Blind groper wrote:Seth wrote: the dead white guys who wrote the words and you'll discover that protection against internal tyranny is one of the prime concerns of the 2nd Amendment.
Seth
As I pointed out, a lot of reinterpretation and rationalisation has happened.
And yes, the dead white guys who wrote the words were among those who wrote those rationalisations.
Yes, it has, and every single bit of it has come from the anti-gun side of the political spectrum. The Founders knew exactly what they were doing, and they were protecting the state-of-the-art military weaponry of the time. Nothing has changed except the technology. The intent of the Founders remains as valid as it was when they wrote it, right after defeating the British army and freeing American from tyranny.
My question is this : "Just how bloody naive are you?"
You are suggesting that politicians (yes, those lying and corrupt humans we call politicians) would knowingly, and without other reason, set things up so that they encourage the act of being tossed out of office, and even shot, by the citizenry.
I'm not naive at all, I've read their words, and they intended exactly that should whomever is in power fail to abide by the restrictions the Constitution places upon politicians.
No. Anyone who has any shred of understanding of the mind set those in power exhibit will realise that only the greatest outside influence would push a politician into creating a law that limits his own power. In this case, that influence was fear of Great Britain. Fear alone has that level of power.
The Founders thought of many reasons why an armed citizenry is a benefit to society, among them are defense of the nation against its enemies both foreign and domestic. They were not as narrow minded and self-interested as you seem to think. They were dealing with the events that had just occurred, to them, and they were determined to create something entirely new in the world and to give the citizens the power to ensure that all political power remains firmly in the hands of the People, by ensuring that they are well-armed in the event some despot accedes to power so that they can put that tyrant down.
However, given the total necessity of giving the people the right to own firearms, it would have been politically convenient for them to pretend to be so noble as to set things up in order to limit their own power, and thereby curry favour with the electorate.
You need to do some historical research before you expound on that which you are utterly ignorant of.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.