Ah, I guess that’s why the 2nd Amendment opens with the words “The eating and killing of Injuns and bears and such, being necessary to the security of a free state, …”
:rolleyes:
US forces and local freedom fighters overthrew the Taliban.
That doesn’t really help your cause, since the local freedom-fighters were not likely to have won without outside aid.
Also worth noting: It’s pretty much pointless for the government to give its citizens the right to be armed, because, should the citizens actually wish to overthrow the government, they aren’t going to give a flying fuck at a rolling donut whether said government allows them to be armed or not.
And, since any reasonably powerful government isn’t going to be overthrown with weapons that the average Joe can afford to purchase, the citizens are going to need some foreign aid anyway, so they won’t really need to stockpile firearms and bombs “just in case”.
That is up to debate, but they were able to fight off the Taliban. And they needed (and used) more than just guns.
Yes, but I could argue that, compared to the United States (which is where we’re talking about making bombs legal), the Taliban was very poorly equipped.
If you stuck the Afghani rebels in the US and pitted them against the US government, they wouldn’t last a week.
So are you saying the 2nd amendment has no place?
It did have a place, but I don’t think it does anymore. It specifcially mentions that it is for maintaining a well-armed militia, but when was the last time you saw a militia, well-armed or otherwise?
As far as the citizens overthrowing a corrupt government (which is often cited as another purpose of the 2nd Amendment), you could allow citizens to own any weapons short of nuclear, and the government could still crush any resistance flat as long as the resistance doesn’t have foreign military aid; the government’s pockets are just much too deep.
I’m not sure exactly where I stand as far as gun control is concerned. However, I do think that the 2nd Amendment is antiquated, and no longer paints an accurate picture of the modern world.
This is ground control to Major Kong…Are you kidding?
Bombs?
Really?
Honestly?
I’m very pro gun (i keep the local gun shop open just in ammo) but explosives? They should be as heavily controlled as they are, If for no other reason than human stupidity. Not everyone should have guns, but far fewer than that should have access to explosives. I’ve dealt with more than a few explosives related incidents caused entirely by lack of knowledge.
FTR, I’m against it.
So you are against the 2nd amendment, too?
[Fixed coding. – MEB]
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Major Kong *
**
To be fair, the 2nd Amendment just says “arms”. It doesn’t say what “arms” actually means. If you want to decide that the “right to bear arms” includes bombs, you’re free to do so, but that’s not necesarially a universal interpretation. I kind of doubt that colonial militias were armed with bombs.
Setting aside the already-disputed cannibalistic implications, it was certainly also written in a time where the gap in fighting power between the average “man with rifle” and the professional rifleman was smaller.
Men with guns (or bombs, if so you wish) do not a fighting force make. Training, procedure, structure, logistics, communications - plus, obviously, men with guns - do.
If you start done this path soon we won’t have any legal arms.
Ah, the slippery-slope fallacy. And still, would that really be a bad thing? Other than, say, hunting for sport or target practice, how useful is a gun, anyway?
There’s the old saying, “When guns become outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” However, I doubt that guns can really protect you against criminals who also have guns, except in extreme cases. When two people have firearms pointed at each other, it’s all up to luck, anyway. And if a criminal is going to do something like break into your home or mug you, they’re already going to have their gun ready, which gives them the advantage.
Sure, there have been cases of people being saved because they had a gun, but I would suspect that, generally speaking, by the time you realize that you need your gun it’s too late. Unless you’re prepared beforehand – or have lots of training – , the risk of pulling a gun on an armed criminal is just too great (IMHO).
If you just want to protect your home, an aluminum baseball bat would probably work just as well. In the dark of the night you have the home field advantage, and you’re less likely to accidentally kill a family member with a baseball bat.
And even in that situation, locking your bedroom door and dialing 911 is probably the smartest thing to do. Walking around in the dark trying to find someone to either shoot or whack with a baseball bat is just asking for trouble.
My point is the 2nd amendment make no distinction, so all arms are cool. Legally.
make = makes
Major Kong: I assume from your posts so far that you would advocate allowing private ownership of any and all military-grade armaments, right up to tanks, rocket launchers, and maybe even mustard gas, am I right?
All this does bring up an interesting question, though: anyone with any opinion on weapons ownership has a line at which they say, “the average citizen just doesn’t NEED to own THAT.” Some fix it at so-called “assault weapons,” others much higher, like explosives. How do you know where to draw that line? What makes one line any less or more right than another? How do you declare someone else’s line “unreasonable” and not bring your own into question on exactly the same merits?
Then we’re back to what the 2nd Amendment means by the word “arms”. What makes you think that the founding fathers considered bombs to be arms?
And if you want to start analyizing the amendment, then only people who could potentially be in the militia would be guaranteed the right to bear arms. I’m pretty sure that the notion of civilian militias are no longer even considered in times of war.
Further, the reason to allow citizens to bear arms was because, should the militia be called into duty, they would have to supply their own weapons. These days, we have a large armed force, and even of we have to institute the draft, the weapons will be supplied for you.
Based on all this, the reason that the 2nd Amendment was created (namely, militias who needed to be armed for times of war) no longer exists. Thus, the 2nd Amendment probably shouldn’t even apply anymore.
I mean, look at the fact that normal citizens are not allowed to own assault rifles. If the 2nd Amendment were really still in effect, then the government wouldn’t be able to deny people that right, would it?
In fact, it wouldn’t suprise me if, legally (IANAL), the 2nd Amendment doesn’t actually apply to anyone anymore, and the only reason citizens are allowed to keep guns of any type is because banning them would cause too much of a fuss, and be too much trouble.
So you are saying bombs are not arms, but guns are? Why?
Heh - actually, if the “militia” rationale was rigorously applied, the only weapons allowed would be military ones.
It is a parody of the gun nut argument, and a good one at that. The constitution is silent as to what type of “arms” we are allowed to posses. If the second amendment was truly meant to allow us to protect ourselves from foreign invaders, or more likely an intrusive and authoritarian government, then we should be allowed to posses the weapons one would need to stage such a battle.
What justification could the government offer to ban ownership of helicopter gun ships that could not also be applied to hand guns? Why shouldn’t I, Philly Style, be allowed to realize my dream of being a nuclear power?
Please don’t tell me that it is a question of reach or scope. This is merely arguing about the degree of impact.
I think that if the Constitution guarantees me the right to bear arms (excluding the pesky well regulated militia garbage), that this right extends to whatever weapon I feel I need, and that neither you, nor the government can impinge on this right.