Summations Only

I understand the view that the Declaration of Independence does describe such a right. But that right isn't included anywhere in the Constitution.

People, I guess, can amend the Constitution as they see fit, but until then the Second Amendment and its textual justification are the highest law of the land. There's no way to construe the Second Amendment as an amendment about owning guns for hunting and target shooting. The scope and purpose of the Amendment is completely explicit - "a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state." "Well-regulated" means "orderly", as in "organized and effective."I don't see how the Civil War changed that, since it was the side defending the US constitution and its amendments that won.

But the Constitution does say that all rights not specifically granted to the Federal government are reserved to the States and people.

Do you think the prevalence of guns is part of the cause of mass killings? Thanks. Its cool.

Rights aren't determined by need. Its the restriction of rights that's determined by need. And there's no need for an unarmed cililian population.

And I'm amazed that Europeans so willingly allowed their respective governments to disarm them.Gosh, those arms sure would have come in handy during Germany's rampant occupation of Europe. And you know, a nation where only military and police have arms is, by definition, known as a Police State. I'm not comfortable with that. No more surprised than when a killer in Norway went on a shooting rampage. Guess Norwegian laws against guns amounted to nothing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50The writings of the Founding Fathers make it explicitly clear that their intentions were for the People to have the right to bear arms. That's incontestable to the point of it being absurd to even argue over the point.(Damn, it's been awhile. Forgot how to embed videos)

Bang on, CS. Well said.

So because it's within the realm of possibility that people get accidently shot that necessitates unilateral disarmament? Does that same prinicple apply to cars -- machines that statistically are infinitely more dangerous than guns? Well said, Hitler. Forgive me for the blatant infraction of Godwin's Law, but I'm sure some government official told that to Germany and her citizens right before Nazi stormtroopers were hauling undesireables away.As long as force and coercion exists, there is always a need for an armed civilian population.And really, at the end of the day, America will never be disarmed willingly. It just won't ever be disarmed or occupied by anyone because there are too many people who value it and know it is a right afforded to them. Hell, the Framers were very clear that if anyone tries to take that right from them that the People rise up in insurrection.So it's a moot point to even talk about. It won't happen without massive bloodshed. And should that bloodshed occur, it will be entirely the fault of the individuals or groups who waged that war against the People.

(Continued from other thread.) No, that's not what I called a "semi-pistol grip". It has a pistol grip. It also appears to have a collapsible stock. You're missing the point. A pistol grip probably does make a pistol more dangerous than a pistol which didn't have one. But since all pistols have a pistol grip, the law doesn't explicitly have to say that that's one strike against them, whereas since not all rifles do, it does.---For the rest of your post, see DevilsAdvocate's answer, he seems to know more about it than I do.

As I've pointed out before (back, I think, in the days when you were still NemesisJuggernaut) invoking Hitler makes the opposite of the point you'd actually like to make.Europeans had lots of privately-owned guns. Germans had lots of privately-owned guns. Then one of the top worst tyrannies ever arose in Germany and took over most of Europe, and the tyrant said: "hand over your guns", and what happened? They handed over their guns. Or at best hid them somewhere. What they didn't do was form a citizens' militia, fight a victorious pitched battle against the SS, and then march on Berlin.Now, if this story had instead ended: "... and what happened? The gun-owners shot Hitler and everyone lived happily ever after", then you would have a point. But the fact is that the privately-owned guns were rubbish as a bulwark against tyranny. What actually overthrew Hitler were publicly-funded armies, one of them downright Communist, armed with what I believe are known in military parlance as Big Fucking Tanks. If we'd sat around waiting for the people with hunting rifles to do the job, then this post would be written in German.

That may have not happened in early 20th century Germany, but it certainly happened in the British Colonies of 1776.An armed citizenry doesn't always rise up against an oppressive tyranny. But that's not the point. The point is that an unarmed citizenry never can.

No it isn't. A police state:

quote:

---

...is one in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

---

Just prohibiting weapons doesn't constitute a Police State. A nanny state, maybe. Heh. That's quite funny.You know, he tried to acquire weapons illegally, but failed. Then he tried to acquire weapons legally, and succeeded. It was Norway's permissive gun laws that allowed him to acquire the semi-automatic 9mm Glock 17 pistol and the semi-automatic Ruger Mini-14. source.So maybe you're right - and the gun laws amounted to nothing - but I don't think you meant it quite like that.There are about 30 guns to 100 people in Norway. It is number 11 in the world for gun ownership rate. Source.In 2009 the gun death rate was 2.2 per 100,000. In comparison with say Romania with much tougher gun laws where it is 0.17 per 100,000.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

We need to stop setting up an artificial distinction between gun murders and other types of murders.Murder is murder.And that's all she wrote.

That's as may be. My point was simply that Hitler, in particular, constitutes a counterexample to rather than an example of any claims about a connection between guns and liberty. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.