-Did someone say "baby back"?
I'm going to jones for barbecue all day long now.
(Thank you for your time and attention to this momentary thread hijack. As you were.)
If one reads things such as the federalist papers and writings by our founders, it is quite apparent that 2A was meant as a check on our government, just as they wrote other checks and balances into our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights does not grant one power to the government. They are all rights enshrined to the people, to keep our government in check and to oversee them.
Look at it this way. The only branch of government that has any oversight over the government is the legislative branch per The Constitution. They are the ones that can call up articles of impeachment(against ANY member of government in ANY branch...even their own). They are our first 'check' on government abuse of power. They are basically our elected watchdogs, police, and Jury. And it is no mistake that they are the ones most closely connected to 'The People'. The House represents the people on a per person basis. Then the Senate that represents each state on a state basis would be the one trying any impeachment case.
Now, after that...if the muck in Washington has gotten so great that 'the watchers' are not doing their job, we have the press and its associated freedoms. They are supposed to watch over government and tell The People if anything is wrong. Which goes down to the next right.
Our right to free speech, assembly, protest, and petition. This would be the next rung on the ladder. This is when we stand up and scream and yell and tell our government they are not doing their job and they better fix it or they are going to be voted out at the ballot box.
And then finally...yes, we come to the 2nd Amendment. And keeping the power in the peoples hands. This is your 'last resort' and I agree it is a last resort against tyranny, but the founders most definitely wanted us armed to the teeth for just such a situation. I mean, just look at the language they used and see which they thought most important. The first amendment states "congress shall make no law" vs 2A "shall not be infringed". To anyone with a grasp of the English Language, it should be clear that they most definitely wanted no government interference in our ability to be armed.
Just because 2A is our last resort is no reason to remove it.
Nor, does it mean that it was not meant as an additional check on the government, by keeping the power in the peoples hands.
They had freaking cannons. You dont think those were your 'so called assault weapons' of their day?
There was also the nock gun that fired 7 rounds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nock_gun
The Girandoni rifle had a magazine that could hold 20 rounds, and fire a lead ball with as much force as a modern .45 acp. This gun was actually brought on the Lewis and Clarke expeditions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle
And do you really believe that the founding fathers were so dumb that they did not recognize that firearm technology would change? Come on.
And no. Your rights are not infringed by me owning an AR15 with a 30 round clip. Not one bit. Not one iota.
As far as not wanting to go to a movie theater where some wacko is going to shoot up the place, I dont want that either. Who does?? But banning an inanimate object is not going to make you safer in anyway. Did NFA of the 1930's stop gansters from getting their hands on full automatic weapons?? Of course not!!
If you want to make the world safer from violence, work on fixing the actual causes of violence in society, not on the tool that someone chooses to use to commit an act of violence.
However, I will say this. On a per capita basis, your chances of being shot in a mass shooting are about as likely as being struck by lightning. Do you live in fear of being struck by lightning? Are you demanding that laws be put into place to prevent someone from opening up an umbrella while walking close to you in the rain ? http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ings-john-fund
The left likes to say that the gun industry is driven by fear. I hate to break the news to you, but the left pushes fear to institute gun control whenever they speak. Bottom line, your chances of being shot in this country are very low. Even more so if you are not a gang member living in a high crime urban area.
Additionally, historically, mass shootings are not on the rise. So anytime you hear Handgun Control Inc(the old name of Brady) say that they are, know that they are lying and are simply trying to instill fear in society to meet their goals and agenda of disarming the populace.
Hmmm... so could that infer that when there is MORE of something, MORE events/stuff will happen involving that thing?
Well, it stands to reason if you're reasonable. If not, then perhaps logic isn't for you.
And no. I dont live in fear of lightning. I think it would be unreasonable to live in fear of something that happens so infrequently.
But the question was not if you run outside swinging a golf club in a lightning storm, the question is whether you are demanding that the government passes a law that someone else cant even own a gulf club!