Replies

I think I understand the purpose of the second amendment. But I've seen people argue for no restrictions. Machine guns, LAWs, etc. That's nuts. Also, no restrictions means criminals, and the insane, have the right to bear arms. That's also nuts.

That's what I mean by gun-rights nut.

However, like you said, the purpose of the second amendment is to protect us from our own government. So, law-abiding and sane citizens should have no restrictions on bearing small arms.

> ...I've seen people argue for no restrictions. Machine guns, LAWs, etc. That's nuts. Also, no restrictions means criminals, and the insane, have the right to bear arms. That's also nuts.

Okay, I'll grant you that there are some absolutists lurking amongst those of us who believe that the 2nd Amendment is perfectly clear and means what it says. You may be cheered to know that there aren't that many who are that absolutist.

But at the risk of being labeled a gun-rights nut, let me explain the quandary.

The problem with drawing a line -- any line -- is that it allows a corrupt government to define you as being over that line, and take away your God-given rights. They don't like you? All they have to do is arrest and convict you of something, or declare you insane (and that's not very hard, if they want to do it).

Be very careful in defining that line, because you could find yourself on the wrong side of it, all too easily, in the precise circumstance when you need to be on the right side of it.

That said, I don't think that someone who is certifiably insane or a convicted serial killer should have unrestricted access to fully-automatic weapons, either. But in a sane world, those people would not be out loose on the street, either. The crazy would be in a rubber room for life, and the serial killer would be pushing up daisies; problem solved.