BTW, guess what happened last time we had strong state militias who believed the national gov't had become tyrannical.
-------------------------------------------------
And the time before that?
(*hint* The U.S. was born)
Not as clever a remark as you hoped it would be.</strong><hr></blockquote>So, before there was a Second Amendment, we were able to break off from a monarchy. What does that prove about the Second Amendment? That it's actually NOT necessary?
No, the only actual example you "Second-amendment-is-there-so-we-can-kill-the-tyrannical-politicians" people can point to is the Civil War. Unless you also want to count McVeigh, Weston, Oswald, and similar. I'm guessing you don't.
When we broke off from Britain there was no appropriate method in place for changing the gov't. Now there is. We follow laws, we work within a legal framework, we elect out representatives. We don't shoot politicians to change the gov't.
you know, there was a 10 page thread on this subject before the great blackout, and i don't really feel like going into it again. i had posted a half dozen links to gun usage stats and the like, but it boils down to this.
historically, the right to bear arms has been taken away from those who the govt. would like to opress. the legal right to carry a firearm is an equalizer that nothing else comes close to.
personally, if you aren't felon, i don't see why you shouldn't be able to carry a firearm. i'm a believer in you have a right to carry until proven otherwise, rather than you need to prove your need before you're allowed.
historically, the right to bear arms has been taken away from those who the govt. would like to opress.
...</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's interesting. Recently in Chicago they tried to make it conditional that you could not own a firearm and live in public housing. Sounds like oppression to me. All at the hands of do-gooding liberals.
<strong>So, before there was a Second Amendment, we were able to break off from a monarchy. What does that prove about the Second Amendment? That it's actually NOT necessary?
No, the only actual example you "Second-amendment-is-there-so-we-can-kill-the-tyrannical-politicians" people can point to is the Civil War. Unless you also want to count McVeigh, Weston, Oswald, and similar. I'm guessing you don't.
When we broke off from Britain there was no appropriate method in place for changing the gov't. Now there is. We follow laws, we work within a legal framework, we elect out representatives. We don't shoot politicians to change the gov't.
No matter how you cut it
killing politicians = assassination
going to war with your gov't = treason</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>I understand that many believe we will not stop violence by banning hanguns. I understand that some believe a handgun ban will only take guns away from legal, responsible gun owners. I disagree. I believe many crimes are committed with legally purchased guns (or ones that are purchased then stolen). I believe a total ban, if enforced properly, would reduce gun deaths. I also believe we should protect hunters and sport shooters by allowing rifles.
And... when you come to take my guns away, you had better damned well be armed.
This is an old debate. If you don't like guns, don't own them. But don't restrict my ABSOLUTE RIGHT to self-defense just because you are scared of guns. I don't care what the CONSTITUTION says, the govt. doesn't have the right to keep me from defending myself from violence and robbery using technology.
Where in the Constitution does it say that I can't have guns to defend myself with?
And before it starts -- yes, I HAVE defended myself with a firearm. I didn't have to use it, but that's because I had it. Some moron brought a baseball bat to a gunfight. Actually, that's occurred on more than one occasion. Someone came onto my property and threatened me with bodily harm without provocation.
Finally, when all the posts about the "cost" of gun violence roll in -- consider the "benefits" of private gun ownership. One of these is the benefit to those who DON'T own guns which exists because criminals don't know who you are. Those of us who put up with the risk and expense of weapons in the home obviously do so for a reason (beyond macho BS) but we also allow those who oppose guns to free-ride on our risk. As long as I'm more likely to shoot a home invader, you are safer in your own home. Nuff said.
<strong>So, before there was a Second Amendment, we were able to break off from a monarchy. What does that prove about the Second Amendment? That it's actually NOT necessary?
No, the only actual example you "Second-amendment-is-there-so-we-can-kill-the-tyrannical-politicians" people can point to is the Civil War. Unless you also want to count McVeigh, Weston, Oswald, and similar. I'm guessing you don't.
When we broke off from Britain there was no appropriate method in place for changing the gov't. Now there is. We follow laws, we work within a legal framework, we elect out representatives. We don't shoot politicians to change the gov't.
No matter how you cut it
killing politicians = assassination
going to war with your gov't = treason</strong><hr></blockquote>
What WERE the laws regarding guns prior to the Revolution? They must have been unclear, since the drafters found it necessary to include the 2nd Amendment language.
<strong>The words "of the people" appears in this one, too: Does it give you an absolute right to be free from search and seizure? No, it doesn't. It's conditioned upon reasonableness and warrants with specific information about what is to be searched.
In the same way, the second amendment gives the people the right to bear arms, conditioned upon their membership in the militia.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, dude -- the Constitution doesn't give ME the right to do anything. It restricts the actions of the government to impede my actions. My rights exist without the Constitution.
BRussell, I know that you understand this, but I wanted to point it out for some of the other readers, who may not.
If you click on it, you can read some quotes by the Framers that show they indeed intended for citizens to be able to keep and bear arms while not being part of a milita.
[quote]What you believe isn't relevant. Find evidence. <hr></blockquote>
Why? I was stating a belief. That's all. It would be difficult to prove my statements and I admit that. Call it more of an opinion or supposition if you like. It's certainly better than those totally irrevelvant quotes posted above, on a page that is obviously pro-gun.
Express your opinion too! That's what we are here for. But don't tell me my opinions are "irrelevant" because you disagree. What facts do YOU have? Can you PROVE that banning handguns WOULDN'T reduce gun deaths? Can YOU prove it?
I do have ONE fact that IS a FACT, and not an "interpretation" as the academic snob pfllam would say: The US has more handgun deaths than any other country in the world. Look it up.
Can you PROVE that banning handguns WOULDN'T reduce gun deaths? Can YOU prove it?
I do have ONE fact that IS a FACT, and not an "interpretation" as the academic snob pfllam would say: The US has more handgun deaths than any other country in the world. Look it up.
My beliefs are QUITE relevant.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
SDW2001,
I'm sure that banning handguns would reduce murders done by bad people with handguns. But then what would happen is that murders by other methods would increase because when somebody has it in their mind to kill, they'll do it wheather or not they have a gun. I know that guns make it easier to kill but remember McViegh? He killed over 160 and took out a building with a truck and chemicals. He couldn't have killed that many at that building if he had used a machine gun. People who want to kill will do so by any means.
The way to reduce most murders is to find the root cause(s) that would make somebody not care about killing someone else, come up with a solution(s) so that we don't raise anymore bad people, and apply it. If we were to do this and be sucessful, the US would be a much safer place and there would be less demand for guns.
I guess another way to think about your proposal of banning handguns is to imagine having 2 different streets to walk through. One of the streets has law abiding citizens who were raised to respect the lives and well being of others and everyone of these citizens has a gun on them. The other street is run by a gang that has no guns on them but has killed in the past with baseball bats, knives, or other means. You know they have no guns and see no baseball bats or knives on them as well.
Which street would you feel safer on?
My point is that banning handguns will not make the US a safer place. Raising people to respect the lives and well being of others will.
If you click on it, you can read some quotes by the Framers that show they indeed intended for citizens to be able to keep and bear arms while not being part of a milita.</strong><hr></blockquote>That page is an amazing list of shenanigans with out-of-context misquotes. Yes, it's repeated thousands of times all over the internet, but that doesn't make the impression it's trying to give an accurate one.
Two examples:
1. That page uses this quote:
[quote]"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."<hr></blockquote>
But fails to give the next several sentences:
[quote]And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised that, among the American people, there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed, without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.<hr></blockquote>
It turns out that the whole point of that quote was to argue for the militia to be well-regulated.
2. Here's another quote that zillions of internet pages use from Madison:
[quote]"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." <hr></blockquote>
Here's the actual full quote:
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
Again, he's making essentially the opposite point that the edited version of the quote is trying to make.
He's talking about arms in the context of a militia regulated by the gov't.
Every time these people are talking about the right to have guns, they talk about the militia. It's not a coincidence.
The issue at the time was between the federalists and anti-federalists. The anti-federalists didn't like the fact that the national gov't was going to have control over the militia. The federalists gave in and allowed greater state control of the militia. That was the purpose of the Second Amendment. Why does the amendment say "security of a free state?" That was the issue - making sure that the national military couldn't overrun the states.
