I would never argue this but I would argue that reinterpretation is important to ensure this amendment remains valid in our current age. To ignore the changes in the social system as well as weapons technology is unfortunate at least. At most it's selfish and blind to the problems that our expansive military technology has enhanced.
I would compliment anyone who's willing to discuss or even compromise on their beliefs.
The New York Senate has just approved the new gun bill that bans a wide range of semi-automatic firearms (like most of them), limits all magazines to seven rounds and removes the grandfather clause on “high capacity” magazines. Empire State Senate Republicans said they wouldn’t block the bill. And so they didn’t. The New York Times reports that “the state Senate, controlled by a coalition of Republicans and a handful of Democrats, approved the legislative package around 11 p.m. by a vote of 43 to 18. The Assembly, controlled by Democrats, has been strongly supportive of gun control. It planned to vote on the measure on Tuesday.” After which the bill will head to the Governor to sign. Which he will. Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Massachusetts will no doubt pass similar legislation, despite its unconstitutionality. More news as it breaks . . ."
Is it just me, or does it seem that the media is putting a negative spin on the seperation of Demacrats and Republicans? They are people. Not right or wrong depending on what side of floor they happen to sit on. And they are corrupt. We should be looking to find all of the corrupt individuals, not just a select few in one party or the other. But rather both the Demacrats and Republicans.
Sounds like McCarthy all over again. The media is the propaganda machine to pacify the sheeple. It tells them what to wear, what to do, etc. And when it's not leading the people it is numbing them into apathy and ignorance. Not all politicians are corrupt, but they are less likely to take away your "inalienable" (google that word) rights, if they know if they don't "represent" the will of the people that voted them in office, or make a valid and acceptable reason why not, if Joe Q. Public has a gift waiting. Or more aptly the second ammendment isn't to protect the people from the people, but from the Government. How ironic that the "government" is "of the People, by the People, and for the People"
I always thought the first sign of a dictator was being granted special powers of military control of a country by a legislature. That's how the job actually started. You can thank the Romans for that. XD
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the people will not be treated as they were by their former oppressors (I.E. King George III). It's Modern connotation is for the people to yield their weapons and rise up against in open revolt against the Federal Government, using said weapons for self defense in the possible event that the military intervenes with violent force, in the event that said government deteriorates to the point where revolution becomes necessary for a purge of all that is corrupt and wicked within the confines of the Legislative, and Executive branches.
The 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution grants only the people the sole right to own a weapon, to the extent which they see fit. It does not, under any circumstances, allow the citizen the ability to yield such a weapon in an environment where the people are not going to be put in harms way by the government.
If thats the case, then why did Thomas Jefferson say all those qoutes here at this link[link]
At this point in time, it is undeniable that it is not the military who the founding fathers intended to have all the arms, bu the general public, too. "An armed society is a polite society."
Though Violence is never a desireable enswer, it must be an option as to provide a good deterrent to prevent from becoming an option, by constantly reminding the government that we are more than willing to do it, we keep them in check, through fear, and the tyrants wont even think about it.
My points here are fair. They are undeniable and are beyond the bias. I dare you to debate this.
Did i say that the citizen was not allowed to own a weapon? no. I said that the citizen was intended to have the right to own a weapon, in fact, the citizen is the best method. a standing army is susceptible to corruption from the government. yet a standing army is better trained and equipped.
That was my point. Violence is a mandatory option. and you gave the reasons.
I wasn't debating you. if you were debating me, then you were off target by far.
My home defense weapon is the Saiga-12 shotgun with forty rounds, first a twenty round drum, then two ten round stick mags. On my side at all times, even when I'm asleep is a H&K 45 Mark 23. in the bunker is over 100 super-de-duper rifles shotguns and handguns of guns of all types collected from over three generations and over, I could hardly believe it myself when I last checked recently, 50000 rounds of ammunition!!!!
Well, that sounds nice, but the question is: When does violence become the answer?
Like, right now. There are people calling for revolt and revolution right now, all because they lost an election.
Obama's done nothing to actually hurt anyone, even if his plan is somewhat socialist.
Our country has suffered through the most ineffective, corrupt, ignorant leaders anyone can name (Mostly in the really late 1880s/1890s), and even then revolt and revolution didn't seem like a fair response.
Also, the system is built for changes to be made peacefully. Any attempt to change that would be shot down in it's earliest stages, unless we go the way of "granting the President emergancy dictoral powers to quell a rebellion" route, and nobody's rebelling.
I just don't see how anyone can think it would be likely that they actually need the right to revolt. I mean, wouldn't they revolt even if they didn't have the right? Tis what we did in 1775.
Violence is always an answer. never the most desirable, but one that always exists.
If you are putting the blame on a single party, the Republican Party, you are an absolute fool. What about back in 2000? or 2004? Did the Liberal Extremists not call for impeachment? 53 Million declared their distaste for President Bush, yet there are 300 million plus in the country? That only means that those people are vastly outnumbered by those who do like President Bush, or are indifferent to his years in the Oval Office.
How can you say that? Obama has only been president for less than a year. Your argument means nothing. Hurt is not limited to physical pain, but spiritual, emotional, and financial. Some may have lost their faith in Obama as President. You can not make an argument about a person as President until AFTER they have had their chance.
