Another one who doesn't get it


PDA






Norton
May 16, 2003, 08:05 AM
Seems to me this gentleman does more to outline the NEED for the second ammendment to stay intact rather than be repealed when he makes the point of saying that our forefathers needed to protect themselves from attackers, both human and animal. He then goes on to say that they needed to protect themselves against attackers foreign and domestic. That's his logic for repealing the 2nd ammendment?

Hmm...let's see: Oklahoma City, human and domestic, meets criteria.......LA Riots, Human and domestic. meets criteria........9-11, human and foreign, meets criteria.....etc, etc, etc

They just don't get it....

http://www.newsleader.com/news/stories/20030516/opinion/

309615.html:rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "Another one who doesn't get it" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Norton
May 16, 2003, 08:08 AM
Here's the full text of letter.....they don't archive this newspaper's letters:


I see the gun lovers are trying to convince us their misinterpretation of the Second Amendment is the law of the land. This often misunderstood and generally incomprehensible amendment has nothing to do with private gun ownership -- for or against. In 1787, that was never a question: It was taken for granted. Much of the nation was frontier, most of it farmland. Both frontiersmen and farmers needed and used guns to defend their property from human and wild enemies. The Second Amendment was about how the new nation was to defend itself from external and internal enemies. It addressed the question of standing armies versus militia and came down solidly in favor of militia. To the new nation's leaders, standing armies represented the tyranny of the English king and Parliament, while conveniently forgetting that those same standing armies were key to the defeat of the French in the French and Indian War. Even the winning of independence came more from standing armies than militia. Nonetheless, the amendment's framers were vigorous proponents of militia, an army made up of citizens in local formations of their own, supplying their own weapons and always on call to defend the nation, whether from local Amerindian attacks or European invaders.

The Second Amendment is now in constant breach. There is no more organized militia and there is a huge standing army. Events of the past 200 years have proven that reliance on militia was badly placed; I doubt there is any serious call to eliminate the standing army and replace it. The Second Amendment should be eliminated, not misinterpreted. The nation's founders created unique political documents in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but they represented what seemed right to men living in the 1780s. They could not see a United States of today's size and population. They could not anticipate the enormous technical advances of the next 200 years when (compared with) technological change over the previous 1,000 years. The smoothbore and rifled single-shot muzzle-loaded muskets using black powder with a maximum killing range of 250 yards cannot be compared with the weapons of today. So, how does anyone seriously propose that they would be able to frame laws to encompass what is available today and what shall become available in the next 100 years?

CatsDieNow
May 16, 2003, 10:08 AM
So, how does anyone seriously propose that they would be able to frame laws to encompass what is available today and what shall become available in the next 100 years?
Kinda like how the amendment just before it encompasses the internet publication of his opinion?

Tamara
May 16, 2003, 10:14 AM
Yeah, if the framers of the Constitution knew that any ole' idjit could spew his misinformed views world-wide from his wireless laptop while munching tofu and watching re-runs of Gilligan's Island on Nick At Nite, would they have guaranteed the freedom of speech?



;)

Don Gwinn
May 16, 2003, 12:50 PM
Like most people today, he probably speaks mostly in phrases he remembers from somewhere. Listen carefully to most people and you'll notice that you've heard most of what they have to say before, almost word for word. The most annoying are the ones who constantly want to regale you with little-known facts, which are usually not little-known facts at all, since they're only able to tell you about it because they heard it 20 times on various TV shows.

Thus, he may have no idea of what "foreign and domestic" actually means. It's just a phrase he hears a lot and it sounds good in his ear, so he tacks it on the end.

If you enjoyed reading about "Another one who doesn't get it" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!