Remember the Federalists were arguing for a strong federal gov't. They were forced into accepting a Bill of Rights by the anti-federalists, who were opposed to the Constitution.
[quote]Can you PROVE that banning handguns WOULDN'T reduce gun deaths?<hr></blockquote>
I'm afraid that your point has the burden of proof on this issue.
When we have to start making arguments as to why we are allowed to keep our rights against people wanting to take our rights away with no logical reason we are in very sad shape as a democratic republic of and for the people.
[edit]
[quote]Remember the Federalists were arguing for a strong federal gov't. They were forced into accepting a Bill of Rights by the anti-federalists, who were opposed to the Constitution.<hr></blockquote>
Let's see if we could twist it this way. Let's see if we could twist it that way.
We all know the times people were in when this was written. Those people by the way could not have forseen the problems we have with handguns today.
They did mean a group of people. Written in the context of the Revolutionary War, no question.
I'm one for personal freedoms but, ( and I've said ths before ) the handgun situation isn't even close to becoming manageable.
It's quite literally out of control.
The thing is, we will get to a point ( and in the near not distant future ) where we will have NO choice but to ban.
That's the catch with democracy. If the people can't be responseable enough to handle a freedom they lose it. It's a shame when any freedoms have to go away.
A gun is a tool but you don't see clawhammers out of control.
At least if street gangs are just using knives and clubs those things don't go through living room walls by mistake and kill an innocent bystander ( or their children ).
[quote]The thing is, we will get to a point ( and in the near not distant future ) where we will have NO choice but to ban.<hr></blockquote>
What makes you say that?
If you mean that the political climate will become so charged with so much idiot hysteria that gun bans will seem natural? If so, I'm afraid you may be right.
There is always a choice, do not be fooled.
[quote]That's the catch with democracy. If the people can't be responseable enough to handle a freedom they lose it.<hr></blockquote>
<strong>Pardon me if i am wrong, but an amandement is something created after the constitution of the US. I think many amandements where created to enhance the constitution or to answers problems of the real world. I do not think that all amandements should be followed strictly in 1000 years (long life USA )
, the interpretation of an amandement is a way to turn it to fit your wishs or the reality of the new time. World is changing and sometimes old wise scripture does not bring the correct solutions in the real world.
In other way , the amandement are a holy scripture and cannot be changed each time people wanted. So many people adapt it. See the bible and how people interpret it to fit the real world, they make an interpretation that fit the real world. Considering that the real world is always evolving the interpretation do the same. Some can find this ugly, but do you prefer people who never change of interpretation like the Islamic extremist ?
Seems to make sense to me. The US constitution is very good and holds a lot of promising ideas and values that are still relevant today.
However. Powerdoc makes some good points. A constitution is meant to evolve and grow in time as we face different circumstances. The 2nd ammendment has been twisted and distorted to meet many different intrepretations. This is one are that could be ammended if it were not for Charleton Heston and the NRA strong lobbying.
Which brings me to eliminating the lobbiest and corruption in US government be it the ethnic lobbies (Isreal, Cuba-American and Irish American) and corporate lobby (Auto Industry, etc). This is where I really support McCain Feingold...which has been partially implemented.
By the way little kids don't pull an automobile out of daddy's drawer and run over the back of their head with it. That's just part of what I mean by " out of control ". If all legal gun owners were responsible as you say, childhood gun accidents would never happen.
To address the issues brought up by two foreigners:
powerdoc:
[quote]Pardon me if i am wrong, but an amandement is something created after the constitution of the US. I think many amandements where created to enhance the constitution or to answers problems of the real world. I do not think that all amandements should be followed strictly in 1000 years (long life USA )<hr></blockquote>
The Bill of Rights, the colloquial name for the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution were added immediately after the U.S. Constitution was ratified. As a matter of fact, the Bill of Rights was drawn up and ready before the U.S. Constitution was even ratified. The Constitution wouldn't have been ratified by the people without the promise of the Bill of Rights.
After that, however, amendments are not necessarily drawn up with the framer's intent in mind. There can be no question, however, that the Bill of Rights were organized and crafted by the exact same men who drew up the Constitution at the exact same time period.
[quote]World is changing and sometimes old wise scripture does not bring the correct solutions in the real world.<hr></blockquote>
Well yes, of course.
However, one must be careful to treat the rights of the citizen so lightly as to use a "well, times change" argument.
And who is to say what the "correct" solution is? It seems that different people have different ideas about what is "correct" and what is not.
[quote]Some can find this ugly, but do you prefer people who never change of interpretation like the Islamic extremist ?<hr></blockquote>
That's a pretty weak debate tactic to label the other side as idiots or terrorists, powerdoc, you are better than that.
eat@me:
[quote]A constitution is meant to evolve and grow in time as we face different circumstances.<hr></blockquote>
Absolutely, and the Constitution as we find it today is very different from what we had in the 1800s.
[quote]This is one are that could be ammended if it were not for Charleton Heston and the NRA strong lobbying.<hr></blockquote>
Those are American citizens, why shouldn't they be heard?
[quote]Which brings me to eliminating the lobbiest and corruption in US government be it the ethnic lobbies (Isreal, Cuba-American and Irish American) and corporate lobby (Auto Industry, etc). This is where I really support McCain Feingold...which has been partially implemented.<hr></blockquote>
This is very very very scary to me.
When will people understand that lobby groups are representing the ideas of the people of the United States, like them or not?
A lobby group is never evil if it is representing your ideas, is it?
This is nothing more than crushing dissent and it's worrying.
Comments
<strong>quote:
-------------------------------------------------
BTW, guess what happened last time we had strong state militias who believed the national gov't had become tyrannical.
-------------------------------------------------
And the time before that?
(*hint* The U.S. was born)
Not as clever a remark as you hoped it would be.</strong><hr></blockquote>So, before there was a Second Amendment, we were able to break off from a monarchy. What does that prove about the Second Amendment? That it's actually NOT necessary?
No, the only actual example you "Second-amendment-is-there-so-we-can-kill-the-tyrannical-politicians" people can point to is the Civil War. Unless you also want to count McVeigh, Weston, Oswald, and similar. I'm guessing you don't.
When we broke off from Britain there was no appropriate method in place for changing the gov't. Now there is. We follow laws, we work within a legal framework, we elect out representatives. We don't shoot politicians to change the gov't.
No matter how you cut it
killing politicians = assassination
going to war with your gov't = treason
Quite simple.
historically, the right to bear arms has been taken away from those who the govt. would like to opress. the legal right to carry a firearm is an equalizer that nothing else comes close to.
personally, if you aren't felon, i don't see why you shouldn't be able to carry a firearm. i'm a believer in you have a right to carry until proven otherwise, rather than you need to prove your need before you're allowed.
-alcimedes
<strong>..
historically, the right to bear arms has been taken away from those who the govt. would like to opress.
...</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's interesting. Recently in Chicago they tried to make it conditional that you could not own a firearm and live in public housing. Sounds like oppression to me. All at the hands of do-gooding liberals.
2nd Amendment provides:
A well regulated Militia (being necessary to the security of a free State)
AND
[that] The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The original sentence doesn't read properly, there are too many commas. Maybe the second comma should've been a semicolon instead.
Unless someone can travel back and ask the original author we'll never know for sure...
<strong>So, before there was a Second Amendment, we were able to break off from a monarchy. What does that prove about the Second Amendment? That it's actually NOT necessary?
No, the only actual example you "Second-amendment-is-there-so-we-can-kill-the-tyrannical-politicians" people can point to is the Civil War. Unless you also want to count McVeigh, Weston, Oswald, and similar. I'm guessing you don't.
When we broke off from Britain there was no appropriate method in place for changing the gov't. Now there is. We follow laws, we work within a legal framework, we elect out representatives. We don't shoot politicians to change the gov't.
No matter how you cut it
killing politicians = assassination
going to war with your gov't = treason</strong><hr></blockquote>
No matter how you cut it
politicians killing= WWI,WWII,Korea,Vietnam
government going to war with you= tyranny
<strong>I understand that many believe we will not stop violence by banning hanguns. I understand that some believe a handgun ban will only take guns away from legal, responsible gun owners. I disagree. I believe many crimes are committed with legally purchased guns (or ones that are purchased then stolen). I believe a total ban, if enforced properly, would reduce gun deaths. I also believe we should protect hunters and sport shooters by allowing rifles.
