quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

If our rights are subject to the whims of man then....

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoDolphins

As someone with a history degree who had to study the Constitution a lot, this topic caught my attention.  The fact is the Founding Fathers were almost unanimous in their belief that the people should be allowed to own guns.  There were 2 reasons for this.  Number one, most people back then fed themselves, and for those who lived in rural areas, which was the majority of the population, part of that involved hunting.  The second reason was the bigger reason though.  The British had taken arms from the colonists prior to the Revolution and stored them in silos to prevent the colonists from rebelling (or try to anyway, obviously it didn't work).  In fact, the battles at Concord and Lexington in Massachussetts that ultimately started the Revolution started because British troops went to seize firearms from some farmers in Massachussetts and they were tipped off--you know, Paul Revere and the lanterns and "the British are coming" and all that.  So the Founding Fathers saw a direct correlation between government seizing firearms and tyranny. 

Now, would they have the same views if they saw the kinds of weapons we have today?  It's impossible to tell of course.  That's why I'm a believer that we should have some regulations on owning firearms, but outright banning them, as some cities have done, should probably remain unconstitutional.  I don't really think the average citizen needs a rocket launcher but don't like the idea of the government banning handguns.  If they're going to do that they better assign a bodyguard to protect us all because the police can't be everywhere at once, and I don't really think we want them to, but that's another discussion for another time.

One other thing to note here.  Someone early on the first page mentioned a discussion about whether or not the 2nd amendment refers to the National Guard or not.  The National Guard wasn't formed until the early 1900's (don't know the exact date).  So that is clearly not what the Constitution meant.  The National Guard was formed to try to regulate the militia, which I think would have sent up all kinds of red flags to many of the Founding Fathers, but I can't say that for sure.  The militia, at the very least, was not ever supposed to be government-run though. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf


If we look at any of the rights given to us via the Constitution, they must all be balanced with public welfare.

quote:

The government and media have over time been treating the people like a younger and younger child. As time has passed it has gone from a 17 year old to a 13 year old.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

The government and media have over time been treating the people like a younger and younger child. As time has passed it has gone from a 17 year old to a 13 year old.

Examples?

quote:

ORIGINAL: allyC

Using fast reply.. I read most and skimmed some of the replies so if this was already mentioned, I do apologize. Regardless of spelling, I thought I would clarify something (at least this is what I believe to be true based on how I see the sentence structure and wording and further reinforced by research) "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 following means that because a well regulated (well regulated, meaning well controlled - which is a sign right there that the intent was to keep said militia in check, controlled, etc.) militia is necessary to the security of (i.e. protection) of a free state that the right of the people to keep and bear arms (so that they are never rendered helpless to the previously mentioned militia) shall not be infringed.  And for the right to "not be infringed"  means the right existed already and that such right (due to the people's need to NEVER be rendered powerless to their government) should never be taken away.  This amendment never grants a right - it simply states that this right (which already existed by the people) cannot be removed or altered by the government. This wording was reviewed an expert by the name of Professor Copperud.  The man is considered an expert by numerous respected intstitutions on American language useage (past and present).  This person determined what I have paraphrased above.  The language, to him, was not unclear in any way and he was absolutely sure of his findings. Having read it many times and pondered it's meaning the same way, I figured I'd offer it here as being somewhat relevent. Well wishes, Cav's ally