Gun Rights for Terrorists
According to an article in today's New York Times, many terror suspects on federal watch lists are buying firearms legally in U.S. stores. The FBI claims that there's not much they can do about this without violating laws supported by the Bush administration concerning the privacy rights of gun owners. First of all, do I even have to point out the irony of the Bush administration being concerned with privacy rights? This is, of course, the administration of the Patriot Act. Secondly, for the Bush Administration to not be restricting the right of suspects on federal terror watch lists to obtain firearms seems to show a lack of concern for U.S. national security. Third, the second amendment has no relevance today . . .
I find it interesting that defenders of the second amendent almost always quote the part of the second amendment that reads "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", but rarely, if ever, mention this clause in the context of the entire thing, which reads, "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." [emphasis mine]. This first clause about a "well regulated militia" is absolutely crucial. A well regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of our free state, or rather, we have a well regulated militia and it's called the U.S. Army. The founding fathers rightly wrote the second amendment to protect against the government becoming tyrannical. But if the government were to become tyrannical today, your Smith and Wesson, or even your Uzi, would be no match for their nukes. The wording of the second amendment makes it clear that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" only so long as a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. So if you still want to argue for strict gun owernship rights, fine, but don't fall back on the second amendment. Instead, rely on positive features of guns like the ability to kill sentient creatures.
I find it interesting that defenders of the second amendent almost always quote the part of the second amendment that reads "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", but rarely, if ever, mention this clause in the context of the entire thing, which reads, "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." [emphasis mine]. This first clause about a "well regulated militia" is absolutely crucial. A well regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of our free state, or rather, we have a well regulated militia and it's called the U.S. Army. The founding fathers rightly wrote the second amendment to protect against the government becoming tyrannical. But if the government were to become tyrannical today, your Smith and Wesson, or even your Uzi, would be no match for their nukes. The wording of the second amendment makes it clear that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" only so long as a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. So if you still want to argue for strict gun owernship rights, fine, but don't fall back on the second amendment. Instead, rely on positive features of guns like the ability to kill sentient creatures.

1 Comments:
TRUE!
-those creatures, are they the people that we dont agree with, or made fun of us in school, or those crazy animals that the news makes us fear? Crackheads? EVERYWHERE!
This makes me want to watch bowling for columbine again.
-eric:Revolutionary
Post a Comment
<< Home