Quote:
Originally Posted by rabble
It is interesting to see this thread twist from being about 'free speech' to being about 'the right to bare arms'. And I agree with gonzo this is an interesting discussion without much name calling. Therefore, I will add my two cents - although it is probably only worth a about a half-penny.
I rather think the right to bare arms to secure a 'free state' was decided to the negative by the Civil war of the 1860s and that the right of citizens to secure themselves against tyranny is wrongly fought on second amendment grounds, EmporerEJ. As, I think it was rhetorical pointed out ... your handgun is wholly ineffective to protect yourself from 'the government'. And, although I have some sympathy for you protecting yourself from the criminal element, I would point out one is statistically more likely to be shot when one owns a firearm than when one does not.
If you really wish to protect yourself from tyranny I think you should take a closer look at the weakening ( particularly during the current Bush administration of ) 'due process' clauses of the Fourth Amendment. Particularly the prohibition against 'general searches'.
|
I see the argument being twisted further, into a discussion of the 4th amendment. Unfortunately, I agree with you on that point. You'll get no argument from me there. But it goes hand in hand, doesn't it? And since when does the 2nd amendment limit itself to handguns? Do you imagine for one minute, that the "peaceniks" wouldn't take the long guns as well?
They've already nibbled at them from the other end, by outlawing many of them.
And once again....more than 20 years safe. Never had to shoot anyone, or even point it at anyone. I have a Stun gun too. Would you like to take that as well? Firearms are always a weapon of last resort. But I sleep soundly knowing I have at least equal firepower to anything that's going to come at me. You go ahead and twist your statistics to mean anything you want. The NRA has statistics that say the exact opposite.