SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (1992)10/10/2000 4:12:32 PM
From: cosmicforce  Read Replies (2) of 10042
 
The very reason there is a Bill of Rights is that many considered the personal protections of the Constitution weak. IT is ambiguous and while the Constitution says a lot about the mechanics of government, it says precious little about the individuals within that government. Therefore, even as the ink was drying, the first 10 Amendments were added.

The framers did not envision cruise missiles which effectively give the range of the Naval Fleet that of on shore artillery or even nuclear delivery. Their use of arms was limited by their 19th century understanding of war. Many argue that the first "modern" war was WWII. Up till then people lined up and shot at each other. Americans learned from the Indians the tactics of guerrilla warfare, but it wasn't called that then.

If you take the Amendment to mean what you claim, that the people should be able to possess the arms of the day so as to repel an army, then it simply doesn't mean that now if you limit it to rifles and pistols. There is no way a bunch of armed freedom fighters could regain control of an evil government. In a no holds barred conflict, the citizenry will lose massively if only armed with pistols and rifles.

So trying to put this into that context is not proper. Nor, is it, IMO, advisable. Very few countries have the weaponry we do in the hands of citizens. Are you suggesting that that is the reason for our freedom? I don't think so. The lesson of revolutionary government is that more often than not, when the revolution is over, the gun owners persist in hunting down people who fought against the revolution and that a select few stay in power. This didn't happen here, not because of the guns, but because the EDUCATED elite that comprised the "Founding Fathers" had the sense not to go after people who had defended the Crown. There were those that did. THAT is the main difference between us and other governments that arose through revolution.

If you don't look at the 2nd Amendment through this lens, you will see a very distorted picture of what your rights were in their mind. Now time has changed people's expectations. That's okay.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext