[ExI] second amendment rights

[Samantha Atkins]

On Jul 5, 2008, at 4:48 PM, spike wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
>> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of
>> Damien Broderick
> ...
>> that guns
>>> are safer than automobiles. Would you take away my car next?
>>
>> This is the rhetorical path this list has lurched down too
>> often before. I thought it was safe to inquire in a contained
>> manner into the likely meaning of the 2nd Amendment, once
>> Spike had offered his opinion of the fool judges who thought
>> it had something to do with militias. But it looks as if the
>> Great Gun Attractor is doing its evil work anyway. Stop it
>> now, before we all go blind!
>>
>> Damien Broderick
>
> Ja, the gun debate has burned over this ground several times  
> before.  Do
> consult the archives.  There you will find some caustic and delightful
> "canardic screeds" as Lee Daniel called them.
>
> After I offered an admittedly scattershot reply, I realized Damien was
> interested in a specific second amendment discussion.  I propose  
> letting the
> Pondering Your Freedoms thread wind down or continue on the various  
> topics
> this line seems to spawn with mind numbing regularity.  Further I  
> propose
> that Damien's original question take on the above subject line, and  
> I urge
> strict subject discipline on this one.  If one continues under that  
> subject
> line, note that it isn't about crime, it isn't about safety, it is  
> about the
> constitution and its intent.
>

Freedom was the intent including freedom from government getting out  
of hand.  That is rather clear in the major documents and in the  
writings of many of the founders.    Analyzing particular phrasings of  
the 2nd amendment in the light of much later thoughts and opinions and  
quibbling over the same in my view totally misses the central point  
and is deadly (perhaps literally) dull to boot.

- samantha