Why The Gun Is Civilization

[KenHigg]

That's an American for you.

Brian

>ouch<


ken

 

[Brianwarnock]

Dan i think I was supposed to see a pic but your post is blank.

Brian

 

[Banana]

Not sure where you're going with this?

What law guarantees the right to bear arms? That's 2nd amendment.

Was it passed to provide protection against wild animals and bandits? No.

That's my point. The whole controversy rests on an nonissue. It's one thing to say that 2nd amendment has bad effects of allowing people to run amok with guns (a valid point), but to claim that one's right to bear arms is out of necessity to protect oneself when it was never the intent is making a strawman.

You are correct in asserting that we have changed a lot since the "West Wild" where guns was useful in plenty more situation than today, but that does not even address the reason why we have the right to bear arms. In other words, we're arguing over things that are *incidental* to the right to bear arms (e.g. whether one is safer with a gun, whether one can use gun as a tool of diplomacy) rather than the "intent* of the right itself, which is to provide the people a mean of last resort to overthrow a government gone bad.

 

[dan-cat]

Dan i think I was supposed to see a pic but your post is blank.

Brian

Crappy vBulletin, try to picture the cheap defcon lights in that movie war games. Moving down to DEFCON 4.

Not as funny now that I have to explain it

 

[Brianwarnock]

Crappy vBulletin, try to picture the cheap defcon lights in that movie war games. Moving down to DEFCON 4.

Not as funny now that I have to explain it

and it would all be lost on this old guy.

Brian

 

[statsman]

Rich, you must read more of your country's history. I would suggest you start with the Opium Wars, then the Mau Mau wars, then the Malay Emergency.

It may be the 21st Century, but has Mankind changed very much since the British Empire broke up after World War II ?

For a little post graduate study, try the Suez Incident, followed by the Falkland Islands. Was there then, is there now or will there ever be anything of enough value on the Falklands to justify the death and maiming of the British soldiers, sailors and Marines who went there ?

For a group of intellegent people I'm suprised so many of you missed the point of the history lesson.

The United States is currently doing many of the things the British did anywhere from 50 to 100 years ago and for many of the same reasons.

The British got the largest empire in the history of the world out of it. The Americans figure why not give it a try.

 

[statsman]

While the Falklands conflict was undoubtedly started for political reasons. The fact remains that s inhabited by British people and invaded by a foreign power. The concern should never be 'is it worth our while', when it's a question of defending yourself.

What, precisely, is 'of value' in Newfoundland (and I use that as an example purely because it's an island)? Other than the Canadian citizens, I mean (since you clearly don't rate them). If someone invaded St John's would you advocate letting them have it, since it's not 'valuable' enough to risk Canadian military personnel over? I doubt it.

Call me picky but I think there is a difference between an Island that has provincial status that is a hundred miles from the main country and some islands that have colony status that are a couple of thousand miles from the home country.

Viva Maldives

 

[statsman]

What law guarantees the right to bear arms? That's 2nd amendment.

Was it passed to provide protection against wild animals and bandits? No.

That's my point. The whole controversy rests on an nonissue. It's one thing to say that 2nd amendment has bad effects of allowing people to run amok with guns (a valid point), but to claim that one's right to bear arms is out of necessity to protect oneself when it was never the intent is making a strawman.

You are correct in asserting that we have changed a lot since the "West Wild" where guns was useful in plenty more situation than today, but that does not even address the reason why we have the right to bear arms. In other words, we're arguing over things that are *incidental* to the right to bear arms (e.g. whether one is safer with a gun, whether one can use gun as a tool of diplomacy) rather than the "intent* of the right itself, which is to provide the people a mean of last resort to overthrow a government gone bad.

Actually, the Second Ammendment was passed because at the time there was a real fear in the US that Britian would return and try to get the colonies back. It's intent was to remove any restraints on arming citizen's militias in case they were required to repel an invasion.
Needless to say the need for the militias is long past. So is the reason for the Ammendment. Maybe it's time to give serious thought in the US to repealling it.
The NRA, the other gun lobbies, the gun manufacturers will put up a real fight but I wonder what the average citizen would think about it?

Sorry, thats 2 history lessons in one thread.

 

[Rich]

Call me picky but I think there is a difference between an Island that has provincial status that is a hundred miles from the main country and some islands that have colony status that are a couple of thousand miles from the home country.

Viva Maldives

Like Hawaii you mean

 

[Banana]

Erm, while there may be people who were worried about re-invasion, I don't recall this being deliberated in Congress regarding the Second Amendment.

