Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson
I think his response reflects his assessment of working in the city of Baltimore-- one of the most violent cities in America when it comes to gun violence.
|
Both Baltimore and Chicago have the highest murder rate and gun-related deaths in the nation...yet they also have some of the toughest gun control laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson
Realistically, is there any gun that could adequately defend us against our government if for whatever reason, our government decided to become our enemy?
The honest answer is no.
|
Obviously, the answer is no. However, the Constitution does not contain a clause stating that the 2nd Amendment should be null and void in the event military tech supercedes civilian arms. Respectfully, I don't know what that has to do with anything. When the 2nd Amendment was written, the government had cannons and warships. The Minutemen had muskets. There was never, nor will there ever be a level playing field between military and citizen's arms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson
While I am a 2nd amendment proponent in today's discussion of "guns," the issue is not so easily cut and dry in our current urban situations. His answer reflects that reality.
|
The 2nd Amendment is not ambiguous, and it is definitely not subjective to location.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson
Question for you. Do you think it would be against our Constitutional protection to allow the police to stop and frisk you at their will, whenever they saw you walking somewhere and thought you had the potential for being a lawbreaker?
|
It is against the Constitution.
The 4th Amendment does not allow for this. Also, the way this is worded, "...thought you had the potential for being a lawbreaker" smells of profiling, which most law enforcement entities ban.
Threaded Mode
