On August 13, 2000 at 15:01:56, Brunnen-G wrote and quoted Grishny quoting Charon quoting Grishny:

> > > > >Gun Control
> > > > Our Constitution gives us the right to bear arms, and "that don't mean short sleeves."
> > >
> > > Why can't the constitution be wrong, or perhaps right at the time but wrong now?
> >
> > Because our Constitution is the basis for our entire system of government. The founding fathers who designed it meant for it to endure; they wanted their new country to last.
>
> As a non-American, the extent to which (some) Americans worship their written Constitution has always seemed bizarre to me.
The founding fathers of *every* country designed their laws wanting them to endure, and for the country to last. But things CHANGE. Some parts of the US constitution have been amended accordingly to suit the times.

Actually, I kind of...more or less...agree with the point being made here about "worship". It seems many people are proud to state that "the Constitution gives us the RIGHT to bear arms," as if it's an inalienable right for all Americans. But isn't this is an Appeal to Authority argument, similar to giving the Constitution the same weight and bearing as the Bible? Well. Although the articles and amendments are a social construct, and were designed and made by men, I suppose you could argue that it had some divine inspiration. Even so, some of its principles of original intent may have been perverted by subsequent generations.

As far as I can see, the 1791 Second Amendment pertained to the right of the States to uphold a "well-regulated Militia" (a standing army of citizens specially trained to arms), for the defense of the country against foreign military aggressors. That's ALL. I find it bizarre that anyone could so flagrantly abuse that intent, by wringing the idea of a private "individual's right to bear arms for any reason" out of that Amendment. What were Delaware and Nevada thinking when they further specified, "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use." RECREATIONAL USE??? Taking your older kids out for a friendly session at the local shooting gallery, and mowing down targets with a lethal weapon whilst possibly damaging their eardrums and poisoning their lungs with metal combustion gases, is supposed to be FUN?

My Dave (ahem) mentions a Duckman episode which perhaps expresses the irony better than I can. Duckman, in this case, causes a temporal anomaly with his clock radio. Ben Franklin takes the opportunity to come forward in time, and express commentary on the present U.S. Constitution... "Number 1! Freedom of Speech applies to everyone -- *no exceptions*. Number 2! The Second Amendment *doesn't* mean guns for everyone. What did you think we were, stupid?"

Personally, I would like someone to please explain gabby's interesting claim that "Gun control, historically, leads to the slaughter of a group of people who are unable to defend themselves. Look it up." The type of legislation promoted by several American gun control advocates is usually limited to requiring registration and 5-day waiting periods for "lawful handgun owners". That type of lawmaking is ineffectual. It implicitly assumes that having a gun -- in the first place -- is an "appropriate deterrent to crime" against the individual. And that's part of the problem. The type of internalized gun control that people actually *need* is, instead, a radical shift in attitude towards gun ownership. Uh, gun worship, practically. The general Canadian view towards firearms is that owning a gun is excessive force and undesirable. That's why the school-shooting tragedy in Taber, Alberta, was not a Columbine-Littleton level of massacre. The Taber student simply wasn't able to obtain the same kind of lethal firepower to which the Columbine students had access.

Wolf "my 2¢'s worth" spirit