What the Founding Fathers said about guns

CONTINUED: (And these parts are very important!)

Meaning of "the right of the People"
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, stated:
Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”.[122]
Justice John Paul Stevens countered in his dissent:
When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated. But the Court itself reads the Second Amendment to protect a “subset” significantly narrower than the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth Amendments; when it finally drills down on the substantive meaning of the Second Amendment, the Court limits the protected class to “law-abiding, responsible citizens”.[123]
Meaning of "keep and bear arms"
In Heller the majority rejected the view that the term "to bear arms" implies only the military use of arms:
Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,”. Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.”[122]
In a dissent, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, Justice Stevens said:
The Amendment's text does justify a different limitation: the "right to keep and bear arms" protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase "bear arms" to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as "for the defense of themselves".[123]

We are not Founding Fathers. We are the current residents of this country and like it or not, we play the cards that are dealt.

reply to post by davolobos


The 2nd Amendment is not about checks and balances at all.

It is "In Case of Emergency, Break Glass."

People have destroyed any vestige of glass a long time ago, and the more assault rifles and semi-automatic guns and high capacity clips that are bought and owned...it pretty much tears down the entire box on the wall.

Checks and balances would be a group who's sole purpose it was to report on possible claims of threat against the citizenry, then act upon it accordingly. To foment the fears of people to the point that an entire industry is born upon those fears is absolutely not checks and balances. That's capitalism.

reply to post by skyzeagle


I did not compare the U.S.A to Syria.I answered a question from a poster.He asked what good would a AK-47 or a Bushmaster do if they (the goverment) came knocking on your door?My reply was ask the Syrians what a few guns will do.

Seeing as you failed to refute my answer.I can only assume,that you didn't like it.

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by skyzeagle

 

I did not compare the U.S.A to Syria.I answered a question from a poster.He asked what good would a AK-47 or a Bushmaster do if they (the goverment) came knocking on your door?My reply was ask the Syrians what a few guns will do.

Seeing as you failed to refute my answer.I can only assume,that you didn't like it.

In the United States, we are the government by way of voting and paying taxes...unless for some reason individuals decide they're above the law and go squirrel up in the back country thinking it doesn't apply - which it still does. This country was built on people agreeing on laws and also providing you the option of leaving if you don't like them. Australia is nice this time of year as well as a bunch of other countries that speak English.

I did "refute" your answer by saying basically this isn't Syria and that asking them about having a AK-47 is pointless. I am extremely glad I am not Syrian.

At this point no one really knows what the actual invent of the constitution ment, but keep in the mind the fact is there was no law enforcment agencies other than the army at that time. So maybe the right to bear arms was referring to the fact that people had the right to protect themselves. Since then we have formed national, state and local law enforcment agencies who's sole purpose is to servve and protect the people.

My guess is if the constitution were to be re-written today the wording would be as a country we have to right to protect ourselves against all enemies foreign and domestc and not for each individual to be toting firearms around.

Originally posted by lme7898354
At this point no one really knows what the actual invent of the constitution ment, but keep in the mind the fact is there was no law enforcment agencies other than the army at that time. So maybe the right to bear arms was referring to the fact that people had the right to protect themselves. Since then we have formed national, state and local law enforcment agencies who's sole purpose is to servve and protect the people.

My guess is if the constitution were to be re-written today the wording would be as a country we have to right to protect ourselves against all enemies foreign and domestc and not for each individual to be toting firearms around.

I'm sorry if this is rude, but we have Supreme Court Justices, a collective of extremely intelligent people appointed to the positions to interpret and figure out what the inTent of the constitution meant.

I'm willing to invest my opinion behind what they say the intention was, since we have been using the Supreme Court now for a long time in figuring out what the Constitution means. Read the wiki article I posted in it's entirely. Your brain might hurt a little, but it's worth it.

Originally posted by skyzeagle

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by skyzeagle

 

I did not compare the U.S.A to Syria.I answered a question from a poster.He asked what good would a AK-47 or a Bushmaster do if they (the goverment) came knocking on your door?My reply was ask the Syrians what a few guns will do.

Seeing as you failed to refute my answer.I can only assume,that you didn't like it.

In the United States, we are the government by way of voting and paying taxes...unless for some reason individuals decide they're above the law and go squirrel up in the back country thinking it doesn't apply - which it still does. This country was built on people agreeing on laws and also providing you the option of leaving if you don't like them. Australia is nice this time of year as well as a bunch of other countries that speak English.

I did "refute" your answer by saying basically this isn't Syria

and that asking them about having a AK-47 is pointless. I am extremely glad I am not Syrian.

edit on 1/11/2013 by skyzeagle because: clarification.

Read it again.I did not claim at any point that this was Syria.Nor did I state that I did not like my Country.What I did do was reply to a question.

You seem confused so to dumb it down for you.The basic question that was asked was.If a goverment ANY goverment came knocking on your door what would a few guns do.

My reply was ask the Syrians.

The reason was that the situation in Syria started out as protest.Then led to armed revolt it started out with Firearms and the people THERE have not been run over.

Isn't it funny, that most anti-gun people here in this thread are foreigners (UK/Canada), who have not one single business in this discussion? Stay out of it - OUR people were fighting for OUR rights with their lives and you can do whatever you want in your country and we do whatever we want in our country .. have issues with that? Well, that's your problem, not ours!

There was a smart man who once said:

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

-Thomas Jefferson

reply to post by Bilder


What you say is true, without arms, we are a open target. The founding fathers saw this, is so much that today's FEMA labels them as terrorist, which I think is going way over the top.

The word terrorist in simple terms is violence or the threat of violence against the citizens of a nation. So in what way were the founding father's terrorist? None what so ever, in my opinion.

If the founding fathers knew what they were doing, then what they have said back then is what is happening now, a UN group that is in cohorts with a assassin-type group that sees that everything is theirs. And that, under the threat of death, the UN must obey and take all weapons and only them are to hold all the guns/weapons.

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty

Originally posted by skyzeagle

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by skyzeagle

 

I did not compare the U.S.A to Syria.I answered a question from a poster.He asked what good would a AK-47 or a Bushmaster do if they (the goverment) came knocking on your door?My reply was ask the Syrians what a few guns will do.

Seeing as you failed to refute my answer.I can only assume,that you didn't like it.

In the United States, we are the government by way of voting and paying taxes...unless for some reason individuals decide they're above the law and go squirrel up in the back country thinking it doesn't apply - which it still does. This country was built on people agreeing on laws and also providing you the option of leaving if you don't like them. Australia is nice this time of year as well as a bunch of other countries that speak English.

I did "refute" your answer by saying basically this isn't Syria

and that asking them about having a AK-47 is pointless. I am extremely glad I am not Syrian.

edit on 1/11/2013 by skyzeagle because: clarification.

Read it again.I did not claim at any point that this was Syria.Nor did I state that I did not like my Country.What I did do was reply to a question.

You seem confused so to dumb it down for you.The basic question that was asked was.If a goverment ANY goverment came knocking on your door what would a few guns do.

My reply was ask the Syrians.

The reason was that the situation in Syria started out as protest.Then led to armed revolt it started out with Firearms and the people THERE have not been run over.

Are you implying that the United States would be "run over" if not for the dedicated gun owners ready to form a militia?

Let me dumb it down for you: you are holding onto an idea that first requires the notion that there exists or may exist in the future some undetectable, evil force ready to snatch away our freedoms and chain us all up like slaves. You make it sound like the true heroism is in knowing how to shoot a gun, having many of them and being ready to fight, brother, fight.

Here is the dumbest idea of them all: enjoy what relative excess of wealth you have here in the United States compared to many in the world who don't have it. Make money as you can, spend time with your family or friends and in the meantime don't provoke fate by preparing for a horrible future that may not ever come.

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by Bilder

 

What you say is true, without arms, we are a open target. The founding fathers saw this, is so much that today's FEMA labels them as terrorist, which I think is going way over the top.

The word terrorist in simple terms is violence or the threat of violence against the citizens of a nation. So in what way were the founding father's terrorist? None what so ever, in my opinion.

If the founding fathers knew what they were doing, then what they have said back then is what is happening now, a UN group that is in cohorts with a assassin-type group that sees that everything is theirs. And that, under the threat of death, the UN must obey and take all weapons and only them are to hold all the guns/weapons.

Okay then, why has the military become in recent decades such a viable career option for so many? Have amateur militia men and women become the new little leagues to the U.S. Military major league armed forces?

What next? Should we then just teach in high school paramilitary courses and say screw it, it's bound to happen anyway?

Originally posted by skyzeagle

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty

Originally posted by skyzeagle

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by skyzeagle

 

I did not compare the U.S.A to Syria.I answered a question from a poster.He asked what good would a AK-47 or a Bushmaster do if they (the goverment) came knocking on your door?My reply was ask the Syrians what a few guns will do.

Seeing as you failed to refute my answer.I can only assume,that you didn't like it.

In the United States, we are the government by way of voting and paying taxes...unless for some reason individuals decide they're above the law and go squirrel up in the back country thinking it doesn't apply - which it still does. This country was built on people agreeing on laws and also providing you the option of leaving if you don't like them. Australia is nice this time of year as well as a bunch of other countries that speak English.

I did "refute" your answer by saying basically this isn't Syria

and that asking them about having a AK-47 is pointless. I am extremely glad I am not Syrian.

edit on 1/11/2013 by skyzeagle because: clarification.

Read it again.I did not claim at any point that this was Syria.Nor did I state that I did not like my Country.What I did do was reply to a question.

You seem confused so to dumb it down for you.The basic question that was asked was.If a goverment ANY goverment came knocking on your door what would a few guns do.

My reply was ask the Syrians.

The reason was that the situation in Syria started out as protest.Then led to armed revolt it started out with Firearms and the people THERE have not been run over.

Are you implying that the United States would be "run over" if not for the dedicated gun owners ready to form a militia?

Let me dumb it down for you: you are holding onto an idea that first requires the notion that there exists or may exist in the future some undetectable, evil force ready to snatch away our freedoms and chain us all up like slaves. You make it sound like the true heroism is in knowing how to shoot a gun, having many of them and being ready to fight, brother, fight.

Here is the dumbest idea of them all: enjoy what relative excess of wealth you have here in the United States compared to many in the world who don't have it. Make money as you can, spend time with your family or friends and in the meantime don't provoke fate by preparing for a horrible future that may not ever come.

No I answered a question I implied nothing, you implied everything.I don't even own a gun anymore.Quit dancing around on the head of a pen.Quit guess at the meaning of nothing but a reply to a question.By implying you know my thoughts you are being telepathetic.

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty

Originally posted by skyzeagle

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty

Originally posted by skyzeagle

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by skyzeagle

 

I did not compare the U.S.A to Syria.I answered a question from a poster.He asked what good would a AK-47 or a Bushmaster do if they (the goverment) came knocking on your door?My reply was ask the Syrians what a few guns will do.

Seeing as you failed to refute my answer.I can only assume,that you didn't like it.

In the United States, we are the government by way of voting and paying taxes...unless for some reason individuals decide they're above the law and go squirrel up in the back country thinking it doesn't apply - which it still does. This country was built on people agreeing on laws and also providing you the option of leaving if you don't like them. Australia is nice this time of year as well as a bunch of other countries that speak English.

I did "refute" your answer by saying basically this isn't Syria

and that asking them about having a AK-47 is pointless. I am extremely glad I am not Syrian.

edit on 1/11/2013 by skyzeagle because: clarification.

Read it again.I did not claim at any point that this was Syria.Nor did I state that I did not like my Country.What I did do was reply to a question.

You seem confused so to dumb it down for you.The basic question that was asked was.If a goverment ANY goverment came knocking on your door what would a few guns do.

My reply was ask the Syrians.

The reason was that the situation in Syria started out as protest.Then led to armed revolt it started out with Firearms and the people THERE have not been run over.

Are you implying that the United States would be "run over" if not for the dedicated gun owners ready to form a militia?

Let me dumb it down for you: you are holding onto an idea that first requires the notion that there exists or may exist in the future some undetectable, evil force ready to snatch away our freedoms and chain us all up like slaves. You make it sound like the true heroism is in knowing how to shoot a gun, having many of them and being ready to fight, brother, fight.

Here is the dumbest idea of them all: enjoy what relative excess of wealth you have here in the United States compared to many in the world who don't have it. Make money as you can, spend time with your family or friends and in the meantime don't provoke fate by preparing for a horrible future that may not ever come.

No I answered a question I implied nothing, you implied everything.I don't even own a gun anymore.Quit dancing around on the head of a pen.Quit guess at the meaning of nothing but a reply to a question.By implying you know my thoughts you are being telepathetic.

How old do you think Syria is? Implying things is for people who can understand a conversation in process.

I'm not dancing, I'm asking: what kind of person compares, even remotely, a Syrian with a gun to an American with a gun? Two different environments, two different governments. Syria was formed in the 1970s. We are fully 200 years older than Syria as a government. There are no more redcoats or hessians or any other prevailing circumstances - even some bizarro UN threat that will invade our borders and take us down - that really require us to arm up. Like Y2K where people got incredibly freaked and said the sky would fall, the preppers and the people worried about the amounts of guns they have hoarded under the auspices of fear, it was propagated by industry and companies who are more than willing to take your money. When the layers of the onion are peeled away and when the average citizen, including the pro-gun advocates, take a look at everything they'll see. It was the boogey man. The whole better-safe-than-sorry works kind of like the boy who cried wolf: it gets old.

I won't imply or guess to think you know that. You'll just get upset again.

Law-abiding citizens should be allowed to own weapons of equal quality, capacity but with limited capability (semi vs auto) as that compared to those possessed by the government.

The issue isn't guns, never has been never will be.

The issue is human beings, always has been always will be.

All of the shooters in the horrific mass shooting incidents in the last 5 to 6 years were either on or had recently been on meds. Where is this discussion?

And how can anyone in their right mind suggest that first-person shooter games have no impact on youth today.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
Law-abiding citizens should be allowed to own weapons of equal quality, capacity but with limited capability (semi vs auto) as that compared to those possessed by the government.

The issue isn't guns, never has been never will be.

The issue is human beings, always has been always will be.

All of the shooters in the horrific mass shooting incidents in the last 5 to 6 years were either on or had recently been on meds. Where is this discussion?

And how can anyone in their right mind suggest that first-person shooter games have no impact on youth today.

You're not going to regulate human intent any time soon in a way people will want. Would you like to implant devices that turn off our urges as soon as they become dangerous?

Isn't is a bit self-defeating to continually offer technological solutions to allow for a freedom that supposedly relies on the simplicity of action and decision: You are going to hurt me, I have a gun so you have a choice to either not hurt me or be hurt/killed. That's the essential flow chart of this.

If I'm in a continual state of having to defend myself, what kind of freedom is that anyway?

Originally posted by winofiend

Originally posted by ADVISOR
Oh I love these kinds of threads, my turn!

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"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
American Statesman, 1788

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

edit on 10-1-2013 by ADVISOR because: it was ok...

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"

"A militia, when properly formed..."

"when properly formed..."

Look around, do you see the people? Are they formed in any manner close to properly?

Seems it's not so much a properly formed citizenry as a group of self absorbed vigilantes who are making the most noise.

It always comes back to protecting people from the bad guys. Which the police are supposed to do. But everyone thinks of themselves as the pinnacle of what the founding fathers had in mind. I bet you that if it were possible for them to have seen what the populace would become, they would have made it clearer what the intent was... and not simply by then standards.

Properly formed... so many people without restraint.. not so formed and certainly not properly.

Police act after the fact and not always in your best interest. If someone breaks into your home and you are armed, you can defend yourself then and there....which I've had to do on at least a couple of occasions.

If it comes down to me or them....I choose me.

reply to post by Bilder
It is obvious to those with eyes to see and a clear mind that the Linchpin of our Constitution is the 2nd Amendment; that without exception "All Elected Officials and Civil Servants, Military and Law Enforcement" must swear a solemn oath to support and defend our Constitution of the United States of America from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to do otherwise is Treason.

Our Founders, who in some/many of our cases knew what they were laying down in our Constitution and made a special point of making the 2nd Amendment short, sweet and too the point so, there could be no misunderstand; which is why the line 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". are encapsulated and separated within the single line 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.

Your have quoted a few Americans with regards to our 2nd Amendment, now let me add the perspectives of other Americans and non-Americans alike on the subject of free people having the right and need to be arm, starting with on of the most repressed by those "British Pirates"

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." -- John F. Kennedy

"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788

Originally posted by skyzeagle

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty

Originally posted by skyzeagle

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty

Originally posted by skyzeagle

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by skyzeagle

 

I did not compare the U.S.A to Syria.I answered a question from a poster.He asked what good would a AK-47 or a Bushmaster do if they (the goverment) came knocking on your door?My reply was ask the Syrians what a few guns will do.

Seeing as you failed to refute my answer.I can only assume,that you didn't like it.

In the United States, we are the government by way of voting and paying taxes...unless for some reason individuals decide they're above the law and go squirrel up in the back country thinking it doesn't apply - which it still does. This country was built on people agreeing on laws and also providing you the option of leaving if you don't like them. Australia is nice this time of year as well as a bunch of other countries that speak English.

