[Whyarentlibsred]

Anybody agree, or is the government really a bigger threat than social criminals?

[Prime Choice]

Back when the Second Amendment was authored, the weapons that the civilians had were considered assault rifles.

And if you honestly believe that the Second Amendment isn't mean to keep governments in line, then perhaps you'd care to explain why the first move of every tyranny is to disarm the civilian populace?

Bottom line: "the People" in the Second Amendment means "the People."

Deal with it.

[Prime Choice]

Also...maybe if Liberals would stop insisting that criminals be treated like ordinary citizens, and stopped treating ordinary citizens like criminals, we wouldn't have half the problems we do today.

And as an aside...welcome to FR. Enjoy your stay.

[ElkGroveDan]

Welcome to FR. OK if we keep an eye on you for a bit?

The Second Amendment is fine the way it is.

[Hank Rearden]

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure the ability of a free people to kill the government, should it become tyrannical.

Self-defense is a subset of that.

[SteveH]

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.

What's happened between the Vietnam War and today in terms of military science?

[GregoTX]

The Second Amendment does not need to be changed. Politicians need to be changed.

[muawiyah]

Other people are always a threat. Personally I favor the government arming the people with the latest and greatest of weapons.

[AMERIKA]

* Quotes from Thomas Jefferson, the author of The Declaration of Independence:
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

--Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."

--Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved), or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. (57)(58)(59)

Pretty much invalidates the "militia only should own firearms" set wouldn't you think.

They way I see it, the second amendment tries to guarantee the right to protect our families with firearms or what ever means possible which is in actually a God given right long before there was a Constitution.

[markedman]

The only reason that we have a 1st Amendment is because we have a @nd Amendment to back it up. The day that US citizens are no longer have a 2nd Amendment right to keep and maintain their own weapons is the day that all of the other Amendments as well as the Constitution are no longer protected.

[Mogollon]

Posse Comitatus prevents using the military against U.S. citizens.

Besides, if there ever was a revolution roughly 10% of the 80 million gun owners in this country would be sufficient to prevent the feds from doing something we don't like (like say disarming us).

[Sender]

The Dems would like to modify the 2nd am to be about deer hunting, but it's not. Clearly the right to defend one's home and family against predators is part of the reason that good people should be armed.

However, the basic intent of the 2nd am is to restrain and discourage any tyrannical government. Whether that be a Bush tyrannical government or a Clinton tyrannican government. And never discount the deterrent effect of millions of deer rifles against a superior force; one has only to look back at the Warsaw ghettos to see that resistance is NOT futile.

Now really, I don't foresee any US citizens ever having to fight against a tyrannical government. But the reason we won't have to, is because of the 2nd am. Otherwise that fight could come as soon as 2008.

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

No opening up Forrest Gump's Mama's box of chocolates for me, the constitution has worked well, more or less to date.

[sailor4321]

I'd rather go the other way; that is, have the government issue light machine guns, grenade launchers/rpgs, "assault" rifles, etc. to law abiding citizens. Of course, there should be "reasonable" regulation: the only reasonable regulation I can think of is that it should be against the law to fire these weapons in town except in defense of life or to stop a life-threatening crime in progress.

[DuncanWaring]

What Good is a Handgun Against an Army? - by Mike Vanderboegh.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

The Second Amendment is just fine as is, I have no problem understanding it. Do you?

[atomic_dog]

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.

This may be true in most circumstances but let's take a look at potential insurrection in the United States. I chose the word "insurrection" to mean as it was defined in Article 149 General Order 100 during the Civil War, to wit:
"Insurrection is the rising of people in arms against their government, or a portion of it, or against one or more of its laws, or against an officer or officers of the government. It may be confined to mere armed resistance, or it may have greater ends in view."

First, consider the number of veterans residing in almost any community of the United Sates. There is a huge pool of individuals most of whom have received at least some rudimentary training with firearms, some of whom were the most highly trained shooters in the world.

So the first step is to arm them. How is this accomplished? Seize weapons from active duty military, National Guard armories and police using those aforementioned civilian light weapons. Now I know you're thinking "How would you seize weapons from active duty military?" In the case of a Marine Infantry Company or the 82nd Airborne I concede your point. But, as I former officer, I can tell you that the bulk of the US military is not composed of elite combat troops and if the Army hands out weapons to the 505th Transportation Company and sends them into put down insurrection, which they would be forced into doing in the case of widespread insurrection, I would consider the odds to be much better.

To do this the insurrectionists could exploit three critical points.
First, the ability of the insurrectionists to meld into the community.
Second, the reticence of US troops to fire on US civilians. And,
Third, concern about their own families and relatives.
The last, while ignoble, might be the most easy to exploit. I do not think the behavior of the police in New Orleans, that is abandoning their duty to protect their families, would be an isolated incident. If the insurrectionists actively targeted military dependents I can assure you that if would severely effect the ability of the military to respond. This would also apply, perhaps even more so, to local police departments.

Once you have a cadre of insurrectionists with military grade weapons who know how to use them the sides are closer to even with the insurrectionists fighting for their community and the active duty military distraught over fighting US civilians in the US and worried sick about their families and lived ones.

I pray that such a scenario would never come about but it would be fascinating to observe,

[spinestein]

[...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.]



The fact that we have the right to keep and bear arms, and the fact that so many millions of Americans exercise that right is itself a deterrent to the government becoming tyrannical.

And the idea of the military overcoming 260 million Americans by force of superior firepower is absurd because of the fact that there are so many millions of armed citizens. They can't "occupy" every town in America. All they could do is start leveling towns and cities, slaughtering all inhabitants, and I can't conceive of a situation where that would even be plausible.



There is a process for amending the Constitution, though.



1. Congress proposes amendments.
Both houses of Congress approve by two-thirds votes a resolution calling for the amendment. The resolution does not require the president's signature. To become effective, the proposed amendment must then be "ratified" or approved by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. Congress typically places a time limit of seven years for ratification by the states.

2. The states propose amendments.
The legislatures of two-thirds of the states vote to call for a convention at which constitutional amendments can be proposed. Amendments proposed by the convention would again require ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.



All twenty-seven amendments, including the Bill of Rights have been added through the first method. The Constitution has never been amended using the second process.



Good luck with it.

<?:^)

[Jim_Curtis]

John Kerry pointed to the beheadings in Iraq as evidence that we were losing the war. If a dull knife has the ability of making Democrats wave the white flag of surrender then they will be no match for our guns.

[The Expert]

Whyarentlibsred wrote:

"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."

What do you have to say about Flight 93? What was that but the militia rising up to put a stop to an attack on our country by foreign enemies? It is no mistake that the terrorists chose to strike in one place where there was almost no chance of encountering armed resistance.

What about the numerous documented cases of citizens in New Orleans and Mississippi maintaining order in their communities after the police quit? Or Los Angeles just a few years ago? In fact, the militia is frequently called upon to restore and maintain order; we have just grown out of the habit of seeing it as such.

You suffer from the common misconception that the 2nd Amendment is only for use in military situations. In fact, the whole idea of a militia is to make the People ultimately responsible for the ensuring their own safety, and providing them with the means to do so. The simple fact is that the militia functions EVERY DAY in this country...every time a criminal attacks the innocent and is met by armed resistance, you are looking, in the broadest possible sense, at the militia at work.

No, I do not support any changes to the 2nd Amendment at this time.

Regards.

[Xenophon450]

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"

Mao ZeDong