RE: Just another gun thread, don't bother reading.
March 2, 2015 at 3:51 pm
(This post was last modified: March 2, 2015 at 3:56 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
(March 2, 2015 at 11:35 am)Esquilax Wrote:(March 1, 2015 at 9:07 pm)AFTT47 Wrote: For starters, there is the 2nd Amendment. We need to respect that if we're going to trumpet the separation of church and state - otherwise we are hypocrites. Repealing or modifying it is not realistic in the current climate.
What? One amendment being bad doesn't mean that every amendment should be up for grabs in the same way; they vary so much in terms of content that you need to address them on a case by case basis. The first amendment serves a valuable purpose, while the second only serves to deliver unchecked power to an item that really does need at least some checks. We need to find our context-sensitivity on this issue.
And aside from that cogent objection, the fact is that rights are not by definition untrammelled. They have limitations on them, often placed for the sake of public safety, which would certainly be the justification for any putative gun legislation or Constitutional amendment.
But -- the 2nd amendment does not deliver unchecked power. There are plenty of limitations already in place, both in what armament a person can own, and how a person may carry, use, and distribute the arms he has.
I agree that we need to keep perspective accurate here.
(March 2, 2015 at 3:51 pm)Chas Wrote: The AR-15 might unfreeze somebodies funds when appropriately deployed.
... in a city with policemen and cameras to avoid ...
Seriously, any rebel group would have to have good financing, and that would mean availing itself of banking and other financial tools -- lines of credit, and so on. Certainly the government would regard a large insurgency as an existential threat and use every tool at its command to quash it, including financial warfare.
