Gotta love the 2nd Amendment... - Page 2

Eric5273 · #11 05-17-2007, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B-Line

I believe in the American Dream, not the equal distribution of wealth and power. This ain't fantasy land Eric..

Silly me for wishing I lived in a true democracy.

Sponsored Links

B-Line · #12 05-17-2007, 01:12 AM

Wish in one hand, crap in the other, see which fills up first..

B

X5Jones · #13 05-17-2007, 02:56 AM

The safest firearm owners I know have been around them all their lives, and I mean ALL their lives!.

And I don't see a problem with a kid being given a FOID card at all, except that it puts him on a register for Eric's "democrat" buddies to 'work through' in the future - Gestapo Style! (door to door, no-knock warrent firearm confiscation, - "give up the guns or we take you in for processing")

Either way he can't buy handguns untill he is 21 or longarms and any kind of ammo untill 18.

Lets re-defeat fascism and communisim on a global scale!

Wagner · #14 05-17-2007, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B-Line

I say, the people who pay the most amount of taxes should have the biggest say in how those taxes are spent.
I believe in the American Dream, not the equal distribution of wealth and power. This ain't fantasy land Eric..

B

To an extent I would agree, however that philosophy makes the assumption that everyone starts off on the same playing field, which isn't true. However, I don't know of a 'perfect democracy' in existence (or that has ever been). More of the whole Utopia idea that it would all be okay if we could change some things.

IMO the second amendment may have been one of the bigger screw ups in the constitution of the United States. For some reason these great men made no guesstimate that firearms would increase in technology. You really think if Thomas Jefferson or a Ben Franklin saw the current weapons of the federal government that this would be mentioned in the constitution? The whole purpose of 'the right to bare arms..." has been taken out of context IMO. The purpose was for citizens to have the capacity to not be kept under the heel of the government. So I don't think the current weapons available to the 'citizens militia' could take down a A1M1, F18 or any other multitude of weaponry in the federal arsenal. Kind of makes the whole thing pointless.

nupe10123 · #15 05-17-2007, 12:06 PM

The people who pay the most taxes also tend to be the same people who use the most resources. So in a since, they are paying more because they use more and have more that's being 'protected' by the govt. (e.g. police protect public property which the wealthy own, more federal disaster relief and insurance regulations are designed to protect the wealthy who own homes etc. versus the renters etc...)

There is no perfect democracy, the masses usually have a different set of issues, needs and wants than the wealthy. So should the few be able to make the decisions that impact the many - or should the have not's be able to control and redistribute wealth from the haves? I don't have a clue as to how to answer this.

In my home country, the wealthiest 2% control the government and all the resources. This has resulted in extreme violence, political instability and continued lack of health and welfare for the masses. Many of my homes and several business operations were destroyed in 1995 due to rebellion (which in large caused me to bring my family to the U.S.).

Our Democracy was and is so much flux due to the wealthy versus poor, few versus masses concept that I don't know the 'right' mix of decision making power any group should have. But I do understand why so many different views exist about controls, wealth distribution etc...

B&DCalgary · #16 05-17-2007, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WagnerX5

The purpose was for citizens to have the capacity to not be kept under the heel of the government. So I don't think the current weapons available to the 'citizens militia' could take down a A1M1, F18 or any other multitude of weaponry in the federal arsenal. Kind of makes the whole thing pointless.

Wrongo... the second amendment was written in the days before the formation of a formal military, and was designed to ensure citizens had weapons to protect themselves from foreign invasion, not from their own government. It was written as a direct result of the British trying to disarm the loosely organized colonial citizen militias in the early stages of the revolutionary war. It has absolutely nothing to do with citizens arming themselves "to not be kept under the heel of their own government".

The second amendment became redundant following the establishment of an independent nation and the formation of a formalized military, but its meaning has been continuously twisted over the years with people only referring to its last passage and ignoring the preamble that sets the context of why citizens should have the right to bear arms, i.e. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Once the armed forces were created, citizens' militia were no longer required to protect the state so the right for citizens to bear arms expressly for this purpose, as prescribed in the second amendment, became unnecessary. The second amendment was never meant to address the issue of self defense. Rights of self defense are dealt with under common law, not constitutional law.

Wagner · #17 05-17-2007, 02:43 PM

IMO , you're wrong. Who was their government at that time...>England< who were they arming to fight against...<England>. IMO you're reading the text wrong and assuming it means that once a government of the states was established, it was all ok.

Quote:

Originally Posted by B&DCalgary

Wrongo... the second amendment was written in the days before the formation of a formal military, and was designed to ensure citizens had weapons to protect themselves from foreign invasion, not from their own government. It was written as a direct result of the British trying to disarm the loosely organized colonial citizen militias in the early stages of the revolutionary war. It has absolutely nothing to do with citizens arming themselves "to not be kept under the heel of their own government".

The second amendment became redundant following the establishment of an independent nation and the formation of a formalized military, but its meaning has been continuously twisted over the years with people only referring to its last passage and ignoring the preamble that sets the context of why citizens should have the right to bear arms, i.e. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Once the armed forces were created, citizens' militia were no longer required to protect the state so the right for citizens to bear arms expressly for this purpose, as prescribed in the second amendment, became unnecessary. The second amendment was never meant to address the issue of self defense. Rights of self defense are dealt with under common law, not constitutional law.

Eric5273 · #18 05-17-2007, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WagnerX5

IMO the second amendment may have been one of the bigger screw ups in the constitution of the United States. For some reason these great men made no guesstimate that firearms would increase in technology. You really think if Thomas Jefferson or a Ben Franklin saw the current weapons of the federal government that this would be mentioned in the constitution? The whole purpose of 'the right to bare arms..." has been taken out of context IMO. The purpose was for citizens to have the capacity to not be kept under the heel of the government. So I don't think the current weapons available to the 'citizens militia' could take down a A1M1, F18 or any other multitude of weaponry in the federal arsenal. Kind of makes the whole thing pointless.

Somone knows their history well.

Eric5273 · #19 05-17-2007, 06:03 PM

Some quotes from a some of the founding fathers who were major players in the debate over the 2nd Amendment:

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
--Thomas Jefferson

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.
-George Washington

Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
--Noah Webster

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.
--James Madison

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all forms of positive government.
--Alexander Hamilton

X5Jones · #20 05-18-2007, 02:23 AM

And just pointed out what I've alwayse felt to be true, America needs more, and better weapons in the hands of law-abiding citizens!

Power to the People!

Sponsored Links