Too soon?
Some people keep and bear arms in order to protect their own homes and families. Other people keep and bear arms in order to threaten other people’s homes and families.
Reasonable opponents of the Second Amendment feel that repealing it would significantly reduce the second group and that’s a good purpose.
Let’s say with rare exception nobody changes their mind about gun control. Just like with rare exception, nobody changes their mind about abortion.
The Constitution doesn’t say anything about the militia besides [list=A][li]We need it, and [*]the people have to have the right to keep and bear arms if we are to have one.[/list]If you are concerned that the militia as it currently stands isn’t securing the freedom of the state, by all means raise your concerns with your elected officials. Keep in mind that, according to the Constitution, you cannot address whatever problems you see with the militia by infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. [/li]
Get back to us when you have a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate, or two-thirds of the state legislatures, and the approval of 38 states.
Regards,
Shodan
[quote=“Shodan, post:144, topic:839345”]
The Constitution doesn’t say anything about the militia besides [list=A][li]We need it, and [*]the people have to have the right to keep and bear arms if we are to have one.[/list][/li][/quote]
Do please read the whole thing sometime, will you? Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15:
See? They fucking *said *what it’s for.
First you say:
then you say:
[quote=“Shodan, post:144, topic:839345”]
The Constitution doesn’t say anything about the militia besides [list=A][li]We need it, and [*]the people have to have the right to keep and bear arms if we are to have one.[/list][/li][/QUOTE]
Which is it?
It would also force the pro-gun arguments to stand on their own merit. Also a good purpose.
I should have said the Second Amendment doesn’t say. But still, if you are concerned that the militia will not be available for the purposes you mention, then you ought to raise those concerns with the government. Also consider if “we need to restrict gun ownership so they are better equipped” sounds like it makes sense, if you are hoping to use that argument.
Did one didn’t you understand?
Regards,
Shodan
Robbers, home invasions, murderers, etc. Criminals.
True. There are 300,000,000 guns in the uSA. About 10000 are used form murder.
So you’d ban that 299,990,000 to solve that 10000.
And it wont. Gun control has never worked in the USA.
And why do you want gun control?
1, to reduce suicides (biggest potion of gun deaths)? Well, I think suicide is both a tragedy and a right, and Japans seems to have no problem keeping it’s suicide rate well about the USAs with no guns. So, that’s a crappy reason. Lets get some more counseling and such out there.
-
To reduce Murder? Ok, but you see the violent crime rate has been going down for some time, while the number of guns owned is increasing. Hmmm. Maybe a few more reasonable restrictions, like on straw man sales might help, sure, why not?
-
To reduce mass killings? As I have proven, mass shootings are a product of the media, not guns. So, then, we’d have to get rid of the 1st Ad for that. Are you in favor?
I’m asking you, and any other supporter of the 2nd Amendment, why no concerted effort has been made to ensure the execution of this important charge of civic duty - i.e. a well-regulated militia - in the manner stipulated by the Constitution. Or do you believe that private gun ownership is the only requirement necessary for a well-regulated militia? Furthermore, do you believe those who are otherwise able but do not own guns are failing in their civic duty to protect the State?
I suspect it’ll be all over the news.
And that completely invalidates whatever point you thought you were making. You should have said that, too.
I’m not, because it became moot when we set up a standing army and a professional police force (the original concept of a militia included both).
I’m not, since it makes no sense, like any of your other strawmen.
That one.
Elvis1Lives was kind enough to provide the following:
Would you be kind enough to cite where the Constitution talks about: “Robbers, murderers, etc.”
Or the part where it says the militia is there to ***be ***an insurrection, not to suppress it.
A recent SCOTUS decision. The Constitution doesnt talk about your right to Privacy or a womans right to a abortion, either.
What evidence do you have that the militia isn’t working as it should? I’m open to being convinced.
Regards,
Shodan
5-4 on the predictable partisan lines, with an opinion creating it out of whole cloth written by a Justice who purported to deplore doing just that, and contrary to all existing jurisprudence on the subject. But *not *in the Constitution.
"life, liberty, or property, " which is privacy and abortions- how?
And of course having your home invaded and you tortured, robbed and maybe killed does deprive you of all three.
Well, if you are OK with how the militia is currently set up, then there isn’t a problem. Perhaps you could reassure Quicksilver.
Regards,
Shodan
I admit, I’m a bit hung up on the “well-regulated” bit, and how it can possibly be interpreted to mean, ‘anybody with a gun’. And if that is the only requirement, of what use would such a “militia” be if called upon to protect the State in this day and age? I think back to recent World Wars, and even those drafted were provided training and guns before being sent to fight. I don’t recall, “must own gun”, on any recruiting poster.