[ 05-26-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
What you believe isn't relevant. Find evidence.
And... when you come to take my guns away, you had better damned well be armed.
This is an old debate. If you don't like guns, don't own them. But don't restrict my ABSOLUTE RIGHT to self-defense just because you are scared of guns. I don't care what the CONSTITUTION says, the govt. doesn't have the right to keep me from defending myself from violence and robbery using technology.
Where in the Constitution does it say that I can't have guns to defend myself with?
And before it starts -- yes, I HAVE defended myself with a firearm. I didn't have to use it, but that's because I had it. Some moron brought a baseball bat to a gunfight. Actually, that's occurred on more than one occasion. Someone came onto my property and threatened me with bodily harm without provocation.
Finally, when all the posts about the "cost" of gun violence roll in -- consider the "benefits" of private gun ownership. One of these is the benefit to those who DON'T own guns which exists because criminals don't know who you are. Those of us who put up with the risk and expense of weapons in the home obviously do so for a reason (beyond macho BS) but we also allow those who oppose guns to free-ride on our risk. As long as I'm more likely to shoot a home invader, you are safer in your own home. Nuff said.
<strong>So, before there was a Second Amendment, we were able to break off from a monarchy. What does that prove about the Second Amendment? That it's actually NOT necessary?
No, the only actual example you "Second-amendment-is-there-so-we-can-kill-the-tyrannical-politicians" people can point to is the Civil War. Unless you also want to count McVeigh, Weston, Oswald, and similar. I'm guessing you don't.
When we broke off from Britain there was no appropriate method in place for changing the gov't. Now there is. We follow laws, we work within a legal framework, we elect out representatives. We don't shoot politicians to change the gov't.
No matter how you cut it
killing politicians = assassination
going to war with your gov't = treason</strong><hr></blockquote>
What WERE the laws regarding guns prior to the Revolution? They must have been unclear, since the drafters found it necessary to include the 2nd Amendment language.
<strong>The words "of the people" appears in this one, too: Does it give you an absolute right to be free from search and seizure? No, it doesn't. It's conditioned upon reasonableness and warrants with specific information about what is to be searched.
In the same way, the second amendment gives the people the right to bear arms, conditioned upon their membership in the militia.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, dude -- the Constitution doesn't give ME the right to do anything. It restricts the actions of the government to impede my actions. My rights exist without the Constitution.
BRussell, I know that you understand this, but I wanted to point it out for some of the other readers, who may not.
<strong>
Unless someone can travel back and ask the original author we'll never know for sure...</strong><hr></blockquote>
This link pretty much ends this debate.
<a href="http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html"; target="_blank">http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html</a>;
If you click on it, you can read some quotes by the Framers that show they indeed intended for citizens to be able to keep and bear arms while not being part of a milita.
[quote]What you believe isn't relevant. Find evidence. <hr></blockquote>
Why? I was stating a belief. That's all. It would be difficult to prove my statements and I admit that. Call it more of an opinion or supposition if you like. It's certainly better than those totally irrevelvant quotes posted above, on a page that is obviously pro-gun.
Express your opinion too! That's what we are here for. But don't tell me my opinions are "irrelevant" because you disagree. What facts do YOU have? Can you PROVE that banning handguns WOULDN'T reduce gun deaths? Can YOU prove it?
I do have ONE fact that IS a FACT, and not an "interpretation" as the academic snob pfllam would say: The US has more handgun deaths than any other country in the world. Look it up.
My beliefs are QUITE relevant.
[ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]
[ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>
Can you PROVE that banning handguns WOULDN'T reduce gun deaths? Can YOU prove it?
I do have ONE fact that IS a FACT, and not an "interpretation" as the academic snob pfllam would say: The US has more handgun deaths than any other country in the world. Look it up.
My beliefs are QUITE relevant.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
SDW2001,
I'm sure that banning handguns would reduce murders done by bad people with handguns. But then what would happen is that murders by other methods would increase because when somebody has it in their mind to kill, they'll do it wheather or not they have a gun. I know that guns make it easier to kill but remember McViegh? He killed over 160 and took out a building with a truck and chemicals. He couldn't have killed that many at that building if he had used a machine gun. People who want to kill will do so by any means.
