That is not believed generally. It is believed widely, yes, among those looking for a rationalization, but falsely nonetheless. The Constitution includes extensive discussion about the need for *suppressing *insurrections, but nothing whatever about facilitating them.
It’s cute how you folks talk in code. If the RKBA is so limiting, I’m surprised you don’t get an AK-47 or AR-15. :rolleyes:
Yeah people say that. But real life isn’t a board game where military members don’t have their own ideas. We’d have a Syrian situation with very nasty partisan warfare. Especially since military and their families live in the community instead of sheltered at an isolated base.
The armory idea is intriguing but I don’t see how going to the armory for self defense purposes is workable.
You miss the context and political philosophy in which the constitution was written. The document exists in a larger reality, one in which might does make right. Thus the civil war.
Please. The notion that the writers wanted to establish a way to violently overthrow the government they were establishing is just silly. Not only did they establish military forces for the express purpose of *suppressing *insurrections, among other purposes, they established a *parliamentary *way to chuck the whole thing and write a new one if it became clear it just couldn’t be fixed.
You respect context, you say? The Second exists in the context of the rest of the Constitution. The second half of its one sentence exists in the context of the entire sentence. The whole thing matters. You can’t blithely dismiss the parts you don’t like, which appear to be most of it.
:dubious::smack: Okay, first off, this is not true. I’m a Republican and NRA supporter, but I would be fine with it being harder to obtain guns. But even with therapy, the armories won’t stop someone from killing someone.
-
Why is it the “let’s make our laws just like those of every other developed country” line never gets trotted out in the context of abortion? Funny.
-
in addition to the many other problems with the OP’s plan, there is the fact that within a couple decades every tool and die shop, most machinists, and many mechanics and auto parts suppliers are going to have as standard equipment a 3D printer, which will also be capable of cranking out guns. No registration, no record, nothing.
-
Most of the civilized world *does *have pretty much the same sort of abortion laws we do.
-
Yes, people determined not to be law-abiding citizens will not abide by the law. They would certainly have a harder time doing so without big companies mass-producing the things. Nobody is claiming or expecting that all guns will magically disappear.
If you’re just trying to make excuses, you’re not doing it well.
The context was in a revolutionary age where rights were considered intrinsic to people and not a sheet of paper. The sheet of paper was meant to delegate power to a government from the people in order for stability and efficiency. The piece of paper isn’t some mythical thing that can prevent people from a future revolution. Of course, a government, like any other institution composed of power hungry people, is going to act in a way to preserve itself.
And NOT by providing a means for itself to be violently overthrown? Glad we agree on that. Wish more of us did.
Confused by your own code?? Holy shit, who’d’a thunk? :eek: 
The first amendment has some common-sense restrictions, like not shouting ‘Fire’ in a crowded venue.
The second amendment should surely have some common-sense restrictions too, like not selling assault rifles to people with mental disorders.
Well, the Constitution isn’t a government, now, is it? The Constitution is more of a template and instruction manual on how the people and the states are choosing to delegate power, for the sake of efficiency and utility, to a central government.
The whole Constitution itself is a constraint on power explicitly and implicitly. Unfortunately, much of the implicit part even when referenced explicitly in the 10th and 9th are conveniently forgotten. Though it is interesting that the left have discovered the 10th lately.
So, in the context of the Federal government not being its own creator. Which it isn’t. And the Federal government not the source of its own sovereignty. It isn’t. Then the right to self defense, even against a tyrannical government, even if only in theory, makes a lot of sense.
Now, the modern problem is that weaponry is very rapidly lethal and that normal forms of deterrence do not work on the suicidal.
Neither. Instead of complaining about guns and coming up with “solutions” that screw over legal gun owners, how about coming up with a plan to get the mental cases off the streets?
If you are asking me to pick a country that has solved the issue of crime, you’re out of luck.
Please refer to my cite showing a correlation with access to health care and crime.
Obviously crime will exist, if not forever then for a long time. Most likely nothing will make you safe from criminals, and that includes your gun.
Instead of just one country, here are the countries with the best healthcare in the world according to business insider:
And here is a list of the countries with the lowest crime rates:
Using that data, one could reason that improved access to mental health care and the lowering of crime rates are linked.
I have nothing more to say about your irrational fears of muggers, rapists, and serial murderers. It’s clear you don’t understand how these crimes are typically committed, and assume you’ll have the training and ability to shoot them if they ever try to mug/rape/murder you. So many of them don’t ever get shot it’s almost as if they actively try to pick victims that can’t or won’t shoot them.
All I’ve been getting is “can’t” and “won’t”. Pretty much nobody took this seriously from the beginning. The idea is that people would work together to fund and operate everything.
I wasn’t really intending on debating the legality issues, but rather whether or not the plan would actually work if applied. I was also expecting people to improve on it, so maybe great debates wasnt the best board to post on for this.
See my cites showing that countries with increased access to medical care also have lower crime rates. Do you agree that people without mental illness sometimes seek therapy? If so, one could infer that therapy helps those that are not mentally ill.
“The Shooter’s Bible”… Really?
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
My only question is, was there any incentive for people to turn their cars in to the government?