Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Seaver
It has always confused me, those who always believe the Rights of the Press, Speech, and Religion shall not be infringed are often the very same who wish to ignore or dismantle the 2nd.
|
From your perspective, is the opposite true as well?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Seaver
If the Amendment is out of date, what is to say the others are? Granted, we have changed added and subtracted Amendments in the past. However, it has taken further Amendments to do it, which require the approval of the people and a massive judicial/legislative efforts. The 2nd Amendment has taken a PR blitz from those who oppose it that would never work with the other Amendments.
|
Lobbyists, not a majority of voters, would protect the Second Amendment from an amendment aimed at changing or overriding the Second. The NRA and it's siblings do carry weight, just like many other ideological organizations.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Seaver
Who would could claim that the 5th Amendment is no longer applicable? It would make our cities safer. It would help reduce crime. It would put those who deserve it in prison. Remember, it's for the Kids. No, it's absurd to claim this. The forefathers understood this, and provided provisions for it. A society with freedom will always have a form of danger inherent in the system. Give people rope and someone will find a way to hang themselves, give them a fork someone will stab someone else with it.
|
I could likely make an extremely strong case that the Fifth is actually a lot more necessary now than it's ever been, actually. I don't see the parallel at all.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Seaver
To claim that getting rid of guns is for our safety is parking a car on a steep hill without a handbrake. There will always be the next step, that if not taken nulls out the previous steps.
|
"Getting rid of guns" isn't the position of most people in this country. Regulating sales, ownership, and use would be a better description.