Defend the Second Amendment!

Congress answered those questions in 1792 when they passed an act clarifying the 2nd Amendment.

The "militia" consists of all able-bodied men between the ages of 18-45, and men of any age with military experience. The Constitution gave the federal government the right to raise and Army in time of war but not to maintain an Army in time of peace. The civilian population was expected to be armed with their own weapons and ready to be called to military service. The 1792 law actually mandated gun ownership - wrap your head around that.

"well regulated" in the verbiage of the day meant "well trained". The male civilian population was expected to know how to use a gun.

 

My sides hurt I'm laughing so hard at this little piece of creative writing. The militia is the civilian population, expected to supply and be armed with their own weapons and ammunition.

Here, I'll clarify by citing an Act of Congress:

"Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."

You know.....there's a process for repealing the Second Amendment. Instead of trying to circumvent the Constitution with laws that are consistently deemed Unconstitutional, maybe anti-gunners should just go ahead and repeal it. Oh wait....that means lots of people have to agree with them. Good luck with that.

And before anybody points out "it says musket or firelock" and gets wrapped up in semantics, read further. It also specifies "or with a good rifle".

 

Theprodu

But having had some rather long discussions with many who lobby for guns they do seem to have a heightened sense of threat and fear.

I’d need to know which state you are talking about to comment.

What problems are you talking about, that are not showing up statistically? You’d need to explain for me to comment.

I don’t think they are more bloodthirsty but it seems to me that many who lobby for guns do, they often put forward the ‘natural born killers’ argument that if Americans didn’t have such relatively easy access to guns they would still kill as many people but with less lethal weapons or just with their bare hands.

 

Putting aside the argument of if Americans have a right to bear arms, I keep asking why do they feel they need to have them for protection.

Why are they so frightened of the society they live in and fearful of their fellow citizens that they feel they need to have easy access to such lethal weapons?

I mean someone said that fear of regulation had created a "better buy a gun before it's too late" mentality” but why, why did they feel it was ‘better’ to have a gun?

It seems to me that wanting a gun is just a symptom of fear and that it would be better to tackle the source of that fear and then people might not feel they needed guns.

 

Here we go with the bullshit "fear" argument again.....

 

No where in the 2nd Amendment is militia membership a prerequisite for firearm ownership

 

Sig

Once again I have to point out that just saying its ‘bullshit’ is not a rational, reasonable or logical counter-argument – have you a rational reply?

I mean you have said you have guns for self protection in a safe by your bed that you know you can open in 5 seconds – that seems to indicate some level of fear, in that someone who wasn’t fearful wouldn’t have guns for self defence let alone in a safe next to their bed.

 

I don't believe anything is ever too big to fail. Then again I didn't say this would get rid of the NRA completely. I said they would likely dissolve but remain as a firearm safety certification program and gun club. That's what they do outside of politics.

Looks like I didn't provide any sources. Silly me.

When the National Shooting Sports Foundation reported the economic impact of the firearms industry increased from $19 billion in 2008 to $31 billion in 2011, it became a running joke that President Barack Obama was the “gun salesman of the year” for 2012.
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/02/21/obama-retains-gun-salesman-of-the-year-title-as-industry-sales-continue-to-explode-102184


"It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession, not retroactively, but prospectively," and ban the sale of clips of more than ten bullets, Feinstein said.
http://www.examiner.com/article/feinstein-s-assault-weapon-ban-would-be-tantamount-to-confiscation

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20121227/feinstein-goes-for-broke-with-new-gun-ban-bill

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/01/06/senator-feinsteins-all-out-assault-on-gun-rights/

I read the second amendment. But did you really think the writers of the constitution were totally unaware that arms would technologically evolve beyond single shot muskets and cannons in the future?

 

Why is it that you don't just answer the questions that are put to you, rather than repeating answers that don't fit the question?

Like this: “This is the view of many Americans of their fellow citizens - that they’re so violent and murderous that they just want to kill. That it’s not guns that count for the high level of murders but the murderous nature of Americans - that the same amount of carnage would go on because Americans are so bloodthirsty that they would use anything to kill, kill, kill.”

I don’t recall in my question put to you, saying anything of the sort. In fact I didn’t even mention America or Americans.

In fact I spoke of a time when there were no guns; obviously predating America and Americans, and the fact that mankind with no access to guns was still quite capable of human slaughter on a grand scale.

As for this question; “So the question is are Americans more murderous or is it just that Americans have easier access to much more lethal weapons?”, it has very little to do with what I was trying to talk to you about but for the sake of “conversation” I will try to answer this question that wasn’t even put to me but was a cut and paste from some other “discussion” you had with some other nameless person.

First, it seems you are unaware that the U.S. is a fairly large country with great variety thus making it fairly easy to pick and choose which city to use that best fits your argument of the moment.

But please notice that there are 28 entire states, not just cities, that have lower homicide rates than your London and that’s over half of the states in the US. (Alabama, Hawaii, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, Rhode Island, Alaska, Delaware, Iowa, Utah, West Virginia, Nebraska, Oregon, Connecticut, New Mexico, Minnesota, Kansas, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Arkansas, Washington, Wisconsin, Nevada, Kentucky, Colorado)

In fact it takes these 11 states; Alabama, Hawaii, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, Rhode Island, with a population of over 15 million, twice that of London to equal the number of homicides you say London has.

So when you start generalizing and building your strawman about the US, may I suggest that you remember the US is not so easy to lump together as you seem to think.

 

[SIZE=11pt]You know how much I dislike disagreeing with you but when growing up our lack of meat on the table was often supplemented with hunted rabbit and squirrel and that had nothing to do with the “adbantage” of target practice and I would say that there still many in the US that depend on similar supplementation. [/SIZE]

 

well by clay pigeon I meant hunting. Such a weapon is useless for solving social problems

 

In addition you can hunt using traps

 

Don't think I ever even inferred that guns are useful for "solving social problems". :unsure:

 

Yes that's true but unless you are able to check them quite often the animals can starve to death and hunting can be done when you have the time.

 

You are talking to yourself - you have not addressed what I said - you're using it as a vague springboard back to what you wanted to talk about.

I don't care why who bought what.

 

An act of congress that is supersceded by about a billion others.

Our current acts of congress provide for a militia, actually. Maybe you haven't noticed, but they're bearing arms all over the world at this very moment.

It's up to congress - you are the one who doesn't seem to understand the founder's intent in regard to changes in guns or militia organization.

A well regulated militia does not mean that you can hoard all the ammo and guns you want because an ancient draft bill said you had to buy your own shit - the times have changed, guns are different, military enrollment works differently, acts of congress in effect are different. The second amendment says you can have a gun for your service in the militia, pending further regulation - our current regulation could easily be considerably stricter, and well within the second amendment's authorization.

Your arguments all depend on reading what the second amendment actually says, to mean something that it does not objectively say, that requires a very biased reading.

"they didn't mean that shit, the only part they meant is the one they didn't say, about me being given free reign to play soldier on my own with any guns I want" is not an argument.

 

well consider that the us is bombing isil and isil is trying to establish its brand of civil authority. Perhaps you didnt recognize it because it is in a context your not used to considering it in, which is other than you your self would consider doing with a gun.

 

actually then it is done to save energy the timely aplication is for getting food.