The way to reduce most murders is to find the root cause(s) that would make somebody not care about killing someone else, come up with a solution(s) so that we don't raise anymore bad people, and apply it. If we were to do this and be sucessful, the US would be a much safer place and there would be less demand for guns.
I guess another way to think about your proposal of banning handguns is to imagine having 2 different streets to walk through. One of the streets has law abiding citizens who were raised to respect the lives and well being of others and everyone of these citizens has a gun on them. The other street is run by a gang that has no guns on them but has killed in the past with baseball bats, knives, or other means. You know they have no guns and see no baseball bats or knives on them as well.
Which street would you feel safer on?
My point is that banning handguns will not make the US a safer place. Raising people to respect the lives and well being of others will.
<strong>This link pretty much ends this debate.
<a href="http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html"; target="_blank">http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html</a>;
If you click on it, you can read some quotes by the Framers that show they indeed intended for citizens to be able to keep and bear arms while not being part of a milita.</strong><hr></blockquote>That page is an amazing list of shenanigans with out-of-context misquotes. Yes, it's repeated thousands of times all over the internet, but that doesn't make the impression it's trying to give an accurate one.
Two examples:
1. That page uses this quote:
[quote]"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."<hr></blockquote>
But fails to give the next several sentences:
[quote]And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised that, among the American people, there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed, without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.<hr></blockquote>
It turns out that the whole point of that quote was to argue for the militia to be well-regulated.
2. Here's another quote that zillions of internet pages use from Madison:
[quote]"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." <hr></blockquote>
Here's the actual full quote:
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
Again, he's making essentially the opposite point that the edited version of the quote is trying to make.
He's talking about arms in the context of a militia regulated by the gov't.
Every time these people are talking about the right to have guns, they talk about the militia. It's not a coincidence.
The issue at the time was between the federalists and anti-federalists. The anti-federalists didn't like the fact that the national gov't was going to have control over the militia. The federalists gave in and allowed greater state control of the militia. That was the purpose of the Second Amendment. Why does the amendment say "security of a free state?" That was the issue - making sure that the national military couldn't overrun the states.
Remember the Federalists were arguing for a strong federal gov't. They were forced into accepting a Bill of Rights by the anti-federalists, who were opposed to the Constitution.
I'm afraid that your point has the burden of proof on this issue.
When we have to start making arguments as to why we are allowed to keep our rights against people wanting to take our rights away with no logical reason we are in very sad shape as a democratic republic of and for the people.
[edit]
[quote]Remember the Federalists were arguing for a strong federal gov't. They were forced into accepting a Bill of Rights by the anti-federalists, who were opposed to the Constitution.<hr></blockquote>
What does that matter?
A history lesson for us?
[ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
We all know the times people were in when this was written. Those people by the way could not have forseen the problems we have with handguns today.
They did mean a group of people. Written in the context of the Revolutionary War, no question.
I'm one for personal freedoms but, ( and I've said ths before ) the handgun situation isn't even close to becoming manageable.
It's quite literally out of control.
The thing is, we will get to a point ( and in the near not distant future ) where we will have NO choice but to ban.
That's the catch with democracy. If the people can't be responseable enough to handle a freedom they lose it. It's a shame when any freedoms have to go away.
A gun is a tool but you don't see clawhammers out of control.
At least if street gangs are just using knives and clubs those things don't go through living room walls by mistake and kill an innocent bystander ( or their children ).
[ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
[quote]The thing is, we will get to a point ( and in the near not distant future ) where we will have NO choice but to ban.<hr></blockquote>
What makes you say that?
If you mean that the political climate will become so charged with so much idiot hysteria that gun bans will seem natural? If so, I'm afraid you may be right.
There is always a choice, do not be fooled.
[quote]That's the catch with democracy. If the people can't be responseable enough to handle a freedom they lose it.<hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
You may like the idea of the government as your mommy, but not me. I give the government its power, not vice versa.
Legal gun owners are more than responsible with their weapons, far more responsible than, say...
