NationStates Jolt Archive

The other day, my Prime Minister (Lil' Johhny) made a startlingly good point in the guns debate. People do not have the automatic right to bear arms. I don't agree with Mr.Howard on many points, but I think he really nailed it here. Why should people have a right to bear arms? Unless they have a reason (shooting club, security, ect...) owning weapons should not be considered a basic human right. What does an ordinary individual need weapons for? If bearing arms truly was an inalienable civil right, where do you draw the line? If I can own a knife, why can't I own a SCUD missile?

I am questioning the second amendment of the US constitution/bill of rights-thingy. Why should people have the right to bear arms? Surely bearing arms should be a privelige, granted by neccesity.

must......not......make........joke.....

Because hanging a bears arm(s) in your house is just an amazing piece(s) of decor.

must......not......make........joke.....
Please do...pretty please, with sugar on top:D

Please do...pretty please, with sugar on top:D

Well, ok, since you ask nicely.

I say we do have a right to Bear Arms!

http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/o/jonfoote/dali/other/Beararms.jpg

Because hanging a bears arm(s) in your house is just an amazing piece(s) of decor.
Oh... I see. I didn't even think. But now I am thinking, what if you could be genetically modified to have the arms of a bear! Would that be your right? Do you have the right to genetically modify you own body to share aspects with a bear?

Either way, the poll still works :p

I am questioning the second amendment of the US constitution/bill of rights-thingy. Why should people have the right to bear arms? Surely bearing arms should be a privelige, granted by neccesity.

I agree. The idea that the founding fathers thought so highly of recreational gun use to wedge it inbetween the freedoms of speech, press, and religion and the freedom from military occupation of private residences is ludicrous.

Its obvious application is to provide the states with defense from the federal government, and since the option to defend yourself against the federal government was largely destroyed in the mid 19th century, I hardly see a point to it at all.

the people in America had to fight a war to get independence, with militia fighters being significant in the effort. Add to this the fact that even the American army was not THE army of the UK, and it becomes clear that the war would have been entirely impossible without private citizens owning weapons. It functions as a check against a corrupt government.

I could also make the same point about people not having an innate right to a trial. It isn't a claim that can be supported with any kind of fact

You're born with arms on you, and its a basic human right (and need) to be able to keep them.

(Assuming that you talk about guns) You should be able to own them, but with restrictions. For example handguns are only used to kill people so they should be illegal (owning one is complentating murder), whereas (about as ethical-as-can-be-for-a-gun) tranq rifles can be used to sedate attacking animals (and attacking people too) so they're fine by me..

Oh... I see. I didn't even think. But now I am thinking, what if you could be genetically modified to have the arms of a bear! Would that be your right? Do you have the right to genetically modify you own body to share aspects with a bear?

Either way, the poll still works :p
http://www.bustedtees.com/shirt/secondamendment/male

Like that?

I agree. The idea that the founding fathers thought so highly of recreational gun use to wedge it inbetween the freedoms of speech, press, and religion and the freedom from military occupation of private residences is ludicrous.

Its obvious application is to provide the states with defense from the federal government, and since the option to defend yourself against the federal government was largely destroyed in the mid 19th century, I hardly see a point to it at all.
the amendments don't carry their importance based on the number. amendment 10 even gives equal weight to rights not listed in the bill of rights

the amendments don't carry their importance based on the number. amendment 10 even gives equal weight to rights not listed in the bill of rights

My point was that the right to recreational gun use is frivolous when compared to the other enumerated rights.

EDIT: I just don't seem the founding fathers saying, "Ok, we must have freedom from religious percecution, a right to a fair trial, freedom from cruel punishment, and the right to go hunting on the weekend."

http://www.bustedtees.com/shirt/secondamendment/male

Like that?
Yes, just like that.

The other day, my Prime Minister (Lil' Johhny) made a startlingly good point in the guns debate. People do not have the automatic right to bear arms. I don't agree with Mr.Howard on many points, but I think he really nailed it here. Why should people have a right to bear arms? Unless they have a reason (shooting club, security, ect...) owning weapons should not be considered a basic human right. What does an ordinary individual need weapons for? If bearing arms truly was an inalienable civil right, where do you draw the line? If I can own a knife, why can't I own a SCUD missile?

I am questioning the second amendment of the US constitution/bill of rights-thingy. Why should people have the right to bear arms? Surely bearing arms should be a privelige, granted by neccesity.

That is one of those things that was appropriate to the specific time it was written. At the time, the people writing the document were at war against the British. Pragmatically, by insuring everyone the right to carry guns, they were also providing a larger army to fight that war.

We are no longer in the same situation. There has not been a foreign invasion for a very long time, and the only people we currently use guns against is ourselves. So the debate is, would it be better for no one to have guns, or for everyone to have them? I fall on the no one side of that question, but there are still some people who sadly don't feel safe unless they have a gun available to them.

It is a right that we all should get to start with but it should be taken away from anyone who commits a serious/violent crime. Those who abuse the right to bear arms do not desvere that right. It's kind of like freedom and prison.

the people in America had to fight a war to get independence, with militia fighters being significant in the effort. Add to this the fact that even the American army was not THE army of the UK, and it becomes clear that the war would have been entirely impossible without private citizens owning weapons. It functions as a check against a corrupt government.

I could also make the same point about people not having an innate right to a trial. It isn't a claim that can be supported with any kind of fact
Don't you think that political checks and balances are sufficient to protect you from a corrupt government? I mean, seriously, do you actually think everyone needs a gun just in case they need to go rogue against the state?

My point was that the right to recreational gun use is frivolous when compared to the other enumerated rights.
ahh...gotcha.

however, it doesn't specify it as being "recreational". I see it as a protection against the governement. You are correct is saything the right to defend yourself/your state to defend itself against the feds were largely trashed in the 19th cent., but then again, when have revolutionaries really cared about those laws?

Ok the 2nd amendment gives the right to bare arms to recognize the need for a maintained state malitia in the united states. It was really just there because at the time everyone was afraid of another dictator. Now however the malitia supplies weapons when you are called to active duty. This fulfills our 'right' if it ever was one to bare arms. So in reality it is just a pointless excuse to give people more ways to kill eachother. Yay for paying attention in government class.

It is a right that we all should get to start with but it should be taken away from anyone who commits a serious/violent crime. Those who abuse the right to bear arms do not desvere that right. It's kind of like freedom and prison.
Why should we all get to start with it? In what respect is owning a weapon a basic human right? And to what level of weaponry should we be entitled to? Weapons that can only kill one person at a time? Ones that can kill several? A dozen? More than a hundred? More than a thousand?

Ok the 2nd amendment gives the right to bare arms to recognize the need for a maintained state malitia in the united states. It was really just there because at the time everyone was afraid of another dictator. Now however the malitia supplies weapons when you are called to active duty. This fulfills our 'right' if it ever was one to bare arms. So in reality it is just a pointless excuse to give people more ways to kill eachother. Yay for paying attention in government class.

LIBERAL EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM AT WORK!!1!!!

Don't you think that political checks and balances are sufficient to protect you from a corrupt government? I mean, seriously, do you actually think everyone needs a gun just in case they need to go rogue against the state?
the checks and balances that have largely been trashed over the last few decades? It has happened before, and no doubt, it will happen again somewhere.
The fact is governments regularly become corrupt towards their people, even with systems of checks and balances. I'd rather have the right to arm myself if I choose or need to than be an open target.

That said, I never intend on owning a gun, as I see them largely as useless in the society I live in at present.
However, if the situation changed that I needed to, yeah. I would.

ahh...gotcha.

however, it doesn't specify it as being "recreational". I see it as a protection against the governement. You are correct is saything the right to defend yourself/your state to defend itself against the feds were largely trashed in the 19th cent., but then again, when have revolutionaries really cared about those laws?

so mcveigh was acting within his second amandment rights? :confused:

americans have a legal right to armed insurection? does it not say something about well regulated militias?

I try my best to help educate those who do not live in the US . we are unique in that we ESTABLISHED a country to be contrary to the common European beliefs ..PERIOD and on almost everything..we are made up of people who do not except common pratice and trends and want to be TRULY free.

Our country is founded on the basic priciple that the individual needs as much protection from the criminal as he does from government .

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)

"The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)

"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)

"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." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)



I can go on for days ....its just a mind set and the diffence marks us as "Americans "

I am free.... fuck with me at your own risk..live free or die ...etc.

" nemo me impune lacessit "

The scots are my brothers in arms ....;)

Our country is founded on the basic priciple that the individual needs as much protection from the criminal as he does from government.

Those say nothing about criminals, only government.

I thought that the founding fathers believed that civil use of violence should be monopolized by government.

Sage FRANKLIN Benjaman:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

When politics fails, then you have the right to fight back...Right? This does not mean when you lose a fair election you toast everyone. The right to arms means that you have a right to fight for what you believe in. A right to protect yourself from greater impersonal powers. And yes, resort to violience in order to correct a grave injustice.

Now an armed peasantry is a very dangerous peasantry...BUT tell me this: if said peasants had no way to have their greviences justly aired and addressed, and if the government was the source of the injustice...you see the problems? It is complicated. But the underlying point is that you have the right to Fight for Liberte, Egalite, et Fraternite...Gods willing it doesn't turn out like the The French or British Revolutions.

Nope not the American Colonies...I was talking about the Puritan and Parliment...seems to recall a few heads rolling there too. The violence is deplorable but it is human. I grow weary of "liberals" and "conservatives" both. Let the people alone. The government has bigger guns anyway. But if it should ever try to become a tyranny over its armed people...:D :gundge:

so mcveigh was acting within his second amandment rights? :confused:

americans have a legal right to armed insurection? does it not say something about well regulated militias?
no, he murdered civilians. Americans have the right to own weapons. If it comes down to armed conflict, then they would have the right to war in the same way a government would

Why should people have a right to bear arms? Unless they have a reason (shooting club, security, ect...) owning weapons should not be considered a basic human right.I believe that people should/do by default have rights and that those rights should only be taken away if there's some significant, observable gain. Among the rights in question here are the rights to property ownership (both in the context of the government banning 'non-essential' items -- which would include the computer you typed that post on -- and in the context of robbery in the legal sense), life, and security of the person. Strict gun control tends to be accompanied by a rise in crime crates, while legalization of concealed carry and mandatory gun ownership (See the example of Kennesaw, Georgia.) are accompanied by drops in crime rates.What does an ordinary individual need weapons for?Well, with knives, cutting one's food. For firearms, doing one's part in deterrence of crime. Most people probably won't need to stop crimes in progress or act in self-defense, although a significant minority will also have occasion for such uses of weapons. Then there are hunting and target shooting, but at least hunting probably wouldn't be a major use for most people.If bearing arms truly was an inalienable civil right, where do you draw the line?Weapons that can't be accurately controlled in use (e.g. inaccurate artillery) or that pose a non-directed safety hazard out of use (e.g. radiological weapons, most lethal chemical or biological weapons).If I can own a knife, why can't I own a SCUD missile?Are you asking why that's how it is, or why that's how it should be?

On the militia topic, the USA has a substantial, unregulated (mostly, anyway), legally established militia. I can dig up the relevant stuff in the US Code if anyone doesn't believe me.

Edit: U.S. Code TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 (http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_I_30_13.html)

When politics fails, then you have the right to fight back...Right? This does not mean when you lose a fair election you toast everyone. The right to arms means that you have a right to fight for what you believe in. A right to protect yourself from greater impersonal powers. And yes, resort to violience in order to correct a grave injustice.



so by that logic the democrats were entiltled to violently attack bush and his crew after the florida vote debacle?

I try my best to help educate those who do not live in the US . we are unique in that we ESTABLISHED a country to be contrary to the common European beliefs ..PERIOD and on almost everything..we are made up of people who do not except common pratice and trends and want to be TRULY free.

Our country is founded on the basic priciple that the individual needs as much protection from the criminal as he does from government .



I can go on for days ....its just a mind set and the diffence marks us as "Americans "

I am free.... fuck with me at your own risk..live free or die ...etc.

" nemo me impune lacessit "

The scots are my brothers in arms ....;)
Apart from your disgustingly American attitude, there's only one problem there. Why wouldn't you just have well armed militias. The militias own the guns, and the militia is seperate from the government. The people don't keep the guns with them in public, because there is no crisis. However, if there ever was a crisis, the people could go to their militia HQ and kick som fed arse.

Basically, defending yourself against your country isn't an excuse to carry a gun in public, or even own one personally.

I ask you, If you want to defend yourself against your country, wouldn't that mean you would need to be allowed to be as well armed as the nations military? Including Automatic machine guns, LAWs, Claymores, Smart bombs, Tactical Nukes, and all sorts of chemical weapons? Because if you think the American people would pose a serious resistance to the current government/military, you are sadly mistaken.

no, he murdered civilians. Americans have the right to own weapons. If it comes down to armed conflict, then they would have the right to war in the same way a government would

but surely he was taking the logic of fighting a tyrannical government some posters are talking about to an extreme conclusion? you cant advocate the right to overthrow a repressive government and then complain when some nutter does just that

Something that no one seems to be talking about is the fact that if I plan on breaking the law why am I opposed to breaking the law by having a gun, and if the criminals are the only ones with guns you are pretty screwed barring a police state. The fact is that if you know that the guy behind the counter has a shotgun your less likely to try to knock off his store.

like I said i could burn the server down with quotes from the founding fathers...we wanted to be DIFFERENT from Europe ...we wanted a COVENANT with a SWORD ...words are bullshit without the means to back them up . The people know this ...we made it our RIGHT to be able to GUARANTEE our right by arms if needed . There is no better guarantee against TYRANY than a country built on the principle that the GOVERNMENT is answerable to the PEOPLE . And if necessesary the GOVERNMENT will all be shot .

Sorry for the over simplification but boil it down and thats what you get .

its quite a big difference from the " People are answerable to the STATE "

Or the KING ...or whomever...

Live free or die .

but surely he was taking the logic of fighting a tyrannical government some posters are talking about to an extreme conclusion? you cant advocate the right to overthrow a repressive government and then complain when some nutter does just that
he killed innocent civilians. there is a HUGE difference between an overthrow and murder.

The other day, my Prime Minister (Lil' Johhny) made a startlingly good point in the guns debate. People do not have the automatic right to bear arms. I don't agree with Mr.Howard on many points, but I think he really nailed it here. Why should people have a right to bear arms? Unless they have a reason (shooting club, security, ect...) owning weapons should not be considered a basic human right. What does an ordinary individual need weapons for? If bearing arms truly was an inalienable civil right, where do you draw the line? If I can own a knife, why can't I own a SCUD missile?

I am questioning the second amendment of the US constitution/bill of rights-thingy. Why should people have the right to bear arms? Surely bearing arms should be a privelige, granted by neccesity.
For personal protection against a tyrannical government, or a foreign invation. A well-armed populace can do wonders, you know.

I excercise my right to bear arms.
http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/o/jonfoote/dali/other/Beararms.jpg

The people don't keep the guns with them in public, because there is no crisis. However, if there ever was a crisis, the people could go to their militia HQ and kick som fed arse.The weapons might be confiscated before there's a chance for significant distribution.Including Automatic machine guns, LAWs, Claymores, Smart bombs, Tactical Nukes, and all sorts of chemical weapons?If I'm not mistaken, in the USA, of the items mentioned, only tactical nukes are strictly illegal. All the others can already legally acquired, which doesn't seem to be a problem for us.For example handguns are only used to kill people so they should be illegal (owning one is complentating murder):\ What about target shooting, collecting, injuring or scaring criminals off without killing them, et cetera?

he killed innocent civilians. there is a HUGE difference between an overthrow and murder.

is there though? he was fighting the state, something people are advocating

where is the line between overthrow and terrorism? do the iraqi's get afforded the same freedom to overthrow an oppressive, illegal government?

like I said i could burn the server down with quotes from the founding fathers...we wanted to be DIFFERENT from Europe ...we wanted a COVENANT with a SWORD ...words are bullshit without the means to back them up . The people know this ...we made it our RIGHT to be able to GUARANTEE our right by arms if needed . There is no better guarantee against TYRANY than a country built on the principle that the GOVERNMENT is answerable to the PEOPLE . And if necessesary the GOVERNMENT will all be shot .

Sorry for the over simplification but boil it down and thats what you get .

its quite a big difference from the " People are answerable to the STATE "

Or the KING ...or whomever...

Live free or die .


as opposed to the rest of us who are all oppressed? give me a break.

For personal protection against a tyrannical government, or a foreign invation. A well-armed populace can do wonders, you know.

as the iraqi's are showing us at the moment.....

I have the right to arm bears!!!!


Muahahahahaha!!!


* had to be done*



Btw....


Join One Big Island, we are shameless ad whores and short ad masters ( tm )

I own a handgun. I do not contemplate murder and have never killed anyone with it. I also don't use it recreationally. But if you break into my house in any attempt to harm my family, you will understand this issue better (if for only a short period of time).

so by that logic the democrats were entiltled to violently attack bush and his crew after the florida vote debacle?
LOL you and my Grandmother would get along.:D
It was a travesty and probably a mistake...yet it happens over and over again...Have you been keeping track of the immigrant debate in the USA? The People have taken up arms******phore and literally> You've seen the marches the demostrations the arm waving placards? LOL the french love this type of "petite insurrection" this "revolutionary" type movements.

THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS INALIENABLE.

You can choose to give up your physical weaponry...that is one way of limiting the debate. But it goes beside the point. The root determinative is DO we have the right to bear arms?

hmmm...circular argument. Let me try again.

No the Americans did not have the right to insurrection when the election failed. It failed due to some hanging chads. Yet there has been solid legal precedents of minority presidents. <poltical not racial people> LOL if we look at the Euros...no that skirts the question.

To Attack the cheater? You need to meet my grandma. Of course we have the right to attack him. Yet there are still other recourses rather than open violence. Those seem to be working. Am I talking in circles or am I making any sense?

Bearing arms is a right I will not allow anybody to take from me.

~ Romandeos.

as opposed to the rest of us who are all oppressed? give me a break.


So what ? At this time you are not..BUT ...do you have a Constitutional guarantee backed up with the means to insure it will NEVER happen ?

The United States of America has one in its Constitution... we learned from history what can happen to those that do not .

you only get a break if you can insure that not giving you a break will have consequenses . Otherwise why bother ..its just as easy to just break your neck or ignore you .

is there though? he was fighting the state, something people are advocating

where is the line between overthrow and terrorism? do the iraqi's get afforded the same freedom to overthrow an oppressive, illegal government?
No, he wasn't fighting the state. He killed civilians. There is a line between "overthrow" and "terrorism". Terrorism kills civilians, overthrow kills those in the military and government. And yes, Iraqis do get the same right as far as I'm concerned

LOL you and my Grandmother would get along.:D
It was a travesty and probably a mistake...yet it happens over and over again...Have you been keeping track of the immigrant debate in the USA? The People have taken up arms******phore and literally> You've seen the marches the demostrations the arm waving placards? LOL the french love this type of "petite insurrection" this "revolutionary" type movements.

THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS INALIENABLE.

You can choose to give up your physical weaponry...that is one way of limiting the debate. But it goes beside the point. The root determinative is DO we have the right to bear arms?

hmmm...circular argument. Let me try again.

No the Americans did not have the right to insurrection when the election failed. It failed due to some hanging chads. Yet there has been solid legal precedents of minority presidents. <poltical not racial people> LOL if we look at the Euros...no that skirts the question.

To Attack the cheater? You need to meet my grandma. Of course we have the right to attack him. Yet there are still other recourses rather than open violence. Those seem to be working. Am I talking in circles or am I making any sense?


not really. was a stolen election not serious enough to trigger this 'overthrow' clause you seem to believe you have over there? if not, how far do the govt have to go?

no, he murdered civilians. Americans have the right to own weapons. If it comes down to armed conflict, then they would have the right to war in the same way a government would
What declare war?! :D It would be like tiananmen square with added pings of berretas making music against the cutting edge military machines of death. If the people of America declared war on the government, and fought it conventionally, the whole affair would be over in less than a week. The only hope any under-armed, under-trained, civilian population would have against the worlds richest and most technologically advanced military would be to become terrorist/guerillas. Even then they would eventually get wiped out.

What declare war?! :D It would be like tiananmen square with added pings of berretas making music against the cutting edge military machines of death. If the people of America declared war on the government, and fought it conventionally, the whole affair would be over in less than a week. The only hope any under-armed, under-trained, civilian population would have against the worlds richest and most technologically advanced military would be to become terrorist/guerillas. Even then they would eventually get wiped out.

the iraqi's appear to prove that theory wrong....

(Assuming that you talk about guns) You should be able to own them, but with restrictions. For example handguns are only used to kill people so they should be illegal (owning one is complentating murder), whereas (about as ethical-as-can-be-for-a-gun) tranq rifles can be used to sedate attacking animals (and attacking people too) so they're fine by me..

Absolutely wrong! :mad: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=wdC&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=handgun+hunting&spell=1

That google link is for handgun hunting. Here's another link: http://www.google.com/search?hs=ULX&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=bowling+pin+match&btnG=Search

That's a google link for bowling pin matches.

Don't make blanket statements about things you have no clue on.

The liberal school system in America removes this fact from the history books (on purpose), but America was founded as a Christian nation. The right to bear arms is endowed upon us by our Creator, which is why this right is inalienable, and thus this is part of why the Founders guaranteed it to us. Justice protects Liberty.

Bearing the sword for self-defense in the Bible: "If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him" (Exodus 22:2); and "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one" (Luke 22:36).

*raises hand*

In the case of the US 2nd ammendmant, it goes something like this:

Thomas Jefferson was always a bit strange (back in college they called him tommy guns, and since the rifle had yet to be invented, let alone fully automatic chain-fed mafia guns, you can kind of assume that a "bit" is some value greater than positive infinity), and he had this thing for armed revolution (as long as it wasn't him being shot at). Jefferson, being the cook he was, built the 2nd Ammendmant in as a way for the people to revolt against their leaders if they were to become tyranical. Jefferson followed Locke's phillosophy, when the government no longer served the people, the people should revolt.

The second ammendmant isn't the ability to defend yourself against your neighbor, it's your ability to defend yourself against the possibility of a fascist US government.

Except for the totally absurd and false parts of the above post, everything I said in it was true.

I own a handgun. I do not contemplate murder and have never killed anyone with it. I also don't use it recreationally. But if you break into my house in any attempt to harm my family, you will understand this issue better (if for only a short period of time).

Very well said.

GreaterPacificNations, you missed a small point, we Americans have that right, you Australians may not. So what Howard has to say about it is sort of irrelevant. What does your Charter or Constitution say about it?

Whenever people bring up the 2nd Amendment they look at the part about militias, decide that means a standing army and scream that only the military should have arms 'cause it says so in the Bill of Rights. What they seem to ignore, is that the BoR is about the rights of the PEOPLE. Not the states, and not the federal government.

The People.

I ask you, if every other Amendment is considered to be a right of the people over the government, then why not this one? Read through the various letters and papers written by the men who created the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, you'll find that they considered the INDIVIDUAL'S right to keep and bear arms as a primary means of personal defense and as an ultimate check on a government sliding into tyranny. That is why we, as Americans, have that right, and why many of us defend it so strongly.

What declare war?! :D It would be like tiananmen square with added pings of berretas making music against the cutting edge military machines of death. If the people of America declared war on the government, and fought it conventionally, the whole affair would be over in less than a week. The only hope any under-armed, under-trained, civilian population would have against the worlds richest and most technologically advanced military would be to become terrorist/guerillas. Even then they would eventually get wiped out.


'


The right to bear arms is a tradition with deep roots in American society. Thomas Jefferson proposed that "no free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms," and Samuel Adams called for an amendment banning any law "to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." The Constitution of the State of Arizona, for example, recognizes the "right of an individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State."


the military in the US is made up of the every day people your average ..IMO the ABOVE average citizen of the US ...we are all brought up to swear allegance to the flag and the constition of the US ...

So what person...WHAT sane person could expect the military to take up arms against the people of the United States ...their brothers and their family's ... Sure I can see my nephew and my son comming home and saying ...dude you gotta die because ,,,well we have orders ...???????

ARE YOU FUCKING NUTS ????? :D :D


Get real ...you might as well believe in comets killing all of us on May 25 th 2006

So what ? At this time you are not..BUT ...do you have a Constitutional guarantee backed up with the means to insure it will NEVER happen ?

The United States of America has one in its Constitution... we learned from history what can happen to those that do not .

you only get a break if you can insure that not giving you a break will have consequenses . Otherwise why bother ..its just as easy to just break your neck or ignore you .
Funny, though. Of the free-first world-western-capitalist-democracies I would say the USA faces is the closest to becoming an oppresive police state. Not saying they are, just that they are heading that way faster than anyone else.

not really. was a stolen election not serious enough to trigger this 'overthrow' clause you seem to believe you have over there? if not, how far do the govt have to go?

an interesting point. But I forget that people aren't familiar with the American Electoral College. It is too big a topic for me to discuss here. I would suggest you look it up. Essentially it is like a football series. Best of 5 wins. It doesn't matter about How much Manchester beats London or Real Madrid beats Barcelona in in 2 of the 5. whoever wins the Tourney wins the Pot.

Make sense?

If no you are not alone. I have trouble explaining it to my gaijin freinds.:rolleyes:

America and Europe are of the same general family we fight because we are so closely related and alike that the others piss us off more.

Le Machismo Americaine c'est le Meme d"Arrogance Francaise N'est pas?

We Americans are good old hillbillies! But it doesn't mean we are STUPID. Jefferson, Locke, Voltaire, Rouseaa, de Tocqueville, and probably Napolean himself before he betrayed the Republic would be proud of us.

So enough fighting about nationality.

<muttere>
Eventually we will...no that would defeat my calm statements.

Supposedly, there was a poll done several years back that found that 20% of the Marine would take up arms against American citizens if so ordered. Which obviously menas that they would end up facing down the majority of their brethren. Not to mention alot of pissed-off heavily armed citizens.

Thomas Jefferson was always a bit strange (back in college they called him tommy guns, and since the rifle had yet to be invented, let alone fully automatic chain-fed mafia guns, you can kind of assume that a "bit" is some value greater than positive infinity), and he had this thing for armed revolution (as long as it wasn't him being shot at). Jefferson, being the cook he was, built the 2nd Ammendmant in as a way for the people to revolt against their leaders if they were to become tyranical. Jefferson followed Locke's phillosophy, when the government no longer served the people, the people should revolt.

The second ammendmant isn't the ability to defend yourself against your neighbor, it's your ability to defend yourself against the possibility of a fascist US government.
What you say about the right to keep and bear arms to defend against your government is true; I'm not denying that. I'm just saying it's not the only reason that the amendment is there. Kindly also note that the liberal media rarely reports the common incident of a gun being used in self-defence because they don't want people to support the right to keep and bear arms.

the iraqi's appear to prove that theory wrong....
Not when you look at the death toll, and compare both sides of the conflict. IMO opinion I would have to say that while USA did not win the Iraq war, the Iraqis certainly lost.

The other day, my Prime Minister (Lil' Johhny) made a startlingly good point in the guns debate. People do not have the automatic right to bear arms. I don't agree with Mr.Howard on many points, but I think he really nailed it here. Why should people have a right to bear arms? Unless they have a reason (shooting club, security, ect...) owning weapons should not be considered a basic human right. What does an ordinary individual need weapons for? If bearing arms truly was an inalienable civil right, where do you draw the line? If I can own a knife, why can't I own a SCUD missile?

I am questioning the second amendment of the US constitution/bill of rights-thingy. Why should people have the right to bear arms? Surely bearing arms should be a privelige, granted by neccesity.

Maybe not in Australia or most of the rest of the world, but in the US, the right to bear arms is a right of the people (originally as a defense against aggressors, both foreign and domestic). Also, everyone who owns a firearm has a reason. Some people need firearms for work (police and security personnel come to mind). Some people have firearms for self defense. Some people are rifle/shotgun hunters. Some people collect old/rare firearms (personally, I'd love to have a Garand). Some people love to compete in shooting sports (target, trap/skeet/clay pigeons, etc). Nobody owns a firearm just to own a firearm.

Funny, though. Of the free-first world-western-capitalist-democracies I would say the USA faces is the closest to becoming an oppresive police state. Not saying they are, just that they are heading that way faster than anyone else.

OVER MY DEAD BODY ;)


and my dads ...and my sons and the rest of my family and freinds...and we have the means to insure that it will be THEIR dead body not ours.;)

Wont ever happen . Not as long as I am alive .

The liberal school system in America removes this fact from the history books (on purpose), but America was founded as a Christian nation. The right to bear arms is endowed upon us by our Creator, which is why this right is inalienable, and thus this is part of why the Founders guaranteed it to us. Justice protects Liberty.

Bearing the sword for self-defense in the Bible: "If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him" (Exodus 22:2); and "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one" (Luke 22:36).

:rolleyes:

You mean like Thomas Jefferson? Ben Franklin? James Monroe? James Madison? All those fine upstanding "christians"? The fact that the lot of them were deists who had a huge part in creating the Constitution of the United States may have escaped you.

That and the whole First Ammendmant thing.

The scots are my brothers in arms ....;)
err... you're not my brother.

There is a very strong case for civilised societies to agree a number of unassailable freedoms for their citizenry. The right to own property, to have access to education, and to live unmolested by others amongst the most commonly-agreed such rights. A strong case can also be made for other rights to be unalienable, such as the right to quality health-care that is free at point of service, the right to clean drinking water, and the right to shelter are some notable suggestions, some of which are enshrined in a few nations.

The US, being a strong proponent of the right to live unmolested by others (ie. to have freedom of religious belief, free speech, etc.) ought to consider very carefully whether ownership of objects whose only purpose is to kill and maim, and thus very clearly impede the freedom of others to act doesn't rather seem contradict this aforementioned civil liberty at a base level, irrespective of whatever historical basis the current setup may have.

Funny, though. Of the free-first world-western-capitalist-democracies I would say the USA faces is the closest to becoming an oppresive police state. Not saying they are, just that they are heading that way faster than anyone else.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you there. The US is starting to look in that direction. I suspect though, if we continue down the current path, we will see a 2nd American Revolution in my lifetime. I truly hope it doesn't occur though.

What you say about the right to keep and bear arms to defend against your government is true; I'm not denying that. I'm just saying it's not the only reason that the amendment is there. Kindly also note that the liberal media rarely reports the common incident of a gun being used in self-defence because they don't want people to support the right to keep and bear arms.

Or... Yah know, because it's not news-worthy? I mean, weapons are used in Self Defense on a daily basis, it's hardly news, unlike a murder or something like that.

The fact of the matter, though, is that Thomas Jefferson didn't give a damn about defending people against other people, he put the 2nd Ammendmant in there as another check and balance.

And there is no Liberal media. :rolleyes:

The liberal school system in America removes this fact from the history books (on purpose), but America was founded as a Christian nation. The right to bear arms is endowed upon us by our Creator, which is why this right is inalienable, and thus this is part of why the Founders guaranteed it to us. Justice protects Liberty.

Bearing the sword for self-defense in the Bible: "If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him" (Exodus 22:2); and "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one" (Luke 22:36).

YUP you go dude!girl?guy.

Here is another one that should raise an eyebrow. People read it before you go off half cocked. This is a naunced arguement. It is often misqouted by both believers an infidels. <I'm Buddhist so don't even bother>

سورة البقرة

Surah 2. Al-Baqarah 2:190-193

2:190: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you,
but do not transgress limits;
for Allah loveth not transgressors.

2:191: And slay them wherever ye catch them,
and turn them out from where they have Turned you out;
for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter;
but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque,
unless they (first) fight you there;
but if they fight you, slay them.
Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

2:192: But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

2:193: And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression,
and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease,
Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.

It's not an inalienable right, certainly. Inalienable rights are things like Life, Liberty, 'the Pursuit of Happiness' (whatever that means exactly), and other such things (what other things depend on personal taste). It's interesting to note that the original words that Jefferson stole that from (I think Locke wrote it originally) were 'life, liberty, and property.' Guess Jefferson was a commie. . . .

However, while not an inalienable right, it is certainly an important right -- just not an innate right gained solely by virtue of being children of God, which is the idea of inalienable rights.

I am, however, somewhat unsure exactly how applicable it really is today -- while I fully support and agree with the original intent, things have changed, and a small professional military force completely outclasses the armed citizenry, or so the conventional wisdom goes -- but the situation in Iraq may yet prove that the Second Amendment is still valid in our world.

Not when you look at the death toll, and compare both sides of the conflict. IMO opinion I would have to say that while USA did not win the Iraq war, the Iraqis certainly lost.


Sure they did ..the elections.... the government elected by the people.... the compromise that gave them a constitution..the newly elected and endorsed by the people of iraq... government..... is ...a big loss...sure it is..thats why they risked death to go vote ..and why they risk DEATH every day to be part of a democratic govenment and an army and police force..all those poor bastards standing in line day after day to get suicide bombed ...just to join the army / police force...with death as the option ??? Hmmmm ....I think you really need to get off the bullshit wagon and give the Iraqi people the respect they deserve .

The people of Iraq are bigger winners than you or I can ever hope to be in our life time .

The thing I love about the US is that one does not need any justification about owning firearms. "Because I wanted one" is good enough, and that's how it should be. And for those talking about the US becoming a police state, I'll believe it when the gov starts confiscating the weapons from the law abiding people. That more then any other factor will make the US a police state.

So, uhm, let's break it down (because some of us still have it wrong):

1. "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."

OK, let's hark back to the days of 1787... most of our population was agrarian, that is, they lived on farms. These farms were normally near the frontier. On the frontier there are indians. These indians want your scalp. You have gun, they have bow and arrow or gun. You shoot them, with help from neighbors.

Or, an even better example. The founders had just wrapped up a long bloody war with the freaknasty English. They did not like a standing army, as they had been one of the causes of the war. So, they imagined a small cadre of permanent commissioned officers who would lead their state's militia into combat, as needed.

In South Carolina, it is still the law that on your 15th birthday, you are formally a part of the SC Militia. Because it is prohibitively expensive to arm, equip and train every last 15 yr old, the state expects you to provide your own weapons, training and equipment. So, in the 99.9999% unlikely event of a foreign invasion, I'd rather not just be equiped with a shotgun against soldiers with battle rifles. That's why we have the Class III weapons permits! :mp5:

I don't know about the other states, but I had that explained to me by a SC-ian.

*raises hand*

In the case of the US 2nd ammendmant, it goes something like this:

Thomas Jefferson was always a bit strange (back in college they called him tommy guns, and since the rifle had yet to be invented, let alone fully automatic chain-fed mafia guns, you can kind of assume that a "bit" is some value greater than positive infinity), and he had this thing for armed revolution (as long as it wasn't him being shot at). Jefferson, being the cook he was, built the 2nd Ammendmant in as a way for the people to revolt against their leaders if they were to become tyranical. Jefferson followed Locke's phillosophy, when the government no longer served the people, the people should revolt.

The second ammendmant isn't the ability to defend yourself against your neighbor, it's your ability to defend yourself against the possibility of a fascist US government.

Except for the totally absurd and false parts of the above post, everything I said in it was true.
LOL!, Ok so your saying that I don't have the right to defend myself against a attacker on the supposition that ONE of the founding fathers was a "cook" and that it had nothing to do with hunting or defending against individuals. Whatever world must be very logical to a schizophrenic.

Of course not. Why should people b able to kill each other?

Also, we should abolish free speach. That also hurts people and can sometimes lead to their deaths.

:rolleyes:

So, uhm, let's break it down (because some of us still have it wrong):

1. "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."

OK, let's hark back to the days of 1787... most of our population was agrarian, that is, they lived on farms. These farms were normally near the frontier. On the frontier there are indians. These indians want your scalp. You have gun, they have bow and arrow or gun. You shoot them, with help from neighbors.

Or, an even better example. The founders had just wrapped up a long bloody war with the freaknasty English. They did not like a standing army, as they had been one of the causes of the war. So, they imagined a small cadre of permanent commissioned officers who would lead their state's militia into combat, as needed.

In South Carolina, it is still the law that on your 15th birthday, you are formally a part of the SC Militia. Because it is prohibitively expensive to arm, equip and train every last 15 yr old, the state expects you to provide your own weapons, training and equipment. So, in the 99.9999% unlikely event of a foreign invasion, I'd rather not just be equiped with a shotgun against soldiers with battle rifles. That's why we have the Class III weapons permits! :mp5:

I don't know about the other states, but I had that explained to me by a SC-ian.




Mmmmmm, class III.



Eventually, I'll have saved up enough money for a class III weapon. By then, hopefully I'll be out of CT, too.

'life, liberty, and property.' Guess Jefferson was a commie. . . .

yup he probably was. He wanted the USA to be an agragarian societe. Well lets just say tommy gun was an interesting fella. European Enlightenment are most definitely more focused on property rights. It is built into their codexes.

I was quoting the motto of France's revolution not America's. That was a universalistic crusade for freedom and inalienable rights that went to the crapper.

But have you read Fointaine? The parable of the sheep and the wolf? That is applicable all times. My other qoute was to him. Franklin was no moon eyed liberal romantic. He was our Ambassador to Europe for decades! He said essentially the same thing.

look either you have a right or you don't.

It can't be sometimes this and sometimes that...

lol well sometimes it can!

What declare war?! :D It would be like tiananmen square with added pings of berretas making music against the cutting edge military machines of death. If the people of America declared war on the government, and fought it conventionally, the whole affair would be over in less than a week. The only hope any under-armed, under-trained, civilian population would have against the worlds richest and most technologically advanced military would be to become terrorist/guerillas. Even then they would eventually get wiped out.
But most revolutions, and all that are successful, gain help from either their own trained army, foreign armies, or parts of their domestic army (or a combination of the three). Look at the south in the US civil war. They took a good chunk of the US armies weapons and soldiers. The same would occur today.

err... you're not my brother.


depends on how you use the term " brother";) now does it not ?

we can disagree without being disagreable...unless of course you wouldnt toss down a pint with me on principle alone ..:D

LOL!, Ok so your saying that I don't have the right to defend myself against a attacker on the supposition that ONE of the founding fathers was a "cook" and that it had nothing to do with hunting or defending against individuals. Whatever world must be very logical to a schizophrenic.

I'm talking about the reason the ammendment exists in the first place, and the reason it is unalienable. You have the gun and should feel free to use it in self-defense, but it's not the reason you have the right to have the gun.

There are more effective means of self defense anyway, the first being the "Put your hands in the air and ask 'what would you like, sir', defense." Why? Because you're less likely to get shot.

Or... Yah know, because it's not news-worthy? I mean, weapons are used in Self Defense on a daily basis, it's hardly news, unlike a murder or something like that.

[...]

And there is no Liberal media. :rolleyes:
"Not news-worthy" is absolutely correct: Liberals do not feel that heroic cases of self-defense with guns are news-worthy because such cases hurt the liberal political agenda. I used to think there was no liberal media when I was liberal -- everything seemed pretty balanced. And then I shot to the other side of the sprectrum, to the point of supporting the ol' Confederacy, and realised how foolish I was.

سورة البقرة

Surah 2. Al-Baqarah 2:190-193

2:190: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you,
but do not transgress limits;
for Allah loveth not transgressors.

2:191: And slay them wherever ye catch them,
and turn them out from where they have Turned you out;
for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter;
but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque,
unless they (first) fight you there;
but if they fight you, slay them.
Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

2:192: But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

2:193: And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression,
and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease,
Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.
Ah-hah, so the alternative media wasn't lying when it claimed that Osama bin Laden isn't an Islamic extremist -- he's just a fundamentalist doing what his terrorist god told him to do. ;)

Very well said.

GreaterPacificNations, you missed a small point, we Americans have that right, you Australians may not. So what Howard has to say about it is sort of irrelevant. What does your Charter or Constitution say about it?

Whenever people bring up the 2nd Amendment they look at the part about militias, decide that means a standing army and scream that only the military should have arms 'cause it says so in the Bill of Rights. What they seem to ignore, is that the BoR is about the rights of the PEOPLE. Not the states, and not the federal government.

The People.

I ask you, if every other Amendment is considered to be a right of the people over the government, then why not this one? Read through the various letters and papers written by the men who created the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, you'll find that they considered the INDIVIDUAL'S right to keep and bear arms as a primary means of personal defense and as an ultimate check on a government sliding into tyranny. That is why we, as Americans, have that right, and why many of us defend it so strongly.
Well, Duntscruwithus, the relevancy is clear, because the question I am posing does not relate to US sovereignty. I am posing a philosphical question on the nature of rights. The fact that John Howard inspired these thoughts in my mind, has nothing to do with his role as Prime Minister of Australia. What I am asking you to do is to look beyond the sancity of your bill of rights, and objectively evaluate the validity of one of it's components. Should the right to bear arms be considered a basic inalienable right? I say no. When asked for a reason, I have to respond with "why should it be?". Why should you be granted the power to kill more efficiently as a right? Surely something like that would be a privelidge, for the select and responsible few, granted by neccessity.

depends on how you use the term " brother";) now does it not ?

we can disagree without being disagreable...unless of course you wouldnt toss down a pint with me on principle alone ..:D
oh, i'll drink with anyone, as long as they don't mind me arguing at them.

I am questioning the second amendment of the US constitution/bill of rights-thingy. Why should people have the right to bear arms? Surely bearing arms should be a privelige, granted by neccesity.
If you actually read the 2nd it plainly does not give the right to everyone. Only those in a "well regulated militia". A militia is defined in the body of the constitution as being under the training and command of the government. So yes, if you belong to the militia and train under the command of the government, you have the right to use a heavy weapons. For everyone else it is a privliage, just like a driver's license. This has been the ruling from the beginning. The NRA boys will blow smoke up your pants, but they don't have a legal leg to stand on.

The liberal school system in America removes this fact from the history books (on purpose), but America was founded as a Christian nation. The right to bear arms is endowed upon us by our Creator, which is why this right is inalienable, and thus this is part of why the Founders guaranteed it to us. Justice protects Liberty.

Partially correct. The right to bear arms is not an inalienable right given by our Creator -- it's given to us by man so that we have a way to protect the inalienable rights that we have from God.

I also wouldn't say America was founded as a Christian nation, more that its founding fathers were generally Christian, and that the philosophy that America was based upon generally was rooted in Christian theology, at least somewhat (the whole inalienable rights thing and all men being equal, for example). But the right to keep and bear arms comes more from Hobbes, and is only a way for the people to defend their inalienable rights, not an inalienable right itself.

Whether its actually effective at defending out inalienable rights against a foreign army or a corrupt government anymore is another question. If the answer to that is no, then the original reason for the Second Amendment is pretty much gone.

depends on how you use the term " brother";) now does it not ?

we can disagree without being disagreable...unless of course you wouldnt toss down a pint with me on principle alone ..:D

Bah a pint! thats not even a mug...a good ole keg now! now that is another interesting metaphor.

so having the rights to arms is the powder keg of a free people.
that is not restricted to us Yankees.

A'Yup you are practicing it right now. Fun aint it?

..funny how we got the nomen Yankee and now wear it with pride.

:rolleyes:

You mean like Thomas Jefferson? Ben Franklin? James Monroe? James Madison? All those fine upstanding "christians"? The fact that the lot of them were deists who had a huge part in creating the Constitution of the United States may have escaped you.

That and the whole First Ammendmant thing.


OMG someone who has an understanding of that part of history !!!!!!!

You said DEIST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I may just have to end my life now....but at least i will know that OTHERS ...have actually read something besides a comic book ...:D :D :D :D


man you just nailed the hed on the hit . DEIST ,,,almost every stinking one of them !!!!!!!!!!!!

not to mention atheist and others ....SEPRATION OF CHURCH AND STATE ...ummmm .....WHY else did they come up with that stuff ????????

STATE controlled religion comes to mind ...LIKE IN ALL OF EUROPE....

WTF did you all erase history from your minds ?????????? :D :D

At any rate is a nice suprise to see that someone understands .

OVER MY DEAD BODY ;)


and my dads ...and my sons and the rest of my family and freinds...and we have the means to insure that it will be THEIR dead body not ours.;)

Wont ever happen . Not as long as I am alive .
I think it's out of your control...depending on your real life identity.

"Not news-worthy" is absolutely correct: Liberals do not feel that heroic cases of self-defense with guns are news-worthy because such cases hurt the liberal political agenda. I used to think there was no liberal media when I was liberal -- everything seemed pretty balanced. And then I shot to the other side of the sprectrum, to the point of supporting the ol' Confederacy, and realised how foolish I was.


For supporting the slave-holding bigot states of America? Pretty damn foolish if you ask me.

The media is neither liberal nor conservative (except perhaps Faux News), but it no longer sells the facts. The modern media exists to sell controvercy on political issues (not a noble goal, but hardly a liberal goal).

I don't watch TV news (too many bullshit "And this guy got shot" and "another car drove off a bridge" and "fear for your lives, everyone is out to get you" stories), and text news tends to concern itself with big issues (Political issues, multiple deaths, that sorta stuff). There's no liberal bias there, it's what will sell and what won't sell. People like to see other people suffering more than they like to see other people "succeding". It's "Could be worse" mindset.

Other than Faux (which had a clever financial plan to make money by selling to a growing conservative population in the 90's), there is little political bias in the media and a lot of corporate bias (bottom line is all that matters in business).

I think it's out of your control...depending on your real life identity.


I cant even to begin to tell you how wrong you are...most " Americans " are brought up to understand what their responsibility is as a citizen of this country....and as long as that is true ..well ...its all bullshit ..about any ASSHOLES taking over.. I know stoners that will break out an AK to fight...along with former flower children ..and others ..its in our blood..NO one should ever underestimate that..it just cant happen..they die we live .

again live free or die .

Its like a chromosome ...

"Not news-worthy" is absolutely correct: Liberals do not feel that heroic cases of self-defense with guns are news-worthy because such cases hurt the liberal political agenda. I used to think there was no liberal media when I was liberal -- everything seemed pretty balanced. And then I shot to the other side of the sprectrum, to the point of supporting the ol' Confederacy, and realised how foolish I was.

Ah-hah, so the alternative media wasn't lying when it claimed that Osama bin Laden isn't an Islamic extremist -- he's just a fundamentalist doing what his terrorist god told him to do. ;)



SEE its things like that that make THOSE DAMN OTHER FORIEGNERS think us Americans Are a bunch of SLOW COUNTRY BUMPKINS!! Please just re-read it and Think outside the friggin box! How can you say self-defense is GOOD in one sentence being a good American Patriot and then In the same breath be a damn fool?:eek:

or were you being Ironical?:p

I was talking about the aryias from the HOLY QURAN! It too provides to the right to arms. But it limits it. Osana is a terrorist. And are you really serius that Allah is not your god? Is then the roman catholic god a different god from the methodist of the anglican or the orthadox? If you are then you really are a fool and I will stop wasting my breath.

I hope you are not now blinded by your false piety...that you have found God. But god is in all of us. LOL I guess I'm also a deist.:rolleyes:

For supporting the slave-holding bigot states of America? Pretty damn foolish if you ask me.

The media is neither liberal nor conservative (except perhaps Faux News), but it no longer sells the facts. The modern media exists to sell controvercy on political issues (not a noble goal, but hardly a liberal goal).

I don't watch TV news (too many bullshit "And this guy got shot" and "another car drove off a bridge" and "fear for your lives, everyone is out to get you" stories), and text news tends to concern itself with big issues (Political issues, multiple deaths, that sorta stuff). There's no liberal bias there, it's what will sell and what won't sell. People like to see other people suffering more than they like to see other people "succeding". It's "Could be worse" mindset.

Other than Faux (which had a clever financial plan to make money by selling to a growing conservative population in the 90's), there is little political bias in the media and a lot of corporate bias (bottom line is all that matters in business).
The liberal bias lies not in the facts, but in its willingness to blaspheme God, Christianity, and promote the misunderstanding of the "wall of separation between Church and State," among other things.

The "slave-holding bigot states of America" refers to the North and the South. Slavery is a sad part of America's history, but the South owned chattel slavery, and part of the North did as well, but the North also enslaved the States and was just as racist as the South. You can't pretend the North was some sort of heaven.

SEE its things like that that make THOSE DAMN OTHER FORIEGNERS think us Americans Are a bunch of SLOW COUNTRY BUMPKINS!! Please just re-read it and Think outside the friggin box! How can you say self-defense is GOOD in one sentence being a good American Patriot and then In the same breath be a damn fool?:eek:

or were you being Ironical?:p
When I said "how foolish I was," I meant, "how foolish I was to once be a liberal."

STATE controlled religion comes to mind ...LIKE IN ALL OF EUROPE....
wow, i never knew the state controlled religions in the uk!? now, i'm aware that religion controls the minds of the leaders of the us and the uk but i'm pretty sure that our tone has no role in the running of the church of england or any of the other religious sects in the uk.

Of course not. Why should people b able to kill each other?

Also, we should abolish free speach. That also hurts people and can sometimes lead to their deaths.

:rolleyes:
Oh yeah, words are capable and exist for the sole purpose of physically destroying, maiming and killing.

Bah a pint! thats not even a mug...a good ole keg now! now that is another interesting metaphor.

so having the rights to arms is the powder keg of a free people.
that is not restricted to us Yankees.

A'Yup you are practicing it right now. Fun aint it?

..funny how we got the nomen Yankee and now wear it with pride.




Cripes I already had a few pints in fact ,,Yuengling ....some Jack Daniels ..( A friend of mine from britain called it the worse wisky he ever tasted...they should find his body in a few weeks ...:D )....and I am now finishing the wine ..pinot grigio ..we had for dinner...


I wish I had a Keg...dammit...but I thinks tommorow whe I wake up...I may be thankin ' me lucky stars I did not:eek: ....

OMG someone who has an understanding of that part of history !!!!!!!

You said DEIST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I may just have to end my life now....but at least i will know that OTHERS ...have actually read something besides a comic book ...:D :D :D :D


man you just nailed the hed on the hit . DEIST ,,,almost every stinking one of them !!!!!!!!!!!!

not to mention atheist and others ....SEPRATION OF CHURCH AND STATE ...ummmm .....WHY else did they come up with that stuff ????????

STATE controlled religion comes to mind ...LIKE IN ALL OF EUROPE....

WTF did you all erase history from your minds ?????????? :D :D

At any rate is a nice suprise to see that someone understands .
Hey, I knew that stuff too! Not all of us are ignorant . . . uh . . . just most of us. Separation of Church and State, it should be mentioned, isn't just to protect people from religion -- it's also to protect religions from the government.

wow, i never knew the state controlled religions in the uk!? now, i'm aware that religion controls the minds of the leaders of the us and the uk but i'm pretty sure that our tone has no role in the running of the church of england or any of the other religious sects in the uk.


Dude history did not start from when you were born . Get over it .

wow, i never knew the state controlled religions in the uk!? now, i'm aware that religion controls the minds of the leaders of the us and the uk but i'm pretty sure that our tone has no role in the running of the church of england or any of the other religious sects in the uk.

Uhm, isn't HRM the head of the Church of England? Oh yeah, score one for the educated Southern Dixiecrat!

"Not news-worthy" is absolutely correct: Liberals do not feel that heroic cases of self-defense with guns are news-worthy because such cases hurt the liberal political agenda. I used to think there was no liberal media when I was liberal -- everything seemed pretty balanced. And then I shot to the other side of the sprectrum, to the point of supporting the ol' Confederacy, and realised how foolish I was.
No actually, the American public does not feel that heroic acts of self defense with guns are news-worthy because such cases hurt the publics anti-boredom agenda. You Knob.

Ah-hah, so the alternative media wasn't lying when it claimed that Osama bin Laden isn't an Islamic extremist -- he's just a fundamentalist doing what his terrorist god told him to do. ;) Did you read the quotes? They were examples of modern civil liberties in the Q'uran. It is true though that there are stark contradictions to this in other chapters, but this is true of any religion. (God forbid I suggest the bible has the same contradictions and hypocrisies).

The liberal bias lies not in the facts, but in its willingness to blaspheme God, Christianity, and promote the misunderstanding of the "wall of separation between Church and State," among other things.

The "slave-holding bigot states of America" refers to the North and the South. Slavery is a sad part of America's history, but the South owned chattel slavery, and part of the North did as well, but the North also enslaved the States and was just as racist as the South. You can't pretend the North was some sort of heaven.


Having read that, I'll leave you to stew in your own dellusions, because you clearly aren't living in reality. There is a wall of spereation (you know, the one that Thomas Jefferson WROTE about). The "liberal" media is terrified out of it's wits to blaspheme, because that would lose it's money.

I'll take the northern obnoxious but well-intentioned hell over the southern racist, redneck, ignorant hell any day.

Hey, I knew that stuff too! Not all of us are ignorant . . . uh . . . just most of us. Separation of Church and State, it should be mentioned, isn't just to protect people from religion -- it's also to protect religions from the government.


In fact you deserve the best cookie ever made ...because ...GUESS what ???? Thats what the framers of the constitution where thinking !!!!

They knew that government had a bad habit of USING and controlling and DICTATING religion to the people ...so they decided the governent should NOT be in the business of religion . All that persecution stuff over in europe comes to mind...like 100 year wars and shit ...you know confiscating the heritics property and burning them at the stake ...that type of stuff....

Having read that, I'll leave you to stew in your own dellusions, because you clearly aren't living in reality. There is a wall of spereation (you know, the one that Thomas Jefferson WROTE about). The "liberal" media is terrified out of it's wits to blaspheme, because that would lose it's money.

I'll take the northern obnoxious but well-intentioned hell over the southern racist, redneck, ignorant hell any day.

Uhm, m'kay...

I'm Southern, everyone's a little bit racist, I'm not a redneck, and am not ignorant.

I cant even to begin to tell you how wrong you are...most " Americans " are brought up to understand what their responsibility is as a citizen of this country....and as long as that is true ..well ...its all bullshit ..about any ASSHOLES taking over.. I know stoners that will break out an AK to fight...along with former flower children ..and others ..its in our blood..NO one should ever underestimate that..it just cant happen..they die we live .

again live free or die .

Its like a chromosome ...
Well you certainly believe it.

What I am asking you to do is to look beyond the sancity of your bill of rights, and objectively evaluate the validity of one of it's components. Should the right to bear arms be considered a basic inalienable right? I say no. When asked for a reason, I have to respond with "why should it be?". Why should you be granted the power to kill more efficiently as a right? Surely something like that would be a privelidge, for the select and responsible few, granted by neccessity.

You are looking at it differently from me, obviously. I don't see it as a right to kill more efficiently. (A knife or club is technically more efficient, you don't use ammo.) I see it as a right to defend myself from the hostile intentions of criminals or government officials. Self-defense and checks against government oppression cannot be a privilege granted by the government, because no sane government would ever grant the citizens that ability and take the chance that the people would use it to force them to do their bidding.

Having read that, I'll leave you to stew in your own dellusions, because you clearly aren't living in reality. There is a wall of spereation (you know, the one that Thomas Jefferson WROTE about). The "liberal" media is terrified out of it's wits to blaspheme, because that would lose it's money.

I'll take the northern obnoxious but well-intentioned hell over the southern racist, redneck, ignorant hell any day.


Hmmmm I dont know...but you seem a bit too normal....we may have to give you a cookie .

The liberal bias lies not in the facts, but in its willingness to blaspheme God, Christianity, and promote the misunderstanding of the "wall of separation between Church and State," among other things.

I don't completely disagree with you, but I wonder if you might elaborate farther, especially on the 'misunderstanding of the "wall of separation between Church and State."'


The "slave-holding bigot states of America" refers to the North and the South. Slavery is a sad part of America's history, but the South owned chattel slavery, and part of the North did as well, but the North also enslaved the States and was just as racist as the South. You can't pretend the North was some sort of heaven.

That's true enough -- the Civil War, contrary to what you were probably taught in grade school, was mostly about politics (State's Rights vs the Federal Government) and economics. Slavery was incidental -- while there were a good number of people in New England and the Northwest that were in favor of abolition, there were also people fighting for the Union that owned slaves themselves and wanted to keep them.

Uhm, m'kay...

I'm Southern, everyone's a little bit racist, I'm not a redneck, and am not ignorant.

Of the civil war period...

*facevaults*

Well you certainly believe it.

well ...not for nothing ...thats the whole point...otherwise ..be one of the sheep and wait to be harvested . ;)

I am NOT the only one .

That's true enough -- the Civil War, contrary to what you were probably taught in grade school, was mostly about politics (State's Rights vs the Federal Government) and economics. Slavery was incidental -- while there were a good number of people in New England and the Northwest that were in favor of abolition, there were also people fighting for the Union that owned slaves themselves and wanted to keep them.'

Be fair. The South was throwing a temper tantrum because they didn't get their way for President. Slavery, as well as the Tarrif of Abominaitons, as well as waning Democratic power were all major causes. States rights made a wonderful talking point, but they were propoganda, not the real issue.

Did you read the quotes? They were examples of modern civil liberties in the Q'uran. It is true though that there are stark contradictions to this in other chapters, but this is true of any religion. (God forbid I suggest the bible has the same contradictions and hypocrisies).

I'll bet you ten Euro's that he didn't bother to actually read it. I read it the same way you did.

ACK!! We agree on something!!:eek:

Dude history did not start from when you were born . Get over it .

of course it did. but then it also happened in the past and this particular bit of history has little or no relevance to the present situation in europe.

Uhm, isn't HRM the head of the Church of England? Oh yeah, score one for the educated Southern Dixiecrat!

sorry, no score. while any monarch since henry viii has been the head of the church of england (perhaps with the exceptions of some catholic monarchs), the current monarch has as much control over the church of england as she does over the rest of the country. i.e. none whatsoever.

You are looking at it differently from me, obviously. I don't see it as a right to kill more efficiently. (A knife or club is technically more efficient, you don't use ammo.) I see it as a right to defend myself from the hostile intentions of criminals or government officials. Self-defense and checks against government oppression cannot be a privilege granted by the government, because no sane government would ever grant the citizens that ability and take the chance that the people would use it to force them to do their bidding.

Give the Aussie a break! S/He at least bothered reading the qoutes form the Q'uran. I just think it is a fudemental difference of opinion. No one is really likely to change their ideas. Both sides have merit. D. has argued well. I don't agree but at least his points make sense...sorta. don't forget the shading of our own cultures.

AND to you Northern Yankees.:mad: Let the south alone. You are decadent. The south is rising again. your northen rust belt cities are dead. :mp5: :D <throws empty bottle of beer at the northerners> Now git! Wez got to convert the world to our ideals! why? 'cause I said so! <crazy smirk>:rolleyes:

I'll bet you ten Euro's that he didn't bother to actually read it. I read it the same way you did.

ACK!! We agree on something!!:eek:

Funny how that sneeks up on you eh?

I don't completely disagree with you, but I wonder if you might elaborate farther, especially on the 'misunderstanding of the "wall of separation between Church and State."'




That's true enough -- the Civil War, contrary to what you were probably taught in grade school, was mostly about politics (State's Rights vs the Federal Government) and economics. Slavery was incidental -- while there were a good number of people in New England and the Northwest that were in favor of abolition, there were also people fighting for the Union that owned slaves themselves and wanted to keep them.


extemeley true....lincoln used the emancipation proclamation ...after the north had draft riots and needed a new cause to focus their effort after the south kept kicking ass.

People should be able to own weapons to A defend themselves b defend from invasion and C depose the goverment if need be.

People should be able to own weapons to A defend themselves b defend from invasion and C depose the goverment if need be.
I think that everyone can agree to the list? People have a right to these:
A defend themselves
b defend from invasion and
C depose the goverment if need be.

ignore the weapons part for a few seconds.
Do people have these rights?
YES or NO.
Now from this base construct your arguements.

<grins & spits>
We are still going to disagree but at least we have accomplished a point of agreement.

sorry, no score. while any monarch since henry viii has been the head of the church of england (perhaps with the exceptions of some catholic monarchs), the current monarch has as much control over the church of england as she does over the rest of the country. i.e. none whatsoever.

Ah, but for a long time, the Crown was in charge of the church. That's why James Madison wanted to include TJ's push for the religious freedoms.

Ah, but for a long time, the Crown was in charge of the church. That's why James Madison wanted to include TJ's push for the religious freedoms.
well i don't know about you, but i live in the present. a present where religious freedom exists in europe and james madison is long dead.

well i don't know about you, but i live in the present. a present where religious freedom exists in europe and james madison is long dead.


right you are !


but how do you keep " freedom " free ?

i agree with that part but people should be allowed tocarry a gun around with them going almost any where with a very strict process that allows them to do this an no criminal should be able to bear arms{even if it's one of those flint locks that hang on the wall next to thee swords}

well i don't know about you, but i live in the present. a present where religious freedom exists in europe and james madison is long dead.

The Bill of Rights, however, was not written in the present. So when talking about why they wrote it the way they did, the present is irrelevant.

does that mean they should remake the bills

The Bill of Rights, however, was not written in the present. So when talking about why they wrote it the way they did, the present is irrelevant.

I'm going to say that he just asserted the univerisality of the bill of rights as an inalienable right to all man in all times. While I agree...this opens the debate again.

Let us try to build on the small points where we do agree.

What about my questions...before?



and the Q'uran...I'll have to start another thread another day.

right you are !


but how do you keep " freedom " free ?
by not voting in nutjobs and by making sure there are laws that prevent any nutjobs that slip through the net from increasing their personal power. works for us.

I agree. The idea that the founding fathers thought so highly of recreational gun use to wedge it inbetween the freedoms of speech, press, and religion and the freedom from military occupation of private residences is ludicrous.

Its obvious application is to provide the states with defense from the federal government, and since the option to defend yourself against the federal government was largely destroyed in the mid 19th century, I hardly see a point to it at all.
Someone needs to take remedial grammar.

http://guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

Summary

Erroneous interpretations of the words in the Second Amendment occur from both sides of the debate. The meaning of the words "militia," "well regulated," "the people," "to keep and bear," and "arms," are discussed.


The Second Amendment:

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

The word "militia" has several meanings. It can be a body of citizens (no longer exclusively male) enrolled for military service where full time duty is required only in emergencies. The term also refers to the eligible pool of citizens callable into military service. The federal government can use the militia for the following purposes as stated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Is today's National Guard the militia? It is a part of the well-regulated militia, and as mentioned in GunCite's, The Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment, it was not the intent of the framers to restrict the right to keep arms to a militia let alone a well-regulated one.

Once a member of a State Guard unit is ordered into active military service of the United States, that person is no longer under the command of, or serving, a State Guard unit (until they are relieved from federal service), but is now a member of the army. (See the Supreme Court case Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990) for a brief but good explanation of the evolution of the National Guard statutes.)

For a definition of today's militia as defined in the United States Code, click here.

A militia is always subject to federal, state, or local government control. A "private" militia or army not under government control could be considered illegal and in rebellion, and as a result subject to harsh punishment. (See Macnutt, Karen L., Militias, Women and Guns Magazine, March, 1995.)

Some argue that since the militias are "owned," or at the disposal of the states, that the states are free to disarm their militia if they so choose, and therefore of course no individual right to keep arms exists. The Militia is not "owned" by anybody, rather they are controlled, organized, et. cetera, by governments. The federal government as well as the states have no legitimate power to disarm the people from which militias are organized. Unfortunately, few jurists today hold this view. (See Reynolds, Glen Harlan, A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment, 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 461-511 [1995].)

A brief summary of early U.S. militia history.

Well Regulated

Of all the words in the Second Amendment, "well regulated" probably causes the most confusion. The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989):

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

The first definition, to control by law in this case, was already provided for in the Constitution. It would have been unnecessary to repeat the need for that kind of regulation. For reference, here is the passage from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, granting the federal government the power to regulate the militia:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Some in their enthusiasm to belong to a well regulated militia have attempted to explain well regulated by using the definition "adjust so as to ensure accuracy." A regulated rifle is one that is sighted-in. However well regulated modifies militia, not arms. That definition is clearly inappropriate.

This leaves us with "to adjust to some standard..." or "to put in good order." Let's let Alexander Hamilton explain what is meant by well regulated in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- See The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

"To put in good order" is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.

This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, (1989) defines regulated in 1690 to have meant "properly disciplined" when describing soldiers:

[obsolete sense]

b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

The text itself also suggests the fourth definition ("to put in good order"). Considering the adjective "well" and the context of the militia clause, which is more likely to ensure the security of a free state, a militia governed by numerous laws (or just the right amount of laws [depending on the meaning of "well"] ) or a well-disciplined and trained militia?

The People

As ample evidence illustrates below, the people, as referred to in the Constitution at the time it was written, was synonymous with citizens. Also shown below, some scholars mistakenly assume that when the Constitution refers to "the people," a collective right or object is being referred to. However, that is incorrect. When the term "the people" is used, it could be referring to a right that is exercised individually, collectively, or both, depending on context. Of course, the meaning of the term "the people" is the same regardless.

Why wasn't "person" or "persons" used instead of "the people" when enumerating certain individual rights? "Persons," as referred to in the Constitution, signified a wider class of people than citizens. Persons included slaves. For example, Article 2, clause 3 of the Constitution refers to slaves as persons, but they were never considered as citizens or a part of the people: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." (U.S. Constitution)

The Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights begins:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

"The people" in the Fourth Amendment obviously refers to an individual right. (The phrase "in their persons" means people themselves [their bodies] cannot be unreasonably seized or searched. Compare the 14th Amendment from Virginia's proposed declaration of rights to the Constitution [also written by James Madison] to the 4th Amendment: "That every freeman has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, his papers..." "Persons" in the 4th Amendment is used to match the plural "people.")

One of James Madison's proposed amendments:

"The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable."

Would anybody in their right mind suggest Madison proposed a collective right to speak, write, or publish their thoughts?

Looking at other declarations of rights from the time clearly shows "the people," being used in conjunction with the enumeration of indvidual rights.

For example, Article XIII of Pennsylvania's Declaration of Rights states:

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state..."

Article XII from the same declaration says:

"That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing, and publishing their sentiments; therefore the freedom of the press ought not to be restrained."

In both of the above examples, "the people" means each citizen. Would anyone seriously suggest that Article XII protects only a "collective right," or that the people's freedom of speech and writing is limited to those who posses a printing press or to works appearing in the news media?

Again looking at Virginia's proposed declaration of rights, from the preamble:

"That there be a Declaration or Bill of Rights asserting and securing from encroachment the essential and unalienable Rights of the People in some such manner as the following;"

Article Sixteen:

"That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their Sentiments; but the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and ought not to be violated."

Article Sixteen is enumerating a right that can clearly be exercised indvidually.

Roger Sherman's draft bill of rights clearly refers to individual rights when referring to the rights of the people (article 2 [at 983]), (Sherman was a Founder, Senator, and lawyer):

"The people have certain natural rights which are retained by them when they enter into Society, such are the rights of Conscience in matters of religion; of acquiring property and of pursuing happiness & Safety; of Speaking, writing and publishing their Sentiments with decency and freedom; of peaceably assembling to consult their common good, and of applying Government by petition or remonstrance for redress of grievances. Of these rights therefore they Shall not be deprived by the Government of the united states."

From the Articles of Confederation:

"The people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce..."

Hopefully the reader does not interpret the above as referring to a collective right to travel.

Yet, Yale law professor Akhil Amar claims, "when the Constitution speaks of 'the people' rather than 'persons,' the collective connotation is primary" (Second Thoughts: What the right to bear arms really means). Amar's theory unravels when looking at all of the evidence. He tries to reconcile a portion of it writing, "The Fourth Amendment is trickier... And these words obviously focus on the private domain, protecting individuals in their private homes more than in the public square. Why, then, did the Fourth use the words 'the people' at all? Probably to highlight the role that jurors--acting collectively and representing the electorate--would play in deciding which searches were reasonable and how much to punish government officials who searched or seized improperly."

Amar's reasoning might sound plausible in today's context, however he fails to provide an appropriate example. In 1789 jurors did not issue warrants or determine whether a search was reasonable and they could not "punish government officials who searched or seized improperly." There was no method of suing the government in 1789 for damages resulting from the violation of civil rights. Also Amar fails to explain Madison's draft amendment protecting the people's right to speak and write, mentioned above.

Regardless of what the duties and responsibilities of juries were in 1789, Amar apparently does not realize that in the Constitution, person, without further qualification, refers to a wider class of individuals than the people.

Some individual rights were protected for collective purposes, the Second Amendment being one of them. However this doesn't transform the individual right into a collective right belonging to the states or the militia. Keeping arms was a right that could be exercised individually or collectively.

Compare Amar's opinion with that of Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe's:

[The Second Amendment's] central purpose is to arm "We the People" so that ordinary citizens can participate in the collective defense of their community and their state. But it does so not through directly protecting a right on the part of states or other collectivities, assertable by them against the federal government, to arm the populace as they see fit. Rather the amendment achieves its central purpose by assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with the authority of the states to organize their own militias. That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes--not a right to hunt for game, quite clearly, and certainly not a right to employ firearms to commit aggressive acts against other persons--a right that directly limits action by Congress or by the Executive Branch and may well, in addition, be among the privileges or immunities of United States citizens protected by § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment against state or local government action.
(Laurence H. Tribe, 1 American Constitutional Law 902 n.221 [3d ed. 2000] [emphasis added]. [Online references here and here.])

Even this anti-individual right law journal article finds, "As to the broader context of usage within the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, those documents use "the people" in both senses: sometimes collectively, sometimes individually." (Also see note 5 for further discussion, concluding, "In short, contrary to claims often made on both sides of the debate, the Second Amendment's reference to 'the people' does not, simply as a textual matter, commit us to either an individual or a collective right interpretation of the Amendment.")

Lastly, even the Supreme Court agrees on the meaning of "the people" as used in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

"The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included..." (Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 [1856])

And the dissent agrees:

"If we look into the Constitutions and State papers of that period, we find the inhabitants or people of these colonies, or the inhabitants of this State, or Commonwealth, employed to designate those whom we should now denominate citizens."

In Adamson v. California, 1947) the Supreme Court refers to the Bill of Rights as protecting individual rights:

"The reasoning that leads to those conclusions starts with the unquestioned premise that the Bill of Rights, when adopted, was for the protection of the individual against the federal government..."

And again the dissent agrees:

"The first 10 amendments were proposed and adopted largely because of fear that Government might unduly interfere with prized individual liberties."

More recently the Supreme Court comments on what "the people" may mean today and its distinction from "person:"

'[T]he people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution... While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community... (Excludable alien is not entitled to First Amendment rights, because "[h]e does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution by an attempt to enter forbidden by law"). The language of these Amendments contrasts with the words 'person' and 'accused' used in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating procedure in criminal cases." (U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 [1990])

To Keep and Bear

To "keep" arms simply means keeping one's own arms for self-defense or militia use.

"To bear arms" is thought by some to apply only in a military context. However, even at the time of the founders this wasn't true. For example in 1776, Article XIII of Pennsylvania's Declaration of Rights stated: "That the people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State." For a more detailed discussion of this interpretation see the 5th Circuit's Court decision in U.S. v. Emerson (Part V [Second Amendment], C [Text], 1 [Substantive Guarantee], b [Bear Arms] ).

For the view that "bearing arms" signifies military service, see Guncite's "Is there Contrary Evidence?"

Arms

In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.

This off-site essay offers a differing and reasonable view that arms in the late 18th Century did mean the full array of arms and offers how that definition can be applied today "honestly (and constitutionally)."

The Bill of Rights, however, was not written in the present. So when talking about why they wrote it the way they did, the present is irrelevant.
i can't even remember why we even got onto the religion thing but i think that any discussion of the bill of rights must take into account the present because that is when it is being applied.

The Bill of Rights, however, was not written in the present. So when talking about why they wrote it the way they did, the present is irrelevant.


Bullshit .


explain yourself .

I think that everyone can agree to the list? People have a right to these:
A defend themselves
b defend from invasion and
C depose the goverment if need be.

ignore the weapons part for a few seconds.
Do people have these rights?
YES or NO.
Now from this base construct your arguements.

<grins & spits>
We are still going to disagree but at least we have accomplished a point of agreement.

I think we can all agree that those are rights, probably inalienable ones.

Having established that, however, we are left with deciding what particular rights we have to use in defending those inalienable rights.

Then, of course, we have to decide if those are inalienable (God-given) rights, or just plain rights (given by men).

by not voting in nutjobs and by making sure there are laws that prevent any nutjobs that slip through the net from increasing their personal power. works for us.

Doesn't work all the time. Many would say its not working now in the US. Ironically, they're mostly not the ones trying to defend the Second Amendment.

I think we can all agree that those are rights, probably inalienable ones.

Having established that, however, we are left with deciding what particular rights we have to use in defending those inalienable rights.

Then, of course, we have to decide if those are inalienable (God-given) rights, or just plain rights (given by men).


LOL. well three forward and two back?
Yes but now we have moved one foward.

Each step...

You know each of those other questions will merit their own thread.
It may take abit more patience than I have right now. it is almost 03h00.

Fair thee well peoples.

Bonne nuit

i can't even remember why we even got onto the religion thing but i think that any discussion of the bill of rights must take into account the present because that is when it is being applied.

Certainly. However, that was a discussion of why it was written the way it was, not if it was important now, or if it did that today.

Bullshit .


explain yourself .

With pleasure.

You see, people writing things in the past aren't time travelers or oracles. They don't know what things are like in our present day -- they know what things are like in their present and history. Meanings of words change, languages change, writings get translated . . . if we want to understand what they meant and why they meant it, we can't look at things that didn't exist when they wrote it -- first we have to look at it in the context of their times, then we can figure out what it would mean in our day, or how it should apply.

Bah, it's late and that doesn't make as much sense as I'd like it too. Ask me when it's not 3AM.

By the way, maybe you could explain why you thought it was 'bullshit'?

With pleasure.

You see, people writing things in the past aren't time travelers or oracles. They don't know what things are like in our present day -- they know what things are like in their present and history. Meanings of words change, languages change, writings get translated . . . if we want to understand what they meant and why they meant it, we can't look at things that didn't exist when they wrote it -- first we have to look at it in the context of their times, then we can figure out what it would mean in our day, or how it should apply.

Bah, it's late and that doesn't make as much sense as I'd like it too. Ask me when it's not 3AM.

By the way, maybe you could explain why you thought it was 'bullshit'?for the same reasons you cite, what they meant and wanted is irrelevant. They wrote for 13 fledgling states that all hugged the Atlantic 250 years ago. Not 50 states that hold the title as the worlds only economic and military superpower. Times have changed. The constitution is meant to change with the nation.

With pleasure.

You see, people writing things in the past aren't time travelers or oracles. They don't know what things are like in our present day -- they know what things are like in their present and history. Meanings of words change, languages change, writings get translated . . . if we want to understand what they meant and why they meant it, we can't look at things that didn't exist when they wrote it -- first we have to look at it in the context of their times, then we can figure out what it would mean in our day, or how it should apply.

Bah, it's late and that doesn't make as much sense as I'd like it too. Ask me when it's not 3AM.

By the way, maybe you could explain why you thought it was 'bullshit'?


"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." ~Mao Tse Tung, "Selected Works of Mao Zedong"

Do you need more ?

