Printable View
Oh, and: "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
You can argue many things, Trish, but the meaning and the constitutionality of private firearms ownership isn't one of them. You can disagree, and I fully support your right to do that, because the ability of the people to disagree is pretty much our whole basis for government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetts18
Talking about knee-jerk reactions, guilty of one yourself there, sunshine.
I could of used a nuclear explosion to illustrate the idiocy of the (quoted) argument (I'm assuming Americans can't privately own those either?), but i figured that might be a little obtuse for some...Seems i still aimed too high.
1) There are a record number of firearm flowing in society; however, since the 1990s, the rate of illegal deaths by firearms has actually decreased.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/...ublic-unaware/
2) How about reading the Federalist Papers? Federalist Paper #46, written by James Madison (author of the Bill of Rights), explains one of the main purposes of the Amendment.
I understand the point you were trying to make, Jericho, however you and almost anyone else that chooses to argue against private firearms ownership always picks the same stereotypical ugly, frightening, black firearm for their argument. Americans are NOT a bunch of tobacco chewing crazy hicks with automatic weapons and flame throwers in the closet or behind the door in the event of a home invasion or just because we want to have a good time.
Yes, of course, "moot," not "mute." Thank you for the correction.
Of course the probable meaning of the second amendment is that the right to bear arms is modified by the expectation of being called to bear those arms in service to a well regulated militia in time of need. The amendment itself is now moot, for (as you pointed out) soldiers do not add their private arms to the militia stockpile, but rather are equipped with arms owned by the people at large; i.e. bought by the tax payer.
Washington's concern was for the defense of the Nation he helped build and not for those who might want to arm themselves against that Nation. The Second Amendment is no longer relevant to that defense.
1) look up "all things being equal". Moreover that study is about homicides involving firearms, not deaths caused by firearms.
2) the federalist papers do not speak for all signers of the Constitution, they were in fact written to address those who opposed the Federalists.
The idea of making firearms illegal is so stupid, it's comical.
We've been through this in the 1920's with prohibition...all you do with these laws is enable criminal activity.
Of course it would be stupid. I'm not suggesting that.
And that... is bullshit. pure and simple. ...The entire bill of rights was written by people who had just fought a long, drawn out, bloody war for independence from tyranny. The amendment was written to ensure that the people of this nation would have the means to resist should the government get "too big for its britches" and start trampling on the rights of the citizens. The second amendment is the last line of defense against tyranny, and it's there as a safeguard in the event that all peaceful attempts fail. History tends to repeat itself, and the founders had seen what happens to a disarmed populace, not only in the annals of history, but with their own eyes.