Quote:
Originally Posted by MR2
"This is where American history becomes very politically incorrect because the Second Amendment was not drafted for hunting, or just self defense from an attacker. The Second Amendment was put into place to guarantee the rights of the individual to be equally armed as military, both foreign and domestic, in the event that the citizenry might actually, at some point, have to fight their own government," explained Swann.
"The Second Amendment is about making sure the population would not be controlled, dominated or oppressed by a government," Swann explained. "It's not my place to tell you what the Founders were thinking, or what they would be thinking today. But the principle of what they put into place had nothing to do with the kind of weapon they were guaranteeing, it was simply about matching force."
"Again, it's a very controversial subject. But if we're going to have a debate about what rights we're actually going to guarantee under the Constitution, then we need to have an honest debate about what the Founders were attempting to guarantee," Swann said.
|
That is three very interesting paragraphs which, I rearranged.
In the first paragraph Mr Swann tells us what the Founder intended. The Second Amendment is really about common citizens being able to go "mano a mano" with the duly constituted (nice word choice, eh?) military. And without a shred of evidence so . . . merely his opinion paraded as fact.
In the second paragraph he says its not his place to tell what he told us the founders intended and then tells us again what his opinion is paraded as a fact.
And finally in the third paragraph he gets it right -- " it's a very controversial subject". And he is right that the debate has to be honest but facts is facts, and opinions is opinions no matter how many times you you state the later don't make it the prior. Maybe this reporter should report the news instead of trying to make the news. maybe.