The Supreme Court meets today, to
clarify for the first time what the "the right to bear arms" means in the U.S. Constitution's second amendment.So if you believe you are a liberal and thus enlightened enough to understand that the Second Amendment refers only to "well-organized" militias (i.e. the National Guard), tell me why the First Amendment doesn't apply only to well-organized (i.e. well-financed and state-sanctioned) media outlets? Why is the First an individual right if the Second is not?
Supporters of gun rights say the constitutional amendment is an endorsement of the individual's right to own a gun. But proponents of gun control laws say the "right to bear arms" refers to a state's right to have an armed militia. -- VOA, 18 Mar 08
The wording confuses some people.
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.That is the wording passed by Congress. As ratified by the States, it is a little clearer.
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.Either way, the question is raised as to the relevance in the modern world. Our well-ordered and civil society, with its thorough courts and professional policemen and fringe of nuclear weapons, really doesn't need every man to be a Minuteman. In other words, we never again need to watch out for our neighbors. Trust the anonymous men in body armor, they are here for our protection.
Sorry, I get ahead of myself. I look at other countries and go, hmm, that could happen here some day. Obviously I'm crazy. Too much imagination. Should take a pill and sleep it off. Let's all just sleep. That's the ticket.
3 comments:
Well, I'm no constitutional scholar, but it seems pretty clear that A2 means we get to have guns. But that all was written in a different time when there were a lot more wide open spaces and no Uzis. Do you really think that a handgun is going to protect you against the gov't if it came to that? Can we all have rocket launchers and nukes, too? It's time for much more serious gun control, IMO, and failing that, maybe we could at least enforce existing law, for fucksake. Same with traffic law. If only we could get the fucking speeders and red light runners off the roads, the auto death rate would go way down. Get the cops off the internet looking for molesters in chatrooms and onto the streets where they can actually accomplish something. Sorry, got sidetracked. Guns suck, but they're everywhere here and it isn't right to penalize the law-abiding peeps until we can reassure them that we have the criminals under better control. If we can't do that, then maybe we should leave things as they are and just stay inside our houses with the shades down.
It wasn't just for show when the Panthers took their rifles into the gallery above the Legislature in Sacramento that time. Sure, Gov. Reagan got all bent out of shape. But the black community was under constant harassment, and a statement needed to be made. The Oakland police backed off, for awhile.
Government suppression can take subtle forms, and creep slowly. The citizenry's ability to build a hard stopping point can, also subtly, retain the balance.
1) If we're going to the guns to protect ourselves from government line we may remember that in many wars of liberation, the defender (the "rebels") don't actually have to destroy the attackers (the "oppressors"). Mexico never invaded Spain and the States never invaded Britain.
My point is that in some conflict of "people vs. government", the people don't have to outgun the government. But something better than rocks would help a lot.
2) The human condition often tends to suck (ambition, war, starvation) which is why we need sucky guns to cope.
3) I think I agree with don here. The first group of people to loose its guns is usually the one that needs it most (i.e. Jews in Germany, Blacks in the States).
Post a Comment