Slashdot Mirror

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

The man who wrote the 2nd Amendment itself, wrote a shorter, more concise, clearer version of what he originally stated to Congress and quoted here. It is unequivocal - the concept was the people can keep and bear arms, unequivocally. And that this arming of the citizenship provides the best final defense of a nation. Flat out.

But what did he know, he's just some dead white slaveholder who wrote some old words on a piece of paper...

If you want to read a few more thoughts of the guys who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, here are a few for you. I also like the words of George Washington...

Isn't this the thing the Second amendment was supposed to prevent?

As I understand it, the 2nd Amendment was supposed to ensure against invasion from the British Empire by keeping the population armed, so any attempt at invasion would allow the armed population to spark a popular insurrection.

The explicit purpose is to make sure the government doesn't have a monopoly on power:

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org...

That our country is basically uninvadeable is a decent side benefit.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org...
This isn't new, nor fabricated. But anti-gun people keep pretending that it is, in lockstep.

You can argue all day about whether the 2nd amendment should be in place. It's a lot harder to argue about the intent. The founding fathers thought a free people should be armed. http://www.buckeyefirearms.org...

...but then, if you believe that being the victim of a crime can itself be made a crime, it'll take more than fact-checking to stop you from looking like an ass.

Your reading comprehension is low. It was done for cars. It helped reduce car theft. When your opinion and reality conflict, I'll choose reality. That you won't says things about you.

How about you run away from the thugs instead of towards your car?

Because I have a limp, old injury, I'm overweight, I'm in a wheelchair, or the younger assailants just flat run faster than I do. Retreat is not always an option, especially for the young, old, infirm, and for some females and a few males.

Oh wait, you get all your facts from TV.

A) the constitution, by design, can be changed.

Get 2/3 of both houses of congress, and 3/4 of state legislatures, and strike the second amendment then. Go ahead. Small changes to gun law couldn't pass in a Democrat controlled senate with a president spending a huge amount of capital to push it. I'm sure you'll have no trouble amending the constitution to outlaw guns.

b) The thought they were important enough for a well regulated militia.
Why you people can't read the whole god damn sentence is beyond me.

I did read the whole sentence. It ends with, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I would challenge you to not only read the amendment yourself, but read the rest of the bill of rights, and see what other rights the founding fathers thought that the "people" possessed inalienably. Ask yourself if you believe those other rights of people are associated with membership in an organized group, or were individual rights. It's all or nothing. Either "people's" rights are individual or collective contingent on some membership. (To save you the time, the first, fourth, ninth, and tenth amendments all refer to these "people.") The writers of the constitution were lawyers and lawmakers; they knew words had meanings, and that you must use them consistently.

Hint: is was becasue we couldn't afford a standing army. EOL.
It's very clear in all the letters and writing. If we could have afforded a standing army, that bit wouldn't be there.

What's even more clear is their desire for individual people to be armed. Try these: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers

I also like how in your scenario the thugs didn't have a gun.
You leave you office building, a thug shoots you, takes your wallet and gun, and you die with the comforting feeling they a murder has your gun.

No one who carries a gun believes it's a magical talisman against harm. It levels the playing field, and gives you more options that you have without one.

You can make a gun the just plain works AND hove a bio metric ID system. The fact that you cna't think of anything just another indicator of your sub par thinking skills.

Several posters on this topic have explained why it wont work. And please don't resort to insults.

Of course, there are plenty of cities where the Second Amendment simply does not exist, so . . . : /

How about the entire state of Ohio?