Diamond Supporter
Platinum Supporter
Gold Lifetime
Silver Lifetime
Bronze Lifetime
- Messages
- 3,974
- Reactions
- 9,951
No. In other words people and orgs can't fix everything. They make choices about how they spend their time and money. And many people in the urban E or NE don't believe 2A grants any gun rights to individuals who are not in the military. The two years I went to school in MA and two years in NY that was what the teachers and books said. Both explicitly spelled out that 2A is often misinterpreted to grant rights to individuals but does not, is about military only. I actually kearbed to shoot befire I even went to school. Taught by my career AF dad. Actually I was in Cambridge MA for grad school. And it would have cost me a mandatory year in prison for possessing the .22 semiauto I simply kept my mouth shut about during my years in grad school. I actually pocketed that gun when I ran out of the Harvard grad student women's dorm where I lived my first year in response to a woman's scream suddenly cut off and chased off a would be rapist. I sometimes think about the woman I saved. She almost undoubtedly was an anti-gunner. She never knew it was a woman citizen with a gun who saved her bacon that night.From the article.
In other words.....only SOME of the Bill of Rights is worth protecting?
Aloha, Mark
There is genuine disagreement among people ranging from constitutional law experts to the general public as to the implications of the statement justifying the right to keep and bear arms on the basis of militia's being necessary for the well being of a state. Its a downright puzzling statement and invites anyone uncomfortable with guns to imagine that it justified guns in the hand of citizens only for the purpose of militias. Other rights aren't justified in ways that seem intended to limit their scope. For example, the right to free speech does not say something like, "Because of the need of voting citizens to have information on which to base their votes, the rights of newspapers to publish shall not be infringed." If that's how the right to free speech was represented, there would be many who believed that the right to free speech applied only to newspapers or to things published in newspapers, or to white males who owned property, since they were the only ones who could vote.
Among those who belong to ACLU, the vast majority undoubtedly believe in only a very much more limited interpretation of 2A than most of us here do. Should ACLU spend time and money fighting for 2A, it would have gone out of business a long time ago. It depends on member contributions. As it was, they fought hard for full rights for blacks. And for free speech. And left 2A alone, neither helping or harming. Every 5O1c3 makes choices. I generally approve of orgs that do good on the issues that I agree with them on and do nothing on the issues where I disagree with them. And don't do anything egregiously unfair or stupid. I still approve of ACLU, even though these days I prefer to spend my time and money supporting other orgs focused on other issues.