An Armed Citizenry: The Realization of the Second Amendment (opinion)

THe term "Well Regulated Militia" is a term many people have a problem with, and it stems from a change of usage of the term "regulated". Simply put, it meant trained. A well trained militia. next, the definition of militia. People falsely claim the national Guard is the militia referred to. Not so. There were two militias by definition at the time of the BoR. The regular militia, which met, usually monthly, to train, often in the village sguare. It could be used by the governor of the state for things like Indian uprisings. It could be used by the mayor as a trained posse. Or it could be loaned to the federal government for national defense. Then, there was the irregular militia. Which was every able bodied man, 16 to 45, who was or vowed he would like to be a citizen, and announced he would be there to defend his country. BOTH militias used privately owned weapons, and often had to supply their own ammunition. Cannons were often the private property of one or two of the officers, or they might be owned by the town or county. Rarely were they owned by the state. Nowadays, since women are full citizens (something they weren't back in the day) they can also be members of either militia. Also, with advances in health and longevity, people may remain active in the militia longer.

However, all of this is moot, due to the follow up phrase. The Supreme Court has ruled in excess of 1000 times in many different cases pertaining to the phrase "The People" that ANY time it is used, it refers to an individual right. NOT a right of city, county, state, or federal government. To each and every single individual citizen. Therefore, the phrase "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed" renders each and every gun control law ever enacted un-Constitutional. From the Sullivan Act, to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (banning machinegun ownership without massive taxes and licensing fees) to GCA'68 which curbed mail order sales, and has since expanded to cover everything, to CCWs and the form 4473 the federal government requires to buy a gun. Each and every one of them violate the Constitutionally guaranteed enumerated right contained within the 2nd Amendment.

I'd like to point something out. A while ago, a sweet young lady with a lot of attitude got into several arguments with me over gun rights. She detested the idea of them, and thought they should be banned from ownership by civillians, and limited solely to mlitary and law enforcement. But she asked questions, she listened to the answers, then she went out and looked for more info on her own. She has since changed her mind on the 2nd Amendment, and become a staunch defender of ALL rights. And you are reading her article. I'm proud to think I might have had something to do with changing her mind. And I welcome her to the club.

I'd like to point something out. A while ago, a sweet young lady with a lot of attitude got into several arguments with me over gun rights. She detested the idea of them, and thought they should be banned from ownership by civillians, and limited solely to mlitary and law enforcement. But she asked questions, she listened to the answers, then she went out and looked for more info on her own. She has since changed her mind on the 2nd Amendment, and become a staunch defender of ALL rights. And you are reading her article. I'm proud to think I might have had something to do with changing her mind. And I welcome her to the club.

I had the same run ins with that young lady....and yes there is lots of attitude....and a bunch of intelligence too.. I welcome her to the cause of freedom.

peace.

I don't know about more eloquent Polka. Your article explained the whole Second Amendment situation about as well as I've ever heard it done. On a theoretical level, it was superb. On a practical level, it may be a bit (just a little bit) over the top. I can't possibly fault that though. To use a baseball analogy; if you're not swinging for the fence, you'll never hit any triples. Also to crunch together two great movie quotes, "Welcome back to the fight. This looks like the beginning of a beautiful friendship". Oops, now I'm going to have to shut this thing off and watch Casablanca again. I love that movie. The friendship part did remind me of something though. You should shortly have something in your E-Mail. (thirty seconds later) It didn't take as long as I thought. FR should be there.

I know this is a bit off track but there are states trying to do to voting rights what has been done to gun ownership rights: regulate it to death with fees for permits and endless forms.

And recently congress has been trying ( and succeeding ) to undermine all our (bill of) rights.

Polka,

I wish you had been one of my students in American government or American History. I always loved having students there who would THINK. It always made the classes much more interesting to teach.

One thing that I've noticed is that you're not a member of either the Gun Group or the Cut and Shoot Club. Since I'm admin of both groups (both started by Neale), you're about to receive invitations to both of them. I think you'll find lots of interesting articles there as well as some very nice people.

The only problem I have with voting rules is NOT requiring proof of citizenship to vote. Until we fix our immigration system (and if you haven't heard me on this ine befroe, it sure as HELL ain't something the right wing would like if I got MY way!), illegal aliens MUST be keptb from voting for the very people trying to give them taxpayer funded goodies. However, a voter ID MUST be free of charge to the recipient, even though taxpayers will pay for it in the long run, because even the poorest people get to vote. And I also want direct election of the president. Eliminate the Electoral College. DAMN!! Got off topic again. Sorry again, Polka!

The whole problem with that suggestion Neale is that, not only will we have to provide those ID's free of charge, they'll then require tax payers to get them to the facility that provides the ID. It's been argued on this site many times. At what point do you finally say " a person is responsible for themselves"? I don't understand how anybody can get through a week without an ID today. If you told these poor folks that they couldn't get assistance without ID, I'd bet they'd find a way to get it.

Sorry I followed Neale off topic Polka.

I got a voter card when I registered. It's not an ID since it has no picture. They cross reference it to their database and check off the name. It seems like a smart system. I don't have to produce picture ID, but if asked I wouldn't mind showing it. If I don't have one, the question is, should I be denied a vote. Ferrying folks to the booths is difficult to stomach. It leads to more corruption, like 'free rides for votes'.

They are not being denied a vote if they can't get to the polls located in their town. But they have to be responsible for getting there. Now, if all the polls are located 30 miles from town, that would be a legitimate complaint. But face it, with the exception of people living in the boonies, the polls are nearly always within a mile or two.

Neale, I have found it easier to get them to understand regulated if you say "capable". Capable includes both the training and the possession of arms and munitions.

It is unlikely that this government will acquiesce on automatic weapons w/o license or explosives w/o license. But I also believe that the arms the citizens do possess are sufficient to capture whatever we need in phases.

I am not going to change the definition of the time, Lee, or else I do exactly what the people claiming "well regulated" grants the government the right to license firearms.

That being said, I DO happen to subscribe to the old adage "A pistol gets you a shotgun gets you a rifle gets you a machinegun gets you......." It's just like the old "Liberator" pistols GM made for the US to drop on occupied countries in WWII. They cost $1.27 each, and came with a comic strip showing how to load the gun, sneak up to Mr. Nazi, shoot him in the back of the head, and take his Luger. Then, pass the gun on to a friend to repeat the process. They came with 7 rounds. We dropped a million of them, and many were put to their intended use. Of course, I plan to start out a bit better armed than that!!

Neale, "capable" does not change the definition, it just makes it easier for neophytes to understand.

Quite likely Polka. Not too many pistols around where you have to poke a stick down the muzzle in order to eject the empty case. The barrels were made from black steel water pipe and had no rifling (if you're going to shoot it at a range of two feet, who needs rifling, or sights for that matter). Essentially, they were glorified zip guns.

I feel embarassed that I did not know about the liberator pistol...and that we dropped a million of them.

damn the public school system.....

that said...I want one.....anyone own one??

I think I would trust a knife over that pitiful little handgun.

Not that pitiful. If you could get close enough to make a hit, it was chambered for the .45 ACP cartridge. It would hit hard, if you could make it hit at all.

I feel embarassed that I did not know about the liberator pistol...and that we dropped a million of them.

They really weren't that well known. Only reason I knew something about them is that my American History teacher in high school was an officer in the 101st Airborne and my college Pol. Sci. professor flew Mosquito bombers for the OSS. They were one of the things he dropped.

I read a bit more into it....I guess there was no documented instances of it actually being used for its purpose......that it really wasnt dropped in Germany..but was dropped in china and the Philippines.

interesting...also they cost about 1200.....500 for the box and 2000 for paperwork related to it.

maybe I wont be getting one!!!!!!

there was also one called the deer gun for vietnam..much more rare.

hmmmmmmmmmm

another site says they cost up to 5000 original and reproductions are being made and sold for 600.

goodness.

But it seems to me that it would be difficult to use without rifling. Rifling determines that the projectile flies straight. If someone needed to get within several feet to use it like a handgun of the 18th century then I would see it as a problem.

