BamaD
Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
Never stops amazing me the number of people that simply have no idea what the 2nd Amendment actually is and isnt. You do not have an unlimited right to firearms. Not the caliber, size, model, make, or color. In fact, the amendment itself never talks about the individual having control of the firearm outside their duties of being part of "A well regulated militia...". There were plenty of hunters whom either used their firearm or similar one, for their militia duties as part of a US Citizen. "...The right to bear arms..." is related to one's being in a militia as both a perk and responsibility of owning a firearm. But being in a militia was not all about "beer, guns, and horsing around" like many 'militias' operating in the country do (they are called clubs). A member of a standing militia in good standing with the state they belong to, are required to handle ANY problems their commanding officer(s) order them (including the governor). If a food right were to take place, the governor could order the militia to put down the rioters. Those that failed to follow orders, didnt have ownership of their arms for long (the penalty process in a regulated organization).
So what rights do the US Citizens have? Well, that's entirely left up to the individual states. Those in a militia, must keep their musket, rifle, or shotgun in very good working order. With a collection of ammo (back in the late 19th century, it was 46 rounds), and a day's food/water. They drilled every other saturday on the town's common, and reported to a higher rank individual for all instructions. If a individual was found to be misusing their arm, they were punished. These militias, would one day form the ground work for most local police departments across the nation.
But in the last few decades, the 2nd amendment's meaning has been distorted, corrupted, and even had its meaning ignored or changed. The US Supreme Court has even screwed up the understanding and further making the ordinary citizen's understanding of the 2nd even harder to fathom. An yes, the US Supreme Court has screwed up on things in the past, to simply show they are fully capabile of screwing stuff up. Only in this case, the screw up affects tens of millions of Americans on a daily basis.
So what is the early state view on the 3rd part of the 2nd Amendment? The part that states "...the right to bear arms..."? Back in "The Old Days", the belief was not to have all the arms of a town in one location. For if that location was destroyed (flood, fire, indians, foreign invaders, etc), the town's ability to protect itself would be greatly undermined. So the idea of having citizens, whom were part of the militia in good standing, to have their arms at their dwellings. If the call was put out to form the militia, each person could come ready to handle what ever the situtation. The founding fathers even expressed this concept. They did not have any way of knowing how firearms would evolve over time. How many of them would have made the 2nd more specific, if they could see some of the 'infantry' weapons in 2012? A musket that can fire 30-50 balls in the span of a few short seconds, over distances twice or three times as far as their era of weapons? And that it was possible for one 'infantry' weapon to kill many persons?
The 2nd amendment has to be dealt with sooner or later. Its original meaning is quite different than how many of you view things. So why was its meaning changed exactly?
On the subject of trusting goverment? It is composed almost entirely by US Citizens. It doesnt do a perfect job, but then, are you objectively and realistically expecting it to? If one does not trust the goverment, why are they a citizen of it? Since the US Goverment is "Of the People, By the People, For the People'. If that is not true in your opinion, renounce your citizenship and go live else where in the world of a few years. Most people will say this country operates much better than any other nation in the world. The goverment has helped friends and family of mine in life on all sections. Some are farms, other joined the US Military. Others went to college, and a few started successful companies. All of us learned our first twelve years of formal education through goverment subsized buildings called 'schools'. Even provide help in snow removal during the winter. During each disaster (man-made or nature), the goverment has done the best it can to help the situation improve. Its allowed companies to flourish, while watching out for the little guy. Its kept us safe from invasion, while giving us a modern Shakespear'en view on politics. Thanks to the US Goverment, the internet, to which your using right this very moment, was THEIR CREATION!
If you dont trust the goverment, why be part of it? Whether you know it or not, are part of that goverment. Just because you dont pull a salary or wage from it, doesnt mean your not part of it. At any time, you could press the goverment to change itself. You can even ask the goverment to change laws you feel go 'against the grain' of the US Consitution (thankts to the 1st amendment). An unlike other goverments, it will not try to silence your words or speechs unless said words or speechs cross the line beyond what is a reasonable degree of freedom. Even then, you are afforded the ability to challenge the same goverment in court. If you dont like how goverment handles somethings, its up to you, to do something about it. Did you vote in the last election? If not, than you really have nothing to bitch about until atleast the mid term elections!
They alsofaliled to invision TV radio, social media and wolrd wide news organizationadoesthis mean that the first isalso obsolete. as for the rest of your argument I already debunked it in another thread and won't waste time repeating myself.
|
RE: Thread 1,000,001/ Can we trust our government/the p... - .gif){kind=avatar}
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread