Originally posted by Res Ipsa
yep, I am more in line with a living breathing document.
Can you see the dangers in that? Do inalienable rights really change?
I can tell you that there is debate over what a "well regulated militia" is. Some, like yourself, think it means the citizens. Some think that if
they meant everyday people they would have said everyday people. Some think it is meant for a national guard. Apparently what "arms" are or aren't
can be debated.
That debate is very one-sided. In all instances the term "the people" means The Citizen, "we the people" is plural for Citizens. No one debates this
until we get to the 2nd Amendment where “Right of the people to keep and bear arms” doesn’t mean “the right of the citizen” anymore.
"Arms" are only up for debate if we want to determine if nukes, tanks, F-22s are arms also, but all handheld guns are not up for debate as to whether
they are arms or not.
If your group won't allow current laws to be enforced or unmolested, won't allow background checks as to minimize the opportunity of wackos owning
guns....or waiting periods even. Then don't expect people like me to be too sympathetic about the potential infringement of this groups 2nd amendment
The deal here is WE are on your side with this one. We don't need more laws that will not be enforced, or don't hold enough punishment for criminals
to think twice about breaking them. We also want to keep guns out of the hands of wackos, but I'm not sure how to do this when the latest bunch of
wackos were not identified as one until after their killing spree. Back ground checks are a good thing for all, because a person to person sale must
still meet the law and if a person sells a gun to a person that by law cannot have one then the seller broke the law too. So only a person who is
stupid or already illegal would do this.
BUT YES! ENFORCE THE LAWS PLEASE!!
The argument for protection against domestic tyranny is lame. The U.S. military could wipe out whomever they wanted, whenever they wanted if it came
So you are debating with a guy with 28 years of military experience, and at this moment I'm at one of the most insurgent active locations in
Afghanistan…I kind of know what I’m talking about in this case.
Your scenario is not a realistic one. Of course the Federal Government could wipe the ground in your scenario, but since we are a republic, we are
talking 50 United States and if ½ or more decided to break away from a Federal Government that went the direction of tyranny then those 300 million
guns in The People’s hands would make a big difference when added to 20 30 40 national guards/reserves.
I wonder what the word "regulated" means in the 2nd amendment?
Militia is not the regular military, but armed citizens. A well regulated militia is made up of citizens with training/skills to fight. The framers
were made up of extremely smart people…extremely smart, their words were not used in happenstance.
There is a reason they felt we should be a republic, there is a reason we will defend against all foreign and DOMESTIC enemies, there is a reason they
saw it was critical that the civilian population had the RIGHT (not privilege) to bear arms. A National Guard does not have rights, but The People
I personally see all this as a political move to play on people's emotions. You worry about your love ones and that is fueled everyday by the news.
But when was the last time the news covered EVERY car accident in America on a daily bases, EVERY death due to overdose, stupid actions etc. As we
seem to see with anything dealing with guns.
I wonder how much conviction you have in fixing all these other things that help contribute to the million non-illness deaths each year in America and
not just the 9000 due to guns.
edit on 20-3-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)