The 2nd Amendment - What does it mean?

[Sonart]

Quote by: Lou Minotti Why would I do something like that? I know you have some strange notion that guns possess whoever touches them, but I hate to break it to you....it's just steel and lead. No evil spirits or demonic possession, I promise.

Yes, I know. I own a gun. I like guns. My rather sarcastic point was addressed to your statement...

--"I don't have to follow the rules of tyrants and Marxists."--

I assume by that that you meant the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Courts are tryants and Marxists. And since y'all have made a big deal about the 2nd Amendment insuring your right to take up arms against "tyrants" and Marxists, I can also assume that when you say 'you don't have to follow their rules' you mean to resist following their rules by force of arms. Cuz otherwise, yes, you do have to follow their rules. We call that "law & Order".

.

[tinybear]

Yeah. And the rule of law.

[Lou Minotti]

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: tinybear Thanks for the link. Doesn't specifically comply with my request, but this passage is interesting: "The federal government can now muster war-waging capabilities that, though they might be used only at a terrible cost in American lives, could not be overcome by even the most determined of popular uprisings.(11) With modern weaponry and the diminished interest of American civilians in things martial, gone is the era when a concerted popular effort could have deterred even the most destructive resistance of the government to its own overthrow. With these two passings--the disappearance from Second Amendment doctrine of the revolutionary focus and the death of the American citizenry's absolute ability to overthrow the government by force--so has gone the deepest, most profound, and most vital function of the Second Amendment. Insofar as the Second Amendment was once the ultimate check against the federal government in a elaborate system of checks and balances, the Amendment is a shadow of its former self. The Second Amendment has been the subject of a gradual disappearing act, no longer guarding absolutely the touchstone of robust democratic governance--a right of self-determination--but constitutionally requiring something that some Americans consider to be of questionable worth--a right to own guns. The Second Amendment is no longer afforded the status befitting the solemn political right it was intended to be, and it is no longer clear that it would have any modern meaning even if it were." Confirms what I've always thought.

Granted, is does comply with your opinion, but it is little morre than an opinion piece itself. Just because the opinion is officially recognized does not make it a valid arguement, nor does it become true.


I think its obvious by the difficulties U.S. troops are having in Iraq that guerrilla warfare is not an obsolete tactic to be relinquished to the history books just yet. Particularly on the scale of a nationwide revolt.


Again I must ask. Why has the Fed not acted before this point in time to disarm the populace if your side is right? There have been gun in the hands of civilians for 229 years, and they have yet to attempt to forcefully disarm the people. In fact, the Feds often let soldiers keep their weapons in the past, arming the very people you claim they want disarmed.


Relinquish yours if you want to, but don't attempt to volunteer everybody else's weapons in your quest for Utopia. Perhaps all of you like minded people could move to a common state and voluntarily beat your weapons into plowshares, and sing kumbaya together, sort of in the spirit of the Free State Project.


Seriously.

[Cephus]

Quote by: caspian88 In modern English, the Second Amendment says: A well-regulated militia (which is necessary to the security of a free nation), and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Of course, that's not what it says. Nice job rewriting it though. That word 'and' doesn't exist in the other and cannot be inferred by the words of the founding fathers.

You need to look at the world in which the 2nd amendment was written. At the time, there was no standing army, every single able-bodied white male was required, by law, to come to the defense and aid in local, state and federal emergencies. Everyone was trained, everyone was expected to supply their own firearms and everyone was responsible for military action when necessary. That's what a militia is.

Today, that isn't the case. We have a standing military who handles national defense, as well as police and national guardsmen that handle local and state problems. You cannot be required to serve in a military action at a moment's notice. Unless you are part of the National Guard, police forces or military, you are *NOT* part of the modern militia. Period.

So the only thing you can do is pervert the intent of the founding fathers by rewriting the 2nd amendment and ignoring the 'militia' requirements so you can feel big and powerful with that gun in your hands.

That's pretty darned pathetic.

[tman_ndsu08]

What's wrong with feeling big and powerful as long as you don't agress on anyone else's rights?

I personally like to go out to the country and shoot guns just to shoot them with my friends every now and then. What's wrong with that?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 What's wrong with feeling big and powerful as long as you don't agress on anyone else's rights? I personally like to go out to the country and shoot guns just to shoot them with my friends every now and then. What's wrong with that?

Lead pollution.

Quote by: Cephus So the only thing you can do is pervert the intent of the founding fathers by rewriting the 2nd amendment and ignoring the 'militia' requirements so you can feel big and powerful with that gun in your hands. That's pretty darned pathetic.

So now you want to infringe on my right to feel "big, and powerful"?


Is there nothing sacred to you people?


Damned thought Police.

[Milton Bradley]

Of course, guns are dangerous, yet ideas are even more dangerous. Why would we let people have ideas?

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: bishop nice stretch. i suggested nothing of the sort. if you are going to get the ban on guns that you're looking for - you need to abolish the 2nd amendment. THAT is why i made the statement that i made. if i wanted to borrow your exaggerated logic, where the constitution's clauses can be deemed irrelavent - how about just axing the 1st amendment while you're at it? just because it's in the constitution doesn't mean that it's a guaranteed right, right?

The Constitution has had to be amended because parts of it were archaic and unfair, but I'm sure you already knew this.

The 2nd amendment is also archaic. However, it suits the gun manufacturers' pocketbook excellently.

[Orange]

Here's an interesting literal interpretation of the Second Amendment's language by one of the people from American Heritage (on American English usage).
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

One of the problems I have with gun control advocates is that it is almost always intended to prevent people from comitting crimes. However, people in this country should be considered innocent until proven guilty, and firearms aren't the problem anyways. Purchasing a gun isn't intent to commit a crime.

[DoloresIbarruri]

I've yet to hear a gun lover explain how, if guns help us avoid violent crime in the U.S., the U.S. has one of the highest rates of violent crime in the world. I mean, how many years have we had the freedom to buy and own guns? Always, right? Well, I don't see the crime dropping. In fact, the U.S. is the most dangerous advanced nation of the planet.

Guns don't avoid violent crime. They CAUSE violent crime.

[Orange]

How do guns cause violent crime?
Why is the violent crime rate in two cities that have banned handguns, DC and Chicago, higher than that of Waco or Pheonix, which have very lenient gun control laws, illegal Mexicans, and are drug hubs?

Is there some magic spell put on guns that makes people go out and commit crimes?
By the way, guns prevent more crime than they cause, so your point is moot.

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: Orange How do guns cause violent crime? Why is the violent crime rate in two cities that have banned handguns, DC and Chicago, higher than that of Waco or Pheonix, which have very lenient gun control laws, illegal Mexicans, and are drug hubs? Is there some magic spell put on guns that makes people go out and commit crimes? By the way, guns prevent more crime than they cause, so your point is moot.

Countless violent crimes in the U.S. are committed with guns. In fact, the U.S. is one of the most dangerous countries on earth. The most dangerous of all the advanced nations.

Gun-lovers defend guns by saying that guns help avoid violent crime. If this were so, the U.S. wouldn't be one of the most violently dangerous nations on earth.

I have yet to hear a clearly-defined explanation of how guns help fight against violent crime here, when, in fact, the opposite is the effect, even tho guns are sold freely here, with few restrictions, if any.

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Of course, guns are dangerous, yet ideas are even more dangerous. Why would we let people have ideas?

People's ideas can't sever a person's aorta. A bullet can, and does.

[Orange]

Quote by: DoloresIbarruri Countless violent crimes in the U.S. are committed with guns. In fact, the U.S. is one of the most dangerous countries on earth. The most dangerous of all the advanced nations. Gun-lovers defend guns by saying that guns help avoid violent crime. If this were so, the U.S. wouldn't be one of the most violently dangerous nations on earth. I have yet to hear a clearly-defined explanation of how guns help fight against violent crime here, when, in fact, the opposite is the effect, even tho guns are sold freely here, with few restrictions, if any.

Thank you for telling me that guns are used to commit crimes. So are baseball bats and knives.

The US is one of the most dangerous? Well, I don't know about you, but I feel pretty safe here.

Yes, as I said, more than 2 million violent crimes are prevented by a citizen-owned firearm. More than 80 million people own guns in this country. Less than 100,000 violent crimes are committed each year. Thats not even 1% of gun owners. I'm not sure what you are having trouble understanding.

Statistics.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr50/nvsr50_15.pdf

Circumstances of gunshot deaths:

1. Suicide: 16,596 (53%)
2. Homicide: 10,806 (38%)
3. Accident: 774 (2.7%)
4. Police: 258 (0.9%)
5. Unknown: 229 (0.8%)

Really, what is so difficult about understanding that guns are very useful for self and home defense. Every person has that right. It's not something you can take away just because you personally are afraid of guns.

