Upscale wrote:


"todd" wrote in message
Any other of the amendments to the Constitution that you'd like to
eliminate
by back door processes? Maybe let the press have their printing presses
but
tax ink at $1,000,000 / gal? Or maybe a $1,000 tax at the door of your
church to get in.

I think most would agree that there's a significant moral difference
between the right to bear arms and the right to free speech, despite the
fact that they're both enshrined in your constitution. And just because
something *is* enshrined in your constitution, doesn't for one second mean
that what was important then is necessarily important now. During the past
300 years, population and society have changed significantly.

Human nature, however has not. The fact that there are still people out
there who would prey upon those weaker than themselves does not make the
right to self-defense any less relevant now than it was in the past.


Nor does the threat of an armed citizenry make enslavement of those
citizens any easier now than in the past. There are still those today who
would impose absolute dictatorial power over others if they were able to do
so.

You may say that you see a moral difference between the right to free
speech and the right to bear arms -- there are those who see the right to
free speech as something that is outmoded and should be subject to
strict "guidelines" that prevent giving offense to various protected
groups.

The fact is, that there are those now who say that the freedom enshrined
in the Constitution is no longer relevant and that the Constitution is an
impediment to the government exercising more control over our lives (for
our good of course -- it's always for our good). *That* is exactly why the
Constitution was established as it was -- to protect us from those who
would enslave us "for our own good". Just because the excuses given for
that desire for control may have changed, the need to prevent that type of
tyrannical behavior has not changed.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough