[TheForge] todays shooting in school.

[James Binnion]

No, the 2nd amendments context in its time was to provide the new government with an armed body in case the British decided to try to take back the wayward colonies. Our standing army and navy were mostly nonexistent and in no way equipped to withstand a full on assault from the British. So to have a "well regulated militia" to add their muskets to the cause would be a great improvement. To try to apply the 2nd amendment to the situation we are in in the 21st century is ludicrous, any foe we have as a nation that is crazy enough to try to tackle us with arms will do so with weapons systems that will not be in the least bit affected by any number of armed citizens. Any other interpretation of the purpose of the 2nd amendment is later day weasel wording and obfuscation to support the rather lucrative weapons sales in the US and is driven by the fear and macho based advertising done by said weapons merchants. Given the annual number of homicides with firearms is about 11,000 per year one has about a 1 in 26,000 chance of being a fatality from one. Actually much less because many if not the majority of those deaths result from altercations between professional criminals. So given that the annual death rate is about 8 in a thousand  with the exception for a very few professions and a tiny number of other affected individuals the argument that one needs a fire arm for self protection is purely a figment of the fear based marketing of the arms merchants.

For a good example of such advertising look at Bushmasters advertising program that poses the question,  are you man enough to have a Bushmaster? 

http://www.bushmaster.com/press-release-050710.asp


On Dec 17, 2012, at 1:11 PM, <rfertner at cox.net> <rfertner at cox.net> wrote:

> This is why it is constitutional. The Constitution is about self-defence and not hunting.


James Binnion
jbin at well.com