shakey, on 20 December 2012 - 23:45, said:
You missed his point. He's saying that while you cling to say, "It's part of this paper that we can have guns", it is just as silly as those who say, " It says in the bible to hate gays.".
As times changes, those principles and values we held will change, and things will become necessary and redundant. We must be willing to adapt. To hold onto a document that was written in a time when EVERYONE had access to the same technology and type of weapons, and when there was very little in terms of population to worry about, is a bit like holding on to versus of the bible and saying they still apply.
While the constitution of america is a great thing.... times change, and so must we. We can not let a document hold us back from evolving as a nation.
No one knows what the original founding fathers would have said about baring arms if they knew how guns would have ended up, and how they would have been used in the future. Back then, it took you a good 3 to 5 minutes to fire 2 bullets. Now it takes you maybe 3 seconds to fire 20. Again, if you want to talk about apples and oranges, lets talk about the time period they wrote the line for and the technology around then, and what has changed drastically as we have progressed. And of course, the difference in life from then and now.... We don't have to worry about Indians or really invading armys. And our government is pretty well established to where I don't think our society will have to fear it.... for if we ever do have to fear our government, they will walk right over us with all their superior technology compared to what you have stored at home.
I didn't miss his point, his point is wrong.
One of the reasons the bill of rights is immutable, is because it is a bill of rights
, these are things that are every human is born with, it is an affirmation that these rights cannot and should not be removed by any governing body, it serves as a limitation on government, This is not something that would "hold the nation back" by any means, its ensuring that you, me and everyone is allowed to criticize the government, it allows the news media to report whatever they like, instead of having to run everything past the government before publishing it, to be free from randomly having our homes trashed in a search to "keep us safe", many people (and I agree with them) feel that the 2nd amendment is one of the main lynch-pins that holds the other amendments in place, and prevents government power from stripping the remainder at their whim. It may never be used as a last resort, but if the threat is there, it is enough to keep power in check.
Would you abandon your freedom of speech or religion so easily? Would you allow police to enter your home and the homes of your friends and family at will whenever they so choose with no reason to do so? Are you ok with every word you say being monitored and scrutinized, everywhere you go on camera? Would it be ok by you if they took you to jail after a traffic stop, did not tell you why, did not allow you a phone call or counsel, and maybe waited 4 weeks or more before even putting you in front of a courtroom?
Every one of the articles is just important as the others.
I know, your next argument is going to be "but you cant kill someone with the first amendment freedoms!" Well, yes you can, but lets shelf that for the moment please, I already understand that's the corner you want to come out of. Dont take this as condecending, or inflammitory, I just would seriously like to know of you would as casually toss aside any of the other freedoms and rights enumerated in the BOR.
This is where most of the constitutionalists come from ideologically, that these rights are important in keeping every man equal, these rights are what many of the most important laws guiding the country are built on. So while the bible may say its ok to hate gays (It doesnt) it is not granted force of law, for good reason, not the least of which is that its a book of stories and morality plays, but it was not something agreed upon that all men have, regardless of government, race, or any other restriction.
As for the rest of what you said, your stats are a bit off, rate of fire was a lot faster than what you claim for flintlock, around 2-3 a minute, but thats minor.
Its unavoidable that the leaders of the time knew weapons technology would advance, things that appeared in the war like the kentucky long rifle made regular muskets look like a bow and arrow at the time. There is a long history of weapons evolving and becoming more and more powerful that they were well aware of, everyone is, and it would have been foolish to think the flintlock was the pinnacle of weapons tech, its pretty safe to assume even at that time that weapons would advance to make flintlocks look as effectives as clubs did to them at the time.
You cant seriously say that a government will walk all over its armed people while being aware of successful armed revolutions the world over, even recently like Libya for example. If the military were so effective, then why were they held down in Afghanistan and Iraq for over 10 years? Why didnt they just roll over them? Its not nearly as easy, or certain as you think it is.
On a side note, I seriously want to commend you on your post, it had very little venom or petty name calling that a lot of others have displayed in the past when on your side of the argument, and I wanted to respond in kind of I could, so please take the post in the spirit it was intended, mainly to inform, and allow you to see some things from at least a part of the other side maybe a little, so I urge you not to take offense at anything written, there was seriously zero intent to do so. Thanks!