Here we go again: no discussion, no attempted understanding of the opposing view(s), just the scoring of points.
Stamper's first post on this matter was right.
Yes, but given the course of the discussion (which seems normal given the fact that photographers are humans with emotions which make them do the things they do well (being passionate about their subject/creation) and despite the horriffic tragedy (or rather because of it) I disagree with many of the pro gun apologists. How many semi-automatic(!) firearms does an individual require to feel safe under the US constitution? There is a clearly disproportionate amount of firearms related homicides in the USA ...
If firearms are needed to feel safe, then more firearms would create a sense of more safety. Apparently that is a flawed concept (not only for the sense of security, but also since apparently the objective security is actually reduced!), despite the huge amounts of money that the pro-gun lobby spends to futher their
cause, BTW which is that cause exactly and why are they spending those amounts (is it due to a distrust of the Government, or for monetary gain at a tremendous cost of human life)?
Another aspect that puzzles many people not influenced by pro-firearms lobbies, is that the USA constitution declares the right to keep and bear (fire)arms on a grammatically poorly formulated sentence in the 2nd amendment of said Constitution:
"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."
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights, mentions that "a number of States expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers
, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficient ends of its institution."
The emphasis in bold italics in the above quote is mine, as I see it as the important part that restricts the transfer of power, in this case the exclusive use of (fire)power to "exectute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections". When the Government abuses its powers, the people still have a legal right to oppose, even by the use of firearms. It is not an obligation
for the people to keep and bear such arms, let alone use them in other situations
, but rather a right to defend against abuse of power by The Government (but not to use against others/civilians or in other situations!
IMHO, it's that last part that, at least for some, seems unclear. Of course the strange grammar of The Second Amendment doesn't help to make that distinction clear, but its intention should follow from the preable, "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers", where "its" refers to the Government.
I disagree with any overall conclusion that the 2nd amendment of the Constitution of the United States does not allow the government in any way to prohibit or limit the ownership or carrying of any kind of firearm. It 'just' requires a lot of stamina to oppose the pro-gun lobby and, as for today's rethorical question, which electoral benefit would that bring?
I disagree, based on the expressed intent in the preamble of The Bill of Rights. It only allows the people to legally defend themselves against Government abuse
, even by using firearms. That implies that people should be allowed to have them at their disposal in the first place. Nothing more, nothing less. The Government can full well do anything it wants to prevent the use of firearms by civilians against other civilians. The question becomes what can it, or is it willing to, do.
In dreaded anticipation of the next 'incident', waiting to happen ...,