Summations Only

So what exactly do you have in mind? We can use guns to protect our liberties ... from a rowdy bunch of Congressmen armed with water-balloons?

Again, you're not doing all the math. Yes, we agree - there is a greater than zero chance that a weapon in the congregation could save lives if a little shit decides to attack the congregation. That is one half of the equation.The other half of the equation is that there is a greater than zero chance that a concealed weapon in a congregation will accidentally (or as a result of a brief temper flare over someone being interrupted or something) kill a member of the congregation.The data shows us that the second half of the equation results in more deaths.Do you still prefer the feeling that it would be nice to bring guns into every church meeting, even though the evidence shows that more lives are lost to gun accidents, than are saved in defence of an environment ?

When the Second Amendment was conceived, the former Colonies had no standing army. The new government was wary of the possibility of a military coup and decided to rely on non-professional militias comprised of armed citizens. That's why the wording of the amendment asserts that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. Nowhere did the founding fathers portray gun availability as being necessary to protect citizenry from the tyranny of a democratically elected government.And that was all well and fine when our farm-boy army was fighting alongside professional French soldiers, who helped us defeat the Brits at Yorktown. But only a few years later, our not-so-fierce fighters were getting their ass handed to them by Indians at the Wabash, and the idea of a standing army didn't seem so bad. Now that militias are not necessary to its security, it stands to reason that the right to bear arms isn't such an urgent matter for our nation.But as long as you're rewriting history, can I please be married to Cate Blanchett?Edited by MrHambre, : No reason given.

For a corrective to your odd view of the history of these things, I refer you to Message 57 of this thread which quotes various members of the founding generation on what the militia was supposed to be and how all citizens were to be armed... There was nothing circumstantial about it, it was embraced as a necessity in a free state.They used such phrases as "the people themselves...the body of the people... every man be armed...everyone who is able...the whole people..."As for the dangers of governments, George Mason and Samuel Adams mention that possibility, including the danger of a standing army, which Adams mentions.

No, it was your view that needed the corrective. The Second Amendment has a meaning and a context that aren't contained in a bunch of factoids culled from Wikiquote and guncite, and your understanding of the phenomenon of this legislation needs to recognize this historical context.The authors of the Constitution weren't afraid that the American government would oppress its populace through the domination of a standing army; they were afraid that the army would pose a threat to the state itself. That's why they preferred militias to a standing army, and their dependence on a citizen militia required that their citizens be armed.Regardless of your position on gun control in 2015, you have to acknowledge the circumstances surrounding the ratification of the Second Amendment. Otherwise you're not really discussing the Constitution.Edited by MrHambre, : No reason given.

You aren't making sense. They were afraid of armies and governments in general. Their reference was always the previous history in Europe and in the UK. They considered the safety of the nation best preserved in the hands of the armed citizens. Their views of this in those quotes ought to be respected as what their views were.

You mean you have data on people carrying in church?

Nonsense. Even Lincoln (almost 100 years after the Revolution), acknowledged that:The Second Amendment was included for, among other reasons, ensuring that the people have the 'power' to exercise the 'right' to defend themselves against anything that threatened the 'security of a free State', even if that anything was the State itself.Read the history (Second Amendment). There's no need to lie to build your argument.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

While I acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment did have the concept of armed citizenry being able to defend themselves from a tyrannical government as part of its credo, I would argue that concept is woefully anachronistic in the modern day and age.Our society already has copious laws preventing citizens from being able to purchase military hardware and ordinance. i.e., no matter how rich you are, you can't buy modern tanks, fighter jets or missiles for your own purposes. And quite frankly, I for one am happy about that as I wouldn't want to see what would happen if some uber rich billionaire suddenly snapped and went on a rampage with an M1A1 tank firing HESH rounds at anything he saw.But ultimately, this to me signifies that as a society, we have already usurped the notion of armed citizenry being able to overthrow the government because our citizens can never be as armed as the government. You could have access to Charlton Heston's entire basement and it wouldn't mean a hill of beans of difference the moment the Marines show up and blow you to smithereens with their military hardware.With all that being said, I personally don't have a problem with guns being used for personal defense. (As a LAST resort) But to me, the whole notion of having to be armed just in case you need to overthrow the government makes no sense in the modern day and age.

No it is not. Read the founders writings, read actual history texts.

Actually they established gun control in 1919, tightened those controls in 1928 and then in 1938 RELAXED the gun control laws - rifles and shotguns were deregulated entirely. Also, the range of people exempt from needing permits for other weapons such as hand guns was extended. The legal age to own a gun was reduced to 18. Restricted firearm permits were tripled in length (1 year to 3). Jews were prohibited as an extension of the rules set out in 1928 regarding 'trustworthy' people (Jews cannot be trusted, ergo no guns).To complete the dataset, gun ownership was massively restricted after the Nazis left power and weren't relaxed again until 1956 which set things back to 1928. This was then severely restricted in 1972, which was tightened again a few times during the early 21st Century.What you've managed to do is point at the darkest period of modern German history which was also the period in which gun control was the LEAST RESTRICTED and tried to argue that this proves that restricting guns was a key part in the subsequent genocides.Bremen school shooting, 1913: Legally acquired firearms used
Cologne school massacre, 1964: improvised weapon (flamethrower)
Eppstein school shooting, 1983: legally acquired pistols
Erfurt massacre, 2002: From my understanding they were legally acquired firearms, as the commentary about it tends to suggest that there were laws, already in debate, that would have made them not able to be acquired legally by the perpetrator.
Emsdetten school shooting, 2006: legally acquired firearms/air/percussion weapons.
Winnenden school shooting, 2009: legally purchased firearms, stolen by the teenage son of the ownerThose actually happened. The German government imposing heavy restrictions on ownership and then going on a rampage? No. They disarmed the Jews, but if they hadn't I doubt it would have stopped the Nazis who had plenty of support from many more other armed citizens. If the Jews started shooting the Nazi party, they get more propaganda to exploit and they get more armed people willing to shoot Jews. So ultimately - I don't see how giving the Jews guns could be regarded as a simple fix. Then again, adding guns to a problem has not historically resulted in unambiguously good results.By my reckoning, mass killings are almost always carried out by basically law abiding people with legally acquired weapons rather than hardened criminals with black market weapons...regardless of the laws of the land. And if the government wants to kill you for some reason, there is an overwhelming probability that they have the support or apathy of enough others regarding your ongoing life and if you happen to own guns all that is going to happen is that you will die without any chance to say anything and you may harm innocents (or cause innocents to be harmed) in your blaze of glory defiant last stand.On the other hand, if enough Americans want the government gone - they won't need guns to do it regardless of the tyranny levels of the government.

Well... my post was about the history of the Second Amendment. And on that point we seem to agree.

Thank you, to deny this aspect of the amendment's purpose is what makes the anti-gun people sound so crazy. We could discuss other aspects of it, and cautions and limitations, if this much is acknowledged. That could be a reasonable basis for limiting gun possession far more than we do, but I think that would require amending the amendment. Which could be considered. I think this misrepresents the situation. "Overthrowing" the government isn't so much the concern as self-defense, against whatever form of tyranny presents itself. Lincoln had overthrowing the government in mind, so that has to be included but it would mean having a huge number of citizens in agreement. If that's possible then overthrow is possible I suppose. But I think self-defense is the primary objective of an armed citizenry, personal self-defense but also the possibility of having to unite against an enemy of some sort, at least contributing to the defense of the country against foreign invaders, but even as a remote possibility one's own government if necessary. I don't think gun owners have any of this in mind as a real threat but as a historical reason for the second amendment that no longer exists but for all we know could reemerge as a threat if we were disarmed. "If we were disarmed" is the relevant context I think. This is one of those bizarro scenarios nobody is thinking of though. One of the problems in our age is that we are no longer the "peaceful" people the founders thought they were arming. They weren't anticipating the mentality that brings shooters into schools and theaters and churches, or gang wars or drug smugglers or all the other ways the nation is threatened by internal strife.The idea of disarming the good guys because of so many bad guys isn't going to fly, however.Nevertheless, if this subject weren't so polarized and the second amendment itself just about demonized by people who think Americans are all crazy, it might be possible to consider some reasonable limitations.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Where?This is the full text of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution: 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.The context of the amendment was that the drafters' suspicion of a standing army outweighed their concerns about the ability of a militia to defend the new nation from its enemies. The amendment intended to preclude any politicized patterns of weapon possession that might jeopardize the security of the State.That's why the amendment doesn't mention the right of the people to overthrow the government that the Constitution was being drafted to establish.

Your statement would suggest you are very ignorant or delusional. In Gallup Poll, The Biggest Threat To World Peace Is ... America? Happy new year? The world's getting slowly more cheerful - BBC News