So, why are guns necessary?

[Lemur]

I'm okay with private gun ownership. But given the danger involved, I think it should be thoroughly regulated.

Probably a good idea. However, we 'Muricans have decided to focus on the "shall not be infringed" part of the Second Amendment. We kinda glide past the "well-ordered" bit.

[Papewaio]

Are warrants required on the Internet?

As for why the US wasn't invaded in WW II, its because it is similar to the UK. Not an anglosaxon thing, water and lots of it.

Invasions by water are difficult. There is a reason amphibious units are expensive to maintain and train and why those types of units are often seen as better.

I don't think an armed populace worries an invading army. It's a policing issue post occupation to deal with.

[Pannonian]

Are warrants required on the Internet?

As for why the US wasn't invaded in WW II, its because it is similar to the UK. Not an anglosaxon thing, water and lots of it.

Invasions by water are difficult. There is a reason amphibious units are expensive to maintain and train and why those types of units are often seen as better.

I don't think an armed populace worries an invading army. It's a policing issue post occupation to deal with.

"A well defended sea being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to be surrounded by lots of water shall not be infringed."

[Vuk]

Are warrants required on the Internet?

As for why the US wasn't invaded in WW II, its because it is similar to the UK. Not an anglosaxon thing, water and lots of it.

Invasions by water are difficult. There is a reason amphibious units are expensive to maintain and train and why those types of units are often seen as better.

I don't think an armed populace worries an invading army. It's a policing issue post occupation to deal with.

That is just the thing. You can march an army onto enemy soil, but in order for you to do anything there you need to control the population. That is much less possible when they are armed.

As far as it not being a deterrent in WWII, there is good evidence that Isoroku Yamamoto said:

You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

There is no proof that he said it, but Douglas McArthur's chief biographer claims he did. It is one of those things that is likely, but not provable.

[BroskiDerpman]

Why not have a gun? I don't have one but I honestly don't mind. I find it funny how nobody came up with a compromise or something yet in the USA.Not too sure as to me politics is a annoyance in life most of the time to bother with. Imo.

Though of course I read up on politics, so I'm not too dull.

(I'm American just so you know)

Plus with a gun I'll feel less paranoid about those monsters in the closet.


Still I wonder what's with all these gun politics... All these gun deaths reminds me how everyday in the news somebody dies in Roxbury MA in some sort of fight and later on the news stopped reporting that stuff since it's like everyday.


I think pistols are more deadly in a urban environment with civilians where you can sneak it around without being caught unlike slugging around a Mosin Nagant or something.

Perhaps it's just the ideology of many Americans is screwed up compared to other countries which have a lot of guns. I know Switzerland has state armed militia but not much people run around blasting each other. Probably because before they can they'd get shot or perhaps Switzerland is smaller and the population has more similar ideology thus less violence.

Don't know much on these matters, enlighten me.

I know where I live now the gun laws are less strict and I check out some shops once in a while and eat some ribs while I'm at it.

[Sp4]

Switzerland is a very different country. You can't really compare it, even if a lot of people try to.

[BroskiDerpman]

Yeah I know and I tried to explain some differences in an extremely simplified manner.

[Strike For The South]

Because the law says we can own firearms....

Why do we need to vote?
Why do we need worker protections?
Why do we need free assembly?

I'm for certain restrictions on firearms. I also own and shoot firearms. I also think most of you are idiots.

[Brenus]

“They were some of the most heavily armed people on earth before the commies took over” Under the Reign of Autocrat and Tsar Nicolas? Where do you find this kind of absurdities?
“What about pointed knives?” If you run faster than you aggressor, you survive the aggression by knife. Not a chance against a rifle, even the biggest of the obese get you.
“an armed populace was a massive deterrent to foreign invasion” When and where?

[BroskiDerpman]

I honestly don't get why some people are really against guns... The media perhaps?

[Ironside]

I honestly don't get why some people are really against guns... The media perhaps?

For the rest of the west, claiming that you'll need guns for self defense is similar to saying that you live in the wild west. I mean sure you'll need it if there's armed robbers running around everywhere or worse, but that's a pretty big sign of societal breakdown.

Roughly you can say that's it's a trade for having a gun that might protect you in some situations, vs having more criminals with guns and a higher willingness to use them.

I can understand why the cops wants the guns to go away. It's a big part on why being a cop in the US is more than 10 times as deadly than in the UK.

[Pannonian]

“They were some of the most heavily armed people on earth before the commies took over” Under the Reign of Autocrat and Tsar Nicolas? Where do you find this kind of absurdities?

You can't deny that the Russians were some of the most heavily armed people on earth before the commies took over. Although the fact that they were fighting a world war at the time may have had something to do with it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You can't deny that the Russians were some of the most heavily armed people on earth before the commies took over. Although the fact that they were fighting a world war at the time may have had something to do with it.

Tsk...tsk. Couldn't resist could you?


Regarding the OP:

The first ten amendments were promulgated as one document. That document was generated in order to assuage the concerns of numerous critics of the Constitution who had noted -- correctly -- that the Constitution in its original form does rather little to spell out the limitations of the government vis-à-vis individual rights. There was an agreement made that 1st Congress would put forward this Bill of Rights among its first items of business -- without that assurance, the Constitution would likely not have been ratified. The language of each amendment was much argued at the time. The prominence of the right to bear arms reflected the then-common belief that an armed citizenry was its own best defense against tyranny by the federal government.

I would assert, as a personal belief, that "arms" was viewed as an all-inclusive category at the time. Moreover, that the ultimate purpose of said arms was not personal defense -- though this was respected -- but the defense of the local community against federal tyranny. While there were extant views at the time that dispute my interpretation, I believe a majority of the primary source material available supports that view.

[rvg]

You can't deny that the Russians were some of the most heavily armed people on earth before the commies took over...

This is mostly incorrect.
Cossacks, yes, those guys were armed to the teeth, Siberian frontiersmen, yes. Everybody else -- hell no.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Probably a good idea. However, we 'Muricans have decided to focus on the "shall not be infringed" part of the Second Amendment. We kinda glide past the "well-ordered" bit.

Where is the "well-ordered bit"? Do you mean the "well-regulated" bit? Where "regulated" means equipped and the founders protected our right to have a serious arsenal and be equipped for battle?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Probably a good idea. However, we 'Muricans have decided to focus on the "shall not be infringed" part of the Second Amendment. We kinda glide past the "well-ordered" bit.

Well I don't think Feinstein and the Brady Bill folks really want an established "well-regulated militia". Historically it meant that white male property owners in good legal standing were required to keep and bear arms and train with them regularly. I mean, if that's what you want, as a white male (renting counts for property these days right? ) I'll just have to go buy a scary black rifle.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Buy one! You'll love it! It's only going to get harder in NJ - NY has already made it very difficult. Not difficult enough for me not to have one legally, though.

In NJ you can still get an AR-15 that looks like an AR-15. You can still buy an ar-15 in NY, it just cant bear more than a passing resemblance to an AR-15.

CA has recently discussed banning all detachable magazine semi-automatic firearms and passed a bill in assembly doing so. I'm actually glad that they have made a consistent argument, as their piecemeal argument was more politically savvy and used divide and conquer tactics in the gun community. An outright assault on gun owners wholesale by attempting to outlaw the majority of firearms is much harder to sell to even the most timid and feckless gun owners. Gun control only moves forward when they make absurd and seemingly pointless argument after absurd and seemingly pointless argument. Over time, they've smuggled enough tiny parts into the law to build a serious weapon against us. Consistency of their message may aid us to a greater extent.

[Lemur]

White male property owner here. Where do I report for drills and training?

Ugh. Like my weekends aren't booked full already ...

[ICantSpellDawg]

White male property owner here. Where do I report for drills and training?

Ugh. Like my weekends aren't booked full already ...

NY actually has a militia that is separate from the National Guard and has line item funding in the State budget. They can only be called into action within the State of NY, unless ordered by the Governor. I tried to join, but the website is ghetto and nobody got back to me.


Hey, where is Russia in that "global homicide rate" chart? I don't trust somebody who would list Chile but exclude the Russian Federation, Eastern European countries, or Brazil.
On my link, if you go down to murder rate and assort them by high to low, you will find the United States at #103, below Ukraine, Estonia, way below Russian Federation, Mexico, Brazil, Peru, and 97 others.

[spankythehippo]

Hey, where is Russia in that "global homicide rate" chart? I don't trust somebody who would list Chile but exclude the Russian Federation, Eastern European countries, or Brazil.
On my link, if you go down to murder rate and assort them by high to low, you will find the United States at #103, below Ukraine, Estonia, way below Russian Federation, Mexico, Brazil, Peru, and 97 others.

There's a very crucial word you are missing. "Developed" countries. Honduras has 20 times the murder rate of the US, but it's not a developed country.

[ICantSpellDawg]

There's a very crucial word you are missing. "Developed" countries. Honduras has 20 times the murder rate of the US, but it's not a developed country.

We also own more than 50% of civilian owned firearms and have the highest levels of immigration from developing nations of any country. Surely you would consider the Russian Federation a developed country? Why wasn't it on your list?

[Papewaio]

Suppose you could swap it out for longbow session as a Yeoman.