Don't laugh, there are some people in here who believe you have a right to possess nuclear weapons under the second amendment.
If you think 90 to 100 million gun owners will voluntarily give up their firearms because The Culture says it's good, you are in for a very rude awakening. FAIL! A firearm in the house is no more a heath hazard than an electric toothbrush. Again, you FAIL!
I don't think you are really grasping his point, which I don't agree with, but feel compelled to make clear to you. It isn't that there is some sort of monolithic entity called "The Culture," which will demand everyone disarm. His point is that if people decide to stop perceiving gun ownership as a right, and stop organizing around it socially, the legislation will take care of itself. Which is true in the sense that people will demand stricter gun control, but false in the sense that the Second Amendment will inevitably prevent such legislation. The Courts have really strengthened the Second Amendment in recent years, and I don't think gun control advocates will ever get the legislation they want unless they can figure out a way to repeal it. The problem for them, of course, is that altering the Constitution requires a super-majority, one which they will likely never achieve. In my opinion, I think the Second Amendment ought to be replaced with a law that prevents the federal government from passing any law dealing with guns, whether that legislation aims to control guns or propagate them. Let States and Cities set their own gun laws. Many State Constitutions already embody the right to bear arms in their constitutions, so such a repeal isn't likely to alter your day-to-day rights or privileges. Ultimately, I take issue with the idea that the federal government can tell me and my neighbours what is best for our city or state. If we decide to ban guns, that should be our right to do so. If we decide to abolish all gun regulations, that should be our right to do so. The embodiment of the right to bear arms in the federal Constitution is an issue that is causing massive rifts in our society, and frankly, I see no reason why that should be the case. What works in DC doesn't necessarily work in Arkansas doesn't necessarily work in Alaska. I would prefer to decentralize authority and allow people more control over their lives, while minimizing the ability of some guy one thousand miles away to tell me what is best for my community.
You're getting close, but my real point is if the culture wants strict gun control, than the second amendment goes the way the 18th Amendment did, when the culture wanted a drink.....
As originally conceived, Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment,were restrictions only on the general government. It is most unfortunate that many pro gun folks will argue that point, but nevertheless, it is true. With that said, I much prefer failing on the pro side of to keep and bear that on the anti side. But simply entailed, that means the general government had, has, and shall never have the authority to infringe on firearm ownership in any manner. States can do as they wish. I couldn't care less what Noo Yawk or Maasatwochits does. It would only concern me if Texas went ape and tried the crap some of the Big Eastern Liberal states have done. Except for Granny Richards ( Ma to to those that do not know whom I am speaking of ) could have most probably remained Governor of Texas and maybe even moved up in the DIM hierarchy if she had signed a CCW law for Texas. She didn't, Bush promised he would, and the rest is history. Now whether you think what will work for DC or some other suck butt state or city will not fly in Peoria or Cut and Shoot, Tx, will or won't, I suggest that the Constitution will work for anyone, anytime, or anyplace. It is not a roll your own Law of The Land. I see no value in your suggestion to 'replace' the Second Amendment with some other amendment, and maintain the power of the legitimate gun owners would coalesce and the DIMS and PUBS would be hard pressed to ever get elected again. It strikes me as somewhat inane for you to lecture anyone on what gun legislation should be passed to replace the Second Amendment
The colonies were not assisted by the french until the last few years of the war. They would not join until they knew the US could win. That is well noted in history. Till then they survived on what little weapons they had, plus the ones they took from the dead. Never the less, they survived a far more superior force, and many came away with victory. The French Resistance was formed by french citizenry of many political beliefs and affiliations. The second amendment was made for the people to fight enemies both foreign and domestic.
Of course: This desperate argument is made by left-wingers all of the time. You did the right thing to correct him by stating that the First Amendment does not only involve the printing press and quill pens, but also ballpoint pens, typewriters, and even the internet. You could additionally explain to him that the First Amendment also allows for freedom of expression, which is something that is not even explicitedly stated in the text. That's all you can do in the face of such willful ignorance. How did the guy respond to your comment about the First Amendment?
Well to be clear he was criticizing an originalist perspective, but that is a ludicrous misrepresentation of the originalist perspective. As you say, no originalist will say that freedom of speech doesn't extend to ballpoint pens, although it is commonly argued by some originalists that "cruel and unusual" should be limited to what the Founders thought to be "cruel and unusual." - - - Updated - - - hmmm. seems weird. would you be okay with states being able to decide gay rights, and create their own state religions?
Yes. And I would fight passionately to have my point of view recognized as the law. As would my opponents. That's democracy. You don't always get what you want.
Most that support tyranny usually do fight passionately for their view. Anything can be rationalized to make your dream world come true including removal of any or all freedoms.
You might as well call Reagan a great president, you'd be just as wrong. French covert aid began in the spring of 1776, by 1778, the French had recognized US independence, sent ground forces and naval forces. Without French aid the US would never have won.
France needed the US to have a great victory in the war for them to join. That came from the Battle of Saratoga in 1777, often called the turning point in the war. The US would have one anyway, France was only a catalyst and wanted to rub Britain's nose in it's loss. Ronald Reagan was a great president. Say what you will about his domestic policies, for I will never be able to convince you otherwise, but his foreign policy was great. He brought the Soviets to their knees and brought the cold war on the road to its eventual end.
France began covert aid supplying gunpowder, weapons and money in the spring of 1776. That was before any victories, the purpose of France's aid was to keep British forces occupied in as many places as they could. The revolution was in many ways a French black op.
You forgot that Lexington and Concord was a victory after the British tried to take their guns in a gun raid, but I digress. The point still stands that the American people were still able to resist a far superior force. - - - Updated - - - Sorry about that.
Personally I have no issues with my neighbor buying a tank if he can afford it just like I have no issues with Piers Morgan being on MSDNC, oops MSNBC.
