What do YOU think the 2nd amendment means?

[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."

[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

[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.

[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".

[_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".

[_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.

[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.

[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.