LarryG on 26/2/2018 at 07:55
Quote:
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.
Somehow the 1st half of the sentence is always ignored by those promoting gun owner rights. I have never met anyone who owns a gun and can tell me which well regulated Militia they belong to. All I'm saying is that the idea of a little sensible regulation seems more directly supported in the 2nd amendment text than does the right to own whatever weapon humankind can come up with to better kill each other.
LarryG on 26/2/2018 at 16:02
I'm more with Supreme Court Justice Stevens on this subject: "When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms." It seems abundantly clear that you should not ignore the bit about a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State. That phrase is there for a reason, and that reason is to set the context for the right to bear arms. The framers no more wanted nut jobs running around with guns than we do. So they set the right within the overall purpose of protecting the security of the state. In modern terms, the well regulated militias are the police and the military. And if you join one of them, you have the right to bear arms. Remember, this was written before the establishment of a regular army and local police forces, so we used local militias, regulated by the states, for that purpose. We no longer have these militias. We have the armed forces and the police instead.
Starker on 26/2/2018 at 16:34
Have there been any instances in US history where armed civilians have successfully fought the government? Or are there any instances where guns would have made a difference? For example, when Japanese-Americans were rounded up and thrown in camps, would it have helped if they had guns and resisted the tyranny of the government? Would they be hailed as heroes today? Or would the civil rights movement have been better off going the way of Malcolm X and armed resistance?
SubJeff on 26/2/2018 at 20:07
If the government wants to crush an uprising and just bomb it then there is no use to militia weapons.
But any sensible government wants to rule over people, not annihilate them, so yes it's a legit reason to arm oneself from that POV.
Pyrian on 26/2/2018 at 20:49
The backlash to that incident is a big part of why a number of other wackos are not only alive but free.
SlyFoxx on 26/2/2018 at 21:56
Quote Posted by LarryG
..... We no longer have these militias. We have the armed forces and the police instead.
You mean like the 4 Broward County Sheriff's Office deputies that waited outside the school and did nothing to stop the shooter? The same officers who were given fair warning back in November from a relative of the shooter that there was a school shooter in the making and they couldn't even be bothered to write up a report. The relative begged the cops to take his gun away. The FBI who dropped the ball and the 39 times BCSO responded to the shooters home over a period of seven years?
Pyrian on 26/2/2018 at 22:09
I find it profoundly weird when gun control opponents bring up the fact that the police were apparently asked to take away his gun (without a conviction etc.) and didn't. Are they for the government taking away people's guns or not?
