Quote:
Originally posted by shakran
The insurgents in Iraq have been in warfare for decades. The insurgents in Iraq are also made up in part of people who are coming into the country from elsewhere -people who HAVE had intensive combat training in training camps. There aren't groups like that in the US.
|
Odd, I seem to recall there being a great number of militia groups in America training for specifically this purpose. And I have no doubt that we would see foreigners on our land in the same way that Iraq has foreign insurgents.
Quote:
|
And you should be careful using the phrase "specifically indicates" and the 2nd amendment. If it were so specific, we wouldn't still be arguing about what it means 200 years after it was written. If it specifically said what you say it said, it would say "No American will be forbidden to own weapons." It wouldn't have ANY qualifiers (security of a free state line) in it whatsoever.
|
I disagree. To me, the 2nd Amendment is quite clear that Americans should be allowed to arm themselves. Obviously you disagree with me, which is fine.
Quote:
|
Why is that qualifier there? IMHO it's there because the framers did not mean "everyone can have a gun and do whatever he feels like with it. No one needs to learn how to use it or be taught to use it responsibly." The framers meant "you know, this is a radically new system of government and some assholes probably aren't going to like it very much. We'd better be ready to defeat them if we want this thing to succeed. Maybe everyone should be allowed to join a militia and be given guns so that we have a fighting chance."
|
As I see it that isn't a qualifier, that's a justification for letting individual citizens bear arms.
Why shouldn't individual citizens be allowed to arm themselves?