Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,057 Year: 5,314/9,624 Month: 339/323 Week: 183/160 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   gun control
Inactive Member

Message 51 of 72 (33670)
03-04-2003 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Silent H
03-04-2003 9:16 PM

Some text clipped, then:
These weapons are entirely different than firearms and I do not believe people have a right to own them. They are not designed to help an individual defend him or herself, only as strategic instruments for use in mass conflicts. Their care and use (or at least their "safe" use) involves organizations.
I think the essential problem is, is that what constituted "arms", at the time of the creation of the 2nd ammendment, was pretty limited. For fire arms, the weapons were muzzle loaded pistols, rifles and such, and cannons (for the big guns). There were also primitive bombs. None of these would enable an individual to do a great deal of harm. A single person with a today modern day assault rifle could probably defeat a fair sized army of 200 years ago.
As I see it, the 2nd ammendment permits no restrictions what so ever, on a U.S. citizens rights to possess any weapon. 200 years ago, this was no problem; Today it's a significant problem.
Does the 2nd ammendment permit anyone to have their own personal H-bomb? As I see it, yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Silent H, posted 03-04-2003 9:16 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Silent H, posted 03-05-2003 4:26 PM Minnemooseus has replied
 Message 55 by Silent H, posted 03-05-2003 4:26 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 56 of 72 (33714)
03-05-2003 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Silent H
03-05-2003 4:26 PM

This is going to be tricky as I agree with most of your assessment, but disagree on some minor points. I'm not sure about the conclusion (you left your post sort of open ended).
I think I was just tacking an addition thought onto your message. I think we may be in 100% agreement on the issue.
I totally agree with this. But I don't believe the answer to the resulting problem is to throw out the 2nd Amendment.
I agree and this is a perfect example of where one has to address the spirit of the law, when technology has made the letter impractical.
I agree. The 2nd ammendment, however, untimately is the law. And the legal system operates on the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law.
That 2nd ammendment is just plain totally out of alignment with the modern reality. I guess we need a new ammendment, which would define the line between weapons of self-defense, and weapons of mass destruction.
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
My big page of Creation/Evolution Links

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Silent H, posted 03-05-2003 4:26 PM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Peter, posted 03-10-2003 5:54 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024