Enemy Combatants Or Background Checks.

       I love people like Senator Lindsey Graham. He's a Senator from one of the reddest states in the country, South Carolina. He's so conservative even his cheeks are rosy. Now he wants to have the surviving Boston bomber interrogated as an enemy combatant, even though there's no proof at all that he is. That's what he wants him questioned for. To find out if he is. Now I thought we had to have some sound idea that he is before we question him as one.
       Otherwise he's the same as Timothy McVeigh, or Ted Kaczynski, the unibomber. A home grown terrorist. It seems that lots of conservatives and even some progressives are willing to subvert the Constitution in order to get the kind of information they want. You know, like right after 9-11 when people were so frightened that they were willing to ignore the rule of law to protect themselves?
       The thing is though, while Senator Graham is willing to overlook the Constitution on this, he was totally unwilling to do something he claimed was unconstitutional, but wasn't. He refused to vote in favor of background checks to buy guns. Now a lot of people think background checks to buy guns violates the 2nd amendment. But ya see, if they would read the 2nd amendment, they'd see that it doesn't say anything about background checks one way or the other.
       What it does say is "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." So ya see? It doesn't mention anything about background checks, but it does mention a well regulated militia as being necessary. It looks to me like background checks falls under regulating, doesn't it?
       Now some folks claim that the militia wording meant only the militias the states had and since the states don't have militias anymore, that part of the constitution's 2nd amendment doesn't count anymore. Only it was never legally expunged or removed. That means it is still in the 2nd. And wishing it wasn't, doesn't make it so. From what I've learned, if it's in the Constitution, it's the law, if it ain't, it ain't law. Like the Federalist Papers. They were never passed into law, they ain't in the Constitution. They ain't law.