2nd Amendment, Keep it or toss it?

[LycanSpectre]

For those of you who dont know or dont care to look:

Amendment II
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.

From here (http://memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html)

I think we should keep it, and restrict it less. The Bill of rights was not made to be ignored when convenient, and the 2nd amendment is no exception. I mean, its says shall not be infringed right there!

[Ender]

I think the Second Amendment is vital and should not be infringed on. It is crucial to our nations protection if we were ever to be invaded.

[blueeyes]

It's fine for ordinary citizens to have firearms, although I'd prefer if they have to go through a course telling them how to use one (and not shoot grandma when she's looking for a midnight snack, and depending on the area), maybe even avoid places like Florida, where, because of weak enforcement, a mental patient and/or violent crimes convict can be easily buy a high-powered handgun, not something I'd like.
Guns are fine in the hands of people who know what they are doing, where they can possibly protect themselves (not as often as we'd like to think), but even then...
Let's just say I can't see people, trained on the ideas of a .45 shell doing nothing but knocking someone backwards (if you want to know, a .45 shot from the gunshop poster child, the Desert Eagle, can cause a hole the size of a grapefruit in someone's chest), using a blade, which they've been trained to see as messy and bloody.

[EmberClaw]

Im kind of an extremist but I think everyone should own a weapon and be well trained in it's use

[LycanSpectre]

Sorry, its nitpick time. The Desert Eagle does not come in .45 cal. It does come in .357, .440, and .50AE. :D

I agree that people who have proven that they cannot or will not use/keep firearms safely and correctly should not have them. (Specifically handguns). Its the people who say that guns should be banned because they are intended to be used as killing instruments that I have a problem with. How do they think they got their much lauded freedoms in the first place?

[EmberClaw]

If everyone had a gun and carried it around with them then there would be no school shootings on the scale of Columbine becuse instead of running the teachers and classmates would just shoot back.

[somuchforsanity]

And that would be funny as hell. :droolbloo

[blueeyes]

I'm sorry, I've never been much the firearms expert.
I have no problem with guns being used as killing machines, although I've met people who don't like them because of that. It's more the fact that it makes killing a lot easier (you don't have to use much muscle strength), and that I don't think anyone needs an automatic for self-defense. You can't ban guns in general, but I just would rather see less people able to buy a shotgun from Walmart. On credit.

[Wolffy13]

I think it should stick. The founding forefathers put in that amendment in the case of another country invading. I don't suppose anyone would want to live through a second Revolutionary war.

Also, Gun Control isn't the answer, Gun Education is. I saw a report once on like 20/20 or one of those shows, a couple years back where they placed an unloaded gun in a room with toys and other items and sent two types of kids into the room; the uneducated kids and the educated kids. The ones who were educated about guns and safety immediately ran to inform an adult when they found the gun where as the uneducated kids picked it up, tried to play with it and even pointed it at each other. Kinda makes the gears in your head turn, ya' know?

[kaycee]

I've commented on this topic once at my board. I have never even seen a hand gun. There is absoultly no need for anyone to own one around here. My husband hunts and owns several rifels but a hand gun would never be necessary for anyone in these parts to own.

With that, I can't say I would be for or against the gun issue since I don't know what it's like to live in an area where they seem to be needed.

[LycanSpectre]

I've commented on this topic once at my board. I have never even seen a hand gun. There is absoultly no need for anyone to own one around here. My husband hunts and owns several rifels but a hand gun would never be necessary for anyone in these parts to own.


You never know if you'll need it until a situation requires it. Most people never expect to really need it, unless they are in an occupation where it is needed often (IE police or military). I would rather have one and not need it, than need it and not have it. Plus they are FUN to shoot. I think 2 said it best in his rant on Gun Control (http://www.werewolves.org/~two/) [If we outlaw guns] "When you are getting your head beat in by some psycho with an aluminum baseball bat, and there is no one around with a firearm to save your ass, I'm gonna laugh my ass off!" Or something to that effect. (Thats not directed at you specifically, kaycee)

Also, Gun Control isn't the answer, Gun Education is.

:beerchug: Quite. Gun control means using both hands.... and hitting your target. :D

[Ash]

A friend sent this to me in an email, its defenitely food for thought, personally I've used guns since I was thirteen BUT my Dad made me and my brothers attend a safety course and participate in a junior rifle team to learn the basics about safety and handling.

This should send up some red flags!!! There's something to be said about why our founding fathers included "the right to bear arms" in the constitution!!! The Historical results of Gun Control whether you agree or not, is an interesting lesson in history.In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. >From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. >From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in.

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!).

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.


(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults ofthe ELDERLY.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it. You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our president, governors or other politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans...before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects.

[Klark]

I think it should stay! WHOOO HAAAAA!!!! *rips the sleeves off his shirt* Bearing arms!!!!

[Ves]

Hmm.. 2nd Amendment, is that the one that ends "so that an American may defend his land from Englishmen" or something like that? Basically making it OK for any American to shoot to kill an Englishman on their property (see how quickly I turn Scottish if this is the case). Or is this an urban legend.

So it's OK for everyone sound of mind to bear arms so long as they are correctly trained in its use eh?
I guess as long as they're not concealed it's not so bad. But how do you determine if someone is sound of mind? and where do you draw the line. Is a depressive OK to have a gun but someone with anger issues not? If they haven't had help for a psychological problem, then they may not even know they have a problem. A good friend of mine is a card-carrying psychopath, this appears on his record so he wouldn't be able to buy a gun (I hope) though I will say that unless you saw that record or he told you - you'd never know that he had a problem. I only know cause he told me, and I've known him for years.

Even if you can get round that (and I presume the American authorities somehow have), should a line be drawn as to what weapons are available? See I can almost understand the justification for a hand gun for self-defence. But a Desert Eagle? That's neither small nor is it for self defence, it's a bastard great big handgun designed for making bastard great big holes in people. Should automatic weapons be available? Assault weapons? are these for "self-defence". I've had an SA-80 pointed at me, for those that don't know this is a medium sized assault weapon which is standard issue to certain British Armed Police, as well as the British army (though I think they've got something better now). It had real live bullets in it and had a proper nutcase on the other end of it (aka Armed Police Officer) he thought I might be a terrorist and we all know how well thought of they are. It was a terrifying experience, and one which would have been doubly frightening had it been a civilian holding the gun.

So where are lines drawn? Should they be tighter?

I can see that violent crime rates will drop where guns aren't so tightly controlled, but surely the number of instances where a violent crime results in a fatality must sky-rocket where there's a chance the victim is packing.

In 27 years, I've never felt the need to carry a weapon of any kind, especially not a gun, I've never felt that unsafe, even in certain parts of London (which has a lot of violent crime).

Oh and Klark, regarding what you said about baring arms... :notworthy

[blueeyes]

I'm sure anyone else who has had a gun pointed at them before is probably just as distrustful as you.

