mineralman
New member
Ok, the what the Second Amendment really means, people or military, etc. is irrelevant. Why is it irrelevant? Because the Constitution is not set in stone. It is a fluid thing, evolving, changing, and growing. For example: how old do you have to be to vote? The Founding Fathers said 21. But, everyone knows that you only have to be eighteen to vote, because some people decided that the Law of the Land should be changed. In the Constitution itself, it provides a way to do that. Therefore, the meaning of the Second Amendment can be changed as well. So, the arguments for guns because the Second Amendment says that we can have them are really moot. What we should be arguing is the facts of why with the freedoms of all people guarantee our natural right to own weapons. In fact, if we were to get rid of the rigid, angry attitude of "If you try and take my gun, it'll be over my dead body," and adopt a more reasonable, logical and teaching way of convincing other people of these rights, then we could get a new amendment to the Constitution that would read something like this:
The people, consisting of the body of resposible, adult citizens who are of sound mind have the inalienable right to ownership of weapons for the purposes of self defense, the defense of this Nation, and sport. This right applies equally to all citizens in good legal standing, regardless of place of residence. No branch of Government, Federal or State, shall infringe upon these rights.
That would settle it much more thoroughly than a few ancient and reaching court decisions coupled with the unclear wording of the existing Second Amendment. But the militaristic and rabid attitude that is so often expressed isn't the way to accomplish it.
~~~Mineralman
The people, consisting of the body of resposible, adult citizens who are of sound mind have the inalienable right to ownership of weapons for the purposes of self defense, the defense of this Nation, and sport. This right applies equally to all citizens in good legal standing, regardless of place of residence. No branch of Government, Federal or State, shall infringe upon these rights.
That would settle it much more thoroughly than a few ancient and reaching court decisions coupled with the unclear wording of the existing Second Amendment. But the militaristic and rabid attitude that is so often expressed isn't the way to accomplish it.
~~~Mineralman