To me, it is very clear if you put yourself in the shoes and in the time of the founding fathers. They took up arms… Was it just swords, rifles, pistols and weapons they hunted with? No, it was cannons, artillery, anything they could get. Even the United States national anthem makes references to the “rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air”… all to free themselves from the British Empire.
Why is this relevant? You have many people, who haven’t owned, seen, fired, used a gun trying to interpret the meaning of the 2nd amendment through their life experiences and not those of who wrote this:
“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.”
This is the way I read it. The who point of the amendment is this statement “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That is very clear, IMO.
“A well regulated Militia” refers to all citizens who oppose any threats to the “security of a free State”. Which is what ultimately happened during the American revolution. The well regulated militia formed as it was needed in order to establish the free state (we can argue about how free the U.S. is later) but they established this right so we could continue to maintain and check the free state. How else would free people be able to?
This isn’t about self defense or hunting, the founding fathers did not want us to forget what they did and how they did it, so that’s why it’s written the way it is.
I’ll also add, I think I’m pretty objective about this issue. I have guns (or at least I used to have them with me, the place I’m living now doesn’t allow me to have them, sad!). I think of them as tools… no different than a fire extinguisher or a hammer. If I never had to shoot a gun again in my life, I wouldn’t really care. I haven’t fired one in like… 7 years. They are just not very interesting to me. I bought an AR-15 a while back… someone at one of my prior jobs was going on and on about how a pistol isn’t enough for self defense so during my lunch break, I picked one up at the sporting good store along with like 1,000 rounds of ammo. I think I ran 500 rounds through it, field stripped, cleaned it, and just left it by my nightstand and never fired it again. I am happy though that I have the right to own one (or at least I used to, sad!)
@greenie - just repeating some facts that I came across on the Internet (so they must be true).
Anyhow methinks the first comment from my original post was the most revealing:
Rather than being used for self-defense, guns in the home are 22 times more likely to be involved in accidental shootings, homicides, or suicide attempts.
The most likely victim of a gun is the gun owner. My guess is the second most likely victim is the gun owner’s wife / ex / girlfriend.
I’m sure all gun owners are rational and reasonable right up until they time they aren’t, and at that point they are in possession of a weapon that they have certainly imagined shooting a person with.
Part of the overall debate that hei.so brings up can’t be dismissed as easily as Greenie would like. For starters, America has already deemed some firearms too dangerous for the public. It’s one of the oldest Libertarian debates going, but that’s another topic. So, 99.9% of us can agree the general public shouldn’t have access to nukes, ICBMs, surface to air missiles/AA guns, and on down the list to automatic weapons. The question is now, should we revisit where we draw the line?
My personal stance is hand guns, shotguns, and rifles suitable for hunting (which is blurry, I admit) are easily in the “yes” column. Mini guns, machine guns, ARs, .50 cal sniper rifles (again, it gets blurry here) are in the “no” column. However, I do believe these guns should be allowed for entertainment use by registered shops. If someone wants to run a company that takes people out to shoot down a tree with a mini gun, that’s cool. But, no “civilian” needs one to protect their home.
And the argument that “bad guys with get them anyway” doesn’t really make any sense to me. So what? This sounds like whining that some bad guys get cool toys and you don’t. How about the good guys lead by example? It’s not like you need an AR to protect yourself. Or, maybe I’m missing all the stories about shootouts where someone with an M-16 saved the day against a gang of uzi wielding Yakuza.
This is where “common sense” legislation comes in. We all know some weapons shouldn’t be legal. Now maybe it’s time to rethink where we draw the line. That’s all.
Can the left & right have a gentlemans agreement. Dropping constant gun control push for universal healthcare. That way at least we can get treated after we get shot
The founding fathers also took dumps in huts, drank booze in the morning, and couldnt posibly fathom the world we live in today. Even so why would their opinion be relevant? Why should we be held captive to ideas from our ancestors? Isnt the point of democracy the ability to decide how to govern yourself?
Plus when “bad guys” try to get there hands on automatic weapons they’ll be a little easier to catch if they have to get them in the black market. Particularly loners and mentally unstable people who likely don’t have contacts in the illegal firearms community.
If you want the Black Swan (or any other) rebuttal you can simply look at his last gun thread he was in. Seems like the first two pages of this one cover it. Followed by three pages of anti-UK babble.
wait - and im very surprised Igor hasn’t posted a tank picture but speaking of tanks, look at the new rezvani tank. Personally im not a fan but pretty cool