If you look at English's history, right to bear arms was so important, there used to be periodic inspection by King (or his representative) to ensure that a given town populace has their arms in order. But then at one point, laws was modified so that only the most wealthy could keep weapons. Interestingly, the laws pertained to hunting but extended well outside of its scope . James II Then added that no protestant could carry any guns, despite 95% of population being a Protestant. This was later reinstated, however. Prior to American revolution, there was an attempt to disarm the militia by British forces, and the right to bear arms was cited here.

The second amendment was basically a compromise between Federalists and anti-Federalists. You see, anti-Federalist feared that a government would turn a militia into a standing army and use it against the people, whether federalists felt that state should be able to effectively organize a militia. This is why the second amendment will assert that this is in "essential to a well-regulated militia" that citizens should "keep and bear arms" (emphasis mine). Bearing arms had a obvious connotation of military service, but to keep arms obviously meant that people could keep the weapons for themselves. This way, states are free to organize militias as they see fit and call upon them for crisis, both foreign and domestic but has no control over who keeps the arms. This has, obviously, changed now that we have a National Guard (a federal militia, rather than unorganized militia) who retain property of arms while allowing for private ownerships of weapons.

2 history lessons ain't enough to even scratch the whole breadth of whether one is guaranteed a right to keep guns.

 

[statsman]

Like Hawaii you mean

Hawaii is a STATE. Meets my criteria.

 

[statsman]

Erm, while there may be people who were worried about re-invasion, I don't recall this being deliberated in Congress regarding the Second Amendment.

If you look at English's history, right to bear arms was so important, there used to be periodic inspection by King (or his representative) to ensure that a given town populace has their arms in order. But then at one point, laws was modified so that only the most wealthy could keep weapons. Interestingly, the laws pertained to hunting but extended well outside of its scope . James II Then added that no protestant could carry any guns, despite 95% of population being a Protestant. This was later reinstated, however. Prior to American revolution, there was an attempt to disarm the militia by British forces, and the right to bear arms was cited here.

The second amendment was basically a compromise between Federalists and anti-Federalists. You see, anti-Federalist feared that a government would turn a militia into a standing army and use it against the people, whether federalists felt that state should be able to effectively organize a militia. This is why the second amendment will assert that this is in "essential to a well-regulated militia" that citizens should "keep and bear arms" (emphasis mine). Bearing arms had a obvious connotation of military service, but to keep arms obviously meant that people could keep the weapons for themselves. This way, states are free to organize militias as they see fit and call upon them for crisis, both foreign and domestic but has no control over who keeps the arms. This has, obviously, changed now that we have a National Guard (a federal militia, rather than unorganized militia) who retain property of arms while allowing for private ownerships of weapons.

2 history lessons ain't enough to even scratch the whole breadth of whether one is guaranteed a right to keep guns.

I was not disputing the right of an American citizen to have weapons, it's in the Constitution after all.

I was attempting to debate whether that right is still required.

 

[dan-cat]

I was attempting to debate whether that right is still required.

I think that's what Banana was doing too by addressing the issue of the amendments original intent.

That's my point. The whole controversy rests on an nonissue. It's one thing to say that 2nd amendment has bad effects of allowing people to run amok with guns (a valid point), but to claim that one's right to bear arms is out of necessity to protect oneself when it was never the intent is making a strawman.

 

[Alc]

Ken, did you post the original text because you agree with it, or just to get the conversation going? Only it's a bit of a one-sided discussion so far.

 

[KenHigg]

Ken, did you post the original text because you agree with it, or just to get the conversation going? Only it's a bit of a one-sided discussion so far.

I was just starting a thread on a topic that has in the past been controversial around here because things were kind of quite.

Actually, my view is that if you have to carry a gun as an equalizer then society has much bigger issues than guns. Which we do.

What do think the consensus is around here?


ken

 

[GaryPanic]

I was just starting a thread on a topic that has in the past been controversial around here because things were kind of quite.

Actually, my view is that if you have to carry a gun as an equalizer then society has much bigger issues than guns. Which we do.

What do think the consensus is around here?


ken

Yep.. I'd agree with that ,

 

[Rich]

things were kind of quite.

ken

Quite what exactly

 

[KenHigg]

Quite slow -

ken

 

[Rich]

Hawaii is a STATE. Meets my criteria.

Hwaii was stolen from the natives, what's your point again

 

[KenHigg]

Hwaii?

Darn, have we done it again?