Originally Posted by detbuch
You keep repeating this meme that the Second Amendment is not absolute. I don't even know what you mean by that. Is there some point at which it IS absolute and which no more compromise is possible except to finally revoke it? There have been limitations put on 2A already, and which, in essence, deny its original purpose--the only significant purpose which required a constitutional, written in stone, guarantee that the government cannot abridge.
Without the purpose of the Amendment being to defend, by arms if necessary, against a government that did not bind itself to its limitations as prescribed by the Constitution, there is no reason for the Amendment to exist. Hunting? States have the right to "regulate" hunting. Self defense? States have the police power to defend their citizens and to limit the ways people can defend themselves except as the Constitution prevents them.
The Amendment has already, obviously, been compromised beyond any semblance of its original intent. It is not the same Amendment, not the same right that was plainly and clearly written into the Constitution. It has been whittled down by "interpretations," in the eyes of Progressives, to be some government granted permission to allow certain weapons for a minority of people who hunt, and for a comparatively few people who might need some small arms for safety. Even those concessions can "reasonably" be further restricted, or eliminated because of emotional reactions to more or continuous gun "violence" episodes, or even to remove one easy way to commit suicide. The people can be persuaded that public "health" and safety can more efficiently be realized if guns were banned to the non-military or non-police citizens. Surely, like other things the government bans for our own good, removing guns from the small number of hunters, who could use other weapons anyway, should not ultimately be a problem.
If you think throwing another bone, added to the previous pile of bones, will be the end of it, I can only ask you WTF is wrong with you?
Sorry but there is a need for blunt, concise, and concrete logic here, not some vague notion of discussing absolutes.
You may scoff at the idea that we can forcefully, by arms, defend ourselves against a tyrannical government, but that is exactly the kind of ridicule that Alinsky minded Progressives want to implant in your head. Sure we could. If we and enough in the military want to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." And especially if our right to "keep and bear" the types of Arms which are equal to, as intended, those that current military personelle carry. Why would you want to eliminate the original meaning of the 2A when that last resort is there if we need it, and are willing to use it? And which stands as an impediment which makes government think twice or more about the possibility that we will?
Are we supposed to think that we no longer have to fear an overbearing government that has the absolute (the word fits here) authority to tell us how and what we can and cannot do? And how much of our money it can spend to assure its power and agenda? Are we supposed to think that our government actually does, and will, limit its authority to those tasks prescribed for it in the Constitution? WTF is wrong with all of us if we believe any of that? It has already breached the constitutional wall of separation between its power and our freedom. How much wider do we want that breach to expand by claiming that our constitutionally guaranteed rights are not absolute?
You do understand that our Constitution has been under Progressive assault for a long time? And that there is no end to that assault until Progressive government has removed the last vestige of limitations to its power? From this point on, any more chinks of original meaning ripped out of the Constitution will gravely harm it. There is not much of it left. Rather than any further weakening of the Constitution, the tide has to ebb and be reversed. Constitutional relevance must be restored, chink by chink, if we wish to keep it.
The real "assault weapon" being used is the attack on and destruction of our unalienable rights which are being transformed into government granted and controlled rights. And limitations on government are being transformed into limitations on the people.
All of your other proposals are proper for diminishing mass killings. The good family life, traditional values, a return to a civic minded populace, teaching the positive good to our children rather than exposing them to the quandary of post modern nihilism with its social, sexual, and ethical relativity and its destruction/deconstruction of any positive value other than sheer power. All progressive post modern solutions are resolved through power. There is no "reasonable discussion" in Progressive governance. There is only the total expression of power. Unlimited power. Things like constitutions are merely impediments.
But we can keep our Constitution, and its original Second Amendment, and we can look at our kids by restoring values in their lives and in the lives of our fellow citizens in ways that you mentioned. Have some faith in your own prescriptions. The way our society is going now is not an answer for how to look at our kids. And destroying the Constitution isn't either. How will you look at your kids if we finally incinerate that document?
Otherwise, to the muddled mind of a social outcast, in this age where power is the only useful value, the most convincing demonstration of being relevant is the total power over other lives expressed by taking a bunch of them.
|