A well regulated Militia
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Friday, July 25, 2025 19:29
VIEWED: 8277
PAGE 4 of 7
Well I'm not reading any of this thread (I need sleep), but since I was asked what I think in the first post, which I did read, I shall answer.
The United States Supreme Court held that a certain type of weapon was not protected under the Second Amendment because it could not be shown to be necessary or indeed helpful in the maintenance of the militia.
The only interpretation I can take from that is that a weapon is only protected if it helps the militia, and the Supreme Court has never overturned that ruling. Since the Militia is dead and gone it seems like the Second Amendment is as dead and gone as the 3/5ths compromise.
However lesser courts have gone in all kinds of directions.
Personally I think we have to, first and foremost, remember what "arms" means. If we say that we simply have the flat out right to bear arms we have a problem, because "arms" covers everything from sharp sticks to ICBMs.
No one I know of thinks we should all walk around with a suitcase nuke or be able to take out Paris at a moments notice with just the push of a button. Similarly I doubt that there is a strong movement to do away with forks and steak knives just because they happen to be deadly weapons in even the least experienced hands.
So there has to be a line drawn somewhere, and the question is where.
I, personally, like guns, I really do. I love the way they feel in your hands and the satisfaction of actually destroying what you were aiming at, but I'm not sure I see the use of some of the bigger ones.
You can go out hunting and kill anything that lives without a gun, if you are so incompetent as to need a firearm I fail to see the sport in killing it, if you're doing it for food you still don't need a gun to do it.
But what I really don't understand is why someone would want some of the arsenals they take with them to kill something that can't hurt them except at very close range. A bow will do the trick nicely, a simple rifle even better, enough firepower to clear a hamlet is overkill.
I see the same thing with self defense, if you're getting into a position where you need a semi-automatic rifle and a hell of a lot of bullets I don't think you'll make it out even with the gun because if you can't get them all in 50 shots what makes you think you'll live to see 200?
So it seems to me that there is a level of gun where it really isn't needed for civilians. I still like those guns, but I'd be quite content to keep all of the ammunition for such guns safely locked up in firing ranges and other such regulated places and have it be illegal to take any of the ammunition out of the place.
You don't need any kind of gun to feed yourself, and there is a level of gun that you don't need to defend yourself, so the only reason to have it (other than the less than honest ones) is sport, and for that you don't need the ability to carry the ammo with you anywhere other than a range or competition.
-
I have a feeling an animal rights activist will want to kill me for saying that you don't need to use guns, and I do agree that blowing an animal's brains out is probably more polite than killing it in any other way, but it doesn't change the fact that some people hunt very effectively with bows and enough people do it that there is a bow season. Yeah, the things they kill, deer mostly I think, probably do suffer more, but that's a complexity I'll think on another time.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So it's okay to drink and drive because someone else might? Excuse me for thinking thats a little insane.
Originally posted by pdcharles:
It is about personal power. Someone threatening you can have the power to take away your life and others you may love. I have no belief system which makes me think this person has that right. You can stay sober and not drive drunk but that doesn’t prevent someone else from plowing into your car after a few martinis. Using tools to protect ourselves is ancient and guns are just another form. We shouldn’t strip ourselves of civil power, it has been done enough.
Quote:I doubt it. A bow would cause no more suffering than a bullet if used correctly, and it's just as easy to incorrectly operate a gun to cause a slow and painful death.
Originally posted by ChrisTheCynic:
Yeah, the things they kill, deer mostly I think, probably do suffer more, but that's a complexity I'll think on another time.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:So it's okay to drink and drive because someone else might? Excuse me for thinking thats a little insane.
Originally posted by pdcharles:
It is about personal power. Someone threatening you can have the power to take away your life and others you may love. I have no belief system which makes me think this person has that right. You can stay sober and not drive drunk but that doesn’t prevent someone else from plowing into your car after a few martinis. Using tools to protect ourselves is ancient and guns are just another form. We shouldn’t strip ourselves of civil power, it has been done enough.
An interesting take...
To elaborate... No matter how good YOU are, someone else does not have to be. Does not mean YOU have to reduce your own level of civil responsibility. Just like I will not reduce my level of funds in my savings account, but Johnny crack-head on the street just might. So, I won't drink and drive 'cause I have a hunch someone else is. But, I'll prepare myself for a bad confrontation with another person. Why should we prevent someone from doing that?
Since u cannot control others actions, you must take control of what you can. No, not alliance type control... But maybe some other human being's actions and how that may affect you living or NOT. U may be able to prevent someone from shooting you by having a gun. Without having a gun you might get shot. Just like driving there are no guarantees when dealing with guns. But people buy Volvos to prepare for the worse.
Wha?!?... *sniff sniff* OH.... IM ON FIRE!!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Volvos aren't particularly safe, actually, so maybe it's the false illusion of safety they want, not the safety itself.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi all,
I'm not so sure about this 'hunting with a bow' argument. Sure, you can hunt with a bow, a spear, or even a blunt stick.
But while I am not a hunter, I have to believe that there is a practical reason the western world switched to firearms as far back as 200 years ago. These were people who hunted for food and pelts. They preferred a musket. I have to believe there were some inherent advantages to the firearm, and I'm not prepared to call these people incompetant because they abandoned the bow.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"if you can't get them all in 50 shots what makes you think you'll live to see 200?
So it seems to me that there is a level of gun where it really isn't needed for civilians."
I have to agree on principle here. I think the purpose of defense does not require anything more advanced than a single-action revolver. I've often believed that it is almost always the first couple of bullets, and almost never the last couple of bullets, that make the difference in a firefight.
That having been said, I still oppose all these sound and logical proposed limits on firearms. This is because gun control isn't about safe gun use. It's about no gun use. If the gun control advocates wanted to give me a guaranteed minimum level of gun ownership, I'd be more keen to support them.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have no problem with people owning rifles or shot guns. But no one can convince me that there is any reason to own a handgun or an automatic weapon.
You do not hunt for food with either. The only thing you would kill with these types of weapons ia another human being. (Oh I grant you, a snake-as my brother used to do with his handgun)
And when the writers of the constituion gave us the "right to bear arms" I am certain they were not referencing ICBM or bazookas.
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I have no problem with people owning rifles or shot guns. But no one can convince me that there is any reason to own a handgun or an automatic weapon."
Well, it's pretty ungainly to carry a double-barrel shotgun everywhere to ward off muggers, but hey, people used to carry three-foot-long swords everywhere they went, so I'm game.
Is this the minimum level of gun ownership you're prepared to grant?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
[B
Is this the minimum level of gun ownership you're prepared to grant?
I am not sure one should be carrying a gun to ward off a mugger. Sounds like a recipe for the stupid leading the stupid.
And yes, at least until I can be convinced there is a reason for a civilan to own anything else.
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, seems to me I'm less likely a target of a mugging if I've got a shotgun slung over my shoulder. (Or a revolver on my hip, but it seems you prefer ungainly weapons.)
Well, I can shoot man and beast with a shotgun, as necessary. I can also clobber with the stock. It's pretty versatile.
If you want to lobby for a constitutional ammendment to secure my right to own and carry a shotgun wherever I go, I'll get behind you.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME