2nd amendent left ambiguous for a reason...

Not to ensure that automatic weapons were left to the government and not individuals. It wasn't that the forefathers couldn't predict the stability of current weapons or that of future weapons. But because they couldn't predict what technological advances were to be made by the government and hidden by the governments that intended to control and dominate.

a reply to: EternalSolace

I'm a Brit so I don't know but aren't automatic weapons already banned?.
Or do you want them unbanned?.

a reply to: testingtesting

Only some US states have banned them and some local jurisdictions.

There was a federal ban of sorts but that expired in 2004

originally posted by: EternalSolace
Not to ensure that automatic weapons were left to the government and not individuals. It wasn't that the forefathers couldn't predict the stability of current weapons or that of future weapons. But because they couldn't predict what technological advances were to be made by the government and hidden by the governments that intended to control and dominate.

Automatic weapons owned by a private citizen are illegal in most cases. Should they be ? That has always been the case.
You mean semi-automatic ?

originally posted by: auroraaus
a reply to: testingtesting

Only some US states have banned them and some local jurisdictions.

There was a federal ban of sorts but that expired in 2004

They are not banned in most States. However , in the States that they are not , it is just too much red tape to cut through
The Federal ban was on whatever Congress decided was an Assault Rifle. Which 99.95 % doesnt even know what any firearm even looks like....that was one attempt at firearm confiscation .

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: EternalSolace

I'm a Brit so I don't know but aren't automatic weapons already banned?.
Or do you want them unbanned?.

OP seems confused as to what constitutes an automatic weapon

The Second Amendment talks about a "well regulated militia". There is no such thing. Also, the Second Amendment is only ambiguous because it's so vague. Probably OK for 1790 when people knew what a firearm was, and where there was prevailing political imperatives, but somewhat out of date today.

I speak as a non-American chipping in.

This is probably the tenth time ive read this thread. Just with different packaging. "The constitution is out dated" "they couldn't have known how technology would change firearms"

I think its disgusting that after every major shooting people use it to capitalize on their side of the argument.

Said my piece. Done. And as always.

The point is,

The entire context of the constitution is 'protection from government'. That's evident throughout the whole thing. Read it.
So in that light, the 2nd is NOT there simply for people to go hunting, although they can. It is NOT there for people to defend themselves against crime, although they can. It's there so that 'the people' can defend themselves against the government. Should the government become tyrannical that is.

It is astounding, in this day, that ANY person whatsoever would be opposing this idea. Astounding. Especially since "overthrow the government" seems to be a good idea.

Governments turn tyrannical OVERNIGHT. Doesn't matter left, right, commie, socialist or monarchy. If you think for one second that the ages of tyrants like Nemo, King John, Ivan and Hitler are things of the past, too beneath our enlightened societies. You're a fool.

Mass shootings are an issue with many facets. Taking and destroying every single gun on American soil would stop mass shootings overnight. I do not disagree with that. But if it was that simple, we'd make drugs illegal too. Wouldn't we? The war against drugs is very expensive, we should just make drugs illegal. Are you with me? Think of the kids it would save.

Removing a peoples means of defense is a YUGE step in the wrong direction of the left's agenda and the right's agenda. This country was established on a fight with tyranny.
You ALL believe that a tyrannical government is a real threat. If someone's 'side' is 'in charge', it's edge-of-your-seat for four years waiting for the decent into madness to begin.

People are actually fighting to have the government itself, "take people's guns away". That's insane.

a reply to: Breakthestreak

This just baffles my mind. How can you argue that having personal firearms is giving you means to fight the armed forces of the government?
How is this a reasonable postion? What are you going to shoot at with your AR-15? Planes, helis, drones, tanks? Who are you going to shoot at, who's going to be shooting at you? Your fellow countrymen? Really?
It's going to get so bad that the militairy is going to shoot civilians? And in that scenario you argue you stand a chance?Honestly, paint us a scenario where this is going to happen? Are they going to miss deliberately with their hellfire missle and park their AH-64, climb out and get close for you to take a shot?