Sure it would Polka, but remember that the people who were supposed to use them hadn't handled many firearms before since they had strict gun control. They couldn't hit anything at over a couple of feet anyway. They were designed to sneak up on a sentry or other soldier who was alone and unsuspecting. Then they would be used in place of a knife. Most of these people didn't know how to use a knife either and this was easier to learn quickly.

Marshall,

I can certainly believe the cost inflation process. That's what happens when you use cost plus a percentage as a payment method. The reported cost always gets inflated. Did you know that the M-3 submachine gun (an excellent replacement for the Thompson) cost only $12.50 to make? The Thompson cost over $150. You can bet that the savings didn't get passed alone.

Polka - this is a great article. Nice job. Can't agree with it all. Used to shoot skeet too (fun). The breath control, the eye hand coordination. Personally rewarding. I still want a standing army for foreign invasion. My cousin was a policeman. He once told me in a discussion, that his job was to protect me. He meant it as stand up for the citizens. He would have led one of your militias. I think there are many more police who are honest and honorable than you are giving credit.
I think the idea for an area to have a militia would be unwieldy. It would take up a lot of time to keep a motor pool at the ready. People do work. But I am all for every citizen being allowed their right to bear arms, without licenses.
There is a book author who studied gun ownership in different states...those that allow everyone to be armed and those that forbid it. I'm sure you know who I'm talking about. Crime went down in the states with the fewest gun controls. This should be the national norm.
I fear the UN. I've heard rumors that foreign military may actually come to our shores to 'assist'. In what I don't know. Just as soon the UN be unhere. Sorry if that is off topic.

We are being invaded as you speak. Not only from the south but from the Middle East as well. The whole world knows it would be literally impossible to invade the United States militarily because of all the gun ownership. That is what is meant by a standing militia. So the invasion that is going on is an invasion of attrition. They come here and have their children which they indoctrinate who in turn have children and so on. Eventually you end up having to learn a different language in your own neighborhood, you have to worry about keeping your head on your shoulders in certain neighborhoods and hope your wives sons and daughters are not stolen and sold into sexual slavery because the perpetrators religion allows them to.

The problem is not so much the language it's the culture. Foreigners in these days don't want to learn the American culture. Some of them want to inflict their culture upon us. They are guests here they shouldn't be trying to make the rules. They came here for a better life so let them adapt to our culture to get that better life.

It reads like right wing anti-multiculturalism nonsense to me.

Really? Logical has a good point.... Many people nowadays want access to their native language and familiar situations. When you hear in the news of people being here for 10+ years, still cannot speak english, and yet demand that we conform to their view or else we prove that we are racist barbarians. It makes you think that that person is not here for the American dream since they can barely contribute to American culture because they will can truly function only within groups that speak their language, and have little interaction outside those groups. Then what is the line? I can support a person if he/she wants to live the dream to the fullest, but they have to prove they are willing to meet me halfway if I do the same. And that means being here legally, take the time to know the history of the country, meet a standard to show they are able to function within our society, and then be welcome as a full citizen of the country and bring their life experience to add to the melting pot to widen the American experience. But that hasn't been happening over the last few decades, more people that come here demand their culture be respected while slamming American culture.

actually polka it hasnt always been that way. as we have become less free...and government become more intrusive....they have catered to those of foreign languages ....which of course is forcing its will upon the people and a violation of our rights.

if we had freedom as we did in the past...the immigrants try much harder to assimilate out of necessity....when you are getting assistance.....there is no desire to better yourself or change.

while I believe people have the right to speak whatever language they want....a government that forces its values on the public is destroying our productive capapcity by making it harder for us to communicate effectively.

peace.

sure

I had some business to attend to at the social security office. the person who attended to me was unable to speak english.

I was therefore unable to accomplish the business at hand until someone else showed up. The government cannot discriminate.....and because of that must hire people who cannot speak english. Like it or not english is the predominate language in this country...when you have government employees who cannot speak english..then you have a government that is not able to communicate.

besides...you are missing the point....with the welfare system..that violates every americans rights.....it caters to those who are poor so they do not change.....the poor can stay poor...etc.

so that while it is great that we care for those who come to this country...but by so forcing me to care for them...they choose to isolate themselves and live off of others.

I know Romanians in the seattle area who do just that....I was related to them by marriage...some of them had been here since the 80's when they defected as the country was communist.......they still cant speak english...and these are not stupid people...but they do get money from the government......off and on.....when they off it....they work in their own community that has been built up.

I do not understand how this is even a debate. Welfare has proven to make people stagnant...and it has affected immigrants.

my computer keeps erasing my posts and I am getting pissed....I have written a response twice...and both got erased.

most immigrants when they come here are poor.....if they get into the system then they never feel the need to learn english....if no one speaks the same languge it can lead to a breakdown of order

imagine trying to run a military where no one understood what the others were saying????

in regards to requiring english to work.....its not discrimination but a standard....much like education...everyone has the right to learn english.....they can or cannot...but a government requires if they are hiring a rocket scientist..that they get someone with the required education.

but we have gotten so crazy with our PC that it is another thing that is bringing us down.

Polka, there are approximately 6500 liviing languages. The government must hire all the people necessary to cover them all? At every location? State? Local? Federal? We don't have that many citizens.

polka

I am not calling for english to be made the official language....Teddy Roosevelt was the first to do that I believe.

What I am saying is that with freedom this wouldnt even be a topic of discussion.

Polka, you said

Government has a responsibility to have communication available too all citizens and many do not speak English

Just using your figure of 330 languages, based upon the 61,000 government offices, we would need over 20 million government employees just to insure communications are available to everyone. Want to take another look at your position?

I did. That's where I got your number of 330. Have a nice night.

Yes, I did not want to harp on the inconsistencies of your posts. It is the danger you court when you think in absolutes.

I am 'of the opinion' that an official language is important, but that government has no business being involved. We all use some native tongue, but to enable communication, we should know some common tongue. English has become a De facto official language, but Latin and ancient Greek 'Koine' have also filled the bill in the past.

In view of the importance of the Rosetta Stone as a translating device in historical context, the ability to transcend languages is a larger priority than simply declaring an official language. Government's role would be more appropriately exercised by encouraging cross-seeding of languages rather than attempting to dictate what languages are appropriate. I would consider this role to be appropriate under the 'promote general welfare' clauses.

but you would be much safer.

Robert Heinlein: Everyone should be armed. Sure you would lose a lot of people during the adjustment period--but you would end up with a very polite society...

Which is great--if you make it through the adjustment period, and can shoot well.

Stuff like this makes me feel even LESS safe. We're getting into wacky territory here, and I don't think it sound good for the country AT ALL. (This comment was down at 10). I don't support this.

I really don't. And personally speaking, a country where everyone walks around armed and dangerous makes me a little sick.

Well, if it makes you feel better.... But don't infringe on others right to carry just because you don't like it.

Stuff like this makes me feel even LESS safe.

Sometimes you have to look at something with a little humor.

Consider that gun owners know their responsibilities when they posses their legally owned weapons.

Consider that the majority of gun violence is done by those who did so with illegally owned weapons in the commission of a crime, then a increase in legal gun owners willing to use force to stop them would not be all that bad of a thing.

People have been demonizing guns for longer then I've been alive, passing laws that restrict or outright ban gun ownership, as well as calling gun owners nuts, wackos, and numerous other names. And what has happened? Crime and shootings went up. Right now, the states and cities that have relaxed their stance on gun ownership have either seen their stats stay the same, or more likely drop. More studies are being done, but one thing that all the studies brought up was that the more the population was armed, the greater the drop.

Well, I have to disagree a little here. The founders were acutely aware of all forms of government and how they could be corrupted. They knew that unless our rights were unalienable, and we protected and demanded our rights, even this Constitution would not be enough to deter a government that, by its nature, craves ever more power. It uses benevolent traps to gather and consolidate that power. The founders warned us. Too many haven't bothered to listen.

