@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:I'll have to disagree. oralloy's been consistent in his/her positions over the years. They're an interesting, if occasionally puzzling, mix.
I'm a male for the record.
My position on the Second Amendment has varied a bit over the years. There are a couple schools of thought on how to interpret it, one more hard-line and one more flexible and pragmatic, and I've flip-flopped between them over the years.
The hard-line position is that the Second Amendment covers full-auto (or at least burst fire) M-16s, under-barrel 40MM grenade launchers, and full-power explosive grenades. However, this interpretation does not include handguns. Nor does it include any weapon more powerful than M-16s and grenades.
The flexible and pragmatic position separates self defense rights from militia rights. Militiamen have the right to have any military weapon that they can afford to buy. Ordinary civilians have the right to have weapons that are suitable for self defense.
The flexible and pragmatic position gives us the right to have much more useful weapons. A small handgun can be carried conveniently whereas it would be cumbersome to carry a rifle slung over your shoulder everywhere.
It is also more likely to be accepted and enforced by judges, who would balk at allowing the public to have free access to M-16s and fragmentation grenades.
And the fact that militiamen would have the right to have heavy military weapons at home undermines the occasional gun control claim that we need to focus on the militia aspect of the Second Amendment.
However, the hard-line position is actually legally correct and is what our right is truly supposed to be.
So, do I want to be a pragmatist or do I want to be a zealot? It really depends on my mood that day. Usually I choose pragmatism. But I do have an inner zealot yearning to break free.
