I’m not opposed to the right to have guns, just the broad terms of the amendment itself. “The right to bear arms shall not be infringed” is absurd in today’s society and is as a necessity, completely ignored. If you don’t think an naturalized muslim from Saudi Arabia should be able to assemble a nuclear stockpile on american soil then you’ve already infringed on the right to bear arms.

The justification given in the constitution is that a well trained militia is required by society. Some have suggested the amendment itself is conditional on this but that’s not true, it was actually just a style in which laws were sometimes written back then. It is revealing however, a militia was assembled from citizens armed with their private weapons and was important because in early American history the federal army was small or non-existant and the fear of Indian raids constant. However, at the time a militia was capable of going toe to toe with any professional military of the time. Today that requires multi-million dollar tanks, aircraft full of bombs and missiles, apcs, artillery, missiles and rpgs, and all kinds of things unaffordable to and which we wouldn’t trust, to just anyone.

As such we could never use them to defeat an army, and we certainly wouldn’t allow a terrorist to buy a missile and not have broken the law until he shot it at someone. As a consequence the “right” is infringed constantly and is almost universally recognized by Americans that it should be although to varying extents.

I’m not against the right to have guns, just blanket permission to acquire and use any weapon ever invented. Maybe it should just be amended to apply to only certain types of arms.

It was useful once, but the amendment as such is obsolete.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm#2c

READ!

READ!

I don't see anything I forgot to cover...

You forgot to cover the reason we have a Constitution to begin with.

You forgot to cover the reason we have a Constitution to begin with.

To form the basic laws by which our government and people have agreed to live by.

It is the law that is hard to change and cannot be contradicted by any new law in the system it creates. That's what a constitution is.

You forgot to cover the reason we have a Constitution to begin with.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Constitution has been amended something like twenty seven times to reflect new realities like the abolition of slavery or women's suffrage. The amendments are, if nothing else, precedent that the constitution is not written in stone but is a living document that is subject to alteration as time moves forward.

The "original" bill of rights, including the 2nd, was ratified in 1971, 215 years ago. Things are different now than they were in the days of a horseback military and single-shot rifles and pistols. Is a well-regulated Militia really, in 2006, still "necessary to the security of a free State"? Where is this well-regulated Militia? Any members here?

I highly doubt the framers foresaw the US at 300-million strong and terribly statisically aberrant when compared to other civilized nations with respect to handgun crimes and deaths. If nothing else the 2nd should be re-written to clarify once and for all its intent. For most of the 20th century pundits and the judiciary have not agreed on what, exactly, the 2nd actually allows for.

Want to own a gun...join a well regulated Militia. :)

Thank you Al Gore.

Not only are their fewer threats now, but a militia to be effective in war would need multi-million dollar tanks and planes.

The cost of modern weaponry is such that even if we allowed it (we don't) almost no-one could afford them. Only a state has the resources to buy the necessary equipment.

We also have the worlds best standing army and no longer need suplimentary militias.

I used to be fairly ambivalent about the second amendment, not caring one way or another.
After Katrina last year though, my opinion changed. For about two weeks, there was no law where I lived. There were people roaming in groups with weapons trying to loot and generally steal because nobody had power, therefore they couldn't easily be seen. Those of us who owned weapons suddenly became the law in our neighborhoods, as we were the only people able to repel looters and thieves.
If you spend any time in a situation where there is no law or government, then the purpose of the second amendment becomes clear. As Americans we have a right and an obligation to defend ourselves.
I would rather everybody is armed to the teeth than picking and choosing which citizens are worthy to defend themselves and which aren't.

Here here.

I would rather everybody is armed to the teeth than picking and choosing which citizens are worthy to defend themselves and which aren't.

you don't object to personal nuclear arsenals? Osama will be pleased.

you don't object to personal nuclear arsenals? Osama will be pleased.

Weeeeeak.

Weeeeeak.

Why?

the amendment clearly give an unlimited right to acquire, own and utilize weaponry of any kind.

Governments that fear armed civilians are to be feared.

Why?

the amendment clearly give an unlimited right to acquire, own and utilize weaponry of any kind.

No, it does not. The meaning of the phrase "to bear arms" is different depending upon it's usage.

Governments that fear armed civilians are to be feared.

Neighbors with missiles and tanks, and the open sale of cruise missiles to suspected terrorists are also to be feared.

I'd give up my tanks if I was assured noone else would have them either.

The meaning of the phrase "to bear arms" is different depending upon it's usage

How so?

^ Transparent sophistry.

Using your logic, we should banish anything which might make anyone a tad bit squeamish. A kitchen knife should be banned because it is a distant relative of a javelin.

Arms can be broken down into two main categories: personal and military. You are trying to eliminate the right to own the former by making the the equivalent of large scale military versions which are not for personal use.

You are trying to eliminate the right to own the former by making the the equivalent of large scale military versions which are not for personal use.