They could have never envisioned our nation adopting imperial ideals or entering into military alliances with other nations

Actually Polka, not only did they envision it, George Washington specifically warned against it in his Farewell Address. A very wise and far seeing man.

I do not think the founding fathers envisioned automatic weapons and other hand weapons design for mass destruction.

Actually Bloger, the Second Amendment doesn't deal with specific types of weaponry at all. That's what makes it so relevant today. The concept embodied by the Second Amendment and the viewpoint held by the people who drafted it is that the population should be at least as well armed as the government, no matter what the current state of weapons design is involved. If the government forces are armed with flintlock muskets, the people should have as many or more flintlock muskets. If the government forces are armed with tanks, artillery and combat aircraft, the people should have as many or more of them.

do not think the founding fathers envisioned automatic weapons and other hand weapons design for mass destruction.

At the time there will still large cannons and they were not banned though they could certainly do fair amounts of damage.

While true they may not have envisioned automatic weapons, that would be true for the military as well as the citizens. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is that the people can defend themselves against a military occupation, therefor I think they would reason that matching weapons should also be a right.

Standard issue infantry weapons should be the right if the citizens to own and carry. That was the point of the constitution.

I wouldnt put any wager on 'never'.

But they could have never envisioned our government actually working to overthrow democratically elected leaders overseas. They could have never envisioned our nation adopting imperial ideals or entering into military alliances with other nations or dismantling our Constitution and everything it stands for.

I cannot quote the exact text but I think there is something mentioned in the constitution about humble foreign policy.

I would. Any nation that attacks us risks a nuclear counterattack or at least the total destruction of their nation.

Unless that nation is itself a nuclear power, which incidentally, the only nations with a chance at pulling off an invasion are in fact nuclear powers...

Polka - 7.1 - well said.

Mike - 7.11 - I think we have foreign insurgents here now that need careful watching.

A state of civilian control over our armed resources would be better then a military dictatorship.

as proven repeatedly in Africa, and the old west, and eastern europe after the fall of the Soviets, afghanistan, where the Taliban and warlords ruled by local militia.

You can use anything you want.

really? you;re okay with your neighbor owning a bioweapon? or a briefcase nuke. perhaps locked up in the garage slowly contaminating the neighborhood?

this just proves the ridiculous lack of thought put into this position.

A volunteer, unregulated, local militia with access to high grade military equipment confiscated from the current US army.. yeah, if that's not a recipe for warlords and violence and terror I don't know what is.

can I own a bio-weapon? how about a briefcase nuke? no? well then you just regulated my right to arms.

If you look into the history behind the 2nd amendment you would see that 'arms' typically refers to those that a typical soldier would be required to carry (or bear) to the battlefield.

During the Revolutionary War, General Washington encountered numerous problems but primarily lack of money for equipment and supplies (including firearms) and lack of trained personnel. The problem with the lack of training was not that many didn't have formal military training, but that many didn't have ANY experience using firearms. He was literally starting from scratch.

England has had a history of disarming citizens and the popular belief is that 'everybody had a gun' during colonial times. While many did, this is simply untrue.

The right to bear arms exists for the right of the citizens to defend themselves and that they can be called upon if necessary to defend the country. The 2nd amendment pertains to weapons that would be considered standard military infantry issue. By today's standards that would generally be an automatic rifle of some sort and usually a semi automatic sidearm.

It would NOT cover biological, nuclear or other mass destruction NON defensive weapons. I call them non defensive because the effects of their use goes far beyond stopping any imminent threat and would be virtually impossible to avoid collateral damage.

Mike, sorry, but you are wrong. ANY weapon the government has the civillians must have. If Uncle Sam has bioweapons (which we don't), and civvies don't, then they can use them to subjugate us. You are confusing the terms "Small Arms" (which fit your definition) and "Arms", which are ALL weapons, of any type. From slingsot (the assault rifle of the Roman Empire) to the F-22 Raptor Jet Fighter. If the government gets to decide what arms we may have, we are the government's subjects, rather than masters.

The funny thing about George Washington and his farewell address is that he warned us against HIM! The Whiskey Rebellion, quelled by GW, using federal troops, was an example of the government enforcing it's desires against we, the people, using a standing army. So don't say it can't happen here. It already has, by the man most of us revere as a near saint.

