Please don’t get me wrong. There are some things from U.S. history of which I’m proud of, one being the Constitution, the other – being allowed to bear arms. There are also parts of our history of which I’m not proud of. When I think of firearm freedoms, I think of state laws and federal laws, however for me, the last thing I think of is the actual Second Amendment. Partly because, I think actual specific firearm laws are made by “today’s and tomorrow’s” legislators.
When the 2A was written 234 years ago, back then there were no regular mass shootings on instant media. When legislators argue and decide on laws, opponents use the mass shootings as part of their argument. I think that an argument for self-defense is a strong argument which can be proven. IMHO, to use 27 words that three gentlemen wrote 234 years ago – is a risky strategy to go in with. If I had to place my best fighter in the ring, I’d opt for the ‘Golden Glove Champ’ per se. Much is on the line.
The Constitution and the 2A bring forth “the subjective, opinion, and interpretation”. And sometimes when I read about it here in our pages, it’s read as though the writer’s sharing what they are saying as though it’s fact, and that they are right. And that alone causes me to be cautious.
I get it, it’s something to be proud of – even celebrated, however how do we convince “the other side to join us”? When the 1787 “2A” wording doesn’t register with them and might never; Friends, how do we really appeal to them (when they are not from or in our “tent”)?
Related interests:
