Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:51 AM
Sam1 (416 posts)
The Foundersí Muddled Legacy on the Right to Bear Arms Is Killing Us
A case of 18th-century politicking has stymied our ability to deal with a 21st-century crisis.
August 14, 2012 |
Amid horrifying reports of American gun violence -- the latest from College Station, Texas, yesterday, and Aurora, Colorado, last month -- it's natural for Americans on all sides of the dire issue of gun control and gun ownership to invoke our founders' legacy regarding arms and rights. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution famously asserts a "right of the people to keep and bear arms." Determining what the founders meant by that right has long seemed critical to winning arguments for or against gun legislation.
But thatís a slippery slope. Any serious effort to address whatever lies behind the astonishing rate of American gun violence should really begin by criticising the foundersí contradictory stance on this issue, not appealing to it.
Paul Ryan, the presumptive Republican nominee for vice-president, who champions rights of gun owners, believes that the U.S. is unique for having been founded on the idea that "our rights come from nature and God, not government.Ē Ryan's attitude reflects a pervasive desire, across the American political spectrum, to ground current political positions in what many Americans see as absolute rights, protected for us by our founders in the U.S. Constitution.
3 replies, 788 views
The Foundersí Muddled Legacy on the Right to Bear Arms Is Killing Us (Original post)
|Dread Pirate Roberts||Dec 2012||#2|
Response to Sam1 (Original post)
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:04 AM
1StrongBlackMan (20,766 posts)
1. I call B.S.! ...
Even after reading the article, I remain believing that the Founders' legact on the Right to Bear Arms is Muddled because of the gun industry well choreographed marketing campaign that would have half the amendment stand as the entire amendment, regardless of the plain, and limiting, meaning of the words they choose to ignore ... and the people's willingness to accept that argument.
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #1)
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:17 AM
Dread Pirate Roberts (366 posts)
2. I Couldn't Agree More....
All of these "strict constitutionalists" want the 2nd Amendment to evolve but not the rest of the Constitution. When the 2nd amendment was drafted shooting a gun meant taking out a paper tube filled with gun powder, biting off the end, pouring it into the barrel of a gun, putting a bullet and some wadding in, ramming it down with a rod, aiming and firing. You needed a gun to hunt, you needed it to protect yourself, especially if you lived on the frontier,and you needed a gun in case the government needed you show up and fight for them. I'm ok with someone wanting a gun for hunting and legitimate self-protection, but the 2nd amendment was never drafted to protect the rights of paranoid anti-government nuts and cowards who see danger lurking everywhere. They sure as hell didn't anticipate large capacity ammunition clips and automatically firing weapons when it was written. However, that's the false argument we end up having on these issues.