I published a post last February entitled Understanding the Second Amendment. Although I wrote it months ago, I got a comment the other day in which the author decided the second amendment was obsolete and should be repealed:
altrurian said,
April 16, 2009 @ 14:51:18 PDT · EditI agree with the irrefutable parsing of the amendment that you have provided. It seems rather straight forward. It just doesn’t have relevance anymore. You can’t make that argument about any of the other amendments in the “Bill”. 320 million folks “bearing” arms is unthinkable. Get real.
Surely even you recognize the ludicracy of the epithet “anti-gun”. Who in their right mine[sic] wouldn’t be against, in the abstract sense, an artifact designed to kill.
Let’s repeal the thing on its face value and get on with it.
I felt that this needed an answer and wrote the following response:
Cap’n Bob said,
April 16, 2009 @ 17:47:51 PDT · Edit“It just doesn’t have relevance anymore.”
Let me point out that these very arguments were used in the recent D.C. vs. Heller Case before the Supreme court, i.e. the Washington D.C. gun ban. The majority found in favor of the defendant and it is again legal to possess firearms in D.C. for home protection. Think about it and you will find this is a good thing (hint: find out the average response times for 911 calls).
“320 million folks “bearing” arms is unthinkable. Get real.”
For you, perhaps. For me (and millions of other Americans), a person trained in the use and application of firearms who regularly drills and does target practice it’s not “unthinkable.” I have military training and have owned guns for over 45 years. I have a permit to carry a loaded concealed handgun in more than half the states in the union (including Minnesota). My weapons have never leaped into my hands and caused me to do harm to anyone or anything other than taking game and fending off varmints.
“an artifact designed to kill”
My guns are designed for protection, defense, hunting and sport. Any other definition is “an artifact of your perception.” Who “in their right mind” would deprive me (and millions of other Americans) of those purposes?
“Let’s repeal the thing on its face value and get on with it.”
I say that we keep the Bill of Rights intact, and allow those not comfortable with it move north of the 49th parallel, where they don’t have such a pesky artifact. “Get on with it.”
I would have to say that your nom de plume, derived from altruism, a selfless concern for the welfare of others, does not fit your agenda when it comes to personal defense and the protection of liberty.
The taxes are finally done. I procrastinated as long as I reasonably could, but dove into the depths of the IRS and Franchise Tax Board murk last weekend. The results are that both the FTB and IRS vacuumed the funds from my account early today, even before I had a chance to tell my money goodbye.
We’re still working out the details, but in a month, we’re going to head towards Phoenix to attend the 
The past eight years have shown a failure to appreciate the historic role of these noble seafarers. Instead of celebrating their entreprenuerial spirit and seeking to partner with them to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.