Perhaps at some later point I'll write at greater length on the subject, but for now I have just three questions.
First, here is the text of the Second Amendment, as ratified by the states:
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.Questions, only partly rhetorical:
- Why do gun advocates frequently only mention the part after the comma, and ignore the first part of the sentence?
- The amendment itself states that regulating well is necessary, so why is there such an hysterical response to the common-sense notion of regulating guns?
- Anti-aircraft missiles, tanks and nuclear weapons are all "arms" yet no one squawks about restrictions on their ownership. Why then the apoplexy about regulating assault weapons or such things as high-capacity magazines?
No comments:
Post a Comment