septimus
VisorCentral Staff
Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Them Twin Cities
Posts: 1758 |
quote:
Originally posted by GSR13
The thing about hunting, is most people are okay with that. But tell those same people you own a handgun for self defense and they want to tar and feather you.
So, I say lets discuss the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. That ought to bring out some controversy.
...
See, this is my point exactly. Hunting is okay because we are helping the environment, but automatic rifles and handguns are wrong.
Well, hunting is ok simply because it's a moral non-entity so long as you're not being cruel, IMO. Non-intelligent carnivores hunting is a moral nonentity, adding intelligence shouldn't change that. (well, I know more than a few vegetarians who take issue with this, so I guess we can have at it... but frankly I usually find myself running short on patience with that........)
Right to bear arms, or arm bears, or whatever:
let's be pedantic:
quote:
Amendment II
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.
...well, who the hell wrote that sentence? I would get kicked out of english class if I allowed that into a paper. sheesh!
ok, so there's a serious problem with the grammar of this sentence, namely: the most important clause of the sentence "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" does no work whatsoever in the sentence. It has no referent. The sentence "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed." works just fine without it.
..ok, ok, so there's an implied "and" there. If I were the editor, it would read: "Being necessacry to the security of a free state, a well regulated milita and the right of the people to bear arms will not be infringed."
right, so, the 2nd amendment pretty clearly is meant to provide for the armament of both "militias" and "the people." and now I'm going to trot out the tired old "different times, different interpretations" argument.
1) Back in the day, the only people who could go on killcrazy rampages were governments. They had no gangs (by our standards, anyway), and 'the people' who would be bearing arms were meant to be rich, white guys. Also, shooting somebody took about 1 minute of preparation between shots, with an accuracy rate that is laughable by our standards. We live in different times.
2) Dude, it's the consitution, it ain't the bible. (hell, even if it was, but we're avoiding that....). it's fallible. Black people are 2/3's people? Women ain't at all? You have to have land? No income tax? All these things have changed with the times. It's ok.
3) Ok, so Jefferson and Franklin and such got a point (lord, i just has this conversation 2 nights ago, thanks Mike!), "Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty." (Franklin). Me, I don't want a gun. Hell, i don't want felons having guns. But people should be allowed to have guns.
4) So I want a compromise. sure, have your guns, but you can't have cop-killing automatic laser-guided smart assault rifles. And you need a license. no, I'm not kidding, an honest-to-god-got-your-picutre-on-it-and-is-tracked-by-the-government-license. And they can revoke it if you're a felon. None of these measures breaks the 2nd amendment.
yep, that's where I stand. As to giving bears guns, sure.... why not?
__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!
|
01-17-2002 04:07 PM
.
Email This Page to Someone! |
Receive updates to this thread
]