Question: every other time the phrase " the people" appears in the Bill of Rights (1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th) it is agreed to by everyone that it is refering to individual citizens, yet, when it comes to the 2nd, the Framers had something else in mind? Seriously, keep historical context in mind. We had just fought a REVOLUTION!!! What if the British had prohibited private gun ownership in the colonies? Do you really think our Founders didnt have this in mind when they penned the 2nd?
The principle author of the Constitution, James Madison, wrote, “Americans (have) the right and advantage of being armed – unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust people with arms” and “Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.” Now, with that in mind, go back and read the 2nd Amendment.
[quote]hedo wrote:
“people” is the important word to understand.
The second ammendment is designed to protect the people from the government.
[/quote]
How do I protect myself against the Gov’t with an automatic rifle and a pistol? If I can’t arm myself enough to actually do my job then what good is the right?
Was the south protected under the second amendment when it tried to seperate from the north? It seems lame to me to have a right that the gov’t will never let you use. I think this right was put in the constitution to keep the simpletons happy. Once the gov’t grows to a certain size there is no way any group of people will question it’s sovereignty. Think about it.
Honestly, if the people, and by that I mean “THE PEOPLE” of the United States rose up against the government, there simply wouldn’t be enough bullets to put down the rebellion.
Think about it.
Having the abilty to carry weapons enables the populace to rise up, in numbers, if the government behaves so poorly that the people are forced to do so. Whether or not the military could or would be able to overpower any small group of armed civilians is certainly not the issue.
[/quote]
No, the idea is that it is a fake right. Why would the gov’t allow it’s citizens the right to rebel against it? If the south would have won maybe I’d see your point but it was still put down.
As a matter of fact–This right is stupid. If the writers of Declaration of Independence didn’t need a right to bear arms against Great Britan then we don’t need a written right to defend ourselves against this country. My point is that I don’t need anyone to give me a right that I already have–especially when it can be taken away by “unwriting” it.
Honestly, if the people, and by that I mean “THE PEOPLE” of the United States rose up against the government, there simply wouldn’t be enough bullets to put down the rebellion.
Think about it.
Having the abilty to carry weapons enables the populace to rise up, in numbers, if the government behaves so poorly that the people are forced to do so. Whether or not the military could or would be able to overpower any small group of armed civilians is certainly not the issue.
–
Again, I’d prefer to see spot checks to help ensure that only the law abiding can openly carry the weapons around. Let’s tilt the playing field in the proper direction!
It would be very similar to the impaired driving programs where they simply pull every car over and check to see if the driver has been drinking. Pick an area and put everyone there through a metal detector. Show a license or have it confiscated and do a search for outstanding warrants while you are at it.
Imagine if that was done on a random basis in some of the major cities at any time of day or night. You’d be afraid to carry if you weren’t licensed… which is as it should be.[/quote]
Vroom
This approach worked very well in Boston and NYC. Gang members were routinely searched. Weapons confiscated and most importantly the weapons were traced along with the ballistic signatures of the projectiles. A lot of gangbangers got put in jail and a lot of old crimes solved. It also established a data base to help solve crimes these fine citizens went on to committ later in life. In NYC the cops searched anyone they suspected of carrying via tell tale signs that they developed.
It worked great. Civil Liberterians had a cow and had it killed after about 2 yrs. I supported it and still do.
It is not a fake right. The founders believed that given time a government will become a tyranny if it loses an appropriate level of respect or fear of the populace.
There is no “right” to rebel. But the founders wanted the citizens to be capable of rebelling, to be capable of winning their freedom, if their own government turned into a tyranny against them (as they felt the British had just done).
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
hedo wrote:
“people” is the important word to understand.
The second ammendment is designed to protect the people from the government.
How do I protect myself against the Gov’t with an automatic rifle and a pistol? If I can’t arm myself enough to actually do my job then what good is the right?
Was the south protected under the second amendment when it tried to seperate from the north? It seems lame to me to have a right that the gov’t will never let you use. I think this right was put in the constitution to keep the simpletons happy. Once the gov’t grows to a certain size there is no way any group of people will question it’s sovereignty. Think about it.[/quote]
I have. The founders wrote the constitution out of principles not bias or agenda. All commentators today are clouded by bias including you and I. My analysis is based on the constitution yours is based on laws that modify the ammendment and a staunch liberal desire.
The liberals since 1936 have regulated this ammendment to death. Simply giving up and throwing in the towel is not the answer. It’s not the ammendment that should be tossed it’s the regulation of it that should.
You said you were a Marine at one time if I remember. Surely you’ve been exposed to strategy. The South lost because in a war of attrition it had niether the population or industrial capacity to defeat the North. Superior leadership could not carry the day against overwhelming numbers of men and munitions. Gun control had no bearing. With no allies or hope of resupply defeat was inevitable.
