The right to bear arms and those crazy Masons

This is yet another look into those wedge issues that politicians pull out of their hats when real issues aren't working out so well.

There are a sizable number of people who suspect that many of the founding fathers were Masons. Because of the secrecy often associated with the Masons there is no way to be sure but it seems they might be right.

If there is one thing we know about Masons others than we don’t know a damn thing about them it’s that what we do know isn’t what it appears to be. This is because Masons in general are secretive, untrusting and above all conspirators unlike any conspirators the world or Oliver Stone has ever dreamed up.

Not legal tender or even a piece of legal tender

They talked in riddles and codes and nothing was what it appeared to be. There was nothing a Mason enjoyed more than “hiding something in plain sight” or on the dollar bill.

So I think we have to be very careful when we go around quoting the forefathers because we never can know for sure if they mean what they say, say what they mean or even if they were talking to us at all or not sending some coded message to some alien or space traveler.

Take the Second Amendment—please!<

The second amendment guarantees the “right to bear arms” but does it really?

We take that to mean the founding fathers were giving anyone who wanted a gun the right to have one.

Gun enthusiasts take this to mean everyone can have an unlimited number of guns and some of them can be semi-automatic rifles that can be loaded with bullets that will penetrate policemen’s otherwise bulletproof vests—not that that’s what they want to do with them, silly, but they’d just like to have them, you know.

But what were the founding fathers really thinking?

Could they have just been saying everyone should have arms if he wanted them?

Surely if the founding fathers were really talking about arms and not guns they would have had to concede that more than two arms were both impossible and impractical but nevertheless, in keeping with everything else they were doing, would have certainly been ground-breaking.

But even if those mistrusting Masons were talking about the right to have arms, which even Mason would have to admit is a God-given prerogative that didn’t have to be guaranteed by the Constitution. What if those mysterious Masons were actually talking about the right of every man to not only bear arms but to also bear bare arms? And what then to make of the current desire to conceal bare arms?

And lest you jump to the conclusion that this is ridiculous and that, of course, man has a right to bear bare arms, or to conceal bare arms if he so wishes as long as he has completed the required paperwork; remember that in much of the world a woman cannot bare her arms—or even her face.

And now, the thought occurs to me that maybe those mischievous Masons did mean bear and not bare and they were guaranteeing each American the right to have bear arms—arms as big as a bear’s, if you will—Charles Atlas arms.

At this point, a thinking man might ask himself what the hell were those Mason forefathers thinking and why do we keep quoting them?