reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
In response to your valid points I'd like to digress.
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 no, I disagree, the ammendment has not been
misunderstood by the masses.
In fact, our state constitutions are what's saving us from gun grabbers. Because the federal government has misinterpreted the ammendment over and
over again to the point of eviscerating it completely! It's the states "No frills, straightforward" wording of the right if citizens to keep and
bear arms that protects from gun bans.
Your interpretation of the constitution regardless of what it is. Is invalid. The states constitution is the primary protector of each states
2. Defense against the government
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.
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.
Imaging 250,000 armed citizens surrounding the White House and hopefully you'll get the picture.
3. US Is the where the problem lies.
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.
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.