Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I take this to mean that there is supposed to be a civilian counterpart to the federal military, in order to maintain balance of power (bear in mind that the UK had a very strong military and almost no militia at the time of the 13 Colonies). The Second Amendment is quite simply a guerentee by it's creators that the federal government will not overpower the militia, at the risk of breaking it's own rules. If you are a member of the militia, then you have the right to bear arms to the ends of being a second line of defence against exterior threats, and to maintain the balance of power between federal government and civilians. If you own a gun and do not belong to a militia, the right to bear arms ceases to be a legal civil right. It is a privilege.
|
A quick comment on this and then we can hold the rest of this for a thread on the second amendment like I had proposed last week. There were two types of militia back then, organized and unorganized. The power for congress to call forth, organize, and arm the militia was written so that congress could legally supply arms to those that did not own arms. In the time of the writings of the founders, every reference to civilian ownership of arms was considered an absolute right and not a privilege. As I stated before, the confiscation of civilian arms by the British (capitalized for Daniel
) was a catalyst for the revolution. There should be no doubt as to the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right IF the courts were to take in to account the founders writings during the debates for ratification.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Also, the citizens of the UK are hardly defenceless. That is an exageration at best, and a lie at worst. They have available to them the same defensive technologies as Americans such as security systems, safety doors and windows, clubs, panic rooms, tasers, defensive aerosols, and the likes. I will say this again for clarity: a gun is not the only defence against criminals.
|
security systesm, safety doors and windows, and panic rooms are not defensive items. They are prevention items. Any hand held, non-missile projecting weapon requires that the intended victim be within arms reach of said assailant, an inherent risk in and of itself and most people are not up to that task mentally or physically. With the risk of bodily injury so readily at hand during that close up encounter, most people choose to submit quietly and hope for the best and I, personally, think that it is an offense against law abiding people to deprive them of a means of defense from a distance. It is an unnecessary risk to their own physical well being just so that the 'state' can institute a 'feel-good' law about gun control.