Summations Only

This is completely off topic, but I will have some on topic stuff at the end as well. I simply cannot let your gross misunderstanding of Biblical Morality go... So, let's see, according to you the main morals are:Honor Parents, Don't murder, don't lie, don't steal, don't commit adultery, don't covet, don't mistreat your servants and set them free, and don't mistreat animals...Let's look at a few of these "morals".Honor Parents - Yes we know the commandment states you should honor your father and your mother. However, I believe there are situations happening every day where either the Father or the Mother do not deserve to be honored. Should a child who is beaten by his Father honor that same man? Well, according to everything in the Bible, yes. So, no I cannot agree with this blanket morality being better than our ability now to determine whether or not the person is deserving of honor.Do not Murder - The Bible is extremely wishy-washy on this one and this causes a lot of moral dilemmas. We could just stick with the commandment of "Thou shalt not kill", but we are talking about Biblical morals, not ten commandment morals. What else does the Bible have to say about murder?"Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel." (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)"You should not let a sorceress live." (Exodus 22:17 NAB)"Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed." (Exodus 22:19 NAB)So, it seems that murder is only frowned upon when done to those who follow the Bible. Outside of that, it is fair game because they are vicious sinners and deserve it. Again, not the best moral standards being set here and we have moved well beyond this idea, except where religious zealotry still holds sway.Do not lie - This one is a little tougher to see the inconsistencies, since lying is mentioned far less than murder. However, there are a couple sections that show that lying is not enough to damn someone, in fact they may still be saved. Take the story of Rahab for example. Joshua sends spies into Jericho and they take refuge with the Prostitute Rahab. When Rahab is questioned if the spies are there, she replies that she did not know where they were. However, she was currently hiding them, so this is a blatant lie...which should be punished by death. How is Rahab treated? She is spared destruction with the rest of Jericho because she told a lie. Seems to me to be an example of someone lying and being rewarded for it, not exactly consistent. So, according to this the moral is "Don't Lie" except when God wants you to. This idea is also currently frowned upon in most areas of society, people value honesty in all things nowadays.The last one I want to point out for your biblical morality is the slavery one. You said that it was required to release servants after a set amount of time, but what you did not clarify was that this was only for Hebrew slaves. According to the text:"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)The key words in that one are "permanent inheritance". These slaves were not given freedom after a certain amount of time!However, for Hebrew Slaves:
"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever." (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)Also, this states that a Hebrew Slave's family can be held captive until he decides to ask to remain a slave. The deck seems rather stacked against him.So, again I state, these are the Biblical Morals because they are things that individuals in the Bible are instructed to do and I cannot agree with these morals. Also, we have definitely moved beyond these terrible moral codes and into a much more intellectual time of morality where we recognize shades of grey and attempt to look for the morality in individual cases. I do not disagree with punishment for breaching ethical protocol. However, answering to a mysterious higher power is not an ethical question because it has largely zero effect on my morality. If you mean do I disagree with it being moral to punish sinners, then yes I definitely disagree. I think that rehabilitation is the method that should be used, instead of punishment. Yes, we do not want Christians constantly telling us that we're damned. Why? Simply because it is rude (another way we are better morally than our ancestors). It is similar to the way Christians react when I tell them that there is zero evidence for an invisible authority figure in the sky outside of one book and a bunch of subjective experience. So, as an atheist what do I do? (Outside the context of a debate board intended for this purpose) I don't go pissing in people's religious cheerios in my daily life, so Christians should take a cue and think what you want, but it is a waste of time and rude to tell someone who thinks that death is the end that they will be punished after death.Now, finally onto the point of the thread: So, have you considered all of the variables in this equation? You are laying the increase in murders solely on the lack of morality? The increase could have nothing to do with population density, wealth distribution, availability of weapons? No, it is all due to declining morality you say.I have heard of plenty of terrible murders taking place throughout history. Some used weapons and some did not, but to claim that the morality is declining, while at the same time we are attempting to better feed an ever-growing population, trying to help with inhumane treatment around the globe, working with third world countries to attempt to bring their standard of living a little higher, allowing individuals to hold their own beliefs, and slowly removing the walls and borders that exist between countries to face problems more as a world is ridiculous. We have made leaps and bounds in morality since the writing of the Bible and should not be held to the barbaric standard which that text sets forth.The problem with gun violence is not because of some moral decline, but rather because of readily accessible firearms giving individuals a quick and simple solution to a temporary problem. There have always been people with short fuses, but now they can gain a very efficient weapon to cause damage to release aggression.This is why I say sweeping gun bans won't solve the problem. Rather, we must regulate what we can (legally under the second amendment) and begin to work on the socio-economic problems that are the underlying cause of the violence. Stop blaming some moral decline and start looking for the real world solutions. Mental health care in the United States is abyssmal, and there are loopholes present that allow those with mental disorders to obtain weaponry. Let us try and fix that!!! Fine, if you refuse to answer a simple question, ask one of your gun-toting friends for an example of a situation where a ten round magazine would not be sufficient for home/family defense and get back to me.

