well, that's fabulously definitive. Why on earth have Americans been arguing intensely over the meaning of that ungrammatical text for the past forty years when they could just have come and asked!?

I figured at least some would have watched the John Adams mini-series on HBO


Whatever the intent, the US constitution has been changed and amended over the years, so if the political will should be there, there is no reason it cant happen again, thats the point.

The National Rifle Association in the US has an increase of 8000 members per day since the tragedy...

I can't even imagine what that town is going through right now.

Yes, but they tend not to bugger around with the original ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights.

Yeah, but the second amendment has enough holes in it to give multiple meanings. The right to bear arms is linked to the need for a "well regulated militia" to keep a free state nice and secure. So, firstly I'm sure it could be argued that being as there is an organized and paid for US Army, that this is such a militia, and these people have the right to bear arms.

Secondly, 'arms' could be anything. The US could ban all sorts of firearms and not disrupt this amendment.

You could take it at another literal level and say that the American people need arms (I.e. and legs) to defend themselves. Doubt that would hold up too well in court though

The conventional take on this is that the "well regulated militia" in that context was intended to keep the state "free" via the threat of organised violent revolution against the government, should any of the political leaders get it into their head to start to take liberties with the rights of the people in their care.

Much as the US had been created "free" by violent struggle against the yolk of british oppression in the first place.

Stems from the Declaration of Independence and appeals to Locke's classical liberal doctrine of the right to revolution against tyrannical government. Used mainly to justify succession, but still, like puritanism, it now runs like a gangrenous streak through their public philosophy.

Although these might appear at first glance to be an attempt at humour......far too many of them have a certain ring of truth.



The Amendments to the US Constitution (Written For the Average American)


http://www.thealmightyguru.com/Humor...Americans.html

The NRA said today in a statement that "A bad guy with a gun can be stopped by a good guy with a gun"

So that's that all sorted.

More guns in schools, just whats needed.


****ing idiots!

I suppose if all the non gun owners in the USA wrote to their pension fund managers asking for their policy on holding shares in gun manufacturers and retailers it might help to divert investment away from those products/services?

I wonder if teachers pension funds etc hold shares in Smith & Weston etc?

You're welcome

The NRA are idiots. Even gun nuts must be embarrassed by them.

NRA Logic:

- Need to protect our 2nd amendment rights. Says hollywood, the media, video games are to blame implying solution is reduction in 1st amendment rights.

- Need guns to overthrow the government when it gets too authoritarian. Suggests hiring another 100k armed government employees to protect the kids.

Brilliant.

California Teachers Pension fund holds stock in the company whose gun was involved in Conn. At the same time the NRA were giving their speech, 9 people were gunned down in Penn.

Never Stops

So someone on here thinks it's his right to bear arms, whilst all around there are needless deaths because idiots walk around with them.

I bet he doesn't wear a crash helmet or a seatbelt, doesn't believe in health and safety at work, smokes when filling his car, all because it should be his freedom to do what he damn well wants.