Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006, Vern Green wrote:
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".
Do you think that the people can fight the government without heavy
weapons? That seems unlikely to me.
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."
I guess you and the ACLU don't agree on how the 2nd Amendment should be
interpretted. I don't know who is right.
Mike
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Home | FAQ | Server | Presentations | Mailing Lists/Archives | Member Tools | Links | Sponsors | Contact