Under that criteria, I would add Kenneth City, notorius for the one a-hole cop that terrorizes both citizens of the city and ignorant passers-by. and I could swear I've seen a Madeira Beach police car.

 

Under that criteria, I would add Kenneth City, notorius for the one a-hole cop that terrorizes both citizens of the city and ignorant passers-by.
...

Then if enough good citizens are properly armed they can end his tyranny. Isn't that the entire point?

 

Unfortunately it is still illegal to shoot a cop. One of my customers voted with her money. She sold her condo and moved out of Kenneth City because the bad attitude in that city was contageous. I can't blame her. I drive AROUND Kenneth City every time it's in the way between where I am and where I'm going.

 

Then if enough good citizens are properly armed they can end his tyranny. Isn't that the entire point?

While I realize that this was probably mostly tongue-in-cheek, it actually touches on one of the common anti-gun strawmen, namely that if the purpose of an armed citizenry is to be able to overthrow a government they don't like, than that is nothing but a recipe for anarcy.

While I doubt they were trying to specifically address such criticisms, this is actually addressed explicityly in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence: "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."

It really is an amazing document and I truly believe I would feel that way even if I weren't an American. As with a handful of others, such as the Gettysburg Address, I get a shiver down my spine every time I read it.

What I can't understand, and I don't know that it is any better today, is that even when I went to K-12 back in the 70's and 80's, at no time -- not even in AP American History -- did we ever actually read either of these documents. Sure, we "studied" them, but only meant that we read what the textbook author had to say about them.

The first time I ever read the entire Declaration was in a restaurant that simply had an enlarged print on the wall near the table I was at as part of the decor. I was originally attracted to it because I noticed that some of the words were mispelled, only to realize they weren't mispellings, it was because how certain letters were written had obviously changed over time, let alone a few changes in spelling or in word use. By the time I got done 'deciphering' it, I knew that I had just spent time in the shadow of greatness. The simple act of reading it gave me a much deeper comprehension of how and why that document has had such a profound influence on world history than most textbook authors could ever hope to convey.

address

 

WBahn,

I was given a few pocket book sized copies of the Constitution of the United States. I gave them to the people who worked for me (in the military) and told them they already swore to support and defend the document, maybe they need to read what document they are defending.

One product of the Detroit Public School system was shocked, to put it mildly after reading it. He wondered how the politicos today could get away with trashing that document.

 

Okay guys, I've done a bit of reading on the topic and on your constitution, and it seems to me that the 2nd amendment was to give the right to bear arms, but for the use of hunting animals for food/survival.

In context, there is very little (if anything) I can find which seems to suggest that it has anything to do with forming 'militias' and fighting invading countries.

If anyone has evidence to prove the contrary, please share.

I'm not trolling, so please be nice, I'm genuinely interested in the topic. As a non-American, perhaps I can see both arguments clearly?

Again, many thanks to those who replied to me earlier questions.

 

Okay guys, I've done a bit of reading on the topic and on your constitution, and it seems to me that the 2nd amendment was to give the right to bear arms, but for the use of hunting animals for food/survival.

In context, there is very little (if anything) I can find which seems to suggest that it has anything to do with forming 'militias' and fighting invading countries.

If anyone has evidence to prove the contrary, please share.

I am not sure where you have been reading, but here is a quote from the second amendment.

"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."

It seems perfectly clear to me. I see "militia" and "security;" I don't see hunting.

In all sincerity, I suggest you read the document and what its creators wrote, as opposed to what the modern media has to say, and make your own decision about its meaning.

ETA: You might also be interested in reading about the small arms that were donated by USA citizens to English citizens for their "security" during World War II.

 

Thanks Tracecom.

Yes, I was aware of the great folks who donated money and arms to the Home Guard, and for that I (as well as many others) are very grateful.

Shame it was spoilt somewhat by doing the same for terrorist groups like the IRA.

 

I am not aware of the history you speak, and one thing that stands out in my memory of my time in Britain is many folks are still touchy about the subject of the American Revolution. We have similar sensitivities over the American Civil War and Vietnam.

 

Opponents of gun control laws often cite the disarmament in Germany after the 1st World War.

"The most spectacular event was the crushing of the Spartacist revolt in Berlin and other cities in January 1919, when Freikorps members captured and murdered the Communist leaders Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht.10 This coincided with the passage of the Verordnung des Rates der Volksbeauftragen über Waffenbesitz (Regulations of the Council of the People’s Delegates on Weapons Possession), which provided: “All firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately.”11 Whoever kept a firearm or ammunition was subject to imprisonment for five years and a fine of 100,000 marks."

Changes happen slowly. Nothing could prepare the system opponents (and later the Jews) in Germany for what was about to come. If they tell you tomorrow you would have to render your arms because it is against the law to possess one many US citizens would do it. Sure there will be many who will hide them somewhere but there is only so many places to safely hide firearms and still have them available when needed.
If the right to bear arms in the US were to be changed, who will shoot at police officers who try to search your house? I mean the fine is "only" prison or money, not the death penalty.

