People Control
- Thread starter serpentdove
- Start date
Would you like to take our guns? :Shimei: Eccl 10:2, Jn 10:10, Lk 22:36
Quetzal
New member
I support gun ownership.
The Second Amendment was not for hunting. It was to protect against a tyrannical government.
:thumb:
| From my Cold Dead Hands | |
Quetzal
New member
Well, I mean, if you and your AR-15 want to go try to take on the most powerful military force this world has ever known, I certainly won't stop you.
:yawn: Red Herring
We vote and in a small way are therefore responsible for those in office and all that the do. Lk 19:13
Quetzal
New member
Say what you want, but you are the one who is suggesting that your second amendment rights will protect you from the government, not me.:yawn: Red Herring
We vote and in a small way are therefore responsible for those in office and all that the do. Lk 19:13
PureX
Well-known member
Sounds like the founders were in favor of gun regulation. Someone might want to inform the gun lobby that the right to bear arms doesn't include any idiot who thinks he needs to be his own government and army.
Last edited:
PureX
Well-known member
Everyone who's shot up a school, shopping mall, theatre, restaurant, post office or court room with guns he bought and carried around legally because we DON'T properly regulate the sales, ownership, and right to carry guns. It's a long list, and growing longer every year. As is the list of the dead children and adults these idiots leave in their wake.
lain:
I await your list of curtailments for the First Amendment (which was not written with "our time" in mind either). :yawn:
Sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about. :yawn:
The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment.
PureX
Well-known member
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
We can interpret this in two ways:
1. Because the U.S. did not have an organized military established to defend it, a standby militia made up of armed free citizens was necessary. And therefor, so was the citizen's need/right to keep and bear arms.
2. Because free citizens need to maintain the right and the ability to control and even possibly overthrow their own governments to maintain their freedom, their right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed, particularly by their government.
The use of the phrase "a well regulated militia" would certainly imply the former interpretation, rather then the latter. However, we know that the founders did believe in the right of the people to control, and to even overthrow their governments, when necessary, to preserve their own freedom. At the time, this would have been an automatic possibility when the only military force the government had access to was a militia made up of free citizens. Now days, however, the government maintains it's own standing military, which we HOPE would act on behalf of the people in a clash with their own government, but that is not intended nor set up to do so.
So that now days, that second interpretation, even though probably nor originally intended, has a lot more import than it would have at the time it was written.
All this aside, however, it is in no one best interest to arm criminals, fools, idiots, drunks, dope fiends, rage-mongers, and the otherwise blind and/or insane. So clearly, regardless of how we interpret the Constitution, some intelligent regulation is both wise and necessary.
We can interpret this in two ways:
1. Because the U.S. did not have an organized military established to defend it, a standby militia made up of armed free citizens was necessary. And therefor, so was the citizen's need/right to keep and bear arms.
2. Because free citizens need to maintain the right and the ability to control and even possibly overthrow their own governments to maintain their freedom, their right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed, particularly by their government.
The use of the phrase "a well regulated militia" would certainly imply the former interpretation, rather then the latter. However, we know that the founders did believe in the right of the people to control, and to even overthrow their governments, when necessary, to preserve their own freedom. At the time, this would have been an automatic possibility when the only military force the government had access to was a militia made up of free citizens. Now days, however, the government maintains it's own standing military, which we HOPE would act on behalf of the people in a clash with their own government, but that is not intended nor set up to do so.
So that now days, that second interpretation, even though probably nor originally intended, has a lot more import than it would have at the time it was written.
All this aside, however, it is in no one best interest to arm criminals, fools, idiots, drunks, dope fiends, rage-mongers, and the otherwise blind and/or insane. So clearly, regardless of how we interpret the Constitution, some intelligent regulation is both wise and necessary.
If one supports the Second Amendment (Lk 22:36), he's :CRASH: a terrorist. :idunno:
Last edited: