Those Crazy Arizonans

[heironymouspasparagus]

And using that same logic, the right of free speech is limited to the use of an ink well and a quill pen.  Or an old manually operated printing press.  So, all the methods of speech we have today would be subject to government regulation.  And nobody could use a bus or automobile or train or airplane to peaceably assemble.

The founding fathers never envisioned the invention of the semiconductor, so a computer could never be used to write or print.  Nor did they foresee airplanes, so one could never fly to Washington to have either a Hannity OR a Stewart rally.

That is such a lame argument.  But it is the only thing the anti-gun LWRE can come up with.  And particularly ignorant given the FACTS of how increased gun ownership in this country leads ONLY to decreased crime.  How tragically hip those oblivious-to-reality are!


Yes, Dorothy, there is a corresponding LWRE to the RWRE.

And the Constitution IS flexible - that is what has allowed it to be tweaked 27 times so far.  The founding fathers recognition that change IS inevitable and modifications would be required to adapt to corresponding societal conditions.  But slowly with much difficulty.

[eDuece]

       Not to belabor the point, but I think you have a bit of a false equivalency there. Free speech is a concept like original sin and free will. Concepts and ideals are just that, whether they are on parchment or a computer screen and aren't affected by time or technology.
   Allowing citizens to keep their flintlocks at home in case they are needed for "a well regulated militia" to repel Indians and renegade attacks is a physical act allowing or requiring you to do something. The first part of the second amendment became obsolete and meaningless within 75 years of when it was written but technology has provided those same citizens with "the right to bear arms" and have more firepower in their gun cabinet then Washington had at Valley Forge.
   Allowing folks to hunt and keep guns around the house under the umbrella of the Second Amendment is not a bad thing, I have a few around my own house. Where I start disagreeing is when folks read that amendment as allowing and purposely intending the citizenry to arm themselves against the tyranny of the Federal government in preparation for "watering the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots". That's been tried more than a few times in the past 200 years and the Feds have always won.
  Also I'm not to convinced by your argument that massive gun ownership has reduced crime when our murder rate per 1000 people is three or four times what it is in other countries  although  Mexico may currently be trying to outdo us.

[custosnox]

I'm still trying to figure out where you get that the right to bear arms was to defend against indians and renegades. 

And just to point out, since you mentioned Mexico, it is, of course, against the law in mexico to own a gun.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Belaboring greatly.

Self defense is exactly the same type of concept and ideal - preserving the gift that God has given - your life.  Not only is it a right, I feel it is a duty to whatever Creator you happen to believe in to preserve yourself.  Just from a species survival standpoint it would seem counterproductive to just sit there and let someone kill you on a whim.  And apparently society as a whole believes at least a variation on that theme - evidence the laws against suicide AND murder in most of the worlds countries.


Should there be any doubt concerning the effectiveness of an armed citizenry, yes, there is plenty of evidence to show reduced crime rates.  Records kept by the FBI and reported on regularly by the NRA.  According to those FBI records, 2.5 million times a year a firearm is used in self defense of some form or other. 

And then there is always Switzerland for reference.  Since the mid 1600's.  And their murder rate is lower than England with their massively intrusive laws.