Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-itpete
Freedom of speech and the right to bear arms are linked at the hip.
Pete |
Don't let the Supreme Court hear you talking like that or they'll declare that guns, like money, are speech. Then when you shoot someone you could claim immunity under the 1st
and 2nd Amendments.
Pete, the 2nd Amendment was never about protecting us from our own government. It was to protect, in lieu of a standing army, the government and its people from insurrection and invasion. The federal response to the Whiskey Rebellion is proof of that intent.
The modern "interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment is, unbelievably, that it exists to facilitate, rather than to suppress, revolts among a segment of the population because they don't like some action of government like a whiskey tax or, on I dunno, passing health care legislation.
The 2nd Amendment outlived its usefulness 200 years ago. Since the formation of standing military forces (we ALWAYS had a navy, by the way) the "well regulated militia" has become redundant and anachronistic. Moreover, the most vocal defenders of the 2nd Amendment actually pose the sort of threat to the country that the amendment was intended to counter.
John