Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
I don't do fanaticism. And I'm surprised you think I said this (can you point out where?).
I'd like to see the Second Amendment overruled by a new amendment, even my interpretation. The idea behind the amendment, making legal the potential for insurrection, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If people are going to rise up against their government, said government is not going to pay attention to laws that prevent them from squashing the insurrection. And the insurgents wouldn't care about the Second Amendment. They'd use bombs and other improvised weapons that wouldn't normally be covered by the Second. Gone are the days when armies would line up on a battlefield and open fire on each other. Gone are the days when the Second Amendment was relevant.
|
This statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Regardless, your question as to relevance directly challenges the very amendment itself. If the justification no longer is applicable, then the operative becomes incorrect.
|
read to me as disbelief. I understood it to be a refutation of my logic, which would carry with it the implication that you believe the second amendment to be correct.
Tonality is notoriously difficult to interpret in text based media and I apologize if I have misrepresented you.
__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said
- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame
|