We don’t need the 2nd Amendment

[dugby]

I agree with your reasoning except where you find fault with the author for leaving something out. He could not cover everything. I am very confident that the author would agree with your remaining points, They are very valid and substantive points which you presented well. Some of the early supreme court rulings dealt with how a prohibited weapon (A sawed off shotgun in the case I remember) wouldn't have any place in a battlefield and could thereby be regulated without impinging the 2nd. Like it or not the government violates the second amendment by every firearms law on the books. They also violate our natural rights in the same way. We are a society of men and not a society of laws. Haven't been for 100 plus years.

 

[XD-9Guy]

This thread makes me ashamed of myself for how little I know about my country. I'm going to do some reading.

 

[tweetr]

Like it or not the government violates the second amendment by every firearms law on the books. They also violate our natural rights in the same way. We are a society of men and not a society of laws. Haven't been for 100 plus years.

Absolutely true, and absolutely appalling. Government by its intrinsic nature is eternally avaricious and oppressive. It is only the genius of our founding fathers in recognizing and codifying this truth, and the eternal vigilance of us the government's masters, that give us any chance of containing and limiting the evil that is government. I am simply appalled at the state of civic, historical, and logical education whereby a free people blandly permit, even clamor for, creeping (in the present instance galloping!) usurpation of their sovereignty.

I agree with your reasoning except where you find fault with the author for leaving something out. He could not cover everything.

Quite true, and an author of course has discretion in what he includes and what he excludes. I think, however, that having elected to present his antagonist's bald misunderstanding of the text of the Second Amendment, he ought also to have countered same. I think effective argumentation requires both or neither, but not the misstatement without the correction. That tends to let the misstatement stand.