Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lebell
Actually, if you re-read my post, that's what I said.
In your example, he "could" have hurt someone and therefore shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.
|
Ah, I misunderstood. I read it as "If you didn't hurt someone, or if you only
could have hurt someone when you committed your crime..." I thought you meant only if you actually did the hurting.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by daniel_
It's interesting to me that in a country where a citizens militia helped establish a form of democracy (like the US) people like it. In a country where a private army allowed a dedicated band of fanatics to usurp the state (i.e. the SD/SA in 1930s Germany) the idea seems less atractive.
|
That's why we have the Second Amendment.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Constitution of the United States of America
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
|
The key words that many people seem to miss are the
entire first phrase: "A well regulated militia." And the most important words of that phrase? "well regulated." That's why we're talking about this, because firearms need regulation. Without regulation, fanatical armies would be allowed to run amok.