Hopefully with a more conservative court in the making the second ammendment will be preserved and protected.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
No, the idea is that it is a fake right. Why would the gov’t allow it’s citizens the right to rebel against it? If the south would have won maybe I’d see your point but it was still put down.
As a matter of fact–This right is stupid. If the writers of Declaration of Independence didn’t need a right to bear arms against Great Britan then we don’t need a written right to defend ourselves against this country. My point is that I don’t need anyone to give me a right that I already have–especially when it can be taken away by “unwriting” it.
[/quote]
I understand your frustation but the real point is (was) that the PEOPLE were supposed to be vigilant and not let the govt get as powerful as it has become.
What your describing is certainly true, but gun owners are a huge collective force as Vroom was pointing out. Also you have to have faith that the average US soldier will be very reluctant to turn his weapon on the average US citizen.
Nobody of course ever wants a shootout with the Feds and if they came for my gun tomorrow I’m certainly not going to go down in a hail of gunfire just to keep it. The point is we need to take an immediate stand NOW or someday soon it may get VERY ugly.
“The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.”
~Albert Einstein
[quote]vroom wrote:
It worked great. Civil Liberterians had a cow and had it killed after about 2 yrs. I supported it and still do.
Well, I’m sure you could design a program that inconvenienced all racial and social groups equally, so that it would be difficult to object.
I do think it is important to take into account civil liberties, but that doesn’t mean an effective program could not still be put in place.[/quote]
Well here’s the thing as I remember it. The cops in Boston came up with a criteria. Young and male were the first two. Gang colors was the next thing they looked at. They also looked at location. If you were young, male and out of your turf you got searched. Now maybe it’s just my common sense but those guys seem to be the most likely to carry a gun illegally. The civil libetarians said everyone should get searched at the same rate. Elederly women, children, secretaties, executives in suits, municipal workers. The cops said that was ridiculous and unworkable. It wasn’t racial in Boston either, the gangs up there were Irish and Hispanic. In NYC it was black, Hispanic and Irish and Italian.
It wasn’t an inconvenience to those who carried legally or were unarmed. It was extremely inconvenient for the criminals however.
I hear you. Seriously. I’d rather have the program in place with half the effort wasted on making it “fair” than have no program at all.
It’s the price you pay for living in a fair society that worries about respecting everyones rights. While it might be more expensive, it still has to be less costly than the alternative?
Honestly, if the people, and by that I mean “THE PEOPLE” of the United States rose up against the government, there simply wouldn’t be enough bullets to put down the rebellion.
Think about it.
Having the abilty to carry weapons enables the populace to rise up, in numbers, if the government behaves so poorly that the people are forced to do so. Whether or not the military could or would be able to overpower any small group of armed civilians is certainly not the issue.
No, the idea is that it is a fake right. Why would the gov’t allow it’s citizens the right to rebel against it? If the south would have won maybe I’d see your point but it was still put down.[/quote]
Of course govt’s dont…thats why its a rebelion. Thats why there is fighting. However, our Founders had enough foresight to ensure that if it came down to it, we have the ability to revolt. Remember, government is suppose to govern with the concent of the governed. It doesnt mean we are guaranteed victory but we a guarenteed the means to fight…
[quote]
As a matter of fact–This right is stupid. If the writers of Declaration of Independence didn’t need a right to bear arms against Great Britan then we don’t need a written right to defend ourselves against this country. My point is that I don’t need anyone to give me a right that I already have–especially when it can be taken away by “unwriting” it.[/quote]
Huh? If the governments dismantling of the 2nd were purely symbolic you would have a point. However, if they come into your house and take away your firearm it doesnt much matter if you have a right to own one or not. You make it sound as though infringements on the 2nd arent backed by force. Would you be so complacent if you were told you couldnt hang political posters in your house?
You’re right. I dont need to be given a right that I already have either…but I do want my government to do its duty and protect my rights from being forcibly taken away…and if it wont, I will…or die trying.
Last night I witnessed an altercation when I was out with my wife and our friends in Minneapolis near the U. We were sitting outside having some drinks and there was a scuffle across the street between two “gentlemen”, about what, I have no idea–suffice it to say they were angry at each other. They started with pushing and throwing wild swings at each other, to no avail. The crowd in the street cafe looked on with amusment and the husband of the couple we were with made a remark, “Wow, a fist-fight, you hardly ever see that anymore.” The incident went on like this for about two minutes until the cops came and the two men ran off. The cops got out of their squad car and made the usual rounds of asking witnesses what had happened…after which they did nothing and left.
