[lit-ideas] Re: Feeling Safe isn't safe

  • From: "Paul Stone" <pastone@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 12:33:36 -0400

Lawrence:

Since gun control advocates have attempted to institute legislation favoring
their position, this matter has been hotly debated in congress from time to
time, but the fact that the founding fathers, the originators of the Second
Amendment meant a certain thing by it weighs heavily against gun control and
gun control makes little headway.    The above is an analysis from a
congressional subcommittee on gun control.  It is especially interesting
because in it one can find a history of the thinking that led up to the
Second Amendment.


The Second Amendment seems to be as outdated and as relevant as the "rules"
in The Bible against eating certain things or menstruating women attending
church. The liklihood that the reason that you need a gun is to form an
armed militia against a tyrannical government is very low.  It's interesting
that the answer to "why do you have a gun?" and "why should you be allowed
to have a gun?" are very different. The answer to the first is so you can
shoot people if they "get too close" or try to take your stuff. The answer
to the second is because your fore-fathers lived in a renegade society where
you needed to be able to form militias against certain other factions... and
now you extend it to the ludicrous argument: so you can shoot _government_
people if they try to take your stuff.

paul

Other related posts: