shooterx10
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2003
- Messages
- 159
From The Washington Dispatch
Opinion
Guns, Arms, Weapons, Ammo
Exclusive commentary by Garfield Jones
Sep 10, 2003
“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.â€
Twenty-seven little words, which serve to divide an entire country. Twenty-seven words, that have inspired over 200 years of bitter partisan debate. I sit here staring at these twenty-seven words not knowing exactly what to make of them. What were the founding fathers thinking when they wrote those twenty-seven little words?
It seems clear, people can keep and bear whatever arms they can afford to choose, handguns, rifles, assault weapons, tanks, planes, warships, chemical, biological, nuclear, whatever. The ammo to go with it too. This is as pure an interpretation of the second amendment that one can have, and it would seem to be in keeping with the wording and intent. To make it even clearer, the constitution doesn’t elaborate on “people†so a purist interpretation must include all people, mentally competent or not. Imagine the possibilities! Can purists live with that?
Now be truthful, the thought of everyone and anyone owning whatever arm they can afford to own scares the majority of Americans. This is why there are reasonable limits in place today to the anguish of many on the right. Now these people may be correct when they assert that these limits should be abolished because they are contrary to the second amendment. I’m even almost inclined to agree.
I believe there should be much stronger laws regulating the punishments for the abuse and misuse of arms. Guns, knives, iron pipes, nukes, crowbars, land mines, tanks, airplanes, automobiles, etc; whatever someone uses as their arm of choice. Although, maybe the founders were more traditional than that, and only meant the arms in use by the military, in which case guns, knives, iron pipes, nukes, crowbars, landmines, tanks, automobiles, etc.
Purists may argue that this is the way it was meant to be, but imagine what would happen if the mad, the deranged, the lunatic fringe ever got their hands on the really cool weapons, the really big ones. I mean, imagine if George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, or Richard Perle were ever able to get their hands on such weapons…oops, almost forgot. (No hate mail please, just a little brevity inserted strictly for fun). I mean, can you imagine the consequences?
I can’t help thinking though, that with America’s thinking somewhat still dependent on an old west thinking, where warring words must be settled through the use of brute force- what did you call me?! Draw! But then that could just be my Hollywood polluted mind and the reality could be, much more tame.
Somehow though, I believe most of us would cringe at the thought of our neighbor keeping stores of anthrax or botulism in their basement because the second amendment says their rights to so shall not be infringed.
The thinking behind the second amendment, as explained to me by so many smart, modern conservatives, is that the people must own arms- it is not only their right but, their duty to own arms- in order to protect themselves if ever the government becomes tyrannical. There does not seem to be any provisions dealing with the government and the people becoming tyrannical, oh well.
I like the second amendment, I believe it is a good one, and I believe it should be taken as it is. I believe that to the point that I believe the rest of the world should adopt it as their own, except they should tweak the wording a little: A well maintained government, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of this country to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed by foreign powers. After all, what protects the rest of the world from American tyranny?
Garfield can be reached for comment at [email protected].
© 2002 The Washington Dispatch. All Rights Reserved.
Here is the link.
Opinion
Guns, Arms, Weapons, Ammo
Exclusive commentary by Garfield Jones
Sep 10, 2003
“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.â€
Twenty-seven little words, which serve to divide an entire country. Twenty-seven words, that have inspired over 200 years of bitter partisan debate. I sit here staring at these twenty-seven words not knowing exactly what to make of them. What were the founding fathers thinking when they wrote those twenty-seven little words?
It seems clear, people can keep and bear whatever arms they can afford to choose, handguns, rifles, assault weapons, tanks, planes, warships, chemical, biological, nuclear, whatever. The ammo to go with it too. This is as pure an interpretation of the second amendment that one can have, and it would seem to be in keeping with the wording and intent. To make it even clearer, the constitution doesn’t elaborate on “people†so a purist interpretation must include all people, mentally competent or not. Imagine the possibilities! Can purists live with that?
Now be truthful, the thought of everyone and anyone owning whatever arm they can afford to own scares the majority of Americans. This is why there are reasonable limits in place today to the anguish of many on the right. Now these people may be correct when they assert that these limits should be abolished because they are contrary to the second amendment. I’m even almost inclined to agree.
I believe there should be much stronger laws regulating the punishments for the abuse and misuse of arms. Guns, knives, iron pipes, nukes, crowbars, land mines, tanks, airplanes, automobiles, etc; whatever someone uses as their arm of choice. Although, maybe the founders were more traditional than that, and only meant the arms in use by the military, in which case guns, knives, iron pipes, nukes, crowbars, landmines, tanks, automobiles, etc.
Purists may argue that this is the way it was meant to be, but imagine what would happen if the mad, the deranged, the lunatic fringe ever got their hands on the really cool weapons, the really big ones. I mean, imagine if George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, or Richard Perle were ever able to get their hands on such weapons…oops, almost forgot. (No hate mail please, just a little brevity inserted strictly for fun). I mean, can you imagine the consequences?
I can’t help thinking though, that with America’s thinking somewhat still dependent on an old west thinking, where warring words must be settled through the use of brute force- what did you call me?! Draw! But then that could just be my Hollywood polluted mind and the reality could be, much more tame.
Somehow though, I believe most of us would cringe at the thought of our neighbor keeping stores of anthrax or botulism in their basement because the second amendment says their rights to so shall not be infringed.
The thinking behind the second amendment, as explained to me by so many smart, modern conservatives, is that the people must own arms- it is not only their right but, their duty to own arms- in order to protect themselves if ever the government becomes tyrannical. There does not seem to be any provisions dealing with the government and the people becoming tyrannical, oh well.
I like the second amendment, I believe it is a good one, and I believe it should be taken as it is. I believe that to the point that I believe the rest of the world should adopt it as their own, except they should tweak the wording a little: A well maintained government, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of this country to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed by foreign powers. After all, what protects the rest of the world from American tyranny?
Garfield can be reached for comment at [email protected].
© 2002 The Washington Dispatch. All Rights Reserved.
Here is the link.
