tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131875366605179893.post8383972800165564599..comments2023-08-03T03:11:54.412-07:00Comments on CALLAHANTICS: The Real Quandary of the Second AmendmentREBECCACALLAHANhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08872466332629137586noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131875366605179893.post-4433620812054742942012-04-25T17:23:54.511-07:002012-04-25T17:23:54.511-07:00I generally agree on the idea of licensing people ...I generally agree on the idea of licensing people to carry a firearm. It makes a lot of logical sense when we are dealing with undeniably deadly weapons. But I know why the NRA would never support it. They seem to be pathologically paranoid about a list of gun owners existing somewhere. Usually argued as if this would allow the government to go roundup any guns, and maybe even those who own them, as part of their evil designs on liberty.<br /><br />Really, I don't see the NRA as being at all reasoned any more. They have seen nothing but a continued expansion of gun rights over the last 3 years, yet insist on denouncing Obama as 'anti-gun' and hinting at his hidden agenda if re-elected. So, I'm afraid the NRA has become as unstable as far too many conservatives these days. <br /><br />What I've always found interesting is that if you just read the 2nd Amendment and try and just look at it in isolation, it seems to me to have little to do with guaranteeing you the right to carry a gun into a bar. I think you could reasonably interpret it as simply talking about guns being needed for a state and/or national militia. You could argue that the National Guard fills this role completely. It's a state militia after all. But somewhere along the way it was interpreted as meaning everyone over 10 years old is Constitutionally endowed with the right to carry a Glock in a hip holster as they go about their day.Erik A. Princehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07026166272308791091noreply@blogger.com