I think it should be changed to only protect the right to the former.
(or something like that). That's all i'm saying.

look up the difference between arms and ordnance. nuclear weapons do not fall under the catagory of arms.

The Constitution has been amended something like twenty seven times to reflect new realities like the abolition of slavery or women's suffrage. The amendments are, if nothing else, precedent that the constitution is not written in stone but is a living document that is subject to alteration as time moves forward.

The "original" bill of rights, including the 2nd, was ratified in 1971, 215 years ago. Things are different now than they were in the days of a horseback military and single-shot rifles and pistols. Is a well-regulated Militia really, in 2006, still "necessary to the security of a free State"? Where is this well-regulated Militia? Any members here?

I highly doubt the framers foresaw the US at 300-million strong and terribly statisically aberrant when compared to other civilized nations with respect to handgun crimes and deaths. If nothing else the 2nd should be re-written to clarify once and for all its intent. For most of the 20th century pundits and the judiciary have not agreed on what, exactly, the 2nd actually allows for.

Want to own a gun...join a well regulated Militia. :)thank you mister completely irrelevant opinion because my country has already abandoned the right to bear arms, and now no one ever gets shot in canada. (i know, its all us americans fault) :rolleyes:

I used to be fairly ambivalent about the second amendment, not caring one way or another.
After Katrina last year though, my opinion changed. For about two weeks, there was no law where I lived. There were people roaming in groups with weapons trying to loot and generally steal because nobody had power, therefore they couldn't easily be seen. Those of us who owned weapons suddenly became the law in our neighborhoods, as we were the only people able to repel looters and thieves.
If you spend any time in a situation where there is no law or government, then the purpose of the second amendment becomes clear. As Americans we have a right and an obligation to defend ourselves.
I would rather everybody is armed to the teeth than picking and choosing which citizens are worthy to defend themselves and which aren't.
exactly. law and order are only achieved through force, no matter what peace loveing pacifist like to tell you.

nuclear weapons do not fall under the catagory of arms.

Are you sure the concept of ordinance existed at the time of the amendment?

Are you sure the concept of ordinance existed at the time of the amendment?
this has been hashed and rehashed here. try a search.

As best as I can find it seems that cannons and such were considered to still be firearms and probably early mortars too.
There weren't many other well enough known or widely enough used weapons systems for this distinction to be relevant.

Further, I think ordnance reffered mostly to the projectile and preventing people from acquiring the ammo for arms infringes on the right to bear them in any meaningfull way. Sorry.

It never ceases to amaze me how little people know about and understand the 2nd Amendment.


Here are the areas that many seem to know absolutely NOTHING about

1-What our rights are and where they came from
2-How much of the 2nd Amend. was meant to be focused on actual military matters
3-What the Founders meant by "gun"
4-What a militia is

So, to refresh...

1-What our rights are and where they came from

The Founders ideas of natural rights rests in the ideas of the Scottish Enlightenment (and some thinkers from the french school). The right the 2nd Amendment focuses on is the right to self-protection. The idea is that a man who has to rely on others to protect himself (rely on government) is NOT a free man, a man imbued with liberty. He is utterly RELIANT on others. This is also codified in the English Common Law upon which we based much of our judicial machinery.

Take away guns and a man is UNABLE to be free because he is utterly dependent on government for the protection of life and property.

No guns= slavery to government.

2-How much of the 2nd Amend. was meant to be focused on actual military matters

The Amendment was equally concerning itself with true military organization to resist invasion from without as WELL as local organization to resist GOVERNMENT from within with the military aspect of the clause.

Take away guns and we are once again a slave to the state with no ability to protect ourselves from government.

3-What the Founders meant by "gun"

A gun (as well as the term "arm") is a military long-arm and NOTHING more. Tanks, cannons and bombs are NOT "guns" OR "arms". Those are classified as ordnance. The Founders did NOT mean that every individual could have a cannon and, by extension to today, that means the Founders did not assume common citizens would own nuclear bombs, attack helicopters or tanks!


4-What a militia is

The militia is NOT the state army. NOR is it the Federal army. It is STRICTLY the citizenry engaged in organized para-military clubs. Every adult past the age of 18 is considered eligible for the militia.

Take away guns and the citizens CANNOT form a militia

The 2nd Amendment has NOT faded to become unnecessary in any way. It is STILL as important and as relevant as it ever was. Anyone who wishes to take away our 2nd Amendment rights is FOR enslaving and murdering the citizen.

Well done, sirruh!

With the proper permits and/or tax stamps, a civillian CAN own a tank, fully automatic rifles, and other weapons that the average joe wouldn't normally own. I personally know a guy who owns two tanks, a military ambulance, a half track, and Korean war era howitzer.

It's hard to get ammo for tanks and howitzers, and I don't even know if it's available at all.

The second ammendment should stand regardless. Criminals will always get their weapons, and civillians should be allowed to shoot back at them if necessary. The cops can't protect everyone, and they're the first to admit it.

