Quote:
|
Originally Posted by samcol
I don't get it, you're saying we shouldn't be armed because there isn't a snowballs chance in hell we could win?
Just because you think the people couldn't win, why would you restrict their right to bear arms. I dont understand your logic at all.
|
Please forgive me for jumping so late into this fight, coming off another hiatus...
Samcol, I don't think I have ever been in agreement with you, but I support this statement probably more than you do.
Seeing Will's follow up, that it is somehow up to the UN or some other Bureaucratic body to determine who should have weapons or at any capacity is redonkculous.
Why is the UN a disorganized body, or for that matter any formal matter any govermental body allowed to tell us what we can or cannot own as matters of weapons? Seriously. What purpose does the Bill of Rights stand? It seems people like to interpret it into modern times when it serves as a means to their political ends. Militias no longer exist, should the populace disarm?
This is the most asinine argument I have met. Why should I not have the right to own any weapon the government possesses? Since when has any goverment known whats best for 'the people'?
I suppose by many peoples logic, the 3rd amendment is invalid as it really has no place in our modern times.
You know what, I'll end it here. IN the context of our times, you tell me what a Militia means, if it goes against the concept of a citizenry armed, I might consider the fact we don't have the right to carry weapons.
Also for the record... I hope I read it right, but Hosts article is awesome.
Really, for all the boogeymen I hear coming up on this board I think the bottom line of the above article is telling as to why the second amendment should stand un-infringed.