Oh, ok. So we'll hand in all our guns, and when it's time for the militia to be called up again (forgetting the fact that all able bodied men are already members of the militia), our government is going to pass out AR-15s, then take them away again when we're done fending off the threat? The main threat that was intended by the Second Amendment, our own government?
so I'll just throw the Bullshit flag right there...
It is true that upon adoption, the 2nd did not apply to slaves. It only applied to 'citizens' and as slaves were not considered citizens, it did not apply to them.
however: aside from your slanted attempt to start a racial issue re: the second, there are other, more pressing backing and reasons.
A. The Federalist Papers, No. 28: Alexander Hamilton expressed that when a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense — to fight the government.[Halbrook, p. 67]
B. The Federalist Papers, No. 29: Alexander Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army becoming large and oppressive. [Halbrook, p. 67]
C. The Federalist Papers, No. 46: James Madison contended that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms. [Halbrook, p. 67]
E. The Federalists promised that state governments and citizen militias would exist to make sure the federal military never became large or oppressive. To say that the National Guard replaces the notion of the militia runs contrary to what the Founders said and wrote.
F.John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government (1690) aimed at reforming Britain’s monarchy and parliamentary system and limiting the power of government, and profoundly influenced the Founders and all Western Civilization. John Locke explained that civil government properly exists to more effectively protect the rights that all individuals have in the “state of nature.” The individuals have the rights to life, liberty, and property. They give civil government the power over themselves only to the extent that it better protects those rights. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically declared that the ideas of John Locke’s Second Treatise were “generally approved by the citizens of the United States.”Jefferson mandated that Locke’s Second Treatise be taught in the University of Virginia.
Also, feel free to look at other sites that may not align to your political echo-chamber. You may find it gives you a more complete point of view.
People always bring up defense against the evil gov't. I'd be interested to see how effective some guns are going to be against tanks, nukes, drones, etc. Just seems like more alarmist bullshit to justify owning guns. However, I'm not against gun ownership — I'm only against lack of regulations so any crazy nut can buy a gun at their whim and go massacre people.
Small arms are used to take out troops and gain THEIR arms, therefore gaining larger and more powerful weapons. Thats a basic military tactic when facing a larger, better armed force.
What 'regulation' would you suggest that 1.) does not deprive people of their right to own a gun and 2.) can be applied to everyone evenly? and at what point does ANYONE have to deny the right of self-defense?
there is none, because there will ALWAYS be some group of people who would be adversely affected & denied the right by no fault of their own.
Who says we need guns to defend ourselves from our own government? Who says that guns would be adequate to the task against the well-equipped US military? Who says that that is the best way to accomplish such a goal if it came to pass? Who says the trade-off of 'maybe we need these to defend ourselves from the government' outweighs the daily damage done?
"Who says that guns would be adequate to the task against the well-equipped US military?"
I have often seen this argument made, but do not find it persuasive. For one, the U.S. military has famously had trouble fighting insurgents in numerous recent conflicts. For another, you are assuming that the "U.S. military" is a monolithic whole that would automatically be on the side of the government. From my reading of history, it is quite rare for the entire military to be on the same side of a civil war. Certainly that was not the case in this country; the U.S. Civil War had West Point graduates in command on both sides.
Heck, Grant and Longstreet (who was one of the Southern commanders at Gettysburg) were close friends at West Point, and Grant was married to one of Longstreet's cousins.
I note in passing that a Military Times poll had Obama losing the military vote to Romney by 40 points.
Hanging on the militia argument is actually a little bit dangerous. What happens if a state, say Texas, were to pass a law inducting every able bodied adult into "the militia" (for some definition of militia, and some definition of regulated). Would that bypass all federal restrictions on firearms?
