Willravel

The sentence is grammatically incorrect by today's standards, so we have to rely on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said that citizens have a right to have guns for defense, but said clearly that there are limits on the freedom. What's more to say? I'm sure some disagree with the decision, but that's the law. Deal with it or change it.

roachboy

we're heading onto the planet militia here, aren't we?
what is the point of this exactly?

maybe the militia movement is gearing up for a new round of zany actions, kinda like the stuff that enframed the oklahoma city bombings. i look forward to the new black helicopter sightings and the new adventures of zog and all the other lunacy particular to that tiny sector of the far right at the level of media. back in the day, this sort of thing would make me laugh and laugh.

but giving militia groups machine guns, or making it easy--at all--for them to get (for example) machine guns is a really really bad idea.
these groups are in themselves arguments for gun control.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dksuddeth

RB, here's my question for you.

In a hypothetical scenario, and just go with me here, say something happened between now and jan 20th, catastrophically tragic, and Bush decided to pull a Lincoln by suspending the constitution and 'temporarily' putting off the inauguration. Say he did this with a sizable portion of the military and fed agencies along with Blackwater and a previously unknown group of mercs.

What recourse would you have? what recourse would you want?
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 02 : 21 : 17-----
if it wasn't grammatically incorrect when it was written and it was understood by all at that time, why would it need to be re-interpreted by a court 200+ years later? Did it's meaning really change? or just a definition of a word?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Baraka_Guru

Thanks for attempting to clear this up. It's quite confusing. In modern convention, the sentence is actually confusing because of the commas. (As Will has commented on.) I read this interesting article that offers a modernized paraphrase of it for us (bearing in mind the grammatical conventions of the day in comparison to today):

Since a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State[,] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

But the article goes on about how it is still unclear. The right shall not be infringed by whom? (They suggest it should have been written in the active voice: e.g. "The Federal government shall not infringe....")

But the most interesting point in the article to me was how they point out that since the clause "Well-regulated militia..." is there, instead of just "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed," it cannot be ignored. What does this mean, then? To me, it seems, the "right" falls under the context of the militia, and that "the people" have the right to bear arms only within the confines of what would be considered "well regulated," i.e. no blank cheque. Also, "the people" is a collective noun. Foggy. The second amendment isn't about an individual's right; it's about a group's right. The group should be well-regulated, as the framers have suggested. (Again, no blank cheque.) Do you not want this "security" for your "free state"?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

It was grammatically incorrect when it was written, actually.

The intent of the Second Amendment, originally, was to legally protect the right of insurrection against oppression. It had absolutely nothing to do with self-defense. The "well regulated militia" referred to the militia present at the time of the signing, which consisted of able-bodied males between 18 and 45. The intent was that a militia would be a counterbalance for a federal military. Nowhere does it say that a well regulated militia refers to the entire population.

But times change, which is why the framers wanted the courts to be able to interpret laws and the legislature to be able to pass amendments. Sedentary laws cannot endure

Of course all of this is moot. The SCOTUS gave a ruling a few months back and it's surprisingly clear. You can have a gun, but there will be reasonable limits.

roachboy

dk---i don't feel any particular motivation to have this conversation again. i really don't--others may be more into it, so i'll let them play along. suffice it to say that i can imagine no circumstance under which we would have a common cause. revolutionary politics that are not retrograde, that are not based on recycling categories like "nation" and which do not entail a kind of collective flight back to an 18th century that never was as it is imagined ("strict construction" and all it entails) converge on a politics that i find anathema----an armed movement that originated from up inside these politics would put me in the strange position of having to think, and think quite hard, about whether to support the state in acting against it. i could go on about this, but there's no point.

thing is that were there a revolutionary movement that i would participate in, dk, i expect that it would top the Man on your hit list as soon as you found out about it.

so because the political viewpoints are so close to antithetical, i don't see us talking about the same things AT ALL when it comes to radical politics.

so there's no reason to accept the terms of your hypothetical situation.

i'll leave you to this now.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dksuddeth

After having read the federalist/anti-federalist papers, I pondered two conclusions about the Second Amendment.

