"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."
-and then come to the conclusion that people in america don't have a constitutional right to own guns... Good thing John Kerry lost in 04, or else we'd have had to put up with his shitty judicial appointees. Republicans are FAR from perfect, but their judicial appointees are definately a step-up from the democrats and theirs.
I contribute with a non-American (ie communist) law student's perspective.
"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."
Seriously, what idiot wrote this?
No, I'm not criticizing the actual mening, but rather the language. First of all: why is there even an attempt at a syllogism? Why not just write "Let there be guns" - since when does a legislator have to explain himself?
Secondly: why is there an implication that the right already exists? Isn't this paragraph what creates the right? "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms [...] shall not be infringed" - any rational individual would assume that there is already a right to keep and bear arms stated somewhere else and that this is merely a clarification.
And in the middle of all this we have an attempt at science: apparently a well regulated militia is "necessary to the security of a free state". I'd like a copy of that study.
>>7
Founding Father 2: You think the language in the Second Amendment is clear enough? You know, about the right to bear arms?
Founding Father 3: Of course it's clear. Every American has the right to hang a pair of Bear arms on their wall. How could that possibly be misconstrued?
Founding Father 1: All right, fantastic, then. Wait, you know what? Before we send this to the Printer, let's take that abortion thing out.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-06 6:32 ID:lsCVrOF5
>>7
The founding fathers knew that before gunpowder there were no guns and logically deduced that a superior weapon might make guns obsolete in the future. Their definition was absolute, rather than just "lol guns!!". You forget that "gun nuts" are in fact not gun nuts at all, but people who see the utilitarian function of guns in the prevention of tyranny. The US is pretty much modelled on Switzerland, the only reason why people think differently is because of the efforts of liberals to destroy the safeguards against tyranny because they see it as an interference the march towards liberal democracy, then socialism and finally communism.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-06 14:40 ID:ZIRQt28k
the only reason why people think differently is because of the efforts of liberals to destroy the safeguards against tyranny because they see it as an interference the march towards liberal democracy, then socialism and finally communism.
y helo thar strawman
"gun nuts" are in fact not gun nuts at all, but people who see the utilitarian function of guns in the prevention of tyranny
Please understand that the people who fight the hardest usually have the most extreme views. You may be reasonable in your views, but not everyone who is 'on your side' is so reasonable.
Think Communists or Islamists organizing war protests which are attended by moderate liberals, who may be unaware of the organizer's politics or just don't care.
liberals to destroy the safeguards against tyranny
Nuclear option? never heard of it.
liberal democracy, then socialism and finally communism.
Liberalism IS NOT COMMUNISM, no matter what you hear on fox news, or in your favorite pundit's book.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-07 2:41 ID:GgdhOYuF
>>11
There is nothing wrong with holding extreme political views. Imo, what is bad is when society tends to have the idea that anything extreme is automatically bad/wrong. I'm not advocating, defending, or attacking extremism. Rather, I am promoting open-mindedness.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-07 2:44 ID:j19cvJAN
>>12
extreme = too fucking stupid to see another side...
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-07 2:46 ID:GgdhOYuF
>>9
Yup. The problem here is that our society is a little different socially than Switzerland. This doesn't mean that the 2A is bad (I'm a big time 2A advocate), it does mean that I think that while we should indeed promote the 2nd Amendment for the reasons you list and many more, we should also consider some of the suggestions made in the following article: http://www.gunownersalliance.com/swiss-1.htm
In short? Less legislation and more education, and promote responsible gun ownership and use.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-14 11:08 ID:mDncj9df
>>14
Which is exactly why liberals are so fucking off track. Instead of promoting responsible gun ownership and education, they promote gun bans and social stigmas surrounding firearms.