Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
ok, hypothetically lets say we're now 'enlightened' as a society. we no longer need to keep and bear arms for our self defense. what happens if our government in the future decides that its too dangerous for us to have total freedom of speech or the right to privacy? We can no longer petition for redress of grievances? due process is too lengthy to proscribe justice so lets abandon the 5th and 6th amendments. When would it be time to fight and how?
"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." -- Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court, 2003
All of our rights are important and not to be abandoned. the 2nd is our guarantee of all the others.
|
Honestly, I love your argument. It highlights the slippery slope of giving away rights in exchange for more security. It is one of the primary reasons I dislike the Patriot Act (let's not start a discussion on this, I'm sure there's been plenty). My feeling is that I would fight for every other right but the 2nd, and that is because I believe in non-violent protest. BUt it occured to me that I've never fought for anything. My grandfather did with non-violent protest, but I never have. Perhaps, some protest situations require an eye for an eye. I dont know, I'm not wise enough in the ways of the world. For now, my core set of beliefs is that I'm a pacifist. Perhaps being in a war zone changes you, forces you to become a fighter. If so, then I will admit I was wrong because I lived a life of peace. So, yes, I will agree that you have the right to fight for your right to bear arms. If you feel that is what we need to defend our freedoms, then you are correct. I won't fight to dismantle the 2nd amendment because no one has shown me conclusively that it hurts by increasing crime. But at the same time, being a pacifist, I wont fight for it either. That does put me on the slippery slope. But, believe me, if someone came to take away, for example, my 1st amendment rights or anyone else's, there is no chance I will ever give those up without fighting tooth and nail for them.
In conclusion, I believe in individual freedom, and am a pacifist. So you can go ahead and carry a gun, but I wont carry one. And if it turns out that guns were necessary to fight for the rest of rights and non-violence doesn't work, then I'll sincerely apologize, and pick up a gun myself.