Quote:
Originally posted by BlueMan
The second amendment could not be more clear. The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The only argument is between those who believe in individual rights, and those who would see them subordinated to the whims of the Nanny State, who should care for us mindless peasants who obviously are not capable of thinking for ourselves, from cradle to grave.
The kind of thinking that places a government in complete control of your security and well-being is an invitation to be enslaved. The founders meant us to take care of ourselves, and be wary of a government that would take care of us, for "our own good". The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed. The abuse of that right (to commit robberies, assaults, and murders) should be met with swift, sure, and severe consequences. -That- would be the proper "gun control". A gun is a -tool-. The problem is the one wielding it. Prosecute and punish those who commit crimes using weapons, instead of persecuting law-abiding citizens who chose to excercise their rights under the Second Amendment.
|
That's a well written, passionate argument, but the amendments are not absolute. Freedom of speech is not absolute. The classic example of this is that you cannot yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. Also, libel is a form of speech that is not covered by free speech. Also slander. But, we have a guiding principle in this country that, unless there is a good reason otherwise, speech should be free.
The 2nd amendment works the same way. There are a ton of restrictions on weapon ownership that people accept. I doubt that anyone wants personal ownership of nuclear weapons, howitzers, RPG's, or fuel-air bombs to be unrestricted. Most people are for reasonable background checks. Many people are for reasonable rules on gun safety classes. Most people are for restriction on weapon purchases by convicted felons.
So, I'm really not sure what point you are arguing, but you did do a good job of saying it passionately.