Mental health is a messy issue when it comes to gun control, and in many states and gun shops it has become a 'don't ask' concept. Although federal law doesn't let you sell a gun to a psychopath, in states with a minimal waiting period or no background checks, it's possible to get one through legal channels. More dedicated ex-mental inmates could find a banned assualt weapon (mac-10, maybe an Ingram) without having to pay for a liscense. I'd think that in these days of the Internet, it wouldn't be too hard for a network to be set up between psychologists, prison processing facilities, and gun shops. Then it could be decided on a case-by-case situation, although I'd just prefer anyone who's either newly diagnosed with anything that causes depression or known for skipping medication from taking a couple stops by the nearest gun shop (lithium might be another red flag). But there isn't a particularly good system here, so that's an issue.
There are issues of when a gun can or should be used. If the victim in a violent crime is packing, it's seldom any more of a danger; the criminal has already surrendered several rights and probably deserves whats coming to him. Although the victim is in greater danger, many are willing to take that risk and already have decided it to be worthwhile. The worst stories about that situation are when someone untrained in gun use has the weapon taken from them. It's only places where the victim decides to chase down a criminal with a gun... well, the US police don't like vigilantes.
I was bringing up a Desert Eagle only because it is a particularly well-known handgun, and its extreme power makes it a good case in point. There are many people who think the more powerful the gun, the less likely they are to be robbed. That's an issue, since I know it's seldom as simple to control a .50AE cal (did I get it right this time) as a 9 mil, and most people stop after one shot each time. However, I'd suggest against bringing up assualt weapon bans in a room near anyone in the NRA, since the newest bill suggesting a ban of assualt weapons would make hunting shotguns illegal (not very logical), while the last one has done nothing beneficial to the violent crime rate.

I don't like guns, but they can not be simply blocked.

[Ves]

I don't like guns, but they can not be simply blocked.

I'm not gonna quote that whole post cause it'll annoy people.

Talking about illogical laws. In Britain, guns are heavily regulated. Even if you have a license to own a firearm. This allows you to have a shotgun which has to be kept in a locked container when not in use (for hunting or clay target shooting), you may not have handguns in the house at all as I recall, though you may have one at a gun club and it doesn't leave there. Now for the stupid bit. It's a little known fact that all holders of full British driving licenses dated before 1996 (iirc) have a provisional license to also drive tracked vehicles, otherwise known as APCs and Tanks. Yes we can all legally drive tanks. You can purchase a tank for somewhere in the region of £200 (about $300) if you shop around a bit. Only downside is that the cannon on the tank has to be made inoperable... unless you hold a shotgun license. So a shotgun license allows you to own a 12-bore shotgun, and also a 25mm cannon. I have to get me one of those (people that know me will know I have a thing for artillery).

It strikes me that guns in America are very similar to alchohol, it's around now and though it can be the cause of problems, it ain't nothing compared to the trouble it would cause were it banned.

Incidentally, I went with the Desert Eagle example because it was the only example I could think of off the top of my head of a big gun.

As for the NRA, there are aspects of that organisation that scare the crap out of me (Charlton Heston being but one of them). I want to watch "Bowling for Columbine" but I'm not sure because I think it may disturb me too much.

[LycanSpectre]

I can see that violent crime rates will drop where guns aren't so tightly controlled, but surely the number of instances where a violent crime results in a fatality must sky-rocket where there's a chance the victim is packing.

This would be Darwin at work. All the people stupid enough to attack another person who is (probably?) armed will be killed off. :D Has a morbid kind of appeal huh?

Yes, Blueeeyes, .50AE is a correct caliber. :p

Now for the stupid bit. It's a little known fact that all holders of full British driving licenses dated before 1996 (iirc) have a provisional license to also drive tracked vehicles, otherwise known as APCs and Tanks. Yes we can all legally drive tanks. You can purchase a tank for somewhere in the region of £200 (about $300) if you shop around a bit. Only downside is that the cannon on the tank has to be made inoperable... unless you hold a shotgun license. So a shotgun license allows you to own a 12-bore shotgun, and also a 25mm cannon. I have to get me one of those (people that know me will know I have a thing for artillery).

...... :D sweeeeet. :p

[Ves]

This would be Darwin at work. All the people stupid enough to attack another person who is (probably?) armed will be killed off. :D Has a morbid kind of appeal huh?
That very much depends on whether the victim is tooled up and promptly ends up with their brain as an attractive greasy smear up the nearest wall don't it.
It needs to be made clear to people that when you draw a weapon against another human being, you do it with the intent to kill them, because that's what most of them do (especially guns). That's a difficult road to walk for most people and hesitation when guns have been drawn is more dangerous than being unarmed. If people want to bear arms, that's what they have to be prepared to do, and they have to be ready to accept the consequences if they do actually take a life.
Speaking personally, I can think of only one time where I have been prepared to take someone's life, and right now only if someone threatened mine or Amethysts life would I be prepared to do it. Were I armed then that could easily change as reaction takes over.

