[thechat] Bowling for Columbine

[Erik Mattheis]

On Sunday, January 26, 2003, at 10:00 PM, Chris Evans wrote:
> Isn't the whole point of the constitional right to bear arms the right
> of the people to protect themselves?  [...] I always read it as the
> right of the people to protect
> the Free State from an over reaching government.

You're correct. One of the first things England did in attempt to quell
the independence movement was to outlaw gun ownership by private
citizens. So ensuring against governmental tyranny was very much on the
"Founding Father's" minds. Here is some great reading for those
interested in how the 2nd Amendment came about, and may make you see
why the language seems/is so awkward
<http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendII.html>.

This is good reading for those who are wondering if the 2nd Amendment
guarantees an individual or collective right:
<http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/beararms/testimon.htm>

>   In that case, I'd be
> happier having an automoatic weapon than a silly six-shooter.

Adding to Isaac's comment, it's nonsense to argue (not that you were,
Chris) that this is a good reason to keep the Amendment II as is. When
it was written, the US had _no_ centralized military other than a small
navy. This was another reason for the Amendment: the military was made
of State militias, and for a long time, males of certain ages were
required to provide their own firearms (reading the requirements is
pretty funny ... like the sizes and kinds of bags they were required to
have).

>  I need to do more
> constituional research.  I really wish I could see in the minds of
> those
> men.

Reading about 2nd Amendment/gun control issues is sort of a hobby of
mine ... you will have no problem finding tons of great reading on the
Internet. I'm noticing that I've barely bookmarked anything. Drat.
-----------------------
Erik Mattheis
(612) 377 2272
<http://goZz.com/>
-----------------------