The quiz above does not relate to the regulation below it -unless this is some sort of two dimensional quiz. The quiz could be made one dimensional by simply specifying to what extent and which weapons should be outlawed. I guess I am happy with the present levels of gun control and do not want the laws changed in either direction.
For the record everyone, it is a realistic interpretation that the 2nd amendment isn't meant for citizens to defend themselves against other citizens -but rather as
an extreme check against abusive government power. There is more than incedental evidence to support that. For example this statement by Jefferson:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson
None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important.
|
So when I read that people are Re-Interpreting the Constitution so that this key idea is ignored -that the second amendment was intended to allow an armed citizenry to stand against the government. I get alarmed that people again are twisting facts to suit theories.
And it's not that I agree with the John Birch Society or the Unibomber or anyone. I just think that this issue -of the
intent of the second amendment is getting ignored by both sides on this issue.
I see two ways around this idea:
1) State that the present checks and balances against abusive government authority are so overwhelmingly sufficient that the second amendment is not required.
2) State that the second amendment as it now stands is so weak that it does not sufficiently provide a check against abusive government authority. ie: We need to legalize anti-aircraft weapons to protect ourselves against government bombers. (Notice that anti-aircraft weapons are generally not covered by Yaks quiz).