In article <c7caa7cc-10aa-4fc8-b753-69babe3381f5
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, rick_hohensee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> http://www.abovethelaw.com/2008/03/atl_field_trip_homeless_man_j.php
>
> Rick Hohensee
> www.myspace.com/presidentbyamendment
>
I gotta disagree with you on what the language of the 2nd
amendment means in terms of the states Rick.
The term "militia" is mentioned, but it doesn't say the militia
has the right to bear arms, it basically says that since the militia is
necessary for the security of a free state, "...the right of the PEOPLE
to bear arms shall not be infringed".
As originally proposed, the amendment wouldn't have even mentioned
the militia, but the first gun-control radical, Alexander Hamilton, got
the language changed so as to make it appear that the drafters of the
amendment meant that the only legitimacy for civilians owning firearms
was in case the state government needed to call them to service to fend
against tyranny. Nevertheless, it does clearly apply to "the people",
and not "the militia", nor does it mean that the only purpose for owning
firearms is to serve in a militia; simply that the people have the right
to bear arms.
George Wa****ngton said that for exercise, he recommends "the gun",
since it gives independance to the mind, and boldness to the spirt. This
clearly was not a man who thought that the individual had no legitimate
purpose for owning a firearm other than in government directed service.
Gun control advocates don't care about the actual meaning anyway;
that's just another route by which they wish to make themselves feel
safe at the expense of other peoples' freedom. Charles Schumer (who
recently was almost in very serious legal trouble over a paper trail
pointing to some serious corruption) introduced a bill stating that the
2nd amendment "is repealed" back in the mid-'90s or so... and yes, he's
a radical idiot. It didn't pass.
As for DC being different from the states, I think that must be
taken with a grain of salt. It is "The District of Columbia", and not
the same in many respects as a state, which you mentioned, but I believe
that the founding fathers would have considered it antithetical to the
principles the nation was founded on to have any kind of court or
political elite in DC, or to in any way suggest that citizens did not
have the same rights there as in states. That's for the Chinese in the
era of the "forbidden city" when no non-government personnel were
allowed into that city. It's not American.
It may very well be a good idea to restrict certain types of
firearms in DC however, but the keyword here is "restrict". The law-
abiding must not be asked or forced to pay any price for the non law-
abiding. That is not "realistic". The anti-gunners always talk about
realism as if they knew anything about it. It's ridiculous.
Besides, even if the gun ban was enacted in DC, it wouldn't affect
the number of firearms that people who DO misuse them have, and the very
next thing that would happen is you'd have Sarah Brady and a bunch of
Schumer clones saying that the ban "isn't working" because of people
bringing in firearms from nearby states. What they really want is a
nationwide ban on all firearms. Too bad. They can go and ****
themselves.
DAMN! Up until I said that I was highly intelligent and articulate
too. DAMN!
|