The Constitution would remain as the law of the land throughout the nation without exception.

the Constitution requires the maintenance of a Navy and army by the feds and state militias. Article 1 section 8. you are contradicting yourself.

the 2nd say "no laws restricting" which would mean any and all weapons. and the tech to build a bioweapon or briefcase nuke is not difficult. its getting the actual bio agent or plutonium that's hard. But its only hard because of government control.

I agree that citizens should be able to own rifles and pistols if they want. but this is too far in the other direction.

do non-sentient life forms have rights? can we not force anti-viral meds (also life forms) to kill viruses (also life forms)?

so you want to disregard the part of the constitution you don't like? I understand.

you said disregard above.

tell me, if every local government had control of arms but no central control by the feds and someone attacked us (russia, china, mexico.. it doesn't matter, an enemy) how would we coordinate our defense during those all important first hours?

as far as refuting, its an opinion/philosophy so I don't if it can be refuted, but my point about viruses remains. as does most of our research. we kill simple organisms every day. and use them to kill other simple organisms. you're legal argument (that we could restrict bio weapons due to their natural rights not be used that way) would set a precedent ending most medical research and practice.

Obviously, forms of life that are not self aware and which are incapable of feeling pain, essentially anything below the level of mammals, have no rights whatsoever. Those above that level and below that of human intelligence have the right to be treated in a humane manner and not caused unnecessary pain, and no other rights. Certainly, that is a human centered evaluation presented by a member of the dominant species and could be argued (in a separate article), but if the other species wish to argue it, let them sign up and post on that article to do so.

I mean we should eliminate it. The Constitution can be changed and we should if we wanted to eliminate armed forces of the central government and relocate it to the People on a local level.

It is not necessary to eliminate the standing Army, nor would a Constitutional Amendment be required. From the very first until WWII, the US maintained a small standing army which was used as a cadre to train and lead a large citizen Army during times of war. That system was used to fight every war the US fought until after WWII and it worked quite well. It was legal under the Constitution then and would be so now. When the Constitution was signed, the population was approximately ten million and the standing army was about ten thousand, or about one soldier per one hundred thousand citizens. A law passed by Congress limiting the standing Army to that ratio would be all that was needed. That, of course, would be strictly for peacetime; during wartime, it could be increased as needed and shrunk again after the war, as it was the case after every war we have fought. The Navy and Strategic Air Force are another matter. Neither of them are designed or would be particularly useful for the suppression of our own population and the equipment of both is expensive and complex, requiring professionals to use it. Neither could be expanded quickly in the event of war (in WWII it required three years to do so), so they should be left pretty much as is. They are most useful for dealing with external threats anyway.

now that is logical.

Opps, sorry folks. The correct ratio would be 1:1000, not 1:100000. That's what comes of doing mental math. That ratio, in the present day with a population of one hundred and fifty million people, would give you a standing Army of about one hundred and fifty thousand, or about one fifth of it's present size.

No nation will ever attack us again as we possess nuclear weapons and the capabilities to use them.

and who would control the ICBMs if there is no standing military?

If we were isolationist then no one would attack us as we would have no enemies and no need to fight foreigners.

LOL. tell that to pre WW2 Belgium and Checkoslovakia and France. Tell that to Mexico who used to own the SW. Or Kuwait before the first Gulf War. or the Tibetans. Maybe you can explain tot he afghanis why the Soviets invaded.

and curious, by isolationist, do you mean true isolationists?.. no trading or diplomacy.. cuz that would be bad for us economically.

or do you mean non-interventionist?... trade and diplomacy but no foreign military ops. which would be plausible.

TTGA, the population is north of 300,000,000.

State governments or the federal government. It would belong to the People.

that's a military. weapons and trained staff organized and operate by the government on behalf of the people. we own everything the government possess, from the parks to the white house to the ICBMs.

