Avani (avani) wrote,


Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however, with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right to bear arms still necessary?

I don't believe that the first Americans put the 2nd amendment in for hunting rights, or because they were afraid of the natives. They wanted to ensure that the people would always serve as a check on the government. They wanted guns even back in the days where politicians publicly debated their ideas with the people, instead of leaving them as uninformed as possible. (Its humbling to read the Federalist (and anti-Federalist) papers. The first thing you notice is that the language and arguments are both advanced, and citizens (who are these days down-graded to "voters") were expected to respond to these arguments.)

Saying that the right to bear arms is no longer needed seems tantamount to saying that everyone agrees the government is perfect just the way it is, even though we know nothing about it.

  • [Poll] Stripping to Disney

    Apropos of a conversation at krchicken's due-date party last night: Of course, the overall winner is the Pinocchio slave song from…

  • I want to write my entire paper like this

    o epmfrt jpe hppf yjod rmvpfomh od. hobrm divj s yomu yrdy dry/ ETA: The "random" tag was misleading, so I removed it.

  • (no subject)

    This may just be the worst argument against sex education that I've ever seen: "There are kids who don't want to know how to put on a condom,…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.