militia != armyTurquoise wrote:
I'll put it this way... Technically, the OP is right that the amendment really only refers to militias and such.
But the point is, theres no need to re-interpret the meaning of it. Because its been the same rule for the last 200 years.sergeriver wrote:
I've been bashed several times for blaming guns for the frequent shootings that take place in the US. In fact I think you guys prefer your country being bashed, than someone questioning your Right to Bear Arms.
Now, I've been reading the 2nd Amendment and I have a serious question I would like you to answer, in a civil way if possible, or as you wish, it doesn't matter.
The 2nd Amendment says:
The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:
"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."
The original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:
"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."
Here we have a matter of punctuation. What if they meant that the 2nd Amendment protects people against the infringement of their collective right to have an armed militia, instead of protecting them against the infringement of their individual right of having personal firearms?
I know most of you think it's your most valued right, but I'd like to know what you guys think about this interpretation. Is it possible that the 2nd Amendment refers to your right of having an armed militia, not individuals having firearms? Again, keep it civil.
I'm going to have to agree with the gunners-crowd here, serge. Back then, everyone had a gun regardless, either to take care of cattle, or to go hunting, etc. It was a guarantee to be able to keep the weapons, and not have them taken away by the government - an idea based on previous experiences with the British. It doesn't make a difference if it's a militia or a single person - technically you could create a one-man-army, if it was a militia that was required to keep the gun.sergeriver wrote:
I don't ignore the context. But you seem to forget this was written more than 200 years ago, and at the time the US was a new state, and maybe, just maybe, the writters wanted to protect the new state from the English rule. Maybe they didn't want every single citizen having a firearm for that. Just a militia or Armed Forces.Pug wrote:
Sure, if you ignore context.sergeriver wrote:
Well, semantics is the key here.
That's the beginning of a long and circular argument, and you know it. I can't remember how many times it's been discussed on these forums.Mitch wrote:
But the point is, theres no need to re-interpret the meaning of it. Because its been the same rule for the last 200 years.
And, FACT is, civilians and criminals with guns is MUCH safer then JUST criminals with guns and civilians defenceless.
Last edited by konfusion (2007-12-18 17:49:59)
The separation of powers is intended to keep any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. The way it works, it tends to keep the entire federal government from infringing too much on the liberties of the people. But the federal government has grown dramatically since the founding of the nation...the Founding Fathers would likely shit themselves to see how far-reaching the govt's powers (and how limited the States' powers) have become.sergeriver wrote:
Isn't the purpose of the separation of powers to protect people from a tyrannical or corrupted regime?Hurricane wrote:
I think this was the best definition of the 2nd Amendment... can't remember it verbatim:
The 2nd Amendment is the "Reset button" built into the Constitution for when the government gets a little too tyrannical.
Edit: btw, what would armed civilians do against the Armed Forces responding to a tyrannical or corrupted regime? I tellya, they would get shot.
Liberals don't have a monopoly on suppressing the Constitution. Neocons are rather good at it as well -- look at the Patriot Act. Habeas corpus, pshaw, who needs that?The_Mac wrote:
The problem is twofold: The liberals and big governments and their lackey media want to suppress the constitution and the people; this means disarming the people for "their protection.".
100% agreed on the rest of what you have to say.The_Mac wrote:
The second problem is the ignorance that is perpetrated by these bigots and their ignorance spreading agendas; in Congress, submachine guns are designated as "Assault Rifles," which is absolutely retarded, typical of your big government, big bored boys looking for something to legislate.
Congress supported a "well armed militia" not just because of the British threat, but because as Shay's Rebellion proved, militia were essentially the only protection against threats because there was a non existent police force/ military force.
In the modern world, same sort of reasoning applies; obviously, military application is overkill, or not available, and the police try as fast as possible to come, but we have seen multiple cases in which they have failed to arrive; where were the police during the attack on the mall?
