Since the scope of the second amendment isn’t specific, does that mean we can re-define it down to butter knives … or toothpicks?
Revisionists ignore the context from which the second amendment arose, and the arguments that were made at the time, and they just want to focus specifically on the wording and try to cast doubt and confusion to make their “solution” sound “reasonable”.
The second amendment, at the VERY least, should clearly cover self-defense. When you read the context of it’s development, it is also clear that offensive weapons would be needed to perform some of the tasks the founders had in mind for defending ourselves from oppresive government. I don’t have a problem with “machine guns” or “assault rifles”.
Nowhere in the second amendment does it even come close to talking about limiting use to sport shooting, — it doesn’t mention sport shooting at all. That doesn’t mean that sport shooting should be banned any more than it not mentioning hand guns or assault rifles means your right to keep and bear them can be infringed.
2 comments:
If our republic is recover its greatness we will have to press for the impeachment of judges that make public policy and say they are not. That is exceeding the scope of the judiciary. By making policy they are ignoring the constitutional limits on the judicial branch. Why would we expect them to respect any other part of the Constitution when they won't even observe their own job description.
If I have the money, I should be able to buy an F-22 with laser guided missiles and smart bombs!
It is clear to me that the founders recognized that people need to be able to overthrow their own government. In order for that to happen, the people need to be at least as well armed as the government.
Every time I hear some politician prattling on about how they went hunting with daddy growing up so they "won't take our guns", I chalk him up as someone who doesn't understand the Constitution. I'm looking at you, Claire.
Post a Comment