XPost: alt.stupidity, rec.arts.dance
From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net
"First. Post" wrote in message
news:XnsA068DE79F5182dtreqt@94.75.214.39...
> The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution:
>
> "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."
>
> OK, what does this mean? Does it mean that all people should
> have the ability to possess whatever arms they wish?
>
> Pro-gunners disagree on the limits of this bill: some people
> believe it should be absolute, and any and all arms should be
> legal. Some pro-gunners draw what seems to be obvious
> limitations, for instance, the owning of a nuclear weapon or
> other weapon of mass destruction should be illegal.
Yep, and if they should be illegal then the solution seems quite clear.
Article V.
> Some go
> even further, and declare that such heavy military equipment
> such as tanks, bazookas, etc., should be illegal, and then
> some believe that reasonable controls on items such as
> automatic machine guns are all right.
>
> So, there is obviously much disagreement already about the
> limitations of the 2nd. One thing is clear, though, and that
> is it can be limited to a certain extent, morally and
> legally.
Untrue, 'should' doesn't mean 'can be'. The issue is what does the Amendment
protect, and if it protects that which should not be illegal, then our only
legitimate solution is Article V.
That is the only proper way to change how it is, to what it 'should' be.
So, let's see your proposed Amendment, otherwise, the clear and direct
meaning of what is said by that Amendment IS the Constitutional law.
The rest of your discourse is just playing games with how to invent excuses
to ignore the language, words, meaning and intent behind the 2nd.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