No, in this case, any armed civilian constitutes a militia force, militia is not just a military term, as it is treated by the ignorant fools in the media and people who attack the 2nd Amendment.
"People should not be afraid of the government, the government should be afraid of the people."
So far, habeas corpus for citizens has not been suspended. It was suspended for non- citizens determined to be unlawful combatants (i.e. terrorists). Habeas Corpus was restored fully with all but one Republicans voting for it. That doesn't seem to me to be much "ne0 c0n infringing of teh ritez."Turquoise wrote:
Liberals don't have a monopoly on suppressing the Constitution. Neocons are rather good at it as well -- look at the Patriot Act. Habeas corpus, pshaw, who needs that?The_Mac wrote:
The problem is twofold: The liberals and big governments and their lackey media want to suppress the constitution and the people; this means disarming the people for "their protection.".
Blind faith and assumptions are very dangerous. In fact http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=81453Turquoise wrote:
Liberals don't have a monopoly on suppressing the Constitution. Neocons are rather good at it as well -- look at the Patriot Act. Habeas corpus, pshaw, who needs that?The_Mac wrote:
The problem is twofold: The liberals and big governments and their lackey media want to suppress the constitution and the people; this means disarming the people for "their protection.".
Kmarion wrote:
I said it as clear as I possibly could. The President is invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act on US citizens to promote political reform in a foreign country. If you can't see the danger in that I've said all I can.
The government isn't afraid of the people because they have guns, it's afraid because people can vote them out. Do you really think that your AK-47 will make the difference against the US Armed Forces? Lol. Oh, and blaming Liberals for all your problems seems very ignorant IMO. I think Conservatives suppressed a lot more liberties than Liberals. Take a look at your president, although I don't know what that guy is really.The_Mac wrote:
The problem is twofold: The liberals and big governments and their lackey media want to suppress the constitution and the people; this means disarming the people for "their protection."
The second problem is the ignorance that is perpetrated by these bigots and their ignorance spreading agendas; in Congress, submachine guns are designated as "Assault Rifles," which is absolutely retarded, typical of your big government, big bored boys looking for something to legislate.
Congress supported a "well armed militia" not just because of the British threat, but because as Shay's Rebellion proved, militia were essentially the only protection against threats because there was a non existent police force/ military force.
In the modern world, same sort of reasoning applies; obviously, military application is overkill, or not available, and the police try as fast as possible to come, but we have seen multiple cases in which they have failed to arrive; where were the police during the attack on the mall?
No, in this case, any armed civilian constitutes a militia force, militia is not just a military term, as it is treated by the ignorant fools in the media and people who attack the 2nd Amendment.
"People should not be afraid of the government, the government should be afraid of the people."
Last edited by sergeriver (2007-12-19 03:28:05)
A few guys with AKs and a bit of ingenuity have the US, armed forces pinned down right now.Do you really think that your AK-47 will make the difference against the US Armed Forces?
While I agree with the first part of your post, the last bit is just laughable.Dilbert_X wrote:
What do people think about:-
Reinterpreting the original meaning of the 2nd amendment in light of the last 200 years. The world has moved on.
- An assault rifle may be a useful militia weapon, a Tec 9 probably isn't IMO
How do you balance protecting personal freedoms with preventing serotonin depleted 16 year olds taking out dozens of people on a regular basis?
What is the big deal with registration? I don't see how it infringes the liberties originally intended, and it would help keep guns out of the hands of scumbags.
I think the Swiss model is better, everyone has a registered firearm and military training - ie the whole country is a real militia.A few guys with AKs and a bit of ingenuity have the US, armed forces pinned down right now.Do you really think that your AK-47 will make the difference against the US Armed Forces?
Yup, it is important for our freedom. Imagine a country without armed citizens. Imagine a country whose citizens are more afraid of its govt. than their govt is of them. I love living in a country where my govt. is more afraid of me than I am of them. We are not at the mercy of our govt, we have a voice and we are not to be tread upon by anyone, least of all, our own govt.PZmohax01 wrote:
May I ask a question to American guys here? It is just curiosity and I don't want to offend you:)
As I studied your history a bit I am sure 2nd Amendment was required at the time it was written (I'm not talking about the interpretation). But do you need so easy-to-buy weapons now? What for?
For example, self-defence weapons (shockers, light civil pistols with trauma bullets) can be bought after passing some psychological tests and they are registered, and the most dangerous must be kept in locked safe when are not used.
And hunting weapons (they are much more dangerous) - after passing special exams you have rights to bear some smooth-bore 12cal rifle. And after 5 years (or 6, I don't remember) you will be allowed to by even "Saiga" (MEC shotgun lol), or heavy carbine with a scope but you are not allowed to walk with it loaded if you are not hunting or practicing.
If you are a sportsman (e.g. biathlon) you'll be allowed to have small caliber rifle (5.56mm I suppose). It can blow your brains all over the floor from 30-40 meters though:)
And though I like guns I am not pissed of because I can't walk into a gun store and by a AK-47.
So why it is so important for you and do you think it is that important for your freedom? Again, I'm not intended to offend you.
Your best weapon is going to vote.lowing wrote:
Yup, it is important for our freedom. Imagine a country without armed citizens. Imagine a country whose citizens are more afraid of its govt. than their govt is of them. I love living in a country where my govt. is more afraid of me than I am of them. We are not at the mercy of our govt, we have a voice and we are not to be tread upon by anyone, least of all, our own govt.PZmohax01 wrote:
May I ask a question to American guys here? It is just curiosity and I don't want to offend you:)
As I studied your history a bit I am sure 2nd Amendment was required at the time it was written (I'm not talking about the interpretation). But do you need so easy-to-buy weapons now? What for?
For example, self-defence weapons (shockers, light civil pistols with trauma bullets) can be bought after passing some psychological tests and they are registered, and the most dangerous must be kept in locked safe when are not used.
And hunting weapons (they are much more dangerous) - after passing special exams you have rights to bear some smooth-bore 12cal rifle. And after 5 years (or 6, I don't remember) you will be allowed to by even "Saiga" (MEC shotgun lol), or heavy carbine with a scope but you are not allowed to walk with it loaded if you are not hunting or practicing.
If you are a sportsman (e.g. biathlon) you'll be allowed to have small caliber rifle (5.56mm I suppose). It can blow your brains all over the floor from 30-40 meters though:)
And though I like guns I am not pissed of because I can't walk into a gun store and by a AK-47.
So why it is so important for you and do you think it is that important for your freedom? Again, I'm not intended to offend you.
Do you think an invasion of the USA could be successfully implemented with such well armed citizens? Do you think a rogue US govt. could gain power and keep it with such well armed citizens? ( and no, the Bush administration is not a rogue govt.) What are the citizens of the UK prepared to do if their govt. turns on them, other than capitulate?
Why are you so disturbed by the notion that we as private citizens can actually fight back when threatened?
I remember a quote " Blaming guns for violent crime is like blaming a fork for Rosie Donnell's weight problem"
Vote them out?!! Tell that to Mussolini. Yeah, they sure voted the hell outta him.sergeriver wrote:
The government isn't afraid of the people because they have guns, it's afraid because people can vote them out. Do you really think that your AK-47 will make the difference against the US Armed Forces? Lol. Oh, and blaming Liberals for all your problems seems very ignorant IMO. I think Conservatives suppressed a lot more liberties than Liberals. Take a look at your president, although I don't know what that guy is really.The_Mac wrote:
The problem is twofold: The liberals and big governments and their lackey media want to suppress the constitution and the people; this means disarming the people for "their protection."
