Let's Try This, (Part II of the Great Gunrights Debate).

I emailed Alex after his opening post:

Alex:

Not a bad opening salvo. I stuck a title on the post and edited it just a little bit for layout consistency with my other posts. I fixed a typo ["9" instead of a "("] too.

The only problem is that, for someone just walking into the discussion, they'd be a little lost if they haven't read our exchange at No Banannas.

May I suggest we reset everything back to zero and start afresh? Pick a particular topic near and dear to your heart, perhaps, and let's flog that until we're done, then move on to the next. Otherwise we're going to be zinging all over the place and it will be difficult to follow.

Kevin

Alex agreed:

Sounds good.

Obviously you've got me out manned on BF, so I'd concede that point (for now)

I am always one for the "there are sensible compromises out there" vs. "no touchin my 2nd amendment" debate.

I am also looking more at the gun industry and what it does to influence the debate.

Of course there are the basics: the meaning of the 2nd gun control vs. gun confiscation (slippery slope stuff) Statistics, lies and damned lies

Or if you have a "just once I'd like to see one of those weak kneed liberals try and defend THAT point" topics, I'd love to take a crack at it.

I used to be a (fairly) middle-of-the-road gunrights advocate, until I started digging into the debate deeper. The more I dug, the worse it looked until I finally decided that "this far, no further" was the only position I could personally take.

There's a lot more to it than just the right to arms for me, but the right to arms is the keystone from my perspective. The fact is that the Constitution is and has been under concerted attack for a wide variety of reasons and rationales almost since its ratification. My current stance (which is not absolutist from the perspective of many) is based on my understanding of the meaning and intent of the Constitution, and the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment and all of the other amendments.

So let's start there. What do those twenty-seven words mean, and is the Constitution a "living document"? That was the point of Ian Hamet's post at Banana Oil! that originated this discussion. Because from my perspective the meaning and intent of the 2^nd Amendment is clear, and the Constitution is not and cannot be a "living document," and I can explain why. Everything I support and espouse is based on this bedrock. These are the questions we must address first before we can argue "sensible compromises" and the like.