Originally posted by Mobile Vulgus
No guns= slavery to government.

I'm not suggesting a complete abolition of the right to bear certain types of guns

The Amendment was equally concerning itself with true military organization to resist invasion from without as WELL as local organization to resist GOVERNMENT from within with the military aspect of the clause.

There are no such militias now because the weapons of the modern era are too expensive and require to much training.


A gun (as well as the term "arm") is a military long-arm and NOTHING more. Tanks, cannons and bombs are NOT "guns" OR "arms". Those are classified as ordnance. The Founders did NOT mean that every individual could have a cannon and, by extension to today,

First of all, in order to resist government oppression would have required cannons so you've contradicted yourself.
Second, cannons are firearms
Third, the word guns is not used in the constitution.

It is STRICTLY the citizenry engaged in organized para-military clubs. Every adult past the age of 18 is considered eligible for the militia.


In time of war they assembled and often combined with federal or state armies or held of invaders until main armies could arrive and thus served a military function.

Originally posted by Betrade
The second ammendment should stand regardless. Criminals will always get their weapons, and civillians should be allowed to shoot back at them if necessary. The cops can't protect everyone, and they're the first to admit it.

It should be limited to weapons that can be reasonably used, it's hard to use a tank to protect yourself from a mugger but easier to use for a bank robbery or terrorst attack.

It is debatable what the definition of a constitutionally protected "Arm" is

Here is a link to a fairly exhaustive summary of the history of the 2nd Amendment

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm#3a

Third, consistently with its reading of "keep," the court also broadened "arms." Aymette had defined the word to include only such arms "as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment." (395) Andrews explained it as follows: "[T]he idea of the Constitution is, the keeping and use of such arms as are useful either in warfare, or in preparing the citizen for their use in warfare, by training him as a citizen, to their use in times of peace." (396) The court took judicial notice "that the rifle of all descriptions, the shot gun, the musket, and repeater, are such arms." (397)


396 1871 WL 3579, at *9. The court elsewhere defined "arms" as those furthering the end of "the efficiency of the citizen as a soldier," id. at *7, and as including not only weapons "adapted to the usual equipment of the soldier" but also those "the use of which may render him more efficient as such," id. at *11. The term had to be "taken in connection with the fact that the citizen is to keep them as a citizen" and therefore included such "as are found to make up the usual arms of the country, and the use of which will properly train and render him efficient in defense of his own liberties, as well as of the State." Id. at *7.

I'm not suggesting a complete abolition of the right to bear certain types of guns

Yes, you are if youa re proposing a change in the Constitution.

There are no such militias now because the weapons of the modern era are too expensive and require to much training.

Woefully incorrect. There are no such militias now because around the time of WWI the Federal Government mobilized a larger Federal army for the war and state militias assumed they were to be folded into that national army. The idea of a "militia" was not done away with, but simply was out of fashion.

And, modern guns need no more unusual training than past guns.

First of all, in order to resist government oppression would have required cannons so you've contradicted yourself.

Totally ridiculous. The mere FACT of large bands of armed citizens is enough in THIS society to stop government from getting too out of hand. One doesn't NEED to defeat a well trained and armed army in this democracy to "resist".

Second, cannons are firearms

No. They aren't.


[/quote]Third, the word guns is not used in the constitution.[/quote]

Which is why I put "firearms" in the post. Firearms are NOT cannons, but MERLY military long-arms.


In time of war they assembled and often combined with federal or state armies or held of invaders until main armies could arrive and thus served a military function.

Um, yeah. Was anyone contradicting that? But they are NOT considered THE military.

Originally posted by Mobile Vulgus
Yes, you are if youa re proposing a change in the Constitution.

The problems I have with the second amendment can be solved without simply abolishing it.

There are no such militias now because around the time of WWI the Federal Government mobilized a larger Federal army for the war and state militias assumed they were to be folded into that national army. The idea of a "militia" was not done away with, but simply was out of fashion.



A modern military requires hundreds of millions in equipment and extensive storage facilities. Where would you, if permited obtain this?

And, modern guns need no more unusual training than past guns.

Only small arms,

The mere FACT of large bands of armed citizens is enough in THIS society to stop government from getting too out of hand. One doesn't NEED to defeat a well trained and armed army in this democracy to "resist".


??? it's a military enough solution to involve muskets but not military enough to involve cannons???

But they are NOT considered THE military.

Of course not, but the military no longer has need of them to serve a supplementary function.

It's funny how none of the pro-second-amendment posters have actually read or responded to the original post.

^ Transparent sophistry.

...and another one doesn't know what a Sophist was.

thank you mister completely irrelevant opinion because my country has already abandoned the right to bear arms, and now no one ever gets shot in canada. (i know, its all us americans fault) :rolleyes:

Irrelevant opinion? LOL. Pretty weak. I thought you had more in the tank than that. But hey, feel free to compare the rates of gun crimes and deaths in your gun-toting utopia versus pretty much every other civilized nation on the planet.