Not more than five minutes later the two “gentlemen” returned to the front of the nightclub to fight again, this time one of the men brought some “friends” with him for back up. The man who was all alone must have felt extremely chipper because he nearly ran across the street with his fist twirling in the air to meet his nemesis full on. Except little to the man’s surprise one of the friends produced a pistol. I saw it even before the man took aim–because it twinkled hipnotically under the sodium vapor lamps an eerie yellow as he reached into his pants for it. After that I heard someone on the street, “he’s got a gun.” Next thing I knew I heard a dull pop as the bullet exited the barrel. Everyone scattered.
Law abiding citizens sat idly by as this happened–too fast to react. What good is my right to conceal and carry a weapon if I am sitting minding my own business and my wife or I, or our friends get hit by a stray bullet? Most people, in defense of the second amendment, think of themselves as Dirty Harry pulling out their piece to exact justice upon the “evil-doers”–however, it rarely happens like this. Most people won’t be given the time to react to a situation like this. And the ones that do react will end up getting killed–becasue of their lack of experience with “using” their weapon for it’s intended purpose. It’s one thing to point a pistol at a human shaped target it’s another thing to actually aim at another moving target that is aiming back at you and squeeze the trigger. My heart never beat above 60 bpm during target practice.
Last night I witnessed an altercation when I was out with my wife and our friends in Minneapolis near the U. We were sitting outside having some drinks and there was a scuffle across the street between two “gentlemen”, about what, I have no idea–suffice it to say they were angry at each other. They started with pushing and throwing wild swings at each other, to no avail. The crowd in the street cafe looked on with amusment and the husband of the couple we were with made a remark, “Wow, a fist-fight, you hardly ever see that anymore.” The incident went on like this for about two minutes until the cops came and the two men ran off. The cops got out of their squad car and made the usual rounds of asking witnesses what had happened…after which they did nothing and left.
Not more than five minutes later the two “gentlemen” returned to the front of the nightclub to fight again, this time one of the men brought some “friends” with him for back up. The man who was all alone must have felt extremely chipper because he nearly ran across the street with his fist twirling in the air to meet his nemesis full on. Except little to the man’s surprise one of the friends produced a pistol. I saw it even before the man took aim–because it twinkled hipnotically under the sodium vapor lamps an eerie yellow as he reached into his pants for it. After that I heard someone on the street, “he’s got a gun.” Next thing I knew I heard a dull pop as the bullet exited the barrel. Everyone scattered.
Law abiding citizens sat idly by as this happened–too fast to react. What good is my right to conceal and carry a weapon if I am sitting minding my own business and my wife or I, or our friends get hit by a stray bullet? Most people, in defense of the second amendment, think of themselves as Dirty Harry pulling out their piece to exact justice upon the “evil-doers”–however, it rarely happens like this. Most people won’t be given the time to react to a situation like this. And the ones that do react will end up getting killed–becasue of their lack of experience with “using” their weapon for it’s intended purpose. It’s one thing to point a pistol at a human shaped target it’s another thing to actually aim at another moving target that is aiming back at you and squeeze the trigger. My heart never beat above 60 bpm during target practice. [/quote]
I’m sure there’s a point in all of that, though it’s been lost on me.
Last night I witnessed an altercation when I was out with my wife and our friends in Minneapolis near the U. We were sitting outside having some drinks and there was a scuffle across the street between two “gentlemen”, about what, I have no idea–suffice it to say they were angry at each other. They started with pushing and throwing wild swings at each other, to no avail. The crowd in the street cafe looked on with amusment and the husband of the couple we were with made a remark, “Wow, a fist-fight, you hardly ever see that anymore.” The incident went on like this for about two minutes until the cops came and the two men ran off. The cops got out of their squad car and made the usual rounds of asking witnesses what had happened…after which they did nothing and left.
Not more than five minutes later the two “gentlemen” returned to the front of the nightclub to fight again, this time one of the men brought some “friends” with him for back up. The man who was all alone must have felt extremely chipper because he nearly ran across the street with his fist twirling in the air to meet his nemesis full on. Except little to the man’s surprise one of the friends produced a pistol. I saw it even before the man took aim–because it twinkled hipnotically under the sodium vapor lamps an eerie yellow as he reached into his pants for it. After that I heard someone on the street, “he’s got a gun.” Next thing I knew I heard a dull pop as the bullet exited the barrel. Everyone scattered.
