|
Termyn8or -> RE: Another win for the 2nd Amendment (4/22/2009 1:09:03 PM)
|
Settle down now.
I have a gun because it can kill, not in spite of the fact, so let's get that out of the way. Our right to keep and bear arms includes the right to use the guns against the government, read the rest of the Constitution if you don't believe that.
Also, if you want to keep guns away from crazies and criminals, forget it, the words were "shall not be abridged", that means the fact that other people have guns either keep these people in line, or kill them before they do too much damage. If one is barred from a basic right like this because of a conviction, that is a bill of attainder, and that is also banned by the Constitution. With the vast body of laws in this contry, which are selectively enforced, you just can't go by that anymore.
The trick to a secure society is that those who would perpetrate evil deeds are inhibited by the distinct possibility that someone else might have a gun and shoot them. It really is that simple and it does indeed include the government, that is if I know the English language well enough that my reading of the Constitution had the proper meaning to me. I just don't think that I am that illiteraste.
The Constitution is a document that enumerates the powers, as well as some of the limits bestowed on government.
If we have to interpret the second amendment faithfully, we must not engage in reading between the lines. That is what the opposition does, and it is wrong when anyone does it. For example is does not say you can have dangerous high explosives in populated areas. You can't have nukes or ABC weapons, it simply does not say that, and even as one of the most staunch supporters of the second amendment, I don't read that into it. I am also aware that in many towns in the old west you checked your gun with the local sherriff, there were too many people in a small area, and with paper thin walls on the buildings and the bars, it was reasonable. The people supported it, but residents kept their firearms because they were in their own homes.
If you wanted to visit the town, pick your gun up on the way out, if you donm't want to give it up, just ride on through. They made no attempt to take it, you simply weren't welcome. People supported such things because they didn't want their family members killed by a stray bullet. It was reasonable, in a town with an elected sherriff and peacful people. But when you rode out, you get it back.
Last but not least, if they come for my guns, they will get them, lead first. And they will have to pry my cold dead fingers off of them. A right is a right. A license confers a right not pre-eminent. I think the founding documents of this country are pretty much pre-eminent. And they are clear on this matter.
Put it this way, if I were to kill someone with my bare hands, would they cut my hands off ? What if I were a much worse sociopath, and did so, what would they do ? Lock me up, keep me from getting a gun ? Hell I didn't need one last time so what's the point ? Except if my possible victims are armed. That is another aspect of it. And as someone uses as a sig line - when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
I don't know how else to put it.
T
|
|
|
|
