Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Reply to thread

Message

As you know, the 2nd amendment doesn't call out any exceptions to its ban on government interference with people's right to keep and bear arms. Not for felons, not for multi-barrel multi-shot weapons, not cannons firing grapeshot, not big gunpowder bombs, not nuthin. It simply says that for such-and-such reasons, the right cannot be taken away or restricted. PERIOD. You may not like what it says, and may disagree with it, but that's what it says.

In other parts of the Bill of Rights, you can find phrases such as "except by due process of law", or "against unreasonable searches and seizures", etc. But such phrasing is conspicuously absent from the 2nd amendment.

Could it be that the Framers thought that the risk of government having ANY power to decide what weapons we could and couldn't own, was GREATER even than the risks of criminals getting hold of those weapons while all law-abiding people could have them too?

Could that be why no exceptions were made in the law?

<blockquote data-quote="Little-Acorn" data-source="post: 192784" data-attributes="member: 2131">As you know, the 2nd amendment doesn&#039;t call out any exceptions to its ban on government interference with people&#039;s right to keep and bear arms. Not for felons, not for multi-barrel multi-shot weapons, not cannons firing grapeshot, not big gunpowder bombs, not nuthin. It simply says that for such-and-such reasons, the right cannot be taken away or restricted. PERIOD. You may not like what it says, and may disagree with it, but that&#039;s what it says.In other parts of the Bill of Rights, you can find phrases such as &quot;except by due process of law&quot;, or &quot;against unreasonable searches and seizures&quot;, etc. But such phrasing is conspicuously absent from the 2nd amendment.Could it be that the Framers thought that the risk of government having ANY power to decide what weapons we could and couldn&#039;t own, was GREATER even than the risks of criminals getting hold of those weapons while all law-abiding people could have them too?Could that be why no exceptions were made in the law?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Little-Acorn, post: 192784, member: 2131"] As you know, the 2nd amendment doesn't call out any exceptions to its ban on government interference with people's right to keep and bear arms. Not for felons, not for multi-barrel multi-shot weapons, not cannons firing grapeshot, not big gunpowder bombs, not nuthin. It simply says that for such-and-such reasons, the right cannot be taken away or restricted. PERIOD. You may not like what it says, and may disagree with it, but that's what it says. In other parts of the Bill of Rights, you can find phrases such as "except by due process of law", or "against [I]unreasonable[/I] searches and seizures", etc. But such phrasing is conspicuously absent from the 2nd amendment. Could it be that the Framers thought that the risk of government having ANY power to decide what weapons we could and couldn't own, was GREATER even than the risks of criminals getting hold of those weapons while all law-abiding people could have them too? Could that be why no exceptions were made in the law? [/QUOTE]

Verification