The 2d Amendment is the product of a period here when there was no gov. but local, & it sure waren't oppressive. Unless maybe you truly believe that compelling every male ages 16 to 60 to own a musket & to know how to use it is "oppressive."
Because that was the case in the colonies, c. 1640 to c. 1775. (& To participate in the political processes of the day, males also needed to be members in good standing of a church congregation.) Back in the day, Indian raids on villages were the over-riding concern; so those lusty males zipped into town once a month musket in hand for some close-order drills on the village square, called "training day" (this coincided w/ monthly "court day"); hence the phrase "well-regulated militia."
Any other wacky reason is mainstream media hokum & public edu. propaganda; of which you're evidently a big fan.
The 2nd amendment deals with the importance of having a militia to defend against foreign or domestic threats to the states.
Basically, the government can't take away your right to defend yourself because you might have to defend your homeland.
You could probably get 65,000 Americans to sign a petition to for an Amendment to name Philly Cheesesteaks the "national sandwich".
Then get another 65,000 to sign one saying "No person should be allowed to have a monicker named: The Shadow.
89,401 signatures so far.
BFD...you can get a million signatures and it's not going to do you any good. I guess you feel like you're doing something when you sign those boneheaded things, but nothing could be further from the truth.
You have made an outstanding case that those popular "Founding Fathers" were a band of confused loonballs that we've managed to mythologize for lack of coming up w/ anything better than a 250-yr-old Constitution, of which only that 2d Amendment, according to press releases, seems to have any value.
All that may've been popular in the 17th, 18th centuries, but WWII & the atomic bomb put it to rest; unless of course you'd like to peddle the notion of WWII as oh, so natural.
It's really time to cease harping about those deified Founding Fathers & get to work on something that shows we're aware that 2 centuries-+'ve passed since muskets & horse-drawn carts.
In framing the US Constitution, especially the bill of rights, it was pretty much a best of the state Constitutions kinda thing. Maryland's Constitution was just one of the State Constitutions that influenced the Federal Constitution. To this very day Marlanders are entitled to the protections of English Common Law. Also at times in deciding matters arising from the US Constitution, SCOTUS will delve into English Common Law.
I'm not a Techno Anarchists and the US Constitution does not provide for technology based anarchy. Back in the 1980's and 1990's there was an attempt in Congress to give rise to Techo Anarchism in the area of computers. The main vehicle of Techno Anarchism is what I call the Our Poor Stupid Forefathers Argument and it goes like this, Our Forefathers could have never possibly envisioned the computer and Email. So therefore the US Constitution does not and cannot be applied to computers and Email. So Emails do not have the Constitutional protections that letters have. So the government can search Emails without a warrant. What renders these arguments of Techno Anarchy a falacy is that because the US Constitution is Founded in human rights. What the Founders protected in the Constitution was Constants. Things that will always exist for as long as humans exist such as Communications and a need of Privacy. Now, because Emails are essentially written communications just like a letter. Those communications are afforded the constitutional protection of Privacy.
So in making an argument that because the Founders weren't aware of or did not foresee assault weapons or high volume magazines. The Second amendment cannot be applied to them and you may therefore deny the people their right keep and bear these arms. That my friend is Techno Anarchism. How we keep the Constitution from becoming anachronistic and keep it current is in applying it to new inventions and technologies. The Preamble gives the duty to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
"In conclusion, I can spare those Americans who want me deported a lot of effort by saying this: If you don’t change your gun laws to at least try to stop this relentless tidal wave of murderous carnage, then you don’t have to worry about deporting me," he wrote. "Although I love the country as a second home and one that has treated me incredibly well, I would, as a concerned parent first – and latterly, of a one-year-old daughter who may attend an American elementary school like Sandy Hook in three years’ time – seriously consider deporting myself."
I don't care about the guy one way or another. However, who the heck cares if he "deports" himself? Go home! Earn your living in your country of citizenship. This country will struggle to go on without you!
|Terms of Service | Search/Archive | Feedback | Contact Information | DC50tv |
Baltimore Sun | Chicago Tribune | Daily Press | Hartford Courant | LA Times | Orlando Sentinel | Sun Sentinel
The Morning Call | The Virginia Gazette
Baltimore Sun, 501 N. Calvert Street, P.O. Box 1377, Baltimore, MD 21278