Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS][RELIGION] a top 20 story at reddit.com...

["Vern Green" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

And I would argue that the 2nd amendment would not be changed at all.

The spirit of the 2nd amendment was to keep our own Government under
control. An armed citizenry has the chance to step in and take back
the Government if it goes awry. Sure, if you could get enough people
willing to take up arms and overthrow Bush, you could do that by
nature of the 2nd amendment.

It has nothing to do with the power of the weapons, it has nothing to
do with concealed carry laws, but it does have to do with waiting
periods, weapon bans and other laws that restrict my RIGHT to own a
weapon.

Should the citizenry be allowed to own heavy weapons like tanks and
such, the good of society says "No".

The ACLU takes the stance, as I have read in the past, that the 2nd
Amendment only applies to the states rights to maintain a militia,
e.g. The National Guard". This is why they will not take on any single
person's right to own a weapon despite the 2nd amendments statement
that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed."


On 3/4/06, Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Mar 2006, Nathan Odle wrote:
>
> > The only issue I have with the ACLU really is that they claim to defend
> > the Bill of Rights but 'conveniently' overlook the 2nd Amendment.  For
> > this reason I belong to both the ACLU *and* the NRA, figuring that
> > they'll more-or-less get the job done while perhaps counterbalancing one
> > anothers' radical tendencies :)
>
> You are one of the few people who belongs to both.  (That's another of
> those odd sentences we were discussing the other day.)
>
> I think the ACLU isn't overlooking the 2nd Amendment; they're just
> interpretting it less broadly than you would like.  If you can give an
> example where you thought the 2nd Amendment was being violated but the
> ACLU did nothing, that would help to clarify what they've been doing
> wrong.
>
> I was just looking over this...
>
> http://www.saf.org/
>
> ...and it seems that they interpret our very brief 2nd Amendment...
>
>    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
>    State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
>    infringed.
>
> ...to mean that people should be allowed to carry concealed handguns to
> protect against robbery.  That doesn't seem to be the intention of the
> Amendment.  One of the really big problems here is that the authors of
> that Amendment didn't even know about handguns (I think) and they sure
> didn't know about the powerful weapons that we have today.  I wonder what
> they would write if they were writing that amendment today.  I think it
> would be lot longer.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> discussion mailing list
> EMAIL:PROTECTED
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>


--
Thanks
F Vernon Green

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion