I don't know that there is hardly anyone who believes some people should not be allowed guns. Why do I say this? Well, I open today's newspaper and read a statement from the NRA, saying, "We think that the focus has to remain on removing weapons from dangerous individuals . . ."
Even the NRA sees that there should be exceptions.
Here's the trick: If you suggest the Constitution allows for taking guns away from one group, then shouldn't you allow it to take guns away from a broader group? Where do you draw the line? Do you say the right to keep and bear arms just doesn't apply to the mentally unstable? Frankly, I don't see that exception specified when I read the Second Amendment. So, can we not just as well say a larger group will not be allowed guns as long as we let those who the Second Amendment intended to have them, have them?
Now, you are on dangerous ground. Just who did the Second Amendment intend to have guns? It suggests that since it is necessary for us to have a military in order for us be secure the from being taken over by other nations, then we must allow those people who would fight for us to keep and bear arms.
I would suggest that if you are conceding the Constitution allows us to take guns away from some people, as long as you do not take them from those it intended to have them, then you have lost the argument.
When you have conceded as much, then it would seem you must concede the only people the Constitution calls for having arms are the ones who would be in the military.
No comments:
Post a Comment