What does the 2A really mean? - Page 3 - XDTalk Forums - Your HS2000/SA-XD Information Source!

Blackwater · 11-28-2006, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delija

"BLACKWATER"....with due respect; quoting the opinions of long dead guys does not make a case for today.

Peace,
D.

Displays you ignorance and lack of respect.

**beardman2** · 11-28-2006, 10:57 PM

I'm starting to see the light for the reduction of the military and more militia. Man I bet that word got me on a couple watch lists!

Imagine how different our world would be if there was no army to send throwing our weight around.... and yet screw with us and you once again "awake the sleeping dragon" (probably not an exact quote but I bet someone understands it).

movezig · 11-28-2006, 11:08 PM

Delija,

I posted that the story begins in Dien Bien Phu. I was referring to the resistance of the VC afterwards that aided the NVA in expelling the US from Nam.

We can not forsee future events. For you to say that the armed forces would never go along with a coup and fire upon American citizens is putting a bit too much faith in humanity and civility while underestimating the power of greed and misplaced allegiances.

You are also operating under the assumption that, if the US gov't ever got to the point where it was too corrupted to be allowed to continue to exist, there would be no outside aid to a civilian-led rebellion. Perhaps you are taking our geographical distance from our current and potential enemies for granted.

I'm going to bed now. It's late, I am rambling, and I do not want anyone to think I am some sort of unpatriotic anarchist hellbent on the demise of the US Gov't. I am far from that.

jdavionic · 11-29-2006, 05:20 AM

Well, I guess I should throw an opinion out there for the wolves.

The second amendment has been debated for a long time and I suspect it will continue to be debated for years to come.

First, a look at the amendment itself:
"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 main point of contention is the very first part in bold. Some argue that this means the rights pertain to a State militia and others argue that it pertains to the citizens within the state. I would argue the latter based on the time when it was written and the numerous historical quotes in the period...here are some examples (from NRA website):

James Madison wrote this pertaining to the Bill of Rights:
...it was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people."

Partick Henry proclaimed:
the "great object is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun."

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

Samuel Adams wrote:
"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

The quotes are numerous and similar in nature. IMO, they believed that having armed citizens was a crucial deterrent from a tyrannical government. And, they also wanted citizens to have the right to defend themselves.

Now, I have seen arguments that essentially say that today's military makes the issue of owning weapons moot since we can't possibly engage a tyrannical government and it's powerful army. Clearly that was not the case in the 1700s. But, I would reply that it is still deterrent having the citizens armed. Yes, smart bombs, Apache helicopters, etc are hard to beat with your average long gun. But you don't have to go far in history to see that a less equipped group can be a significant challenge despite being outgunned.

I have seen arguments that question where you draw the line - e.g., AWB. Obviously the authors of the Bill of Rights could not have foreseen the weapons of today. I would go back to the intent of the second amendment. It was not intended to ensure you had the right to hunt. IMO, it was intended to ensure that you had the right to defend yourself and to serve as a deterrent against a tyrannical government. Personally, I don't have issues with people owning a .50 sniper rifle, provided they are law abiding citizens. And to me, the bigger weapons are simply cost prohibitive to be a consideration for debate. When we look at criminals that kill with guns, a relatively low number acquire their weapons legally - e.g., you have felons that buy them on the street. So how will an AWB or the like prevent these people from being armed? And wouldn't you be more comfortable with an AK-47 or AR-15 in a Katrina situation?

Oh well, I should get to work now. Fire away.

Delija · 11-29-2006, 05:24 AM

Thanks all for the replies.

I have no wish to argue this issue. As I said, it was just an exercise in thinking since the law is one thing (try and buy a gun in NYC, San Fran., Chicago, etc.), and what most here have determined the Constitution to mean is another.

This is getting to be an emotional discussion rather than a logical one (by some) and that ends it for me.

As for the pledge that every US representative makes.....so does every 18 year old when registering with the Selective Service System (at least in my day) and so does every inductee into the US armed forces.

I expressed what I clearly said was an opinion (and not even necessarily my own) and have been called "disrespectful and ignorant".

So I'm gone from this discussion. I should have known better.

Peace,
D.

jdavionic · 11-29-2006, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delija

Thanks all for the replies.

I have no wish to argue this issue. As I said, it was just an exercise in thinking since the law is one thing (try and buy a gun in NYC, San Fran., Chicago, etc.), and what most here have determined the Constitution to mean is another.

This is getting to be an emotional discussion rather than a logical one (by some) and that ends it for me.

As for the pledge that every US representative makes.....so does every 18 year old when registering with the Selective Service System (at least in my day) and so does every inductee into the US armed forces.

I expressed what I clearly said was an opinion (and not even necessarily my own) and have been called "disrespectful and ignorant".

So I'm gone from this discussion. I should have known better.

Peace,
D.

Well that's a shame. I actually posted with expectation that you'd consider debating the issue.

Delija · 11-29-2006, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by movezig

Delija,

I posted that the story begins in Dien Bien Phu. I was referring to the resistance of the VC afterwards that aided the NVA in expelling the US from Nam.

.

Just for the sake of clarity....as I understand my history, the Viet Minh BECAME the NVA.

The VC (that we fought in the late '60s and early '70s) were for the most part either not born, or just infants at the time of Dien Bien Phu. Either way, you are right in that they were heavily influenced by the Viet Minh.

As to why we ultimately were expelled from Viet Nam, that's far too complicated an issue to talk about here. But one obvious reason is the NVA never stopped fighting and never lost leadership. The South had no true leadership, just corruption and cowardice at the very top. Everyone knows who Ho Chi Minh was. How many remember Bien? And where was he while his new country was struggling to survive?

