By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
richardhutnik on 19 January 2011
Edit Thread
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
FreeTalkLive said:
sapphi_snake said:

@FreeTalkLive:

I

 

“With modern law enforcement there's no need for ordinary people to have such easy access to guns.”

 

Law enforcement is not around in the US to protect people.  Maybe it does that where you live but it’s not the mission of law enforcement in the US.  Some towns in NH don’t even have cops.  The crime is so low that the expensive of having cops isn’t always a good idea around here.  Of course, most of the households in those towns have guns.

I find that quote above troubling.  Not saying the acquisition of weapons should be like buying bubble gum, but here is what the second amendment does say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

As passed by the Congress:

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.

As ratified by the States:

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 intention is so that the people can form a militia to protect themselves against foreign invaders and a government that can become oppressive.  From this, the right to carry a weapon for self-defense can be argued.  However, when the right bear arms is framed in the context of crime prevention first, and also hunting, then restrictions on the type of weapons good citizens can have, is infringed upon.  The weapons get made weaker and weaker to the place where only the government will have powerful weapons, and if there is some sort of coup that happens, and a dictator gains control of the government, the citizens will lose all their rights.

By the way, it is the nature of this that had me annoyed an Angle's comment she threw out there.  To say we are THIS close to needing to engage in the use of such weapons against the government is slanderous of those who are in congress now.

As the supreme court puts it. 

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.  The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

 

If they listed EVERY reason why the right to bear arms should not be infringed opon the consitution would be even longer. 

As I said, you can derive self-defense from the militia part, and have it be unconnected.  What I am saying is by the militia part NOT being seen as part of it, you will get the ability to get weapons to defend against government takeover restricted.  What is derived from the original intent can get lengthy.