YouTube massacre

[..]

Uh, make up your own mind given the verbage presented and the commonly understood definitions of the English language. That's all.

 

It is that simple. No coercion or buyoffs involved.

 

But of course, that's NOT the answer you want to see, so you resist...

 

EDIT: I'm sure you were pissed off about Clinton's "meaning of is" shit, so let's just cut the bullshit and read what is written!

 

Regards,

SD

[Bangkoktraveler]

Is that an answer?

[..]

Sure it is. It is asking you to use your brain, vs a knee-jerk in-bred reaction. Notice I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you actually *have* a brain...

 

Cheers,

SD -- very charitable

[Bangkoktraveler]

[color:red]"Notice I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you actually *have* a brain..."[/color]

 

I am not surprise that would be your reply.

 

As for the Second Amendment, there are those who are totally against any type of gun control and then there are those on the opposite side of the spectrum who would like to see guns banned. I believe the answer, in regards to what the Second Amendment is about, can be found in the one source you provided that I quoted several times in that the answer will probably have to come from the Supreme Court.

 

As for the name calling; that seems to be normal in these type of debates. If you can't win the debate; you win by name calling.

 

 

 

 

 

[Steve]

Now think about your question and ask again.

 

Regards,

SD

 

Again. Please respond to my post. It was an agrarian society back then and for decades after. Guns were part of every day life. Guns were a necessity, especially for rural folks. Maybe I'm just not seeing it. And I would appreciate your explaining it to me why the framers would intend on the people not having guns but only for a militia when guns were a necessity to survive?

 

I'm not saying we haven't outlived a use for it (guns that is). Not at all. That is open for debate but its's a different issue from what we are discussing. I'm addressing the times and society at which the second amendment was written and asking the question I had in the paragraph above.

 

[Steve]

Some thing else to add to the discussion and for SD. The colonies had the right to own firearms BEFORE the Bill of Rights were written. That is clear and undisputable. So, how does the second amendment take away those rights? The new states didn't take it away. The forefathers said we have certain rights that were unalienable: religion, pursuit of happiness, speech, etc. Those rights were in affect BEFORE the Bill of Rights. All it did was codify rights already assumed. Including the right of individual to own firearms at the time.

 

James Madison wrote most of it. He is from Virginia. Jefferson as well with the delcaration of independence. It can safely be assumed that Madison and Jefferson as well as all the southern delegates as well as a lot of the northern ones (possibly the exception of Franklin being a quaker and a couple others) owned firearms. It makes no sense to me why they would intend for themselves as well as their fellow citizens not to have them.

 

Furthermore, the country relied on the individual citizen to have his own firearm for military service. The millitary didn't arm you at the time. Assuming you are correct that the founders didn't intend for individuals to own firearms how were the country going to defend its sovereignty, without private ownership of guns at the time?

 

 

[Bangkoktraveler]

Anther issue is the right to be able to protect oneself. I have held that the number one universal right a person should have is the right to be able to protect and defend one self.

 

 

[Steve]

SD is caught up with the militia verbiage. I understand it for someone who is against private gun ownership. However, one must understand the times the Bill of Rights were written. The forefathers used organized revolt to free themselves. Again, they distrusted a central government and when they discussed armed millitia's they always spoke of it in the context that if the government was to become tyrannical in the future, the people had the right to use organized revolt as a last resort. They also addressed quakers and others who had a religious conviction to be pacifists.

The rights they maintained was their god given right in the Declaration of Independence, some of which some of the colonies were founded on (relgious freedom) they codified.

The simple fact that the new government never tried to collect all the guns, nor any of the states banned gun ownership should tell us enough.

Individual gun ownership was assumed to be a right. Just like relgion, speech, etc. It was an organized militia of gun owners that was codified, because of some possible future threat from that the government could become tyrannical again.

 

As I've stated ad nauseum. Guns were a necessity for a lot of Americans to survive for food, protection from indians on the frontier, robbers, etc. The country at the time, or even the individual states had neither the resources or infrastructure to protect citizens adequately as they do today with a police, national guard and military.

 

[Bangkoktraveler]

Some of the people who are against guns believe that if you are attacked, it is your fault. The blame is put on the victim, not the criminal. For example, a woman is raped because of the clothes she wears. Some want her to take responsibility for what happened to her. Very little, if anything is said about the criminals. When 4 Thai men tried robing me, there were some who held to this belief.

 

The right to defend one self is, in many ways, a right that probably will be taken completely away from us very soon. As that right is taken away, we will probably hear how much more freedom we have. WWJD - - - - What would Jefferson have done?

[Steve]

Whether or not the state can adequately protect its citizens is a current debate in society if we remove all guns. Then there is the hunting issue. The issue SD and other gun control advocates maintain is that we never had the right in the first place. Its clear it was, at least to me. Debating the verbiage when the times and the context clearly support that individuals at the time of the Bill of Rights had the right to their own arms is clear enough.

 

Have we as a people outgrown the need? That is another debate. I would add that America is not homogeneous. Each state and region are different. Its clear that some areas have problems with gun crime and that some areas have very little if any problems with gun crime but have plenty of guns around. Each state and city decides its own fate as to how much gun control it wants. If its not working in DC or NYC its not Idaho's fault.