Quote:
Originally Posted by StanT
The problem with 2nd amendment folks is that they see the issue as black and white / all or nothing. I've lived with some certifiable "gun nuts", I'm pretty damned indifferent to gun ownership, in general. There is clearly an escalating issue with gun violence and an absolute refusal to even discuss the issue among 2nd amendment folks. I also find it intellectually dishonest to continually quote the portion of the second amendment that you like, while ignoring it's qualifying clause.
The situation in Arizona doesn't happen without a gun. Mental health is the problem, but he's lucky to kill a single targeted person with a knife or baseball bat. Guns aren't the problem, but their easy access to criminals and/or insane is a problem.
|
I agree access is the issue. But when it comes to magazine capacity, it's as if the government is limiting the speed limit to 30mph for EVERYONE because ONE nut drove his SUV through a crowded market at 80 mph.
Another point, Self and home defense or hunting is what is palatable for the average joe--pointing out the second amendment's prefatory 'necessary to the security of a free state,' as well as the common meaning of the term 'militia' illuminates the true meaning of the second amendment--as another check and balance against government and over concentration of power. I know this sounds like tin-foil hattery, but under a plain meaning as well as how the militia operated back then (grabbing the household rifle and heading out), this would justify the need for 30 round magazines and fully auto weapons--to fight tyranny or foreign invasion (not impossible back then.)
Another point to consider, people claim that people only had muskets back then, true, but back then people communicated by mail and about the only mass media was newspaper. Nowadays, with television, internet, and cell phones, we still honor the first amendment no matter the form. Saying that the founders did not envision magazine fed automatic weapons and thus invalidates the second amendment is the same as saying the founders did not envision the internet and thus statements made through the internet are not protected by the first amendment.
Regardless, this thread is way derailed now. I just agree that I do not like mentally unstable people easily obtaining firearms. Now how to narrowly tailor such a rule will be the challenge faced as Second Amendment jurisprudence develops.