We have nuclear weapons and can use them against any enemy.

and if they are all state owned? should NV be overwhelmed by a Mexico in an overnight attack, will Texas fire Nukes on neighboring Mexico? Will Colorado volunteers fight for NV? can you be sure?

your plan is oddly naive on one hand and overly skeptical on the other. You trust your neighbor to be responsible with an automatic weapon, and to defend you in a worst case scenario, but you don't trust you government, elected by your neighbors, to defend you. Although the US government has never, ever declared martial law on the nation. And is Constitutionally forbidden from using troops to police the nation.

you fear something that has never happened, in America, while not showing any concern for the terrible tragedies weapons cause on a daily basis.

Lee,

OK, that would give us a standing army of about 300,000 then. Plenty of cadre and even small expeditionary forces as needed.

State governments or the federal government. It would belong to the People.

The Federal Government just as it is now. Such weapons are totally useless for suppressing a population. They can only be used for external threats. It would be pure insanity for any government to try to suppress it's own population by blowing half of the country into radioactive slag. There's no government on the planet that's that stupid.

Mike, sorry, but you are wrong.

I am? Sorry Neale, we are usually on the same page but I cannot agree with you here. Again I refer to the history behind the 2nd amendment dating back to the middle ages and later when soldiers were required to bring their own weapons. There were required to bring what they could carry, not battle ships.

Also, once again. Nuclear and bio weapons are not defensive in nature and that IS the point of the 2nd amendment, DEFENSE. Too, things like weaponized jets are not arms one can BEAR, as per the 2nd amendment. The 2nd, by historical context of it's phrases, is limited to small personal arms, not those of which that take teams to operate.

That said though, you DO have rights to own an F22 if you so wish but you're going to have to figure out the design and build it yourself since they're not for sale.

Mike, the 2nd Amendment isn't about defensive actions. It's about being able to throw off ANY government that makes the foolish mistake of trying to ignore the wishes of the people.

It's about being able to throw off ANY government that makes the foolish mistake of trying to ignore the wishes of the people.

Yea, DEFENSE against tyranny. Sorry but nuclear and bio weapons cannot 'target' government agents. They are indiscriminate and imprecise.

Polka - have to agree with someone way back there about the bioweapon, and suitcase nuke... My biggest problem is that towns do have bullies. Years ago there was a case where a man was killed and the killers couldn't be brought to justice because the entire town took part. the man was an overbearing menace. There is always going to be someone who thinks they should lead, and they have a personal agenda. We should have a militia, we should have personal weapons. But I want police I can call. Originally only the wealthy had paid people to protect them. Everyone else was on their own. We have to consider crime and someone to investigate invasions/robbery that take place when we aren't home. And I want the coast guard, who also rescue and catch gun runners and drug dealers, and a military that is looking outward and tending to airplanes, motor pools etc, full time, who are well trained, and the national guard who also step in to help against looters in flood areas, and look for people on roof tops to rescue. This is a very big country. I would be leery of one town having a gripe with another. It isn't a stretch to imagine. And a farmer between 2 towns, how does he decide with whom to side if it's his field being trampled over some petty disagreement. I don't like to say this, but your plan is somewhat utopian, to imagine that everyone is reasonable. I like the thought, just know there are a lot of unreasonable biligerent people out there. And in a city, there would be more than one militia...think gangs taking advantage of getting to call themselves a militia...with no restrictions and armed.

The thing is, we're not looking for perfection, but a better way of getting there. You're on it, Polka.

The founders were looking towards establishing a more perfect union.

As in "more perfect" than the one they left but not "perfect" in the sense it can always be improved upon and has been.

F of A- We couldn't do it in one lump, but we WOULD need to do it over a couple years. VERY FEW years, like 2-4 MAX. But blood would NOT run in the gutters. and Heinlein NEVER said it the way you put it. He Actually had the armed society evolve out of "The Crazy Years" when people had been disarmed by various governments, society had broken down, and crime ran rampant while courts let criminals off for violent crimes while punishing "marality" crimes....... Sounds like we are going into the Crazy Years.

Read "Beyond These Horizons" if you want to see his polite society.

Two movies that entertain and make aware:
Laurel and Hardy "Utopia", also known as "Atoll K" and
"Strange Holiday" with, I think, Claude Rains.