Time to start cracking down on mental health issues, bout time

If there were automatic weapons available during the American Revolution, does anyone think that the Constitution would have been written to purposely exclude them from private ownership by citizens?

Maybe the founding fathers could have put a paragraph in the Declaration of Independence that the colonists would refuse them against similarly armed British?

a reply to: EternalSolace

it is because they knew it was a jumbled mess of compromises. Not some set in stone dogma meant to outlast the ages..

Each individual hated parts of the constitution. They were not on the same page at all..

a reply to: EternalSolace

Thats why every township was to have ready a cannon, Powder and shot in the town square, pointing down main street.
To defend against soldiers marching in to occupy or oppress the town.

Read that gubment soldiers (the enemy within).

In practicality, all the cannons have since been removed or the barrels filled with cement and the shot welded together to make them unserviceable. The gist of the founding fathers intent was to provide for the common defense of the local township with firepower at least equivalent to that possessed by any invading army.

Take Ferguson for instance.

Cannons in the town square

originally posted by: paraphi
The Second Amendment talks about a "well regulated militia". There is no such thing. Also, the Second Amendment is only ambiguous because it's so vague. Probably OK for 1790 when people knew what a firearm was, and where there was prevailing political imperatives, but somewhat out of date today.

I speak as a non-American chipping in.

From my understanding (as another non-American), the idea of "well regulated militias" came about because at the time America didn't have a proper army. If defense was needed, the "well regulated militias" could be called upon and were given allowance in the Constitution to bear arms. They became defunct and no longer needed once the US formed it's own proper army.

In essence, from my understanding, the whole 2nd amendment is no longer needed as "well regulated militias" have been replaced with proper defense forces. At some point further down the track, people looked at the amendment and twisted the meaning and intent of it for their own agenda.

a reply to: paraphi

Actually militia had a well defined meaning in the 1790s. It stood for the class of people eligible to serve in an army if the need arose. The passage of time added meanings to it since then but the original meaning is still there if looked up in a dictionary. I wouldn't consider it vague. Just inconvenient for those who want to take away an American's gun rights.

In an emergency when seconds count the police are minutes away. Even a small handgun is a great equalizer in a situation.

a reply to: Kryties

If they had written...
"The right of well regulated militias to keep and bear arms, until the point that we have an army together shall not be infringed" that explanation would make sense.

But they wrote something completely different.

originally posted by: ntech
Just inconvenient for those who want to take away an American's gun rights.

I think that standing by the original intent of the c.1790's, all American's should be allowed to have a flint-lock musket, or similar. Accurate up to (say 30 metres) and firing three rounds a minute if trained. That would stop the slaughter of kids in school and perhaps reduce gun violence in Chicago.

I am of course only being half serious, but if rifles in 1790 could push out 600 rounds a minute with accuracy up (say) 400 metres, then the Founding Fathers may have been less keen to pen the words they did.

If we treated the first like we do the second.

You'd be using pencil on paper.

You can only say one word a time.

You can only write/speak at certain places.

You'd have to pass a background check before you could write anything down or speak.

You'd have to wait 6 months and pass another background check to make your speech quite.

You'd have to wait a mandatory waiting period to 'cooling' off before getting to write or speak.

And say buh bye to smartphones, tablet, computers, and the internets.

That's just way too fast.

ambiguity eh.

The RIGHT of the states/ and the people.

Being necessary to the security of a FREE state.

Shall not be infringed.

The letter of the law.

People who argue for Gun control are not against guns, they just want guns in the hands of a few elites and their cronies that control the Government. After all, it takes people with guns to take away guns from those who are disenfranchised. With multiple history of how many people were killed in the past in the name of "Governments", it is totally insane to think that taking firearms away from the citizens is a good idea.

“People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people.”
― Alan Moore, V for Vendetta

a reply to: joemoe

People who argue for Gun control are not against guns, they just want guns in the hands of a few elites and their cronies that control the Government.

Police state.