Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Gorgo · 07-29-2003, 09:04 PM

ctembreull v. debaser

It's interesting to see two people with seriously polar opposite beliefs try to come to a consensus about Gun Control.

I can't resist throwing in my perspective, as I believe I am somewhere between the two of you on this issue.

First, about that Second Amendment:
"A well-regulated militia being essential to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Let's remember when this was written, so we can take it in context. Over 200 years ago, when smoothbore muskets were state-of-the-art firearms. Most adult males had one, for hunting and such. Over half the population was involved in producing food, most as farmers. There wasn't a standing army, nothing like what we have now. The militia was all the men of the town who could use their muskets and defend the town. They were like "citizen soldiers".

Next lets read the whole sentence and notice the comma halfway thru. The first part of the sentence is the "justification" part, where the need for a militia ie. citizen soldiers is located. The second part of sentence is the actual rule of law "the right of the people to keep and bear arns shall not be infringed". For a definition of people, see the first sentence of said constitution, as in "We the people", all law-abiding citizens is the meaning here.

So the basic concept is, all law-abinding citizens who may be needed in the militia to keep security and defend the free state may keep and bear arms.

Why is this a good idea?
The people in this thread have pretty much covered them all, self-defense, crime deterrent, slow police response, dictatorship deterrence.

----------------------

Second, does size matter?
Yes, Not much for diameter, but for length absolutely.

The longer the barrel the more inherently accurate the weapon can be.
The shorter the barrel the more easily concealed.

Diameter mostly affects how many shots you can get on target because of recoil, but its only takes one well aimed shot of any caliber to end a lethal confrontation.

And I'll take any firearm, even a little .22 deringer over any other self-defense item, lethal or non-lethal, if I want the best chance of saving my life or a loved one's.

----------------------
Gun Control?
Not if it takes away my right as a law-abiding US citizen to keep and bear a firearm for lawful self defense. Requiring gun owners to be trained in use, care and responsibilties of firearms ownership would be OK with me.

Restricting citizens from having Military style fireams is also OK with me. We don't really need sniper rifles, bazookas and machineguns to defend our homes and loved ones from street criminals.

FYI, I am a licensed Concealed Carry Weapon and Firearm license holder and a licensed Armed Security Guard in my state, so I am the Militia ;P

07-29-2003, 09:04 PM	#104 (permalink)
Gorgo Tilted Location: Tampa Bay, Florida	ctembreull v. debaser It's interesting to see two people with seriously polar opposite beliefs try to come to a consensus about Gun Control. I can't resist throwing in my perspective, as I believe I am somewhere between the two of you on this issue. First, about that Second Amendment: "A well-regulated militia being essential to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Let's remember when this was written, so we can take it in context. Over 200 years ago, when smoothbore muskets were state-of-the-art firearms. Most adult males had one, for hunting and such. Over half the population was involved in producing food, most as farmers. There wasn't a standing army, nothing like what we have now. The militia was all the men of the town who could use their muskets and defend the town. They were like "citizen soldiers". Next lets read the whole sentence and notice the comma halfway thru. The first part of the sentence is the "justification" part, where the need for a militia ie. citizen soldiers is located. The second part of sentence is the actual rule of law "the right of the people to keep and bear arns shall not be infringed". For a definition of people, see the first sentence of said constitution, as in "We the people", all law-abiding citizens is the meaning here. So the basic concept is, all law-abinding citizens who may be needed in the militia to keep security and defend the free state may keep and bear arms. Why is this a good idea? The people in this thread have pretty much covered them all, self-defense, crime deterrent, slow police response, dictatorship deterrence. ---------------------- Second, does size matter? Yes, Not much for diameter, but for length absolutely. The longer the barrel the more inherently accurate the weapon can be. The shorter the barrel the more easily concealed. Diameter mostly affects how many shots you can get on target because of recoil, but its only takes one well aimed shot of any caliber to end a lethal confrontation. And I'll take any firearm, even a little .22 deringer over any other self-defense item, lethal or non-lethal, if I want the best chance of saving my life or a loved one's. ---------------------- Gun Control? Not if it takes away my right as a law-abiding US citizen to keep and bear a firearm for lawful self defense. Requiring gun owners to be trained in use, care and responsibilties of firearms ownership would be OK with me. Restricting citizens from having Military style fireams is also OK with me. We don't really need sniper rifles, bazookas and machineguns to defend our homes and loved ones from street criminals. FYI, I am a licensed Concealed Carry Weapon and Firearm license holder and a licensed Armed Security Guard in my state, so I am the Militia ;P __________________ Will Code for food . . . Last edited by Gorgo; 07-29-2003 at 09:17 PM..