Thread: The am show this morning

Originally Posted by MarkN

I'm not going get into the minutiae, of the pro and anti gun laws, argument.

I will however, make an observation, on the American, "freedom to own guns without restriction", people.

The starting point, in the defence of this stance, is almost always, the second amendment of the constitution of the U.S.A.

The amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Let's examine the first four words - “A well regulated militia...”

Read this bit slowly - What is gun control legislation, applied to people who own guns, if not regulation?

The regulated bit, of the regulated militia.....

And yet the people trumpeting the “A well regulated militia...” are violently opposed to having any regulation.

I think I've laboured the point enough.


further reading https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...eaning-history

They are regulated, you need a special permit to own fully automatics!!!

I agree with your point, and I don't think the US 2nd amendment would have been meant to be understood the way it has been. However, much like the Tow, what was then has become what is now and with all the animosity amongst both sides it is hard to turn the clock back.

What annoys me far more is our PM suggesting NZs highly regulated firearms licensing system was in any way similar to the US 2A. We HAD a very regulated system, particularly regarding semi auto centrefires E cat. The knee-jerk law changes in NZ will have more influence than Ardern probably intended, and will just polarise the debate far more. She should have kept her mouth shut in relation to highly emotive US domestic issues and not try to imply the NZ law changes were in any way relevant to their totally different legal situation.