(April 10, 2015 at 9:40 am)polar bear Wrote: When the 2nd amendment was written, it was some 230 years ago. They said they wanted a well regulated militia because it proved the best way to defeat an enemy. Guess what we have a well armed militia and we spend billions on them every year. If you are so afraid of the government, why do you elect right wing nut jobs that give this much fucking money to our militia? It makes no sense. You drive around with the mercian flag and talk about pride in merica but you are afraid of the government?
We need to take the amendment in context of the time they were written. The next amendment or commonly known as the 3rd amendment is the one that gives you the right to not let soldiers occupy your home. We really don't have a problem with that, just like we don't have a problem with a well armed militia. I know it is hard, but we have to understand that the constitution and the amendments were written by men, not "gawd" so there is a chance albeit a slim one that we need to think critically about the time that these documents were written and apply the meaning in todays term.
The funny thing about this argument is that people have been saying that from pretty much a generation after the constitution was written. Does free speech not matter because it was concieved hundreds of years ago? Or Freedom of the press, or rights against search and seizure? You could use that argument as a blanket argument to strip us of all our rights. Also I think that the thing about the soldiers is actually an important right. It's a protection of the citizens against the military, the same as the second amendment. Of course we don't have a problem with it, because we made a law against it.
![[Image: dcep7c.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i46.tinypic.com%2Fdcep7c.jpg)