Not that anyone's asked lately, but I don't agree with the Supreme's interpretation of the Second Amendment. You know, the one that says it's okay for private citizens to have weapons-grade toasters. Or something like that.
But I have to say, I've never seen it put quite as creatively as this guy.
3 comments:
That misplaced comma sure has created a controversy.
Think of it this way: if people couldn't bear arms, would America have the history it does, now? The 2nd Amendment was a reaction to the Crown - the local governor in Massachusetts (I think) banned individuals from carrying guns. They could shoot at the British soldiers, and that wouldn't do! No siree! (etc). I think it was Kentucky that pushed through the right to bear arms. They weren't a state, back then - but the locals were definitely concerned about British soldiers, French soldiers, Indians and catching rabbits, squirrels and other critters.
You know, I don't want to spread rumor, so I have to admit I'm a bit vague on where Kentucky comes into the story. I do recollect that they had a lot to do with that amendment. The British did, too. They hated it.
Me? I just wish the people adhering to it would clear up their trash. Drinking and hunting sounds like as good a mix as drinking and driving, but with a lethality I can only quiver at. I'd shake like a leaf if I thought about the correlation between number of beer cans and gun shots around here...
Carolyn Ann (Excuse me while I go hide...)
Good amendment. Very admirable. Wish WE had as forward thinking individuals when we repatriated our constitution back in 1981.
I think if they meant it to mean "resistance movement", they would have said so. This was written at a time when there was no regular army (James Madison created that MUCH later), no police force national OR local, and all you had were local militias to stand between your community and marauding natives, pirates, the 18th century equivalent of bike gangs or disaffected empire building Europeans.
The second ammendment was one of the best ideas you durned rebels ever came up with. But it WAS written by committee...grin! It defines the US in the eyes of the world, and has made even the most wild eye'd dictator think twice about taking over...ask SantaAnna or Cornwallis or George III. Or for that matter, Pontiac or Tsar Peter II.
If you're starting a country, and you think that you're going to need a militia, you want to be sure that the people have guns with which to be a militia. Since people in power might not like the idea of the rabble having guns, this was apparently intended to tell them 'keep your hands off those guns'. I agree with the NRA on that part.
I don't agree that licensing is abridgement, though.
Post a Comment