Cadfael wrote:jonnygothispen wrote:gargantua wrote: I agree with this. Too bad that it doesn't matter the least little bit.
It's a nice counter to Scalia's "prefatory clause" nonsense, and it's nice to have it laid out so plainly.
If you read the comments you can find the mechanisms they've already got in place to completely discount every point made in the article.
I do not believe the country contains any persons who have not yet made a decision about how this amendment should be construed. The decision won't be made through debate. It will have to be votes.
It'll happen from a combination of debate, eliminating election fraud, and a consensus of popular opinion that helps replace the NRA's paid lackeys in Congress.
I still debate in comments sections once in awhile, and even ran into D-man on one thread. I stick to the main point that the inalienable right to life is the only reason to allow arms, and that the 2nd amendment could only be intended to protect life. So new and more effective regulations are actually pro-2nd amendment, which means I can then ask them why they're against the 2nd amendment... when the timing is right.
Then I watch them sit and try to spin their way out of their idea that a gun has more rights than the right to life it's supposed to protect.
I like to use their "inanimate object" idea that guns don't kill people to say, "You're right! That's why there's no such thing as gun control-it's controlling dangerous people from having guns!" And there's no such thing as gun rights-the only right is, again, the inalienable right to life the gun is supposed to protect.
Asking them why they want criminals to have easy access to guns is another good one. And why does it bother you if it's harder for criminals to have guns. They'll go on about "2,300 laws regulating guns aren't working (enforcement issue), and you want more?" Tell them that they're admitting the laws on the books aren't working, and it's because they're too hard to enforce, which means we need new laws to put the burden on the seller, and not expect felons to follow the laws like it is now.
"Fightin' tyranny!" Please explain why Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 & 16 gives federal congress the power to deploy the state militias of the 2nd amendment to "suppress insurrections? Why would our government of rich landowners want armed rednecks overthrowing their new government and stealing their land like Washington became obsessed with preventing after the Shay's Rebellion?
When great pro-gun quotes from founding fathers pop up, several taken completely out of context... Great opinions! I agree, but none of those ideas were involved in the discussion of the 2nd amendment as it was written, or in the actual words of the 2nd when they decided to ensure the existence of armed militias to "suppress insurrections," like the Constitution actually says.
I also try to remember that it isn't so much the person arguing with me who I'm talking too, because most are immovable, and usually resort to diversion. But in my mind I imagine that people who are more pliable also skim through, and that a few ideas might catch on to whatever extent. Creating a level of logic that requires even minor acceptance of what regulations are really doing is a start.
Eliminating corporate money from campaigns, and reinstating the fairness doctrine would be the most effective ways to fix everything in politics today. Barring that, it comes from a consensus on issues, which comes from the exchange of ideas. Or as Al Wanless used to say, "We were just trading knowledge..." before the fight began.
If you're a glutton for punishment, anyway.