Defending the Truth

Katczinsky · 01-12-2006, 08:56 PM

I saw this earlier in the thread when I was reading through the posts. If someone has a similar response, my apologies (don't feel like reading two pages).

Quote:

Originally Posted by hevusa

And in regards to your signature... There is definitely a requirement to be in the militia to bear arms.

And I quote:

"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."

A militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free State, therefore you have no right to keep and bear arms in my opinion.

Yes the defense of our nation from foreign aggressors was a reason for this right. However, our founding father's other main intention for this admendment is so that the balance of power between the people and the government does not get out of hand. And I really can't think of a better time in American history than now where this gap of power is getting out of hand. Its there to reserve the right for the American people to have an uprising, to fight enemies not just foreign but also domestic. I'm one of the few 'liberals' -if you want to call me that- you'll see in the United States that isn't so crazy about gun control.

hevusa · 01-12-2006, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

I saw this earlier in the thread when I was reading through the posts. If someone has a similar response, my apologies (don't feel like reading two pages).

Quote:

Originally Posted by hevusa

And in regards to your signature... There is definitely a requirement to be in the militia to bear arms.

And I quote:

"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."

A militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free State, therefore you have no right to keep and bear arms in my opinion.

Yes the defense of our nation from foreign aggressors was a reason for this right. However, our founding father's other main intention for this admendment is so that the balance of power between the people and the government does not get out of hand. And I really can't think of a better time in American history than now where this gap of power is getting out of hand. Its there to reserve the right for the American people to have an uprising, to fight enemies not just foreign but also domestic. I'm one of the few 'liberals' -if you want to call me that- you'll see in the United States that isn't so crazy about gun control.

I just don't think an armed populous could do much against an organized modern military without heavy suicide bombing, and even still it would be hard.

Katczinsky · 01-12-2006, 09:43 PM

Well there's a difference between civil war and a coup in Washington. But it shouldn't have to come to that anyway, if we were truly democratic.

hevusa · 01-12-2006, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

Well there's a difference between civil war and a coup in Washington. But it shouldn't have to come to that anyway, if we were truly democratic.

The point is the guns don't help us achieve, or some might argue maintain, a true democracy.

Nebraskaboy · 01-12-2006, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hevusa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

Well there's a difference between civil war and a coup in Washington. But it shouldn't have to come to that anyway, if we were truly democratic.

The point is the guns don't help us achieve, or some might argue maintain, a true democracy.

I agree with Hev, guns can be just as bad as religious extremist...

tadpole256 · 01-12-2006, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

I saw this earlier in the thread when I was reading through the posts. If someone has a similar response, my apologies (don't feel like reading two pages).

Quote:

Originally Posted by hevusa

And in regards to your signature... There is definitely a requirement to be in the militia to bear arms.

And I quote:

"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."

A militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free State, therefore you have no right to keep and bear arms in my opinion.

Yes the defense of our nation from foreign aggressors was a reason for this right. However, our founding father's other main intention for this admendment is so that the balance of power between the people and the government does not get out of hand. And I really can't think of a better time in American history than now where this gap of power is getting out of hand. Its there to reserve the right for the American people to have an uprising, to fight enemies not just foreign but also domestic. I'm one of the few 'liberals' -if you want to call me that- you'll see in the United States that isn't so crazy about gun control.

You got it exactly right.

tadpole256 · 01-12-2006, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hevusa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

I saw this earlier in the thread when I was reading through the posts. If someone has a similar response, my apologies (don't feel like reading two pages).

Quote:

Originally Posted by hevusa

And in regards to your signature... There is definitely a requirement to be in the militia to bear arms.

And I quote:

"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."

A militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free State, therefore you have no right to keep and bear arms in my opinion.

Yes the defense of our nation from foreign aggressors was a reason for this right. However, our founding father's other main intention for this admendment is so that the balance of power between the people and the government does not get out of hand. And I really can't think of a better time in American history than now where this gap of power is getting out of hand. Its there to reserve the right for the American people to have an uprising, to fight enemies not just foreign but also domestic. I'm one of the few 'liberals' -if you want to call me that- you'll see in the United States that isn't so crazy about gun control.

I just don't think an armed populous could do much against an organized modern military without heavy suicide bombing, and even still it would be hard.

You think very very wrong. The same was said by those who thought the initial revolution would fail. Our Army is incredibly ill prepared to fight on our own soil, in my opinion, not to mention the fact that Silly-villians grossly outnumber the military.

DHard3006 · 01-13-2006, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

Yes the defense of our nation from foreign aggressors was a reason for this right. However, our founding father's other main intention for this admendment is so that the balance of power between the people and the government does not get out of hand.

The 2nd amend gives one reason and only one to bear arms, it is your right to do so. The gun haters want to place other reasons on it so they can limit it. They chant reasons like hunting, self defense, sport or target shooting, and collecting to name a few. Once the gun haters claim any of these reasons are not needed guess what the gun haters will claim, you no longer need guns.

It is funny how the other rights that use the words “right of the people” are not attacked in this manner.
When was the last time you heard a person defend their 1st amend right with anything but it is my right?

hevusa · 01-13-2006, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DHard3006

The 2nd amend gives one reason and only one to bear arms, it is your right to do so.

It only gives you the right to bear arms if in the militia and only if that said militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

So no, the constitution does not give you the right to arm yourself.

DHard3006 · 01-13-2006, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hevusa

It only gives you the right to bear arms if in the militia and only if that said militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

Gun hater no where in the 2nd amend does it say a person must be in a militia to bear arms.
There is no law, edit, rule, or ,regulation that states a person must be in a militia to bear arms.

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