I don't think polititians nowadays try to disarm civilians in order to oppress them. Disarmament is being justified with college/movie theater shootings, suicides, any crime where firearms are being used. We are supposed to be civilized, difficult to compare the situation in the US today with the situation in Germany after the 1st WW.

I think I understand why so many americans are vehemently against gun control laws. What normal civilian is ready to act against the law, risking fines or emprisonment? Especially if it's only to keep an (at the moment) unnecessary item - unnecessary against government oppression.

 

<snip>

I think I understand why so many americans are vehemently against gun control laws. What normal civilian is ready to act against the law, risking fines or emprisonment? Especially if it's only to keep an (at the moment) unnecessary item - unnecessary against government oppression.

Thing is, I think most Americans do keep the idea of a reserve in the back of their minds, even if they don't think they need it now. There are plenty who would give up anything for a perceived increase in security, but enough of us understand that security comes from being prepared for the worst.

It is a little like having a military, if you want to get into a war, disarm yourselves. Want to stay out of a war? Be ready for one, and be obvious about it.

 

Okay guys, I've done a bit of reading on the topic and on your constitution, and it seems to me that the 2nd amendment was to give the right to bear arms, but for the use of hunting animals for food/survival.

In context, there is very little (if anything) I can find which seems to suggest that it has anything to do with forming 'militias' and fighting invading countries.

If anyone has evidence to prove the contrary, please share.

I'm not trolling, so please be nice, I'm genuinely interested in the topic. As a non-American, perhaps I can see both arguments clearly?

Again, many thanks to those who replied to me earlier questions.

Perhaps instead of reading "on" the 2nd Amendment, you might try actually "reading" it.

"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."

So, in context, at the time it was written the militia was defined as consisting of two parts, the organized and the unorganized militia. The organized militia consisted of men who conducted periodic training and drills (generally very periodic) and the unorganized militia, which served as the primary ready source of militia members when "called up", was simply every able-bodied man age sixteen or older.

Also, at the time the word "regulate" was a commonly used word simply meaning "to make regular", as in to make uniform and consistent. In the context of the day, a "well-regulated militia" was primarily refering to a militia that had similar training, doctrine, and arms so that militias from different areas could combine more quickly and operate together more effectively.

In 1788, Alexander Hamilton wrote, "If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."

That doesn't seem to be talking about deer hunting.

Opponents of the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution, ratified as part of the it), including the person that eventually drafted them, namely James Madison, believed a Bill of Rights to be unnecessary since in large part because it was inconceivable to them that the new federal government could ever hope to raise a standing army sufficient to overcome an armed populace; instead, they feared that by enumerating certain rights and protections covered by a Bill of Rights, that any right not enumerated would be seen as not being protected (which is why the 9th and 10th Amendments where included).

I'm not being snide and I don't have a problem with reading what others have to say about a document, but first and foremost you should read the document and then always ask if what people are saying about it is consistent with what it actually says. I have numerous debates with people on my side of the aisle because people on both sides who have strong political agendas tend to twist things (or be selective about things) in order to support their cause.

For instance, opponents of the 2nd Amendment love to contend that the right to bear arms is only a collective one and that the word "people" refers to the right of the individual states to form National Guards under state control. Yet those same people would scream bloody murder if anyone dared to assert the use of the word "people" in any of the other nine amendments that make of the Bill of Rights only referred to a collective right held by the state governments and not an individual right. Yet all ten amendments were written by the same person, so it is really reasonable that "people" means individual citizens in all but one instance?

 

... enough of us understand that security comes from being prepared for the worst.

It is a little like having a military, if you want to get into a war, disarm yourselves. Want to stay out of a war? Be ready for one, and be obvious about it.

Absolutely agreed! I study self defense, not so I can go around hurting people but so I may have some improved chance of defending myself and my family against someone trying to hurt us.

Thinking that "arms" make good men go around hurting people is as stupid as thinking that knowing self defense techniques makes good men go around beating people up.

The problem is NEVER the availability of "arms" or defensive skills, it is that a very small percentage of people are defective or evil. The result is that reducing the general population's ability to defend itself is only ever going to be a step backwards, giving the evil person greater power to hurt the more defenceless population.

 

When I was doing martial arts training I never thought, "Oh boy, now I can attack people". What I really thought was, "I am so fast that anybody that could beat me up would also have the inner peace that comes with this kind of training".

 

most older declarations are now well out of context... much like when people try to interpret religious scripts written thousands of years ago. When 2nd amendment was passed, the guns were different and the country was different, it in view of those people, absolutely necessary, in a vast country for private citizens to have the ability to protect themselves, most likely due to lack of other resources. Is that the case now? Would so many deaths be possible if gun control was much more strict - limited amount of hunting licences and only hunting rifles? Just some questions as I see this as a society running amok.

The problem is NEVER the availability of "arms" or defensive skills, it is that a very small percentage of people are defective or evil. The result is that reducing the general population's ability to defend itself is only ever going to be a step backwards, giving the evil person greater power to hurt the more defenceless population.

