12-16-2012, 01:37 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SoCal & NoVA
Posts: 1,405
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Txjake
you have a woefully inadequate idea of what the Second Amendmant is about. too bad you did not have a good history/governemnt/civics teacher in school. The militia concept is there not only to aid in the defense of the country from outside threats, but primarily from a corrupt government. people who can defend themselves and rise up are citizens, those who can't are subjects. The signers of the document you so cavilerly dismiss had all been subjects. I further submit to you that the First Amendment and all others in the Bill of Rights are tied to and protected by the Second.
Most of us take our rights for granted b/c we have lived here all our lives. One has only to look abroad at despotic goverments to see what havoc and evil can be perpetrated by a bad government.
|
I don't doubt your interpretation of the 2nd amendment and why it was created. However, my point is times have changed. We did not draft the constitution; we inherited it. And while it stands applicable for the most part, there have and WILL continue to be amendments to it, in order to make it applicable in present times. You talk about individual rights to bear arms, form a militia, deter threats, etc…however, when I look at history, the only time I see the use of the 2nd amendment in its written form is during the Civil War (not counting the obvious use during the Revolutionary War – however, we continue to maintain a strong military to deter foreign threats).
And even then, it was used collectively. Looking the last century, I can’t see any instances where the 2nd amendment was useful in its written form and necessary on an individual level. I am by no means of any stretch a historian; however, I’ve taken some interest in the Civil Rights movement and the Counter Culture of the 60s. These were major times of social change in our nation, and for the most part they were achieved without the use of the 2nd amendment. Those groups that used force and relied on their guns to force social change are considered radical, and it can be argued did more harm than good as they were usually associated with the troubled, fringe of society.
If self defense is the reason for maintaining the 2nd amendment, there are still ways to ensure that element is preserved, without allowing uncontrolled access to high risk weapons available to the general public. And by high risk, I’m referring to weapons with no other purpose, but to kill a large amount of people, indiscriminately.
|