« The Locking Mailbox: Low Tech Security With a High Tech Effect | Main | MnNordSki! »

December 16, 2012

Comments

Jeremy

History proves you wrong. Ask the disarmed people of North Korea, China, and numerous other countries how well their protests are going. Or ask the Jews how it went in Germany. Oh, you can't because the government simply kills them. You can watch that on the news every day.

"But that would never happen here" you cry. That's what they said in every other country. Funny how history has a way of repeating itself over and over again.

Furthermore, the founders didn't have to "imagine" the weapons we have today because automatic weapons existed before the Constitution was even written. Clearly you didn't bother to do any research before writing this drivel. Your logic is non existent.

The fact remains that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with shooting at deer. The fact that you think that shows that you are just the kind of fool the government loves.

Tom D'88

Dear Jeremy,
I so enjoy spurious analogies like yours. If only the internet resulted in universally faster acquisition of knowledge. Were that the case, such analogies would not be written to confound the dialogue.
Typewriters, computers and the internet don't do anything to increase the speed with which individuals read and acquire information. That is the central point. Perhaps this is a point on which you should ruminate further.
Assault rifles very much increase the speed at which "information is acquired" by the recipient more often resulting in a fatal point being made than not. You may not know this, but there was a copycat criminal in China who imitated the Connecticut murderer armed only with a knife because that was all he could get his hands on. The resultant two deaths of children are no less tragic, but the incident serves as an apt illustration of the constitutionally unanticipated power of the modern firearm.
There's a final Constitutional point to make, namely that the 2nd Amendment was just that, an Amendment. The Founding Fathers had the wisdom to recognize that they couldn't possibly anticipate everything the future would hold, but they knew that they were responsibly for "ourselves and our posterity". Hence, they immediately set about testing the Constitution with an initial set of Amendments reflecting the notion that most, but perhaps not all would stand the test of time. The 2nd, by its current interpretation, has not. We call the first 10 Amendments the "Bill of Rights", but this is colloquial. What kind of people seek to defend themselves against their government? Could an individual or even a small group of indivudals armed to the teeth expect to keep their local government let alone their Federal government at bay? Such speculation is poppycock. Aren't there other mechanisms through which we can protest against our government should we have a legitimate beef? If you feel the 2nd Amendment will provide for you to adequately "protect" yourself from "an oppressive and tyranical government", good luck with that.
Regards,
Tom D'88

Jeremy

If that is your stance, then you should immediately shut down this blog; the founders clearly only intended free speech when executed with a quill or printing press; not the Internet.

The fact of the matter is, whether you like it or not, the 2nd amendment was written to protect us from an oppressive and tyrannical government. It has NOTHING to do with hunting.

Rich responds: Sorry you think that way about guns, Jeremy.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Become a Fan

Lake Superior Waves