The second problem is the ignorance that is perpetrated by these bigots and their ignorance spreading agendas; in Congress, submachine guns are designated as "Assault Rifles," which is absolutely retarded, typical of your big government, big bored boys looking for something to legislate.
Congress supported a "well armed militia" not just because of the British threat, but because as Shay's Rebellion proved, militia were essentially the only protection against threats because there was a non existent police force/ military force.
In the modern world, same sort of reasoning applies; obviously, military application is overkill, or not available, and the police try as fast as possible to come, but we have seen multiple cases in which they have failed to arrive; where were the police during the attack on the mall?
No, in this case, any armed civilian constitutes a militia force, militia is not just a military term, as it is treated by the ignorant fools in the media and people who attack the 2nd Amendment.
"People should not be afraid of the government, the government should be afraid of the people."
Going to vote, reassured that my right to do so will remain intact by a govt. fearful of taking it away from me.sergeriver wrote:
Your best weapon is going to vote.lowing wrote:
Yup, it is important for our freedom. Imagine a country without armed citizens. Imagine a country whose citizens are more afraid of its govt. than their govt is of them. I love living in a country where my govt. is more afraid of me than I am of them. We are not at the mercy of our govt, we have a voice and we are not to be tread upon by anyone, least of all, our own govt.PZmohax01 wrote:
May I ask a question to American guys here? It is just curiosity and I don't want to offend you:)
As I studied your history a bit I am sure 2nd Amendment was required at the time it was written (I'm not talking about the interpretation). But do you need so easy-to-buy weapons now? What for?
For example, self-defence weapons (shockers, light civil pistols with trauma bullets) can be bought after passing some psychological tests and they are registered, and the most dangerous must be kept in locked safe when are not used.
And hunting weapons (they are much more dangerous) - after passing special exams you have rights to bear some smooth-bore 12cal rifle. And after 5 years (or 6, I don't remember) you will be allowed to by even "Saiga" (MEC shotgun lol), or heavy carbine with a scope but you are not allowed to walk with it loaded if you are not hunting or practicing.
If you are a sportsman (e.g. biathlon) you'll be allowed to have small caliber rifle (5.56mm I suppose). It can blow your brains all over the floor from 30-40 meters though:)
And though I like guns I am not pissed of because I can't walk into a gun store and by a AK-47.
So why it is so important for you and do you think it is that important for your freedom? Again, I'm not intended to offend you.
Do you think an invasion of the USA could be successfully implemented with such well armed citizens? Do you think a rogue US govt. could gain power and keep it with such well armed citizens? ( and no, the Bush administration is not a rogue govt.) What are the citizens of the UK prepared to do if their govt. turns on them, other than capitulate?
Why are you so disturbed by the notion that we as private citizens can actually fight back when threatened?
I remember a quote " Blaming guns for violent crime is like blaming a fork for Rosie Donnell's weight problem"
You aren't Italy, this isn't the same time and blaming Liberals for everything is lame. Democracy is defended in the voting ballots not with guns.lowing wrote:
Vote them out?!! Tell that to Mussolini. Yeah, they sure voted the hell outta him.sergeriver wrote:
The government isn't afraid of the people because they have guns, it's afraid because people can vote them out. Do you really think that your AK-47 will make the difference against the US Armed Forces? Lol. Oh, and blaming Liberals for all your problems seems very ignorant IMO. I think Conservatives suppressed a lot more liberties than Liberals. Take a look at your president, although I don't know what that guy is really.The_Mac wrote:
The problem is twofold: The liberals and big governments and their lackey media want to suppress the constitution and the people; this means disarming the people for "their protection."
The second problem is the ignorance that is perpetrated by these bigots and their ignorance spreading agendas; in Congress, submachine guns are designated as "Assault Rifles," which is absolutely retarded, typical of your big government, big bored boys looking for something to legislate.
Congress supported a "well armed militia" not just because of the British threat, but because as Shay's Rebellion proved, militia were essentially the only protection against threats because there was a non existent police force/ military force.
