View Single Post
Old February 21st, 2013 (8:07 PM).
Cerberus87's Avatar
Cerberus87 Cerberus87 is offline
Mega Houndoom, baby!
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: The worst you could imagine
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Nature: Lonely
Posts: 1,622
Originally Posted by BlazingLink View Post
I mean, the Democrats are trying to get rid of the Second Amendment, so first is fair game, right?

As a Republican, I feel like none of the first 10 amendments should be messed with, and I follow what the purpose of that law is, but to actually have to do it is sad.

Just as a note to the thread maker, that title is extremely biased, and doesn't represent the actual topic.
It depends, in law the suppression of a rule must be the last interpretative rule to be taken. So the Second Amendment can stay, but with a new interpretation.

What happens (and I hope I don't get any flack for it) is that the Republicans take the rule to the letter, believing they're living in the days of the Independence. Back then, there was no police force, so a militia consisting of common people was the only way to ensure basic safety. Nowadays, however, you have an organized and well-regulated militia taking care of safety: it's called the police. The allowance of gun ownership by regular citizens in the US actually violates the Second Amendment, because in no way are all the citizens who own guns organized, their primary goal is not communal safety but self-defense instead, and the bulk of citizens who own guns in the US cannot be defined as a "well-regulated militia", because the rules on guns apply to gun ownership, not to the definition of the American citizens as an organized and regulated group, since the group is not uniform and not recognized as some form of militia.

Omega Ruby & Alpha Sapphire, the day Pokémon pulled a Dallas and jumped the shark.