If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying -- that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 -- establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime." ~Orrin Hatch, "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms"
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." ~Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950)
"For every fatal shooting, ther were roughtly three nonfatal shootings. And, folks, this is unacceptable in America. It's just unacceptable. And we're going to do something about it."
—George W. Bush, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 14, 2001
"Remember when she had Tom Selleck on her program a while back? She blind-sided Tom Selleck! He's a good fella, ain't never hurt nobody, but he's in the NRA, so she hates that. She was like, 'Well, you're in the NRA. Let me tell you something, Tom: guns kill people!' Do you believe she said that? On the Rosie O'Fatass show! She looks right at him and says, 'Guns kill people!' Let me tell you something: husbands that come home early kill people! Alright? The gun was just sitting there! If guns kill people, I can blame misspelled words on my pencil! Git-r-done!" -Larry the Cable Guy, Git-r-Done DVD
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." ~Mahatma Gandhi, "An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth", by M.K. Gandhi, p.238



Not for anything but all this crap has been posted before in the twenty a week threads about guns on this forum....I could just note pad my responses...its that bad ..


But any whooooooo wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.....

"History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." ~Adolph Hitler
"God made man and God made woman, but Samuel Colt made them equal." ~Unknown Author
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” ~George Washington
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy. However, 4 out of 5 U.S. murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?" ~Andrew Ford
“There's no question that weapons in the hands of the public have prevented acts of terror or stopped them.” ~Israeli Police Inspector General Shlomo Aharonisk
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." ~Ted Nugent
"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose." ~James Earl Jones
"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
"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
"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." ~George Mason
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." ~Noah Webster
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms." ~James Madison
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." ~William Pitt
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." ~Richard Henry Lee
"...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them." ~Thomas Paine
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." ~Joseph Story
"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it." ~William Burroughs
"The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's goodbye to the Bill of Rights." ~(origin needed)
"Hell, when the man said Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, I just thought he was making a delivery!" ~James Wesley, Rawles
"Gun Control: The notion that Matthew Shepard tied to a fence post in the middle of Wyoming is morally superior to Matthew Shepard explaining to the local sheriff how his attackers got all those fatal bullet holes." ~Dan Weiner
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people." - Unknown
"Guns don't kill people, i do." - Duke Nukem
"If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." - Unknown
"You want more gun control? Use both hands." - Unknown
"I believe that guns don't kill people, husbands that come home early do." - Larry the Cable Guy
Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. - Mohandas Gandhi
The world would be so much nicer if people only used guns on themselves. - Johnny the Homicidal Maniac
"The first rule of firearms safety is to never mess with another man's woman" - Unknown
"Don't get in any gun fights with buffalo hunters. There ain't no such thing as cover


Pick one or two ...its a futile cause .


face it if you have those that will oppress or exploit you will have those who will resist .

You can crush them ...if you can ...or die trying .


idealism never won a war . it never won a revolution . it never won anything..

flesh and blood and those that believe and put their lives on the line to protect or to secure their rights as a man have always been the ones to succeed in any conflict.

words mean NOTHING without a Sword to enforce them ...or some nukes ...or an air force ...or some nice carrier groups...or those willing to die for a bunch of words on a piece of paper .

by not voting in nutjobs and by making sure there are laws that prevent any nutjobs that slip through the net from increasing their personal power. works for us.

we didn't vote them in, it was a coup and they are manufacturing a police state. We need guns to protect our rights from and increalsingly growing and paranoid (i think you all will agree with me on that one) US federal government. Now lets avoid the talk of how rebels wouldnt stand a chance against the US military, psh they're doing it all over the world right now... anyways, the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting, it has everything to do with the Right of Revolutiuon, which is an actuall right in the US consitution. It grants citezens the right to revolt and overthrow the government if they believe the government has failed them, or turned its back on the constitution.

When you take away a people ability to defend themselves we risk ending up with 1984. It won't be a foreign government we'll have to watch out for, it'll be our own.

Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

damn right.

another thing. Governments should be afraid of the people, NOT the other way around....and Governments should be ownded by the people, and if the government has all the guns and the fire power, whats to stop them from using it to control everyone? you talk about modern elections and such but that doenst hold up in real life, you give someone that kind of power no matter what kind of person they are theres gonna be a chance they abuse it, absolute power corrupts absolutley, and how do you really know who your voting for? you dont know them at all! I garuntee there are people you've known your whole life that you barley know how can you trust someone with that much power for real man, the only place all that power belongs is in the hands of the people and the founding fathers understood that. "our modern day and age" means nothing, we are still the same humans with the same problems we've always had, the only difference between now and the American Revolution is technology. thats it, thats the only difference. we will never change, there will always be power hungry people juting for power.

by not voting in nutjobs and by making sure there are laws that prevent any nutjobs that slip through the net from increasing their personal power. works for us.


well read the declaration of independence...then read the constitution...it didnt stop slavery ,,,nor segragation ...nor did it stop the deportation and concentration camps in the US for CITIZENS ...that just happened to be Japanese...they had their property confiscated,,,no reperations for what 50 .....60 years ???


Well FUCK that ..

the second ammendment keeps lets me protect myself from the tyranny of the majority.

scratch that....my willingness to shoot the son of a bitch that walks over my rights protects me when words cant .

prove me wrong .

That is one of those things that was appropriate to the specific time it was written. At the time, the people writing the document were at war against the British. Pragmatically, by insuring everyone the right to carry guns, they were also providing a larger army to fight that war.

We are no longer in the same situation. There has not been a foreign invasion for a very long time, and the only people we currently use guns against is ourselves. So the debate is, would it be better for no one to have guns, or for everyone to have them? I fall on the no one side of that question, but there are still some people who sadly don't feel safe unless they have a gun available to them.
That's an excellent point. Maybe the US should confine its non-needed (hunting rifles and the like would still be allowed) weapons to armouries and gun lockers etc. around the country, and write an ammendment that, if invaded, everyone has the right to bear arms, but at peace time, it should only be trained soldiers (killers for hire or "private contractors" are not soldiers in this respect) and law enforcers who get to bear weapons.

That's an excellent point. Maybe the US should confine its non-needed (hunting rifles and the like would still be allowed) weapons to armouries and gun lockers etc. around the country, and write an ammendment that, if invaded, everyone has the right to bear arms, but at peace time, it should only be trained soldiers (killers for hire or "private contractors" are not soldiers in this respect) and law enforcers who get to bear weapons.

Who then inturn control those weapons and use that power to stay in power, and run the nation in their vision.:headbang:

Who then inturn control those weapons and use that power to stay in power, and run the nation in their vision.:headbang:
A coup d'état would still be possible, and since the army would probably have keys to the armouries, then they could arm up the populace if they saw it as a good idea.

And to be honest, it's not impossible to make makeshift weapons. The Palestinians have been fighting the Isreali army off with rocks for the last 58 or so years.

Dammit BT, you beat me to it. And it is like trying to beat a wall down with your head, innit?

A coup d'état would still be possible, and since the army would probably have keys to the armouries, then they could arm up the populace if they saw it as a good idea.

And to be honest, it's not impossible to make makeshift weapons. The Palestinians have been fighting the Isreali army off with rocks for the last 58 or so years.

or uh, lets say AK-47s, RPK's, RPG's, and suicide bombers. do you watch the news?

True you can make makeshift weapons but it is way more effective and less costly in human lives if the revolutionaries have they're guns at the start, and that might even deter a conflict from even happening. I'm sure criminals know how to make those makeshift weapons anyways, so you take away guns and they're just gonna use those now.

or uh, lets say AK-47s, RPK's, RPG's, and suicide bombers. do you watch the news?

They're in the minority, you cretin. Watch some footage of some actual fighting there, and you'll see about 60 or so men and children throwing huge stones at attacking Isreali patrols and such.

True you can make makeshift weapons but it is way more effective and less costly in human lives if the revolutionaries have they're guns at the start, and that might even deter a conflict from even happening. I'm sure criminals know how to make those makeshift weapons anyways, so you take away guns and they're just gonna use those now.
Criminals are usually in the minority, and everyone's gone knives and screwdrivers in their houses, and you can easily kill someone with one of those.

Plus, in most nations, the threat of your government suddenly turning into a police state is extremely low.

And if nobody has guns then a revolution would have to be incredibly popular for it to succeed, because if a few hundred people tried to take over local government centres, they'd be shot down. You'd need millions to support you if the revolution was successful, unlike nowadays in countries with lax gun laws, where if a small group of people were organised enough, they could probably kill off all of the high-ranking members of the government and take control, even though their views aren't representative of the public's.

It's not hard to change the government in the United States. It just requires filling out a form indicating which person you support in the revolution (if you think about it, we can have a complete revolution done in six years' time. And I'm talking about voting, for those of you who didn't catch that)


I only have one more thing to say on the matter:
Amendment II

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 defined as "civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army" (source: wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

The National Guard fits that definition. It is well regulated and is intended for the preservation of the security of the United States. According to the Framers, there is no further reason why citizens should keep guns in their home (except for hunting)

So Hamas and Fatah are just throwing rocks at each other? Then why is it making news?

Nice going with the insults though Yootopia. I am certain that Tribes is going to pay that much more attention to whatever you say.

And the US is one of those lax-gun-control nations, who's crime-rates have been decreasing as our firearm ownership rates have been increasing, and we have plenty of those groups you mentioned. We call them militia's. And even the ones who publicly advocate the overthrow of the current regime know bloody well that they would never be able to pull it off. To many people they'd have to get too who are too well protected.

A militia is defined as "civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army" (source: wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

The National Guard fits that definition. It is well regulated and is intended for the preservation of the security of the United States. According to the Framers, there is no further reason why citizens should keep guns in their home (except for hunting)

Try reading what the Framers actually said on the subject of people owning firearms. Private ownership was considered essential to both self-defense and enforcing the rights of the people over the government. And the National Guard is a government entity. Militia's are a body of private citizens who come together to help protect and defend against incursions by foreign militaries. The men who created the Constitution weren't all that fond of standing armies.

I only have one more thing to say on the matter:

A militia is defined as "civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army" (source: wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

The National Guard fits that definition. It is well regulated and is intended for the preservation of the security of the United States. According to the Framers, there is no further reason why citizens should keep guns in their home (except for hunting)
Aye, exactly my point.

So Hamas and Fatah are just throwing rocks at each other? Then why is it making news?

No, but one's a well-funded terrorist group and the other has the support of the president. Of course they're well armed. But, shocking as this may sound, not all of the Palestinians are members of Hamas or Fatah. A lot of them have to make do, especially on the borders, and so they use rocks instead of bullets.

Nice going with the insults though Yootopia. I am certain that Tribes is going to pay that much more attention to whatever you say.

And the US is one of those lax-gun-control nations, who's crime-rates have been decreasing as our firearm ownership rates have been increasing, and we have plenty of those groups you mentioned. We call them militia's. And even the ones who publicly advocate the overthrow of the current regime know bloody well that they would never be able to pull it off. To many people they'd have to get too who are too well protected.

No, the crime rates have been decreasing because Bush has put a lot more police on the streets so that everyone doesn't get paranoid about OH NOES terrorists.

And I know exactly what a militia is, it's a well-armed group that's supposed to protect the people in the nearby area, like vigilantes, I suppose (in peacetime). Or that's the dictionary definition, anyway.

A well-armed revolutionary group is more likely to be better-organised than a militia group, simply because they have a goal, other than "to carry around weapons a bit", so have more motivation for their task.

No, the crime rates have been decreasing because Bush has put a lot more police on the streets so that everyone doesn't get paranoid about OH NOES terrorists.

2 things wrong with that. 1- We haven't had a large increase in police forces that I am aware of. Certainly not here in Washington State. And 2- it has been shown in recent studies that an increase in police does NOT correspond to a decrease in crime rates. Some areas here in the US have actually reported a decrease in crime at the same time they were lesseing the amount of officers on their police forces.

'Sides, the government is the paranoid one, not the citizens.

And if you remember from other gun rights threads, it was shown that the decrease in crime/increase in firearm ownership predates the Bush Administration by nearly a decade.

2 things wrong with that. 1- We haven't had a large increase in police forces that I am aware of. Certainly not here in Washington State. And 2- it has been shown in recent studies that an increase in police does NOT correspond to a decrease in crime rates. Some areas here in the US have actually reported a decrease in crime at the same time they were lesseing the amount of officers on their police forces.
Fair enough, I was under the impression that there were a lot more police around. Sorry...

'Sides, the government is the paranoid one, not the citizens.
Yes, so it's protecting itself with police...

We have a right to life, therefore we have a right to defend our lives against aggressors, therefore we have a right to keep and use the necessary tools so to do.

The right to own a gun is as relevant to the right to life as a printing press is to free speech.

