Sam Adams
Member
This guy is startlingly ignorant. Our forefathers (politically speaking, of course) did not "demand" the right to bear arms. Rights can't be demanded - you either have them or you don't. The key question is whether those rights can be exercised without the interference of either the government or other individuals, i.e. whether they are being (unjustly and/or illegally) infringed upon or not. The 2nd Amendment created NOTHING - it merely put a specific prohibition against government infringement of our right to keep and bear arms ("RKBA") into the most basic document of our government.
Oh, and the arrogance of speaking of the "modern" era is stunning. As if somehow the attitude that "this time it is different" means something - just like it has meant NOTHING in the past, simply because human nature is the only constant in this world. We are no better at controlling our baser instincts and our general nature than those who lived in the late 18th Century, merely because we have better technology. In fact, I'd argue that the great mass of people is actually LESS in control of themselves than the average person who lived then, simply because we've largely disposed of the religion-based morality which was taught and respected to a far greater degree back then. Moron. Stupid. Ignorant. Naive. Moron.
Well, I'll give him an "A" for honesty. However, in being honest he defeats his own cause. Stating (in somewhat different words) that the real reason for the AWB was as a first step toward the ultimate disarmament of civilians is confirmation of the worst fears of gun owners about governmental power and the purpose of "gun control." I just wish that Feinstein, Schumer, Brady, Kennedy, etc. would say similar things in public, as it would put a stake in the heart of gun control. Unfortunately, the last time that happened was when Feinswine slipped on 60 Forgeries with her famous "...Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in" quote.
He must obviously be talking about hunting or defense against Indians, because he cannot possibly be addressing the issue of crime or the big cahuna, deterring and/or fighting a domestic tyranny. I'll concede the first 2 - there aren't that many people who would starve without hunting, and there have been what, 1 or 2 Indian attacks in the last century? In that sense, times have certainly changed.
However, violent crime is not about to disappear. More to the point, the existence of guns (mostly handguns, I'll concede, as those are the easiest to carry and/or conceal) has deterred or defeated attempts at crime millions of times per year. Where there is "shall issue" legislation, crime has actually dropped faster than the national average.
Finally, this guy has completely ignored the issue of a domestic tyranny. The fact that we haven't had one imposed (i.e. a Nazi-style one, not the creeping Socialist one that we ARE experiencing) is both a result of and a tribute to the existence of guns - LOTS of guns - in the hands of civilians. Here, however, this guy is dead wrong - rifles are of critical importance. Handguns are generally of little utility against the forces of an occupying army (be it domestic or foreign) and, instead, the kudos have to go to rifles. Rifles can effectively reach out and wound or kill enemy soldiers or tyrants at ranges of several hundred yards (or far more in the hands of an expert armed with a precision piece of equipment), and are far more lethal than most handguns at the shorter ranges where handguns offer a higher probability of hitting the target. The rifle is the queen of the battlefield - according to no less an authority on guns than Col. Jeff Cooper - and the semi-automatic is the only generally available type of rifle which offers the volume of controlled fire that a true militia would need to fight an army of occupation. Among those, the military look-alike semi-autos are generally more rugged than the "hunting" type semi-autos, plus having the advantage of large magazines and plentiful spare parts availability. In 1776 the militia had the Kentucky Rifle, and in the modern era the equivalent is the military look-alike semi-auto rifle.
If all that were important were the "intent" of the law, then why even bother with the Constitution? Seriously - why bother with a cumbersome written document setting forth a myriad of rules, when all it takes (according to this warped philosophy) is 5 black-robed justices to determine the content of the law? http://wavcentral.com/cgi-bin/log/log.cgi?id=2902&sound=/sounds/movies/AFishCalledWanda/a_hole.mp3
What this guy fails to state, probably because it is VERY "inconvenient" to his point of view, is that the very Constitution that he so obviously has no use for does, in fact, provide a well-known instrument for adjusting the law to changed times - amendment. Unfortunately for him, and very fortunately for the liberty-minded among us, it is very difficult to pass an amendment through Congress, and far more difficult to get 3/4 of the state legislatures to vote for it...which is precisely why this ignoramous doesn't mention it. Calling a Constitutional Convention, the only other means of amendment, is universally feared because of the possibility that many of the protections for our rights would be seriously eroded or completely stripped out of the document. No one sane wishes to take that gamble.
My attitude can be summed up by a quote from A.E. van Vogt's "The Weapon Shops of Isher"
The right to buy weapons is the right to be free
