Post by Keith on Aug 9, 2007 23:33:42 GMT -8
The one thing that many people do not get about the "Second Amendment" is the interpretation. The Second Amendment is supposed to be the right to bear arms in case of defense. Meaning if someone's going to attack you with a knife or a gun, you have the right to grab a gun and defend yourself. It doesn't necessarily mean stock up on a bunch of firearms just because many people interpret it as the right to bear arms in general. Because of that misinterpretation, we have a bunch of gun nuts. Also, it's very easy for someone to get access to a firearm. Which was the case of Cho Seung-Hui the Korean student who murdered thirty-two people at Virginia Tech.
Unfortunately, gun rights has been and will always be a hot button topic. It needs to be talked about more but not many politicians are willing to talk about it. It's still 2007 while the elections will not take place for a little over a year. You're not going to see the Democrats nor the Republicans talk about the future of gun rights. The National Rifle Association are basically one of the strongest bases for the entire GOP. Most of the NRA members are White-Conservative Christians. You're not going to find that many minorities with membership in the NRA.
The Democrats barely won control of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and most of the state governorships. Touching that sensitive subject would be suicidal for any future plans for the Democratic Party. Events like the Virginia Tech Shooting had blown over at least two weeks later. In an more "ideal" society, events such as VT would be talked about for months and maybe even years. Any politician that touches the subject of gun rights can pretty much kiss his/her career goodbye. With the Democrats barely winning by a margin, it would be very unintelligent on their part to touch gun control and gun restrictions.
There are even Democrats whom have the pro-gun ideology. Some of them are even friends of mine. One could say that new gun control laws need to be passed out. But one of my pro-gun friends explained that new gun control laws wouldn't even work. He explained to me that they wouldn't make any sense because the current ones are hardly enforced. The current gun control laws need to be enforced in order for new laws to make sense. But gun-control laws are mainly state issues and so forth.
The other interpretation of a "well-regulated militia" doesn't mean get guns and form your own militia. The militia means the entire United States Military. It doesn't mean for a bunch of vigilantes to go out and form their own groups with guns. We have the active forces, the reserves, the volunteer groups, and the national guard that serves as the well-regulated militia. This militia is regulated by the Uniform Code of Military Justice or the UCMJ.
For the free state, that's the military's job to keep the United States of America a free state. That's the well-regulated militia that protects us from foreign threats. Again, it doesn't mean for a bunch of people to get their guns stacked up like a bunch of psychopaths. If you want a well-regulated militia, you already have one. That militia has plenty of firepower.
There are hardly any gun-related crimes in Canada and other parts of the world. Keep in mind that the United States is one of the biggest dealers in firearms which was pointed out in "Lord or War" that starred Nicholas Cage. But the VT shooting did send some shockwaves.
According to a previous newsletter sent out by the NRA, they feel that people line Cho Seung-Hui shouldn't have guns in the first place. In a sense, the NRA is self-regulating in a sense. While they retain that bearing arms is a right, they feel that people whom are mentally unfit shouldn't have guns in the first place. It shows that the National Rifle Association isn't full of "whack jobs" at all.
They're already going after people who feel that everybody should have the right to bear arms regardless of mental state.
But the future of gun rights remain uncertain. The chances are high that no nationwide politician will touch the issue of gun rights and gun control for a very long time. It's too hot to touch. You touch it, you're going to get burned. It's pretty much going to remain a local issue which varies from one area to another.
There's already people on trial for bringing a firearm from one state to another.
www.helium.com/tm/513861/thing-people-about-second
Unfortunately, gun rights has been and will always be a hot button topic. It needs to be talked about more but not many politicians are willing to talk about it. It's still 2007 while the elections will not take place for a little over a year. You're not going to see the Democrats nor the Republicans talk about the future of gun rights. The National Rifle Association are basically one of the strongest bases for the entire GOP. Most of the NRA members are White-Conservative Christians. You're not going to find that many minorities with membership in the NRA.
The Democrats barely won control of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and most of the state governorships. Touching that sensitive subject would be suicidal for any future plans for the Democratic Party. Events like the Virginia Tech Shooting had blown over at least two weeks later. In an more "ideal" society, events such as VT would be talked about for months and maybe even years. Any politician that touches the subject of gun rights can pretty much kiss his/her career goodbye. With the Democrats barely winning by a margin, it would be very unintelligent on their part to touch gun control and gun restrictions.
There are even Democrats whom have the pro-gun ideology. Some of them are even friends of mine. One could say that new gun control laws need to be passed out. But one of my pro-gun friends explained that new gun control laws wouldn't even work. He explained to me that they wouldn't make any sense because the current ones are hardly enforced. The current gun control laws need to be enforced in order for new laws to make sense. But gun-control laws are mainly state issues and so forth.
The other interpretation of a "well-regulated militia" doesn't mean get guns and form your own militia. The militia means the entire United States Military. It doesn't mean for a bunch of vigilantes to go out and form their own groups with guns. We have the active forces, the reserves, the volunteer groups, and the national guard that serves as the well-regulated militia. This militia is regulated by the Uniform Code of Military Justice or the UCMJ.
For the free state, that's the military's job to keep the United States of America a free state. That's the well-regulated militia that protects us from foreign threats. Again, it doesn't mean for a bunch of people to get their guns stacked up like a bunch of psychopaths. If you want a well-regulated militia, you already have one. That militia has plenty of firepower.
There are hardly any gun-related crimes in Canada and other parts of the world. Keep in mind that the United States is one of the biggest dealers in firearms which was pointed out in "Lord or War" that starred Nicholas Cage. But the VT shooting did send some shockwaves.
According to a previous newsletter sent out by the NRA, they feel that people line Cho Seung-Hui shouldn't have guns in the first place. In a sense, the NRA is self-regulating in a sense. While they retain that bearing arms is a right, they feel that people whom are mentally unfit shouldn't have guns in the first place. It shows that the National Rifle Association isn't full of "whack jobs" at all.
They're already going after people who feel that everybody should have the right to bear arms regardless of mental state.
But the future of gun rights remain uncertain. The chances are high that no nationwide politician will touch the issue of gun rights and gun control for a very long time. It's too hot to touch. You touch it, you're going to get burned. It's pretty much going to remain a local issue which varies from one area to another.
There's already people on trial for bringing a firearm from one state to another.
www.helium.com/tm/513861/thing-people-about-second