- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Incorrect. Theirs is an argument of absolutism, mine is one of nuance. I am not foolish enough to think that current laws cannot even be tweaked. The people holding those signs think that.
Laws can always be tweaked, Rights should not be without going through the appropriate channel.
There are those who would disagree about that point. Even among the founding fathers there was disagreement. Some would argue that the point was to avoid the need for an overly-powerful standing army, because those guys saw standing armies as tools for aristocrats to seize power. Hence the first part of the amendment, the part you guys always leave out. A well-regulated militia...
Perhaps that is why both parts are in the 2nd amendment?
Do you really believe civilians should be on equal footing with the government? Guns, you say. How about grenade and rocket launchers? Portable surface to air weaponry? Does this include tanks? Attack helicopters? Fighter jets? Nuclear weapons? If not, you aren't really on equal footing, now are you?
I don't think that even the government should have nuclear arms. The rest of that though? Sure. But its not like people can't get those anyways if they have enough money even despite the law. Just take a look at the crazy whacked out muslims for evidence of that. Some people DO own tanks and attack helicopters and fighter jets in this country. Yeah they may be "disarmed" but they could be re-armed.
It's not the 18th century.
So? I would argue that the need is even greater now than then. Its much easier for the government to become tyrannical than it was then.