So, the Chinese, which has a lower population of Christians (estimates put it at 14 million Chinese Christians) than America does is not suffering from having very little in the way of Christian roots and values, yet we are? Wouldn't Jehovah be far more upset with the Chinese and their adherance to Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism?American Christians= 78% of the population
Chinese Christians= 1.4% of the populationHow can it follow that the problem in the US is a lack of Christian morals, when China does not have the same problem even though such a miniscule amount of the population subscribes to Christian morality. Also, the state religion of China is Atheism and yet, still, they have a lower murder rate. Could it possibly be some form of gun control?"Civilian ownership of guns is largely restricted to authorised, non-individual entities, including sporting organisations, authorised hunting reserves and wild life protection, management and research organizations. The chief exception to the general ban for individual gun ownership is for the purpose of hunting."
SourceSo, the difference is not stemming from the decline of morality in one state as you seem to think, but rather the gun control measures that are implemented in the other country. Now, thinking America can go instantly to this strict of gun control is a pipe dream but steps can be taken in the right direction.However, you did make one correct statement in this comment: Population density leads to poor impulse control because there are far more stressors in everyday life. Poor impulse control leads to snap judgments, which, with the easy accessibility of guns in this country, does create violence. No moral decline into sin required, simply the creation of extra stress in the human experience because of more interaction and easy access to a weapon intended to kill, with no mental health network to fall back on when stress becomes too much...As per your discussion about the morality, I am glad you agree that those were examples of things that seem immoral from our perspective, but not glad that you can justify cruel actions on the part of your deity. SourceSourceSourceOh, also not all Eastern Countries have less violence. Consider Thailand, who is equal to the US in intentional homicide and the Philippines, which are above the US at 5.4 per 100,000. So, no need for sweeping statements about how much better they are at living in much denser populations.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

Then my comment remains that our moral culture is far more advanced than that which was written over 2,000 years ago. We no longer feel justified to do many of the horrible things that the Bible allowed us to justify, such as the mass murder of the Native people, the forced conversion of those with differing beliefs, the forced slavery of an entire group of people simply because of a difference in skin color. The Bible's morality is minimal at best and barbaric at worst (it allows the rule-giver to arbitrarily decide when and where his own morals apply). Losing this is one of the best things that can happen for our country.We are losing Christianity in this country and that, to me, is a good thing because it is not necessary to be afraid of punishment to do good in the World. In fact, I would say that a moral act done merely for the sake of doing good is much better than one done because of a forced guilt that Christianity places upon people.Now, do you have any arguments about the population density comments, the mental health problems, or gun regulations? There is no more need to defend onesself now than there was fifty years ago, it is simply the amount of information we have access to that has changed. In 1957, the murder rate in the US was 4.0 per 100,000. It currently sits at around 4.8 per 100,000. So, you would be correct that it is slightly higher, but not enough that the fear of attack should be much greater. In fact, if moral decline is the cause of gun violence, instead of the lack of regulations and socio-economic factors, then this would mean our Christian morality was at its lowest in the year of 1980, when the murder rate hit 10.2 per 100,000.You want to know something funny? When was the highest murder rate the US ever had? Is it recent or far in the past?
...
...
...
Well, according to Roger Lane, "The highest murder rate in national history was between 1846 and 1887." During a good, moral Christian time! Hmmmm....seems like something else is at play, so stop blaming invisible reasons. Oh, and they removed all deaths from the Civil War for that statistic, those deaths were not considered murder but wartime deaths.Forgot the Source
SourceEdited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

No, you have not! You stated that it was their own religious beliefs that give them this self control. Yet, that does not apply across the board in Asia. As I pointed out Thailand is equal to the US in homicide and the Philippines are higher!Plus, you are not taking into account the strict gun laws that exist in China, which probably have more to do with the reduced homicide rate than the Chinese form of self control does. Perhaps with some regulation on guns in the US, we can also lower crime to similar numbers over time!

