Posted by Someone Else at 12:00am Dec 2 '13The amendment was written with the idea that the people would have the same firearms as the government.
Can you explain to me how you reach that conclusion? Your First Amendment parallel makes a lot of sense, and I think that's a fantastic comparison to help me see where you're coming from. But I'm not sure I see the one about arms the same way as you, that people were meant to have the same access to firearms as the government. (Not that I necessarily see it differently--as I said, I don't really have much of an opinion on this issue, which is why I'm asking for more information from you on your perspective.)
I don't agree with extremists who want to outlaw firearms period--that is clearly a violation of Constitutional rights. So, while the incident that spurred the threadstarter here may have come from an extremist, I'm more curious about the law itself. Putting restrictions on firearms and removing ones that don't meet that restriction. I think I know your perspective well enough to say that you think that is unacceptable, period. But while the law may come from extremists, every now and then we do get worthwhile things from extremists (example: Greenpeace is fairly extremist with its environmentalism, but from their extremism, we have gotten some laws and regulations that fall into the moderate zone and which, I feel at least, do a lot of good for our environment, without costing more than I think is reasonable--same goes for PETA and its animal rights stuff...it's largely way over the top, but some of it has been introduced as more moderate laws/regulations, and have been beneficial)--we just have to know where to say stop.
I feel like you're presenting arguments against extremists to me. And I agree with you, extremists (certainly the ones on the side of removing all gun rights, anyway) are wrong. But I'm more curious what you have against more moderate stances, or more moderate laws--even if they are proposed by extremists. Telling me that you oppose a moderate law because it's introduced by an extremist with an extreme goal doesn't compute in my head. If we can prevent the extreme goal (and as much as many people in this country dislike guns, I don't think it will ever fly to remove them entirely), then can a more moderate law not be a good thing, simply because of its source?
Re: Hmm. - Someone Else