[Darth Cluich]

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. >From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. >From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

...

With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects.

I didn't want to quote the whole post here, but it is exactly what I was going to say. Someone posted on the first page of this thread that the Second Amendment is there so we can defend ourselves against a foreign invasion. Yes, that's partly true. But the real, unstated reason was so that the government did not have a monopoly on force. Had the colonists not had guns themselves, they would have been at the mercy of the British government, and the Founding Fathers surely realized this when they included the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights.

[LycanSpectre]

That very much depends on whether the victim is tooled up and promptly ends up with their brain as an attractive greasy smear up the nearest wall don't it.

I am not familiar with the term "tooled up". Is that like saying they are on drugs or something? Also, who is the victem, the origional attacker or the person who was origionally bieng attacked?

It needs to be made clear to people that when you draw a weapon against another human being, you do it with the intent to kill them, because that's what most of them do (especially guns). That's a difficult road to walk for most people and hesitation when guns have been drawn is more dangerous than being unarmed. If people want to bear arms, that's what they have to be prepared to do, and they have to be ready to accept the consequences if they do actually take a life.

This is or should be a fundamental part of that Gun Education we were talking about; if this point is missed, then it kinda renders the whole point of education useless. People won't understand the signifigance of what they are bieng taught.

[spawnofFenrir]

A gun is not dangerous, its the man behind it that decides whether you live or die

[Zombie]

A quick word on "automatic" and "assault" weapons. You CAN own a fully automatic rifle or handgun (machine pistol) IF you get a Class III permit. You are investigated for six months, and if you have no criminal background, pass a physical, drug test and psycoligical evaluation, you can own whatever you can afford. Be advised that a full-auto M16 type rifle will set you back about $10,000,00 eats ammo at a frightening rate (around 500 rpm) and carries a mandated $300.00 tax on top of the sales tax. With a Class III permit, you can also buy suppressors, also known erroniously as silencers. They can run about $2,000.00 or more plus the mandated tax on top of everything else, and require specialized cleaning techniques.

As for a "assult weapon", no such thing exists.

-Zombie

[LycanSpectre]

A quick word on "automatic" and "assault" weapons. You CAN own a fully automatic rifle or handgun (machine pistol) IF you get a Class III permit. You are investigated for six months, and if you have no criminal background, pass a physical, drug test and psycoligical evaluation, you can own whatever you can afford. Be advised that a full-auto M16 type rifle will set you back about $10,000,00 eats ammo at a frightening rate (around 500 rpm) and carries a mandated $300.00 tax on top of the sales tax. With a Class III permit, you can also buy suppressors, also known erroniously as silencers. They can run about $2,000.00 or more plus the mandated tax on top of everything else, and require specialized cleaning techniques.


Along those sames lines: The class III permit itself is horrendously expensive, I think about 3 grand and must be renewed every 3 years. Failure to renew will result in your class III weapons bieng confiscated. Also known as the Destructive device permit (Also alows the purchase and use of explosives):

From here (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nlc/ffl/ffl_types.htm)

Type 10 -
MANUFACTURER OF DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AMMUNITION
FOR DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES OR ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.

18 U.S.C 923(a)(1)(A)

Fee:

$ 3,000.00 for three (3) years.
Application: ATF Form 7 (5310.12)

This is not the kind of thing you would need for self defence, unless you were up against a professional military.

[kat]

Fuck! I knew I should have registered the s/n "Zombie" when I had the chance. Fuck!

<resume transmission>

[kaycee]

A gun is not dangerous, its the man behind it that decides whether you live or die

This is true. Suppose everyone has a gun. Some dude is drunk one night (and you know how red necked some people can be when they're intoxicated) and decides to blow someone's head off just because they looked at his woman wrong. I can see it now.

