Anyone out there who is PROUD to have the 2nd Amendment?

[aurelius]

an "arm" is used as a short version of firearms or weapons. before guns people took up "arms" with swords and crossbows or any weapon they could get for that matter.

I understand that even if I want to I can´t buy a rocket launcher. Is that not a weapon?

 

[Sushi X]

yes but it's not a firearm which is what the term is really impying. when it was written people had access to black powder rifles and pistols. just about everyone had one for one reason or another. i don't think our forefathers meant a rocket launcher which of course had not been invinted yet.

 

[aurelius]

Bullets hadn´t been invented yet either. Are those protected?

 

[Sushi X]

bullets were invinted. they were'nt like they are now though. they were little balls of lead. powder was packed into the rifle then the ball was added where the fireing pin is, trigger pulled and boom, shot fired. bullets were then. they are an essential part of the usage of firearms so they are protected as well.

one question: why are you so concerned about america's rights and freedoms? are'nt you in spain? that's what i read anyway. sorry if it's not true.

 

[aurelius]

We need to define what a bullet is. It´s meaning changes as technology changes, don´t you agree?

Bullets now come ready made to shoot without having to carry a little sack of gun powder around. Also, guns then were "muskets." That is, they had no rifling grooves in the barrel and as such, were pitifully innaccurate. The forefather´s "arm" and our "arm" are very different, don´t you think?


Why am I interested? I´m a casual observer of the human condition.

 

[smallmovesal]

ok i'll guess this is the "right to bear arms"...

my understanding is this was put into place during the wild west... and last time i checked, it's no longer the wild west. so why is it still important to people?

 

[HappyScrappy]

I think it was prior to the wild west and more as a reaction to a desire to have a well armed militia on hand were England or anyone else to show up while the country was still young.

 

[smallmovesal]

I think it was prior to the wild west and more as a reaction to a desire to have a well armed militia on hand were England or anyone else to show up while the country was still young.

ok, so then why is it still "necessary"?

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

ok, so then why is it still "necessary"?

It's necessary because without it, people would have no recourse against encroaching governement.

History is replete (indeed, it is composed of) with regimes who oppress their people, to the point that the people violently overthrow them.

If you believe that a government's power comes from the people it governs (this is rudimentary social contract stuff - where else could the power come from), then the people that allow a government to have this power must have a recourse for taking it back.

You can say the the ballot box is the recourse, and in the perfect world it might be. But as we all know, the world is imperfect.
In reality, more people were killed by their own government in the last century than by all other causes (diusease, ilness, famine, etc.) COMBINED.

Most gun control people think that crime, such as homicide, armed robbery, etc. would be reduced if strict gun control were enforced. Such an argument fails to take into account the fact that legislation is MEANINGLESS to those who do not respect the law. Gun control to reduce crime is illogical by definition of crime.

Can you refute those arguments with logic? or will you continue to delude yourself into thinking "it can't happen here".

Until then, chew on this:

"He who would trade his liberties for some temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety".

Ben Franklin

 

[smallmovesal]

it mostly just sounds like paranoia to me... but i should expect that from the way the US became a country..