BF2S Forums The Right to KEEP and BARE ARMS. What did the Fore Fathers Mean?

B.Schuss wrote:

The argument back then was "if we keep a militia with wepaons comparable to those of a national army, we can be sure the government is kept in check"

Is that argument still valid today ? Of course it isn't.

Yes it is. Our right to own weapons is what ensures that a tyrannical government will never have the chance to take over. That's the whole point.

Times have changed. The balance of power between the people and the government has been carefully constructed during the last 200+ years. Moreover, today, it is a democratically elected government, compared to a monarchy back in the 18th century.
Therefore, today the people in the US actually have the power to change the laws which govern them, through their elected representatives.

Elected representatives are not perfect. We have the power to change the laws but our Constitution ensures that the ability to do that will never be taken away.

They don't need a militia as a safeguard. that's just paranoia.

In your opinion.

That's why I believe that the right to keep and bare arms, while being perfectly valid under the circumstances back then, can be questioned today.

You forget that protection against a tyranical government is but one reason to keep and bear arms. The other is personal protection.

Wether it should be abolished at all is something which the US government ( being the elected representatives of the people ) has to decide.

"The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it.
It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will." - Chief Justice John Marshall, 1821

The Constitution can be changed but the Bill of Rights must always remain. That's what prevents the government from taking away rights that are inherent to human existence. If the second is taken away then there will be nothing to stop the others from being taken away. The second protects the first, third, fourth, fifth, etc.

RavenDB wrote:

Rathji wrote:

I often wish I had an AK-47 sitting on the wall in my kitchen JUST IN CASE the shit hits the fan.

if the shit hits the fan, you dont need an AK-47, you need papertowels, cleaning products and such
Dont confuse an AK-47 with proper cleaning tools, many have probably died needlessly for that reason!

Ewww.... I think I want something a bit better than paper towels...

--

So where can I find these stats?

FeloniousMonk wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

The argument back then was "if we keep a militia with wepaons comparable to those of a national army, we can be sure the government is kept in check"

Is that argument still valid today ? Of course it isn't.

Yes it is. Our right to own weapons is what ensures that a tyrannical government will never have the chance to take over. That's the whole point.

Times have changed. The balance of power between the people and the government has been carefully constructed during the last 200+ years. Moreover, today, it is a democratically elected government, compared to a monarchy back in the 18th century.
Therefore, today the people in the US actually have the power to change the laws which govern them, through their elected representatives.

Elected representatives are not perfect. We have the power to change the laws but our Constitution ensures that the ability to do that will never be taken away.

They don't need a militia as a safeguard. that's just paranoia.

In your opinion.

That's why I believe that the right to keep and bare arms, while being perfectly valid under the circumstances back then, can be questioned today.

You forget that protection against a tyranical government is but one reason to keep and bear arms. The other is personal protection.

Wether it should be abolished at all is something which the US government ( being the elected representatives of the people ) has to decide.

"The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it.
It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will." - Chief Justice John Marshall, 1821

The Constitution can be changed but the Bill of Rights must always remain. That's what prevents the government from taking away rights that are inherent to human existence. If the second is taken away then there will be nothing to stop the others from being taken away. The second protects the first, third, fourth, fifth, etc.

well, the government is already regulating private gun ownership in the US ( full automatics are illegal, I believe, and fellons are not allowed to own guns ), so it ain't a question if the 2nd amendment is scrutinized, it is only a question to what extent that should happen.

The NRA is obviously lobbying to make sure that private gun ownership is not any more regulated, while others demand that private gun ownership should be abolished at all. Looking back at the history of the US, I doubt that will happen. Guns are so deeply imbedded in your culture, I am afraid they are here to stay.

B.Schuss wrote:

well, the government is already regulating private gun ownership in the US ( full automatics are illegal, I believe, and fellons are not allowed to own guns ),

Ah, not quite. Fully automatic weapons are not illegal, they simply require large sums of money in taxes to get the proper license. So, as usual, the more money you have the more freedom you have. That doesn't jive with me. The irony is that large fully automatic weapons are already pretty expensive and thus are rarely ever purchased/stolen by criminals and their use in crimes is almost non-existant. Regulation on something that doesn't need to be regulated; the only real threat that fully automatic weapons pose is to the government itself.

Also, you're right that felons are not allowed to own guns but there are some that disagree with that. There are many who believe that once someone is released from prison and have in essence "paid their debt" to society that all rights should be returned to them, including the right to defend themselves. I, on the other hand, simply believe that violent criminals need to remain in prison for life. I don't want violent felons with guns but to be honest embezzlement along with many white collar crimes as well as many drug related nonviolent crimes are considered felonies.

so it ain't a question if the 2nd amendment is scrutinized, it is only a question to what extent that should happen.

No one is advocating rights without responsibility. To use a classic example: we all have the right to free speech but yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is a crime (unless it's actually on fire) because it's an intentional threat to the safety of the people.

The NRA is obviously lobbying to make sure that private gun ownership is not any more regulated, while others demand that private gun ownership should be abolished at all. Looking back at the history of the US, I doubt that will happen. Guns are so deeply imbedded in your culture, I am afraid they are here to stay.

The NRA is considered by many gun owners to be against their goals. Depends on who you ask, though.

You're right, our history is strongly connected to guns. Our nation exists because people used their guns to stand up to an oppressive government. That doesn't mean we're the only ones that are tied to them. Guns are here to stay for everyone, not just the US.

There are 500 million guns in the world. These devices are relatively simple machines, easy to manufacture and maintain. With proper care a handgun can outlive multiple owners. The majority of guns in the world are made by European companies: H&K, Walther, GLOCK, FN, Berreta, etc. You cannot make them go away with laws because the only way to do so would be to ban the knowledge of internal combustion. They can't be uninvented any more than one can unfry an egg.