Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
Sounds like the mindset at the time the amendment was adopted. With no way to defend ourselves if the Brits or French came back, made sense. With todays firepower, minimally armed is the logical perception looking backwards. What about today? With the best military in the world and well armed police what do we need to be armed from/against today? Ahh..so now the interpretation is self defense against each other. Ok..fine..
I can't say I'd be ok with a redefination of the 2nd Admendment, but, if Congress were to clarify it, so be it. My impression is that, yes, the roots of the 2nd Admendment was as both a check on the government (see various writings of the founding fathers) and also as a recruit pool for the military. By having the peasants knowledgable about firearms meant they should be that much easier to press into service. Now, sure, today it is unlikely that we need to put up a mass resistance to an invading army; most military operations today require highly trained personel. Not raw recruits. So you are left with a dilemma: do we continue to let the unwashed masses have access to military weapons, as both a government check and as a recruiting pool, or do we redefine the 2nd Admendment to be primarily for the right to self defense and hunting (and thereby restrict "military"-like weapons)?
Personally, my opinion, without a redefinition of the 2nd Admendment any restriction is unconstitutional.
Quote:
I grew up during a time we settled things with fists. Like men. Today I'm wondering if the skinny tiny dude acting tough is packing. Thats a coward. Gotta spray me with bullets? A coward that can't shoot straight.
No, I'm not for removing the second amendment. but I also think pulling a gun instead of putting up your dukes is a coward and those people should be stripped of that right.
LeakySeals, I'm going to
assume you meant different,
but I have to take exception here. You sound as if you're some big tall guy who likes to pick on small people--but is prevented from doing so because the small guy "might be packing". As a small guy who works in an office, and has the physique to prove it, I find your comment actually proof of why I'd want to pack, at least occasionally. An armed society might not be a polite society, but I think you helped to make a point about it.
If I may return to neutral here, how many times has some verbal confrontation (be it at the bar, family reunion, whatever, alcohol present or not) has resorted to gunplay? It seems to me, perhaps bad assumption on my part, that those who are of the sort to duke it out are likely to do so, but without resorting to gunfire. I'd also like to point out that a person can be badly hurt in a physical confrontation, even killed, easily enough.
Quote:
Defense in the home is a different issue. With a bazooka? ICBM? I think there needs to be limits. Because if these weapons get into the wrong hands, a lot of damage can be done. I have to be sold why assault weapons have a place in the home. If its defensive, why is it called assault?
Sure. Most of those items are already restricted (constitutionally or not), and, pretty expensive to obtain even if not prohibited. And pretty useless for self defense, unless if it's an army that is doing the invading (in which case, go ahead and take my house!). Now, in terms of so-called assualt weapons, things get a bit different. "Spray and pray" sounds bad--until it's required. During an attack with multiple invaders one may need to fire quickly. Sure, you want all shots to be well aimed--but if two-three-more people are rushing at you, more is better. 5 or 6 rounds can run out real fast, especially if the gun is shooting a low-energy round. [Am trying to avoid the caliber wars here.]
Spree killings are rare. House invasions are rare too, but not quite as rare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Dartmouth_College_murders
These two lowlifes attempted to do a house invasion, one guy to get the door open, the other to rush in once the door was opened. Perhaps not the best example but the first one off the top of my head.
Quote:
This latest mass murder of children has me on the fence now. Its not clear these weapons can be properly secured in civilian hands. Something has to be done. I don't know what that is other than infringe on some other right like privacy.
No, no a gunowner. But I can vote. And depending on how you guys reply is how I'm going to vote. You explain to me why you need assault rifles for defense nicely, maybe I vote your way. You tell me go f' myself or chastise me, I justify that people with that attitude (gun owners acting tough cause they have guns) should not be armed..at all.. and vote accordingly.
Fair enough. In many aspects we all live in the same sandbox, and have to get along. Somehow. Some days it's much harder than others... !
