The Arming of Fishmen

We must not tell an American what to think or what to believe. If he believes he is the King of San Francisco, let him; if he thinks he is the only sane man living, let him; if he believes he is a fish, let him. Our regulating body should not crush ideas, no matter how radical, otherwise we become tyrants. If, however, that fishman takes up arms and uses them on non-fishmen, remove his arms, and be certain not to arm any more fish. This is the only place we have control. We cannot tell him he is not a fish, as that would require the most expensive psychologists; and, it is likely he will disagree, wasting the public fund.

How can you tell if a man thinks he is a fish? Difficult, if he is a quiet fish. How then do we prevent fish from getting arms? First, if there is a loophole allowing the arming of fish, say, a garage sale of third party sellers not able to spot fish, close it. Second, explicitly arm only those relatively certain to not be fish, perhaps a well-regulated group that is pledged to serve the public good?

But what about the non-fishmen who want arms in case of tyranny? Easy, require they join another well-regulated group of some kind, publicly sanctioned, with required meetings to express the importance and dangers of arms in society, run by responsible adults accountable for each other.

I doubt many fish would pass muster.

"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."