.. Posted November 17, 2007 Report Share Posted November 17, 2007 Both, given the progression of the verbage of the amendment. Cheers, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted November 18, 2007 Report Share Posted November 18, 2007 Here's the thing though. America was an agrarian society back then. Especially in the south but even in the north, outside the cities, people lived on farms and lived off the land. A gun was a necessity in those days. One hunted his own food. Even on farms where they raised animals they still hunted to supplement their food requirement. I find it hard that the framers could foresee a society where a gun was not only used for protection but for food as well. Guns were part of every day life. The framers of the constitution wrote plenty about their distrust of a strong central government. It seems that they wrote about the people forming a militia to guard against the tyranny of a government that may oppress the people as they thought that the British government did to them in the colonies. That part of the constitution may very well have been for an 'organized rebellion' as a final straw when all other means were used. Just like how they did. They went to Parliament, etc. and chose armed rebellion as a final choice. It just seems that they wrote the militia passage for that. It was inconceivable to take away guns from people because as I stated prior, guns were a necessity in life in an agrarian america of the 1700s and was still a necessity in large parts of America a century later. So, explain how they wanted a society without guns when people needed it to live? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted November 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2007 The problem is people. Ban people and the violence goes away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted November 18, 2007 Report Share Posted November 18, 2007 CT said [color:red]"So you don't think the original intent was for citizens to have guns? Or you do but think the problem are hand guns?"[/color] SuaDum replied: "[color:red]Both, given the progression of the verbage of the amendment."[/color] It is hard for me to see how the following words could be interpreted that way. [color:red]" 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."[/color] Can Professor Suadum please step forth and educate me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted November 18, 2007 Report Share Posted November 18, 2007 ...It seems that they wrote about the people forming a militia to guard against the tyranny of a government that may oppress the people... Ignore your propaganda indoctrination and read this (the facts I posted) again; follow up as you see fit: [color:blue]* -- Before you waste bytes on saying "they meant for everyman to be a part of the militia" recall that the original text of what was to become the Second Amendment, as brought to the floor to the first session of the first congress of the U.S. House of Representatives, was: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...; a revision read: A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people... but that too was scrapped.[/color] Now think about your question and ask again. Regards, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted November 18, 2007 Report Share Posted November 18, 2007 Can Professor Suadum please step forth and educate me? Since you refuse to read the FACTS given you, I do not see how you can pass this course. If you DO want to learn, then go back and read my lesson and report back. Yes, I am so sorry, this will upset your current (irrational) belief structure, so I understand the pain... Regards, Professor SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted November 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2007 Hmmm ... reminds me of those profs who would say, "I don't care what position you take, as long as you defend it." Then they'd fail you if you didn't agree with them, since it was impossible for them to be wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bust Posted November 18, 2007 Report Share Posted November 18, 2007 I have read the link you posted SD and apart from not really understanding it completely because I am not from the US and are really not that interested in gun laws the one observation I can make is that if such a lengthy document has been written it tells me it is not as black and white as some would have us believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted November 18, 2007 Report Share Posted November 18, 2007 Hmmm ... reminds me of those profs who would say, "I don't care what position you take, as long as you defend it." Then they'd fail you if you didn't agree with them, since it was impossible for them to be wrong! I am willing to hear all sides. Given the FACTS I presented, please present an alternative interpretation scenario or some other opposing view (with backup, thank you)... Cheers, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted November 18, 2007 Report Share Posted November 18, 2007 Professor Suadum: One of your sources disagrees with your position. I rewrite what that source said, once again. (if you reread past posts, you never commented on this discovery) Your source material says: [color:red]"In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects."[/color] Please educate me what your source says. Especially the area I put in bold. To make it easy, I will repeat that part once more. [color:red]there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects."[/color] As for these discussions, I would say CS is right on. He has been able to provide information which is presented in such a way that he should consider submitting some of his ideas so they might be printed in magazine or book form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.