Originally Posted by CSM
Yeah..................that's what we need, a Constitutional Convention! This is exactly how the French Revolution started. Once there's a constitutional convention, anything, absolutely anything at all, can happen, and the powers-that-are will fight such a convention tooth and nail; the French monarchy lost that fight. Considering Madame Guillotine and "Terror is the Order of the Day!" I would agree with not wanting a constitutional convention.
I found the Second Amendment thread, good. I didn't see much I liked in the opening post, but I am very interested in this controversy generally.
I pointed out earlier that all sorts of weapons that SHOULD be protected under the Second Amendment, are in fact illegal.
Even given Scalia's current thinking that it only protects what a walking soldier can carry by himself (ummmmmmmmmm.............................interesti ng interpretation, but I'm not giving that one away just because Scalia sez it. Remind me again why six militia members can't carry a machine gun?), there are still lots of weapons commonly carried by troops that are already illegal ---
It is clear that the Second Amendment has already been infringed up one side and down the other.
This immediately became an IQ test here. Sadly too many people immediately claimed that there was no problem with this, OF COURSE grenades were illegal!!! (Why, if you treasure the Second like Holy Writ?) And all the many other weapons that have mysteriously and quietly disappeared from the roster of ways to kill your neighbor with the barking dog.
BUT, they would opine, it would be grossly illegal, worthy of instant rebellion, if the Second was infringed by banning assault rifles!!! (Wait, they were already banned for ten years --- what about that? Why didn't you all rebel then?)
This was all very confusing. How can people think in such water-tight compartments? At least two men earned my immediate respect by agreeing that of course grenades, rocket launchers, submachine guns, bayonets, etc., etc. were covered under the Second. Duh.
Well, thank you, let's do throw a little plain logic and fact onto the fire here. Okay, the Second has already been grossly infringed. This is because if weapons of mass destruction are available to the masses, the masses self-destruct, gaily using whatever nukes, bombs, grenades, assault rifles, machine guns, biological and chemical weapons they can get hold of to kill large numbers of people. Good-bye, Chicago.
Okay, so given that the Second is already grossly infringed, why not infringe it a little more and take away the psycho favorites, the assault rifles and high-capacity magazines? They already were banned for ten years: clearly it has not worked out well to unban them.
The argument now is we can't ban anything else because of the slippery slope.
I am not sure that's a good argument, but at least people have stopped claiming the Second Amendment is inviolate, pure as the Virgin Mary. In fact, that old Amendment has been living hard, whacked around till it's barely recognizable.
Reply With Quote