I did "refute" your answer by saying basically this isn't Syria

and that asking them about having a AK-47 is pointless. I am extremely glad I am not Syrian.

edit on 1/11/2013 by skyzeagle because: clarification.

Read it again.I did not claim at any point that this was Syria.Nor did I state that I did not like my Country.What I did do was reply to a question.

You seem confused so to dumb it down for you.The basic question that was asked was.If a goverment ANY goverment came knocking on your door what would a few guns do.

My reply was ask the Syrians.

The reason was that the situation in Syria started out as protest.Then led to armed revolt it started out with Firearms and the people THERE have not been run over.

Are you implying that the United States would be "run over" if not for the dedicated gun owners ready to form a militia?

Let me dumb it down for you: you are holding onto an idea that first requires the notion that there exists or may exist in the future some undetectable, evil force ready to snatch away our freedoms and chain us all up like slaves. You make it sound like the true heroism is in knowing how to shoot a gun, having many of them and being ready to fight, brother, fight.

Here is the dumbest idea of them all: enjoy what relative excess of wealth you have here in the United States compared to many in the world who don't have it. Make money as you can, spend time with your family or friends and in the meantime don't provoke fate by preparing for a horrible future that may not ever come.

No I answered a question I implied nothing, you implied everything.I don't even own a gun anymore.Quit dancing around on the head of a pen.Quit guess at the meaning of nothing but a reply to a question.By implying you know my thoughts you are being telepathetic.

How old do you think Syria is? Implying things is for people who can understand a conversation in process.

I'm not dancing, I'm asking: what kind of person compares, even remotely, a Syrian with a gun to an American with a gun? Two different environments, two different governments. Syria was formed in the 1970s. We are fully 200 years older than Syria as a government. There are no more redcoats or hessians or any other prevailing circumstances - even some bizarro UN threat that will invade our borders and take us down - that really require us to arm up. Like Y2K where people got incredibly freaked and said the sky would fall, the preppers and the people worried about the amounts of guns they have hoarded under the auspices of fear, it was propagated by industry and companies who are more than willing to take your money. When the layers of the onion are peeled away and when the average citizen, including the pro-gun advocates, take a look at everything they'll see. It was the boogey man. The whole better-safe-than-sorry works kind of like the boy who cried wolf: it gets old.

I won't imply or guess to think you know that. You'll just get upset again.

Have you read ANY of my replys.At no time have I ever compared the U.S.A or Syria or to anyone.I compared Gun To Guns.Go back to your first reply to me.Them click where my name is to get the question.Read it then reply or better yet quote where I brought the U.S into any of this.But most of all quit reading what you hope are my thoughts to justify your position.

Originally posted by Unidentified_Objective

Originally posted by winofiend

Originally posted by ADVISOR
Oh I love these kinds of threads, my turn!

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"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
American Statesman, 1788

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

edit on 10-1-2013 by ADVISOR because: it was ok...

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"

"A militia, when properly formed..."

"when properly formed..."

Look around, do you see the people? Are they formed in any manner close to properly?

Seems it's not so much a properly formed citizenry as a group of self absorbed vigilantes who are making the most noise.

It always comes back to protecting people from the bad guys. Which the police are supposed to do. But everyone thinks of themselves as the pinnacle of what the founding fathers had in mind. I bet you that if it were possible for them to have seen what the populace would become, they would have made it clearer what the intent was... and not simply by then standards.

Properly formed... so many people without restraint.. not so formed and certainly not properly.

Police act after the fact and not always in your best interest. If someone breaks into your home and you are armed, you can defend yourself then and there....which I've had to do on at least a couple of occasions.

If it comes down to me or them....I choose me.

And that leads to the neighbor getting a gun because they're afraid of you, and then THEIR neighbors get guns because they're afraid of the same issue, and so on, and so on...

It's a culture of "Go the hell away! I will effing shoot you the hell dead if I see you in my place."

That's exactly the way we need to treat people. Hate first, ask questions later.

Here's a better solution: LIVE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD instead of coming home and squatting down in front of xbox or cable tv. Engage in society and create ownership of the people you know. Go out and meet the police officers who patrol where you live.

This way, anybody looking to break in who wants to see a weak, dead neighborhood with lights mostly off over the doorway and nobody on the streets or in local businesses will think twice because there will be too much risk for them to try to break in.

Sorry, you kind of have to work at it.