One, that the 2nd Amendment was a concession by the federalists to give confidence to the anti-federalists that firearms in the hands of the people would never be restricted. That the 'well regulated militia' was a unifying force made up of the people to ensure freedom and security from an overbearing central government. Remember that these people had experienced firsthand oppression by the military arm of their king.

Two, that the federalists were adamant that the security of a free state/nation REQUIRED a standing army, or a 'well regulated militia', but that to guarantee that the people would never be subject to future oppression from this standing army, the right of the people to keep and bear arms would never be infringed so that their power would be greater than the standing army, should it be necessary.

Since the ratification of the 13th Amendment, It has been accepted that the bill of rights only restricts the federal government and that the 14th Amendment applies those restrictions to the states as well ONLY WHEN the USSC incorporates that right under the 14th. This makes little sense considering that the entrance of a state in to the union is a two way contract with the union and the state, the state accepting the terms of the constitution and the union protecting the rights of the people in that new state. Prior to the slaughterhouse cases, I know of no such USSC case that even hinted that the bill of rights didn't apply to the states as well.


the people is no more collective in the 2nd than it is in the 1st, 4th, 5th, or 9th.

One must remember that the constitution is not an outline of the rights that belong to the people, but a legal document that enumerates specific powers that the federal government is given. The bill of rights was the concession to ensure that certain rights would NEVER be trod upon by the central government, something that the founders were all too familiar with. That is why it absolutey galls me to hear people say that rights are not absolute, that they all are allowed limitations and restrictions. This was a judicial theory that justice Holmes put forth in 1919 concerning a case about the espionage act and it's implications against free speech. Until then, it was considered that rights were absolute or they were not rights.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 02 : 59 : 53-----
are you saying that madison, hamilton, and others who were considered scholars were actually high school dropouts?

Those able bodied males were citizens though, not regular military. Does that negate a right of the people then?

I vehemently disagree that the founders wanted the courts to interpret laws based on the future. The founders realized that change was inevitable and put in a very exact method of amending the constitution if needs be changed.

great, is reasonable limits going to one day be single shot muskets again? bows and arrows?

when will people realize that if you put the direction of your lives and rights in the hands of government, they will become severely limited.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Double-post

Baraka_Guru

DK, thanks for the outline. I'll need some time to digest that. (This is a learning experience, as a Canadian here.)

But one more thing: If rights are absolute, does this mean they cannot be taken away for any reason? What do you say about the inalienable rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? Should everyone do away with the death penalty, for example? (I won't even get into liberty....)

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

If you can show me where I wrote "drop outs" I'll go buy a gun right now.

Grammar wasn't as well regulated then as it is now. That's the simple truth.
The militia mentioned was supposed to be state militias, which the ant-Federalists fought for. It was a counterbalance for the federal army.
They were the one's that set up the system. They wanted the courts to rule on the laws. You're arguing with the founders.
Slippery slope fallacy.
No one here is doing that.

Halx

I understand that we have the 2nd amendment. I understand the term "slippery slope." I understand freedom. Believe me, the less the government meddles with our personal lives, the better. My question is just... why guns? Why does it seem that guns are the fulcrum of personal freedom debate? Why is the gun lobby so much more vocal than the gay lobby or the sex lobby or the abortion lobby or the drug lobby? The government has their hands in all of these things that are far less volatile, and is smothering them. Yet we have the gun argument, which is louder and more influential.

I don't own a gun and don't really see a need for one. I understand that many people do own guns and use them for recreation and protection. I suspect, though, that removing the right to own particularly dangerous guns does not completely hinder those two uses. Maybe I just need an education on why an automatic gun is more effective at deterring an intruder from harming you. In my perspective, I look at it in terms of the roleplaying game paradox: a sword may be copper or it may be steel, but if it chops into you, you're just as dead. We're not in a role playing game where you need a mightier sword to fight mightier enemies. You don't need explosive ammunition or magical enchantments. The threat of one bullet from any gun is enough to deter the common criminal. Unless they have a vendetta against you, which would be your fault.

