A revised Second Amendment could read: "The right to bear arms for hunting, sport and recreation being a cherished and time-honored tradition, the exercise of this right by responsible persons for these purposes shall not be infringed" #NYTLetters href="https://t.co/2vkXwj0p1J">https://t.co/2vkXwj0p1J
— NYT Opinion (@nytopinion) March 28, 2018
On one hand, this could actually expand the types of guns private citizens could own, because this doesn’t actually provide a delineation. I want to hunt with an automatic M16. The verbiage gives me that ability. And, he, I might think that recreation is defending my home. Oh, and I would need the gun at home to make sure I keep it clean. But, of course:
Which would completely eliminate the original intent. Say it with me now, NYT: ‘the 2nd Amendment has never been about hunting.’ https://t.co/qczNv4UB5a
— NoOneOfConsequence (@StarDogCh4mpion) March 28, 2018
It was about self defense against all enemies foreign and domestic. It was about protecting yourself, your family, your friends, and your property against tyrannical and/or abusive government. Sure, you will most likely lose. That’s not the point. You are given the chance to defend yourself. And, perhaps your comrades come to your aid. Perhaps a free press, tasked with holding government accountable, would come to your aid.
And, who would decide “responsible”? That’s the part that kills this whole mess. Perhaps we could rewrite the 1st to no longer include freedom of the press unless they use quill pens and the same type of printing presses and delivery methods (foot and horses) available at the time the Bill of Rights was passed.
Oh, and I wonder if the NY Times has given up its own armed security.
Read more at The Pirate's Cove.