Of course, no legal instrument containing a right to free speech contains a specific right to own the tools necessary to free speech. It is simply accepted that to have a right means one must have the right to own the tools necessary for that right.

A gun is simply a tool, a tool to be used to exercise the right to life by defending life. It does have criminal uses, but so does a printing press. That the criminal uses exist is not an argument for banning the tools.

Anyone who tells you that a force (the National Guard) which is based on government land in government buildings, rides in government vehicles, wears government uniforms, and uses government weapons is a militia is lying.

I would argue the National Guard is a federal government force (because the federal government can use it whenever it wishes by federalising it), not a militia.




In any case, discussion of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution is irrelevant to the general question of the right to keep and bear arms. It is merely a perspective in a world of many.


One last thing, to the person who said owning a handgun was the same as contemplating murder: fuck you. Psychologists call statements like yours "projection".

'Inalienable' seems much too impractical a term. I would suggest that prohibitionism inevitably fails; that is, if something is possible within the realm of physics, especially something as physically easy as having a weapon, legislative policy cannot prevent it from happening.

In politics this is known as anarchy; in religion this is known as tao or zen; in engineering as technological inevitability.

Simon Ortiz wrote of the crumbling cement foundations of the "Washyuma Motor Hotel".

My friend's friend at the Applied Physics Labs of Johns Hopkins, last I heard, was researching warp drive. My personal friend, who also worked there to develop the communication system for the satellite that recently broadcasted from the core of a comet back to earth, said that, pretty much, whatever you could imagine, there's somebody researching it, (although, he believed, the most unlikely of inventions would be the human teleporter). :cool:

I do not feel that citizens should have a right to bear weapons. There are something rotten in the state when it's people can not rely on the police and other agencies to protect them, and feel the need to carry weapons themselves for protection. If your country use military forces on it's own citizens, then vote and remove the people that made it so. It's an illusion to think that you can protect yourself against such a government, just by owning your own gun.

Norway in TxM,

You are right that there is something rotten about a state in which the citizens feel the need to be protected from each other or their own government; however, if the solution were available at the ballot box, wouldn't we have, by now finally, achieved it? What if the system had become so distorted and corrupted that it had become a hoax and was then itself the model with which corrupt government oppresses the population? For example, dictator Mugabwe claims legitimacy through "elections", in much the same way Bush has done twice. If we go back before W in the US, the losing candidates of the Rep. or Dem. have been drastically inferior to even the winning candidates: Dole, GHWBush, Dukakis, and Mondale were hopelessly useless; as alternatives they would've been worse or no better. Take the example of rural Canadians who often have dozens of guns just because why not? But for heaven's sake, don't try to take those guns away from them! That would constitute a civil war started by the government against its own people, historically known as genocide. Revolution could even result and bring the toppling of the very government that tries such a thing. A different version of such an unnecessary, avoidable, genocidal conflict is the Drug War, as carried out around the world according to US Fed policy.

There are something rotten in the state when it's people can not rely on the police and other agencies to protect them, and feel the need to carry weapons themselves for protection.

This particular argument used by the hoplophobes is perhaps the most absurd.

The world is imperfect, there are tyrants, wannabe-tyrants, and criminals in it. Rather than wailing "oh woe!", let us focus on realistic solutions, and that means self-defence.

The real effect civilian ownership of weapons has on government tyranny is to raise its cost, and make it absolutely public. A government can hide genocide from the people by having it in Poland, but they can hardly hide street battles.

The other thing is that the government isn't used to having the people resist. The government's gunmen are certainly good against enemy soldiers, but they expect shooting. They don't expect it from their own people.

:) As a gun-toting liberal on another site(SubversiveMinds.com) said;

A government by and for the people should arm the people, and a government by and for itself will always only arm itself.;)

:) As a gun-toting liberal on another site(SubversiveMinds.com) said;
Well... yeah. Which is kinda why I'm wondering as to why America sees the need to pay attention to its "right to bear arms" laws. Surely there is something weird going on when the people claim that they need to arm themselves in protection against a government that gives them permission to arm themselves?

Well... yeah. Which is kinda why I'm wondering as to why America sees the need to pay attention to its "right to bear arms" laws. Surely there is something weird going on when the people claim that they need to arm themselves in protection against a government that gives them permission to arm themselves?

1) Most of the avenues of debate on this "Right to Arm" law come from the numerous, wide-spread decades old debate(mostly seen online) on whether or not the British, or the Americans have the logically sound way of doing things.

2) In some cities in this Country, such as San Francisco, the (elected) City government has banned hand guns.

What it's going to raise is the issue of State v. Federal right, and whether or not the "Constitution is Modern enough", I predict, which will be frankly agrivating(Spelling.. gah).

A government by and for the people should arm the people

That would make welfare rather interesting!

Someone needs to take remedial grammar.

http://guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

I read the whole thing I don't see how that counters my statement, I didn't even learn anything new.

I do not feel that citizens should have a right to bear weapons. There are something rotten in the state when it's people can not rely on the police and other agencies to protect them, and feel the need to carry weapons themselves for protection. If your country use military forces on it's own citizens, then vote and remove the people that made it so. It's an illusion to think that you can protect yourself against such a government, just by owning your own gun.

The police cannot be everywhere at once. Therefore, the right to keep and bear arms allows us to defend ourselves until the police get there.

And you're right. One person defending themselves against a corrupt gorvernment is impossible. However, if a government is corrupt enough to have to defend against, there will be more than one person defending themselves.

wow, although I did vote YES, the Bacon and Cheese post had me waivering......

We have a right to life, therefore we have a right to defend our lives against aggressors, therefore we have a right to keep and use the necessary tools so to do.

The right to own a gun is as relevant to the right to life as a printing press is to free speech.

Of course, no legal instrument containing a right to free speech contains a specific right to own the tools necessary to free speech. It is simply accepted that to have a right means one must have the right to own the tools necessary for that right.

A gun is simply a tool, a tool to be used to exercise the right to life by defending life. It does have criminal uses, but so does a printing press. That the criminal uses exist is not an argument for banning the tools.

That is by far the best argument I have read for the Right to Bear Arms being an inalienable right. You have me halfway convinced.

for the same reasons you cite, what they meant and wanted is irrelevant. They wrote for 13 fledgling states that all hugged the Atlantic 250 years ago. Not 50 states that hold the title as the worlds only economic and military superpower. Times have changed. The constitution is meant to change with the nation.

Er . . . alright. So are you saying we should hold the words themselves (not the intent, just the words) as the holy immutable basis of America, and just follow whatever they mean today?

Or are you saying we should just rewrite it every ten years or so to fit with our current idea of how best to run things?

Either way, you're missing my point -- I wasn't debating about whether what they meant and wanted is irrelevant. I was more pointing out that if you wanted to understand what they did mean and want, and why they did, then you have to look at their situation, not ours. Whether we should care about what they meant and wanted is another question -- this was about how to figure out what they meant and wanted.

Do you need more ?




Not for anything but all this crap has been posted before in the twenty a week threads about guns on this forum....I could just note pad my responses...its that bad ..


But any whooooooo wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.....




Pick one or two ...its a futile cause .


face it if you have those that will oppress or exploit you will have those who will resist .

You can crush them ...if you can ...or die trying .


idealism never won a war . it never won a revolution . it never won anything..

flesh and blood and those that believe and put their lives on the line to protect or to secure their rights as a man have always been the ones to succeed in any conflict.

words mean NOTHING without a Sword to enforce them ...or some nukes ...or an air force ...or some nice carrier groups...or those willing to die for a bunch of words on a piece of paper .

This relates to what I was talking about how?

Absolutely yes.

I do not feel that citizens should have a right to bear weapons. There are something rotten in the state when it's people can not rely on the police and other agencies to protect them, and feel the need to carry weapons themselves for protection.

That's the entire point of having the right to keep and bear arms -- because you shouldn't need to have them, but if you do need to use them . . . then something is wrong, so you need to have weapons so you can fix whatever went wrong with the government.

If your country use military forces on it's own citizens, then vote and remove the people that made it so. It's an illusion to think that you can protect yourself against such a government, just by owning your own gun.

In modern times, possibly. But this is the reason that philosophers such as Hobbes considered it the right and even duty of every citizen to be armed -- in case, against all safeguards, something like this did happen, and the democratic means of change failed, the oppressed people would be able to rise up against the tyranny of their government -- or if that did not seem probably to work, as one might debate today, then they would at least have a bargaining chip.

Something is quite bad if I need to use my car insurance.

Does anyone think I shouldn't have the right to insure the car?

The only rights an individual has are the rights granted to him under the laws of his government.

The liberal school system in America removes this fact from the history books (on purpose), but America was founded as a Christian nation. The right to bear arms is endowed upon us by our Creator, which is why this right is inalienable, and thus this is part of why the Founders guaranteed it to us. Justice protects Liberty.

Bearing the sword for self-defense in the Bible: "If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him" (Exodus 22:2); and "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one" (Luke 22:36).


And what you would have us forget is the Deist beliefs of many of the founders and the philosophy of natural rights. If we listened to the Bible about our government we would have a monarchy like King Solomon etc. Also you quoted the Old Testament, which in most respects was completely over shadowed by the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament.

They're in the minority, you cretin. Watch some footage of some actual fighting there, and you'll see about 60 or so men and children throwing huge stones at attacking Isreali patrols and such.


Criminals are usually in the minority, and everyone's gone knives and screwdrivers in their houses, and you can easily kill someone with one of those.

Plus, in most nations, the threat of your government suddenly turning into a police state is extremely low.

And if nobody has guns then a revolution would have to be incredibly popular for it to succeed, because if a few hundred people tried to take over local government centres, they'd be shot down. You'd need millions to support you if the revolution was successful, unlike nowadays in countries with lax gun laws, where if a small group of people were organised enough, they could probably kill off all of the high-ranking members of the government and take control, even though their views aren't representative of the public's.





ok, how about we fight this out, you get a rock, and I get an M60 with a 100 round belt feed and we'll see who wins.:)

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

-- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court

A lot of people have said that the military would never go against the people and the government will never become oppressive.
Listen, how many people in history said they could never see the military be used against them? The Romans? The English? The Colonial Americans? The Soviets? The Germans in the 1930s?

Someone also said that no one would ever oppress their own family, I say look at children that turned in their parents in the USSR or the cultural revolution in China.

Some people also say that civilians could never succeed against the US military. That’s what the British thought in 1776, that’s what the French thought in Vietnam

We have a right to bear arms because after checks and balances, separation of powers, and after all our other rights are taken away, this right is the last defense against an oppressive government.

I've said it before, I'll repeat myself.

Every human on the planet (and anywhere else they might be) has the inalienable right to self defense. I personally would extend that right to his defense of his family as well.

A firearm is simply a tool of self defense, the most effective tool so far.

Therefor I believe that every human on the planet has the inalienable right to own a firearm for self defense, if they so choose.


The idea that one should defend themselves with equal force vs the threat is ludicrous.

The only rights an individual has are the rights granted to him under the laws of his government.
That's a matter of perception....
I personally believe that a government is there to protect the rights that people already have.

Governments can't grant rights, they can only take them away.

The other day, my Prime Minister (Lil' Johhny) made a startlingly good point in the guns debate. People do not have the automatic right to bear arms. I don't agree with Mr.Howard on many points, but I think he really nailed it here. Why should people have a right to bear arms? Unless they have a reason (shooting club, security, ect...) owning weapons should not be considered a basic human right. What does an ordinary individual need weapons for? If bearing arms truly was an inalienable civil right, where do you draw the line? If I can own a knife, why can't I own a SCUD missile?

I am questioning the second amendment of the US constitution/bill of rights-thingy. Why should people have the right to bear arms? Surely bearing arms should be a privelige, granted by neccesity.

It's a right, not a privilege.

Common sense comes into play when deciding what is and isn't allowed. Automatic rifle? Sure. It's small, easily transportable, and it doesn't cause widespread death and destruction as a SCUD would.

Americans are allowed to own guns, and look, we're the envy of all people in the world seeking freedom, now this is obviously not ONLY because of guns, but they play and extremly important role in protecting civil rights, and political freedom.

I think all citizens should be allowed to own and operate small arms, provided they can demonstrate their ability to fire them accurately.

I think all citizens should be allowed to own and operate small arms, provided they can demonstrate their ability to fire them accurately.
and be responsible in said ownership.

I think all citizens should be allowed to own and operate small arms, provided they can demonstrate their ability to fire them accurately.

Ironically, that would disqualify a large percentage of the police and military.

Americans are allowed to own guns, and look, we're the envy of all people in the world seeking freedom.

Whoa, whoa! Take it easy, kid. Americans are the envy of fuck all. When you grow up, you'll realize how little freedom you actually have in America.