Come on now.
This is a case of the people on the right side of an issue going to far.
There is no doubt that American's have the constitutional right to carry a gun. Our founding fathers would have it no other way. And, maybe kids did have guns to help hunt.
But can someone help me understand why an 8 year old needs to have a gun?
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Say no to plan to let 8-year-olds wield rifles
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
I know some 8 year olds who are far more mature than some of the tools running around the Northwoods during deer season. ;)
I don't think either of those kids looks 8. Who's up for some lead tag?
Game, it never ceases to amaze me when you claim that "there is doubt".
There is no doubt that American's have the constitutional right to carry a gun.
This is a totally absurd statement. If there was no doubt, there would never have been an argument about it. Constitutional scholars have argued the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment for YEARS. There apparently IS some doubt.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
...what's there to doubt about? Maybe you think guns aren't included in "arms"? Does anyone honestly believe (and have evidence to support) that the framers (who used mostly guns to fight off the british) didn't have guns in mind when they said, "arms"? I suppose there are some who try to raise doubt, but invariably, they have an anti-gun agenda.
Or maybe you think that "bear" and "carry" aren't related? If that's the case, maybe you could elaborate. How exactly does one bear a weapon of any sort without carrying it? (large and other special weapons excluded...like panzers...hard to carry...but irrelevant to this discussion, I only bring it up so idiots won't)
I'd wager it's the same kind of people who believe the second amendment is questionable as those who believe things like food, healthcare, retirement pay, "privacy" and abortions are "rights". The reason is, that to argue that the above (not stated anywhere in the constitution) are rights and to simultaneously deny the right to bear arms (explicitly stated in the constitution), you must first re-write the definition of what is a "right" to something that it is not... see my post from earlier today on the subject.
I'm not "in" on liberal circles, so maybe the anti-gun nuts and the socialists are different groups, but I doubt it, because many of the fundamental ideas behind their world view are the same... one being that the individual is nothing and the government is everything. The rest flows from there.
Ammendment II:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Why do you suppose they put those first thirteen words in there? Do you notice that it DOES NOT say "the right of a person to keep and bear arms". If you read the Bill of Rights, do you notice how they use the word "people" to indicate "the people" as a group and the word "person" to indicate an individual?
To claim there is "no doubt" is absurd. If there is "no doubt", why have legal, constitutional scholars been arguing about this for decades?
If you hop into the Wayback Machine, you'll discover exactly what a militia was in the 1770's.
A group cannot exist without individuals, Jim. However you do have a good point. It does come down to a person's values, if they believe the individuals have rights or only groups?
I suspect you are more of a group person...nearly all liberals are. After all if one believes in the soveriegnty of the individual, they will naturally embrace an individual's right to self-determination, and by extension, private property. Also, the right to defend themselves and their property. To put it another way, if the individual has rights solely as a person and not as a member of any group, is there any possible interpretation of the second amendment through an individualist perspective that denies that individual's right to bear arms? I submit, No.
As for groups, answer me these questions: Can any group assume any responsibility that it's individual members, or a higher superceding authority, do not already have the authority to exercise, and thus delegate to the group?
If the individual has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then by extension he has the right to defend those rights, and then the ability to delegate that responsibility to a group (a militia), which in turn can delegate up the chain. The important question becomes, does delegating a responsibility remove that responsibility from the original?
Sorry Mike, I'm honestly not following you here. But I will try...
Paragraph 1. It is not either-or when it comes to people and groups. The preamble to the Constitution reads: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
A person did not "ordain and establish" the Constitution. "The people" did.
"Values" has nothing to do with it. There is no value "choice" here between people and persons. It has different meanings in different places. These were smart men and you can bet they used the words they did for a specific reason.
Paragraph 2:
I believe in the individual. I don't belong to any "groups." Your premise that nearly all liberals are group people is false, in my opinion.
Seems like we should disband the military, the national guard, and the police since we should just all carry guns and defend ourselves. Or did we decide over the course of American history, that the better interests of the people are served by delegating the enforcement of defense, emergency preparedness, and property rights to "groups" representing the people.
Paragraph 3: See paragraph 2.
Paragraph 4: The Constitution grants those rights, and it also establishes the institutions to protect them. I don't see where having rights automatically by extension gives the individual the right or responsibility to protect them by deadly force. Otherwise, why have a Constitution? Let everybody have a gun and just have it out.
I repeat, to say that there "is no doubt" about this issue is the height of absurdity. If there wasn't doubt, there would be no argument.
Post a Comment