US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Perspectives on our world and our universe, how it works, what is happening, and why it happens. Whether by a hidden hand or natural laws, we come together to hash it out, and perhaps provide a little bit of education and enlightenment for others. This is a place for civil discussion. Please keep it that way.
Forum rules
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Post by Deacon » Mon Sep 08, 2003 8:48 pm

I measure the harm done right at about nil :)
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

Phong
Redshirt
Posts: 3313
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 12:19 am
Location: Boston, MA

Post by Phong » Mon Sep 08, 2003 10:42 pm

I believe that regulation of fire-arms is acceptable as long as the spirit of the Second ammendmant is not lost, that being to protect the citizenry from a tyrannical government.

And since I believe that since the very purpose of the second amendment is to provide a balance against the government controlled military I believe it should be un-constitutional to prohibit citizens from possesing rifles of the same type the military uses, what civilians (especially the left) calls "assault" rifles, and what the military (at least used to) call "Battle Rifles". This means that I should be able to own, a Springfield M1A with a 20 Round clip, and an AR-15 with Semi, and burst modes, with a full 30 round clip.

I'm not saying that Citizens should be permitted to own armed tanks, and attack aircraft, but I believe that we should be permitted similiar personal fire-power as the average soldier. When talking about defending the citizenry against the military it should also be remembered that our military is very highly trained. Our U.S. Army Rangers went up against the entire city of Magadishu and lost 18 soldiers, compared to losses in the THOUSANDS of enemies. To know that and to give lip-service to the second amendmant while banning any semi-automatic weapon which have a magazine of more than 10 rounds is unacceptable to me.

Furthermore, I believe that all members of the un-organized militia, as pointed out by Martin, should in fact be required to own a fire-arm such as the M1A(M-14) or AR-15(M-16).
In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time that a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection. - Hugo Rossi, Mathmetician.

User avatar
Martin Blank
Knower of Things
Knower of Things
Posts: 12685
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 4:11 am
Real Name: Jarrod Frates
Gender: Male
Location: Dallas, TX

Post by Martin Blank » Tue Sep 09, 2003 12:02 am

I never pointed that out. I provided a definition of the militia as stated in current law. You can't require more than 50,000,000 people (the rough male population between ages 17 and 45, minus a bit for conscientious objectors and other non-qualified people) to keep such rifles in their homes and then not pay for it. That would be an expenditure of about $30 billion, and that's figuring the prices government pays for the rifles, and very much on the low end. Even before the various bans took place, an AK-47 sold for nearly a thousand dollars for a cheap one, and an AR-15 was over a thousand dollars.

BTW, from a military perspective, assault rifles are smaller, lighter weapons, typically chambered for smaller rounds like the 5.56mm x 45mm or the 7.62mm x 39mm rounds made for general purpose combat and with magazine capacities of 30 rounds, whereas battle rifles are larger, heavier weapons chambered for 7.62mm x 51mm rounds and intended for longer-range combat with magazine capacities of 20 rounds.
If I show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring me there.

Phong
Redshirt
Posts: 3313
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 12:19 am
Location: Boston, MA

Post by Phong » Tue Sep 09, 2003 1:20 am

You pointed out the definition of the militia as stated in current law, thats all I was saying and I don't believe I implied anything more than that.

I don't suppose I was thinking of cost when I said that. Although the spirit of what I think is still valid. Each member of the "Militia" as stated in current law should be prepared in some way to do his duty. Back to the costs of arming all of them though. We could perhaps say that within 20 years, all militia elibable citizens should be armed with a "Military" capable rifle. This would stretch out individual costs as well as any government subsudies to such a program to a reasonable level.
In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time that a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection. - Hugo Rossi, Mathmetician.

User avatar
Martin Blank
Knower of Things
Knower of Things
Posts: 12685
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 4:11 am
Real Name: Jarrod Frates
Gender: Male
Location: Dallas, TX

Post by Martin Blank » Tue Sep 09, 2003 2:16 am

You're pulling everyone into the organized militia at that point, and that's both impractical and against the spirit of the concept and the law. The unorganized militia is there to be called up in an emergency, and providing them with arms requires providing ammunition, training, and so forth, which drives the costs up further.

As has been demonstrated amply before, unorganized and loosely organized militias can make a serious nuisance of themselves.
If I show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring me there.

Phong
Redshirt
Posts: 3313
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 12:19 am
Location: Boston, MA

Post by Phong » Tue Sep 09, 2003 4:02 am

Well you have a point about that becoming organized militia, but I wasn't talking about "providing them arms." I was talking about *maybe* some minimal Government assistance with the purchase of arms over the next 20 years so that eventually we would have a well armed populace of licenced gun users. I'm not talking about training, provision of ammunition, or any larger sort of an organization. Mostly though, I believe that one should simply be prepared to do his duty to his country by protecting it from invaders from the outside or within.
In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time that a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection. - Hugo Rossi, Mathmetician.

User avatar
Fixer
Redshirt
Posts: 6608
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 2:27 pm
Real Name: David Foster
Gender: Male

Post by Fixer » Tue Sep 09, 2003 4:54 pm

The United States is highly unlikely to ever be invaded by a foreign power.

Yes, we have a powerful military, but we do not have enough to protect every city, port, etc with enough military manpower to repel a full-out invasion. Most of our homeland military is support, not combatant.
Yes, we have the national Guard, but even they are limited in scope. They can't be everywhere at once.