In the modern world, same sort of reasoning applies; obviously, military application is overkill, or not available, and the police try as fast as possible to come, but we have seen multiple cases in which they have failed to arrive; where were the police during the attack on the mall?
No, in this case, any armed civilian constitutes a militia force, militia is not just a military term, as it is treated by the ignorant fools in the media and people who attack the 2nd Amendment.
"People should not be afraid of the government, the government should be afraid of the people."
I blame liberals for the political correctness that is choking our country. This PC is removing our identity as a nation and I resent it.
And you will stop them to take your right to vote away with your Uzi?lowing wrote:
Going to vote, reassured that my right to do so will remain intact by a govt. fearful of taking it away from me.sergeriver wrote:
Your best weapon is going to vote.lowing wrote:
Yup, it is important for our freedom. Imagine a country without armed citizens. Imagine a country whose citizens are more afraid of its govt. than their govt is of them. I love living in a country where my govt. is more afraid of me than I am of them. We are not at the mercy of our govt, we have a voice and we are not to be tread upon by anyone, least of all, our own govt.
Do you think an invasion of the USA could be successfully implemented with such well armed citizens? Do you think a rogue US govt. could gain power and keep it with such well armed citizens? ( and no, the Bush administration is not a rogue govt.) What are the citizens of the UK prepared to do if their govt. turns on them, other than capitulate?
Why are you so disturbed by the notion that we as private citizens can actually fight back when threatened?
I remember a quote " Blaming guns for violent crime is like blaming a fork for Rosie Donnell's weight problem"
Last edited by sergeriver (2007-12-19 06:11:45)
You speak as if armed citizens has never brought on change before.sergeriver wrote:
And you will stop them to take your right to vote away with your Uzi?lowing wrote:
Going to vote, reassured that my right to do so will remain intact by a govt. fearful of taking it away from me.sergeriver wrote:
Your best weapon is going to vote.
In these times? I don't think so. Maybe 200 years ago that worked, but now there's no need for that.lowing wrote:
You speak as if armed citizens has never brought on change before.sergeriver wrote:
And you will stop them to take your right to vote away with your Uzi?lowing wrote:
Going to vote, reassured that my right to do so will remain intact by a govt. fearful of taking it away from me.
Actually I am sure democracy has been defended especially with guns. Our civil war was armed militia going against the US govt. Justified or not, ( not the point) these armed citizens brought change in American history and affected our govt. Suppose the South had won. Could you still say armed citizens do not make a difference?sergeriver wrote:
You aren't Italy, this isn't the same time and blaming Liberals for everything is lame. Democracy is defended in the voting ballots not with guns.lowing wrote:
Vote them out?!! Tell that to Mussolini. Yeah, they sure voted the hell outta him.sergeriver wrote:
The government isn't afraid of the people because they have guns, it's afraid because people can vote them out. Do you really think that your AK-47 will make the difference against the US Armed Forces? Lol. Oh, and blaming Liberals for all your problems seems very ignorant IMO. I think Conservatives suppressed a lot more liberties than Liberals. Take a look at your president, although I don't know what that guy is really.
I blame liberals for the political correctness that is choking our country. This PC is removing our identity as a nation and I resent it.
That was 150 years ago, today it doesn't make the difference.lowing wrote:
Actually I am sure democracy has been defended especially with guns. Our civil war was armed militia going against the US govt. Justified or not, ( not the point) these armed citizens brought change in American history and affected our govt. Suppose the South had won. Could you still say armed citizens do not make a difference?sergeriver wrote:
You aren't Italy, this isn't the same time and blaming Liberals for everything is lame. Democracy is defended in the voting ballots not with guns.lowing wrote:
Vote them out?!! Tell that to Mussolini. Yeah, they sure voted the hell outta him.
I blame liberals for the political correctness that is choking our country. This PC is removing our identity as a nation and I resent it.
