Posted on 10/08/2005 11:23:32 AM PDT by Whyarentlibsred
Amendment II: 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.
Upon reading the above, it is clear to me that the first part of the Second Amendment “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” no longer applies to the situation in America today and should be changed to better reflect valid reasons for allowing citizens to keep guns in the United States. While things may have been different in the 1700s, the days when ordinary citizens armed with light weapons (rifles and handguns) can assemble and defeat a professional military are long over. There is now a vast disparity between the amount of firepower that the average gun owner on one side, and the U.S. military on the other, could bring to a hypothetical fight, and historically even the successful guerilla movements that drove away professional armies possessed more weapons than just long arms. For example, the Afghan guerillas who defeated the Soviets possessed recoilless rifles, RPGs, and Stinger SAMs, all weapons that are banned by law from U.S. citizens today. Besides, the National Guard already fulfills the function of a State Militia, and the existence of the National Guard has almost nothing to do with guaranteeing a citizens right to bear arms. Because of these reasons, it is clear that using a well-regulated militia to defend the state as a reason to allow people to keep guns is outdated.
A much better reason to allow people to keep guns is so they can defend themselves from criminals, as demonstrated in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. After Katrina, it wasn’t the government people were worried about, it was armed gangs of their fellow American citizens looting and raping that were a threat to them. The government has enough checks and balances in place to take care of itself; if some Commie dictator did win the presidency I can’t see the mainly conservative military following any orders to disarm the people or send all conservatives to reeducation camps. However, when it comes to defending his family from the ravages of his fellow citizens, a man has no choice but to rely on his own weapons. The police won’t always be there for you, but as long as concealed carry is legal, your gun will be. I think the Second Amendment should be changed to reflect this fact, that the security of the state is up to the military, but personal security is up to the nation’s individual citizens. I think a better Second Amendment would read “An individual’s ability for self-protection being necessary to a secure society, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Sure, the original intent of the founders may have been to allow citizens to form militia, and to protect against the government, but I think this bit of Constitutional reconstruction to reflect the reality that fellow citizens are more of a threat than the government ever will be is justified.
"this year will go down in history. for the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
adolf hitler 1935
Bullshit. And stop using U.N terminology. It's unbecoming.
Last century, typos....
I'd only have added that the professional NVA was backed by CPLA and Soviet professional militaries and we still won in the field.
Weren't elements of the US Forces (Army, General Wesley Clark) used at Waco?
You may test that assumption at your convenience. Molon labe.
There is now a vast disparity between the amount of firepower that the average gun owner on one side, and the U.S. military on the other, could bring to a hypothetical fight
But the US gov't would be forced to commit wholesale destruction of its own cities and infrastructure in order to root us out. It wouldn't be worth it. Plus, an unknown but probably very large % of the military would defect to us, although I'll bet we could win even if they didn't.
and historically even the successful guerilla movements that drove away professional armies possessed more weapons than just long arms. For example, the Afghan guerillas who defeated the Soviets possessed recoilless rifles, RPGs,
Stolen from the Soviets with the aid of long arms and native cleverness,
and Stinger SAMs
Supplied by a hostile power, not in possession in the beginning of the fight.
Sorry, all history argues that you're just plain wrong. The fear of a domestic guerilla movement is still a very powerful, though currently hypothetical, threat to the US gov't and is ALMOST CERTAINLY the reason why the liberal socialists are so hot for gun control despite massive domestic and foreign evidence of the fact that it's counterproductive in its *publicly stated* goal of "crime control".
I remain convinced that the meteroic rise of the m!l!t!@ movement after Waco (the test case), is the sole reason why Komrades Klinton and their fellow traitors pulled back on their efforts to move us down the road of socialist tyranny. They knew that they could not win, and would probably pay not only with their positions but their lives.
So...what say you?
Maybe a Viking Kitty got his tongue. ;-)
I move we impose some serious troll limit!!!
it allready says it like it is...
Criminals ,highwaymen, and thugs are a security risk to a free state...
No different today.
Bad, bad idea. That would alienate the very troops we'd be hoping we'd defect to us. It would be better to do just the opposite. Not too many liberals join an all volunteer military. On the contrary, many of the military were gun owners in civilian life, and/or have fathers/uncles/brothers/sons who are gun owners. Sympathy for the RKBA probably runs stronger in the military than most other segments of society. So if we stricly avoid harming military dependents, we can probably count on both shared views and family ties to get a large number of them to join the revolt -- bringing their heavy weapons with them, of course.
Civilian politicians, on the other hand, are another topic entirely. Arguably the greatest threat is that any politician who casts his vote in favor of killing hundreds of thousands of citizens, knows that he'll have to spend the rest of his life in a bubble of bulletproof glass (imagine the Popemobile, only 24/7). Most people like to walk outdoors once in a while; the perpetual threat of snipers would make the guilty politicians prisoners.
Pray to God it never comes to that.
The oly reform here needed is reform in the actual observation of the amendment. The restrictions on any sort of military arms are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Assassins usually come from an inner circle where no bulletproof glass would protect them.
The Second Amendment was created as the final check and balance against an out of control government (foreign as well as domestic). Federalist 46 addresses that.
While things may have been different in the 1700s, the days when ordinary citizens armed with light weapons (rifles and handguns) can assemble and defeat a professional military are long over.
If there's an out of control government, it isn't the military that needs to be defeated, but the politicians. Acceptable costs.
Besides, the National Guard already fulfills the function of a State Militia, and the existence of the National Guard has almost nothing to do with guaranteeing a citizens right to bear arms. Because of these reasons, it is clear that using a well-regulated militia to defend the state as a reason to allow people to keep guns is outdated.
The national guard is federalized.
A much better reason to allow people to keep guns is so they can defend themselves from criminals, as demonstrated in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
That may be, but that's not what the Second Amendment is about. Also, major disasters and attacks are when our rights are most likely in danger, not during peacetime.
The government has enough checks and balances in place to take care of itself;
And the militia(referring to common citizenry, not National Guard, nor "Michigan Militia) is the final check and balance.
As long as we are vigilant, we won't have to use that final check and balance, but it is there, just in case.
meow?
What kind of gun thread would this be without a photo???
Geeeez already!
This was a school assignment to post an opinion on an issue at FreeRepublic and see what the reaction was. Apparently other people have had bad experiences in the past, but since I have neither been banned or seriously insulted I can't say that I have seen much evidence of that here. As far as I'm concerned, you guys are welcome to your opinions and I'm welcome to mine. Since no one shares my opinion, I'm pretty sure the Second Amendment is safe from any changes.
Finally, I would like to make clear that I have nothing against people owning guns. I'm quite sure the vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens who use their firearms responsibly, and as I mentioned in reference to Katrina I think that personal defence is an excellent reason for gun ownership. I personally think any attempt to take over the government will be put down by the military long before any kind of domestic insurgency is neccersary, but then again if you feel differently more power to you. If my post bothered you, don't worry about it. It looks like 80 million guns owners will keep anyone from messing with the Second Amendment for a long time.
Look at the mess they have made of the country.
As far as weapons are concerned, we are entitled to have the same weapons the governement has, this means all types of military weapons.
The 2nd amendment, like the rest of the bill of rights, still stands as valid today as it was when it was written. Obviously you don't understand the real meaning of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.