The real reason why no other country WANTS to invade the US en-masse is because each and every civilian is armed and fiercly (sometimes stupidly) loyal to the 'religion' of the United States. They don't just have to fight the structured, semi-predictable military, they have to fight the completely unstructured, unfocused and unpredictable civilian population. Sure, they don't have easy access to grenades or anti-tank weapons, but they can harass soldiers who are not in their tanks 100% of the time. You think things are bad in Iraq? It would be far worse in America. We may not all have AK-47s over our mantles, but we still have a lot of guns available.
Image
I don't care who's right, who's wrong, or what you meant to say. Only thing I care about is the Truth. If you have it, good, share it. If not, find it. If you want to argue, do it with someone else.

User avatar
StruckingFuggle
Redshirt
Posts: 22166
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 6:18 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Austin / San Marcos, Tx

Post by StruckingFuggle » Tue Sep 09, 2003 8:49 pm

Also, it seems like a large-scale invasion of america would be hard, due to the oceans. Unless Canada or Mexico decides to invade, they need to come across the ocean, and transportaton of any sizable invading force for a nation this size would be a big blazing signal that seems like it could be shot down en route. no?
"He who lives by the sword dies by my arrow."

"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."

User avatar
Fixer
Redshirt
Posts: 6608
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 2:27 pm
Real Name: David Foster
Gender: Male

Post by Fixer » Tue Sep 09, 2003 9:03 pm

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="154263"]Also, it seems like a large-scale invasion of america would be hard, due to the oceans. Unless Canada or Mexico decides to invade, they need to come across the ocean, and transportaton of any sizable invading force for a nation this size would be a big blazing signal that seems like it could be shot down en route. no?[/quote]
Yeah, but I was discussing the 'desire' to invade, not the logistics.
Image
I don't care who's right, who's wrong, or what you meant to say. Only thing I care about is the Truth. If you have it, good, share it. If not, find it. If you want to argue, do it with someone else.

Jonas Salk
Redshirt
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 5:21 am
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by Jonas Salk » Fri Sep 12, 2003 8:45 am

It is not because of a "religion" that we wish to defend our nation, Fixer. No one has the desire to invade us because to do such would be absolute suicide. It is completely impossible to consider invasion through any methods into this country.

Assuming the Soviet Union had actually invaded, their casualties would have been drastically high; even higher than their casualties taken against the Finns or the Germans combined. They could not have held any part of the nation for very long, unless they decided to nuke. That's getting off-topic, though.

Anyway: the point of the second amendment as most should see it is that it provides the common man with a means to defend himself from a totalitarian government or an invasion force from another nation. It was meant also as personal defense from crime; police forces were almost entirely unknown at the time and people needed to defend themselves.

A good argument for less gun-control is a local city: Kennesaw, Georgia. The law in Kennesaw states that you must own a firearm in your home. While I believe this is a bit excessive, the violent crime rates in Kennesaw, a city in the metro-Atlanta area, are virtually nil. The reason for this is because criminals are not sure if someone will have a gun or not; it "encourages" them to find a safer line of work. :wink:

EDIT: This was not a flame.
"To a scientist fame is neither an end nor a means to an end." - Dr. Jonas Salk

User avatar
Martin Blank
Knower of Things
Knower of Things
Posts: 12685
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 4:11 am
Real Name: Jarrod Frates
Gender: Male
Location: Dallas, TX

Post by Martin Blank » Fri Sep 12, 2003 5:17 pm

It is not because of a "religion" that we wish to defend our nation, Fixer. No one has the desire to invade us because to do such would be absolute suicide. It is completely impossible to consider invasion through any methods into this country.
That's what he meant. It's why he phrased it 'religion', with the quote marks. He was referring to the 'loyalty until death for the American ideal' mantra that many patriots follow.
If I show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring me there.

Jonas Salk
Redshirt
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 5:21 am
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Post by Jonas Salk » Tue Sep 16, 2003 8:41 am

Ah, okay. *Nods* Difficult to comprehend the context of his message. Sorry, Fixer.
"To a scientist fame is neither an end nor a means to an end." - Dr. Jonas Salk

User avatar
Fixer
Redshirt
Posts: 6608
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 2:27 pm
Real Name: David Foster
Gender: Male

Post by Fixer » Tue Sep 16, 2003 12:35 pm

It is ok. I am not always easy to understand. Especially in real life. Sometimes my brain goes faster than my ability to communicate. :/
Image
I don't care who's right, who's wrong, or what you meant to say. Only thing I care about is the Truth. If you have it, good, share it. If not, find it. If you want to argue, do it with someone else.

Jonas Salk
Redshirt
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 5:21 am
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Post by Jonas Salk » Tue Sep 16, 2003 10:09 pm

The way I see invading America is this: you'll invade the US, they'll kick the hell out of you, maybe nuke you once or twice, but in the end you'll have an entirely rebuilt country with one of the highest standards of living and best economies in the world. :lol:
"To a scientist fame is neither an end nor a means to an end." - Dr. Jonas Salk

User avatar
Bjarni Herjolfsson
Redshirt
Posts: 1795
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 11:12 pm
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida, U.S.A.

Post by Bjarni Herjolfsson » Wed Oct 01, 2003 9:06 pm

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. Read the statment carefully paying special attention to punctuation. To simplify it, it means if the state is under attack or under facist rule, the state can create a well reulated militia who has the right to bare arms. It says nothing about bearing arms in times of unneccesity. Its sorta irrelevent becuase the US has a national guard that replaced the militia.
"Do not follow anyone blindly in those matters of which you have no
knowledge, surely the use of your ears and eyes and heart - all of these,
shall be questioned on the Day of Judgement." -The Holy Quran, 17:36:

Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [bot], Common Crawl (Research), Yandex [Bot] and 0 guests