Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Re: The need for the 2nd amendment

Author:Eric Kidd
Posted:5/6/1999; 11:46:55 AM
Topic:scriptingNews outline for 5/4/99
Msg #:5749 (In response to 5747)
Prev/Next:5748 / 5750

What country poses a threat to the US today such that every able-bodied person needs to be armed in order to resist?

It's the wrong question to ask, at least from my perspective.

Go find a rural New Englander who owns a few guns. After you chat about the weather for a while, ask the question:

"I really appreciate the way your ancestors took up their arms and laid down their lives to defend this country. I know that your family has lived on this land for over three hundred years, and every generation has owned weapons. The last time your ancestors shot anyone was in 1780, and the bastards bloody well deserved it.

"But the times have changed. A bunch of idiots in some big cities have been shooting each other. So we've decided that we're going to amend the Constitution of the United States, and make it illegal for you to own guns. This will make everybody safer, because people just aren't responsible enough to own weapons anymore. We'll trust the government with all the guns, of course, because the government is smarter than the public."

Now, our hypothetical rural New Englander is a polite man--and probably a well-educated one, too--but he's probably not going to agree with you. He knows that he wasn't doing anything wrong with those guns, and he remembers that those weapons came in handy two or three times in the history of this country.

So here's my question: by what right can the United States disarm the citizens that created it? This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm honestly curious.

Cheers, Eric

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:49:51 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.