I have heard this many times and never understood it. Would the opposite old true - why would so many attacks happen in the most armed country in the world (Strantor's list is quite impressive), shouldn't people be deterred? Or do we assume that people capable of committing these acts have as little regard for their own life as they do for the lives of their victims? If that is the case, then there is little that can be done to prevent events such as what has transpired.

 

Society did not run amok. One person ran amok.

Repeating things that have been said many times in this thread: If 50 people in the theater had concealed pistols, he would have hurt less people. There are already so many gun control laws that there was not even one person in that theater equipped to stop one crazy person.

 

most older declarations are now well out of context... much like when people try to interpret religious scripts written thousands of years ago. When 2nd amendment was passed, the guns were different and the country was different, it in view of those people, absolutely necessary, in a vast country for private citizens to have the ability to protect themselves, most likely due to lack of other resources. Is that the case now? Would so many deaths be possible if gun control was much more strict - limited amount of hunting licences and only hunting rifles? Just some questions as I see this as a society running amok.

Yes, things change and policies and doctrine do need to recognize that. But documents such as the Declaration and the Constitution did an extremely good job of addressing fundamental principles associated with human nature, and these things change very slowly.

As for the notion that strict gun control laws would make things so much safer, just look at the annual list of cities that have the highest violent crime, including gun-involved crimes, and it is dominated by cities that have the strictest gun laws. Why is that? Trying to use the usual claim that it is because of lax gun laws in surrounding areas doesn't hold any water, because why would the surrounding areas that have lax gun laws have significantly lower violent crime rates if, by the fundamental reasoning involved, stricter gun laws would reduce crime?

 

most older declarations are now well out of context... much like when people try to interpret religious scripts written thousands of years ago. When 2nd amendment was passed, the guns were different and the country was different, it in view of those people, absolutely necessary, in a vast country for private citizens to have the ability to protect themselves, most likely due to lack of other resources. Is that the case now? Would so many deaths be possible if gun control was much more strict - limited amount of hunting licences and only hunting rifles? Just some questions as I see this as a society running amok.

The events and experiences that inspired the second amendment are no less valid today than they were 240 years ago. Do you really think that humans have evolved into a more morally right, less likely to attempt tyranny species? I believe we are the same fallible, power hungry, eager to oppress species that we've proven ourselves to be repeatedly since the beginning of written history.

If we let them, the government will oppress us. Hence, the second amendment. The government should never have the authority to regulate guns. The second amendment was never intended to secure our rights to hunting water fowl and fending off polar bears and bath salts crazed cannibals. The purpose of the second amendment was to keep the government from ever being more powerful than the people. For the government to place any kind kind of restriction on civilian possession of firearms is analogous to a boxer having the right to dictate that his opponent have an arm tied behind his back. We have already given away some of our rights in this respect; for example, we gave away the right to automatic weapons. I will interpret any further action by the government in regards to gun control as acts of tyranny or at the very least, intent of future tyranny.

 

Thanks for your replies. Wanted to know what's on your minds

No, the society did not change, guns did, and we are the worse off for it. That is what I meant by a possibility of lowering chances of mass murder in 2 minutes - cannot kill 12 people with a 2 barrel shot-gun. I am not disputing the right of an individual to defend him/herself. But I do believe that many of weapons that can be bought legally in the US should be banned as they do not pertain to self-defence or hunting.

At a risk of offending some-one, I think America has a paranoia with being attacked when it really has never been at war on home territory. My grandfather was a hunter, so I can only accept guns for hunting, anything else crosses the border with me. I've lived in large violent cities and never feared for my life or felt the need to carry a gun, but may be I am naive.

 

Thanks for your replies. Wanted to know what's on your minds

No, the society did not change, guns did, and we are the worse off for it. That is what I meant by a possibility of lowering chances of mass murder in 2 minutes - cannot kill 12 people with a 2 barrel shot-gun. I am not disputing the right of an individual to defend him/herself. But I do believe that many of weapons that can be bought legally in the US should be banned as they do not pertain to self-defence or hunting.

At a risk of offending some-one, I think America has a paranoia with being attacked when it really has never been at war on home territory. My grandfather was a hunter, so I can only accept guns for hunting, anything else crosses the border with me. I've lived in large violent cities and never feared for my life or felt the need to carry a gun, but may be I am naive.

As has been stated a few times already, the need for the guns arises not for self defense or for hunting. These arms are meant to potentially fight off the world's most powerful military force. They already have the upper hand, with tanks, ships, fighter jets, etc. In 'fight fire with fire' scenario, we are holding a cigarette lighter and they are holding napalm.

Paranoia? Maybe. But there is experience to back it up. It didn't spring out of nothing. This country was established by people fleeing oppression and tyranny. It happens. It's still happening. Look at N. korea. It can happen again, to us, especially if we roll over in apathy and let our government dictate which weapons we are allowed to use against them.