Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Deltona Couple
History has shown that in the states where concealed [weapons] permits have been enacted, that crimes against INDIVIDUALS has decreased over time. Now OBVIOUSLY this doesn't include such a HORRIFIC situation as that at Virginia Tech. There will ALWAYS be [anomalies] in life. We can't begin to predict human [behavior] or emotions when under stress; and lets face it, there are not many things more stressful than [high school] and college. It is terrible what has happened, and there is nothing that we can do now to go back and change things, but lets cool down before we start taking action too soon. Face it, after September 11th, we jumped the gun pretty quick, and see where THAT led us? (Don't go jumping me about the war or anything...if ANYONE can attest to how I feel about the war, support of/or the actual fact that we are there in the first place it is Willravel, whom I have ENJOYED many discussions of our difference of opinions in threads of that subject!)
|
I'm sure \we both agree that most if not every military action in response to 9/11 has been a mistake. The rest is another matter.
I'll again call on the UK to cite as an example of a nation that has a successful gun ban. The short history of that ban has shown that a gun ban can lower gun crime when carried out correctly. While it's easy to call the VT massacre an anomaly, the fact of the matter is it's much easier to commit a massacre with a gun than it is with a knife or bat. I'd rather face a man in a dark alley if he were armed with a knife or bat than a gun. I'm sure you agree.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Deltona Couple
Now as to the 2nd amendment: I love how some people are trying to give their opinion on what it means, so here is mine...
"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Maybe the grammar is a little off, but I read it thusly: "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the preservation of a free state" (because we may NEED at some point in the future, a militia), "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"(the right of individual gun ownership, will not be taken away)
I do not read it as a FULL sentence, meaning that only those needed for a militia will be allowed to own/carry guns, but as a WHOLE statement.
|
And you're not the only one the read it that way. The thing is: they were obviously intended to be linked in spirit by their logical functions. It's in that sense that I derive my interpretation.
What was the intended function Second Amendment? The populace was able to wage war against the superior forces of the British Army partially because of their militia's armaments. Had the populace not been able to organize militias, it's entirely possible we'd all have all bad teeth and snobby accents. Bearing that in mind, when one starts a new government who's genesis features such realizations, the idea of regulating power between the government and the populace should be balanced by having an able militia that is not federally controlled. In the unlikely case that the federal government, using the military, were to infringe on our rights and such we should have the organizational capacity to hold our ground by having a capable militia. Do we have anything like that now? Not really, and it's a shame because I believe that things like Waco could have been prevented if representatives from a militia were to speak with the ATF they could have brought with them the promise of armed resistance that could have acted as a deterrent (one would hope). Moving back to what this means so far as the Amendment, I believe that the Amendment is in place to protect the ability of the populace so far as maintaining military power in the form of a militia or militias. The clear reasoning would be to make sure that a potential police state would meet with heavy resistance.
How would this apply today? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Federal government continues on it's current authoritarian road. Let's say that, in the name of fighting crime or terrorism, that we have tanks rolling down our streets, curfews, kidnappings, the loss of due process for those citizens captured, and detention camps for those suspected but not tried. If this were to ever happen, I would have the Constitutionally protected right to organize a militia to the ends of returning order. It's the right to resist governmental tyranny in organized groups. I'd probably use bombs instead of guns, personally, because it's clear that IEDs are the most successful way to combat a military like ours. They're cheap and easy to construct from common parts and compounds.
When you ask a gun owner why they own a gun, I'd be willing to bet that they'd say they have the gun to protect themselves or their families from criminals or aggressors. While I concede that this is reasonable, I do think it's clear that that intent is not in the Second Amendment, and thus things like the right for an individual to bear arms is not Constitutionally protected unless they are a member of a militia which has the function of supporting the power of the populace in case the government oversteps it's bounds.
My fingers hurt, and I have to get back to work.