If only John Adams had used Federal Express instead of the Pony Express. Unfortunately, Jefferson got this memo a day late.
So, why is it that the second Amendment should only apply to muskets (especially when the wording says that people need to be able to defend themselves from the government militia) , but the first amendment does not only apply to technology of the time. Why should the internet be covered by the first amendment? It was not around when the constitution was written.
The wording does not say anything about being able to defend themselves against a government militia, it says that they shall have the right to bear arms WITHIN a state militia. Obviously very few of the 300,000,000 guns in America are used in the context of a state militia.
We know this was its intent because of this bit of history: http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
That said, If you read the “note” from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, this was obviously intended humorously, even though we could perhaps indeed have saved hundreds of thousands of lives if it read “muskets” instead of “arms.” Your side seems to think that the right to be violent constitutes a sacred freedom worth protecting no matter how little it is practiced in a self-defense and how much it results in homicide, accidental death, and suicide.Obviously I disagree.
The Constitution also counted black people as 3/5 human, and denied woman suffrage. That’s why we have the amendment process. it would be an excellent idea to amend the second amendment. I would propose replacing it entirely with something that enshrines the state’s duty to take all necessary measures it to protects citizens from all forms of violence.
I’m not holding my breath. But I’m also sick of all the political correctness about “defending the second amendment” - even from the left. There nothing “free” about being able to maim and kill. Gun worship is a sickness, it should be in the DSM as a mental disorder.
That source you have, I cannot verify its credibility, but no matter, I will respond to you without referencing that ‘unbiased’ source.
Let me reword it a bit, to more modern language. Because a free country needs to have a military in order to remain free, the people of that country have the right to arm themselves. It is saying because there is a need for a military the people need to be able to protect themselves. Lets look at history. When America was founded, England was trying to fore Americans to pay unfair taxes, house soldiers whenever they ordered, etc. The founding fathers understood that a government must have a military, and they were only able to fight back because they had access to weapons of their own. The constitution is a document set to limit the power of the government, but how can the government be limited if they face no threat from the people they govern? What would stop them from making more regulations to the point they became oppressive as the British government had been to the Americans?
And if you are using the argument that guns make us less safe we should look at some real examples. England made very restrictive gun laws and murder rates skyrocketed. Or lets look in the United states. Places with the most restrictive gun laws include Chicago, Detroit and Washington DC, three places that also happen to have some of the highest murder rates in the US. How about a comparison? Detroit versus Dallas. Detroit, in 2011 had a population of about 713,239. Dallas had a population of about 509,782 more people, about 1,223,021. We all know Texas is known for their guns, and they have less gun restrictions than many places. We also know how restrictive Detroit is. Well, for every 100,000 people, Detroit had about 2137.4 murders/ non-negligent manslaughters, whereas Dallas, per 100,000 people had about 681. That is quite the difference…
Still not enough to convince you guns are good? Does it help to know that the vast majority of police oppose gun control, whereas most criminals support gun control?
Maybe we should look at this logically instead of with emotion. Who is a criminal more likely to attack, someone who he thinks has a gun or someone he thinks does not? If a criminal is not sure if someone has a gun, they are less likely to attack that person than they would be to attack someone they were pretty sure did not have a gun.
Oh, and a closing note, in the Second Amendment there is are some very important words “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty…
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”