CDQ...you have an interesting last reply, but applying a little relativity may be in order, esp on the RTBA issue.
First, if I yelled 'FIRE' in a theater in 1776 it would have about the same affect as yelling 'FIRE' in 2013.
If I armed myself in 1776 I would be armed with the current weaponry often found in the hands of professionals, namely single shot flintlocks technology...I suppose in those days I could even purchase cannon, as did many a private merchant ship.
Now fast forward to 2013,,,,uniformed individuals who receive paychecks from the government(s), and criminals are armed with the latest equipment...they call their rifles 'personal defense weapons' whcih are full auto...should I remain armed with a flintlock..? If I arm similarly my personal defense rifle is called an 'assault rifle.' What' sup wit dat?
.
.
.
..TM7
I know, and I agree with what you're getting at. My whole point is the classic dilemma of "letter of the law" vs. "intent of the law." The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to provide for the population to be armed. That's not for hunting or sports, and it's not for self defense against criminals, though that is encompassed by owning guns, for sure. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is so the population will be armed against our own government--- not the Democrats, not the Republicans, not the TP, not socialists, but ALL OF THEM. You can argue over what's a militia, you can argue over the phrase "keep and bear arms" or any of the rest of it all you want, but the INTENT of the 2nd Amendment is that the population be armed against its own government. That is obvious.
Having said that, you still can't legally build a nuke in your basement, nor can you build any kind of antipersonnel explosives, like pipe bombs or mines. So, obviously the intent of the law was NOT to enable you to kill thousands of people at a time. The law has to be balanced with compassion and logical sense, just like the same applies to the other amendments and the rest of the Constitution.
Personally, I feel like the "anti-gun" part of Obama's speech was more a call for the lawmakers to look at the problem of gun violence as a systemic problem, and a directive to come up with a plan to lower that violence. At that point his detractors stopped listening, and started screaming, "The black guy is coming after our guns! See? We TOLD you!" But, If you actually followed the dialog, Obama was actually telling the lawmakers that the laws might have to be changed in other areas: more extensive background checks, mental health, crisis intervention, etc. What he was trying to tell them is that our way of looking at mental health, privacy, and confidentiality will need to change, as well as those changes are not going to be cheap. The right is certainly not going to go for spending more money, so they're at a stalemate. Don't get me wrong, Pelosi, Feinstein, and the other anti-gunners are trying to oversimplify a complex problem when they just want to ban guns. As I tell my far right friends, it ain't gonna be that simple.
We can probably NOT stop all gun violence. At this point, we need to look more at non-firearms law solutions to LOWER the incidence. In order to keep the 2nd Amendment strong, other areas of the legal system are going to need to be tweaked. You may not be able to keep your paranoia, depression, or bipolar disorder a secret, for instance.
All of this will take a calm, PROGRESSIVE, logical approach to the problem, not a blind following of the letter of the law. This will also take a flexibility of thought not currently expressed by the far right in the government. One thing it will take, if anything is going to happen anytime soon, is the right will have to stop thinking Obama is some kind of Muslim devil--- he's what we got, work with him. I've worked side by side with people I can't stand most of my life; adults can do that.
Another thing is, this INTENT of the law is not only applicable to the 2nd Amendment. That means this flexibility has to be applied across the board. The Constitution was not engraved on stone tablets handed down by god. In fact, the word "god" is not in the Constitution. The Constitution is the nation's conscience, its guidelines for right and wrong, when applied by intelligent beings. It's the contract of how the government takes care of its people. So, yes, if the people need healthcare, the government needs to assure that they get healthcare. With Medicare and Social Security, the definite precedent was set. Some things are so big only the government can deal with them. They cannot be left to the capitalists; capitalists will always decide an issue based on money The government is NOT a business, and it's not a business ON PURPOSE. It's the actualization of the conscience embodied in the Constitution. It's a place to start...