If America is so violent and dangerous, maybe you should arm yourself. The only way I would abide by gun confiscation is if every single person in the world could be disarmed. But that's impossible.

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: G. Adams The thing is Dolores, being able to protect yourself is a human right. It cannot be legislated away. In countries where this has occurred, the UK for example, violent crime has not reduced, in fact it has increased. The private posession of weapons does not encourage violent crime, it is something outside it. Anyone who is dangerous with a gun will be dangerous with a knife, or a pitchfork.

So you're saying that the rampant crime in the U.S., and the fact that guns are freely sold in the U.S., are simply unrelated? This, despite the fact that these two things set the U.S. apart from the other advanced nations: 1) most easily gotten guns, and, 2) highest per capita violent crime.

And yet there's absolutely no relationship between these two?

That'd be like saying, "Landfills don't cause people to get leukemia. Breathers of tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, toluene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, benzene, vinyl chloride, xylene, ethylbenzene, methylene chloride, 1,2- dichloroethene, and chloroform (landfill air, in other words) cause leukemia on themselves."

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: Orange Thank you for telling me that guns are used to commit crimes. So are baseball bats and knives. The US is one of the most dangerous? Well, I don't know about you, but I feel pretty safe here. Yes, as I said, more than 2 million violent crimes are prevented by a citizen-owned firearm. More than 80 million people own guns in this country. Less than 100,000 violent crimes are committed each year. Thats not even 1% of gun owners. I'm not sure what you are having trouble understanding. Statistics. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr50/nvsr50_15.pdf Circumstances of gunshot deaths: 1. Suicide: 16,596 (53%) 2. Homicide: 10,806 (38%) 3. Accident: 774 (2.7%) 4. Police: 258 (0.9%) 5. Unknown: 229 (0.8%) Really, what is so difficult about understanding that guns are very useful for self and home defense. Every person has that right. It's not something you can take away just because you personally are afraid of guns. If America is so violent and dangerous, maybe you should arm yourself. The only way I would abide by gun confiscation is if every single person in the world could be disarmed. But that's impossible.

That's very nice, but the U.S. has the highest per capita violent crime of all the advanced nations of the planet, and many of the non-advanced. That's per capita. A country doesn't just get that kind of violence by accident. And the fact that guns are sold freely here, and that this country is known for having the most rampant gun-loving lobbying groups on the planet, is not an accident either. There are very few accidents.

[Orange]

Yes, and you've yet to tell me how guns cause all that violent crime. People make decisions people, not guns.

I'd much rather have the right to defend myself than hope that a criminal hasn't a weapon while I'm hiding in a closet waiting for the police.

by the way, you talk about how under-regulated guns are in America. There are more than 20,000 state and federal laws pertaining to the purchase, ownership, and use.
Obviously, laws can't prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals and more than they can stop dumbshit teens from getting weed.

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Rewriting the US Constitution would be the end of any hope for restoring freedom in America. As for your take on OKC and 9/11, let's just say the media coverups are a little too ragged to prevent suspicion. My opinion, the Feds did allow these events to occur! The evidence is not obscure, just drowned by the chorus of media misdirection.

Patrick, the Constitution is flawed, and has required amendments to correct its flaws.

I suppose I'm not understanding this need for Americans to feel that their constitution is somehow like the 10 Commandments handed down at Sinai. I suspect that right wing Americans feel that the Constitution is very much like that, some sort of godly instrument handed down to people by God.

In truth, the Constitution is nothing but some words written by a group of rich men, which borrowed heavily from already-existing ideas and documents (or it would not even exist), and though it's not an altogether bad writing, a good amount of it is quite archaic and useless, as is expected of a document written hundreds of years ago.

However, I admit I'm still left speechless by the desperate need of so many Americans to see it as somehow holy. It leaves me with a very spooky feeling that there's a hell of a lot of madness going on.

[Milton Bradley]

The constitution is not holy to me, it is the rule of law. The morons trying impose the rest of the legal code on the rest us had damned well better be living up to their end of the bargain.


I refuse to be the only one expected to obey the laws.


As the laws now stand, the government is out of control, and sseemingly above the law on every level.


We are only attempting to hold the States to the documents the signed to become a State in the Union, and public official to their sworn oath of office.