Over the Hedge by T Lewis and Michael Fry for June 09, 2011
Transcript:
verne: RJ, there is no right to bear staple guns in the constitution. RJ: yes there is! "amendment 2: 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." keep and bear arms, verne! A staple gun, a hot glue gun, a radaar gun..... they're all arms, verne! hammy: Okay, I'm confused.
rayannina over 13 years ago
You’re not the only one, Hammy …
Rakkav over 13 years ago
R.J. has all the twisted logic of an elected politician. Or of some appointed judges.
x_Tech over 13 years ago
OK we have a right to bear arms, but won’t the Bears miss them?
starfighter441 over 13 years ago
Probably, Bears are rotten shots…
Ottodesu over 13 years ago
I have bare arms, check out my guns …
Ottodesu over 13 years ago
Anyway, I’m not a United States of American, so it is the first time I have seen those words. It does not say anything about individuals having firearms, does it? Only the context of a militia.
bdaverin over 13 years ago
How do you keep without owning?
Ottodesu over 13 years ago
bdaverin: Right-o, I can accept that is the context of those words. Do you think your Founding Fathers would have been comfortable with widespread (almost universal) gun distribution if the Bill of Rights had not been drafted during revolutionary times, when they were concerned about a foreign force?
ladyryln over 13 years ago
Another of their concerns was in creating a government that did not oppress it’s people – the right to bear arms was considered one protection against an oppressive government.
Nighthawks Premium Member over 13 years ago
right to bear arms against an oppressive government , indeed. good luck with your war against the U.S. Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force. might be a good idea to watch for half price bullet sales at Wal Mart. you’re going to need a lot to protect yourself against that evil government that is apparently ruining your miserable life.
hippogriff over 13 years ago
The original purpose was to provide for defense (not for invading other countries on orders of multinational corporations) without resorting to conscription (which was one of the main reasons for immigration from German states among others).
Elbridge Gerry proposed that the a standing army be restricted to a number which would barely handle the paperwork at the armories. Unfortunately Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention does not mention what happened to that proposal, nor to the one that the federal government should be responsible for officers and heavy weapons while the states should provide other ranks and small arms. It was also interesting that during the bicentennial of the Constitution, no publisher had Madison’s Notes in print and available for bookstores to stock. I had to use Interlibrary Loan in order to get to read this important document.
The Reich wing never notices the first part of the Second Amendment (militia context) nor the last part of the Tenth (unenumerated powers “or to the people.”)
TheSpanishInquisition over 13 years ago
Don’t worry, Hammy. We’re all confused as well as to how that particular piece of the Constitution is meant to be interpreted…
pschearer Premium Member over 13 years ago
I’ve been reading a great bio of Benjamin Franklin (by H.W. Brands) that relates an incident in the 1750’s (before the French-Indian War) when the French turned former Indian allies of the English and had them attack settlers in the far west, meaning around Pittsburgh. The Quaker Assembly was reluctant to go to war, so Franklin himself organized a non-govermental force of several thousand to put down the uprisings. There was no strict dividing line between defending yourself as an individual, a citizen militia, or a govenment force. It’s all about individual rights.
Lewisvz over 13 years ago
Ouch!