All Hail the Second Amendment

[Brian37]

Actually, they were talking about "every shithead with a gun" - as they made explicit in the sentence which follows the reference to a well regulated militia.  Not that you can blame them, whatever their reservations about militias were...they just didn't have alot of choice on the soldiering front back in the day...and didn't particularly like the thought of paying professionals or buying equipment.

All irrelevant today, as a living document (is it or isn't it..I can never remember) ofc?

Um no, the "militia" they were talking about then was to guard against insurrection as well as any foreign attempts. And "well regulated" denotes that organization. But I do agree that it is a living document designed so that laws can change with changing times, which means the "regulation" part regardless of a militia argument applies. No other product I can think of gets the same fervor of paranoia to change than gun worshipers give them. We don't have the same regulations today rotary phone technology used. We have all sorts of recalls from cars to toys to medicine if a regulation isn't followed to the point of injury, or is insufficient to protect the public, we update it. I don't see why firearms should be immune to laws, or updating laws like any other product.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why lead in with "um no" like you were disagreeing with -anything at all- in my post...and then suggest that guns shouldn't be immune to laws or updating laws...which they aren't?

[Whateverist]

Because guns are bad and nasty and horrible?

[The Grand Nudger]

I mean other than that, we all know that.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That whole damn post disappeared. Not bothering again.

---

Because guns are bad and nasty and horrible?

You're confusing guns with priests. 

[InsaneDane]

This is a bullshit argument, obviously the founding fathers would be able to imagine that guns in 200 years wouldn't be the same as it was back then.

The 2A isn't about types of guns, it's about the ability of militia to muster with their long guns for drill. This was discussed extensively during the debate over whether to accept the new Constitution or not. 

Since then political gerrymandering has amended the Constitution without allowing the public to have a say.

What do you mean by: "Militia to muster with their long guns for drill."?
You're not referring to the National Guard are you, because they are not a militia?


I don't understand how there can be a debate over accepting a constitution that isn't done by the general public, but solely politicians. Shouldn't there be some sort of vote, that would require like a 90-95% majority to change something as major as the rules and laws that the country was founded upon?

Also - A militia is a civilian group, so I don't understand how there can even talks about it referring to the military, as the entire point of having a well regulated civilian militia, is for it to be able to challenge the authority of the state.

And while the weapons of today, may not be the same, I'd like to see civilians take down a tyrannic state with 22. Long Rifles and bolt action rifles.

And if you look at it from the average civilians side, as much as people would love to have the police be able to respond to your house within 5 minutes, it's unrealistic to think that it would be possible.

Even my own country, Denmark a tiny nation, the police is struggling with responding to a lot of crimes done efficiently.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't understand how there can be a debate over accepting a constitution that isn't done by the general public, but solely politicians. Shouldn't there be some sort of vote, that would require like a 90-95% majority to change something as major as the rules and laws that the country was founded upon?

Not how we're set up, as it lays out in the very same document.  It would take a majority of our representatives, though, to amend.

Also - A militia is a civilian group, so I don't understand how there can even talks about it referring to the military, as the entire point of having a well regulated civilian militia, is for it to be able to challenge the authority of the state.

A militia is a militant group (hence the term), not a civilian group.  Once you take up arms for a cause you cease to be a civilian and become a legitimate target for enemy soldiers.

And while the weapons of today, may not be the same, I'd like to see civilians take down a tyrannic state with 22. Long Rifles and bolt action rifles.

And if you look at it from the average civilians side, as much as people would love to have the police be able to respond to your house within 5 minutes, it's unrealistic to think that it would be possible.

Even my own country, Denmark a tiny nation, the police is struggling with responding to a lot of crimes done efficiently.

I'd rather not see that, myself.  You've just described a great way to -get- more and better weaponry, though.  Call the police, "deal" with the police -with your high powered bolt gun...then take their military issued toys. If you'd like to see what can be done with "outdated" weaponry you need look no further than the many, many insurgencies and assymetric forces that have repeatedly trounced conventional forces throughout the last 60 or 70 years. Armed rebellion is a product with no sell-by date. More specific to the people in question...the US GP is the largest conglomerate of armed this and that's in the world. I wouldn't trust any military's ability to take them on and prevail, not even our own. The United States is completely ungovernable, and strictly un-occupiable, without their consent, complicity, and complacency. We have the terrain, the distance, the ideology, -and the guns-. A good portion of us used to be or currently -are- military...which is to say that we could actually operate captured or re-appropriated military equipment (even the vehicles) that are littered all over the landscape as an effect of cold war up-armament. Not ten miles from me there's a huge depot of tanks, tankers, rotary aircraft, small arms and chemo-bio weapons with nothing but a skeleton crew manning an 8 foot chain link fence. That'd be in the hands of Yall Qaeda in about an hour, and the area is positively infested with them (the crew manning the gates -are- "them").

Long story short..it would be fucking horrible, but it's more than just doable, and a whole lot less than a longshot. The possession of guns is not best argued for by a reference to a tyrannical government (imo), but the negation of that position, or the suggestion that it could not be done is..likewise, not a very compelling or realistic argument -against- the possession of guns.

[Minimalist]

But I do agree that it is a living document designed so that laws can change with changing times, which means the "regulation" part regardless of a militia argument applies.

Actually the militia system was abolished in a series of laws beginning in 1903.  What happened of course was that the Spanish-American War had shown the shortcomings of the militia system.  The National Guard was created in its place with Congress determining the amount of training required for NG units.

So the "living document" killed the militia.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The 2A isn't about types of guns, it's about the ability of militia to muster with their long guns for drill. This was discussed extensively during the debate over whether to accept the new Constitution or not. 

Since then political gerrymandering has amended the Constitution without allowing the public to have a say.

What do you mean by: "Militia to muster with their long guns for drill."?
You're not referring to the National Guard are you, because they are not a militia?

You are a few centuries off, citizen.

[Minimalist]

Ah, yeah... "playing with the gun."

http://gazette.com/buckley-airman-fatall...le/1583799

AURORA — An airman at Buckley Air Force Base was arrested after he told police he accidentally shot his wife to death while the couple were playing with a handgun.