What about Andrew Johnson? His presidency nearly lead to another Civil war, and he was President right after Lincoln. And again, you seem to be picking on the Republicans with this argument. President Wilson nearly forced the Federal Income Tax Amendment to be ratified by forcing Arizona to ratify the amendment when it attained statehood. President Franklin Roosevelt enacted several laws that destroyed the lives of millions of Americans of Japanese descent. Yet was that not corrupt? These people willingly left their homes because they were Americans, not Japanese. Many of them would have willingly served with the American Military. What do you make of this?
Yes the system is made for peaceful change. But the 2nd Amendment is put in place for the purpose of ensuring that there is peace. Petition is always the first option. But when the government refuses to accept the majority of the people's concerns, then the people have no choice but to perform peaceful riots. What about the Democratic Governor of Arkansas during the Civil Rights Movement? He brought in the Arkansas National Guard to to force the Little Rock Nine from entering the school. It is not an issue of party affiliation. The act of granting "Emergency powers to the President to quell rebellion" is an absolute fallacy, as any power not specifically given to the President by the states is not to be granted to the President. It would take a constitutional amendment to grant any powers to the president.
The whole purpose for the 2nd Amendment is to solidify the fact that the rule the government, not the government ruling the people. This amendment ensures that the government will not, under any circumstances, take powers from the people. Governments have an extraordinarily nasty reputation of taking power by force. Granting the citizens the ability to defend themselves from the government in the event (which now is beginning to seem very very likely) it forcibly takes all powers from the people. If the government was to enter your home, kill your entire family, and force you to house their soldiers, what would you do? This amendment makes the government fear the people. But the people have forgotten this.
Yeah, yeah, I'm not blaming just the Republicans. I'm just more angry at them at the moment. Believe me, the Democrats have fucked up too on several occasions. They just tend to, well, make up for it sooner.
More than 53 million people disliked Bush. His approval ratings dipped as low as some 28%, which means that 72% of the country disliked him at his lowest points.
And again, Obama didn't deliberately hurt those people. They lost faith because he turned out to be different, for better or for worse, than what they wanted. Yes, it's true people were projecting him to be a savior for the country and even comparing him to Jesus, but that's their OWN fault for being so damn optimistic about one guy.
On Andrew Johnson....Yeah, that's a fairly good example (Congress vs President), but the parties were not the same back then. The Republicans were liberal and humanitarian and the Democrats were regressionist. It's all completely jumbled now.
On Woodrow Will, I do believe that there was a problem with money, in that the Treasury actually needed more money.
The Internment of Japanese-American citizens is indeed a horrible stain on American history, and yeah, I'm sad it was a Democrat who ordered it. But I've not once said that Democrats DON'T do horrible things from time to time.
Little Rock Nine, the govenor of Arkansas was openly (and gleefully, even) violating a valid and legitimate order by Congress. As the Chief Executive of the country, the President had no choice but to send the 101rst to break it up.
The President has all powers neccissary to carry out his job (which is to enforce what Congress says and to protect the country), it says that in the Constitution. Moreover, the Judicial branch has determined that any power NOT explicitly given to a state is SHARED between the state and federal government.
Government's job is not to rule people, it is to defend them from all problems that it possibly can, be they military, social, physical, educational, health, et cetera.
No one, and I do mean NO ONE, in the current government has ANY desire to turn the country into a Police State.
At the most, there are people who want REGULATION of arms, because some people are asking for inordinately powerful weapons.
What purpose would a .50 calibur sniper rifle serve for the average American? What purpose would a fully automatic assualt rifle serve? And Stinger missile launchers? They're not needed by the public YET, so the general consensus is keep them away to avert disasters like school shootings and assasinations.
If there's an honest and credible threat to the Constitution, everybody would be up in arms (figurativly or literally). But they wouldn't need to act, at least not at first.
See, there's one other safeguard against a government overstepping it's bounds that the US has and other countries didn't.
The President may be Commander in Chief, but the Military swears it's loyalty to the Constitution, and to defend it even against political plots to change the country in an illegal way.
Luckily, and I'm sorry to copy/paste but this needs repeating: As of right now, No one, and I do mean NO ONE, in the current government has ANY desire to turn the country into a Police State.
Fourty or fifty years from now, who knows. *shrug* But Obama's certainly not the next Stalin or Hitler or Hussein or Oliver Cromwell.
You need not tell me about the Military's oath of allegiance. I know it first hand. I am enlisted USAF. But there is more too it than that I am afraid. We swear alleigance to the constitution yes, but also to the officers appointed over us and to obey the orders of the president of the united states.
on Bush's approval rating, that number is only of the people who were asked. Most of whom, live in large cities, and who are themselves the minority because the Media targets people for what they want to hear, not the truth.
I'd agree with you on the stuff about statistics except that random sampling from literally over 50 sources can't all be rigged exactly the same way.
Also, there's a thing called "Mutiny" which while illegal and punishable by law still puts soldiers in a better position to defend the Constitution than the average backwoods militiaman from the Flyover Country.