@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:
Proving once again that you are a clueless fool foofie
Three questions:
a) What does the reference to a "militia" connote in the Second Amendment? And, how does that interface with the "bearing of arms"?
b) What was the result of eliminating ALL guns from civilians in Australia? Was there great moaning and gnashing of teeth? Or, were the citizens accepting and just went about living their lives, and being the same people, living in the same culture, as before?
c) If the day came where civilians did not have guns, through a new interpretation of the Second Amendment (nothing changing in the Constitution), how would our freedoms be negatively effected, considering that guns would not be needed? Note that a new interpretation of the Second Amendment might be focussed on the fact that we citizens have a right to not feel intimidated by gun owners, and their high-power weaponry. In effect, the Constitution might be interpreted by seeing how guns limit the "freedom from intimidation" of ordinary citizens.
In my own opinion, I think of civilian gun ownership analogous to masculine gays in the closet that have been known to take advantage of an inebriated person. I see packing heat as a similar sort of situation, whereby a person never knows when they can answer a bully, since in a situation where there were no witnesses, the bully packing heat can always say he was "attacked." The argument that all gun owners are towers of ethical behavior, I believe is a delusion.
