Lol, as if time takes away any of the legitimacy of what the 2nd amendment was created for.

How easy do you think it is to fight an a Predator with an AK47. Let's ask that Anwar guy.

Killing terrorists who threaten the us gov in just an abstract way is not difficult. An insurgency of American domestic terrorists would last a few days.

Sigh Phil, just sigh.

what was it created for?

To ensure that if a tyrannical government took over, it couldn't disarm the populace. Because if a tyrannical government could disarm the populace, any attempts at restoring liberties lost would be futile.

I thought that in the absence of a standing army it was to ensure that the "free state" could defend itself from attack?

Steven, I know you're not big on history (otherwise you wouldn't say such things) but just how heavily armed with the Warsaw Pact states' civilian populations when they overthrew communism and established democracies?

There is plenty of debate on this subject. In my mind it makes perfect sense for how I described the 2nd with what events that had just occurred. The throwing over of a tyrannical government which had tried to disarm the "patriots" as they called themselves. Trying to appease the anti-fed side with shift from the state's having their own standing armies to the federal government having it.


I love how you are telling me what I like or don't like. The arrogance. Granted, I will give you I don't know much about the Warsaw Pact states and their overthrow of the Soviets. That era of history doesn't interest me much. But wasn't the Soviet union beginning to crumble at that point? Why didn't these civilian populations overthrow communism when it was at its peak or sooner if all they had to do was protest? Seem much more likely the internal problems faced within the Soviet Union played a large part with their success and without it they wouldn't have been able to break free at least without major bloodshed. I can't imagine a strong Soviet Union giving up territory without a fight and looking weak to the US. Seems much more likely they would have put down hard any revolutions with how they themselves came to power had they been able. Like I said though, I won't claim a great deal of knowledge on that area at that time period so I could be completely wrong.

How much success do you think the American revolutionist would have had if they had been disarmed?

At the time a standing army was considered incompatible with liberty by the English and in the colonies. A government that has an army sitting around will want to find a use for it, and that use will generally be ill considered, expensive, and immoral. A standing army can also run over the citizens: searching without cause, taking food and shelter without paying, locking up without trial.

If you start with the assumption you won't have a standing army then a militia makes sense. It solves the problem of what to do when a foreign country declares war. Having men who have trained and have weapons lets you fight on short notice if people want the fight.

Since then we've added a standing army, a draft, and then technology that reduces the number of soldiers needed to fight any war. Well regulated militias are no longer necessary for the security of this state. The justification for the right -- named explicitly in the opening clause -- is now false.

Well I believe the second part of the amendment, 'the right to bear arms shall not be infringed' was the important part, and the first part was used as the why the right shall not be infringed. Like you said, they believed militia were paramount for protection against invasion, but you can't argue against the significance the militia played in helping them win their freedom. That wasn't an external invasion. They fought from within. You can't have militia without the populace owning guns either. Thus that right shall not be infringed upon.

An armed populace that doesn't give up the right to arms has recourse against a Tyrannical government. As they proved. That's why I believe it is never out of date.

To me, sensible gun legislation would look something like this:

- all guns must be registered
- guns can only be bought from licensed vendors
- guns can only be owned by licensed owners
- guns can only be stored at, and used on, licensed premises
- all current gun owners have a period of time to comply or sell back their weapons
- all illegally held guns after that time will be confiscated and the owners sent to prison

My ideal is currently unrealistic in the US, but it's working just fine here in the UK. If there's ever the political will and sufficient popular support for gun control in the US, I guess there will always be a few thousand who'd rather go down shooting than hand over their guns, but the majority would surely comply with or without an existing gun registry.

I think you mean the tyrannical UK

The problem is that this doesn't get you to a Constitutional right to use (certain) guns as a commercial product. If it's merely to protect against tyrannical government, the shape of the law, banning fully automatic weapons, RPGs etc doesn't make sense while enacting very strict regulations such as ammo can't be placed in the same room or house or all guns need to be stored outside the home, or they have to be stored in a safe, or even they can't be used for civil defence, or whatever else could be sensible as long as it was reasonable that they could be used to defend against an invasion against the government.

