Frank Merton, on 28 January 2013 - 04:09 PM, said:
I've studied up on this Second Amendment to the US Constitution and it looks to me like a few individuals who have some sort of hangup about their guns have reinterpreted it to suit their taste.
That, however, is a superficial issue; there is a deeper moral issue involved here. Is it morally right to have something that kills and is so obviously designed to be for nothing else? Now all sorts of things kill -- you can drown so having a lake is dangerous and moral considerations demand precautions. Still, guns are inherently different. They exist for only one purpose, and make the very act of living in a home where one is kept much more dangerous than otherwise. Not safer -- that they protect is an egoistic, arrogant delusion.
Yes, some guns are made for the specific purpose of shooting people. Yes, having one in your home increases the odds that someone will be shot. Filling your home with forks will also increase the chances that someone will suffer a fork related injury. What of it? In a free society, you're free to endanger yourself. I know, you're thinking, "AHA!!! But you're endangering other people because you or someone else could use those forks to run around stabbing people.", but the thing is, that's a crime and there are separate laws to address the consequences of it. It's a personal stance, but I'm not going to feel like some morally bankrupt person because I don't want to give up my forks.
Frank Merton, on 28 January 2013 - 04:09 PM, said:
Maybe everyone should read this (similar teachings are found in most religions):
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.
Y'know that saying
Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile ? What you're saying is that it should say
If they take an inch give 'em a mile . If there are actually people who want to take advantage of you, your philosophy results in your being either a slave or a corpse. Fair enough. In a free society, you have the right to endanger yourself by refusing to defend yourself. Personal stance again, but I find it morally reprehensible to want to force others to do the same by taking their means of self defense.
ninjadude, on 28 January 2013 - 12:22 AM, said:
No one is denying anything. The constitution is amendable. It is not written in stone.
True enough. Here's the thing, the entire purpose of the Constitution is to limit the government. There were (and probably will be in the future) things that needed to be spelled out more specifically. The Constitution was amended to make more explicit the idea that free speech is inalienable. Under the law, black people and women were treated as second class citizens. The Constitution was amended to explicitly prove (legally) that the phrase "all men were created equal" includes those groups.
This brings us to the 2nd. It states:
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.
The problem phrase being "A well regulated Militia". Without that phrase, it would be explicitly clear that American citizens have the right have and carry any weapon they can get their hands on. With that phrase, there are 2 interpretations:
The interpretation that gun prohibitionists less careful than you tend to express is that it's a limit on the people. They say, "Yes, you can have guns if you're part of this completely undefined group - the well regulated Militia, and since there's no legal definition of that group, citizens do not have the right to bear arms." Maybe we're just accustomed to the nonsensical approach to legislation today and that justifies the thinking in some people's minds, but from the perspective of people establishing the foundation of the country by writing an addendum to the most important legal document in that country, it makes zero sense that they would add an explicit right and take it away in the same sentence.
The second interpretation is that the phrase "a well regulated Militia" was a further limitation on the government (or an extension of the right to bear arms, whichever way you want to look at it). This extension says not only can the government not prevent people from having weapons, it can't prevent them from organizing and practicing to become militarily effective in the use of those weapons.
Based on the fact that the people who framed the Constitution had borne arms in an organized fashion to overthrow a government they felt had overreached itself and the fact that the document itself is written specifically to establish the limits of the new government (and yes, I'm well aware our government has been chiseling away at those limits ever since) along with the fact that the personal writings of several of the founding fathers state their belief that a population has the right (or even the responsibility) to pick up those arms and overthrow a government that becomes oppressive, I believe (even if it does not state so explicitly) that entire purpose of the amendment was to allow future generations the option they themselves took - the option to literally oust the oppressive government and establish a new one in its place.
1
