To be really honest I think this whole controversy is bullshit. The amendment was written, what? two centuries ago. Your society has changed. Your government has changed. The world has changed. Britain is not coming back to take its colony back. Maybe it is time to look at this thing objectively and stop interpreting an old document. Is it really something still from this era?
Also, it says arms, not guns. That leaves it to the Supreme Court or congress to determine what arms are. Can I have my own nuclear weapon?
so when george washington called the troops to arms,he ment what? sticks and rocks? no they ment GUNS,they had them,they used them,and they stated citizens have the right to own them.
You said learn how to read,. You didn't say know how other (specific) people interpreted what they read a long time ago. It says 'arms'. It says 'bear'. None of these things technically means 'owning guns'.
Question: Who would want to take your guns away from you, you being an honest, law abiding citizen? Answer: Your enemy! Just ask the German Jews. Peace
You're not paying attention, Mr. Monkey. Samuel Adams: "...keeping their own arms." Madison: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." Patrick Henry; "everyone who is able may have a gun." Zacaria Johnson: "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons" There are more. I don't know how you missed them. Next time, please take a few minutes to read the quotes before you answer. Thank you.
ben franklin discovered electricty,he invented bifocals and a fo-i -net-ic form of spelling,do you honestly think they could not envision a time where guns shot more then 3 rounds per minute?they also had artiliary,bombs, canons,and rockets. arms,in 1776 ment guns,thats a well documented fact.considering firearms means guns,the abreviated form of that would be arms.
There is hope for you after all Mr. Monkey. You are finally thinking. If the government wants to restrict the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms, it should try to get the amendment changed.
amendments shouls only be passed with a national vote,and should only pass if more then 75% approve,51% to 49% just leaves too many people feeling screwed over by the system.but thats the problem with democracy,a group of people is ALWAYS screwed over.
The government already restricts citizens from bearing any kind of gun they want. For instance, you can't own one if you are a felon. You can't carry a handgun without a permit. You can't have a full auto rifle or pistol without a permit. You can't have a truck mounted gun, cannon, mortar, grenade launcher, or missile launcher. There are certain types of ammo you can't use. You can't have chemical or biological weapons. So, there are already precedents for restricting weapon ownership.
Well, Mr. Monkey, that's why you were so mistaken about the second amendment. You had not read any of the background behind it. I'm happy that you have finally seen the light.
Indeed. And also realized that the background has not stayed in what you would call 'stasis'. Indeed a lot has changed. I also read that there are at least 3 interpretations of this amendment. Not all of these interpretations conclude that individuals have the right to own and bear guns. These other interpretations clearly see this amendment based on the existence of militia...you know, the well regulated ones. Shoot me if I am wrong in this.
LOL. Who do you think the militia is? What do you think the brits thought of washington and crew? I don't own a gun, but I think guns are good in general on the basis of a mini-MAD. It's less likely someone will try to overtake you with a gun if they think you might have a gun. The problem is that only law-abiding citizens will turn in their guns. Criminals... uhm... they're criminals, now they'll have guns and law-abiders won't. That seems unwise.
regulating weapons and restricting weapons are two very diffrent things. felons have paid there debt to society after the finish their punishment,whether its jail or probation or whatever. restricting freedoms becasue of past misdeeds is a stupid and dangerous thing to do. i wish we had a supreme court that understoud the constitution,but 99% of americans have never even read a book,let alone can interprut the constitution. if we had any form of education we might not have this problem,or if people would not stand for their rights being removed without so much as a whisper of discontent,this might still be america. but until the people give a shit enough to actual fight for their rights they will not have them and they do not deserve them.
The government could label any category of people unfit to carry a gun and where would your militia be then? If you look at wikipedia then it states that the original version of the 2nd was: They took out 'no person religiously scrupulous' because the government could declare some people religiously scrupulous at will. If we now return back to the example of 'felon' then we have ended up in the same street. The government could technically lable anyone a fellon (patriot act anyone?). It would actually be quite normal tyo quench a rebellion by calling the 'freedom fighters', or 'militia' criminals and terrorists and so deny them the right to bear arms. So please be consistent people.
they wrote half a dozen versions of the constitution,the only one that counts is the one they signed. and until the people care enough about there civil liberties to actualy fight for them,they dont desrve them.look at the black people in the 60s,they didnt have any rights until they started killing the people who had taken their rights as human beings. i never comprimise my rights for anyone at any time,live free or die is not a quaint slogan,its a way of life,if every human on earth lived up to that standard,all peoples of earth would be free.but people would rather trade their rights for shitty tv and suvs and personal comfort,rather then actualy fight for something that would matter.
