View single post by srossi
 Posted: Sat Dec 15th, 2012 01:17 am
PM Quote Reply Full Topic


Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 53363
Big Garea Fan wrote: KGB wrote: Big Garea Fan wrote: When the forefathers wrote up the Bill of Rights, I don't think they could have imagined what "arms" has evolved into. "Arms" used to be a single shot rifle where you had to pour gun powder into the muzzle, use a rod to push the projectile into the muzzle, then you could aim and fire it. Nowadays, "arms" has evolved into assault rifles capable firing hundreds of rounds per second. You don't even have to aim the damn things, just point them in the general direction and start spraying.

I am all for people having the right to bear arms. They should be able to walk into their local Walmart and buy the best single shot muzzle loaded rifle that money can buy. As for the assault rifles, semi-automatic hand guns, etc., I don't think they should be categorized as "arms". They are fucking killing machines.

From Wikipedia (

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[5] One version was passed by the Congress,[6] while another is found in the copies distributed to the States[7] and then ratified by them.

As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]
The verbiage that stands out to me is "well regulated militia". Since when does anybody who walks into a gun store qualify as a "well regulated militia"? Additionally, the "right to bear arms" seems to be important for the "security of a free state". So, since it appears that they are "well regulated" and "necessary to the security of a free state", can gun owners be placed first in line to serve in a war (since they are all "well regulated" and "necessary" and stuff)?

A militia simply means average citizens who pick up arms to defend the state, be it against foreign foes or government tyranny.  You can debate "well regulated" but the fact is that militias have always been pretty much rag-tag bunches.  As far as war goes, there were almost as many militia who fought in the Revolutionary War as there were real soldiers, much to Washington's chagrin since he did not like the militias at all and felt they were undisciplined.  Still, without the militia we don't hold the English off long enough for the French to get involved and win the war for us, so they're as big a reason why we're here as anyone.  And militia participated in many wars after that.  So militia fighting in wars was never unusual at all, although it's obviously morphed since then.  But when you have the number of professional soldiers we have today, which was NEVER intended, then obviously it's silly to need untrained militia too.  Military spending and standing armies worldwide is a whole different story though. 

This thread was great before AA ruined it.