[lbo-talk] The Glock 9mm is your friend, he said...

[martin]

There is so much nonsense about the 2nd that I have never heard a 
'pure' interpretation. The NRA certainly doesn't offer one. And I've 
never heard a pol offer one, no matter what side. Anyway, here's my 
interpretation. The second amendment is a forceful reminder that 
liberty needs protection, and that it's an issue of life and death, and 
that the means to defend liberty shall not be proscribed. The 
collective tone of the bill of rights distinguishes between 'soldiers' 
and 'armies' on the one hand (state) and a 'well organized militia' on 
the other hand (populace). It places restrictions on the activities of 
the state and protections on the activities of the populace. It seems 
pretty clear that the founders had a clear picture of where the attack 
on liberty would originate.

So, as far as I'm concerned the defense of the second amendment is not 
an argument for guns. It's an argument for protecting liberty.

Martin

On Jul 18, 2004, at 10:25 AM, Dwayne Monroe wrote:


> I don't get too heated about gun issues and don't feel
> a special need to defend the second amendment in as
> pure a form as possible.