Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun
How does that follow? What reason, and how does what I wrote demonstrate this reason?
It's not what you wrote, but rather the idea behind it.
We tend to argue over sematics without looking at common sense as it applies to the rational behind a law or rule. For instance, the 2nd Amendment does provide for the citizenry to protect themselves, their family and their property from unlawful takeover or assault by an enemy, foreign or domestic. And that enemy could be the U.S. government. Now, as Crunch and others have pointed out, if "the enemy" has such and such type of weapon, then by God, WE, the People have the protected right under the 2nd Amendment to possess these same types of weapons in order to hault tarrany against our government. But what people with such far flung mindsets forget is that WE, the People, also have the power to vote out ANY political representative who would advocate such actions against, WE, the People. Furtheremore, there's no need for WE, the People, to form a militia in order to aid the state in which we reside to fight any enemy from without. We have the National Guard and the Armed Services for that now.
These were the merits behind giving WE, the People, the right to bear arms, but the intended purpose behind that need for protectionism from "enemies of the state" no longer exists. Furthermore, there is no dictatorship in the U.S., never has been since the U.S. became an independent nation. Our system of government provides a means bywhich WE, the People, can remove such a dictatorship from power or from ever coming into power for that matter. And none of that limitation of power can be attributed directly to the 2nd Amendment as much as it can be attributed to the rules bywhich our three levels of government must operate as outlined in the U.S. Constitution.
In the end, WE, the People, still do have the right to bear arms. And in doing so in most cases, the law doesn't place very many restrictions on what "arms" we can buy for our own protection or how many. But in not doing so, the states leave Pandora's Box ajar just enough to allow for carelessness, wrecklessness and irresponsiblity to creep in.
As the saying goes, you can't legistlate morality, but common sense should prevail. You don't need a nuclear missle silo in your backyard to protect yourself from any enemy let alone the U.S. government any more than you'd need an M16 to protect yourself from some cat burgelor. But it is your right to do so under state and/or federal law. I personally wouldn't do it because it just doesn't make sense to do so. A Gloch 9mm will stop pretty much anyone dead in their tracks (pun intended) just as will a .38 revolver. But there are those who would prefer buying an assault riffle or even going as far as mounting a .50 Caliber machine gun on their roof if the law doesn't specifically restrict same just because they can.
All I'm saying is where common sense fails us, the law should pick up the slack. The fed gave us the right to bear arms; the several states need to set laws in place to restrict what "level of protection" the people can posses. It just makes sense to do so.
