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.
Actually the 2nd Amendment was crafted in the context of providing for a "well regulated militia"...which in the early decades we relied upon for national defense (as opposed to a large s5anding military).
Actually, no.
English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty.
The arguments for and against ratification of Constitution are evident in the state conventions. New York ratified the Constitution, but it included with the ratification statement a declaration of rights and a statement that ratification was made with the assumption that the rights enumerated in the declaration could not be abridged or violated and were consistent with the Constitution. New York made it clear that the people had a right to keep and bear arms and that the militia was to include all the people capable of bearing arms, not just a select few.
New Hampshire also required the addition of Amendments to ratify the Constitution. It's 12th Amendment stated: Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.
Pennsylvania's contribution stated: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own State or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed disarming the people or any of them unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals.
Massachusetts: The right of the people to keep and bear arms was included as was the statement that a militia composed of the body of the people was the natural and safe defense of a free state.
The North Carolina convention proposed that a declaration of rights be added to the Constitution which explicitly identified the right of people to keep and bear arms as a natural right and one of the means necessary to the pursuit and obtainment of happiness and safety.
In summarizing the State ratification process, three States, New York, New Hampshire, and Virginia, ratified while expressing their understanding that the people had a right to bear arms and that Congress would never disarm law abiding citizens. Two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, refused to ratify until individual rights, including the people's right to keep and bear arms, were recognized by amendments. In Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, an effort was made to amend or condition ratification on amendment to including the right to keep and bear arms.
It's clear that the intent was for individuals to possess weapons, and that all capable individuals were may be called upon to perform duties in the militia.
Do you and your neighbors on your block have a standing chance against TRAINED military men who will always out arm you, even if you own an AR-15? LOL. Maybe in those popular Dystopian movies on TNT, but not in any kind of reality.
Clearly, you have no understanding of Asymmetrical Warfare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roseba
Your AR-15 is no match to a platoon of armed military personnel. It actually will get you killed faster because you are armed with a deadly weapon and hence posing a threat.
And why would I take on a platoon?
I was in Panama and Iraq, and I also served in the S-3 Section at battalion and brigade level.
Suffice to say I know what I'm doing, whereas, you very obviously do not.
Another articulate opinion in an attempt to change the narrative.
Asking to have sensible regulations and approaches to preventing massacres in an effort to promote the common good does not equate a position of taking away your right to bear arms!
We are a democracy...that means compromise in governing. Both sides must understand each other before we each give something up to come to the middle. Are you truly better off when you shut down an attempt at understanding someone else? Do you think that your perceived win by cursing at this 70 year old woman will do anything to solve this very real issue in your life and the lives of every citizen?
Don't you want to be a part of the solution rather than part of the problem?
You, personally, advocate taking away a right to bear arms:
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpgypsy
Australia worked it out. Look it up, as opposed to digging in and saying can't. Their citizens and legislators listened to each other and reached an understanding on sensible gun control. With all due respect, perhaps you could look at the last line of your above post, and take your own advice. Security did not prevent the massacre of 17 lives last week, now did it? Focus on something else...great idea.
At the risk of being redundant, I wish to again applaud the young survivors of last week's massacre as they turn their justified anger into activism. Hooray for them...America, perhaps we can learn something in our embarrassment from failing to protect our youngest citizens!
You point to a country which banned almost all firearms, and call that reasonable gun control. Everyone can see right through you, which is why I say you types argue in bad faith.
We already have "reasonable" gun laws, but it's never enough for your ilk. You want a country with restrictive gun laws? Move to one. We have a right to keep and bear arms here. That right isn't granted by the government, and the government can't take it away. I have the right to defend myself, simply by virtue of being a human. That defense includes common criminals, and also includes government actors when they become tyrants.
Again......only relevant in a combat situation when people are shooting back at you.
No...its relevant to hitting moving targets full stop. You have a higher probability of hitting people when you are firing 4000 bullets vs 240 bullets. You are attempting to argue against probability. The Vegas shooter would not have hit 600+ people if he could only fire 240 rounds.
My dad gave me a Remington 870 as a gift when I was in College, and sold it. I don't need guns, I don't hunt. I just call 911 if I need the police.
Maybe in the 1700s, it made sense. To have a gun to protect your family. Today is not necessary. Our police departments are funded with tax dollars to buy the most modern equipment and guns available in the market to protect us.
Yeah, you are right. In the 21st century, there are no oppressive governments.
Thanks for clearing that up.
But just to clarify, guns aren't needed. But if there is an emergency, you will be calling people with guns to come to your rescue?
I am all in favor of people being able to have guns for hunting, skeet shooting, and basic home safety. I am not for military/police style weapons.
A majority of Americans do NOT own guns. Guns are not a necessity.
Sort of maybe not. NO ONE KNOWS how many US citizens own, or have access to, firearms. No one. Period. Anywhere.
Many researchers (I did a bespoke project on this) think that there are easily twice the number of registered firearms in civilian ownership (My thoughts were that it was more than that), as registration only began around 1968. MANY firearms were made before then, and are fully functional now.
2A speaks to the role of militia which, in Madison's Virginia Declaration, was "the whole of the People." The Militia Act of 1792 required citizens to "...within six months thereafter, provide himself..." with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack" IIRC, they also needed a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, and 20 rifle balls.
Magazine size is of absolute importance. Outside of a handful of special forces guys most normal people take longer then 5 seconds to reload. And while they are reloading they are not looking downrange. One of the key components of post WW2 military doctrine was being able to put more bullets in the air, faster then your enemy. The more bullets you shoot the more likely you are to win the engagement. Its the reason why all the major militaries in the post war years transitioned from bolt action and semi-auto rifles to assault rifles with large mag capacity.
Also larger magazines means you have to carry less of them when you are on the battlefield. Its easier to carry 5 mags on you then 25 for example.
The untrained Las Vegas shooter for example fired almost 1100 rounds of ammo downrange over 10 minutes. With a bolt action rifle with limited mag capacity he would be lucky to squeeze off 10 rounds in a minute. So we have 100 rounds vs 1100 rounds. Which do think would do more damage?
Clearly with the 100 rounds aimed shot.
1,000,000,000 spray and pray will do little damage.
No...its relevant to hitting moving targets full stop. You have a higher probability of hitting people when you are firing 4000 bullets vs 240 bullets. You are attempting to argue against probability. The Vegas shooter would not have hit 600+ people if he could only fire 240 rounds.
You clearly have no idea about firearms.
Could you please educate yourself before posting?
Two statistics.
In Vietnam war, 30,000-50,000 rounds per kill. In Iraq war, that’s 250,000 rounds per kill.
Let us also remember it was that required magazine exchange at the Arizona ( Gifford) Mass shooting that allowed enough time for someone to intervene and STOP the rampage!!!!
Meanwhile death and destruction prevailed with loss of life and permanently disable those who actually survived. I won't even go into the massive emotional affects by who witnessed it!!!
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.