Law abiding citizens sat idly by as this happened–too fast to react. What good is my right to conceal and carry a weapon if I am sitting minding my own business and my wife or I, or our friends get hit by a stray bullet? Most people, in defense of the second amendment, think of themselves as Dirty Harry pulling out their piece to exact justice upon the “evil-doers”–however, it rarely happens like this. Most people won’t be given the time to react to a situation like this. And the ones that do react will end up getting killed–becasue of their lack of experience with “using” their weapon for it’s intended purpose. It’s one thing to point a pistol at a human shaped target it’s another thing to actually aim at another moving target that is aiming back at you and squeeze the trigger. My heart never beat above 60 bpm during target practice. [/quote]
Perhaps you are projecting. Why intervene in that type of situation. I have had a Concealed Weapons Permit for many years and I wouldn’t intercede in a drunken brawl unless they were shooting at me.
The police are not responsible for your safety, you are. Try some IPSC shooting, your heart rate will go above 60bpm.
I have had two attempted muggings tried on me. In both cases I simple drew my weapon and pointed it at the fine young gentlemen. They promptly reconsidered and moved in. That is how most confrontations with armed citizens end by the way.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Perhaps you are projecting. Why intervene in that type of situation. I have had a Concealed Weapons Permit for many years and I wouldn’t intercede in a drunken brawl unless they were shooting at me.
The police are not responsible for your safety, you are. Try some IPSC shooting, your heart rate will go above 60bpm.
I have had two attempted muggings tried on me. In both cases I simple drew my weapon and pointed it at the fine young gentlemen. They promptly reconsidered and moved in. That is how most confrontations with armed citizens end by the way.
[/quote]
Itervention would have done no good with a stray bullet. If I were to have been personally targeted that would have been one thing–but I don’t put myself into those situations so I’m not worried about that. What I am worried about is getting hit either by the stray bullet from the thug or from the vigilante. As I stated–not too many people are experienced enough to actually use the fire arm for it’s intended purpose–and that frightens me as much as armed crimminals.
And yes, I distincly remember reading somewhere on a police car, “To protect and serve”, therefore, the police are responsible somewhat for the safety of the citizens.
In the situation where you were almost mugged and you had the mugger at gun point why did you not “arrest” him–i.e., hold him for the cops? That to me seems the only good point to having armed citizens and you totally slagged off. Instead of doing good with your weapon you let the criminal go so that he could harass someone else? Fire arms turn people into total wimps.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
hedo wrote:
“people” is the important word to understand.
The second ammendment is designed to protect the people from the government.
How do I protect myself against the Gov’t with an automatic rifle and a pistol? If I can’t arm myself enough to actually do my job then what good is the right?
Was the south protected under the second amendment when it tried to seperate from the north? It seems lame to me to have a right that the gov’t will never let you use. I think this right was put in the constitution to keep the simpletons happy. Once the gov’t grows to a certain size there is no way any group of people will question it’s sovereignty. Think about it.[/quote]
People do question the US govt’s sovereignty, at least here in Texas. But were special that way.
As to your remark about how outgunned we the people would be, there was this guy named Alvin York. He got famous in WWI for capturing an entire company of German soldiers by himself using nothing but his issue bolt action Springfield and his pistol. A company is approximately 200 troops. They had a Maxim machine gun in addition to all their rifles. The point is one well trained rifleman can do a hell of a lot of damage, compared to a bunch of people who only know how to spray an M16 on full auto.
Also I’d like to point out that during the American revolution our militias, composed mostly of civilian riflemen, took on the very best professional miltary of the time period. Somehow the Americans managed to prevail. The Iraqi insurgents are in no way as well armed as American troops yet they are able to wreak quite a bit of havoc. Thepoint is that in the event we need to rise up against our government, it would by no means be a slam dunk for the govt to suppress the uprising.
Oh yeah, how about the Battle of Rorke’s Drift, the historical basis for the movie Zulu! 100 or so English soldiers with single shot Martini-Henry rifles held off about 4000 Zulu warriors for 3 days. And don’t assume it was technology that won the day: just a day before Rorke’s Drift happened almost 2000 British and native troops were killed at Isandlhwana by another part of the Zulu army.
I am all for locally raised and trained militias. If there were such a thing I’d join today. Don’t even need an automatic weapon, just a good bolt action .30-06 and the skill to use it.
Sorry man that’s total bullshit. Firearms don’t turn people into wimps and you know it.
The police cannot be sued for not protecting you. It’s well documented. Ask some of the lawyers on this site.
An armed citizen cannot hold someone until the police come. It also would put me at a tactical disadvantage. I have no restriants or backup. I am also not known to the arriving officers or cleary identifiable via a uniform or badge…that’s why. Besides the intended consequence of carrying a weapon is to deter crime or protect myself. The gentlemen running away is acceptable to me.
Wimpish, hardly son. Firearms are a great equalizer. Read up on it. I suggest John Lott as a starting point.