(05-22-2017, 12:47 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:(05-21-2017, 07:20 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:Since the militia today is never called up, the 2nd is outdated. Folks like me think it was outdated almost from the start. We have the police and the national guard today, so we don't need the militia. I think police as we know them today were invented in England in the 1820s. So yes, the language of the 2nd is confusing and archaic. That's why strict originalism fails. Language and meaning changes, as do the conditions and needs of the country and its technology.(05-21-2017, 05:45 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's not a values-lock question. We all share the value of safety. The disagreement is over the means. In my opinion, guns endanger safety, not protect it. Guns destroy life; that is their purpose. Those who disagree claim that guns are a means of self defense.
Self defense happens all the time. For the most part the intended victim displays a firearm and the predator goes off and finds an easier mark.
The language of the second amendment is clear, you just don't like what it has to say. The framers of the Constitution believed that power flowed from the bottom up and so the population must remain armed to make sure that it stayed that way. You believe power flows from the top down in order to make those of us you regard as less enlightened behave as you believe they should. In this respect you are no different than any other religious zealot.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises