DescentBB

No, not at all. Ask any professor of English, this sentence structure...

\"X being Y, something about Z\"

... has the meaning ...

\"Because X is Y, something about Z\".

They are not separate statements. Heck, he first part doesn't even make a complete sentence by itself.

The rest all sounds like mind reading

That statement was just an observation to some of the other points of views as to \"why\" the Founding Fathers wrote this. My point was that it should be taken literally. Seeing as how the modern debate is not over the forming of militias but the private ownership of guns, I'm sure the 2nd Amendment allows that. That was my only point that as you just pointed out, it's a very simple statement making 2 points. Sorry for not making that more clear. The implication being that to keep the people free from empirical rule of the Government they have the right to always be armed to prevent it. That seems to be the whole intent on the Amendment.

PS. Also let me add that the Bill Of rights does not concern States Rights but are amendments concerning \"Indivual rights\".

flip wrote:That was my only point that as you just pointed out, it's a very simple statement making 2 points. Sorry for not making that more clear.

Ah, I understand now. I thought you were saying it was two separate statements. Thanks for the clarification.

Zuruck wrote:Hah..you guys are hilarious.


You do realize that you have pea-shooters when it comes to fighting the government (if it happened). They have tanks, jets, bombs, nukes, missiles, javelins, mines, everything that you do not have. They would steamroll us in a no time at all...you're a smart guy Testi...how can you honestly think you're small supply of weapons would actually do any damage? And what happens when you run out of bullets?


Unfortunately it's hard to come up with a plausible solution. This country has been flooded with so many guns that they will never go away. I think we've tied our own hands by having no restrictions on types of guns being bought or sold and the lethality of firearms have increased so much over the years.

Heh…Webster seems to have believed that the people should have the same weapons as the state…

Similarly, Federalist Noah Webster wrote:
Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state.
One example given by Webster of a "power" that the people could resist was that of a standing army:
Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

Written before WWII

Ford Prefect wrote:So what happened to the second amendment being to help the people defend themselves against an oppressive government?
Is it for self defence ( Do you really need a 50 cal sniper rifle for that?) or is it for defence against the government?(You get a 50cal sniper rifle and they get a Bradley. Good luck with that.)

Second Amendment in no way authorizes use of force against out own government, I can't even imagine how you inferred that. A militia is used to DEFEND the country, and it's government, not over throw it. We have the right to own our own guns, so that we are ready to defend the country, put down uprisings, etc. Overthrowing the government is illegal, and anyone who is operating on such a premise won't be deterred by a law telling them they can't have a gun. So, the thought that a law would allow someone to own a gun on the off chance they should happen to decide to overthrow the government, is ridiculous.

WillyP wrote: Second Amendment in no way authorizes use of force against out own government, I can't even imagine how you inferred that. A militia is used to DEFEND the country, and it's government, not over throw it. We have the right to own our own guns, so that we are ready to defend the country, put down uprisings, etc. Overthrowing the government is illegal, and anyone who is operating on such a premise won't be deterred by a law telling them they can't have a gun. So, the thought that a law would allow someone to own a gun on the off chance they should happen to decide to overthrow the government, is ridiculous.

you should look at the oath of US citizenship, which states in it that people must defend the united states from all enemies both foreign and domestic. This is the basis for a militia which are well suited for the defense of the People. not a government.

If a government is perpetuating illegal acts, then a militia must defend the People from the government. This makes your point of an illegal overthrow null and void.

WillyP wrote:

Ford Prefect wrote:So what happened to the second amendment being to help the people defend themselves against an oppressive government?
Is it for self defence ( Do you really need a 50 cal sniper rifle for that?) or is it for defence against the government?(You get a 50cal sniper rifle and they get a Bradley. Good luck with that.)

Second Amendment in no way authorizes use of force against out own government, I can't even imagine how you inferred that. A militia is used to DEFEND the country, and it's government, not over throw it. We have the right to own our own guns, so that we are ready to defend the country, put down uprisings, etc. Overthrowing the government is illegal, and anyone who is operating on such a premise won't be deterred by a law telling them they can't have a gun. So, the thought that a law would allow someone to own a gun on the off chance they should happen to decide to overthrow the government, is ridiculous.

I think I started that one from the wikipedia. What I was trying to infer came from this:

Among their objections to the Constitution, anti-Federalists feared creation of a standing army not under civilian control that could eventually endanger democracy and civil liberties as had happened recently in the American Colonies and Europe.[25] Although the anti-Federalists were ultimately unsuccessful at blocking ratification of the Constitution, through the Massachusetts Compromise they laid the groundwork to ensure that a Bill of Rights would be drafted, which would provide constitutional guarantees against encroachment by the government of certain rights.

The Federalists on the other hand held that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary, particularly since the Federal Government could never raise a standard army powerful enough to overcome the militia.

I \"inferred\" that by reading the previous posts and those in other related threads. (This is an old chestnut after all). Unless my memory has completely failed (quite possible at my age) I seem to recall a previous thread with quotes from the founding fathers of the U.S. that indicated they were worried about the government turning tyrannical.

The amendment is outdated by either count.

There is no possibility of an invasion of the U.S. that would require an armed populace to repel. Except in Rush Limbaugh's imagination of course.

For the government of the U.S. to become so at odds with wishes of the majority of the people so as to require armed resistance there would have to be a change in social order of so many magnitudes that constitutional guarantees would be of no use.

If the social order suddenly collapsed as Testiculese and some others seem to be afraid of would you really like to have large amounts of military level hardware available to the mobs and gangs that would be the replacement for law and order? Truck mounted 55 cal. machine guns. RPGs and shoulder fired missiles carried by gang wannabes? Welcome to Mogadishu my friends. That would be the real end of your \"free\" country don't you think? Not having the army enforcing a curfew under martial law.

I'm not opposed to ownership of reasonably powerful guns by reasonable people. The second amendment was just written in a different time to achieve a different end. Attempting to use it to regulate current issues doesn't work real well.

Ford Prefect wrote:I "inferred" that by reading the previous posts and those in other related threads. (This is an old chestnut after all). Unless my memory has completely failed (quite possible at my age) I seem to recall a previous thread with quotes from the founding fathers of the U.S. that indicated they were worried about the government turning tyrannical.

The amendment is outdated by either count.

There is no possibility of an invasion of the U.S. that would require an armed populace to repel. Except in Rush Limbaugh's imagination of course.

For the government of the U.S. to become so at odds with wishes of the majority of the people so as to require armed resistance there would have to be a change in social order of so many magnitudes that constitutional guarantees would be of no use.

If the social order suddenly collapsed as Testiculese and some others seem to be afraid of would you really like to have large amounts of military level hardware available to the mobs and gangs that would be the replacement for law and order? Truck mounted 55 cal. machine guns. RPGs and shoulder fired missiles carried by gang wannabes? Welcome to Mogadishu my friends. That would be the real end of your "free" country don't you think? Not having the army enforcing a curfew under martial law.

I'm not opposed to ownership of reasonably powerful guns by reasonable people. The second amendment was just written in a different time to achieve a different end. Attempting to use it to regulate current issues doesn't work real well.

I do agree with you but the Dem's have the super delegate power to go against the vote of the people, for what ever reason they might have for doing it, and they have. Thats the only thing I can think of where the government has total control because they control the vote anyway. In there own party that is. The most recent example I can think of is obama and clinton wooing the super delegates. It makes no difference who the democratic people voted for the super delegates choose for them. Total waste of a good voting majority.
Granted an armed uprising is absurd, but a weak example for cause anyway.

Just one minor correction…Political parties in America are not government agencies.

just for the record: the british in 1776, during the american revolution, declared that illegal.

The British also would not allow the peasants anything more powerful than a pitchfork.

Update…Well kinda.

This is the reason the Supreme Court is seeing this case.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17538139/

And this is all I have on the situation so far…

WASHINGTON (CBS News) ― The Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to endorse the view that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns, but was less clear about whether to retain the District of Columbia's ban on handguns.

Please feel free to update this thread with any relevant court decisions.

Thanks

P.S. Woody, I know you posted the preliminary court results, I just wanted to keep this thread updated with the final results.

Ok, so I've read the wiki post on the bill of rights. It's interesting to say the least. I see now where you say you have the right to bear arms to fight off against a bad Gov't. But I also read that the definition of \"bear arms\"from the Latin words refer to military and not civilian.

So now do understand what you want but I still think it's wrong. As for whoever asked me where you are to get your weapons should you need to form a militia, that is where your current army comes into play.

One thing I will not back down from is that more guns equals more gun related incidents. One example my wife told me is if a man is having an argument with his wife and losses his temper, he will more likely threatned her with the gun than not. Now this doesn't bode for all men but for the ones who have anger issues and who are abusive towards women.

So we will see how your courts decision will effect what happens in the future.

CDN_Merlin wrote:Ok, so I've read the wiki post on the bill of rights. It's interesting to say the least. I see now where you say you have the right to bear arms to fight off against a bad Gov't. But I also read that the definition of "bear arms"from the Latin words refer to military and not civilian.

So now do understand what you want but I still think it's wrong. As for whoever asked me where you are to get your weapons should you need to form a militia, that is where your current army comes into play.

One thing I will not back down from is that more guns equals more gun related incidents. One example my wife told me is if a man is having an argument with his wife and losses his temper, he will more likely threatned her with the gun than not. Now this doesn't bode for all men but for the ones who have anger issues and who are abusive towards women.

So we will see how your courts decision will effect what happens in the future.

And thats the big debate, who is entitled to this right and what limits should there be. Right now its really cheesy. Felons can't own a gun and people with "known" mental problems can't.
Proper screening needs to be established for better mental problem detection and bring gun classes back to life where they are mandatory and give certs out on completion. Right now any dim wit with money can go buy one.

Edit: I am %100 for personal gun ownership but want better controls in place on the person, not the weapon.

Cuda, I agree. There has to be a process where we can check to see if the person is mentally fit to own a gun. ANyone with a criminal record should not be given a gun until they have at least gone 5 years without commiting another crime. I don't beleive anyone living in a city requires a gun for protection. People in the country are in a different boat.

Merlin…Have you ever been to Philadelphia…

Spidey wrote:Merlin…Have you ever been to Philadelphia…

No I haven't. I guess Phili is a bad city? This is the exact reason I refuse to move to Toronto.

No it’s not a “bad” city per se…it’s just not safe…even in your home.

There has to be a process where we can check to see if the person is mentally fit to own a gun.

Impossible. No way to know that until the individual actually exhibits the behavior, then its too late.

So now do understand what you want but I still think it's wrong. As for whoever asked me where you are to get your weapons should you need to form a militia, that is where your current army comes into play.

Again I go back to the point that the Bill Of Rights are declaring an Indivduals rights.Including freedom of the press and the right to free speech.

Lets also not forget that a main ideal of this country is that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. The founding fathers thought it so important, that the way it is setup they had rather a guilty man go free than ever convict an innocent man. This mindset should also apply to ownership of weapons. If you prove yourself not fit to carry an arm you should'nt be allowed to. Law abiding stable individuals should not be penalized because of the few.

there is the argument that guns are dangerous and needless deaths are caused by them. This in itself is a true statement. The problem is , that there are by far more deaths caused by automobiles than firearms every year. In that case the argument should apply there as well. We gonna start banning cars too. I doubt it. There are more reasons to wanna disarm people than \"Guns Kill People\". ★■◆● Happens and you can't stop the majority of it.

We also have Innocent until proven Guilty but how many times has an innocent man been jailed and only after 20 yrs does he get off and get an apology? Thing is, his/her life is wasted now. What can you possible say or do to this person? Nothing.

Owning a gun is a privilege not a right as far as I'm concerned. This is true to driving a car, turning left or right on red etc. We know by past examples that people will take a mile when given an inch.

Well sure thats your opinion. In fact, I surmise to say thats exactly why the Bill Of Rights was wrote. To nullify any one else's opinions and guarantee these as
Rights.

We have to remember that although the founding fathers knew government was a necessary evil they wholly mistrusted it.

Amendment 1:Congress cannot
1)prevent free exercise of religion,the press,of speech,the right to assemble or petition the government.

Amendment 3) provides rights as to how the military shall conduct itself towards civilians.

Amendment 4)prevents the government from being able to just walk into your house as they please.

Amendment 5)No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the LAND OR NAVEL FORCES, OR IN THE MILITIA(there is more but i use this for my point )

Amendment 6) persons right to a speedy and fair trial

Amendment 7)persons right to a jury trial

Amendment persons right to not have excessive bail,fines or unusual punishment

Amendment 9)basically means that any addition to the constitution cannot infringe on the rights given by this bill

Amendment 10)any power not given specifically to the United States or powers prohibited to them are are given to the people.

I left the 2nd out purposely. It's evident that this bill was wrote to ease peoples minds about joining a UNION of states under one government. It specifically deals with the individuals rights under this NEW government and gives them specific RIGHTS that the government cannot infringe. Seeing as this is evident now (or at least should be) I believe the 2nd amendment can be read as such :

If you look at amendment 5, LAND FORCES are obviously the federal governments military.
NAVAL FORCES also obviously belong to the whole of the Federal Government and
MILITIA applies to a STATE governments own military.

So in essence the 2nd amendment makes a distinction between a states military and the people and basically implies that the state military cannot disarm the people either.

maybe it's time to bring the 2nd amendment into the 21st century....

Sort of like changing the 3/5ths rule for black people. It was in the Constitution but terribly outdated...since we have no militias anymore (don't count the nutjobs in Michigan).

Maybe we don’t have militias anymore because we don’t need them. Maybe at some point in the future we will need them again. I don’t know.

I want my Phoenix Cannon.

I think todays militia can safely be called the National Guard.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the Bill of Rights intended to be a living document that grow and adjust as time went on?

Which of the 10 would you change?

I don't think they can be changed, the basic meaning needs to be defined and remain in place. But I think it can be expanded upon. Like limiting the right to someone who is not a felon. That did not exist when the document was written, it was added by the state I think at a later time period.
I still believe people who want to own a gun for any reason should be required to go through a proper training and ethics course as a requirement. I also think a better check for mental health needs to be adopted. The morals of American people are very questionable. Donald Sutherland pointed out that guns are just as easily obtained in Canada as in the U.S. but Canada has only a fraction of the gun related crime. In his thoughts on the matter it has to do with role models. The Canadians use the Mountie as a hero where we use the bad guy in westerns. We glorify the wrong role model to our youth. We are teaching them to be in-morale, and then putting them in jail for it.


Ack, I am babbling and can't the end of what I want to say.

I think Flip has nailed the 2nd amendment thing I just want to add a few thoughts.

In a nutshell the Bill of Rights was conceived to protect us, the individuals, from our own government. Every one of the Rights is specifically designed to protect the individual. To say the bill of Rights was as I just described it with the exception of the Second Amendment is really a lame argument. The Founders didn't carefully lay out a list of protections for the individual but also insert some bit of logistical minutiae micro-managing how the States should keep a stockpile of weapons in case they needed to call up volunteers is just ridiculous!!

On to the need for dropping the citizens right to bear arms based on the world as we find it today.

A lot of anti-gun people repeat the same old line of ill-logic that more guns cause more violence. It isn't true.
There are plenty of places, both abroad and here in the states where there are more guns per capita yet there are fewer instances of violence than in places that have fewer guns.
There are also places where there are more guns and more violence, therefore it doesn't take a genius to realize that there must be other factors at the root of the cause of the increased violence.

Take one of the places in america where these stats are farmed to create the perception that \"more guns cause more violence\" and I can dig just a bit below the surface of those stats and show you that fatherless children, drug abuse, gang culture, poverty, lower education, political correctness etc. etc. is always there producing the perpetrators who use the guns and it is their behavior that is always the root of the evil gun statistic. It is their behavior that makes the stats go off the chart.

People with concealed weapons permits are the least likely individuals to break the law, any law. This is a segment of the population that is watched very closely by the anti-gunners because the ill-logical expectation was that these people would quickly start shooting up the place and then the anti-gunners could sweep in and say \"See! I told you so, guns cause crime!!\"...well it didn't happen. Conversely, inner city youths without a permit for their illegal weapons are by far the most likely people to cause violence and break laws, many laws! So it isn't the guns since both of these groups have a high percentage of the guns. Do you have the integrity to honestly examine the difference between the two groups. In case you don't like the permit holders as a test group just substitute Swiss citizens or Japanese citizens or any sub group of higher education/higher income/higher percentage of intact families and compare them to the inner city youths.....Hell take the stereotypical gun owning southern rednecks and compare them....the results are always the same, it's not the guns it's the culture.

The problem is, the most vocal mouthpieces heralding the gun as the cause of evil can't further their political careers or their networks ratings by highlighting the cause of the violence because the cause is the culture in those places where the rate of violence is higher. They don't want to blame their constituents or customers because that would be bad for business, people would change the channel and/or not vote for them.

It's hard to get people to vote for you if your message is \"You bums are raising gangbangers instead of disciplined, respectful, educated children!\"
It's easy to get people who raise children to be criminals to vote for you if your message is: \"It's not your fault, let me help you by finding my political opponent at fault for all you problems\"

Guns don't kill people, letting politician continue to misrepresent the facts kills people.
It's our own fault for supporting a system that produces the kind of anti-leaders that would rather demagogue an issue for personal gain than stand up and say \"Clean up your act people you're killing us!\".

Will Robinson wrote:I can dig just a bit below the surface of those stats and show you that fatherless children, drug abuse, gang culture, poverty, lower education, political correctness etc. etc.

The problem is that either none of those can be really changed, or require a lot more money than your country is willing to put into. The reason why banning guns is on the agenda is because it's a relatively cheap way that has a good chance of lowering crime rates.

TIGERassault wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I can dig just a bit below the surface of those stats and show you that fatherless children, drug abuse, gang culture, poverty, lower education, political correctness etc. etc.

The problem is that either none of those can be really changed, or require a lot more money than your country is willing to put into. The reason why banning guns is on the agenda is because it's a relatively cheap way that has a good chance of lowering crime rates.

Banning guns is a never-gonna-happen agenda, perpetually claiming you can get it done if only people will vote for your party is one of those self serving lies that fools just enough voters to maintain the status quo. Just like saying you can stop abortion by outlawing it..another pandering for votes lie.

As for the cost, most of those problems won't be solved with more tax money...another self serving lie.
Most of those problems can only be solved by people taking the responsibility for changing themselves.
Ask yourself what has changed in our culture to make people less motivated to take that responsibility? We need elected leaders who aren't afraid to point the finger of blame at a self destructive sub culture and selfish corporate machines.

Free your representatives from the party machine/lobby machine and demand true campaign finance reform coupled with implementing the FairTax and your representation will improve drastically because they will no longer be able to gain and hold office by merely catering to lobbiests and political party machines who polarize the constituents with lies like manipulated guns stats...they will be forced to advocate actually solving the problems to impress you instead of just regurgitating the same old smoke and mirror scam.

Will, I completly understand that the blame should be on the parents who don't raise children properly. But, if a politician would say something like this on TV, he would be assasinated within hours. The ones who are criminal won't understand this. They will see it as a personal attack on their being and react accordingly which is with violence and other crimes.

We all need to be better parents/people in helping others becoming better persons. It will take decades of doing this before we see a significant change.

Very good points, Will. Hear hear!

TIGERassault wrote:The problem is that either none of those can be really changed, or require a lot more money than your country is willing to put into. The reason why banning guns is on the agenda is because it's a relatively cheap way that has a good chance of lowering crime rates.

