BF2S Forums 2nd Amendment Question

heres how i look at it....they talk about the militias...back in the day that was the only protection from anything. so back then people owning weapons if they were in the militia made sense.


jump to today. i think that us being allowed to own firearms, helps to keep our enemies at bay.
not only that, i have alot of guns. and ill fuckin shoot anyone that tries to take them.
but seriously im a responsible gun owner that carries everyday....hell my wife carries every day.
now i feel naked without it.
but i do see your point..........oh ya and we still got militias here in missouri.......YEEEHHAAAWWWWW!

My interpretation has always been that it was an insurance policy against invasion. So the people would be armed and towns cities could create their own militia quickly if invasion or attack occurred. The threat of invasion is over now. I can't see the USA being invaded and the argument about terrorist attacks doesn't hold much water seeing as the terrorists are likely to blow themselves up or detonate a device without warning.
Maybe if all the moneys spent on guns was somehow redirected into homeland security it would collectively be better spent.

I think they did mean individuals. It was kind of lending legitimacy to the acts of 'self defense' of the wild west frontiersmen, 'defending the nation' from the vicious natives, where the government was incapable of providing security...

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-12-12 07:34:57)

usmarine2007 wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Citizens need guns so that they may form militias if the need ever arose.

Then where is the right to form a militia at?  For example, those guys along the border...minute men I think, are not allowed to carry weapons, why is that?

That is not true. They carry sidearms and the Ranch Rescue project often carry rifles.

The militia needs to exist so that the people have a ability to combat tyranny and overthrow the government if needed. In fact, odds are you are required to be available for militia duty under federal law;

So, constitutionally YOU very likely--indeed, almost surely--are a member of "the Militia of the several States" in the State in which you live. And, if so, the Constitution imposes a duty on YOU to keep and bear arms in the Militia for the defense of your State and Nation, because that is the meaning of the Militia: the people in arms, and therefore the people with arms. And, most importantly, their own arms: their own private property in their own personal possession.

http://www.eldoradogold.net/Edwin%20Vie … 050516.htm

herrr_smity wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Citizens need guns so that they may form militias if the need ever arose.

and do what exactly

Put the government back in its place if it gets too intrusive.  Armed citizens are much harder to subjugate than unarmed citizens.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Citizens need guns so that they may form militias if the need ever arose.

Do you honestly see a real threat against the USA in another conventional army? Guess your premeted strike thing failed!

autopilot wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Citizens need guns so that they may form militias if the need ever arose.

Do you honestly see a real threat against the USA in another conventional army? Guess your premeted strike thing failed!

Even if there was not a "real" threat in the form of a conventional army, that fact would not change the Constitution.  Adjusting that part of the Constitution based on changing conditions is not a prudent course of action.

King_County_Downy wrote:

I have a small cache of weapons. It's nice to know that you have more firepower than most small police forces in case shit ever goes down.

Careful, the BATF might get bored and accuse you of firearms violations and come invade your property and burn down your house like Reno did in Waco. *hears sounds of black helos*  Hide!

ATG wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Citizens need guns so that they may form militias if the need ever arose.

Then where is the right to form a militia at?  For example, those guys along the border...minute men I think, are not allowed to carry weapons, why is that?

That is not true. They carry sidearms and the Ranch Rescue project often carry rifles.

The militia needs to exist so that the people have a ability to combat tyranny and overthrow the government if needed. In fact, odds are you are required to be available for militia duty under federal law;

So, constitutionally YOU very likely--indeed, almost surely--are a member of "the Militia of the several States" in the State in which you live. And, if so, the Constitution imposes a duty on YOU to keep and bear arms in the Militia for the defense of your State and Nation, because that is the meaning of the Militia: the people in arms, and therefore the people with arms. And, most importantly, their own arms: their own private property in their own personal possession.

http://www.eldoradogold.net/Edwin%20Vie … 050516.htm

QFT

usmarine2007 wrote:

The right to bear arms?

"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."


Now, I know we cannot dig up the dead and ask these guys what they meant when they wrote this, but to me this does not mean "individual" rights to bear arms.  Now the word militia is a little old obviously, but to me they are talking about a States rights, not each individual citizen.  It is my opinion that this statement was not intended to guarantee the right for someone to keep a .50cal and loads of ammo in their house.  Maybe I am reading it wrong?

I too am unsure if those two statements are in fact one statement, or two specific, different things.  But apparently in context of how and when they were written, and probably plenty of other writings of the day...I'm going to side with the gun lobby in their belief that it represents two seperate items:

1) A militia dedicated to the state (I believe today, that is the national guard..though they've been taken and wrongly dedicated to the executive and legislative branches).

2) The people being able to keep and bear arms should not be infringed (meaning no laws or other actions should limit their possession of weapons).


The reason for this ammendment, according to my understanding, is that it's meant to be in place to overthrow a corrupt government (nationally and locally).  This ammendment probably has it's high location at number 2 because it was needed but infringed upon during the tyrranical rule of King George (The English King George...)...thus preventing themselves from taking up arms against said dictator/king.

The subsequent evolution of this right is, however, in question in the form of what weapons one can keep and bear (since they had a small handful of arms back then compared to now), when and where you can keep them on your person (for good and bad reasons), and of course "who" can keep and bear them based on their obvious abuse of said rights or inability to exercise those rights with a sound or forfeited mind (criminals losing this right for abusing it or other criminal behavior), etc.

And because of this maneuvering, we have the heated debate today.  Unfortunately, some of my liberal colleagues foolishly discard this right and believe not having the ability to protect onself from criminal activity (be it from the oppressive government or robbers) should be adjusted accordingly and applied to everyone.

But in short, I believe it's two different things..a state militia to defend from or attack the federal government if needed...and individual rights to simply own and perhaps carry weapons.

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-12-12 10:50:07)

Drakef wrote:

The presence of firearms during either an uprising against a totalitarian government or against a foreign invader will only worsen the potential, but highly unlikely situation. If it becomes a citizen's duty to overthrow the government, it will not be under one goal that all armed citizens will fight. There will be widespread panic and violence as different organizations battle for ideological supremacy. A chaotic situation will result, especially if there is an invader. The responsibilities of an armed populace wil not always be its result. Without proper authority, armed citizens will be a detriment to the nation under such duress.

So we'll just go ahead and let the government be the one to decide who deserves to own a weapon.