[quote]A gun is a tool but you don't see clawhammers out of control.<hr></blockquote>
If you start bringing other objects into this I've got one word to blow it up: automobile.
<strong>Pardon me if i am wrong, but an amandement is something created after the constitution of the US. I think many amandements where created to enhance the constitution or to answers problems of the real world. I do not think that all amandements should be followed strictly in 1000 years (long life USA
, the interpretation of an amandement is a way to turn it to fit your wishs or the reality of the new time. World is changing and sometimes old wise scripture does not bring the correct solutions in the real world.
In other way , the amandement are a holy scripture and cannot be changed each time people wanted. So many people adapt it. See the bible and how people interpret it to fit the real world, they make an interpretation that fit the real world. Considering that the real world is always evolving the interpretation do the same. Some can find this ugly, but do you prefer people who never change of interpretation like the Islamic extremist ?
Just a few thoughts, no answers.
[ 05-26-2002: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Seems to make sense to me. The US constitution is very good and holds a lot of promising ideas and values that are still relevant today.
However. Powerdoc makes some good points. A constitution is meant to evolve and grow in time as we face different circumstances. The 2nd ammendment has been twisted and distorted to meet many different intrepretations. This is one are that could be ammended if it were not for Charleton Heston and the NRA strong lobbying.
Which brings me to eliminating the lobbiest and corruption in US government be it the ethnic lobbies (Isreal, Cuba-American and Irish American) and corporate lobby (Auto Industry, etc). This is where I really support McCain Feingold...which has been partially implemented.
" What makes you say that "?
Read the news.
By the way little kids don't pull an automobile out of daddy's drawer and run over the back of their head with it. That's just part of what I mean by " out of control ". If all legal gun owners were responsible as you say, childhood gun accidents would never happen.
[ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
powerdoc:
[quote]Pardon me if i am wrong, but an amandement is something created after the constitution of the US. I think many amandements where created to enhance the constitution or to answers problems of the real world. I do not think that all amandements should be followed strictly in 1000 years (long life USA )<hr></blockquote>
You are right about amendments from #11 forward.
The Bill of Rights, the colloquial name for the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution were added immediately after the U.S. Constitution was ratified. As a matter of fact, the Bill of Rights was drawn up and ready before the U.S. Constitution was even ratified. The Constitution wouldn't have been ratified by the people without the promise of the Bill of Rights.
After that, however, amendments are not necessarily drawn up with the framer's intent in mind. There can be no question, however, that the Bill of Rights were organized and crafted by the exact same men who drew up the Constitution at the exact same time period.
[quote]World is changing and sometimes old wise scripture does not bring the correct solutions in the real world.<hr></blockquote>
Well yes, of course.
However, one must be careful to treat the rights of the citizen so lightly as to use a "well, times change" argument.
And who is to say what the "correct" solution is? It seems that different people have different ideas about what is "correct" and what is not.
[quote]Some can find this ugly, but do you prefer people who never change of interpretation like the Islamic extremist ?<hr></blockquote>
That's a pretty weak debate tactic to label the other side as idiots or terrorists, powerdoc, you are better than that.
eat@me:
[quote]A constitution is meant to evolve and grow in time as we face different circumstances.<hr></blockquote>
Absolutely, and the Constitution as we find it today is very different from what we had in the 1800s.
[quote]This is one are that could be ammended if it were not for Charleton Heston and the NRA strong lobbying.<hr></blockquote>
Those are American citizens, why shouldn't they be heard?
[quote]Which brings me to eliminating the lobbiest and corruption in US government be it the ethnic lobbies (Isreal, Cuba-American and Irish American) and corporate lobby (Auto Industry, etc). This is where I really support McCain Feingold...which has been partially implemented.<hr></blockquote>
This is very very very scary to me.
When will people understand that lobby groups are representing the ideas of the people of the United States, like them or not?
A lobby group is never evil if it is representing your ideas, is it?
This is nothing more than crushing dissent and it's worrying.
[quote]By the way little kids don't pull an automobile out of daddy's drawer and run over the back of their head with it.<hr></blockquote>
Kids certainly kill themselves in daddy's car. Happens far more often than kids killing themself with daddy's gun.