Heading to a national park? Now you can pack heat

Post Reply New Topic

the 2nd amendment hasn't been honored for a very long time. the language is clean and concise but for some reason is often reinterpreted.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

the national guard doesn't qualify as a state's "...well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." as they can be commanded or commandeered by federal powers. law enforcement comes close but violent street gangs fit the same criteria.


regardless, too much 2nd amendment discussion focuses on the first half of the amendment, with little or no attention to "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

if i, as an individual, am authorized to keep and bear arms by the 2nd amendment, that right is not to be infringed. that means there's no reason why i shouldn't be allowed to have comparable weapons to those of the federal government. that means assault weapons, high caliber machine guns, rocket launchers, chemical weapons (c.s. teargas; o.c. "pepper" spray; etc), and even nuclear weapons.



or it means we should all be allowed to carry weapons capable of firing two shots per minute and not capable of hitting anything at long range. weapons pretty much only good for shooting people on your property or defending against a group raiding your township (if you have help).


times change. the constitution changes. that's why we had the 18th amendment. that's why, when we realized prohibition was stupid, we had the 21st amendment.

i don't object to people who are already legally allowed to carry weapons being allowed to carry them into national parks. it should be noted that the decision doesn't actually provide this authorization, it simply allows individual states to make the decision (as free states should).

what i object to, is how this law was enacted.

what does this law have to do with credit card holder rights?

why isn't anyone bothered by this?

this is the same as if a comprehensive bill on campaign finance reform that everyone liked had a little note put in it that legalized gay marriage.

i support gay marriage. i don't support that kind of (excuse the cliche term) back-room deal.




the 2nd amendment was the best thing the founding fathers did to protect future politicians from having to deal with real issues. it's a perfect headline stealer for the right and the left alike.

^

For the record, I agree in that I don't like how this was done, even if I support the change in the law. I've never quite understood how unrelated items can get tacked on to bills in the legislator, it just seems so fundamentally wrong and prone to abuse, but I suppose that could be said about most of our government. I'm pragmatic enough not to look this particular gift horse in the mouth though, the Dems have inflicted enough poison pills on us law abiding gun owners that I'm not shedding any tears that they have to swallow one.

Dox47 wrote:

To waltur:

I couldn't have said it better myself.