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.
In their defense, they had no idea what that amendment would result in some 200+ years later, no way to know the kind of advanced weaponry that would be invented and fall into hands they don't belong in, no way of knowing how Americans would misuse and abuse the amendment in ways they never intended.
But here we are.
It's time to consider amending the Constitution again.
Absolutely correct. Times change and situations change. We aren't dealing with flintlocks any more, nor the need to have guns in case the English come back and try to take over the country. That was then, this is now.
What is it going to take to make people realize that you and I do not need to own guns that spew out tons of rounds, just because "we can" ?
In their defense, they had no idea what that amendment would result in some 200+ years later, no way to know the kind of advanced weaponry that would be invented and fall into hands they don't belong in, no way of knowing how Americans would misuse and abuse the amendment in ways they never intended.
But here we are.
It's time to consider amending the Constitution again.
The obligation to serve in the militia in England derives from a common law tradition, and dates back to Anglo-Saxon times. The tradition was that all able-bodied males were liable to be called out to serve in one of two organisations. These were the posse comitatus, an ad hoc assembly called together by a law officer to apprehend lawbreakers, and the fyrd a military body intended to preserve internal order or defend the locality against an invader. The latter developed into the militia, and was usually embodied by a royal warrant. Service in each organisation involved different levels of preparednes
So the US is basically using something developed from Anglo Saxon times to justify it's gun laws, indeed it's so ridiculous you couldn't make it up.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,178 posts, read 13,461,836 times
Reputation: 19482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
"I think this was the founding fathers intention," Their WORDING says otherwise!
Have you ever read any of their quotes about CITIZEN gun ownership? Apparently NOT!
Sounds like they were talking about a militia, indeed during Anglo Saxon times I am sure individuals would keep their bow and arrow at home, but it doesn't mean every one should have the right to a bow and arrow today.
Absolutely correct. Times change and situations change. We aren't dealing with flintlocks any more, nor the need to have guns in case the English come back and try to take over the country. That was then, this is now.
What is it going to take to make people realize that you and I do not need to own guns that spew out tons of rounds, just because "we can" ?
The Bill of Rights were not written as protections against the nation of England nor designed as to be temporary.
They are rights secured for the individual for protection from the power of government.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,178 posts, read 13,461,836 times
Reputation: 19482
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
If this were true, and it's not, there would be no 2nd in the Bill of Rights.
Once again, the Bill of Rights is only about individual freedoms.
Nonsense they meant people could keep guns in their homes in order to defend the country in terms of a militia and this was the reason that everyone had the right to bear arms.
This however in modern America has little bearing on rightly and the problems relating to modern day shootings and weapons.
"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."
A militia is a type of reserve force like that found in Swtzerland where the Home Guard take their guns home and are committed to defending the country, it is very well regulated and is a world away from modern day America.
I suggest the meaning of Militia was this -
The obligation to serve in the militia in England derives from a common law tradition, and dates back to Anglo-Saxon times. The tradition was that all able-bodied males were liable to be called out to serve in one of two organisations. These were the posse comitatus, an ad hoc assembly called together by a law officer to apprehend lawbreakers, and the fyrd a military body intended to preserve internal order or defend the locality against an invader. The latter developed into the militia, and was usually embodied by a royal warrant. Service in each organisation involved different levels of preparednes
So the US is basically using something developed from Anglo Saxon times to justify it's gun laws, indeed it's so ridiculous you couldn't make it up.
"A well regulated" This has been "interpreted to DEATH,"well regulate" back then meant IN GOOD WORKING ORDER.
If you are going to discuss an issue, do at least SOME research BEFORE making a fool of yourself by your lack of knowledge on the subject.
In their defense, they had no idea what that amendment would result in some 200+ years later, no way to know the kind of advanced weaponry that would be invented and fall into hands they don't belong in, no way of knowing how Americans would misuse and abuse the amendment in ways they never intended.
But here we are.
It's time to consider amending the Constitution again.
Yep agreed....the time that the founding fathers lived was like a different universe compared to ours. Society and technology changes with time, and the only way a nation can survive is by addressing these changes.
We can still own guns, but we need to start addressing these weapons of mass murder...weapons which never existed during the times of the founding fathers.
The founding fathers would be surprised at all the weapons restrictions. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to put citizens on par with the military in weaponry. Thus, citizens would be able to overthrow an oppressive government that no longer represented the people.
The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate "checks and balances" if peaceful options fail.
No. It was meant so that colonizers on the frontier could defend themselves from native tribes and push American farm land west without the need of an organized military to be at constant war spread thin along the wide border.
It also had well to do with protecting slave owners.
"I think this was the founding fathers intention," Their WORDING says otherwise!
Their wording says "a well regulated MILITIA." Do you consider all these shooters to be a part of a militia?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
Have you ever read any of their quotes about CITIZEN gun ownership? Apparently NOT!
That was then. The world has vastly changed since they wrote the amendment. There were no weapons of mass destruction that were easily obtained by anyone who wants them, for the sole purpose of slaughtering as many people as possible in a short span of time.
Or is this the America you think the founding fathers imagined?
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.
