The Right to Bear Arms

[Aurielius]

We have been skirting this issue throughout several threads so I thought that it was about time that we debated the validity, value and necessity of the 2nd Amendment. Keep it civil please, otherwise we will being seeing yellow.

 

2ND AMENDMENT of the CONSTITUTION

"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. "

[justusZ]

I don't need arms to protect myself against the state, or help protect the sate - thats what the army is for. But I don't think changing it in anyway will ever be possible in the USA, its basically a part of your culture. Anyway, I like the fact that nobody in our town has arms, except the police that is. But its probably what you've grown up with that decides if your against or for this.

[Maharg67]

We have been skirting this issue throughout several threads so I thought that it was about time that we debated the validity, value and necessity of the 2nd Amendment. Keep it civil please, otherwise we will being seeing yellow.

 

2ND AMENDMENT of the CONSTITUTION

"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. "

 

A well regulated Militia, in what ever form it takes, is not the same as allowing every Tom! and Mary the right to own a full automatic weapon or a semiautomatic pistol. There are nations with otherwise tight gun controls that do have 'well regulated militias'. Australia has tight gun controls but has also the military reserves. Britain is also quite hard on its gun control but has the Territorials. Putting guns in the hands of a whole lot of individuals does not bring security. Regulated militia means training not just in how to use a gun but why or when to use a gun along with the rest of the training to be a good soldier. If they ever went up against organised military forces, especially such as special forces, most gun owning civilians would get toasted.

[bben46]

Please check the new debate rules and terms of service before replying to a debate -

Debate rules here: http://thenexusforum...dpost&p=1658554

Terms of service: http://thenexusforum...tion=boardrules

Thanks

Bben46, Moderator

 

Edit: This was not aimed at anyone in particular. It was just to point out that we do now have some rules on debating.

Thanks

Bben

[Retribution]

I don't need arms to protect myself against the state - thats what the army is for.

The army is controlled by the government.

[Kendo 2]

I took the time to pull up a few defintions on key words in the Amendment. They are not from Bouvier's or Black's, but the 'catch all' definitions found in Merriam-Webster.

 

2ND AMENDMENT of the CONSTITUTION

"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. "

 

the definitions:

 

militia

1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service

2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

 

free

1 a : having the legal and political rights of a citizen b : enjoying civil and political liberty <free citizen> c : enjoying political independence or freedom from outside domination d : enjoying personal freedom : not subject to the control or domination of another

 

State

5 a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign b : the political organization of such a body of people c : a government or politically organized society having a particular character <a police state> <the welfare state>

[hoshi23]

The 2ND AMENDMENT of the CONSTITUTION itself makes sense to me. The question is do we still need it. I have no definite answer to that. Hopefully people are smarter then having to go that far. And if everybody needs a gun for security then you dont have it at all, no?

[Kendo 2]

I don't use my Soul, but that doesn't mean I won't need it someday. :pinch:

[Zephyr2011]

If the question is "do we still need it" i maintain that we dont NEED it but it has become a huge part of American culture. There is also the (in my opinion) ill conceived notion that banning all firearms will end gun violence. I believe this to be quite incredulous. Does the illegalization of coccaine prevent people from getting it? Prohibition didnt work and the banning of firearms in civilian homes would just create another episode like that mess. It would also be a blow to the economy there are tons of gunshops in the US and many other stores sell firearms and ammunition in addition to their regular products (wal mart comes to mind) in addition to generalized sports stores. Additionally how do you wrestle the guns from all the rednecks and hicks who dont want to give them up (my grandfather will give you his shotgun...after he shoots you)? Major police siezures cost money and take time time during which other more major crimes could take place. The abolishment of the 2nd ammendment simply isnt feasible at this time however more difficult tests for FOYD cards and their subsequent classes (dictating what kinds of firearm you can own i dont know specifics but i could look up some literature if anyone wants it) would be quite the prudent measure as most people with firearms obey the law but some with full auto weapons might be a little to daft for safety's sake.

[LHammonds]

validity, value and necessity of the 2nd Amendment.

Validity - Hasn't history shown that governments who remove arms from its citizens tend to kill, oppress and/or make slaves of said citizens? I think everyone knows the answer is yes. I believe that power corrupts and absolute power will corrupt absolutely. Relying on others to provide for your security is just foolish and a prior president said it most eloquently: "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither" -- Benjamin Franklin.

 

Value - I would hold the 2nd Amendment quite high in value. I live in a rural area. If there is need for protection against a deadly force (animal, burglar, rapist, murderer) at my home, a 9-1-1 call would only be to make sure somebody comes to clean up and file a report as to a tragedy that occurred to my family "if" I were not allowed to protect them. That is only one scenario for the high value...I need not mention any others at this point although there are many other scenarios.

 

Necessity - Part of being head of my household is to ensure that I not only provide food and shelter for my family but also security. I refuse to pass-the-buck and rely on others for the safety of my family from any threat.

 

Some people are content to be slaves as long as they get what they want (initially).

 

EDIT: As a further note, this debate is not about bans on weapons but the 2nd Amendment over the right to own and bear arms as citizens...not soldiers / government employees or what / what not you can bear. If it were, I'd argue against most kinds of limitations on ownership.

 

LHammonds