Peace,
D.

cucamelsmd15 · 11-29-2006, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by griz

We are many, they are few as it should be.

While this statement is true, you have to consider, how many people would be willing to step up and do something about the situation. Once you take this into account, youll see what Im getting at there.

Delija · 11-29-2006, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdavionic

Well that's a shame. I actually posted with expectation that you'd consider debating the issue.

I didn't see many debates....I saw arguments. And I could feel the personal attacks coming.

Why should I debate something I don't even believe in ? I had said originally I would "debate" either side of the issue. Somehow I got coerced (or at least expected) to defend gun control. That was not my preference, but I tried. Look what it got me.

I may be stupid, but not crazy. Why would I subject myself to the "wrath" of the people who believe owning guns is a God given right? As soon as religion becomes involved in ANY "debate", count me out. I especially believe God and Guns are a very bad combo. Look at the history of all the world's wars. Virtually all of them fought in the name of religion. Still going on today in full force.

I thought the wording of the 2a was the topic. Obviously I was wrong.

Peace,
D.

jdavionic · 11-29-2006, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delija

I thought the wording of the 2a was the topic. Obviously I was wrong.

Well apparently I was wrong too. I only focused on the second amendment, its wording, and how it relates to today's debates on gun control.

11-28-2006, 10:57 PM	#22
beardman2 XDTalk 4K Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 4,947	I'm starting to see the light for the reduction of the military and more militia. Man I bet that word got me on a couple watch lists! Imagine how different our world would be if there was no army to send throwing our weight around.... and yet screw with us and you once again "awake the sleeping dragon" (probably not an exact quote but I bet someone understands it). __________________ - He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself. ~Thomas Paine I will not be involved with the dreams of angry men. Founding Documents Freedom isn't free: http://www.anysoldier.com

11-28-2006, 11:08 PM	#23
movezig XDTalk 100 Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: New Orleans, LA Posts: 122	Delija, I posted that the story begins in Dien Bien Phu. I was referring to the resistance of the VC afterwards that aided the NVA in expelling the US from Nam. We can not forsee future events. For you to say that the armed forces would never go along with a coup and fire upon American citizens is putting a bit too much faith in humanity and civility while underestimating the power of greed and misplaced allegiances. You are also operating under the assumption that, if the US gov't ever got to the point where it was too corrupted to be allowed to continue to exist, there would be no outside aid to a civilian-led rebellion. Perhaps you are taking our geographical distance from our current and potential enemies for granted. I'm going to bed now. It's late, I am rambling, and I do not want anyone to think I am some sort of unpatriotic anarchist hellbent on the demise of the US Gov't. I am far from that. __________________ SA XD9SC OD Green Jericho 941F Beretta 3032 Tomcat Ruger Mini-14 Stainless/Synthetic Ranch Mossberg 835 Ulti-Mag Synthetic in Woodlands

11-29-2006, 05:24 AM	#25
Delija XDTalk 3K Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: South Florida Posts: 3,983	Thanks all for the replies. I have no wish to argue this issue. As I said, it was just an exercise in thinking since the law is one thing (try and buy a gun in NYC, San Fran., Chicago, etc.), and what most here have determined the Constitution to mean is another. This is getting to be an emotional discussion rather than a logical one (by some) and that ends it for me. As for the pledge that every US representative makes.....so does every 18 year old when registering with the Selective Service System (at least in my day) and so does every inductee into the US armed forces. I expressed what I clearly said was an opinion (and not even necessarily my own) and have been called "disrespectful and ignorant". So I'm gone from this discussion. I should have known better. Peace, D. __________________ It is what it is - Frenchy, 2008 *In regione caecorum rex est luscus*.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-29-2006, 05:20 AM	#24
jdavionic XDTalk 5K Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: GA Posts: 5,105	Well, I guess I should throw an opinion out there for the wolves. The second amendment has been debated for a long time and I suspect it will continue to be debated for years to come. First, a look at the amendment itself: "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 main point of contention is the very first part in bold. Some argue that this means the rights pertain to a State militia and others argue that it pertains to the citizens within the state. I would argue the latter based on the time when it was written and the numerous historical quotes in the period...here are some examples (from NRA website): James Madison wrote this pertaining to the Bill of Rights: ...it was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people." Partick Henry proclaimed: the "great object is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." Thomas Jefferson wrote: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Samuel Adams wrote: "The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." The quotes are numerous and similar in nature. IMO, they believed that having armed citizens was a crucial deterrent from a tyrannical government. And, they also wanted citizens to have the right to defend themselves. Now, I have seen arguments that essentially say that today's military makes the issue of owning weapons moot since we can't possibly engage a tyrannical government and it's powerful army. Clearly that was not the case in the 1700s. But, I would reply that it is still deterrent having the citizens armed. Yes, smart bombs, Apache helicopters, etc are hard to beat with your average long gun. But you don't have to go far in history to see that a less equipped group can be a significant challenge despite being outgunned. I have seen arguments that question where you draw the line - e.g., AWB. Obviously the authors of the Bill of Rights could not have foreseen the weapons of today. I would go back to the intent of the second amendment. It was not intended to ensure you had the right to hunt. IMO, it was intended to ensure that you had the right to defend yourself and to serve as a deterrent against a tyrannical government. Personally, I don't have issues with people owning a .50 sniper rifle, provided they are law abiding citizens. And to me, the bigger weapons are simply cost prohibitive to be a consideration for debate. When we look at criminals that kill with guns, a relatively low number acquire their weapons legally - e.g., you have felons that buy them on the street. So how will an AWB or the like prevent these people from being armed? And wouldn't you be more comfortable with an AK-47 or AR-15 in a Katrina situation? Oh well, I should get to work now. Fire away.