the right to bear arms and how it can be used to defend from big government

[Kasz216]

sundin13 said:

Kasz216 said:

sundin13 said:

Lets go back to the purpose of this amendment, which is actually stated in the amendment: "A well regulated Militia" in addition to self protection. Okay, so what weapons should a militia have in order to fulfill its purpose? Well what is a militia's purpose? According to the definitions the United States gives, a Militia is both the state's "Army" (which possesses weapons for a variety of purposes and is not linked to personal freedoms), as well as the reserves which is simply every able bodied man of a certain age. What is the purpose of the latter? To serve in the case of a draft, so they do not need weapons for personal means.

 

No offense but that is completely wrong.  A Miltia basically meant, everybody, and to act when they needed to, not when drafted.

Just how seperation of Church and state isn't actually in the constituion but inferred by the Jefferson Letters we can see the meaning of those words in the statements of the founding fathers, and the 2nd ammendments writers.  (Thomas Jefferson and George Mason)

 

Or as Jerfferson put it [removed quotes]

Etc.  Basically the founding fathers totally would want people walking around with tanks and fighter jets and shit if they could afford them.  This was due to the founding fathers absolute disdain for standing armies, like the US army.  They thought standing armies were a nessisary evil that needed to be very small and only for immediate self defense purposes.  Due to ancient history involving the manga carta i'm not going to bore you with.

Essentially, the US was supposed to be an isolationist state that no government including it's own would try and take over, because the entire populace would be armed to the teeth, trained and an absolute pain in the ass to fight.

Basically a super hyped up version of the various "insurgents" the US fights in foreign countries today.   Were the founding fathers alive today, the US army would be shown as the EXACT reason why the right to bear arms shouldn't be infringed on any level.

Of course, outside some libretarians you don't exactly see a huge anti-army sentiment combined with a pro 2nd ammendment stance.

 

[removed quotes]

Well, I would've said something else, because honestly I had a different definition of militia in my head but the definitions I gave seemed to be the definitions given to the word by the United States government. Judging by the wording in the second amendemnt (notably "well regulated") I feel like there is some sort of official capacity of the word, not simply meaning "the people who exist".

However, I was thinking of the "a militia to fight the government if it ever became too corrupt" line of thinking too, but I got to the point when I looked at it and said "what would citizens need to fight the government?". The only answer I see to that question is excessively dangerous weaponry as our government has such in its possession. I'm not entirely sure if you are condoning this over armed populace or just clarifying the constitution...either way, that is a very radical line to go down in these days and I doubt the majority would stand behind such regulations (or rather, lack thereof)

As previously stated, there comes a point where the peace of mind you ensure by possessing heavy weapons is lesser than the peace of mind you remove from others by your possession of such weapons.

Also, I see you posted a few quotes saying "No free man should ever be disbarred the use of arms" and I do not disagree. I am merely asking what arms should we be allowed? There is a line somewhere as most people would agree, now where should we draw that line?

Finally, I very much like that first post you quoted. I think it pretty much highlights a large problem with the modern interpretations of the constitution. The constitution was made a long time ago and times have changed. The strict wording of these amendments is not what we should be following, we should be looking at their heart. Even though there was a disagreement on the definition of "militia" (which I hope I cleared up above), I'm not sure if we disagree with each other.

The problem with it, is that you are  using a more modern definition of the word regulated.

"Regulated" doesn't mean governed by government regulations in this case.

Regulated in this case means trained... by realising that and rereading it with that understanding and the many quotes of the founding fathers it becomes fairly clear.

"A well trained militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

 

Whether or not the laws should stay like that, I am not really saying.  However what I WILL say is that the consitution and it's ammendments should be held to their oriignal interptations, and expanded outword in ways that makes sense.  So people should technically have the constituional right to own a fully opperational tank etc....

and if the majority of people and congress disagree with this... they should pass a consitutional ammendment to change this.

 

So has been the case many times before.  As this brings the dicussion to everybody, people can talk and understand each other and people can deicde and know exactly what they want and draw the lines right where they want.

 As opposed to leaving it up to judges to just randomly draw a line they think is best because it's easy.