Perhaps you can explain why you think the 2nd should be immune from any modernization, re-consideration or clarification?

exactly. law and order are only achieved through force, no matter what peace loveing pacifist like to tell you.

How many Katrina-like situations have arisen where near-anarchy reigns for a few days? Is a once-in-two-hundred-years event like this really a good rationale to have everyone packin' heat?

I’m not against the right to have guns, just blanket permission to acquire and use any weapon ever invented. Maybe it should just be amended to apply to only certain types of arms.


No way. I'd much rather leave it to the courts. If we allowed Congress to decide what kinds of guns we can own, it would only make the mess of laws even messier.


First of all, in order to resist government oppression would have required cannons so you've contradicted yourself.
Second, cannons are firearms


Not at all. The Israeli army is extremely well armed, and the Hezbollah managed to route them from Beruit, mostly with sniper fire and improvised explosives. The Iraqi's are a bit less sophisticated, but even they're doing a fair job of resisting the will of the a foreign state. We intended to take over their oil wells and install a subservient government there, and now we're having to settle for a Shi'ite theocracy, no oil, and we're still trying to find an excuse to leave.

And that's in the middle of the desert with a bunch of hot-headed retards who can't control themselves.

Move the same thing, small arms and improvised explosives, into the american landscape of swamps, forrests, mountains, praries, cities, bayous and the rest, providing lots of cover for hit and run assaults and sniping, and a determined resistance would wreck hell on an attempt to occupy. But . . . only . . . if . . . they weren't disarmed before they had the chance to organize.

I hope the Democrats don't start pushing gun bans again. We need them to knock the right-wingers out of office, but if they start pushing gun bans and race quotas, they're going to blow their strategic position in upcoming elections.

I thought you could buy guns at Wal-Mart in Canada? Anyway, I digress.
The issue of the second amendment and whether it's valid is somewhat of a non-issue now anyway.
Even if the government banned gun ownership in the US tomorrow, lots of people already have lots of guns. When the government tried to take guns from these people, violence would erupt all over the country.
So, at a practical level, it's more productive to figure out how to handle a country where everybody can be armed, rather than trying to take away all the weapons. Because, trying to confiscate all the weapons will definitely result in a lot of people getting shot.

Even if the government banned gun ownership in the US tomorrow, lots of people already have lots of guns. When the government tried to take guns from these people, violence would erupt all over the country.


They couldn't find them all anyway. Maybe some states have more restrictions, but back home in Florida, you can buy and sell guns privately with no record of the transaction. If they came to me for my old SKS, shotgun or semi auto, I'd have to tell them I sold them years ago, and I don't know how to contact the people I sold them to. I could just say I also sold my revolver, so long as I had it hidden well.

If I thought that was going to change, I'd probably buy a couple of rifles and pistols just to hide somewhere. I'd think twenty years after a gun ban, a brand new, in the box AR15 would fetch a high price.

Originally posted by BooRadley
No way. I'd much rather leave it to the courts.

The courts are'nt suppose to "legislate from the bench" but they do because idiots like you from both parties pressure them to.

Move the same thing, small arms and improvised explosives,

Fine then you don't see any reason why those shouldn't be the only thing protected by the amendment in word as well as practice.

The courts are'nt suppose to "legislate from the bench" but they do because idiots like you from both parties pressure them to.


Is absolutely everyone who disagrees with you an idiot, or is it just me?


Fine then you don't see any reason why those shouldn't be the only thing protected by the amendment in word as well as practice.

Thanks for telling me what I and don't see, since I'm too much of an idiot to tell for myself. :not:

The Constitution has been amended something like twenty seven times to reflect new realities like the abolition of slavery or women's suffrage. The amendments are, if nothing else, precedent that the constitution is not written in stone but is a living document that is subject to alteration as time moves forward.

The "original" bill of rights, including the 2nd, was ratified in 1971, 215 years ago. Things are different now than they were in the days of a horseback military and single-shot rifles and pistols. Is a well-regulated Militia really, in 2006, still "necessary to the security of a free State"? Where is this well-regulated Militia? Any members here?

I highly doubt the framers foresaw the US at 300-million strong and terribly statisically aberrant when compared to other civilized nations with respect to handgun crimes and deaths. If nothing else the 2nd should be re-written to clarify once and for all its intent. For most of the 20th century pundits and the judiciary have not agreed on what, exactly, the 2nd actually allows for.

Want to own a gun...join a well regulated Militia. :) If you are a male like 16 to 45 even older if you have been in the military you are the Militia. You should have at lease a good rifle (and shoot ok with it) and have a pack loaded and be ready to go at all times. If you as a male in that age group will not protect your country you will wind up a Chinese slave sooner or later. The Chinese have 200 million males with no females they have stated they want this land for their people. Canada has stated they will side with the Chinese in a war with the U.S. Mexico will gladly go along with them. It will be up to the Militia to fight and fight well.

They couldn't find them all anyway. Maybe some states have more restrictions, but back home in Florida, you can buy and sell guns privately with no record of the transaction. If they came to me for my old SKS, shotgun or semi auto, I'd have to tell them I sold them years ago, and I don't know how to contact the people I sold them to. I could just say I also sold my revolver, so long as I had it hidden well.

If I thought that was going to change, I'd probably buy a couple of rifles and pistols just to hide somewhere. I'd think twenty years after a gun ban, a brand new, in the box AR15 would fetch a high price. If they are coming for your guns you should set up an ambush and kill ever last one of them. You will know they are coming. Don't hide them at that time, use them.

The fight will be defensive in nature, at our doorsteps and as a last resort. The goal is to make them look like jackbooted pigs breaking down doors and killing people, but by doing so their losses will be heavy.

If you are a male like 16 to 45 even older if you have been in the military you are the Militia. You should have at lease a good rifle (and shoot ok with it) and have a pack loaded and be ready to go at all times. If you as a male in that age group will not protect your country you will wind up a Chinese slave sooner or later. The Chinese have 200 million males with no females they have stated they want this land for their people. Canada has stated they will side with the Chinese in a war with the U.S. Mexico will gladly go along with them. It will be up to the Militia to fight and fight well.

What the HELL are you going on about? :confused:

Originally posted by Booradley
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truthseeker
I’m not against the right to have guns, just blanket permission to acquire and use any weapon ever invented. Maybe it should just be amended to apply to only certain types of arms.

No way. I'd much rather leave it to the courts.


Is absolutely everyone who disagrees with you an idiot, or is it just me?

Everyone who thinks that under the constitution the supreme court is responsible for limiting gun rights when the document is explicitly provides them without limit is.

Thanks for telling me what I and don't see, since I'm too much of an idiot to tell for myself.

I try to give people the benifit of the doubt.:p

If you are a male like 16 to 45 even older if you have been in the military you are the Militia.

So can you show me where this is codified in US law? Like actual words and stuff?

Canada has stated they will side with the Chinese in a war with the U.S.

We did? Where? When? Who?

Irrelevant opinion? LOL. Pretty weak. I thought you had more in the tank than that.i just find it funny that foreigners love to chime in regarding the us government.
you don't see me telling you how your government should function, now do you. what's really funny is those that love to get in our business (like you) and then love to complain about american involvement in other countries affairs (you again).
Perhaps you can explain why you think the 2nd should be immune from any modernization, re-consideration or clarification? because congress would completely **** it up.



How many Katrina-like situations have arisen where near-anarchy reigns for a few days? Is a once-in-two-hundred-years event like this really a good rationale to have everyone packin' heat?well, how many would you be willing to go through? besides, you say packin' heat like its a bad thing. ;)

because congress would completely **** it up.

and 3/4 of the state legislatures?

It's clear enough: The right shall not be infringed. You're saying you want an amendment to specifically say how much it should be infringed. I'm saying I don't want that. The courts are doing a good enough job (though they could do better, like striking down a lot of the laws that exist), and I don't care to see Congress start futzing around with it.

Originally posted by BooRadley
You're saying you want an amendment to specifically say how much it should be infringed.

It's already infringed.

The courts are doing a good enough job

It's unconstitutional to make judgements based on the good of the country rather than law, it's the responsibility of the legislative.

I don't care to see Congress start futzing around with it.


The federal government doesn't act by decree, it would require three quarters of the state legislatures.

i just find it funny that foreigners love to chime in regarding the us government.
you don't see me telling you how your government should function, now do you. what's really funny is those that love to get in our business (like you) and then love to complain about american involvement in other countries affairs (you again).

Discussion is just that, talk. What kind of knuckleheaded position is it to equate discussion with "american involvement" in other countries like invasions (you) or coup attempts (you), overthrowing elected governments (you), mining harbours (you), financially and militarily supporting oppressive dictators (you) and so on? :rofl:

Have you ever commented on any issue outside the US? Ever? Yeah, that's what I thought...

because congress would completely **** it up.

That would be fine except the congress alone doesn't make the final decision.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

The system would not allow for such "**** ups" to occur. Too many checks and balances.

Here's your chance to clarify the 2nd once and for all, to remove any shadow of doubt about well organized militias and the like; a chance to advance that 1780s wording into the 21st century; a chance to take the judiciary out of the equation, doing away with differing interpretations of what has been very poor legal wording and bring it into complete focus.

Why are you afraid of such a process again?

well, how many would you be willing to go through?

The Katrina death toll now stands at, what, 1400 persons? In 1999 alone, there were 28,874 gun deaths in the US. In 2000, there were 75,685 "non-fatal" gunshot injuries reported (link (http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm)). Does this seem like a good trade-off to you? Really?