Which is great--if you make it through the adjustment period, and can shoot well.

You can say that again.

BTW, I shoot well and I have close combat experience. Heinlein wrote 'Starship Troopers' on my behalf because he felt that I could have a positive impact on a society that desires citizenship without responsibility. I told him it would be OK, but don't let Neale know about it until it comes out on Blue-Ray.

G from Godly-

I agree that the goverment has gained too much control, but it is by the consent of those who don't want to make decisions for themselves, or want the responsibility of taking control of their own lives.

Very perceptive, that it is by the consent (inaction-lack of awareness) of those that don't want to make decisions for themselves- (and) ...(by the consent of those that don't) ...want the responsibility of taking control of their own lives, that the government has gained too much control.

It is way past time to inform more people as to the situation at hand, that the government has too much control, and the necessity to re-balance that situation. Unless we wish to allow our nation to continue to proceed towards a dictatorship, or an all powerful government that allows no freedoms for its people.

The statement you made, that only 3-4 people out of 50-60 you are around have the ability to think for themselves makes me wonder: are you helping them see anything new? Are you helping them see how far off our Government is? Are you helping in any way to shake up their blinders- comfort zone? It is our responsibility- those that DO see, to start shaking the tree!

I do not believe that the 'sleeping at the wheel' group cannot be woke up- just look at me! My awareness of what is happening in America has all been within the past year- before that, I had been too busy just trying to survive economically for the past... years.

People can only be helped one at a time, usually- so start reaching out and do what you are able, or you are guilty too of allowing nothing to improve.

You have to thirst for freedom and self determination or you will not fight for it. We have too few fighters.

are you helping them see anything new?

I don't force my views down their throat, if that's what you are asking. But asked on my opinion on things, I don't hesitate to point out my views on what topic being discussed. And people know where I stand on things. I can't count the number of times that people of dissenting views have blown up in my face verbally when I won't change those views to match their opinion. From work, to posts on the vine, I see too many people who cannot really defend their positions and thoughts without resorting to name calling. Lol, I've been called wacko, nut job, gun freak, extremist so many times that I can pretty much predict what I will be called by how they say/type their arguments. Considering my political/constitutional views, I've come to expect that. But as to knocking them out of their "confort zones," all I do is point out the contradictions in their arguments and the lack of facts in their arguments. That is why I said

I agree with some of the views in your seed, but profoundly disagree with how far you'd take it.

in 12.0. Some of Polka's arguments are valid, but some do not stand of to the reality of the time of the writing of the BOR or present day. I can agree with the goverments restriction on the ownership of tanks and other exotic's, but also agree that the goverment has no right to impose unreasonable restrictions or ban responsible citizens from possessing rifles, semi-automatics, or handguns. If a person is found unfit to have the responsibility (ie: violent criminal or mentally ill,) then that is the only premise that the goverment can restrict them from access. And that is only after certified review by the courts or mental doctors, and on an individual basis not population wide.

lol

I had to give you a little bit of a hard time polka....I will tell you this right now...that article probably got more under my skin than most any article ever here on the vine......you had me dumbfounded and pissed.....dont know why..it obviously was not the most offensive...it just hit me wrong.

I think you see that the true embarassment in our nation is the violation of individual rights....and the results of that.......ie...obesity for one. We have become a nation that believes in trying to stop atrocities before they happen...and when you think that way....it is endless the number of laws that can be established...and the number of people imprisoned will be astronomical...like it is now.

again...just giving you a hard time....

peace.

and in so doing wt would come down.

:)

thanks for the lil off topic discussion.

peace.

seastar, exactly how would that work? What does sensible mean to you? By the way, "regulated" does not mean controlled. Its contemporary usage meant capable.

and if people in the bar are armed...he wouldnt get very far with that chainsaw.

I don't know about now, but this is what they were thinking then:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

— Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

---The Declaration of Independence signed July 4th 1776

These are the reasons they made sure we had a Bill of Rights.

Holy Cow, Mariyam- that reads just about like today, and here and now, and this governing body that we now have...