Comments on: GUN GUN GUN demo http://bloginsong.com/2009/08/25/gun-gun-gun-demo/ Write. Perform. Share. Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:13:32 +0000 hourly 1 By: Camille Bright-Smith http://bloginsong.com/2009/08/25/gun-gun-gun-demo/comment-page-1/#comment-8 Camille Bright-Smith Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:56:02 +0000 http://bloginsong.com/?p=119#comment-8 Thank you so much for this thoughtful comment. And thank you especially for being open to discussion. I have strong opinions, but I really think we are at a point where we must try to understand each other if we can. Thank you so much for this thoughtful comment. And thank you especially for being open to discussion. I have strong opinions, but I really think we are at a point where we must try to understand each other if we can.

]]> By: bh http://bloginsong.com/2009/08/25/gun-gun-gun-demo/comment-page-1/#comment-7 bh Mon, 31 Aug 2009 01:16:05 +0000 http://bloginsong.com/?p=119#comment-7 Hi Camille, you said you've gotten several different interpretations on this, and that surprises me. Your song seems pretty straight forward. Personally I think the Second Amendment was designed for a time period in which there was no standing army and people had a strong mistrust of standing armies. Wikipedia has a section stating: The prefatory clause of the Second Amendment is a shortened version of language found in the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights. That part of the Declaration was largely the work of George Mason. Similar language appears in many Revolutionary Era state constitutions. This Declaration states: That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. As we do have a standing army and these clowns, er… I mean buffoons, aren’t in a well regulated militia it’s my conclusion that the Second Amendment is simply a historical artifact and does not guarantee an individual’s right to arm bears. Now if someone want to argue from something other than the Second Amendment, I’m all ears... Love, Brian... p.s. give 'em hell Camille!! Hi Camille, you said you’ve gotten several different interpretations on this, and that surprises me. Your song seems pretty straight forward. Personally I think the Second Amendment was designed for a time period in which there was no standing army and people had a strong mistrust of standing armies.

Wikipedia has a section stating:
The prefatory clause of the Second Amendment is a shortened version of language found in the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights. That part of the Declaration was largely the work of George Mason. Similar language appears in many Revolutionary Era state constitutions. This Declaration states:
That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

As we do have a standing army and these clowns, er… I mean buffoons, aren’t in a well regulated militia it’s my conclusion that the Second Amendment is simply a historical artifact and does not guarantee an individual’s right to arm bears. Now if someone want to argue from something other than the Second Amendment, I’m all ears…

Love,
Brian…

p.s. give ‘em hell Camille!!

]]>