So if such an event occurs once every, say, 200 years that's 5.8-million otherwise dead just so you can say "I'm ready if someone wants to steal my waterlogged TV."

besides, you say packin' heat like its a bad thing. ;)

People in the US have proven, statisically, that they simply cannot be trusted to store their weapons safely and properly and are not subjected to the mandatory military service and kinds of training required in other gun-soaked states like Switzerland. The statistics bear this out. And you think it's a good idea to let these folks roam the streets in the middle of anarchy looking to plug criminals stealing televisions and car radios in the middle of a flood... :rolleyes:

The federal government doesn't act by decree, it would require three quarters of the state legislatures.

And three quarters of the state legislatures would screw things up even more.

KanuckiStang, if people in the US have proven they aren't competent to own or use weapons, then our Founding Fathers have done their job brilliantly with the second amendment to our Constitution.
Because, if the general perception is that we all have guns and we're stupid and/or crazy, then other countries won't be too eager to invade North America, will they?

Of course, if the US government doesn't want a certain US citizen to own a gun, all they'd have to do is say that he or she is a criminal or is aiding terrorists.

Hey Kanuck if the communist slants invaded the pacific coast would you come down to AmeriKa and fight with us?

KanuckiStang, if people in the US have proven they aren't competent to own or use weapons, then our Founding Fathers have done their job brilliantly with the second amendment to our Constitution.

:rofl:

Because, if the general perception is that we all have guns and we're stupid and/or crazy, then other countries won't be too eager to invade North America, will they?

:rofl: Do you really think America is not invaded by hostile forces because of the 2nd Amendment?

The US has invaded a couple of nations recently that are teeming with weapons. Why didn't that fact stop the US invading forces from going in? Perhaps because even an armed populace, unorganized and untrained, is not a massive threat to an invading military power? They can inflict damage, sure, but not enough to halt an invasion driven by political and ideological motivations.

No, the reason the US hasn't been invaded is due in large part to her geography and the fact that she possesses a strong federally-controlled military. Your pea-shooters have nothing to do with it.

Hey Kanuck if the communist slants invaded the pacific coast would you come down to AmeriKa and fight with us?

If they invaded my country's coast I would.

But you guys are perfectly capable of defending yourselves. After all, with a military budget of $500-billion and a population of 300-million, I would certainly hope so.

And, FWIW, I would be "rooting" for you guys, not the Chinese :D

:rofl: Do you really think America is not invaded by hostile forces because of the 2nd Amendment?

The US has invaded a couple of nations recently that are teeming with weapons. Why didn't that fact stop the US invading forces from going in? Perhaps because even an armed populace, unorganized and untrained, is not a massive threat to an invading military power? They can inflict damage, sure, but not enough to halt an invasion driven by political and ideological motivations.


They're not supposed to repel an invasion, they're supposed to drive out an occupation.

How many Katrina-like situations have arisen where near-anarchy reigns for a few days? Is a once-in-two-hundred-years event like this really a good rationale to have everyone packin' heat?
How many crimes are commited in front of law enforcement? With a gun I feel stronger and feel I have some capability to defend myself to certain extent, instead of completely rely on goverment to protect me. Law will not stop criminals from getting the gun, but it will reduce my capability to defend. Crime will be commited with or without gun.

Here's your chance to clarify the 2nd once and for all, to remove any shadow of doubt about well organized militias and the like; a chance to advance that 1780s wording into the 21st century; a chance to take the judiciary out of the equation, doing away with differing interpretations of what has been very poor legal wording and bring it into complete focus.

Why are you afraid of such a process again? what process? what chance? a few yahoos on a message board having a discussion is somehow a chance to solve all this once and for all? really...



The Katrina death toll now stands at, what, 1400 persons? In 1999 alone, there were 28,874 gun deaths in the US. In 2000, there were 75,685 "non-fatal" gunshot injuries reported (link (http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm)). Does this seem like a good trade-off to you? Really?

So if such an event occurs once every, say, 200 years that's 5.8-million otherwise dead just so you can say "I'm ready if someone wants to steal my waterlogged TV."if you think its aout protecting your tv you're more dense than i thought.



People in the US have proven, statisically, that they simply cannot be trusted to store their weapons safely and properly and are not subjected to the mandatory military service and kinds of training required in other gun-soaked states like Switzerland. The statistics bear this out. And you think it's a good idea to let these folks roam the streets in the middle of anarchy looking to plug criminals stealing televisions and car radios in the middle of a flood... :rolleyes:
your missing the fact that in the us (idealistically anyway) individual rights are more important. the fact is, with freedom comes responsibility. just because some can't handle it, doesn't mean everyone loses it. besides, check out my 911 thread in the in the news section. again, its not about tvs, militias, or governments. its about self reliance.

It's clear enough: The right shall not be infringed. You're saying you want an amendment to specifically say how much it should be infringed. I'm saying I don't want that. The courts are doing a good enough job (though they could do better, like striking down a lot of the laws that exist), and I don't care to see Congress start futzing around with it.:eek3: i actually agree with boo.

