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 that the constitution was written in a time and place that we must consider, and compare it with today -
not sure in this day and age everyone needs guns as its not the same time and environment as when it was written.
Not sure any law abiding person really needs a gun...
I think that the constitution was written in a time and place that we must consider, and compare it with today -
not sure in this day and age everyone needs guns as its not the same time and environment as when it was written.
Not sure any law abiding person really needs a gun...
This is where you're entirely wrong. The second amendment was written specifically to allow citizens to have the power to take back control from an overzealous government.
So if my background check comes back and they tell me I can not have a gun, that's not a restriction? Really? Really?
Well regulated militia means the MILITIA is to be well regulated. Aka drills, training etc.
The PEOPLE are to have unrestricted access to guns. 2 different words in 2 different parts of the amendment.
The background check is clearly a (tiny) part of trying to regulate weapons. Are you asking for no regulations at all? "Really? Really?" Come on, man. Not even you believe that.
Your definition of a "well-regulated militia" is completely novel... in fact, most of your fellow gun enthusiasts say that a militia is just an old-timey term for "everybody and anybody" and well-regulated means "in working order", not managed. I'm not kidding... that is the bizarre argument they try to use over and over on pro-gun sites. They do not agree with you by saying it means a well-trained or supervised group with drills, training, etc... and even if that's what it means, then we are obviously in violation of the Constitution because NO ONE is required to be trained in even the most basic safety of a gun when they buy one today. So much for "well-regulated" huh?
Unfortunately, you're wrong. The people are NOT to have unrestricted access to "arms". (don't get it confused by changing the language of the Constitution from "arms" to "guns". BIG difference between them... and what constitutes a "gun" nowadays compared to the muskets which existed when it was written) How do I know we don't have unrestricted access to arms? Because for some strange reason, the government clearly has the ability to restrict your access to bombs, RPGs, grenades and mustard gas... all are armaments which people like you think we should have in case of a tyrannical government. This is absurd.
You're on the wrong side of this argument. I understand the whole libertarian "freedom at all costs" feeling you (and a majority of people in this thread) have about it, but you're all just wrong.
Most people don't agree with me because most people lack the ability to critically think.
We have 320,000,000 guns in the country, that we know about, and 8,000 gun murders a year mostly involving the sale of illegal drugs.
"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."
This means that a militia is required to take on a tyrannical government. It does not mean that a militia has to exist.
It does not mean that a person needs to belong to a militia to have arms.
It means that a person must have the right to keep and bear arms so that in the event of a tyrannical government he can join his fellow citizens in a militia, to overthrow the government. A poorly regulated militia is not going to be very effective hence it saying well regulated.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
I think EA has a very good grasp on the intent of the founding fathers when they wrote the Constitution/Bill of Rights (BOR) Do you have any idea what would have happened to them if they had los to the overwhelming power of 18th century England? (hint, do a google search on "drawn and quartered", it's not like the movies show it) They were throwing off the chains of a government that was so oppressive that making the wrong government official mad could result in your very painful death. A government where mere "citizens" could not bear "arms", as the government constantly feared revolt.
To say they would not approve of citizens having modern weapons is to completely ignore where they came from, and why the 2nd Amendment exists. First, it was to avoid the oppression, cost, and potential corrupt use of a standing army. That is why the militia needed to be well armed and ready to serve (the regulated part). And the second reason was for that militia (the people) to defend against enemies foreign and domestic. So, for either scenario, the people need to be equipped properly, and thus, have not just a "need" for modern weapons, but a "requirement". At least if one wants to adhere to the principles and thoughts behind the formation of this country.
There's lots of lies and smoke thrown up around this issue, and for good reason. A disarmed populace is an easily controlled populace. As someone once said, the second amendment is not there for hunting.
I think EA has a very good grasp on the intent of the founding fathers when they wrote the Constitution/Bill of Rights (BOR) Do you have any idea what would have happened to them if they had los to the overwhelming power of 18th century England? (hint, do a google search on "drawn and quartered", it's not like the movies show it) They were throwing off the chains of a government that was so oppressive that making the wrong government official mad could result in your very painful death. A government where mere "citizens" could not bear "arms", as the government constantly feared revolt.
To say they would not approve of citizens having modern weapons is to completely ignore where they came from, and why the 2nd Amendment exists. First, it was to avoid the oppression, cost, and potential corrupt use of a standing army. That is why the militia needed to be well armed and ready to serve (the regulated part). And the second reason was for that militia (the people) to defend against enemies foreign and domestic. So, for either scenario, the people need to be equipped properly, and thus, have not just a "need" for modern weapons, but a "requirement". At least if one wants to adhere to the principles and thoughts behind the formation of this country.
There's lots of lies and smoke thrown up around this issue, and for good reason. A disarmed populace is an easily controlled populace. As someone once said, the second amendment is not there for hunting.
It's not letting me rep you either. I'll make a note and rep both you and EA again when city-data lets me. .....
The problem I have with Question 1 is not the background check on purchased firearms. Since the Brady bill passed, I have never purchased a firearm without a background check and have not found it be all that much of a problem. I really don't see a problem with the portion of the bill that requires a background check.
That said, there is another portion of the bill that I find really to be a problem. The bill not only covers purchases of firearms (which I support) but the transfer of firearms. That means that if I hand a firearm to another person, say we are out in the desert and a buddy wants to shoot my brand new firearm, I have just performed a criminal act under this bill.
And here's another situation, one that I find myself in right now. A friend of mine has just inherited two pistols from his father. He wants to keep these family heirlooms, but he doesn't have a place to store them at this time. Knowing that I have a gun safe, he's asked me to keep the guns in my safe until he can purchase his own. This action will be illegal under the new bill, unless he transfers the guns to me at a gun store. Then he cannot pick up the guns until we go to a gun store and have them transferred back to him. In the meantime, he can have no access to the guns. Folks, that's not right.
Yes, there is some good in the bill, but there is also some bad. It's called the law of unintended consequences. This bill needs to be rewritten to just include the sale of firearms.
EA may well be correct in his historical view. However the grand conspiracy has long since overridden all that. That is the conspiracy between the gunnies, like the NRA, and the right wing courts.
The problem is simple. The amendment, as intended by the fore fathers, would be unacceptable and would be swiftly amended out of existence if interpreted as intended. Would you really be happy with gangs and even patriotic groups armed with capable heavy automatic weapons? That is what the founders would advocate. Some nut puts a heavy round into a school? That would be the collateral damage from a correct interpretation of the amendment.
So the gun powers that be circled a simple right to self protection argument and got a friendly court to buy it.
The damage is that it is also declared as regulatable regardless of the clear language otherwise. And it is likely that it will be regulated more stringently as time goes on.
Utterly irrelevant. The constitution MUST be interpreted as written, or it's worthless.
If parts are deemed to be outdated, it should be amended to reflect those changes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by livintheratrace
I think that the constitution was written in a time and place that we must consider, and compare it with today -
not sure in this day and age everyone needs guns as its not the same time and environment as when it was written.
Not sure any law abiding person really needs a gun...
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.