[LycanSpectre]

This is true. Suppose everyone has a gun. Some dude is drunk one night (and you know how red necked some people can be when they're intoxicated) and decides to blow someone's head off just because they looked at his woman wrong. I can see it now.

Fortunatly for everyone else, that particular idiot would be removed from the gene pool when the other people around promptly blow this guy away.

[Wolffy13]

But the real, unstated reason was so that the government did not have a monopoly on force.

::Hits herself in the head:: I forgot about that reason! Our founding fathers never wanted us to fear our government, so yes, that is totally another reason to the 2nd Amendment. Cluich, you's a smart cookie :D.

I've also heard it said, by word of mouth, that there's a town/city in Georgia (not sure if anyone else has heard this) where practically everyone carries a gun and they have little to no crime. Sorta' makes sense. I wouldn't dream of doing something if I knew I could get shot in the ass. Anyone else heard of this place?

[Ves]

every day is code green in Kennesaw, Georgia.
And complacency rules the roost.
Tooling up (meaning "arming" btw sorry about that) the general citizenry will not prevent events like 9/11, or other large terrorist operations. The examples given in Israel are mainly opportunist attacks, and almost unplanned. Events like 9/11 are planned and they're planned well, they didn't just wake up one morning and think "Hey lets steal some planes and fly them into stuff". If everyone on those planes had been armed it probably wouldn't have made a difference.
Sadly terrorists rarely come out in open conflict, which is why The War Against Terror (TWAT) is ultimately just a cover for the intelligence work that's far more effective.

However, the effect on property crime is good, I noted with interest that there was no mention of the effect on violent crime in the street. Here in Britain we're trying to enact a law where a person may take whatever measures are necessary to protect their families or property in their own homes.
It's a nice idea, but I wouldn't want to live there I'm afraid.

As for the 2nd Amendment being there to prevent the people being afraid of their government, doesn't appear to have quite worked considering that it appears a lot of conspiracy theories involve the American Government in some way.

[Zombie]

Ive got an update on Class III liscenses, ar least for Pa. A permit costs $500.00, must be renewed every 5 years, and does not allow the purchase of explosives. You need a Federal Explosives permit for that. I know only ! person and 1 dealer that has/deals with class 3 arms locally. The !st guy is a Vietnam veteran who has his service rifle, complete with grenade launcher. The Dealer is Targetmaster, owners and operators of a 25-yard indoor range. Back to the C3 permit though, failure to renew is confiscation of arms, wich will be held for 30 days to allow you to renew, or their destruction, or re-sale, depending how liberal the district or state youre in. If I were going to get a C3 permit, Id just buy supressors, to reduce the risk of hearing loss. BTW- for more info on supressors, go to SSK industries.( the have some horribly recoiling chamberings for the Contender too!)

Later!

-Zombie

PS- I was Zombie here before, but then everything got rearranged and I couldnt log on with my old password. Well, Im baaaaacckk!!!!

[blueeyes]

Well, this is a bit difficult to search around, but it has more info than anyone here could possibly need about the usefulness of guns and their danger. www.guncite.com

EDIT: Damn you, Typos!

[Wolffy13]

Tooling up (meaning "arming" btw sorry about that) the general citizenry will not prevent events like 9/11, or other large terrorist operations.

Well, obviously not. That's a little on the larger scale of things, and the founding fathers never had such a thing in mind, I'm sure. They gave us our arms to protect ourselves, our families, and our country. While our enemies could be outside our country, they could potentially, if they were that retarded, be on the inside as well. If a president were to ever try to be something of a king (no one has counted thus far), we, the people, could assemble a militia and put hings in to order, not saying it would be that easy, but that was what they had in mind. Man, I miss my high school government class.

