reply to post by foodstamp
1. It's in the constitution * I do understand your point of view that it would appear to relate to a militia specifically, however. Militia's ARE the
citizenry. Therefore the citizenry must be armed. Weither or not the militia is organized by the State or the citizenry itself is irrelevant. Not too
mention, the PROPER understand of this ammendment has been repeated over and over again in just about ALL our state constitutions. A topic that you do
not bring up. In many of these State constitutions, you will find that the wording is even MORE straight forward so you don't "misunderstand it". And
the general consensus for these various constitiutions are that the citizenry be armed WITHOUT question. So , I disagree, the ammendment has not been
misunderstood by the masses.
I was not aware states had seperate constitutions with different wording, interesting and I will look into that.
I was under the impression THE Constitution was the law of the land.
Militia is an armed group, not 100 million armed individuals
This comment by you is nieve at best. Many many MANY nations that have installed total gun bans have eventually lead to the stAtes turning around and
using guns against it's citizenry. Usually during protest or the like. Not too mention, you will find that the countries that exist today that have
total gun bans are also amongst the countries with the worst human rights violations in history.
America is not some middle Eastern country, the right to protest is also protected by your constitution is it not?
If your gov is so bad and you think it has the potential to turn on you why not do something before it gets to that stage?
And as for gun bans
Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Japan (excluding WW2 of course) to name a few all have gun bans and our human rights record is pretty good
You make it seem that because the governments gunsare bigger that somehow that makes this a valid argument. You either have not thought this out well
or are ignorant to the fact that the government cannot function without it's people. So yes, an armed response by civilians is a REAL threat to the
government. The world's histories of disarming the public over and over again is testament to this. Guns are necessary in order to defend a free
state. It's a fact.
OK so your saying that you really think if it came to open war against your government you and say another 2 million with your handguns would give
them a run for their money?
Once again nowadays to depose a gov the best way is civil disobedience, Ill ask you the same question Ive asked practically everyone else, all have
ignored it so far.
If you really feel your gov is capable of shooting you down why not do something about it now before its gets to that stage?
Your argument here has NO bearing on the gun issue. In fact you reinforce what gun "lobbyists" have been saying for decades. There are many crazies
here that do "crazy" stuff. and the citizenry must defend themselves and there communities. The guns didn't cause the problem. The crazy man did. And
many of the same countries you speak also have gun laws that aren't as strict yet the prblem with mass shottings is non-existant. That should tell you
something. Guns in a free society are not the issue. The people IN the society are the issue. Which is why you see tragedy's happen in the US but not
in,say, Sweden for example, where every citizen is ISSUED an AK-47 by it's own government when they come of age.
Im not sure I 100% understand the point your making here, most of these crazy people arent buying the guns they are getting them from friends or
family who got them legally. A crazy in Australia has very little chance of getting a gun unless he knows some real shady people, even then they would
be unlikely to get him one as it would bring heat on them.
I think you mean Switzerland and yes they all have guns but no bullets since 96 so that argument is bunk.
4. It's our tradition You bring up a valid point that tradition does not make something "correct" I agree. However. Guns are tradition not just
because they happen to be "tradition". They are tradition because they've been around as long as we've had a constitution and before! And the framers
of the constitution were correct in their views about absolute power and defense of the citizenry. That's why we have the nation we do today! You may
not see guns as being "right". But judging by history and mans lust for power and money, I'd say you have your head WAY up your own butt.
OK its 6 am here and Ive been responding to replies on this thread for hrs, either they are all blending together in my head or Ive responded to this
post earlier in the thread.
Your reason for them being tradition isnt a reason at all its actually the definition
edit on 18/12/2012 by IkNOwSTuff because: (no reason