In response to:

The Complex Truth About the Second Amendment

para_dimz Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 9:54 AM
All arguments of this strain fail to even note much less attempt to explain away .…"shall not be infringed." Just a swipe of the hand and a perfunctory " we can". Until you can come up wih a valid reason other than restricitng other rights, you are dead in the water. The court restrictions on other rights are predicated on a supposition that at some point the exercise of the other rights do violate the rights of others. Searches and seizures are specifically permitted if they're reasonable and supported by oath or addidavit. These are specific language and conflicting rights situations that are not present in Chapman's or the court's rationale.
para_dimz Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 9:59 AM
Let's get in the weeds, shall we? The Second exists to ensure the war making powers of the citizenry. Cirrent court cases and present defenses of the right omit this one, primary purpose of the right. In doing so they make themselves irrelevant. Self defense and other lawful uses of firearms; hunting, collecting, target shooting, competitve shooting are completely covered inder the Ninth Amendment even if the Second didn't exist. The Second is there to put citizens on parity with any other war making army. It is only under that parameter that the court should rule on it.

The debate on gun control lately has been going like this: Liberals propose various restrictions on allowable firearms, acceptable owners and approved ammunition. Conservatives exclaim, "Second Amendment!" And the debate, at least in the mind of the latter group, is over.

The Second Amendment, they believe, is not just one important provision of our basic government document. It's the first and last word on the subject of firearms.

Viewing the proposals offered since the Sandy Hook massacre, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., concludes the supporters intend "to completely GUT our Second Amendment rights." The Utah Sheriffs' Association warned President Barack...