You guys and your guns...

[Svartalf]

Sorry Ty, but it's obviously you who don't... the citizen soldier concept, as originated in ancient Greece and Rome, had an armed citizenry, because the small state societies of the timme did not levy taxes to maintain a standing army, so each citizen soldier had to provide his own equipment. Also, remember that at the time, citizenship was a pretty restricted privilege that marked you as a member of the establishment, meaning that the armed citizenry had a vested interest in protecting the state, not a need to be protected from it.

The notion of citizens needing to keep weapons to protect themselves from tyrants is one that does not arise before the enlightenment, and that possibly arose only during the talks that prepared the bill of rights.

Because I notice that even in post enlightenment Europe, while the right of citizens to keep firearms and ammunition was mostly unquestioned, the rationale for it was still that they should have some equipment should they be suddenly called up to defend the nation and said nation not able to outfit them properly.

[Blind groper]

The Second Amendment was passed in 1791. It was a time of ongoing suspicion between the young USA and Great Britain. It was a time when the US had to depend on its citizens as soldiers for defense, and Britain was massively more powerful in the military sense. The wording is :

"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 intent of this amendment is clear. It is to keep people armed so that they can be called upon to defend the nation against an outside invader.

Now, a lot of reinterpretation has gone on since, with various pundits claiming it is for defense against the state, and lots of other rationalisations. But the reason for the second amendment, as originally proposed, had nothing to do with that at all. It happened purely because the young USA could not afford a sufficiently large standing military force, and had to be able to call on civilians.

[Jason]

Our "gun culture" is what backs up and insures our power as voters, and it's what persuades our elected officials to act properly and cede their power and position when unelected, unlike, say Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez, who rule countries with disarmed populaces that cannot use force to turn either out of office when they refuse to cede power. Our politicians know full well that if they refuse to hand over power peaceably, they can and will be removed by force. That helps to keep them from constructing a tyranny.

Honestly? How do you suppose that an armed militia would fare against the US Army/Navy.. hell even the national guard?

If you suppose the military would support the insurrectionists, then what need is there for an armed citizenry?

When the founding fathers penned the constitution an armed citizenry was a viable defence against tyranny. I cannot see that it still holds in modern warfare.

You don't understand the concept of citizen-soldier.

Perhaps not what you think that means, no. Please explain.

[Warren Dew]

"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 intent of this amendment is clear. It is to keep people armed so that they can be called upon to defend the nation against an outside invader.

The problem with that theory is that the British were not an outside invader: they were the former government of the area. I think it's quite clear that "security of a free State" refers to making sure the state securely remains free.

[Blind groper]

potayto, potahto

Former government or not. To the new American government, most of whom would be shot as traitors if the British regained control, the fear was real. Fortunately for them, there was a way to put up a shield of living flesh to protect them.

[JimC]

Sorry Ty, but it's obviously you who don't... the citizen soldier concept, as originated in ancient Greece and Rome, had an armed citizenry, because the small state societies of the timme did not levy taxes to maintain a standing army, so each citizen soldier had to provide his own equipment. Also, remember that at the time, citizenship was a pretty restricted privilege that marked you as a member of the establishment, meaning that the armed citizenry had a vested interest in protecting the state, not a need to be protected from it.

The notion of citizens needing to keep weapons to protect themselves from tyrants is one that does not arise before the enlightenment, and that possibly arose only during the talks that prepared the bill of rights.

Because I notice that even in post enlightenment Europe, while the right of citizens to keep firearms and ammunition was mostly unquestioned, the rationale for it was still that they should have some equipment should they be suddenly called up to defend the nation and said nation not able to outfit them properly.

Exactly as I understood the origin of the concept, Svartalf...

[MrJonno]

Switzerland has its' well regulated militia' and its firearms are supplied by the state (through no military ammo is allowed anymore at home)

[Seth]

On the issue of an armed populace overcoming a totalitarian government - it's true that shotguns and deer rifles aren't going to do much to an M1A1 tank or an A10 Warthog. However, that's not what would happen. It doesn't happen in Afghanistan, or Iraq, and didn't for the most part in Vietnam. But in all those places one fuck of a lot of U.S. soldiers died. One does not need to triumph on a conventional battlefield to bring down a government. All you need to do is make it too expensive for them to continue their occupation. THAT is the point of the 2nd Amendment.

Any anybody who thinks all we've got are deer rifles and shotguns hasn't been to a gun show in the US lately. The AR-15 semi-auto version of the military M-16/M4 and variants are the hottest selling firearms in the US. People are buying up "assault weapons" like they are going out of style...which they might if Obama gets reelected.

And, I know where MY National Guard armory is...do you?

[Seth]

The Second Amendment was passed in 1791. It was a time of ongoing suspicion between the young USA and Great Britain. It was a time when the US had to depend on its citizens as soldiers for defense, and Britain was massively more powerful in the military sense. The wording is :

"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 intent of this amendment is clear. It is to keep people armed so that they can be called upon to defend the nation against an outside invader.

Now, a lot of reinterpretation has gone on since, with various pundits claiming it is for defense against the state, and lots of other rationalisations. But the reason for the second amendment, as originally proposed, had nothing to do with that at all. It happened purely because the young USA could not afford a sufficiently large standing military force, and had to be able to call on civilians.

Why would you think you are qualified to teach us about 2nd Amendment history? I know more about it than you do by far, and you're simply wrong. Go read the many quotes from the dead white guys who wrote the words and you'll discover that protection against internal tyranny is one of the prime concerns of the 2nd Amendment.

[Jason]

Yes, yes.. but do you have one of these?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The launch button is marked "Fuck me."

[Svartalf]

I'd say.... anybody within a mile of that launcher and not in a bunker or the like is doomed to some horrble cancer... and of course, I mean a mile in the opposite direction fromm where the thing is actually fired... low yield or no.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'd say.... anybody within a mile of that launcher and not in a bunker or the like is doomed to some horrble cancer... and of course, I mean a mile in the opposite direction fromm where the thing is actually fired... low yield or no.

We were still weak on the theory in the '40s.

[Wumbologist]

Yes, yes.. but do you have one of these?

I wouldn't mind adding one of them to my collection. Standoff weapon, naturally. In the meanwhile I wouldn't mind picking up a decent AK.

[Blind groper]

the dead white guys who wrote the words and you'll discover that protection against internal tyranny is one of the prime concerns of the 2nd Amendment.

Seth

As I pointed out, a lot of reinterpretation and rationalisation has happened. And yes, the dead white guys who wrote the words were among those who wrote those rationalisations.

My question is this : "Just how bloody naive are you?"

You are suggesting that politicians (yes, those lying and corrupt humans we call politicians) would knowingly, and without other reason, set things up so that they encourage the act of being tossed out of office, and even shot, by the citizenry.

No. Anyone who has any shred of understanding of the mind set those in power exhibit will realise that only the greatest outside influence would push a politician into creating a law that limits his own power. In this case, that influence was fear of Great Britain. Fear alone has that level of power.

However, given the total necessity of giving the people the right to own firearms, it would have been politically convenient for them to pretend to be so noble as to set things up in order to limit their own power, and thereby curry favour with the electorate.