No, because it doesn't say "the right of militias to have and bear arms shall not be infringed," it specifies that it is referring to "the people" in general. The early portion of the statement, where it mentions regulating militias, is only to say that law enforcement has to be restricted. I may or may not agree with the idea of people owning firearms, but the amendment itself is crystal clear on this once you understand what the words mean.Wereduck said:
Poll: 2nd Amendment bug you? Me too.
- Thread starter Wintermute_
- Start date
Recommended Videos
"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."
Judging from the terminology, this suggests that the 'right to bear arms' is derived solely from a military readiness stand point. It's preparation for a what if scenario, allowing people to be ready to face a state of warfare with minimal need to seek out a weapon should the scenario present itself.
Nothing in this suggests a matter of personal safety or permission of use outside preparation for war. It doesn't specify classification of permitted weapons, nor does it suggest necessity of concealing them. Were one to adhere to this, citizens are legally allowed to carry any weapon at all times but not allowed use of it except in defense of the country's security.
If anything, this amendment should warrant mandatory firearms training of all citizens as the allowance of weapon ownership can endanger a person but does not magically teach them proper military application of the device.
Alteration or clarification of this amendment would be a greatly appreciated matter, especially due to the changes to common terminology over time.
As far as gun use in crime, ownership alone does not always precede criminal action. Use of such in crimes should be counted as treasonous action due to disobedience of long-established laws.
Judging from the terminology, this suggests that the 'right to bear arms' is derived solely from a military readiness stand point. It's preparation for a what if scenario, allowing people to be ready to face a state of warfare with minimal need to seek out a weapon should the scenario present itself.
Nothing in this suggests a matter of personal safety or permission of use outside preparation for war. It doesn't specify classification of permitted weapons, nor does it suggest necessity of concealing them. Were one to adhere to this, citizens are legally allowed to carry any weapon at all times but not allowed use of it except in defense of the country's security.
If anything, this amendment should warrant mandatory firearms training of all citizens as the allowance of weapon ownership can endanger a person but does not magically teach them proper military application of the device.
Alteration or clarification of this amendment would be a greatly appreciated matter, especially due to the changes to common terminology over time.
As far as gun use in crime, ownership alone does not always precede criminal action. Use of such in crimes should be counted as treasonous action due to disobedience of long-established laws.
Outdated? Back then, everyone and their mum carried a military-grade firearm, and they seemed to get along with each other fine. It's my gorram right to own a weapon, and you bet your ass I'll buy one when I get the money. Same thing I post in all these threads: 40 Reasons For Gun Control [http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/200306172114.html]
Doesn't matter what the war is, if you want to do anything past destroy your target (i.e. conquer and rule) you must have infantry superiority. Infantry is the Queen of Battle because, like in chess, it's the most capable and mobile asset of the guys in charge. If even half of Americans pick up a weapon when invaded (which I'm sure we will, because we don't really enjoy being fucked with) that's a force of 150 million insurgents, rebels, and guerilla soldiers. Our military's having trouble with the Taliban, which it most likely outnumbers, so I'll wish luck on any invading soldier's buddies as I line up a shot on him through my scope.
And food for thought:
"The scholarship on the 2nd Amendment overwhelmingly agrees that it protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and not simply the right to arm the "militia". (19) In 1982, the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution evaluated the historical record, and unanimously concluded the same. (20)"
19. Reynolds H, Kates D; "The Second Amendment and States' Rights: A Thought Experiment"; William & Mary Law Review; Vol 36 #5,8/955
20. Senate Subcommittee of the Commission of the Judiciary on The Constitution, 97th Congress, 1992
http://www.jrwhipple.com/guns/firearm_facts.html
Doesn't matter what the war is, if you want to do anything past destroy your target (i.e. conquer and rule) you must have infantry superiority. Infantry is the Queen of Battle because, like in chess, it's the most capable and mobile asset of the guys in charge. If even half of Americans pick up a weapon when invaded (which I'm sure we will, because we don't really enjoy being fucked with) that's a force of 150 million insurgents, rebels, and guerilla soldiers. Our military's having trouble with the Taliban, which it most likely outnumbers, so I'll wish luck on any invading soldier's buddies as I line up a shot on him through my scope.
And food for thought:
"The scholarship on the 2nd Amendment overwhelmingly agrees that it protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and not simply the right to arm the "militia". (19) In 1982, the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution evaluated the historical record, and unanimously concluded the same. (20)"
19. Reynolds H, Kates D; "The Second Amendment and States' Rights: A Thought Experiment"; William & Mary Law Review; Vol 36 #5,8/955
20. Senate Subcommittee of the Commission of the Judiciary on The Constitution, 97th Congress, 1992
http://www.jrwhipple.com/guns/firearm_facts.html
What ya mean US citizens won't be able to overthrow their government. The government may have a big military but...
