(Untitled)

[granite26]

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. I had a discussion last night with someone who did not think that the explicit purpose of the second amendment was to enable the people (either as the states or as individuals) to maintain the means to rise

Comments

[genericbob]

I don't believe that was the only purpose, but was included in the reasoning for it.

Simply put: yes.

[thesprawl]

individuals. i've always felt that this country was meant to be made up of strong, autonomous civilians in charge of their own destiny and capable of defending themselves. right in the text: the individuals may arm themselves, so they may form militias. but the people have the right to bear arms, not the militias.

if we were only allowed to carry muskets buts the fedgov was equipped with the latest and greatest, then yeah, i think the spirit of the law would have been lost. and i don't believe for a second that the founding fathers didn't realize that weapon technology was going to advance by leaps and bounds. they were smart guys, and i really believe that they intended on Americans being a dangerous group, not to be fucked with.

[granite26]

yeah, no seriously... I read an excellent argument once that basically said 'Dude, this is dumb simple... They wanted the people to have access to the same equipment as the basic foot soldier of the day. That means M-16s are in, but F-15s are out. They weren't intended to allow cannons, so by the same token, no artillery.'

It made me very happy.

[mister_lance]

That's really interesting that you mention a rise up against the tyrannical federal government... I was thinking how I'd like to have a nice beach-front property, and perhaps my own little city, but it looks like the only way to really achieve this is to get a bunch of people together and take it over. I then wondered if this could actually be done.

[robertaroberts]

to add my two cents of historical perspective since that's what I do.

These boys were HUGE fans of the political thought that govt. must be keep in check and when it steps on the toes of the "people" it must be abolished.

On the other hand the first time that was tried here after the Rev. Washington quickly squashed it, and said(to paraphrase)don't like it vote someone else in. Can't vote? Suck it up.

With that grant I got you'd be amazed at the amount historical "knowledge" swimming around up there.

[granite26]

What are you doing taxing our whiskey? didn't we just fight a war over taxes on our drinks?

[robertaroberts]

i wish i could remember the political movement that was called. not the whiskey thing, the idea our revoultion was based on.

[granite26]

This is what research gave me...

I particularly like the 'government of laws, not of men bit...