- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 30,534
- Reaction score
- 10,717
- Location
- Louisiana
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
I was recently thinking about a typical argument that comes up with gun control advocates, usually liberals. The argument is based around the wording of the second amendment and usually the defense for disarming the individual is that the amendment allows for militias to be formed and they may possess arms, however the wording for some reason is said to exclude individual weapons ownership. Here is my response:
1) guns are not the only type of weapon that could be considered arms, knives, baseball bats and even pencils could be considered arms if used with the intent to cause harm or for defensive purposes, so it is disingenuous to simply use the second amendments wording for the purpose of justifying increases in gun control.
2) the comma in the wording of the second amendment denotes a seperate thought, meaning that when reading amendment two one should deduce that the comma means that while militias are necessary for defense and thus should be a right of the people, it is also essential that the individuals should be armed in order to carry out the aforementioned right of self-defense. Therefore it SHOULD be deduced that the individual in fact has the right to own firearms.
3) when pointing out the fact of this underdog comma, the very people who are quick to point out grammatical and other writing mistakes are the first one's to say something along the lines of "who gives a *&%^ about a !@#damned comma".
Thank you.
1) guns are not the only type of weapon that could be considered arms, knives, baseball bats and even pencils could be considered arms if used with the intent to cause harm or for defensive purposes, so it is disingenuous to simply use the second amendments wording for the purpose of justifying increases in gun control.
2) the comma in the wording of the second amendment denotes a seperate thought, meaning that when reading amendment two one should deduce that the comma means that while militias are necessary for defense and thus should be a right of the people, it is also essential that the individuals should be armed in order to carry out the aforementioned right of self-defense. Therefore it SHOULD be deduced that the individual in fact has the right to own firearms.
3) when pointing out the fact of this underdog comma, the very people who are quick to point out grammatical and other writing mistakes are the first one's to say something along the lines of "who gives a *&%^ about a !@#damned comma".
Thank you.