"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." – The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
The following folks aren’t my favorite people, but I wanted to show what others, who couldn’t be called wild-eyed liberals, think about the second amendment.

“The Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possibly tyrannical national government,” Judge Robert Bork, the highly conservative Supreme Court nominee and devout constitutional originalist wrote, “Now that the federal government has stealth bombers and nuclear weapons, it is hard to imagine what people would need to keep in the garage to serve that purpose.”

He goes on to say in an essay he wrote for Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990: “If we are to stop this mindless homicidal carnage, is it unreasonable:
1. to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
2. to require that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
3. that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
4. to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?
These are the kind of questions the American people must answer if we are to preserve the "domestic tranquility" promised in the Constitution.”
I would add a number:
5. that gun permits only be issued to those who have had training in gun safety?
Dr. Ben Carson says the founders were fully aware there would be advances in weaponry when they wrote the second amendment. They anticipated the mega ammo magazine, assault rifles, and they are embodied in the principle, which was put in place at the time of muskets and canon balls, he says. Does that principle embody missile launchers? Armed drones? Dirty bombs? Dr. Carson, pardon the expression, needs his head examined. (I’d recommend he not consult himself.)
Ultra conservative Anton Scalia said in the last Supreme Court 5-4 (2008) decision on the topic, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
But nowhere in the court statements was there any mention that reasonable regulations may not be placed on gun ownership.
Yet the NRA, its lobbyists and the politicians who fear them or who are bought by them, scream that any attempt to regulate the industry is a violation of the Constitution. Perhaps the most sacred of the Amendments is the first. Yet even free speech isn’t unfettered. You may not cry “’fire” in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. You may not libel another. And you may not make false claims about the product you sell, or lie under oath.
0 Yorumlar