LOL you need a little brushing up on your history perhaps but I concede it is also likely that this is just an attempt to re-write history. I don't know, maybe being under the jack boots of a totalitarian regime of one type or another for nearly 50 years was ok with the folks until it became a little stale. Cool story.

There are already examples of "infringement" that gun nuts are fine with. Convicted felons and people with restraining orders against them aren't allowed to own guns. There are restrictions on the types of weapons you can own. Enacting a few more regulations isn't going to restrict your right to own a gun. Hopefully they keep guns out of the hands of people who won't be "responsible gun owners".

Saying that guns are needed for protection against tyranny is just grasping at straws. If that's the only reason for the 2nd amendment, then it's woefully out of date.

of course you do.

of course, we DO have a well-regulated militia today, so that eliminates the "well, that was just the rationale for it" logic. minor detail, i know.

an "armed populace" stands ZERO chance of taking recourse against our well-regulated militia. the crazy rancher dude would have stood no chance at all against the air force. if the "tyrannical government" (lol) decides it isn't gonna **** around, you are completely screwed. amazingly enough, weaponry has progressed significantly since the 1700's, and bombers/fighter jets aren't available to you. sucks, i know.

now. if you want to completely deconstruct the american military and defense system, and leave us without a standing army (and all that goes with it in today's world), then you have my 100% support to bear all the arms you want.

somehow though, i think the venn diagram of "strong defense supporter" and "2nd amendment supporter" overlaps quite strongly. so you got a bit of a problem there.

Ikes, you were saying that uk/Japan/Australia laws equate to confiscation, and fine, they do for the most part.

So what about Scandinavian law? Do you object at all to their premise? Namely, your firearms must have a stated reason for use (either as part of a hunting club or sport shooting club, or if a documented need for self defense is provided.) They must be registered and only used for the stated purpose. If they are to be kept in the home they can only be transfered for use at the approved events. If they are to be kept in the home they must be kept in a police inspected and approved safe with x parts seperated from y parts seperated from ammo. Ammo and guns can only ever be purchased from licensed retailers and cannot be sold or transferred between individuals. People looking to own a gun must take a 30-40 hour safety class (not watch a ten minute video.)

All of these seem perfectly reasonable, and I'm wondering which piece you would find unacceptable and why.

Any other pro 2a supporter is welcome to answer

If you're going to change the law to scandinavian law, what are you going to do with the millions of people who will suddenly have illegal guns? (Hint: you're going to confiscate them)

No, I believe that many of the people pushing for changes to the current gun law want confiscation because they openly argue for confiscation. You're one of them.

Yes, any guns that don't have a stated purpose. Is there any reason that people should have guns outside of the three listed above? People will have the option to sell them back. Anybody with a gun they want to keep that can be used for the stated purposes can register them and take the safety course.

Yes there are reasons, because the right to accessible self defense doesn't begin AFTER you are threatened and have filed the proper paperwork.

And just to make clear, you're still confiscating millions of guns forcefully.

Yes, but we are not confiscating all guns forcefully which is exactly what you want people to fear when you yell "they want a registry for CONFISCATION." There are 100% guns owned by people right now that should be confiscated.

if/when guns are made illlegal, they will be confiscated. Until then, they won't. The existence or otherwise of a gun registry does not affect this.

lol the fact you've created some very small exceptions to your confiscation scheme does not mean you're not grossly violating people's rights to self defense.

Let's say you pass a law banning guns tomorrow. Will it be easier or harder to confiscate everyone's guns if you have a list that tells you where all the guns are?

The second amendment does not address a right to self defense ikes. There is a right to own arms for the use of a well regulated malitia. Taking away firearms does not stop somebody from defending themselves either, unless you think everybody in every country with gun control just flail their arms wildly upon attack.