It's not like the lack of a particular gun will prevent you from having a fully appreciated and legal relationship with your significant other. Guns, to me, are the last bastion for those who think they're alone in the world and that others are out to get them. This may not be entirely true, but I'm thinking logically here, and that seems to be the only logical explanation. Why the need to arm yourself excessively if you don't feel threatened? This perception is antiquated and paranoid. Don't get me wrong here, I think a healthy amount of distrust will keep you alive, and I'm as subversive as they come. Still, this world has far more infrastructure and civility than when the Bill of Rights was drafted. We're not under threat of invasion and, trust me, all the firepower you stock in your shed won't protect you if they really want to get you.

Besides, you'll have to approve stem cell research if you want to be able to hold more than 2 guns at a time.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

dksuddeth

The right to self preservation is inherent and is sometimes called the primary right of man. This has been known since even before the constitution. Nowhere am I saying that the 2nd applies to self defense. That is an abomination imparted by Scalia.

really will? who decided that the right of the people in the 2nd now belonged to a national guard? Because last time I checked, changes in the constitution had to be done by 3/5ths majority in the house and senate and then by 3/5ths of the states. How does a right of the people become a right of the national guard without having gone through the amendment process? It doesn't, so the so called right of the national guard is BS. It's invalid. Illegal even.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 03 : 21 : 56-----
As you digest what I posted earlier, consider the 5th Amendment in regards to your above question.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Baraka_Guru

Okay, so the right to life, liberty, and property has limits. Thanks.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dksuddeth

I believe everyone here can attest to my protestations against ANY government meddling whether it's guns or gay marriage, or anything else for that matter. I do get your point though and as i've debated many times on this and other boards that a person without a gun is a subject while a person with a gun is free to choose.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 03 : 26 : 43-----
Thats not what the 5th says. It says that they cannot be deprived of them without due process of law. HUGE difference. I think you know this.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Baraka_Guru

You don't see the possibility of a right being legally taken away as a limitation of that right? Please outline this difference you speak of.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dksuddeth

[quote=Willravel;2570800]If you can show me where I wrote "drop outs" I'll go buy a gun right now.

Grammar wasn't as well regulated then as it is now. That's the simple truth. [/QUOTE
I don't know what college or university that james madison got his degree from, but i'm pretty sure it was 'regulated'. I'm still dumbfounded to see you sit here and try to claim that the founders were somehow less literate than we are today.

the 'state militias' were the citizens of that state will. there was no national guard back then. When the militia was called, farmers and townsfolk grabbed their muskets, not enlisted soldiers of the virginias 83rd infantry reserve.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 03 : 32 : 06-----
your right to life is absolute, up until you break a law that violates anothers right. If you violate anothers right, then you are subject to fines and imprisonment, even death through due process of law. That is not a limitation or restriction. It's a fine line, but a very visible one. in other words, through due process of law, you lose a right. Through limits, you have less of a right.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Again, grammar wasn't as standardized 300 years ago as it is now. That's the simple truth. It's not a slight against the founding fathers.
No, the militia 300 years ago consisted of anyone who wanted, but it didn't include all citizens. There were plenty of colonials that sided with the British, refused to fight, or even fled.

Really, though, the Second Amendment is about state militias. Read up on the works done by anti-Federalists. It's all there. Garry Wills is an idiot.
Do you believe in the death penalty?
Nevermind.

Baraka_Guru

Fair enough, but this means that rights are not absolute. There are no degrees of absolution (absoluteness?). If rights were absolute, Americans could not be imprisoned nor sentenced to death—ever—not legally, anyway.

