What do YOU think the 2nd amendment means?

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state

---

I think this first part means we can have malitias. And I will join one some day
if I find one that is not racist(which is harder then you think :embarassed: )



And this means

Quote:

---

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

---

I should be able to own any gun I want for defense.

..........................


Don't make this about gun control just post what you think the 2nd means.

~:cheers: I agree cube

The reason I posted this is I got in an argument with a libbie and he thinks it means if we are invaded the government should let me have a gun :help:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Nothing in the constitution says anything about rationing out guns. It simply says the government will not infringe on the right to keep and bear them. Which, to be quite fair, has already been infringed to death by all the current gun laws of any kind.

---

Yup, it's an all too familiar refrain of mine- but, the Bill of Rights is barely worth the paper it was first scribbled on anymore.

Right to free speech? Sure, as long as it's not right before an election.
Bear arms? Nope, it's a government issued priveledge- not a right.
Secure in your property? Not for a long time.
Due process? Jury trials? Nope.

Here's a question for you-- how is an un-regulated militia a well-regulated militia?

If the framers truly intended for every un-elected Tom, Dick and Harry to go out and start his own militia completely independent of any established, elected authority, then they were clearly straight up out of their minds.

DA

The second amendement is the ONLY effective homeland security measure. Originally put in place because it was our Militias, not our standing army, that won us Freedom, it has endured as one of the most contraversial amendments to the constitution.

In it it clearly states that Militias are a nessessity for National Security. However, there are no real militias, so in modern terms the militia clause of the amendment is virtually meaningless. However, it does clearly state that the Government cannot infringe on our right to form and regulate civilian militias for the defense and protection of our nation and our freedom. However, the controversial part is as follows:

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What exactly does this mean? It's quite simple really. The right of the People of America to keep and maintain weaponry, for whatever purpose, shall not and cannot be infringed by the government of the United States. Therefore, according to the United State's constitution, we are all entitled and able to own a weapon with no government control, correct?

However, certain advocacy groups and leftist organizations have been trying to bar the private ownership and use of weaponry, even if such measures are unconstitutional. They cite gun crimes and murder rates in general, however, what they fail to realize is that such a ban would prevent:
A. Lawful citizens from defending themselves against Illegally Armed Criminals.
B. Hunters to make a living.
C. Any protection from an outside invader with the exception of the US military (i.e. No Immediate Protection) or from internal opression.
D. Any form of Security of Defense against foreign agents or aliens attempting to harm this nation from the inside.

Simple proof that such a ban would be inneffective on crime would be from the following:

Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%.
http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

Criminals will find a way around such bans, undoubtedly. However, such a ban would signifigantly lower the chances of a healthy, good-standing citizen to defend himself from crime. In fact, gun control worsens crime, while right-to-carry laws help prevent it. Proof?

Between 1977 and 1992, 10 states adopted right-to-carry laws. Dr. Lott's study found that the implementation of these laws created:

-- no change in suicide rates,
-- a .5% rise in accidental firearm deaths,
-- a 5% decline in rapes,
-- a 7% decline in aggravated assaults,
-- and an 8% decline in murder

for the 10 states that adopted these laws between 1977 and 1992
http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

Other interesting facts that support my argument.

* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life.

Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan stated:

"lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence." (13)

* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them.

Therefore, gun control is not only unconstitutional, it is counterproductive.

Edit: Fixed Links
Edit2: Fixed Spelling Error

It means that you are allowed to maintain militias though. It needs to be updated though due to the fact that there is a national guard in each state now.

if you follow jefferson's intent, iirc, we need guns to shoot the government when they start making a mess of things... in other words, the guns are like the watering cans, to help sprinkle blood on the tree of liberty... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Does not. The National Gaurd is too federalized. Members of the NG are US Army before State Militia.

---

I agree with GC. The National Guard is not a regulated Milita, they are more of regular garrisons than anything else. A miltia is:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFreeDictionary

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dictionary.LaborLawTalk.com

A militia is a group of citizens organized to provide paramilitary service. The word can have four slightly different meanings:

* an official reserve army, composed of non-professional soldiers;
* the police in Russia or East European countries under communist rule;
* the entire able-bodied population of a state, which can be called to arms against an invading enemy, or;
* a private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by the government.

In any of these cases, a militia is distinct from a national regular army. It can serve to supplement the regular military, or it can oppose it, for example to resist a military coup. In some circumstances, the "enemies" against which a militia is mobilised are domestic political opponents of the government, such as strikers. In many cases the role, or even the existence of a militia, is controversial. For these reasons legal restrictions may be placed on the mobilisation or use of militia.

...

The current United States Code, Title 10 (Armed forces), section 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes), paragraph (a) states "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Does not. The National Gaurd is too federalized. Members of the NG are US Army before State Militia.

---

Yeah so? We don't have a use for one anymore. Most( I SAY MOST NOT OFFEND ANYONE IN ONE HERE) of the time it is a bunch of wackjob army rejects running around playing war. I'd rather depend on our federal troops.

For me, see GC or Kaiser.

The militia was a body of men called to defend their country-and they were expected to bear their own ars, which is what well regulated meant back then-well supplied.

It's funny to look at ACLU posters that completely ignore the first amendment. Ever heard the one about the ACLU counts to 10? 1,3,4...

Crazed Rabbit

The "right to bear arms" was written in a time before automatic weapons, tanks, aircraft and nuclear missiles. Heck, it even outdates battleships, Napoleon and modern science. The practical considerations of that era no longer hold true today, nor have they for a long time. The rules of the day were written with plantation owners, frontiermen and hunters in mind, certainly not for huge urban centers and all the sociological, cultural and technological changes that have taken place since over the last 200 years. It was written in a time of battle lines, cannon and cavalry, a time where wind powered sailships and industrialisation had not taken off yet. Warfare and weaponry have changed beyond all recognition, and with that their application. To be honest, I think the rest of the world is a little confused and bemused by some Americans' hangup with guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghost908

It means that you are allowed to maintain militias though. It needs to be updated though due to the fact that there is a national guard in each state now.

---

If that's the case, then fine- update it. There are clear mechanisms for amending the Constitution. But you can't just say "oh that's outdated, we don't need to follow it anymore".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Martyr_

The "right to bear arms" was written in a time before automatic weapons, tanks, aircraft and nuclear missiles. Heck, it even outdates battleships, Napoleon and modern science. The practical considerations of that era no longer hold true today, nor have they for a long time. The rules of the day were written with plantation owners, frontiermen and hunters in mind, certainly not for huge urban centers and all the sociological, cultural and technological changes that have taken place since over the last 200 years. It was written in a time of battle lines, cannon and cavalry, a time where wind powered sailships and industrialisation had not taken off yet. Warfare and weaponry have changed beyond all recognition, and with that their application. To be honest, I think the rest of the world is a little confused and bemused by some Americans' hangup with guns.

---

The Geneva convention was written before the time of Mass Terrorist Assaults, brutal Urban Combat, Viet Cong style cactics, nuclear weaponry, etc. yet it still holds true to Modern Warfare. Why? It still serves some purpose.

Just because somthing may or may not be outdated does not mean it is obsolete. America's social and cultural problems are not on the account of guns, they are directly related to the Welfare State and the Guilt Culture that have been imposed on us for years.

guns do the same thing now, as fists and feet and rocks and sticks did 10000 years ago... the second is about the right to overthrow your government, when it becomes too bloated and corrupt and far reaching that the citizenry feels threatened. that the gun is still the dominant means of attack and defense, especially on a personal or individual level, three hundred years later is of little consequence.

Quote:

---

So? A rifled musket was high tech shizzle in the late 1700s, but they were not restricted. Never mind that they had unprecedented accuracy. Neither were Breach Loaders restricted (a small quantity existed, and were evben used by the brits in the war), despite being leaps and bounds ahead of anything else.

The technology argument is crap. Guns do the same thing now they did then. The document is quite specific that the right to bear arms will not be infringed.

---

We arent talking here about accuracy. We are talking more about rate of fire. The automatic weapon has COMPLETELY changed the face of warfare. Instead of getting one or two rounds off a minute, modern automatic weapons can unload thousands. Should every Tom, Dick and Harry be allowed to own a fully automatic machine gun? How about hand grenades? Would you be happy knowning your neighbour had a mortar? What about a rocket launcher? Flak canon? Tank? A tank is just an armmament, right? Not allowing Tanks is unconstitutional then... Why stop there... Should a private citizen (if they can afford it) be allowed to own a strategic bomber? How about nuclear arms? Just keeping the government in check. Where do you draw the line? Because Im pretty damn sure you draw a line somewhere and all it says is "arms".

6 easy steps to making a malitia

1. Grab rifle
2. Call friends and crazy sepratist uncle david
3. Go to store get camo
4. Go into a field
5. raise confedrate flag
6. Chew tabacco drink and be ready to destroy your tyranical goverment when they piss you off ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

The "right to bear arms" was written in a time before automatic weapons, tanks, aircraft and nuclear missiles. Heck, it even outdates battleships, Napoleon and modern science. The practical considerations of that era no longer hold true today, nor have they for a long time. The rules of the day were written with plantation owners, frontiermen and hunters in mind, certainly not for huge urban centers and all the sociological, cultural and technological changes that have taken place since over the last 200 years. It was written in a time of battle lines, cannon and cavalry, a time where wind powered sailships and industrialisation had not taken off yet. Warfare and weaponry have changed beyond all recognition, and with that their application. To be honest, I think the rest of the world is a little confused and bemused by some Americans' hangup with guns.

---

Well, I guess the right to free speech doesn't apply to radios, the internet, TV, etc. After all, the Founders couldn't have predicted those things and how they would affect communications.

The 2nd was made to arm people against a tyrannical government, and as the firepower of the government increases, so too must the people's. The reality of having to fight for your freedom has not changed.

I wonder if the Irish in the early 1900s had such bemusement about a 'hangup' over guns.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

6 easy steps to making a malitia

1. Grab rifle
2. Call friends and crazy sepratist uncle david
3. Go to store get camo
4. Go into a field
5. raise confedrate flag
6. Chew tabacco drink and be ready to destroy your tyranical goverment when they piss you off ~:cheers:

---

I perfer it this way:

Write a long speach on how the government is opressive against the people and how war indemnities have long hurt your people.
Then, proceed to get a large amount of camoflage, procced to a parking lot or field with guns in hand and stage a Pro-NRA demonstration.
Rinse, and repeat ~D

I am surprised how many euros want to take my guns, all I got to say to you guys and any one else who wants them banned is...come try and take them.

I am not going to give up my guns so some one to scared to buy one themselves,
will have a false sense of security.
...........................................................


I like malitias because the government does not control them. I am in a way anti government I would like them to have very little power. I dont want the states to have that much power either....I think the counties should have it.

Why? Because I am pretty sure the border line commies in Los angeles want different things then the people in my small county. I don't want to force my way of life on them and I don't want them to enforce their's on me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

6 easy steps to making a malitia

1. Grab rifle
2. Call friends and crazy sepratist uncle david
3. Go to store get camo
4. Go into a field
5. raise confedrate flag
6. Chew tabacco drink and be ready to destroy your tyranical goverment when they piss you off ~:cheers:

---

Exactly why I don't want one. A milita is not going to overthrow our federal government in this day in age.

THE Feds have:
Tanks
APC's
Jet Fighters
All different kinds of Missiles
Attack Helicopters

Milita:
None of these.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Does not. The National Gaurd is too federalized. Members of the NG are US Army before State Militia.

---

Incorrect. They are National Guard before they are federal troops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghost908

Exactly why I don't want one. A milita is not going to overthrow our federal government in this day in age.

THE Feds have:
Tanks
APC's
Jet Fighters
All different kinds of Missiles
Attack Helicopters

Milita:
None of these.

---

We could always put them on layaway from the Ruskies

I need to renew my nra member ship....been meaning to do it for a long time.


BTW does any one know of a malitia with OUT crazies in it?


South....this uncle david sounds like my uncle john....he started brain washing me with all that cold dead hands talk when i was 10 ~D


He threatened to shoot me If I joined the military and helped with gun confiscations (if a ban ever came) and he's a democrat!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

What flawed logic. In any case, what have all those tanks, APC's, Jets, Missiles, and helicopters done lately? Vietnam? Iraq? Eh? EH!? A militia can defeat any opponent, because time is on it's side.

---

Flawed Logic? If the US Gov is as corrupt as you say, they will ahve no problem just annilating anyone that stands in their way. I doubt time would do much for the rebels.

Quote:

---

The Geneva convention was written before the time of Mass Terrorist Assaults, brutal Urban Combat, Viet Cong style cactics, nuclear weaponry, etc. yet it still holds true to Modern Warfare. Why? It still serves some purpose.

---

Funny you should mention the GC. How many times has America redefined (thats putting is very nicely... some would say its outright in breach of it) the GC in the last few years? Its pretty obvious your leaders are paying little to no attention to it in relation to the so called War on Terror. Moving the goalposts?

Quote:

---

Just because somthing may or may not be outdated does not mean it is obsolete. America's social and cultural problems are not on the account of guns, they are directly related to the Welfare State and the Guilt Culture that have been imposed on us for years.

---

Thats absolutely ridiculous! First off, America has never had a proper "Welfare State". Secondly, if you look at any proper "Welfare States", you will NOT find the problems America has. Look at Scandinavia, its rather eutopian...


Slow down folks... I can only type so fast, its nearly 3 AM here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

What flawed logic. In any case, what have all those tanks, APC's, Jets, Missiles, and helicopters done lately? Vietnam? Iraq? Eh? EH!? A militia can defeat any opponent, because time is on it's side.



In the case of revolution against a tyrannical government, the NG would be used to pacify the state, not liberate it. That's where the line has to be drawn.

---

Most Guardsmen and yes even active duty troops feel the same way about their weapons as you do..

I would image that the founding fathers would of like the establishment of the National Guard because it places military equipment into the control of the state governments - if the states are part of the rebellion against the Federal government - then it seem that the National Guard is as well equipped as the Federal Troops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Well, I guess the right to free speech doesn't apply to radios, the internet, TV, etc. After all, the Founders couldn't have predicted those things and how they would affect communications.

---

No they certainly couldnt. And at the same time TV and radio are totally regulated. I cant just start broadcasting over any particular frequency, Ill get arrested, its piracy. I cant swear on daytime TV. Is that censorship by the government? There are degrees and limits to everything. A call for absolutes, is usually extremely dangerous.

Quote:

---

The 2nd was made to arm people against a tyrannical government, and as the firepower of the government increases, so too must the people's. The reality of having to fight for your freedom has not changed.

---

So, no one has answered my question yet. Your government has nuclear ICBMs. Should you be allowed have one, just in case off your government getting out of line? Or a less extreme example, grenades, mortars and tanks?

Quote:

---

I wonder if the Irish in the early 1900s had such bemusement about a 'hangup' over guns.

---

Actually, just finnished disarming one of what I suppose you would call a malitia a few days ago. They go by the name of the IRA. Actually, turns out them having all that firepower without any accountability or representation or authority (other than their own murderous convictions & and a belief they were being oppressed) was pretty disasterous... got a little messy in the end, lots of civilian casualties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Martyr_

Funny you should mention the GC. How many times has America redefined (thats putting is very nicely... some would say its outright in breach of it) the GC in the last few years? Its pretty obvious your leaders are paying little to no attention to it in relation to the so called War on Terror. Moving the goalposts?



Thats absolutely ridiculous! First off, America has never had a proper "Welfare State". Secondly, if you look at any proper "Welfare States", you will NOT find the problems America has. Look at Scandinavia, its rather eutopian...


Slow down folks... I can only type so fast, its nearly 3 AM here.

---

Good jokes, you make me laugh.

Explain...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Martyr_

Explain...

---

Your statements on the welfare state were humorous, to say the least. Incorrect, but humorous nontheless. Twas a form of sarcasm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

The problem is that in the event of a revolution, the NG would fall apart. There would be loyalists, and revolutionaries, who would be in command? People could desert, but they wouldn't be in the NG any more.

---

Just like the active army in such a case - so fears of a great federal military presence is really not well founded. Just look at the Civil War period. A good portion of the active military split and went to the south.

Quote:

---

It's not as if the NG would up and defend the state in an organized fashion from the people who are supposed to be giving them orders.

---

One must understand how the National Guard is organized


The National Guard of the State of Oregon command structure is the same as every other state. The Oregon National Guard is commanded by The Adjunant General of the State of Oregon. The TAG works directly for the govenor of your state. The TAG also has a dotted line to the National Guard Chief in Washington. The units within the State also have two lines of command. The Infantry units in Oregon are part of an enhanced Infantry Brigade that a Brigade Commander commands. THe one star general must is an officer of the Oregon National Guard first and then has a dotted line chain of command to an active duty division. Only when the unit is activated by the Federal Government does it fall under Federal control. Other then the 2 week Annual Training period the National Guard Units are completely controlled by the state.

Thanks...~:rolleyes:

Believe it or not, your sarcasm was actually well understood. Explain how I am wrong about the US not having a proper welfare state and proper welfare states not having the same problems the US does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

I think this first part means we can have malitias.

---

OK, this is driving me nuts. Not the topic, not the debate, etc. Nope, the spelling. I know the concept is important to you, so *please* start looking at how you are spelling it. It should be "militia" or "militias." The "mal" prefix means "bad," and I don't think that is the connotation you are after.

Nucular Weapons! ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Martyr_

Thanks...~:rolleyes:

Believe it or not, your sarcasm was actually well understood. Explain how I am wrong about the US not having a proper welfare state and proper welfare states not having the same problems the US does.

---

The United Welfare State known as America has a system that encourages laziness and lack of work effort. In America, the Government will support you and this will steal from the taxpayer's wallet. With unemployment subsidies and the corrupt system known as Social Security, there is no way out for you average American. You're getting screwed, one way or the other. And most of this money that goes into your taxes to help support infrastructure and such, we shall never see. Rather, it goes into the hands of Drug Dealers and Prostitutes.

Other "welfare states" have either A) An economeny that can support such a state and not screw over a taxpayer, (more likely) B) the lack of a guilt cutlure imposed on the majority of the population by the minorities, or C) Lack of a large group of people who will not work for a living, nor pay taxes. Rather, they have struck a balence with the sytem, that works for them.

The System does not work for us.

All armaments and systems short of missiles (as opposed to short range rockets) and nukes.

Crazed Rabbit

A Welfare State is defined on a number of categories. They are the government providing primary responsibility in health, public housing, social security, employment and education. America has MINIMAL government involvement in primary healthcare, public housing and employment and the other categories are pretty lacking at best, thus making it not a proper Welfare State, especially when compared to real Welfare States such as Britain (less and less), France, Germany and all the Scandinavian countries.

Quote:

---

Other "welfare states" have either A) An economeny that can support such a state and not screw over a taxpayer, (more likely) B) the lack of a guilt cutlure imposed on the majority of the population by the minorities, or C) Lack of a large group of people who will not work for a living, nor pay taxes. Rather, they have struck a balence with the sytem, that works for them.

---

Rubbish! Are you telling me Germany has no guilt complex??? So what you are alluding to is that your opinion is not that a socialist approach is wrong, but that it is wrong in the instance (or application) of America because of particularities in her economy? What exactly in America's economy makes her incompatible with socialism? All countries have unemplyment. Especially Germany right now, up to 25% in some of the Bundeslaender.

Quote:

---

All armaments and systems short of missiles (as opposed to short range rockets) and nukes.

---

Right, Im off to bed now, its nealy 4AM here... but thats crazy! You really dont have a problem with private citizens owning tanks, machine guns, hand grenades, mortars, MOABS, B52s and flame throwers to mention just a few?
~:confused: ~:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Martyr_

A Welfare State is defined on a number of categories. They are the government providing primary responsibility in health, public housing, social security, employment and education. America has MINIMAL government involvement in primary healthcare, public housing and employment and the other categories are pretty lacking at best, thus making it not a proper Welfare State, especially when compared to real Welfare States such as Britain (less and less), France, Germany and all the Scandinavian countries.




Rubbish! Are you telling me Germany has no guilt complex??? So what you are alluding to is that your opinion is not that a socialist approach is wrong, but that it is wrong in the instance (or application) of America because of particularities in her economy? What exactly in America's economy makes her incompatible with socialism? All countries have unemplyment. Especially Germany right now, up to 25% in some of the Bundeslaender.

---

Germany's in an economic pinch right now, as far as I'm told. Socialism is failing there.

Quote:

---

Right, Im off to bed now, its nealy 4AM here... but thats crazy! You really dont have a problem with private citizens owning tanks, machine guns, hand grenades, mortars, MOABS, B52s and flame throwers to mention just a few?

---

You can make a flamethrower with common household objects:
Clickity-click
https://img14.imageshack.us/img14/36...gjetstreet.jpg
Same thing for fully automatic guns, grenades, mortars, etc. Heck, a machinist armored a bulldozer in the USA a couple years ago. The police were powerless against it, and it didn't stop until he commited suicide.

B52s? You need a crew to fly them, and fighter jets would make short work of them.

MOABs I might make an exception for.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

The problem is that in the event of a revolution, the NG would fall apart. There would be loyalists, and revolutionaries, who would be in command? People could desert, but they wouldn't be in the NG any more.


Once again: Vietnam. Afghanistan (both for USSR and USA). Iraq. A Militia can fight off an organized army given time.

---

All very different situations. North Vietnam, for example, was a nation. They had their own army which was very well equipped and also recieving equipment including tanks, fighters, and bombers from the Soviet Union.

All 3 of these are the countries invading other countries. Overthrowing of a Government by domestic powers is much different. The government just doesn't have the opinion of cutting and fleeing, so they will use all resources avaible to them and if it gets bad enough resort to pure brutality and terror. The US would turn into a country like China is today. No armed militia, I repeat is going to be able to win against federal troops, not in this day and age. Thus, allowing militas to exist to protect against foreign powers is no longer needed. Also, to keep the federal government in check, is no longer truly possible.

Can anyone guess why the Nazis didn't invade Switzerland?

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

I think this first part means we can have malitias. And I will join one some day
if I find one that is not racist(which is harder then you think :embarassed: )



And this means




I should be able to own any gun I want for defense.

..........................


Don't make this about gun control just post what you think the 2nd means.

---

All these qoutes are meaningless without at bare minimum, the context of the paragraph/s from which they are quoted.

I just want to point out that, right after the Revolution, the new "leaders", including our good friend George, were pretty damn quick in squashing rebellion. The signal was that political change would happen within and through the system, not in abolishing it. These "new" revolutionaries were preaching the same stuff as the "original" revolutionaries, but got slammed by G. Washington and a detachment of the Continental Army.

You guys might whine, but the increasing trend in America has been towards federal supremacy, especially in recent times. Talk all you want about devolution; it ain't happening right now.

The 2nd Amendment is just the last gasp of an ideology that left the moment we ratified the Constitution. Hope you guys vote, because that's the only way stuff is going to happen in our fine nation. The 2nd Amendment is less valid as a "defense against government" clause since the U.S. has repeatedly demonstrated that it will work through the system. None of that "nullification" crap. The diverse special interest groups that our government has should prevent a monolithic govt. That is, assuming we vote.

Thus, we are left with the right to carry armaments. Not talking on the legal standpoint, but on a moral one: does anyone truly need full-automatic weaponry with armor-piercing bullets? Hunters don't as deer surely aren't packing bullet-proof vests. Do most petty criminals? What it seems to me is that such freedom of armaments favors criminals over local police and self-defence forces. For example, are policeman really happy and secure in the knowledge that anyone can purchase bullets that will make their BP vests obsolete? And, as citizens, shouldn't we be letting the pros handle the heavy duty stuff?

Regardless of any opinions about freedoms and defending rights, a main issue with the 2nd Amendment is the human obsession with death and the equipment that dishes it out. Games, movies, sports, all have an element of conflict and, yes, violence. Are we really defending ourselves and our rights, or are we just trembling in the cathartic ecstasy of a fully-loaded AR-15?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Very well. However, the National Gaurd can only do so much. Unofficial militias waging a guerilla war are still necesarry. And the National Gaurd is anything but an argument against the 2nd Amendment.

---

Then you missed understood what I am saying - the National Guard should not be used as an arguement against the 2nd Amendment - nor should one use it to support the 2nd Amendment.

But in the aspect that you were using the National Guard as being under Federal Control was incorrect.

Unofficial Militia's were not the intent of the founding fathers. There intent is clearly written in the second amendment. A well Regulated Militia

But do not let this side discussion distract from the second part of the amendment which is also clearly written that we have the right to keep and bear arms.

Quote:

---

I just want to point out that, right after the Revolution, the new "leaders", including our good friend George, were pretty damn quick in squashing rebellion. The signal was that political change would happen within and through the system, not in abolishing it. These "new" revolutionaries were preaching the same stuff as the "original" revolutionaries, but got slammed by G. Washington and a detachment of the Continental Army.

---

But they didn't even begin to consider thinking about touching the 2nd or guns, and George pardoned all.

Quote:

---

Thus, we are left with the right to carry armaments. Not talking on the legal standpoint, but on a moral one: does anyone truly need full-automatic weaponry with armor-piercing bullets? Hunters don't as deer surely aren't packing bullet-proof vests. Do most petty criminals? What it seems to me is that such freedom of armaments favors criminals over local police and self-defence forces. For example, are policeman really happy and secure in the knowledge that anyone can purchase bullets that will make their BP vests obsolete? And, as citizens, shouldn't we be letting the pros handle the heavy duty stuff?

---

With criminals becoming increasingly well armed, and armored, and in bigger gangs, it would be foolish to think you'd never need one. Sure, you wouldn't need one most of the time, but you don't need an airbag most of the time.

And a single shot hunting gun (100+ years old) will pierce police vests.

Unfortunately, most of the time, the police aren't immediately there when a crime occurs. And waiting 15 minutes means you're dead.

Crazed Rabbit

The problem is: I couldn't imagine any Americans actually get serious about fighting against their own government. No offense but, how can you actually imagine that happen? Modern Americans have way too much distractions and attractions to concern themselves about trying to pick a fight for their "freedom." And also leaves a situation in which, speaking from a pragmatic point of view (no offense intended), only the extremists would be the ones to actually carry firearms with this particular reason. That leaves out a large part of the (moral, not legal, which is probably undisputed) legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment on the fact that, which the majority of the people not having weapons for that purpose (and probably would never use as such), the justification of firearms through this amendment (again, morally, not legally) becomes much weaker, and more like entertainment tools with potential ability to harm others than tools to defend one's freedom.

Of course, I'd not like to bait this into another gun control thread, so please treat any superfluous comments of mine as such.

This is like the drugs subject, you can have it as long as you don't use it to damage other's rights. Any other disposition against this principle will be against freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

With criminals becoming increasingly well armed, and armored, and in bigger gangs, it would be foolish to think you'd never need one.

---

I'm pretty neutral on the whole 2nd Amendment thing, but I can't let a statement like this past. What's your basis for stating that "gangs" are larger and better-armed? (And do you mean street gangs? the tong? the yakuza? rapper wannabes? those multi-ethnic gangs you see in films from the '80s with spiky hair and vaguely punk outfits?) Let's not forget that violent crime has been dropping for over a decade . Here's a sample graph, and I'm sure the slightest bit of research will find lots more:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/ncsucr2.gif

Here's a fifty-year perspective on homicide:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/totals.gif

Allow me to repeat: Violent crime has been falling for over a decade. It's at something like a 40-year low right now. So make whatever arguments you please about gun ownership, but don't go sounding off about how the streets are running with blood and those guys from the Road Warrior are taking over. It ain't so.

Quote:

---

"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."

---

The Second Amendment really is frustrating. If they'd just written "the government shall not infringe on the absolute right of individual citizens to own the weaponry of their choice", then there wouldn't be any need to debate this subject. It would be crystal clear. Unfortunately, they left things fairly murky (for our purposes).

The first clause implies that the right to arms is somehow tied to or justified by a free state's need for security... a need that can only be met through a "well regulated militia". The "well regulated militia" seems to be "the people" under arms who are necessary for maintaining the security of the "free state".

Therefore, a little background on the controversies surrounding the militia at the time the Constitution was written becomes necessary to understand the intent of the amendment.

I recently found a great article on this subject called "The Security of Free States: The Second Amendment and State Militias". LINK It's worth a read-through if you're interested in the subject, but I'll try to summarize some key points.

In the post-Revolutionary War era during which the Constitution was written, militias were raised and controlled at the state level, but were being integrated into a new federal system that also contained a standing army.

Compared to the previously existing system wherein each state's militia would be independent, the Congress was trying to create a federal system wherein Congress would have the: "power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia, leaving to the states only the power to train the militia and to officer it. The federal government could also call out the state militias under very broad circumstances, including even to enforce the laws. While power was indeed to be shared between the state and federal governments, it was apparent that compared to the previous relationship that existed, the federal government would now wield significant power over the state militias."

Now, the anti-federalist's had a number of objections to this plan, but one of the most serious was that the federal government would have control over the arming of each state's militia. That is, that the Congress would have the power to arm, or to not arm, state militia's. Since state militias were seen as a countervailing power to a centralized government with a standing army, the Congress's power to neuter the militias was a political concern. There was even talk that under the new arrangements, Congress could easily muster the militia of one state (or the standing army) and use it to enforce its will in another state, whose own militia would have been disarmed.

These were apparently the concerns that lead to the drafting of the Second Amendment. The amendment was meant to assuage anti-federalist fears that the state militias would be neutered as a balancing force. Apparently, the draft that originally made it to the Convention floor included an extra clause:

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

The final clause was removed because Congress decided that the issue of how to deal with conscientious objectors within the militia should be left to the states. However, its initial inclusion does reinforce the centrality of militia service to the Second Amendment's intent.

Anyway, I highly recommend that anybody interested in the subject read the article linked above because it lays out the issues of the day quite well and makes the Second Amendment more understandable.

Well, what does all this mean? Practically, not very much. Most people understand the Second Amendment as a right, but the responsibility that was implied with it... the idea that adult males and their arms would be liable for duty in a state militia with a military role... no longer exists. It is clear that the concern of some gun owners - that the people be armed as a guarantee against federal power - was a concern 'back in the day'. It's just that the anti-federalists of their day seemed to envision that the arming of the citizenry would take place within the context of a well-regulated state militia.

Something to chew on.

Eh, that last one was a bit long, so I'll add this tidbit here:

Check out this link link that lays out the "right to arms" provisions in all of the state constitutions. It's useful to read because it shows that each state has chosen to define the "right to arms" slightly differently.


Also, Lemur is of course right about declining violent crime rates. Since we're all computer game players here, it's nice to keep that in mind so we can throw the declining crime statistics back in the face of the Liebermans of the world when they start attacking video games.

Incidentally, one of the proposed reasons for the decline in violent crime since the 1990s was the legalization of abortion back in the early 70's. The argument goes that crime rates start declining just at the time that the generation culled by legalized abortion got to the age when they would be commiting crimes. Something to ponder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aurelian

Incidentally, one of the proposed reasons for the decline in violent crime since the 1990s was the legalization of abortion back in the early 70's. The argument goes that crime rates start declining just at the time that the generation culled by legalized abortion got to the age when they would be commiting crimes.

---

You're talking about economist Steven Levitt's theory. Obviously I can't link to it directly, since it's copyrighted and in a published book and all of that, but here's a little bit of a summation:

In January 1973, the Supreme Court made abortion legal throughout the United States, where previously it had been available in only five states. In 1974, roughly 750,000 women had abortions in America; by 1980, the number was 1.6m (one abortion for every 2.3 live births). “What sort of woman was most likely to take advantage of Roe v Wade?” the book asks. “Very often she was unmarried or in her teens or poor, and sometimes all three...In other words, the very factors that drove millions of American women to have an abortion also seemed to predict that their children, had they been born, would have led unhappy and possibly criminal lives...In the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roe v Wade was hitting its late teen years—the years during which young men enter their criminal prime—the rate of crime began to fall.”

The theory is the easy part, once you dare to articulate it. Testing it is quite another matter. But the book moves methodically and persuasively through the statistical evidence. It turns out, for instance, that crime started falling earlier in the states that legalised abortion before Roe v Wade; that the states with the highest abortion rates saw the biggest drops in crime (even controlling for other factors); that there was no link between abortion rates and crime before the late 1980s (when unborn criminals, as it were, first began to affect the figures); and that a similar association of crime and abortion has been found in other countries.

I've read the book. Note that Levitt controlled for all of the other factors put forward -- policing strategies, gun ownership, prison population, etc. None were predictive of the crime drop except abortion. Pretty weird stuff.

Yes, Levitt laid out that theory in "Freakonomics".

Actually, I used to argue that line of reasoning with my pro-life friends. At the time, I believe they were complaining about using public funds to cover the abortions of poor women. I used to point out to them that they could either pay for the abortions now, or pay to incarcerate the unwanted children later. Of course, those discussions took place in the early 90's and the drop in crime was just starting.

Now back to a previous post:

Quote:

---

It's only murkey because people with agendas make it murky. It's actual rather clear.

---

Eh. I think it could use a rewrite. The wording suggests too many side issues that could modify the intent of the 'right to bear arms' clause. Should be clearer.

By the way, I don't have an agenda on this issue. It's not one of the (many) issues I do get worked up about. ~D

it says that at the time that the document was written there was a very good chance that the US could be invaded by england or some other foreign power....this made it necessary to have a high number of the population armed and organized to fend off a possible attack.

unfortunatelly as the centuries passed and the chance for an invasion of the continental USA became a ridiculous notion the united states government failed to see the emendment for the anacronism it is....

one simply has to understand that no matter how great a document is, and the text of the US constitution is one of the finest legal documents ever produced, it inevitably becomes dated with time and needs to be re-written, respecting the spirit of the original document of course, but being reasonable has to the time frame it stands in...


America.....a XXI century country.......run by a constitution from the XVIII century :dizzy2:


well...that´s my 2 cents on the matter.

Can anyone guess why the Nazis didn't invade Switzerland?
Well thats a tough one Rabbit . Is it because the population are armed ?
Or is it because Switzerland serves as a very handy financial institution in times of war so that people whose nations are at war can still carry on the important work of making money , and also a very safe place to stash your money as you know that everyone else has their money stashed there as well and are not going to do anything to endanger that stash .

Back to topic ..What do YOU think the 2nd amendment means?
It means that they got it wrong the first time . ~;)
Unofficial Militia's were not the intent of the founding fathers. There intent is clearly written in the second amendment. A well Regulated Militia
So that answer by Red shows that these strange "militias" that are in existance and which Ceasar is having trouble finding one to join that isn't composed of "crazies" and "racists" are not covered under the amendment .
Furthermore the use of the word "Regulated" means regulations=laws , so that means there must be laws which regulate armed bodies , which means laws that regulate the one thing that makes a body armed = Weapons .
So it is all in the second amendment that there should be laws regulating the ownership of weaponry . Now that means gun control , but of course some people go off into a rant as soon as they hear those words , "they want to ban guns" , which is a complete fallacy .
Gun control does not = banning guns .

Talk about grasping at straws.
OK GC . what does "well regulated" mean then if it doesn't mean "well regulated" ?
Partially regulated?
Regulated about everything except weaponry ?
Not really regulated at all but it sounds nice and meaningfull ?

It's not often I agree with Tribesman, but he's spot on with this one.

As a total outsider I would say that your second amendment is far too ambiguous. At first I thought that this:

Quote:

---

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.

---

Was a fragment of the amendment, but it seems it is the whole thing ~:confused: Who wrote this? A drunk man?

I'd think it'd make more sense with one small word added:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, AND the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[/

I also think that the original intent means very little now, the constitution should be adapted to suit the time. The simple fact that it has split the country in two should be clear enough evidence that it need clarified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

It's only murkey because people with agendas make it murky. It's actual rather clear.

---

I think Aurelian actually sums it up quite well. If you wish to claim exclusive right to a "correct" interpretation based on the "literal" meaning of the words, without trying to understand the issue any more deeply than that, then you're basically shelving yourself away in the same section as literal creationists who believe that cavemen hunted dinosaurs.

DA

Second amendment is outdated and has no purpose in a modern society as the American. Get rid off it.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Back to topic ..What do YOU think the 2nd amendment means?
It means that they got it wrong the first time . ~;)
Unofficial Militia's were not the intent of the founding fathers. There intent is clearly written in the second amendment. A well Regulated Militia
So that answer by Red shows that these strange "militias" that are in existance and which Ceasar is having trouble finding one to join that isn't composed of "crazies" and "racists" are not covered under the amendment .
Furthermore the use of the word "Regulated" means regulations=laws , so that means there must be laws which regulate armed bodies , which means laws that regulate the one thing that makes a body armed = Weapons .

So it is all in the second amendment that there should be laws regulating the ownership of weaponry . Now that means gun control , but of course some people go off into a rant as soon as they hear those words , "they want to ban guns" , which is a complete fallacy .
Gun control does not = banning guns .

---

Very good Tribesman. You actually got the meaning of my simple statement very well. Soon you will be converted to the dark side, ~:eek: ~D

You know Aurelian that any link that doesn't show that the founding fathers wanted us to own any type of weapon is completely hogwash - unless its support by the NRA and others. Edit: Forgot the sarcasm on and off buttons.

The author and I agree completely with this point

Quote:

---

I do not state whether or not I believe that Americans should have a personal right to keep and bear arms, or whether or not current gun control laws are Constitutional, or even whether or not there should be gun control. My experience has been that people have already made up their minds on these issues and would not be persuaded by what I have to say on the matter, even were I inclined to state it.

---

This is not in response to any thing, just thought some might like to see it.

There is some educational political info (gun related) At the firing line library.


http://thefiringline.com/library/

I like reading "gun control quotes" and some of the essays there.

How many new (regular) tavern goers are here sense the last gun control thread? If there are alot I might start a new one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

I think Aurelian actually sums it up quite well. If you wish to claim exclusive right to a "correct" interpretation based on the "literal" meaning of the words, without trying to understand the issue any more deeply than that, then you're basically shelving yourself away in the same section as literal creationists who believe that cavemen hunted dinosaurs.

DA

---

The Constitution isn't a metaphorical story for the creation of our government. It's a constitution- going beyond its literal meaning is just making it up as you go to fit your desires.

That's like if a state has a law that says it's illegal to pass thru a red light intersection. It means what it says- you don't look at it and say 'Well, what was really meant was red lights in cities with more than 50,000 people'. Or, 'well, at the time it was written few people drove on Sundays so they clearly didn't mean for it to apply to weekends'. Nonsense, it means what it says. If it was supposed to mean something else, it would've said it.

Sure, lots of founding fathers had different ideas as to what the Constitution should say and do, but no one of them had total control over what went into it- it was the product of many compromises. It's all well and interesting to learn about what various founders thought about government, or how they believe it should've been written- but when it's all said and done, all we have to rule on is the text that is there.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." is an independant clause and doesn't need the militia reference to stand on it's own. In this statement, it is clearly stated as a right and further by saying it cannot be infringed. Saying this applies only to formal state militias or the national guard does not square with the facts that it is a stated right that cannot be infringed.

Many issues are open to at least a little interpretation- like what was considered "cruel and unusual" punishment- those are somewhat subjective terms. However, many things, like the 2nd Amendment, can't be much clearer.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Apart from the fact that I have to respect how this sentence has, apparently, been applied in the States , as a piece of English text it seems to me to have only one possible reading. That is the one put forward by Redleg and others.

The purpose to be achieved is a "well regulated militia". The reason this is needed is the security of the state (not, I note in passing, security from the state). The way this will be acheived is by not infringing the rights of the people to bear arms.

Two points occur. The right to bear arms for any other purpose than a well regulated militia is not dealt with at all. And, whilst those who wish the constitution meant "what the founding fathers said it meant" will be stuck with having to join a militia (and a well regulated one at that) before they can own a gun, I think it is reasonable to read militia as meaning a well regulated citizen body, and security of the state could be read to include things like self defence.

Don't see anyway on earth any English speaker can argue their way around "well regulated" though. Which means gun control is clearly part of the 2nd amendment.

Just my view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Two points occur. The right to bear arms for any other purpose than a well regulated militia is not dealt with at all. And, whilst those who wish the constitution meant "what the founding fathers said it meant" will be stuck with having to join a militia (and a well regulated one at that) before they can own a gun, I think it is reasonable to read militia as meaning a well regulated citizen body, and security of the state could be read to include things like self defence.

Don't see anyway on earth any English speaker can argue their way around "well regulated" though. Which means gun control is clearly part of the 2nd amendment.

---

I totally disagree. It, indeed says a well-regulated militia is necessary- that's clear. And because of this, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say 'the right to bear arms within a militia'- it says 'the right to bear arms' period.

People dont like it, or think it's outdated- fine. Go ahead and change it, good luck with that. But there are clear mechanisms for changing the Constitution and just saying it doesn't apply anymore or is outdated isnt part of it. That sort of philosophy gets back to the judicial activism that so many of us rail against.

It seems most of you are forgetting

Quote:

---

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

---

That means If I want I should be allowed to own a tank ,f16, rpg etc. I don't mind if my neighbors have them(I dont understand why antis bring the neighbor thing up all the time I dont care if jeff down the road has an ak47)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

That means If I want I should be allowed to own a tank ,f16, rpg etc. I don't mind if my neighbors have them(I dont understand why antis bring the neighbor thing up all the time I dont care if jeff down the road has an ak47)

---

Personally, I don't think it's really a good idea for any shlub to be able to own tanks, bombers and WMDs. However, even with that- I'm not going to try to manufacture support for my view where it doesn't exists, the Constitution.

Sorry, X and Caesar, but that second amendment is one sentence, not two. How can you chop the part about the militia from the part about the guns?

"Because they are necessary in a well regulated construction trade, the right to own bulldozers shall not be infringed"

You can't just ignore the phrase in front of the comma and claim that Bill, a librarian and keen subscriber to What Bulldozer, has the right to own a bulldozer.

Like I said I think it would be fair to treat militia as citizens at large, and not, say, the national guard, but you can't ignore "well regulated"

So you are saying you wish to disarm me? (not a flame or anything, just curious)

Quote:

---

The purpose to be achieved is a "well regulated militia". The reason this is needed is the security of the state (not, I note in passing, security from the state).

---

And how do you come to this startiling conclusion? These men were revolutionaries. They clearly wanted the people armed to keep their own government in line. If they only wanted the militia to be armed they would have said the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. But they didnt. They specifically said the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Its pretty damn clear.

Gawain does as his sig says once again! ~:cheers:


The thing that creeps me out the most is that if you give most foreigners a magic button that will disarm america's masses with out amending the constitution or anything....they would hit it :help:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Can anyone guess why the Nazis didn't invade Switzerland?

Crazed Rabbit

---

I'll let the history channel answer this one. The Swiss were making and hiding large amounts of Nazi gold. Many Jews opened accounts their only to ahve their sons/daugthers find out they were not "allowed" to gather the money after the war. They also produced many armaments and products for the nazi war machine. Why did the Nazi's use them? Easy. Allied bombers could not bomb Swiss factories because they were offically "neutral".Why did the Swiss do it? They liked money and were afraid if they said no, Hitler would steamroll their country like he did the rest of Europe.

And people say tv is a waste :bow:

And every swiss citizen having a gun had NOTHING to do with it..... :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

So you are saying you wish to disarm me? (not a flame or anything, just curious)

---

I'm answering the question what do I think your second amendment means. Seeing as there is about 4000 miles of cold north atlantic between us, it doesn't affect me what weapons you own, so long as its not an ICBM.

Quote:

---

The thing that creeps me out the most is that if you give most foreigners a magic button that will disarm america's masses with out amending the constitution or anything....they would hit it

---

No disrespect but in fact we do have more pressing things to worry about. Personally I think its odd some of you get so hot for military grade weapons, and even odder you think some 200 year old sentence is the last word on the subject, but at the end of the day its your country.

@ Big G, the second amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". I said "The reason [the militia] is needed is the security of the state" I make that a quote rather than a startling conclusion? Let me play with your paragraph a bit:

Quote:

---

If they wanted the people to be secure they would have said A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free people . But they didnt. They specifically said the security of a free state. Its pretty damn clear.

---

Furthermore and a new point, people is a collective noun. Its doesn't say the right of a person to keep and bear arms does it? In fact on reflection I'm not sure this amendment confers the right on any given person to bear arms at all. (Other than in the well regulated militia)

Quote:

---

And every swiss citizen having a gun had NOTHING to do with [the germans not invading].....

---

At risk of going OT, yeah, because an army that invaded Soviet Russia with 3 million battle hardened troops would be sure to pap its pants and run away when confronted with a few hundred thousand bicycling riflemen...? Come on, back to the second amendment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

The thing that creeps me out the most is that if you give most foreigners a magic button that will disarm america's masses with out amending the constitution or anything....they would hit it :help:

---

Well that has more to do with your fantical (atleast in my eyes) devotion to a paper written about 240 years ago. Sometimes it sounds like they were divine beings and that the constitution is always and will always be right. But explaining the importance of the constitition in your eyes for them would certainly make them ammend the constitution first. ~;)

Personally I feel thst the point of it as a defense against the goverment has fallen a long time ago. Making sure that the loyalty of the military ultimatly lies with the people is much, much more inportant. To counter Kaiser's point's:

Quote:

---

what they fail to realize is that such a ban would prevent:

---

Quote:

---

A. Lawful citizens from defending themselves against Illegally Armed Criminals.

---

Sometimes yes. But that's with shotguns or handguns, not handgranades, tanks or M16. And the criminals will get it easier to get handguns and other weapons too.

Quote:

---

B. Hunters to make a living.

---

Hunters don't need military grade weapons to hunt. Any reasonable country gets the weapons licensed and you'll need a gun license to use it. Annoying yes, but you can atleast be certain that hunters can use thier weapon properly.

Quote:

---

C. Any protection from an outside invader with the exception of the US military (i.e. No Immediate Protection) or from internal opression.

---

As the military would be a much bigger threat to an invasion force then the militia, it's quite pointless to arm the population, unless more imminent threat is occuring. If they can beat your army so quickly that you cannot prepare your nation for war, what's the point of the militia?

Quote:

---

D. Any form of Security of Defense against foreign agents or aliens attempting to harm this nation from the inside.

---

More and less the same as the above.

Now on the most important part, the threat from within or the evil goverment. The point is that the best way to take the US (or any other country) is either the "make them love me style" used in Iraq (were I'm sure that the average Iraqi is really loving their freedom of guns before the invasion and how that has been used afterwards ~D ) with better methods or the Gehenna-style invasion, were obliterating cities is an option to consider if those rebels gets too annoying. As the nice invasion styles is easily achived from the inside, by an election, only the second alternative is valid for this oppresive goverment.

We can assume that it takes control of the military, so only partisan activity can be used by the militia, as they are heavily outgunned by the goverment. Now partisan activity and guerilla warfare has been working before as seen in several places, but in Vietnam they couldn't strike at the enemies main base, and weren't motivated enough (this oppressive goverment cannot afford to lose, they will die (executed) if they fail), Iraq is because the US cannot afford destroying cities or look like heavy oppressors and Afghanistan because most of it is in the middle of noware. Surely partisans can survive in the US, but the goverment will control most of the population and infrastructure and the damage this partisans can do will be minor. The goverment cannot rule forever with fear, but that's a different issue.

You can of course arm the population much more, so your neighbour got that tank or airplane, but ask yourself this question: Are you willing to live near a neighbour that have spended millions of dollars on weaponry, with the purpose to use them against the goverment if they get too bad?

Now I've showed that that's pointless to get those weapons, but I admit that it can be fun to use them (for target shooting for example)
But that means that the point to own weapons, fully capable of killing dozens/hundreds of people is because they are fun?

Oh and it wasn't the militia that stopped the Nazi to invade Switzerland. Why didn't they invade Sweden?

Did I miss something? :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

And every swiss citizen having a gun had NOTHING to do with it..... :dizzy2:

---

Yeah, cause I guess a few petits Swiss armed with outdated gun would put up much of a fight against the German army in 1941 ~:rolleyes:


As for the 2nd amendment, there's something I don't really understand. What was its purpose ? To protect the country for a foreign (british) invasion ? To protect the US citizen from a despotic state ? Or just to allow every guy to protect himslef by owning a gun and firing at will on people who'd look weird ?

Basically, I'd say that 'well regulated' militia mean that militia and militia only would be able to own a gun.

If it did say person we would be debating which persons it meant.

It says well regulated. Not regulated by the state...The militias out there now have command structure, some standard issue equipment, etc. I call that regulated.


Now we get to debate about how regulated does "well regulated" mean :help:

Quote:

---

@ Big G, the second amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state".

---

Now we could take this to mean that it means to keep the State secure from an oppressive Federal Government now couldnt we? Also does the security of the state maen that its the government that needs to be secure or the people. Since in the US the government is We the people I maintain they wanted the People to be able to rise up if the government got out of hand.

Quote:

---

Furthermore and a new point, people is a collective noun. Its doesn't say the right of a person to keep and bear arms does it?

---

Yes collective for person.If I say tigers must be kept in zoos do I have to go around and tell every owner of one that their tiger must be put in a zoo? I dont think so.

Its strange people somehow find a right to privacy in the constitution for abortions but when it comes to being able to be armed to protect private property and ones family they ignore any such rights that are clearly stated.