davep wrote:The whole point of the 2nd amendment is to be able to provide resistance to the Government. Banning guns without a peaceful use goes counter to the heart of that no matter what you may think of guns.
Sure, there should be some tightening of the law to stop the mentally ill or felons getting their hands on guns in gun fairs etc. Maybe insisting guns are properly stored when not carried (to avoid having children/intruders get hold of them). And some basic marksmanship/safety training for any potential militia-man would appear to be a minimum level to ensure you don't blow your own foot off (and potentially to remove some of the mystique surrounding guns). And if somebody threatens to use their guns on another, the guns should be removed straight away by the police (as they do in Switzerland) to de-escalate the situation.
These are basic common sense and the middle two may not even need to be legislated for if people had common sense. But it's evident that a lot of people don't seem to possess any. Oh, and don't ever get your guns out when you're drunk. Never do it; your judgement is impaired.
ralfy wrote:From what I know, the purpose of the Second is to justify the formation of regulated militias, which at that time was needed because the standing army was small and multiple threats appeared, i.e., fellow whites, invaders, slaves, and native Americans. At the same time, various militias were already in place, including those that operated as slave patrols.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada wrote:
That would be an inaccurate assessment because the usage of the terminology has changed in the two centuries since it was written down.
It is correct to say that all males were expected to train together on the town commons every few months so that they would be prepared if they were called out for an emergency. In the context of 'well regulated' they meant properly self equipped and capable of properly handling a firearm. The 'militia' meant every able bodied male who owned a firearm, nothing more and nothing less. If the mayor/council/governor called up the militia due to an emergency they were required to show up with their own weapon and ammunition to protect the community from any threat, or help out in an emergency.
When the US got involved in World War I they called for volunteers, but not militia, because they wanted to make sure everyone had the same training and used the same weapons with common ammunition. Men who showed up with their personal weapons had to choose either to send their weapons back home and accept the US Army weapons and training, or go home, and quite a few went home. As a result of all the headaches caused the US Government passed the National Guard act where they split the costs of arming and training militia with the state governments. As a result the National Guard has all standard weapons and training, but do not serve on active duty unless called up by the Federal Government. The first time that happened to a large extent was Viet Nam when President Nixon called up and deployed National Guard to ease the requirements to draft manpower for the war. National Guard and Reserve units have served in every conflict since then that was more than a few weeks in duration.
However the individual right to keep and bare arms is an individual right that has never been disputed by the Supreme Court, even when it had a majority Liberal membership. You have the right to self defense, it is a natural right that every lifeform on the planet has. If you go into an arena and fight a bull and get killed the Bull does not get 'blamed' for defending itself, and if someone breaks into your home or accosts you on the street you have the right to fight back. In almost all cases self defense is recognized as a valid reason for use of deadly force.
Newfie wrote:I guess where I am sitting on this issue is this......
There is a certain element (or lements) within our population that make me nervous. I would like to see their gun ownership restricted.
However I see no decent way to do so, it would be an unfair prejudice.
Nor do I see a way to adequately ban certain types of guns. It reminds me of the old judge who said he could recognize pornography when h saw it but not otherwise define it.
Then there is the question of enforcement. We can't keep drugs out of prisons, how can we expect to control guns.
My Wife was relating to me hoe in Germany folks are, or were, expected to report to the police when they move, even within a city. Hard to imagine that level of control here. Perhaps gun control is easier elsewhere because folks are more compliant and used to being under government control.
So it seems that gun ownership is rising, the desire for control weakening. Ownership of anti personnel type weapons is increasing while hunting is decreasing. Laws are being flouted and trust in the government is decreasing.
Sounds like a bad B movie setup.
Revi wrote:They just passed a law in my state that allows anyone to concealed carry unless they are a felon or mentally ill. I really don't feel any safer. I suppose it is the way it is nowadays, but I would love to live somewhere where I don't have to worry about every altercation turning into some kind of a shootout. It would be nice...
Revi wrote:I feel a lot safer now, thanks...
Return to Geopolitics & Global Economics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests