a church are in possession of deadly weapons, it is for the intent (or at least opening the opportunity) for the church to repress and control its patrons, but if all deadly weapons are under the control of the State we are still the masters of our government?

This is the true face of every article in the Bill of Rights. If we do not have the right to free speech or freedom of the press, the government can control us through our perceptions. If we do not have protection against unwarranted search and seizure, the government can control us through the police. If we do not have the rights contained in the 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments, the government can control us through the courts. Notice I do not say they would, I say they can - that is, the opportunity is created. The second amendment is no different. Without the right of the individual people to keep and bear arms, the government can control us through military might. Again I say can not would. These rights are our shield against repression. They are the sole force that keeps the citizen in control of his government and not the other way around.