Bio not provided
@West Texan I would consider myself to be a bit of a progressive, and yet I agree with you about the purpose, meaning, and importance of the second amendment. Attacking someone based on the fact that they disagree with you is not going to make them understand that you have a valid and important point. The fact is that the anti-gun crowd have a knee jerk reaction to the fear they feel. They know they want something done that will prevent another child from being made a victim, from stopping a madman from walking into a theater and killing dozens. The best thing they can do is point at the weapons these people are using and say "if they didn't have that gun could they have killed so many?" and to be honest the answer is generally "No". If they did not have that gun they might have killed a few, sure, but the numbers would probably have been far fewer. What they fail to realize is that there have been many cases where a similar situation happened but one person who was armed stopped it before anyone else got hurt (happened recently here in Texas actually). The point is that the bad people having guns outweighs the good people having guns to them. I take the opposite approach in this case. I think that the good people should be armed, and that when those bad people come at them, they don't walk away.
1 year ago on Repeal of the 2nd Amendment would not Abolish any Right
@West Texan @Charles99percenter Also in regards to the american slaves, understand that the founding fathers honestly believed that slavery was going to end soon after the creation of the country. Until the invention of the cotton gin, slavery was actually costing land owners more to keep than they were getting out of the land. Thus it was widely believed that slavery was coming to its natural end anyway.
@West Texan @Charles99percenter Once again there is a problem with history, it is not that the second amendment existed it is that it existed and was not applied equally to everyone. Thus those people who were persecuted were able to be kept down while those who perpetrated the hatred were able to use their superior firepower to keep them down. The second amendment was not the problem in this case. It was hateful arrogant people bending the law to their own use.
@Charles99percenter The problem is that the efficient militia you are referring to, is not to be regulated by congress. This was not intended to give MORE power to the government, rather to restrict the power of the government. If the people in power ever decided to take away your right to vote, to remove your right to speak freely, or anything else, as it is right now there would be a possible retaliation against that. Take away peoples ability to rebel against that idea, and you gladly open the door to tyranny. While I do agree that there does need to be some sort of control in place to prevent tragedies. I am opposed to any sort of control that would place all of the power into the hands of a few. A few I might add who have already done a wonderful job of screwing up the economy, who have allowed banks to get away with criminal activity and go un-punished because "they are too big to fail". A few who keep whittling away at any sort of common ground and keep pushing people to the outer edges preventing any intelligent and thoughtful discourse.