:eek3: i actually agree with boo.

There's been a lot of that going around lately. This is a "gateway opinion". Watch out, or the next thing you know, you'll want to legalize marijuana, gay marriage, and porn. ;)

The supreme court has taken a habit of stretching and ignoring the constitution to fit the needs of society when the legislative branch is afraid to suggest violating it's sanctity.

I think the 2nd amendment should be brought into line with the needs of society (limits to certain types of weapons) because if this trend of ignoring the constitution's meaning continues the document itself may someday become superflous.

The supreme court has taken a habit of stretching and ignoring the constitution to fit the needs of society when the legislative branch is afraid to suggest violating it's sanctity.

I think the 2nd amendment should be brought into line with the needs of society (limits to certain types of weapons) because if this trend of ignoring the constitution's meaning continues the document itself may someday become superflous.


More the reason not to limit our means of protection . Since the gov is the ones letting all the third world nations cross bordors . They have amitted that we have sleeeper cells and even hidden nukes inside . Think about the possibility of attack from within . Look what happen in N.O. with just a major storm ! Looting,raping and killing . Ddo you think crimminals will turn in guns ?

If they are coming for your guns you should set up an ambush and kill ever last one of them. You will know they are coming. Don't hide them at that time, use them.


Impossible ! You will be soooo out gunned . Just stand up for your rights so you don't lose them to begin with . Vote out the passive scum who want to take away your right to defend yourself . You know the ones I'm talking about...the ones who are protected by the same guns they want to take from us ! Most of them have guns or body guards, paid for by the citizens . :confused:

Ddo you think crimminals will turn in guns ?

No, but I think the constitution should reflect the fact that the right to bear certain types of ares is and must be infringed.

Not many criminals rely on artillery or rpgs, tanks and planes and the constitution should not in word protect such possession. (although that protection is ignored as a matter of necessity)

The constitution will become superfluous if the application by government and rulings by courts are allowed to directly contradict its text.

artillery or rpgs, tanks and planes and the constitution should not in word protect such possession.
If someone can bear tanks, he/she is welcome to it.

There's been a lot of that going around lately. This is a "gateway opinion". Watch out, or the next thing you know, you'll want to legalize marijuana, gay marriage, and porn. ;)holy crap! i agree on two outa those three already!!! the sky is falling!!!

rely on artillery or rpgs, tanks and planes and the constitution should not in word protect such possession.
I can see no one should be allowed to have WMD. If I have a huge farm to defend, I may have a legitimate need for tanks.

If I have a huge farm to defend, I may have a legitimate need for tanks.

And tens of millions of dollars to buy them? people to drive them?

You'd waste all that one the off chance the government decides to seize your farm (although the bank might for all the debts you'd have to make)

So what is a constitutionally legal "arm" ?

hunting rifle ? <check>

handgun ? <check>

shotgun ? <check>

fully automatic rifles, armor piercing rounds, silencers, huge ammo clips, bores > 50 cal. , incendiary or explosive rounds, concealed weapons etc are all illegal or require special permission (depending on the state)

The technology has progressed far beyond the flint-lock musket days, when do you say that enough is enough ?

The legal weapons are all already deadly ... does Joe Sixpack really need a rifle and ammo that can pierce body armor ?

The legal weapons are all already deadly ... does Joe Sixpack really need a rifle and ammo that can pierce body armor ?needs got nothing to do with it? does anyone need a vette to go to the grocery store? btw, just about any hunting rifle will pierce body armor, like swiss cheese. yet another example of ignorance and fear instead of facts.

Not only are their fewer threats now...


Now that is an absurd statement.

needs got nothing to do with it? does anyone need a vette to go to the grocery store? btw, just about any hunting rifle will pierce body armor, like swiss cheese. yet another example of ignorance and fear instead of facts.

Level III and higher vests are designed to stop conventional rifle rounds, what were you saying about ignorance again ?

Level III and higher vests are designed to stop conventional rifle rounds, what were you saying about ignorance again ?that's great. a bradley will stop a rifle round too. how many of those do you see? i meant common body armor, but of course you knew that.

let me ask you this Jwreck ... where do you think the line should be drawn ?

How much firepower is too-much for a common citizen to own ?

let me ask you this Jwreck ... where do you think the line should be drawn ?

How much firepower is too-much for a common citizen to own ?me personally? i believe it should include all small arms. i'd be ok with excluding anything crew served (actual machine guns). i think fully automatic weapons are really pointless to have illegal. they're quite expensive to own, much less operate, not to mention anyone with a slight bit of knowledge can make most semi-auto weapons full-auto.

Jwreck is absolutely right. Most crimes are comitted with cheap, disposable weapons. Automatic weapons are more dangerous, of course, but they're also a great deal more rare.

A criminal isn't going to spend $1,000 on a machine gun for a murder or a robbery that he'll have to toss after the crime.