1. If all the citizens are fighting the military, where will the military get its weapons from?
2. The military is made up of citizens, therefore, the military may help overthrow the government.
1. If all the citizens are fighting the military, where will the military get its weapons from?
2. The military is made up of citizens, therefore, the military may help overthrow the government.
In rebuttal, I offer you my post here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.257803.9695817] from just up the page from your own post. I addressed the Militia issue explicitly.Criquefreak said:
Considering the reason to own a gun (any weapon) is mainly to protect yourself against someone with a gun, something is wrong here. And like the OP said, any armed revolution would be futile because all we can use are shitty in comparison to military grade hardware. Not to mention the military's tanks and Armored Personnel Carriers. I smell redundancy in the air. But then again, if criminals try hard enough they will get guns anyway. Hell, they DO already get guns illegally (AK-47s and Uzis everywhere in the streets). So I guess it isn't entirely redundant, but I think a better approach would be to better guard against the import and sale of illegal weapons to keep gangsters from getting a hold of them instead just letting the citizens carry guns.
The entire point of the Second Amendment was to turn the endless flood of idiotic young-'uns into cannon fodder whilst the trained soldiers got into place, it's not a complicated thing.
But people held onto it as an excuse to carry a gun around like it's still 1877.
But people held onto it as an excuse to carry a gun around like it's still 1877.
Someone's been watching Bowling for ColumbineWintermute_ said:
Yes, the points you raise are all valid and true. Guns are dangerous, and as a former competitive shooter, I can tell you all about their capabilities. I'm Brtish, and owning a weapon for me comes with strict guidelines, and regular police checks.
It seems like a no-brainer to regulate them, doesn't it?
Well, here's the reasoned counter argument to any regulation. You are admitting that you, yourself, and your neighbours are not, and never will be, responsible enough to have free use of guns.
You are telling your government that you do not have the capability to think when using a weapon, and you are inviting them to think for you. that you are literally too stupid to own a weapon. Not only are you doing this, but you are dashing the hopes that the builders of your country had for making a gun responsible nation. They wanted people to be able to manage themselves.
It is, indeed, a tool meant for killing someone. But so is a knife, which you use three times a day, if not more often, to eat. Somewhere along the line we learnt not to stab it in people just because we happened to be holding it. Take the gun away from you, and you lose that chance to grow as a society.
That's a purely philosophical view though, and hardly practical. But it is an indication of a society which is starting to trade away choice and responsibility for security and regulation.
That's a little sad isn't it?
Now if only the citizens in the British Colonies had taken that advice instead of shooting at the lawful representatives of their own government... "Obey or leave" is the worst advice ever given by anyone to anyone. There would be no such thing as justice anywhere if everyone followed such advice.Hatchet90 said:
Oh i really like it when people say that the second amendment is out of date because that really means that the whole constitution could be considered out of date. I realize the idea of everyone having a gun is unsettling to some people. However that amendment is there for the defense of people against the government. The government is also not allowed to use the US army on US soil.
The second amendment needs to be there in my opinion because of the right of self defense. If we didn't have guns people would be whining about knives, if knives where outlawed then sharp sticks would be in everyone's hands. Anything can be a weapon I personally use my gun to shoot paper.
Freedom isn't really free if you take away things one by one.
The second amendment needs to be there in my opinion because of the right of self defense. If we didn't have guns people would be whining about knives, if knives where outlawed then sharp sticks would be in everyone's hands. Anything can be a weapon I personally use my gun to shoot paper.
Freedom isn't really free if you take away things one by one.
Let me reword what I said, I think I may have misspoke. What I am trying to say is that we can alter the constitution by adding amendments, though it is a long process, which ties into my point as a whole. What i said about guns and gun control is just my idea about it. in order to enact this it would take a lot of time in order to make the idea possible without fringing on the constitutional right to bear arms.Skullkid4187 said:
Sort of the unspoken thing about the second amendment is that the people have the right to take up arms against the government should we ever decide that we didn't like the way things are run. The right to bear arms does have a lot to do with what you said about Indian attacks and such, but it goes beyond that. The whole "militia" thing still applies. ever heard of neighborhood watch? Sure, you don't exactly see them toting guns around, but the idea is exactly the same, only instead of them carrying the guns, they report to the cops, who can also play the role of the militia should shit ever hit the fan.
The whole point of it is that we fought off the British, who were our government at the time, by the way, and won our independence. We own guns because of that. We also own guns because we're allowed to go hunting. Defending our homes too. As for the AKs and all that, you do realize that the AK-47 shoots more or less the same round as an M1A and pretty much anything that shoots a 308. They are also mostly semi-auto, and most AKs that you can get in the US, along with other weapons that are typically full-auto, are chambered in a smaller round than the originals. Most AKs I've seen were chambered in .22LR or .223/5.56. Things aren't as bad with gun violence as you think. Look up the stats for other forms of violence, you'd be surprised.
The whole point of it is that we fought off the British, who were our government at the time, by the way, and won our independence. We own guns because of that. We also own guns because we're allowed to go hunting. Defending our homes too. As for the AKs and all that, you do realize that the AK-47 shoots more or less the same round as an M1A and pretty much anything that shoots a 308. They are also mostly semi-auto, and most AKs that you can get in the US, along with other weapons that are typically full-auto, are chambered in a smaller round than the originals. Most AKs I've seen were chambered in .22LR or .223/5.56. Things aren't as bad with gun violence as you think. Look up the stats for other forms of violence, you'd be surprised.