"Greg Menke" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" writes:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

But the bottom line, the concrete meaning of what you said is that the
Second Amendment functions by threatening the government with guns.
Otherwise, what role do they fulfill, in your claim about guns
protecting
the other amendments? I mean, if you aren't threatening to *use* them,
how
do they have any effect?

I think the effect of gun ownership on goverment is fundamentally
symbolic and has been for the the last 100 years or so. The
significance being that the Constitution REQUIRES the government to keep
hands off, in this case to not only forbid it from outlawing guns but to
restrain it in their regulation. So gun ownership is a constant, real
reminder of what the state is NOT supposed to get involved in. By not
being allowed to fundamentally restrict the ownership and use of
dangerous weapons, a standard is set for the degree to which gov't
should leave people alone.

Yeah, that's about the way I see it, too.


Too bad that doesn't seem to apply equally to the other amendments.

Well, that's the special value of the Second, IMO. It sets the parameter.

--
Ed Huntress