Quote:
Originally Posted by hendrixpujols11
let me clarify myself. The people should still have the right to a non-tyrannical and the right of protection, but using firearms seems to be quite inconvenient... So let me ask you a question. Is the only way to ensure a non-tyrannical government and to ensure protection to allow people to carry guns? It seems that the 2nd amendment, as you explain it, is symbolic of a deeper right, which is a non-tyrannical and a government that's not omnipotent. Bearing arms was different 250 years ago. What they used to prevent an overpowerful government THEN, may not be as useful for that NOW. There are many many things now that there were not 250 years ago. The right to bear arms, once again as you explained it, is metaphorical for a right of protection and a fair government. These two things are achievable in ways other than allowing citizens to carry weapons that kill more than 50,000 people a year.
|
So you can't actually cite a change in the principle on which the 2nd amendment rests...
The People Rest...
Friends, there is no better wayon this earth to defend yourself from tyranny than through superior fire power. PERIOD.
These people that want to concede their right to defend themselves need to recognize that this is a point which will never be conceded by Americans. It is the point at which the next US revolution will begin. Like mono-gender marriage, there is no negotiation here, no room for concession and it will be the radical that wins. I'm just such a radical friends and of my peers within this group, I'm the reasonable one.
Where on concedes their responsibility to defend their life, they concede their right to life and that is not a point in which their can be a compromise. Either a right to life exists, then it must inherently come with the responsibility to defend it. There is no better way to do so than to possess the means to end the lives of those who seek to take it from you.
Any questions?