The Democratic party, by and large, is far too wimpy on this issue to pursue what they believe is right.
From the article:
One presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), on Thursday told a
radio interviewer that he supported changing laws to better ensure that mentally
ill people cannot buy guns. But he added, "I'm respectful of people who want to hunt or sportsmen, somebody who might want to have a gun in the house to protect their home."
The Junior Illinois Senator's statement illustrates the insanity on at least one side of this debate.
If you, for one moment, think that the Framers put this protection in the Constitution to protect your god-given right to go quail hunting, then you have a screw loose. But time and time again, they get away with this patronizing argument about protecting the rights of sportsmen, as if that somehow matters in in a historic or contemporary sense.
What's next, a Fifth Amendment case to protect the rights of croquet players?!
1 comment:
The Second Amendment
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.
So the architects of the constitution put forth a logical argument for us. it follows that
logical assertion
The security of a free State requires a well regulated Militia.
therefore...
Conclusion:
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
If I was a professor and was handed this, I would grade it an F and write the following comments:
1) please define "well regulated militia"
2) defend the validity of the claim "The security of a free State requires a well regulated Militia."
3) who are "the people"?
4) please define more fully the following terms: Keep, Bear, Arms, and infringe.
Post a Comment