[LycanSpectre]

If a president were to ever try to be something of a king (no one has counted thus far), we, the people, could assemble a militia and put hings in to order, not saying it would be that easy.

Professional soldiers are people too; despite all the dehumanizing and "follow orders at all times" they get, I would imagine that if a Prez ever tried anything that dumb, the Military would be on the side of the people. Or at least, I hope so. Assuming the Kingship started here in the US; we seem to have no problems with doing that outside our borders.

[Thought]

You might want to read "The Probability Broach". I can't remember who wrote it.

Basically, it takes place in a parallel dimension where, do to a single word being different in the US constitution, the US becomes a true democracy. (ie. no politicians other than the president and his/her underlings, allof whom are elected). There are no government programs or subsidies, and everyone works for themself. There is no conscription, anyone who wants to participate in a war is free to do so, they just have to get there. There is no standing army.

Oh yeah, and literally everyone carries a gun. Regardless of age, if they're old enough to hold one, they do.

It's an interesting concept, and as much as I dislike the idea, the world might be a safer place if everyone carried a gun.

[Ash]

Professional soldiers are people too; despite all the dehumanizing and "follow orders at all times" they get, I would imagine that if a Prez ever tried anything that dumb, the Military would be on the side of the people. Or at least, I hope so.
HURRAH you are so right. We do not just follow orders like machines, we do what we're told but surprisingly we do retain the ability to think for ourselves. :D

[Ves]

Well, obviously not. That's a little on the larger scale of things, and the founding fathers never had such a thing in mind,

I was actually referring to the website from the NRA (it was from the NRA wasn't it?) which essentially claimed that Terrorists might think twice about doing something like the 9/11 attacks if everyone was carrying guns, which of course they wouldn't.

I think you'll find that the right to bear arms stems not from a perception that the people may fear the new government or be uneasy about them, but more that the British had only just been kicked out, indeed were still fighting the Naval War, and there were still a lot of British sympathisers in America (bearing in mind a lot of the 'British' soldiers in the War of Independence were actually Americans who were loyalists in essence). So they encourage everyone to have weapons to help fight any uprisings. A bloody good plan if you ask me.

[Wolffy13]

I was actually referring to the website from the NRA (it was from the NRA wasn't it?) which essentially claimed that Terrorists might think twice about doing something like the 9/11 attacks if everyone was carrying guns, which of course they wouldn't.

Well, I could find out. Heavens knows there are plenty of NRA members in my family. It's funny, I thought I would of been one by now. Oh well. I'll have to check that out. Although, I still think that a statement like that (whoever did say it) is a little ridiculous. I doubt they had to worry about planes flying into buildings when they drafted the Bill of Rights in the late 1700's.

I think you'll find that the right to bear arms stems not from a perception that the people may fear the new government or be uneasy about them, but more that the British had only just been kicked out, indeed were still fighting the Naval War, and there were still a lot of British sympathisers in America (bearing in mind a lot of the 'British' soldiers in the War of Independence were actually Americans who were loyalists in essence). So they encourage everyone to have weapons to help fight any uprisings. A bloody good plan if you ask me.

I wouldn't be so bold as to say that such had no influence in their thinking, but I do believe they also put it in just in case the people had go against the government. They didn't want us to ever fear our government. That's why there was some petition going around a few years back to get rid of the IRS (which would have been cool, but only for so long).

[Xzengrim]

Right to bear arms? If they abolish the second amendment, that's basically Washington saying that they don't trust me to own a gun. I feel this is hypocritical, because for the feeble old monkey skeletons in DC, arming men my age and telling them what to kill is an entire industry. The government would be in complete control of the guns, and I don't think that's right.

[LGM]

Why does the nation whos own military spending is nearly as much as the rest of the worlds, worry about invasion? Why does the US need every citizen to bear arms, just in case they get invaded?

Thats just silly!

[Darth Cluich]

See Grim's post above. Without the citizens' right to bear arms, the government has a monopoly on the use of force, which could be used against the citizenry. It's not all about invasions. Sure, invasions were a consideration (and not an unfounded one, since the British returned a decade after US independence), but it's really about protecting the citizens from their own government.

Also, just to correct the record, US military spending actually exceeds that of the rest of the world -- not that there's anything wrong with that. The FY04 budget (the one under which the Pentagon is operating now) allocated just under $400 billion. The second-largest military spender in the world, Russia, budgeted only about $65 billion for this year, with China in third at $47 billion. For the sake of contrast, the UK is spending about $38 billion this fiscal year; France, $30 billion; Germany, $25 billion; and Canada, about $7.5 billion. (Can you tell I work for a defense magazine? ;) )

[LycanSpectre]

See Grim's post above. Without the citizens' right to bear arms, the government has a monopoly on the use of force, which could be used against the citizenry. It's not all about invasions. Sure, invasions were a consideration (and not an unfounded one, since the British returned a decade after US independence), but it's really about protecting the citizens from their own government.

Precisely.

LGM, I think that what is silly is to assume that the Founding Fathers had only one consideration in mind when they drafted 2nd amendment. If they had, it would throw the entire Bill of Rights into question. Trust me, weather you think its silly or not, you don't want anyone to mess with the Bill of Rights. Look here to see what it says. (http://memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html) Now imagine a United States which decided that these rights were applicable only when convenient.

[Darth Cluich]

I wonder, Lycan, why it is that people are having a problem with this concept...

[Wolffy13]

Why does the nation whos own military spending is nearly as much as the rest of the worlds, worry about invasion? Why does the US need every citizen to bear arms, just in case they get invaded?

Thats just silly!

Dude, China would kick our ass! At least if we had our weapons, we'd have a chance.

Just an example

[Ves]

Dude, China would kick our ass!

Damn right they would. But then if the US and China kick off against each other, we're all screwed.

I suppose being armed with pea-shooter weapons would mean you could all take pot-shots at the ICBMs before they airburst and the flesh is burned off your bones.

[LycanSpectre]

I wonder, Lycan, why it is that people are having a problem with this concept...

I really couldn't say. Seems pretty clear to me. :shrug: :)

[Darth Cluich]

Dude, China would kick our ass! At least if we had our weapons, we'd have a chance.

Just an example

This is going off topic, but I have to correct this ludicrous assertion. China's military, though very large, is technologically far behind the US (and the rest of the West, as well as Russia, for that matter). In addition, China lacks any ability to project significant power beyond its territorial waters -- no large aircraft carriers, extremely limited mid-air refueling, etc. They are not a direct threat to the US, although they could be a threat to US interests in the region (maritime shipping, for instance).

Again, though, the true purpose of the Second Amendment is not to protect citizens from threats from abroad but from those that could arise here at home. Which country can beat up which country is not the issue.

[LycanSpectre]

Which country can beat up which country is not the issue

At least not for your common citizen. Thats the military's concern. :)

[AlphaMale]

Leave the 2nd Amnd just as it is. Only an invader, criminal, or a would-be despot has anything to fear from an armed citizenry.

Damn right they would. But then if the US and China kick off against each other, we're all screwed.

I disagree. Sure they have the manpower, but not the technology. Plus they have no means to get over here. The world's oceans are pretty much ours, and I doubt they could fly an invasion force.

I suppose being armed with pea-shooter weapons would mean you could all take pot-shots at the ICBMs before they airburst and the flesh is burned off your bones.

That's about the only chance China has. But hopefully our missle defense system is or will be up and running by the time that eventuality comes to pass. Even if they managed to get one off, there would NOTHING left of China afterwards.

The FY04 budget (the one under which the Pentagon is operating now) allocated just under $400 billion. The second-largest military spender in the world, Russia, budgeted only about $65 billion for this year, with China in third at $47 billion

And I wouldn't want it any other way.

Peace, through superior firepower!