Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
According to Title X of the US Code there are two classifications of militias: organized or unorganized. Well regulated militia fits better into organized because they are regulated by the structure of the organization.
|
But Title X USC does not refer to to either as "well regulated". If the intent of said code was to discriminate between the two for the purpose of defining the 2nd Amendment, would it not be reasonable to assume they would have used the language in the ammendment.
Quote:
|
Not according to my English professor. The language still meant regulated as we say it today according to someone who know more about the language of that time than I ever will. I'll see if I can find a link online, but the internet is swamped with pro gun propaganda, so I don't hold out much hope.
|
Unfortunately the opposite is also true. Equally unfortunate is that your professor most likely has strong opinions on the issue that may be swaying his judgement (assuming that you asked him about the language in the second ammendment, and not just the archaic definition of regulated). I have heard several different explanations from several different professors, each subtly (and not so subtly) influenced by thier veiws on guns.
Quote:
|
That means properly training future criminals, too. I can't live with that.
|
Criminals seem to be doing just fine without any training at all right now...
Perhaps you would at least agree that gun safety classes should be mandatory in our schools?
Quote:
I can't say it's either collective or individual. It's more organization based. Members of said well regulated militia are provided the Constitutionally protected right to bear arms so long as they follow the laws of the land.
The right to free press is organization based.
|
The right to free press is an individual right, part and parcel with the freedom of speech.
Quote:
|
But it also arms everyone, be they emotionally sound or sociopath. Not only that but the temptation of using the gun is always there. In a dangerous situation, if everyone pulls a gun, we get constant gun fights and a lot of people can die.
|
It does not arm everybody, it just allows them to be armed. Remember: the dangerous sociopath will arm himself regardless of laws against it. The dangerous gunfights breaking out everywhere are farsical, were it true then we would expect far more shootings in right to carry states than in rights restricted states, which is not the case.
Quote:
They do already. If it's more difficult to get a gun, it's more difficult to carry out gun related crime.
How often are gun crimes stopped by civilians that carry? Now compare that to how often gun crimes would happen if guns were very difficult to get.
|
You missed my point. IF you could wave a magic wand and make all of the guns in the US dissappear, and decided to disarm your law-enforcement personnel as well, what would happen if a criminal got his hands on a firearm? How would you stop him? The Army?