quote:
Originally posted by klinton:

I think the subject should be reveiwed again in the future...But right now, society just isn't ready to handle this.
Society wasn't ready for the Civil Rights Movement either. Sometimes you've got to push an issue. And sometimes, you have to strap a high-octane rocket on its back, point her in the right direction, light her up, and hope for a low crash ratio.

Don't know what happened to Rob's board (or maybe it was just me), but I lost a huge post on the Second Amendment a few minutes ago [sad] . Still, we seem to be operating at full capacity, so I'll give it a second, abbreviated try:

My thoughts on the Second Amendment (truncated for your pleasure):

I personally believe, as most gun-controlists do, that the Second Amendment was written solely for the intent of maintaining and armed militia for the purpose of state defense. I would also add that I see no personal right given, under the Second Amendment, to own or to use a gun.

To my knowledge, U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. I agree wholeheartedly.

On a side-note, American society has changed to the point that it is too dangerous for this right to continue as originally written. I do believe, however, in very stringent gun-control. A quote by Cesare Beccaria is responsible for my current view on gun control.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for
an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."