NG.com Gun Control Discussion

[norton9478]

You're talking about the war of 1812?
Because I'm not seeing how that turned the idea of a ready citizen militia on its head?

Wasn't that a stalemate? Status quo ante bellum?

The idea of a "well regulated militia" was that standing armies in times of peace are really really bad (and I'd agree). The Jeffersonian solution to doing without a standing army was a citizenry that was ready for the call. The experiment failed miserably as the war went pretty poorly for the first few years.

 

[Jibbajaba]

Right to bare arms?

(A+ post, by the way.)

 

[smokehouse]

Here's my take...I am no historian, or legal expert...or even constitution expert. I despise arguing the second amendment.

Others, experts, have decided long ago that the second wasn't for the military and that by "militia", they didn't mean a civilian army only. If you want to cut and paste, how about you simply quote: " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I know why...just like the "militia" part, just quoting that half makes it read differently.

I do know this...history is scattered with governing bodies disarming their people...this had been going on for thousands of years. NEVER is it in the best interest of the people, and I mean never. It is in the best interest of those in power.

The men who wrote that were traitors, some would call them terrorists. Had they not won out vs the British, they would have all faced the gallows. They knew what it was like to live under the rule of a government that did not hold the people's best interest in mind. They wanted to assure the US people that they could maintain the right...well...to overthrow them if need be.

This is what this all means...no matter how dumb it may seem. I mean seriously...really, for once, step back and ask yourself one simple question.

when does the US government EVER do anything "for the good of the masses"?

They don't. Never. They do what's good for them and this is absolutely no different. "them" may be what keeps them in office, "them" may be the companies that puts funds in their pocket, "them" may be their political party. On thing is for sure though..."them" is never the masses.

This isn't some fucking humanitarian effort on their part...it's in inside agenda, disarmament of the masses has NEVER been a humanitarian effort. This isn't the church we're talking about here...its the US government. A government that turns a blind eye or makes legal horrific things that are allowed to happen to the masses of this world. Do you really think they are so fucking upset about 30,000 firearm deaths a year? Really?

Anyone who thinks the US government is actually concerned about their well being is a diluted fool.

 

[norton9478]

I wasn't talking about the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" part. Just the "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". Just a bit of history as to why it is in there.

Interestingly enough, another factor behind "well regulated militia" part was a push by southern states to keep the federal government from interfering with slave patrols.

Neither is here nor there as your right to bear arms cannot be infringed can't be take away using the "well regulated militia part". I'd even argue that if the second amendment didn't exist, you would still be able to keep and bear arms (within limits).

They wanted to assure the US people that they could maintain the right...well...to overthrow them if need be..

I don't know how true that really is.

 

[Jibbajaba]

The men who wrote that were traitors, some would call them terrorists. Had they not won out vs the British, they would have all faced the gallows. They knew what it was like to live under the rule of a government that did not hold the people's best interest in mind. They wanted to assure the US people that they could maintain the right...well...to overthrow them if need be.

I don't know how true that really is.

I don't know how much they were thinking about the people actually needing to overthrow the government, but these were people who for their whole lives had been living under the oppressive yoke of the British crown. I think that not just what's in the bill of rights, but the order in which it was written, says a lot about what was on their mind when banging that bitch out. Freedom of expression first, freedom to defend themselves second, freedom to not have the government fuck with your property third and fourth. Whether or not these amendments are as applicable today as they were back then is kind of a non-issue. If that's truly the case, then we could all get together and repeal them just as prohibition was repealed.

In my opinion, the second amendment actually says too much, and that's what exposes it to attack. They should have left off the "well-regulated militia" bit. It should literally just say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." What more needs to be said? The first amendment doesn't explain itself. It just tells you what the deal is.

 

[smokehouse]

I don't know how much they were thinking about the people actually needing to overthrow the government, but these were people who for their whole lives had been living under the oppressive yoke of the British crown. I think that not just what's in the bill of rights, but the order in which it was written, says a lot about what was on their mind when banging that bitch out. Freedom of expression first, freedom to defend themselves second, freedom to not have the government fuck with your property third and fourth. Whether or not these amendments are as applicable today as they were back then is kind of a non-issue. If that's truly the case, then we could all get together and repeal them just as prohibition was repealed.

In my opinion, the second amendment actually says too much, and that's what exposes it to attack. They should have left off the "well-regulated militia" bit. It should literally just say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." What more needs to be said? The first amendment doesn't explain itself. It just tells you what the deal is.

If you really read about what caused the Revolutionary war, and why the Declaration of Independence was made...it seems we actually have it far worse today, give or take. We have a over-taxing "pay or else" governing body that is allowed itself to become corrupt and one that really no longer represents the people.

Seems pretty apples to apples to me...

 

[F4U57]

U

Am I to assume you're not from the US then?

I'll just be honest here...initially, that comment pissed me off and I had some snarky response all ready to go...but I don't think that the best way to handle it (especially figuring you and I have never had a interweb-beef anyway).

yeah, don't take my bait, dude. Jus' trollin'.


Also, my whole fam is very pro America. I love what your country stands for. Australia does not have that same firery passion, as we don't have the same identity we can look back on.

Carry on.

 

[Jibbajaba]

Some of F4U57's best friends are American.

 

[norton9478]

U

Australia does not have that same firery passion, as we don't have the same identity we can look back on.

But at least both countries were heavily involved in genocidal mania. We got that in common right?

That and Vietnam.

 

[F4U57]

But at least both countries were heavily involved in genocidal mania. We got that in common right?

That and Vietnam.

Oh yeah, we love a good slaughter. With beers and pussy to wash it all down.

 

[StevenK]

But at least both countries were heavily involved in genocidal mania. We got that in common right?

That and Vietnam.

It's difficult to find a country of a reasonable age that hasn't dipped it's toe into genocide at some time or other. Your problem seems to be with mankind rather than singular nations.

It's not easy to find any reassuring words if that is the case.

Things have got better, perhaps?

You need to watch Star Trek - we turn out all right in the end.

 

[DNSDies]

Australia!

Just for giggles.