Is that really good enough for you? I don't doubt that a real solution would be 20x more difficult for those involved, but what kind of a people are we if we're unwilling to talk about a true solution?

CDN_Merlin wrote:But, if a politician would say something like this on TV, he would be assasinated within hours. The ones who are criminal won't understand this. They will see it as a personal attack on their being and react accordingly which is with violence and other crimes.

And that's good enough for you? That's the line you are unwilling to cross?

(This is where a militia could step in. See? It's not outdated! )

I don't think your scenario is totally correct to begin with, but scenarios like that don't make me shrink from an issue, personally, they make my blood start to boil. They make me feel patriotic. To say that we can't demand what's right because there would be consequences is cowardly. And I don't think either of your alternative solutions (Merlin and TIGERassault) are solutions at all.

So what is the solution? I don't totally know, but like Will touched on there needs to be greater responsibility on everyone's part, and responsibility being demanded by all. By you, by me, right on up to the President. If we're to believe our recent presidential candidates, then the "greatness" of the American people should certainly be up to the task. If Americans are not up to the task, then the problems will continue until they are.

Thorne, I totally understand and agree. It's not a reason not to do it. But who wants to be the person who do this and get killed? Would you? I know I wouldn't want to end my life. I enjoy life. But I'm also not a politician and lying my ass off to get elected.

This is why I have no faith in politics. All of them lie to get elected and backstab the public after.

If Americans are not up to the task, then the problems will continue until they are

This is the problem, to many people don't care. This is why some are trying the easier way of putting gun laws in place. Politicians (most but not all)aren't military people who are willing to die for their country.

CDN_Merlin wrote: This is the problem, to many people don't care. This is why some are trying the easier way of putting gun laws in place. Politicians (most but not all)aren't military people who are willing to die for their country.

Aww come on, did you not read about Hilary ducking bullets over sea's

The last few posts prove what I have always said…”It’s much easier to be a liberal”

Cuda68 wrote:

CDN_Merlin wrote: This is the problem, to many people don't care. This is why some are trying the easier way of putting gun laws in place. Politicians (most but not all)aren't military people who are willing to die for their country.

Aww come on, did you not read about Hilary ducking bullets over sea's

Yes I did and I also read the review about the video showing her greeting a child, so in essence she lied.

And how exactly do you expect a president that tells people they're scumbags to be elected? It's just not going to happen. Like I said, the best agenda they could push is better school education, but I haven't seen any of your party candidates trying to push that.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Is that really good enough for you? I don't doubt that a real solution would be 20x more difficult for those involved, but what kind of a people are we if we're unwilling to talk about a true solution?

Well, the true solution is to completely abandon democracy and take on a 'Big Brother' approach of giving up all privacy and some rights so we can all be monitored to make sure we're not screwing up.
That's why I don't talk about a true solution.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:(This is where a militia could step in. See? It's not outdated! )

So... getting people to use violence in an attempt to reduce those same people from using violence?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:And I don't think either of your alternative solutions (Merlin and TIGERassault) are solutions at all.

Hey: if the IRA and our regular police can do it, I can't see why you lot can't.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:there needs to be greater responsibility on everyone's part, and responsibility being demanded by all.

You do realise that's never going to happen? Especially considering you don't even have a specific level of responsibility that's required in the first place.
And don't say "as responsible as you can", because I don't see you making a Mother Theresa out of yourself.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:If we're to believe our recent presidential candidates, then the "greatness" of the American people should certainly be up to the task.

Weren't you just specifically stating how your recent presidential candidates don't tell it like it is?

CDN_Merlin wrote:

Cuda68 wrote:

CDN_Merlin wrote: This is the problem, to many people don't care. This is why some are trying the easier way of putting gun laws in place. Politicians (most but not all)aren't military people who are willing to die for their country.

Aww come on, did you not read about Hilary ducking bullets over sea's

Yes I did and I also read the review about the video showing her greeting a child, so in essence she lied.

no man - here is the proof she was under fire