Gun Control

jimmiebarton said:
" a well regulated militia"

explain to me how that translates to guns freely available for all citizens? since when is a loose band of gun owners scattered across the nation a "well regulated militia'?

it's a serious question?
More...

It translates to freedom to own firearms by citizens in good standing simply by the fact that it was clearly intended by the founders that our citizenry be somewhat more inclined and able to resist any unforeseen tyrannical behaviors by the government they were conceiving by including language meant to ensure they had not just access but the right to assemble in militias. You don't really see anyone assembling but we sure as hell insist on that right of access. It is cooked into the DNA of the country by its founders who codified it in the so called founding documents.

If the idea of reinventing the United States as a firearm free society is powerful enough politically to repeal an amendment to the Constitution then you can restrict access but short of that forget about it.
 
futurecurrents said:
And you can't easily own a machine gun and they can't make new ones for sale. lol
More...

Nor a large artillery piece or an fully functional tank... oh wait a minute... 2 people killed a couple of weeks ago in Oregon firing live rounds from their tank at a gun range:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/29/vintage-military-tank-explosion-oregon-kills-two-men

They seem to allow automatic weapons in Oregon as well. They have them at the corner store. Liberals with tanks and machine guns so a little weird right?
 
377OHMS said:
It translates to freedom to own firearms by citizens in good standing simply by the fact that it was clearly intended by the founders that our citizenry be somewhat more inclined and able to resist any unforeseen tyrannical behaviors by the government they were conceiving by including language meant to ensure they had not just access but the right to assemble in militias. You don't really see anyone assembling but we sure as hell insist on that right of access. It is cooked into the DNA of the country by its founders who codified it in the so called founding documents.

If the idea of reinventing the United States as a firearm free society is powerful enough politically to repeal an amendment to the Constitution then you can restrict access but short of that forget about it.
More...
I get the feeling your reaching here.

"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."

i think the USA is pretty much free state today. So, what's your beef? The Brits are pretty much staying on there own side of the Atlantic these days
 
jimmiebarton said:
I get the feeling your reaching here.

"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."

i think the USA is pretty much free state today. So, what's your beef? The Brits are pretty much staying on there own side of the Atlantic these days
More...

Yeah I agree we are pretty much free. My beef is all the talk about simply legislating gun control.
 
Lean on 2nd amendment because your scared someone else will have a gun but not you. You don't really believe in this "well regulated militia is necessary blah blah" in 21st century do you?

I want a gun for protection from my "neighbor", who also has one right?

Come clean :D
 
jimmiebarton said:
I get the feeling your reaching here.

"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."

i think the USA is pretty much free state today. So, what's your beef? The Brits are pretty much staying on there own side of the Atlantic these days
More...

Let's look at this in context of the time it was written. At the time the United States was founded many European countries dis-allowed the serfs (e.g. poor underclass) from owning firearms. The intent of these rules was so the aristocracy could continue to maintain the underclass beneath their firm boot while keeping them unarmed so the underclass could not revolt. A policy that worked for generations until the French nobility lost their heads at the very end of the 1700s.

There was a fear in many states at the time the union was formed that the federal government would become powerful and trample the states. There was also a fear that a President could easily turn into a dictator and trample any citizen who opposed him using the professional military.

Militias were commonly raised and used for armed conflicts in the U.S. out until the 1850s. The U.S. normally had a small professional military army. In conflicts such as the War of 1812 most of the troops used were state militias. Militiamen were expected to bring their own firearm (of military grade) and expected to have basic proficiency in using the firearm.

The 2nd amendment was put into place for a number of reasons. The first was to ensure that an aristocratic class would never be able to ground an unarmed citizenry under their boot (a problem in Europe for centuries which Americans crossed the Atlantic to escape). The second was to ensure that the U.S. would remain a free state and not fall into a federal dictatorship whose professional military or mercenaries (remember the Hessians contracted by the British) suppressed the population (BTW... there were many in the U.S. who wanted George Washington or some other as a King in the beginning). Third to ensure their were gun owners who could quickly and easily be raised as a militia in times of crisis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top