Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think I get what you're saying, but folks are going to pick apart your thesis and supporting ideas to justify their own positions. You are correct that the founders of the 2nd Amendment could not have possibly foresaw the destruction of modern weaponry, easy access, the gun culture we current live in, etc. They also couldn't have foresaw the scale of world wars, guerrilla warfare, the United Nations, the Internet, and our modern society. They lived during a context of oppressive monarchs with a simple mercantile economy and they were focused on the prevention of a tyrannical government by way of an armed militia by and for the people.
Today we have national military who holds much more power than any one citizen or militia can harness due to financial and technological constraints...even Bezos, Buffett, and Gates combined couldn't afford to maintain a militia group to overthrow the US military. Our power relies on our vote, political dialogue, our trust that the US military will defend the Constitution, and our international alliances will protect us from political threats.
The idea that an high-capacity automatic rifle would do anything to thwart tyranny in our government is a complete joke; but we seem to have some "David vs Goliath" mystique. Unfortunately because we live in a society where the perceived protections for a few serve as a greater threat to the masses, we will all have to live with the potential danger of gunmen.
The best we can do is incremental change, tamper down the reverence for guns/violence, monitor our friends and family of their desire to hurt others, and take on the responsibility of being a protector (vowing to never be an aggressor) with a gun or tether yourself to someone who will. Even then, there's no guarantees that gun violence won't strike but it will mitigate the scale.
I live in South Florida and have experienced first-hand civil unrest following a hurricane, mainly from ignorant, unprepared people who refused to listen to authorities and take personal responsibility for their own well-being by stocking up on food, water, and other emergency supplies. Instead they take advantage of those that did the right thing by looting stores, burglarizing homes, and destruction of property all while law enforcement is otherwise occupied with the immediate crisis.
I plan to defend my family, my home and myself from these criminals. And I do not wish to commit mass murder, but I do want to be able to effectively repel multiple threats to my home or my family during a time of civil unrest.
Remember: When seconds count the police are just minutes away! And in a natural catastrophe, they might not even come at all!
I think I get what you're saying, but folks are going to pick apart your thesis and supporting ideas to justify their own positions. You are correct that the founders of the 2nd Amendment could not have possibly foresaw the destruction of modern weaponry, easy access, the gun culture we current live in, etc. They also couldn't have foresaw the scale of world wars, guerrilla warfare, the United Nations, the Internet, and our modern society. They lived during a context of oppressive monarchs with a simple mercantile economy and they were focused on the prevention of a tyrannical government by way of an armed militia by and for the people.
Today we have national military who holds much more power than any one citizen or militia can harness due to financial and technological constraints...even Bezos, Buffett, and Gates combined couldn't afford to maintain a militia group to overthrow the US military. Our power relies on our vote, political dialogue, our trust that the US military will defend the Constitution, and our international alliances will protect us from political threats.
The idea that an high-capacity automatic rifle would do anything to thwart tyranny in our government is a complete joke; but we seem to have some "David vs Goliath" mystique. Unfortunately because we live in a society where the perceived protections for a few serve as a greater threat to the masses, we will all have to live with the potential danger of gunmen.
The best we can do is incremental change, tamper down the reverence for guns/violence, monitor our friends and family of their desire to hurt others, and take on the responsibility of being a protector (vowing to never be an aggressor) with a gun or tether yourself to someone who will. Even then, there's no guarantees that gun violence won't strike but it will mitigate the scale.
You are not considering the NUMBERs...sure, the US military is powerful, and you are also right, that a few guys with full autos would not stand a chance of shutting them down...but what if it was MANY MANY MANY more than a just a few guys, what if it were MILLIONS of guys?
Id have to look at the most recent census, but its safe to say there are ALOT of guys in the age range necessary to take part in something like this (MUCH more than US troops).If they are US citizens, they would be expected to stand up and fight, thats what the founding fathers expected.
Besides the numbers, its common in warfare for enemies to capture and then use the opposing sides equipment and gear when they have victories, so then its millions of guys with full autos, tanks, etc, and so on and so on.
A2 was written in a different time and in a different context. It needs to be abrogated. The senseless gun violence is making the US a failed state. If you can't assure safety, you are a failing state.
Citizens had the right to bear arms in the US before the 2nd Amendment was passed. There was no need for it to convey that right because it already existed and was passed down from English common law. The government was not confiscating firearms before the 2nd Amendment became law. The point of the amendment was to connect and justify that right as a responsibility in terms of the disciplined local or state militia since the Founding Fathers and the original state assemblies were wary and suspicious of a large standing army. People own firearms in the UK but there are sensible regulations and restrictions. They don't have the 2nd Amendment interpretation problem and nothing like our mass shooting problem.
Citizens had the right to bear arms in the US before the 2nd Amendment was passed. There was no need for it to convey that right because it already existed and was passed down from English common law. The government was not confiscating firearms before the 2nd Amendment became law. The point of the amendment was to connect and justify that right as a responsibility in terms of the disciplined local or state militia since the Founding Fathers and the original state assemblies were wary and suspicious of a large standing army. People own firearms in the UK but there are sensible regulations and restrictions. They don't have the 2nd Amendment interpretation problem and nothing like our mass shooting problem.
And don't forget: before the 2nd Amendment a gun, just like a knife, axe, etc was/and still is a tool.
The Founding Fathers Made a Mistake With the Second Amendment
In 1791, the Framers decided more people would suffer and die if govt had ANY authority to restrict or take away guns, than if the govt were forbidden to restrict or ban any of them. They put a command into the Constitution saying "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." And they even put an explanatory clause before it.
The main reason was to prevent a tyrannical government from abusing its citizens. But George Washington also had the usual domestic criminals to deal with, and some insane people just as we have today, who might randomly kill innocent people. By a gun, or a gunpowder bomb that could blow up an entire building etc. Yet the people of his time knew that it was more dangerous to give govt any power to decide who could own a gun and who couldn't, than to put up with a few nutcases who might hurt or even kill somebody.
And the Framers also knew that the people themselves were a far more effective deterrent to crime, than a hired police force who the criminals could identify by sight and dodge as it suited them when committing crimes.
When the people in 1791 wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment, they made no mistake. They provided the most effective means to safeguard the people that has ever been developed, in our world of imperfect people. It is not perfect, since no program can be perfect throughout an entire population. But it can keep more people alive and safe, than any other "solution" offered by blinders-on leftists, then and now.
And the big-govt leftists have been fighting against it ever since.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
