Ravenwood - 12/11/04 11:15 AM
Pat Sajak (of Wheel of Fortune fame) says that those that want to toss out the Second Amendment need to be prepared to toss out the First Amendment too.
The Second Amendment is a different matter. There are two schools of thought from the Left. One says that, since the amendment speaks of a militia, there was no intent to allow and protect individual gun ownership. Still, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" seems pretty clear to me.Something Pat forgot to mention, it is the Second Amendment that protects all those others. If it weren't for the Second Amendment, what's to keep those eeevil religous crusaders like George W. Bush and John Ashcroft from bulldozing Hollywood like it was Sodom and Gomorrah?The other school of thought is that the Founders could not possibly have foreseen the advances in weaponry nor imagined the horrible problems of drugs and gangs that have sprung up in our modern society. Therefore, we must either disregard, re-interpret or re-write the amendment to reflect the reality of the times. I have to admit that I see some merit in this argument. The days of Uzis and machine guns are a long way off from the weaponry of the 18th Century.
But, be careful, Second Amendment foes, this is where the slope gets positively greasy. Using the logic that the Founders couldn't have foreseen changes, how could they have possibly imagined the absolute saturation of media in our lives? How could they have begun to fathom the Internet or satellite television? Could they, in their wildest dreams, have conceived of a day when the most vile pornography imaginable could be sent directly to your home desktop without your consent?
Is it time to look at The Second Amendment through 21st-Century eyes? Maybe. But maybe it's time to look at The First Amendment, too.
Category: Cold Dead Hands
Comments (3) top link me
Ya know, when you say things like"bulldozing Hollywood", I just get the warm & fuzzies.
Anyway, when ARE the Lefties going to be shipped off to the Cheneyan Death Camps for their uhhhh "resettlement"?
Posted by: Kim du Toit at December 12, 2004 6:47 PMThe days of the Uzis and machine guns are a long way off from the weaponry of the 18th Century
True, but concider why the reason for the second amendment to begin with. It was was not so we could protect ourself from a foreign power, or from each other. It was so we could protect ourselves from a corrupt government (like we did originally from British rule).
The reason for the Second Amendment -- a critical portion of the Bill of Rights -- is not so much a self defense exercise or a means to ensure anyone’s right to hunt for food and/or sport. The reason is specified in the Amendment: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...” Without guns in the households -- a lot of guns in the households -- an out-of-control, anal government, seeking power via fear, and looking for Enemy Combatants in every closet (and without a search warrant) will have nothing to fear in carrying out its unconstitutional agenda. The only security of a free state is when the people can defend themselves. Period.
Aslo all the arms, munitions, armament and equipment of the National Guard is owned and controlled by the federal government, not by "the people" as clearly stipulated in the last phrase of the Second Amendment.
Compared with the monster regimes of our century, the British government against which our predecessors revolted was rather nice, really. Nonetheless, the framers found ample reason for revolt.
Posted by: Sandi at December 13, 2004 1:10 AMSandi,
You are absolutely correct. In fact, during Revolutionary times, citizen's arms were usually more advanced and more powerful than those of the army.
Posted by: Ravenwood at December 13, 2004 6:28 AM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
