CONGRESS is the PROBLEM! Was Re: Stupid Americans Re: HOORAY for Surg
morley at apple.com
Sat Dec 18 23:51:22 EST 1993
In article <CI1Fs3.29K at csc.ti.com>, <mns1 at lobby.ti.com> wrote:
>All you anti-2nd Ammendment nuts, take note -- the Bill of Rights is
>a package, not an itemization. If we continue to allow the Congress
>to urinate on the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th Ammendments, can the
>1st be safe?
The Bill of Rights is just a name given to the first 10 ammendments to the
US constitution. While I don't deny the immeasurable value of this set of
guarantess, it doesn't mean that it is impossible to improve upon them
given the state of the world 200 years later. After all, the first ten
ammendments weren't much use to blacks until a later ammendment abolshed
slavery. Likewise many women weren't too happy about the constitution
until the 19th ammendment provided for democratic representation for them.
The 2nd ammendment is a thorny one. I believe that the intent of the framers
was to provide a check and balance that would make it difficult for a
totalitarian government to take over this country since the populace would
be allowed equal access to armaments. Nowadays this is somewhat outdated
unless you interpret it to allow backyard nukes in every suburb. So with
the government holding the absolute upper hand when it comes to war toys,
what is the need for the populace to arm themselves? I think there are valid
arguments both for and against the posession of firearms by individuals.
What I find annoying in the extreme is the insistance of the gun lobby to
reject any form of regulation with regard to gun ownership. I mean doesn't
it strike you as odd that it should be easier to qualify for ownership of
a gun than an automobile? Strict licensing and testing provisions don't
raise cries of foul when they are applied to the privilege of driving; why
should they be considered more heinous when applied to the privilege of
owning a lethal weapon?
- Just my .02 caliber contribution
More information about the Plantbio