Summations Only

No, what I'm saying is consistent with what I've argued all along.

Earlier the point that was being made is that an armed citizen can not defend themself against a well armed army of overwhelming size. Having even an AR-15 is not going to stop a laser guided bomb from striking your house. It seems a bit silly to say that people need semi-automatic rifles to stop the government from suppressing them when semi-automatic rifles will not defend them from an army. I also used the Waco, Texas incident to further illustrate the point.

Removed Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : Taq explained this quite well.

That is exactly what the National Guard is, and previous militias throughout US history were armed by the state or federal governments. You really don't think that people were dragging their own cannons to battle, do you?

Yes, this was pointed out over a thousand messages ago. Soldiers in those days provided their own weapons. The necessity for a militia is why the 2nd amendment guaranteed a right to keep and bear arms. But today the military provides the weapons and the 2nd amendment is an anachronism.There's nothing in the 2nd amendment about an armed citizenry being necessary to oppose tyranny.--Percy

I go by the explanations of the founders I posted a long time back, and others I've heard since that I should get around to posting, about what the second amendment was intended for, and they over and over speak of the threat of government that may need to be resisted.As for the National Guard, what bothers me about it is that it can be used AGAINST Americans, and has been. The police should be for quelling riots and that sort of thing, not a militia that is supposed to be what the 2nd amendment had in mind. I think it was Hamilton who described the militia as our own family, friends and neighbors, whom we would trust to protect us. The more anonymous and government-run the militia the less they are what the 2nd amendment had in mind.And to whatever extent the National Guard does reflect that militia, it certainly should not be construed to REPLACE the citizen's right to keep and bear arms. That was never the idea of the militia. The militia was supposed to be US, and we were supposed to be armed.I do think Jackson's army was the militia in operation as the 2nd amendment intended.You keep saying times have changed. Well, let us maintain what they had and then we'll find out what difference it may make if the time comes to put it to the test. Taking it away from us certainly doesn't answer to that objection.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, it was part of the discussion and debate at the time. It didn't make it into the amendment. Yes, and it's an example of what everyone was already telling you.--Percy

Yeah, I should have mentioned I know you all dismissed the founders' comments because they didn't make it into the amendment which I consider to be a way of imposing your own views where they don't belong. The founders' explanations are the reason for the amendment. Rewriting it to suit YOUR views is a cheap manipulation, but since that sort of thing does prevail these days obviously what is needed is a rewriting of the amendment to incorporate the views of the founders that you all think should be ignored in favor of your own.Jackson's army has nothing in common with the National Guard.

The founders were not the apostles and they were not all of one mind. In fact they disagreed about almost everything and were forced into compromises almost everywhere. Had there been sufficient consensus about resistance to tyranny as part of the justification then it would have made it into the amendment.The 2nd amendment is the only one in the Bill of Rights with a justification, and that justification was placed there to make clear that the motivation was the need for a militia, not the need to resist tyranny. Those views you want included were obviously of a minority of founders, else those views would already be there.Obviously the amendment needs to be updated so it is properly suited to current requirements. And what I said also had nothing in common with the National Guard.To reexplain at greater length, at the time you posted that Battle of New Orleans video it was an example of what everyone was already telling you, that in militias of the period soldiers provided their own guns.--Percy

I get the idea of wanting to defend the home from invasion. However, as a defense of country I think that you are just making ridiculous points.Now, I do not want to read too much into your points, but I am assuming that you mean the citizenry should be armed in the case of another country invading or of our government threatening armed tyranny against the citizenry? If this is the case, all that I can ask is what on the planet Earth do you think that we can do with a 30 round magazine that we can't do with a 10 round magazine when the invading army or our government can simply employ this: Our citizen army will be dead where it stands without any knowledge that an attack was emminent. Stating defense against invasion or tyranny is ridiculous when we have allowed our government (and many other governments) to run rampant with newer and more efficient ways to kill extremely quickly. It is the citizens that sat back while the tools of war were moved far out of the reach of the everyman through R&D. Take for example this weapon as seen on Futureweapons: Sensor Fuzed WeaponLike I said, I can understand defense against home invasion (Although, I feel guns should be required to be locked up until use becomes necessary), but any idea that an invading force or a tyrannical government will be stopped by the armed citizens of the United States is simply a pipe dream. Governments have increased their ability to kill a thousandfold....citizens just cannot keep up with that technology.

So you say that that this Christian nation cannot turn the other cheek on behalf of the citizens, but we can kill in their name. Pease elaborate.

1) Self defense not murder
2) We live in a fallen worldSelf-defense is not murder, Jaderis, and nobody who defends the second amendment is out to "kill" in that sense. Those who make a moral equivalence between justice and murder are committing a great sin themselves. Just like those who make an equivalence between the death penalty and murder. Are you one of those?And this isn't a Christian nation.And the command to turn the other cheek is for the individual believer. It would be suicide for the nation as a whole to turn the other cheek to enemies in a fallen world. One of the main functions of government is to defend its citizens. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The citizen army or militia was the idaa behind the second amendment as many knew back when it was written. I posted quotes and a lengthy article which is of course too much for anyone to want to read on a thread but it made that point, that that was the reason for the amendment, and it came down to us from England through many centuries. I think that was post 57 if you're interested.This argument that we should be LESS equipped to defend ourselves in a world where our enemies are stronger than they were when the amendment was written strikes me as super crazy. Let us be armed to whatever degree makes sense, at least to defend home and family, and if we're overwhelmed by a greater force there's nothing we can do about it. But if we're not armed at ALL then we KNOW there's nothing we can do about it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yet, having guns in the house, while DO giving the opportunity for self defense, also gives the opportunity for 'crimes of passion' , where cooler heads would prevail if that tool was not available.A woman that has a gun in the household for self defense is much much more likely to be killed a domestic violence situation than households that do not have guns.And there is this caseMeleanie Hain: Gun-Carrying Soccer Mom Killed By Husband In Murder Suicide, Police Say (VIDEO) | HuffPost Latest News

Yeah, there is such a thing as murder. It's different from self defense.