What do YOU think the 2nd amendment means?

[scooter_the_shooter]

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.

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 )



And this means

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.

[scooter_the_shooter]

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

[Xiahou]

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.

[Del Arroyo]

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

[Kaiser of Arabia]

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

[Ice]

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.

[t1master]

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... ;)

[Kaiser of Arabia]

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:

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.

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."

[Ice]

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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

[_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.

[Xiahou]

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".

[Kaiser of Arabia]

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.

[t1master]

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.

[_Martyr_]

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".

[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

[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.

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

[Kaiser of Arabia]

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

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

[scooter_the_shooter]

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.

[Ice]

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

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.

[Redleg]

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.

[Strike For The South]

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

[scooter_the_shooter]

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


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!

[Ice]

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.

[_Martyr_]

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?

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.

[Redleg]

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.

[_Martyr_]

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.

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?

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.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

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.

[_Martyr_]

Explain...

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Explain...

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