That is very odd that we have found completely different graphs. Of course, yours only mentions overall murders and overall executions. Why not look at this list that shows that states without the death penalty consistently have a lower murder rate. SourceI mean, come on. Illinois has the death penalty and look at them with their 5.6 homicides per 100,000 people. Or Arizona, another state with the death penalty, which has 6.2 homicides per 100,000 people. The idea that the death penalty is any sort of deterrent is a very archaic viewpoint. Look at Minnesota! No death penalty and yet, only 1.4 homicides per 100,000 people. Source88% of scientists believe that there is no correlation between the death penalty and lower homicide rates, according to Amnesty International. SourceIf you are trying to make a different point other than death penalty lowers crime, then I am sorry for misinterpreting you. However, if that is your view than I will categorically tell you that you are simply wrong.

Yes, you could read that in the graphs that he is posting, but I do not think that that is the effect that we are actually seeing. The deterrence is not evident from capital punishment, as I was trying to show with the links I posted in Message 1921. There is the peak in murder rate in the early 1980's, but that also corresponds with the crack epidemic in the United States more so than the lack of death penalty executions. If we begin to look at it on a state by state basis, then we see that the states without capital punishment have a lower homicide rate on average.This means we are not seeing a deterrent effect from the capital punishment, otherwise those states (Minnesota, Iowa, Maine, etc...) would have a much higher rate of homicide because there is not deterring death penalty. Looking at his graphs one can easily fall into the correlation equals causation fallacy, instead of looking at the broader picture of sociological factors that existed in the United States in each decade. And there would be far more chance of innocent blood being spilled by the government on behalf of the taxpayers, and personally, I would rather 1 innocent person have a chance to go free than 1,000 guilty individuals be killed. Plus, with the American appeals process, it costs us far more to put an individual on Death Row than it would to incarcerate them for life, but because of the chance of innocence, this appeal process cannot be removed.Here is a list of some individuals found innocent after being placed on death row:
SourceRegulation and fixing the problems within society are the best method to preventing gun deaths, far before the death penalty will deter anyone. Definitely agree with you here, this is definitely an area where only fixing the abyssmal mental health treatment in this country will have any effect. Also, knowing more about damage to the brain, such as sustained by athletes, will also go a long way toward lowering this number. Especially when we realize that not all athletes make it to the pros and that the head injuries are just as likely as people try to make it and fail as they are to those who play the sports professionally.

I will agree that that is definitely a possibility. However, everything I have ever read about the subject has said that the death penalty does not deter homicide. Especially when we consider from the stats that Percy has been posting in this thread that a majority of crimes occur between people who know one another.Added by edit - I noticed you mentioned that the high crime rates make the public want the death penalty. This, I definitely agree with but that would also require me to trust the general public to make smart, well thought out decisions, which by and large, I do not. But, in this caase, yes I agree that the higher the crime rate, the more fear drives the decisions the public makes, even if they are irrational.Here is a good case against the death penalty from the ACLU: The Case Against the Death PenaltyThe really pertinent portion of the article to what I am talking about is the section entitled: Capital Punishment is not a Deterrent to Capital Crime.Another really interesting point is the fact that the citizens of the country are paying more to execute a criminal than they are to simply incarcerate for a life sentence, which would also remove the person from the regular populous. A good point is made in the case of Clark Country (The county containing Las Vegas, NV.)"The 80 pending capital murder cases in Clark County will cost approximately $15 million more than if they were prosecuted without seeking the death penalty." SourceSo, why as tax payers would we rather pay more for similar deterrence factors? If we can spend less and simply incarcerate for life (which with the appeal process, we will have to incarcerate for a long time anyway), then why should we revert back to bronze age with the whole, "An eye for an eye".Finally, here is a good paper (obviously it was written by a student for a research paper), but under the results section it explains the different mean and median homicide rates for states with the death penalty, states without the death penalty, states with the death penalty that have performed executions, and states that reinstated the death penalty after 1976 (a before and after look)States with the Death Penalty:
Mean-5.33 homicides per 100,000
Median-5.35 homicides per 100,000States without the Death Penalty:
Mean-2.88 homicides per 100,000
Median-2.3 homicides per 100,000Standard deviation for states with the Death Penalty was 2.47States with death penalty, removing states that have not performed an execution:
Mean-5.71 homicides per 100,000
Median-5.75 homicides per 100,000Standard deviation was 2.43States that reinstituted the death penalty after 1976, before and after:
During suspension of death penalty
Mean-8.91
Median-9.10after reinstatement of death penalty:
Mean-8.77
Median-8.96States that did not reinstate the death penalty after 1976, before and after(Only calculated mean in this study):
Before
Mean-3.5After
Mean-3.2 SourceNow, you will notice that the homicide rate is, as you suggested higher in those states that reinstituted the death penalty. However, the deterrent effect does not seem to mean as much as the fact that both death penalty and non-death penalty states reduce at the same time. This is what points to me that there are far more reasons based on sociological problems than simply on the deterrent effect of the death penalty. Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

I have an argument because it appears that the militias were always intended to be called into service in times of need by the highest authority over the land they lived in.According to the website Militia in the Revolutionary War:"The roots of the various militia systems that developed in the North American English colonies reached far back to Anglo-Saxon Britain. All able-bodied freemen could, in theory, be called up for temporary service by the king to defend their community and the kingdom from invasion."So, even before the United States was formed, the militia would be able bodied men, called into service by the King to defend the kingdom. Then, during the Revolutionary War, the militias were called to fight alongside the Continental Army, so again we have the highest authority in the land calling upon the militias to supplement the regular army. SourceNow, my question is what is the difference between a militia (or National Guard) whose regular duties are to protect the interests of the state that they operate in, unless called upon by higher needs of the Federal Government and the Revolutionary War militias, who generally defended within their own counties, until a higher need from the Continental Congress required them to join with the Continental Army, controlled by said Congress?The answer to that is absolutely nothing!!!! The intent of the militia has always been the same and the National Guard fits this model exactly. They are generally there for peacekeeping duties within their own state. However, occasionally, the needs of the Federal Government surpass those of the state and the National Guard must be called into national action.Now, as I answered your question, perhaps you could answer one Faith refused to answer. Against the military might of an invading army or an act of tyranny by the United States government utilizing the military, what could you do in defense with a 30 round magazine that you could not do with a 10 round magazine?Here are two examples of ways these militaries can decimate your defense... Sensor Fuzed WeaponPredator Drone attacking insurgentsThe extra 20 rounds buy our citizens no hope of mounting a defense against this sophisticated weaponry, and a 10 round magazine is sufficient for home defense and hunting. So, please, what purpose does the 30 round magazine posibly serve? Faith refused to answer this, so perhaps you can.

I have no argument with you that the murder rates have dropped overall, but there is simply no reason to believe this is from the institution of the death penalty, which also has a track record of condemning innocent individuals, although thankfully DNA evidence has granted many a reprieve at the last second.What I am stating is that the fact that murders are going down could be attributed to far more different things than simply the death penalty. Perhaps Texas is down because in 1997 the state decided to pass the stand your ground law, allowing citizens to fire back in self defense. Source While I do not agree with the law, it is an example of things you are missing that alter the results. You simply see a chart and grasp onto it, rather than look for what else could be causing it. This is why I said you were falling for the correlation equals causation fallacy.Now, Virginia seems to have had a different plan for reducing crime, as they do not have either a castle doctrine or stand your ground laws. However, they have institututed something called crime analysis and prediction. The departments in Richmond, Virginia began utilizing old statistics and other external factors during previous crimes to determine where crimes were likely to be committed. This had a drastic effect on their ability to stop crimes and it reduced the homicide rate in the region...all through good, ol' police work. SourceI am not saying that it is not possible that the death penalty is a deterrent for some, but as a majority of gun crimes occur between familiars, I do not think that it is as much of a deterrent as you are making it out to be, especially because you have not considered any of these other possibilities.As for the areas with low crime rates, I am not surprised that they did not lower much, if at all. Why? Because these departments were not as concerned with the homicide rates because they were not startling. Ohio has still lowered slightly, so has Pennsylvania. West Virginia is up, but perhaps some criminal element is acting there more often because of the better policing in Virginia.BTW - For Texas, I am sure similar results in crime reduction could be achieved through regulation and registration of firearms, coupled with actual enforcement of firearm laws. In fact, all of these areas could benefit from this, including those that already have lower crime rates.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

Two things...First: I was wondering how long it would take you to allow your racism to show. This is always an argument you trot out, how it is all the fault of the people in the 'hood. Yet, murders happen everywhere. A friend of mine was shot in the face in an upper middle class neighborhood park, these crimes happen everywhere.And Second: Again, I ask you gun loving folks that claim revolution in the future is the purpose of the second amendment, what the H*** can you do with your peashooters against this: Sensor Fuzed Weaponand this Predator Drone attacks InsurgentsRevolution by the US citizens against the US government is no longer a feasible option. We have allowed our country to create a war machine that could decimate its population and begin from scratch with barely batting an eyebrow. Claiming that is why you need your weapons shows just how little you have thought about this issue. Even my manager, who is a gun nut, knows that revolution or even defense against invasion, is almost guaranteed to be a slaughter, with the American People as the losers.

Nope, you simply read into my argument what you wanted to. As the laws that prohibit those have already been determined to be constitutional, you have zero right to own those weapons. Also, you could not afford to maintain these weapons. Have you seen the amount that our military spends yearly? And thirdly, if you want to defend your country from invasion, join the military again, then you have access to those weapons! Well, sure the Federal Government pays them, but the Governor of each state is in control of them, unless the Federal Government interest trumps state interest...exactly the same as the revolutionary war militias. No, the Army Reserves is a federally funded and controlled Army Reserve. The National Guard is a federally funded, governor controlled state militia, unless absolutely necessary for the preservation of the Union. As evidenced by your own argument about Alabama. The governor refused to use the National Guard to maintain the peace in his state, a duty of the National Guard. So, federal interest toward desegregation took precedence (because it was the right thing to do) and the federal government took control. After the situation was completed, the federal government returned control of Alabama's National Guard to the governor. So, by limiting magazine capacity they are also limiting the number of magazines you may own? It is just forcing more reloading in the case of a mass murderer, so you can still have 30 rounds, they will be in three separate magazines. Did you think through this at all? I am pretty sure you have even stated how superior you are with firearms and how quickly you can reload a magazine, so you would not be impeded at all, but nice try.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

Then you don't pay attention to the real world. I even have a friend who used to drive for an escort agency many years ago and a gentleman who did not want to pay started chasing the girl out of his house with a sword. Why, because it was what he had at hand. Of course, in this line of work, my friend was armed with a glock and so the guy quickly decided that a sword attack was not in his best interest and paid. So, while not predominant, these types of attacks do happen and should be recorded.Also, about your battery comment. I had a friend who worked in the morgue and one Christmas they got a surprise. A guy wanted to carjack someone and during the process also took the battery out of the guy's car and beat him to death with it. So, it seems humans will use whatever is at hand when murder is the goal.Adding a gun into the scenario just makes the murder of another individual more efficient and less likely to fail. Again, this uncontrolled aggression is one reason that laws must be put into effect to control the amount of murders that people can cause with guns. You can defend against a sword and a battery, although it won't always be successful, but a gun is much harder to defend your life against.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : Second paragraph did not make sense in the argument.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : To add the third paragraph...Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

"Well-regulated" has to do with the need for training and leadership?And, citizen gun-owners should be expected to be called out for training from time to time?So, my question becomes, how does the government know who it is supposed to call out from time to time for training without gun registration? Without the registration, some gun owners could simply refuse to participate in the training. This would mean that these gun owners would no longer fall in the category of a "well regulated" militia as you have put it.Therefore, registration would simply be an aid for the government to call gun owners out to train on a regular basis. This is after all, as you stated, the purpose of the term, "A well regulated militia." Without registration of firearms, there can be no training of the militia because no one is aware of who is in the militia.

Yes, I understand that this is your assertion. However, it does limit the scope of the operative clause. It is saying that this right exists because a well regulated militia is important to the security of a free state. I mean, to state otherwise is simply to try and remove context from the entire statement, so that you can own anything you want as far as weapons go. Why, when there is no punctuation informing us to do so, should we create a break between these two connected statements?"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."However, that is still unimportant to the point I was making to Faith that you completely missed. Her statement is that the citizen gun owners were called out to train from time to time. As this is no longer the case, a well regulated militia does not exist anymore, outside of the National Guard (regardless of ICANT's insistence to the contrary).Registration, however, could allow the government to continue these training sessions and allow for the argument to stand that the citizens are prepared to defend as a "well regulated militia". I see no where in the Constitution that says, "Because the British tried to take our guns away, nothing anyone can ever say will take away arms from even the most imbecilic and unsafe gun owners." Also, if you are correct and we should read these separately, then where in this clause is your right to use arms? According to Eli in Message 2068, the Oxford Dictionary describes "Bear arms" as "To serve as a soldier, do military service, fight."So, after we break the statement into pieces, as your argument requires, we get:"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state."=Well, this is just a statement of the obvious at that time. The regular army was not exactly composed of as large of a body of individuals as our current regular military."The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."=You have a right to own firearms and use them in military service (as per the definition of bear arms) by joining a well regulated (as per Faith, group that trains and takes orders) militia, such as your local National Guard unit. However, this removes your right to use them to defend your home, your family, or anything else because these uses would not fall into the definition of Bear Arms.

I withdraw the statement that the current Supreme Court must take the entire statement as a whole, as you have definitely shown that was an incorrect interpretation, except with regards on how to read sentences. Now, I want to mention this portion however: This portion of the Bill of Rights, namely the second amendment, was far more based on the distrust that the framers of the Constitution felt for a standing army. This is why they would have preferred to allow the civilians (who were in many cases forced to defend themselves from Indians, the French, and others) to own their own weapons. There are many reasons behind this:1. They could limit the amount of individuals who were ready at all times for war, in other words a standing army during peaceful times. Just as you stated, similar to the British Bill of Rights from 1689. That stated, "That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law." The people of this time feared standing armies, and little wonder. All one needs do is look to how the full-time soldiers from many third world (and not going to lie, some first world soldiers) countries treat those they come in contact with.2. The cost of the standing army they did keep could be kept minimal because the citizens who would be conscripted would have paid for their arms for themselves. The government can pass the buck on to the citizenry and still have a reasonable means of defense at hand.3. About your argument that: According to Constitutional Historian, Saul Cornell, "During colonial times, it was an obligation to bear arms and according to Cornell, the first draft of the constitutional amendment even instructed citizens on which types of guns to carry. Thus, the irony according to Cornell, is that while staunch gun-rights advocates insist that the right to bear arms is about protecting oneself from the government, the entire Second Amendment is, at its core, all about government telling us what to do. SourceSo, it was not intended by the framers to be an individual right, but rather a collective right, or "the right of state governments to form their own militias". It was not twisted into what it has been recently used to defend until the gun rights advocates got their hands upon it.Finally, as a firearm would constitute "property", it is within the Federal Government's rights to regulate and, in very certain circumstances, seize the property in question. According to Cornell again, "Law dictates that within reason, all property is subject to such regulation."So, regulations, registrations, required safes...all would pass the constitutionality test and this is the center of my argument. I am not for confiscation, but I am also not a crazy person who feels that registration always leads to confiscation.Say our country is invaded, would you rather the Government knew which citizens to turn to in order to ask for help and get people organized or would you rather government has to ask everyone around for help and waste time figuring out who can help and who cannot? Personally, in the unlikely invasion scenario that gun proponents always toss out there, I would prefer that the government can locate every able bodied, gun-toting citizen that would want to help repel the invaders. They can then be quickly organizaed into groups and plans can be made for defense.