Originally Posted by fatbrit

There's a difference between holding the line and being outright liars and so intransigent that they defy rational thought. I'm sure they have some valid arguments somewhere in there, but these days I approach their deranged mutterings as I would any literature from Scientology, and any merits their arguments have are thus lost on me. Apart from providing copious amounts of easy material for a beginners course on critical thinking, I cannot see what other purpose they have.

Originally Posted by another bloody yank

You seem to think that the 2nd Amendment is the least important. I disagree and here's why.

When the founding fathers, the men who drafted the blueprint for our Nation's government, decided that the Constitution needed to be amended to include a statement naming and protecting Citizens rights, the memory of British rule was fresh in their minds. In creating our system of Government, they included checks and balances in an attempt to avoid the kind of oppression by the State that had occured under the English Monarchy.

In my view, the final, and most drastic of these checks was the 2nd amendment. I find it very significant that they considered it important enough to make it number 2, the First dealing with the separation of church and state, freedom of religion and the freedoms of speech , assembly and protest.

The Second Amendment 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." It is my belief that the intent of this amendment was to ensure that the Citizens of the United States had the means to dissolve their very govenment by force if necessary, if at some point in the future, the system of checks and balances failed and the Government had become corrupt and oppressive. Imagine an inventor creating a living robot with intelligence and the capacity to reason, with the intent that it be used for good, yet having the forethought to put in a mechanism to destroy the robot should it ever become a menace. What they did was to insure that future generations had the means to revolt against tryanny as they had just done. When they said "security of a free state" IMHO, they meant "state" not only as "nation" against foreign invasion, but as "state of being" against any foe of freedom, including the very Govt. they were in the process of creating.

They trusted the Citizen more than they trusted the Government and the 2nd amendment is a legacy of that trust that is still as relevent today as it was 217 years ago, which is why I am very wary of anyone dicking around with it..

Originally Posted by Steerpike

I've said many times that I have no problem with the 2nd Amendment, and with the right of people to bear arms for self defense. But as you highlight above, the essence of the 2nd amendment is 'well regulated' and (for) 'the security of a free state'. This absolutely does not rule out registration, training, etc - in fact, positively suggests it to me. Further, and this is why I don't even bring it up in these discussions - nowhere does it suggest you can keep and bear arms for non-security pursuits such as recreational target practice, for hunting, for 'show' or 'collection', etc.

I think it's better to argue this from a 'common sense' perspective rather than 2nd Amendment perspective because the 2nd Amendment really does offer up a lot of opportunities for things that you guys don't really want to consider. If I were the supreme court interpreting this I'd say, you can keep a gun at home, well regulated (registered, inspected, etc) and you can get it out when you deem your security is threatened.

Originally Posted by another bloody yank

You need to dig a little deeper. ...

Originally Posted by wtkp0u

I'd guess that all you need is a picture ID, although for certain types of machine gun you may need a background check

Originally Posted by Steerpike

I've said many times that I have no problem with the 2nd Amendment, and with the right of people to bear arms for self defense. But as you highlight above, the essence of the 2nd amendment is 'well regulated' and (for) 'the security of a free state'. This absolutely does not rule out registration, training, etc - in fact, positively suggests it to me. Further, and this is why I don't even bring it up in these discussions - nowhere does it suggest you can keep and bear arms for non-security pursuits such as recreational target practice, for hunting, for 'show' or 'collection', etc.

Originally Posted by Steerpike

I think it's better to argue this from a 'common sense' perspective rather than 2nd Amendment perspective because the 2nd Amendment really does offer up a lot of opportunities for things that you guys don't really want to consider. If I were the supreme court interpreting this I'd say, you can keep a gun at home, well regulated (registered, inspected, etc) and you can get it out when you deem your security is threatened.

Originally Posted by another bloody yank

Again, I disagree. "A well regulated Militia" refers to the Militia being well regulated, I don't see how that translates into registration of privately owned firearms. Surely if they meant for privately owned firearms to be registered and tracked, they would have done it?





You mean when "We", the Govt., deem your security has been threatened because we sure can't be trusted to make that determination ourselves, right?.

I agree with mandatory firearms safety and marksmanship training. I've said here before that I think it should be taught in school just like P.E. or sex ed.

Registration? INSPECTION??
This is why the left scares the shit out of me.

Originally Posted by another bloody yank

Again, I disagree. "A well regulated Militia" refers to the Militia being well regulated, I don't see how that translates into registration of privately owned firearms. Surely if they meant for privately owned firearms to be registered and tracked, they would have done it?

Originally Posted by another bloody yank

You mean when "We", the Govt., deem your security has been threatened because we sure can't be trusted to make that determination ourselves, right?.

Originally Posted by Steerpike

I think it's better to argue this from a 'common sense' perspective rather than 2nd Amendment perspective because the 2nd Amendment really does offer up a lot of opportunities for things that you guys don't really want to consider. If I were the supreme court interpreting this I'd say, you can keep a gun at home, well regulated (registered, inspected etc) and you can get it out when you deem your security is threatened.

Originally Posted by Steerpike

OK, so if the 'regulation' applies to the 'Militia', how would that apply to the discussion at hand?

Originally Posted by Octang Frye

Here's an article about Plaxico Burress and the laws in NYC.
The only people who get gun permits are politicians, retired police officers and celebrities.

Originally Posted by Lord Lionheart

It's about that time. We haven't had a polarized gun ownership thread for a few weeks now. All is well in the BE universe

Originally Posted by another bloody yank

Again, I disagree. "A well regulated Militia" refers to the Militia being well regulated, I don't see how that translates into registration of privately owned firearms. Surely if they meant for privately owned firearms to be registered and tracked, they would have done it?