Originally posted by Dreamscapist

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truthseeker
Not only are their fewer threats now...



Now that is an absurd statement.


Armed, hostile indians on the frontier? Nope

Dozens of countries with superior armed forces? Nope

Slaves who might rebel? Nope

Standing army unable to supply national defense? Nope

So how is there not less need for a militia capable of military action.

The Constitution and its amendments define fundamental human rights.

Despite what Cowpunk says the Supreme Court has not ruled on the second amendment in almost 70 years, and that decision was at best muddled.

The right to bear arms is a fundamental human right.

There is no recourse against an oppressive government if you cannot bear arms.

Examples abound of the atrocities that can be committed when the government is allowed to take away this right.

The Holocaust would not have been nearly as bad if the German government had not first taken away the right to be armed.

Look at the Warsaw Ghetto.

fully automatic rifles, armor piercing rounds, silencers, huge ammo clips, bores > 50 cal. , incendiary or explosive rounds, concealed weapons etc are all illegal or require special permission (depending on the state)


Shouldn't be. There wasn't even a need for a ban on automatic weapons until silly people banned alcohol. We fixed that problem, and we could fix the rest. Instead of treating symptoms, we should treat the disease.

The disease is too little freedom, the fix is not . . . even less.

Armed, hostile indians on the frontier? Nope

Dozens of countries with superior armed forces? Nope

Slaves who might rebel? Nope

Standing army unable to supply national defense? Nope

So how is there not less need for a militia capable of military action.


I'm really talking about modern threats that justify individual gun ownership:

carjackers
home invaders
desperate drug addicts
burglars
armed robbers
"strapped" gangbangers
road ragers

And don't forget that most of our standing army is now standing in foreign deserts, making the homeland a prime target for localized terrorism and invasion by UN troops seeking to disarm us.


And I rooted for the "hostile" Indians.

carjackers -- drug crimes
home invaders -- drug crimes
desperate drug addicts -- drug crimes
burglars -- There have always been burglers, and they're usually non-threatening. Either way, brandishing a firearm tends to scatter them.
armed robbers -- Drug crimes
"strapped" gangbangers -- Drug crimes
road ragers -- ??

Trying to remove the guns is a futile effort, and it won't address the actual problems, anyway.

carjackers -- drug crimes
home invaders -- drug crimes
desperate drug addicts -- drug crimes
burglars -- There have always been burglers, and they're usually non-threatening. Either way, brandishing a firearm tends to scatter them.
armed robbers -- Drug crimes
"strapped" gangbangers -- Drug crimes
road ragers -- ??

Trying to remove the guns is a futile effort, and it won't address the actual problems, anyway.


It's not all about drug crimes, although they're at the root of a lot of crime; some people are just desperate to pay the rent, some are just vicious.
And gangbangers will kill just for initiations.

I really don't see the drug problem being alleviated any time soon, especially when there seems to be some government fringe involvement in trafficking.

It's not all about drug crimes, although they're at the root of a lot of crime; some people are just desperate to pay the rent, some are just vicious.
And gangbangers will kill just for initiations.


The extreme majority is drug crimes. There's very little left outside of that. The average joe, behind on bills, isn't going to shoot someone.

The crime gangs are almost exclusively drug gangs.


I really don't see the drug problem being alleviated any time soon, especially when there seems to be some government fringe involvement in trafficking.

True, but then, it would probalby be easier to fix the drug problem than to disarm everyone in the country. Plus, that's the root of most of the other problems. Even if you could disarm the drug dealers and users, they'd just start smacking people with baseball bats, or stabbing them. You can't ban everything that they'll come up with to use as a weapon, so it would be infinately more efficient to address the actual problem, rather than one aspect of the symptom.

The extreme majority is drug crimes. There's very little left outside of that. The average joe, behind on bills, isn't going to shoot someone.

The crime gangs are almost exclusively drug gangs.



True, but then, it would probalby be easier to fix the drug problem than to disarm everyone in the country. Plus, that's the root of most of the other problems. Even if you could disarm the drug dealers and users, they'd just start smacking people with baseball bats, or stabbing them. You can't ban everything that they'll come up with to use as a weapon, so it would be infinately more efficient to address the actual problem, rather than one aspect of the symptom.

I'm totally against disarmament of the citizenry, for many reasons.
I live in a middle-class suburb where the neighborhood park is known for violent carjackings, there have been women raped and killed in their homes, and young thugz roam the streets looking for cars to steal and homes to rob. Precautions can be taken against perps with logical motivatons, but there are plenty of wild-card thrill-killers around as well.

And tens of millions of dollars to buy them? people to drive them?
Not uncommon for rich people to have 20 body guards. Besides, we are talking about what is allowed for a citizen. Whether you can affort it is your own concern.

let me ask you this Jwreck ... where do you think the line should be drawn ?
How much firepower is too-much for a common citizen to own ?
Not less than that available in a normal infantry unit.