I am the living proof that supports the findings of the study. However, I would not support repealing the 2nd amendment, as some in the media have suggested. The forethought of the creators of our constitution and it’s amendments were on to something. These people understood absolute power and what it meant to their livelihood. Hence, the inclusion of the 2nd amendment.
Cheers
@Gordon: I can’t say the study’s findings surprise me, but I’m curious to learn more about your experiences.
As for the 2nd amendment, as I understand it it serves three purposes:
1. Civilians should be allowed to defend themselves
2. The government should be allowed to call upon the service of a civilian militia if needed
3. Civilians should be able to take up arms against a repressive government.
But do any of these really hold water anymore? Certainly the article above would seem to indicate that #1 is questionable.
And are #2 and #3 even meaningful in this age of insanely sophisticated military weaponry? If you really want a civilian militia powerful enough that it can reasonably expect to aide or resist a government army, you’d have to outfit it with all kinds of crazy stuff: million-round/minute guns, modern tanks and aircraft, sonic weapons, and so forth.
It would seem that as soon as we made it illegal for civilians to own particular kinds of arms, that were reserved only for military purposes, our government became rather hypocritical as far as this aspect of the 2nd amendment.
We can talk about the experiences off-line some time.
Let’s say your understandings are correct. I’m not saying #2 and #3 are pertinent today, but let’s have the same foresight that our founders had. Who knows what will happen in the future, why limit our ability to stand up against a repressive government in a future decacde.
As for the government being hypocritical, that’s hardly news.
3 responses to “2nd Amendment… amendment”
I am the living proof that supports the findings of the study. However, I would not support repealing the 2nd amendment, as some in the media have suggested. The forethought of the creators of our constitution and it’s amendments were on to something. These people understood absolute power and what it meant to their livelihood. Hence, the inclusion of the 2nd amendment.
Cheers
@Gordon: I can’t say the study’s findings surprise me, but I’m curious to learn more about your experiences.
As for the 2nd amendment, as I understand it it serves three purposes:
1. Civilians should be allowed to defend themselves
2. The government should be allowed to call upon the service of a civilian militia if needed
3. Civilians should be able to take up arms against a repressive government.
But do any of these really hold water anymore? Certainly the article above would seem to indicate that #1 is questionable.
And are #2 and #3 even meaningful in this age of insanely sophisticated military weaponry? If you really want a civilian militia powerful enough that it can reasonably expect to aide or resist a government army, you’d have to outfit it with all kinds of crazy stuff: million-round/minute guns, modern tanks and aircraft, sonic weapons, and so forth.
It would seem that as soon as we made it illegal for civilians to own particular kinds of arms, that were reserved only for military purposes, our government became rather hypocritical as far as this aspect of the 2nd amendment.
We can talk about the experiences off-line some time.
Let’s say your understandings are correct. I’m not saying #2 and #3 are pertinent today, but let’s have the same foresight that our founders had. Who knows what will happen in the future, why limit our ability to stand up against a repressive government in a future decacde.
As for the government being hypocritical, that’s hardly news.
Cheers