That said, other rights must have similar potential to be "lost." For example, one's right to bear arms could be lost (or otherwise limited) if a "due process of the law" determines that the number or type of arms is unreasonable. How does the recent SCOTUS ruling factor in, in this respect?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dksuddeth

again, we're not imposing limits, we're talking about losing that right through due process of law. limits or restrictions would be like saying you have the right to life here, here, and there, but not here or there.

this is incorrect. A convicted violent felon LOST his 2nd Amendment rights because he violated anothers rights. reducing the number or type of arms ownable is a restriction.

Where is the due process of law that says the people can own machine guns made before may 19, 1986, but any machine gun made after that date is illegal?

do you see the difference?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

shakran

I didn't say it had to be a government-ordered standing army, but it does have to be well regulated. You sitting on your front porch polishing a shotgun is not well regulated.



Granted. You were completely accurate in that the 2nd amendment's authors did not implicitly intend us to carry missiles because they didn't know what a missile was.

By this logic, you no longer have the right to free speech except orally and in a newspaper. Government can forbid radio, TV, and the internet (including TFP) from saying anything it wants, because the founders didn't specifically mean speech via electronic medium.

The right to free travel only exists on horseback, horse-drawn carriage, or on foot. Park your car, you have no constitutional right to drive it anywhere.

They didn't know what an air force was either, so it's perfectly OK for the government to require you to quarter military aviators in your home.

Shall we keep dissecting it in this way, or can we agree that "right to bear arms" does not only refer to pistols and swiss army knives?

dksuddeth

If I knew how to shoot and clean that shotgun, march in formation and fight in small fireteam size groups, yes, I was well regulated. That is exactly what the founders were talking about because that is what they were.



your attempt to use the 'negative rights' theory was expected. When faced with two choices of positive rights or negative rights, the authoritarians usually go negative rights.

tell me, where in the constitution or bill of rights does it say that these rights are limited by technology or the times? nowhere, but I do know where it says that the rights held by the people are in no way, shape, or form dictated by technology or the times.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Derwood

why have speeding laws if people are going to speed?

why have murder laws if murderers are going to murder?


this is a truly silly argument

Willravel

Alexander Hamilton wrote, in the Federalist Papers, that a well regulated militia referred to both a state of preparedness with rigorous and persistent training. Let's say you take a sample of 100 Americans totally at random. How many of these individuals do you suppose have the training necessary to function in an armed, "fire team" sized group in a military or militia type of situation?

A majority of the US is not in any sense of the phrase well regulated. Why? A majority of Americans do not need any such training in their daily lives. As I said, times change.

shakran

Great! Tell ya what. I do agree that we need to be able to resist the government should it become tyrannical. I'm somewhat surprised that the people loudly extolling this view didn't start shooting at some point over the past 8 years, but let's just pretend they were temporary sheep.

You'd be fine if people could only buy a gun if they could shoot and clean it, march in formation, and fight in small fireteam size groups?

And just how many non-veteran gun owners do you think fall into that category?





Yes, considering it was you who advanced that theory by telling me I don't have the right to keep and bear missiles.


Nowhere. Thank you for proving my 2nd amendment argument right for me. We can now have missiles, should we be able to afford them.

dksuddeth

Those same founders also acknowledged that the militia MAY fall to disarray. Nobody knew what the militial would become after time, but that the right should still be protected in case it didn't. If those 100 people feel they need no such training, then they only have themselves to blame. you say times change, do rights change then? If so, how long til the right to privacy or speedy trial becomes moot?

If you can tell me, with all honesty, that the framers of the constitution knew that their rights could come and go with the changing times and show me absolute proof of this in their writings, then i'll be the first to apologize.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 04 : 36 : 07-----
I was ready to kill if agents ever attempted to serve me with a warrant based on the patriot act, were you?

why would i not be?

a more appropriate question would be, why don't they?


semantics and reality do not equal a negative rights theory.

Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


If you can carry that bad boy in to combat, then yes, you have that right.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

And as soon as that happens, it's no longer well regulated and the issue is moot. If the militia issue is moot, the Supreme Court needs to step in and make a modern ruling on the interpretation of the Amendment. As they have.
Slippery Slope.
The Amendment process is perfect and indisputable evidence of this. The right to own slaves, which was in the Constitution once upon a time (Article 1, Sections 2, 4, and 9), has since disappeared because of the amendment process (14th).

dksuddeth

again, you'd rather see our lives directed by an arm of the government, in this case 9 people wearing robes, instead of in the hands of the people as was originally intended. Welcome to your oligarchy.

but no less valid, is it.

this is NOT evidence that the founders wanted the constitution and their rights interpreted with the changing of time as compared to the ability to amend the constitution via the people. you're seriously confusing the two methods.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Halx

I have no clue what this means. Care to break it down?

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Baraka_Guru

Simple: sensationalism

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Derwood

Obama cannot take my guns*












*I don't have any. Never will.

Halx

Oh, so the meaning is thuggish?

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

dksuddeth

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Derwood

so 2 guns is better than one. Gotcha.

oh, by the way, i'm 33 and have never needed a gun. Just lucky?

Halx

I certainly didn't say anything about your right to carry a gun. In fact, I believe I made the same point about equalizing, but in a different way. Now, does it matter what KIND of gun you have?

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Willravel

My life has nothing to do with a gun, so this argument doesn't apply to me.
All logical fallacies are invalid, logically.
Amendments change the Constitution. If 2/3 Congress proposes a new amendment which is ratified by 3/4 of the Senate, then that's now a part of the Constitution. Slavery was allowed originally in the Constitution. That right was removed via an Amendment.

dksuddeth

I'd say yes, considering that the fbi last reported that a person stands a 1 in 4 chance of being a victim of violent crime.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 05 : 21 : 51-----
I was just trying to provide you an explanation over my statement that confused you. I didn't take it as you questioning my right to a gun or not.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 05 : 26 : 17-----
I didn't mention 'gun' in this particular part. You said that the times changed and one part was gone, so the supreme court 'corrected' or reinterpreted that amendment. That is an explicit approval of having 9 judges determine your rights and their status.

until it actually happens. The slippery slope is not a fallacy because some actions have precipitated that slope.

once again, CHANGING the constitution and REINTERPRETING to keep with new times are two different things. and actually, THAT change didn't outlaw slavery because owning other people had been illegal for some time. What the 13th and 14th Amendment did was change the status of blacks to people instead of property and then qualify them with the same rights as whites.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Slims

Ok, the second Amendment guarantess an individual right (of the people) for a collective purpose. The right continues to exist, and is still guaranteed by the constitution wether that purpose remains or not.

with regards to whether the 2'nd amendment refers to 'militias' rather than 'people' (even though it definately says people) I pulled this from GunCite.com:

In his popular edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker (see also), a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government. "
In the appendix to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates further:
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty."


Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, No. 29, did not view the right to keep arms as being confined to active militia members:

"What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. "

And:

James Madison in Federalist No. 46 wrote:

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. "

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

Derwood

my guess is that the vast majority of gun owners would crap their own pants if the government decided to turn on its own citizens (which it won't). If you think you have a chance of standing up to the US Government, guns or no guns, you're fooling yourself. Such an action by the government would be swift and thorough.

Slims

Oh, and don't forget Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 28:

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. "

Hamilton clearly states there exists a right of self-defense against a tyrannical government, and it includes the people with their own arms and adds:

"[T]he people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!"



I don't mean to bombard with quotes, and I have tried to keep them very short and to the point, but I think it is important to see how the people who actually wrote the constitution, or who were early justices in the new government felt about the second Amendment.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

dc_dux

1 on 4 chance of being a victim of a violent crime? Source?

Thats the first I've seen that statistic.

I do know that approx. 5 million violent crimes (and decreasing in recent years) are committed in the US annually....a nation of 300 million.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire