|
Post by Sir John on Dec 15, 2012 13:39:13 GMT -5
I have long been of the view that the "right to bear arms" was a direct result of the major importance of the 'musket, powder and ball' over the mantlepiece of the American patriots.
It was to ensure that if they had to re-fight the Revolution, the arms would be there to do it.
We have a high profile blogger here that says it relates to Indians and the ACW.
Right or wrong?
SJ
|
|
|
Post by bluejay77 on Dec 15, 2012 14:07:43 GMT -5
My own opinion about the American citizens' constitutional right to bear arms is that it probably more prevents than it causes crime.
I liked the individual with whom I was staying in Portland, Oregon in the summer of 2012, when I was in the USA lecturing on my PhD work.... This individual was a retired US military captain, and we had lots of nice talks on military points, including visits to a local shopping center, where one could purchase even assault rifles.
Giving the citizens the right to purchase assault rifles constitutes to my opinion an expression of trust by the government towards the citizens' judgement and common sense.
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Dec 15, 2012 15:25:51 GMT -5
The second amendment came before the indian threat.
|
|