Comments on: Let’s replace the 2nd Amendment http://ifsblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/lets-replace-the-2nd-amendment/ Institute for Fixing Society Sat, 02 Jan 2010 05:18:48 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: tduvall http://ifsblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/lets-replace-the-2nd-amendment/#comment-9 tduvall Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:29:41 +0000 http://ifsblog.wordpress.com/?p=15#comment-9 1) Another vote for no regulation. 2) If the Framers had not referred to a "free State" and a "well-regulated militia," then your interpretation might not be so debatable. 3) Why bother figuring out their obscure intent? Let's use our two centuries of experience with this issue to craft a clearer guideline. 1) Another vote for no regulation.
2) If the Framers had not referred to a “free State” and a “well-regulated militia,” then your interpretation might not be so debatable.
3) Why bother figuring out their obscure intent? Let’s use our two centuries of experience with this issue to craft a clearer guideline.

]]> By: Conservative by Nature http://ifsblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/lets-replace-the-2nd-amendment/#comment-8 Conservative by Nature Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:22:17 +0000 http://ifsblog.wordpress.com/?p=15#comment-8 The 2nd Amendment doesn't appear contradictory if you consider the founders original intent. They made it clear that the militia consisted of all able-bodied men, and their greatest concern was that a strong federal government was something to be feared, since it could deprive all unarmed citizens of all other rights. One need look no farther than the actions of the police and national guard during Katrina, when they went house to house confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens while armed criminals roamed the streets (Google Katrina firearms to see for yourself). If the government can and has done it to them, then what makes you think that you are safe from an all powerful central government? Keep your head down and your powder dry and hope that your rights are not further infringed. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t appear contradictory if you consider the founders original intent. They made it clear that the militia consisted of all able-bodied men, and their greatest concern was that a strong federal government was something to be feared, since it could deprive all unarmed citizens of all other rights.

One need look no farther than the actions of the police and national guard during Katrina, when they went house to house confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens while armed criminals roamed the streets (Google Katrina firearms to see for yourself). If the government can and has done it to them, then what makes you think that you are safe from an all powerful central government?

Keep your head down and your powder dry and hope that your rights are not further infringed.

]]> By: antireptilian http://ifsblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/lets-replace-the-2nd-amendment/#comment-7 antireptilian Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:31:33 +0000 http://ifsblog.wordpress.com/?p=15#comment-7 Regulation, or licensing is a measure to control. If the government start with saying you may own a gun, as long as it is licensed, the next phase is, we dont issue licenses anymore. If i am not mistaken, that very thing occured in New York. I am aware of the crime commited by firearms, but to me, a greater danger resides in mass disarmament of the citizenry, and an out of control government, which i must say, both you over there, and us in the UK have at present. Majority rule always oppresses some group or other. I agree, it is a tough one, but what information will the majority get in order to make a decision? The press, which is clearly anti gun? With measured, non partisan and clear information and stats, the choice could be made by vote. Militia should be regulated, but the question comes, if the government regulates the militia, a militia designed to protect the citizens from tyrannical government, The militia will then operate for the government, and protection will be removed. Not being American, i believe that the first amendment is freedom of speech and religion etc, and the second amendment is the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms follows the first, to protect and enshrine the first. It also states the right to bear arms, not the right to have a license at the behest of government. I believe the chaps that formed the constitution had very good reasons, and experience under British domination, to consider the contents of the constitution with great care. Considering the police state infrastructure being erected the world over, i feel i would rather be armed to protect myself from the state than criminals. Regulation, or licensing is a measure to control. If the government start with saying you may own a gun, as long as it is licensed, the next phase is, we dont issue licenses anymore. If i am not mistaken, that very thing occured in New York.

I am aware of the crime commited by firearms, but to me, a greater danger resides in mass disarmament of the citizenry, and an out of control government, which i must say, both you over there, and us in the UK have at present.

Majority rule always oppresses some group or other. I agree, it is a tough one, but what information will the majority get in order to make a decision? The press, which is clearly anti gun? With measured, non partisan and clear information and stats, the choice could be made by vote.

Militia should be regulated, but the question comes, if the government regulates the militia, a militia designed to protect the citizens from tyrannical government, The militia will then operate for the government, and protection will be removed.

Not being American, i believe that the first amendment is freedom of speech and religion etc, and the second amendment is the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms follows the first, to protect and enshrine the first. It also states the right to bear arms, not the right to have a license at the behest of government.

I believe the chaps that formed the constitution had very good reasons, and experience under British domination, to consider the contents of the constitution with great care.

Considering the police state infrastructure being erected the world over, i feel i would rather be armed to protect myself from the state than criminals.

]]> By: tduvall http://ifsblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/lets-replace-the-2nd-amendment/#comment-6 tduvall Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:22:41 +0000 http://ifsblog.wordpress.com/?p=15#comment-6 Your comment suggests that you're not eligible to vote here, but I would guess that you would support an amendment changing "well-regulated militia" to "unregulated militia" and "free State" to "free citizenry." But would you be willing to accept the will of a clear majority, if voters overwhelmingly licensed governments to control firearms? Or would that be the tyranny of a majority? Your comment suggests that you’re not eligible to vote here, but I would guess that you would support an amendment changing “well-regulated militia” to “unregulated militia” and “free State” to “free citizenry.” But would you be willing to accept the will of a clear majority, if voters overwhelmingly licensed governments to control firearms? Or would that be the tyranny of a majority?

]]> By: antireptilian http://ifsblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/lets-replace-the-2nd-amendment/#comment-5 antireptilian Mon, 30 Jun 2008 07:05:59 +0000 http://ifsblog.wordpress.com/?p=15#comment-5 If the American public are disarmed, there will be hell to pay. Your government is now a tyranny. Prepare to defend yourselves. If the American public are disarmed, there will be hell to pay. Your government is now a tyranny. Prepare to defend yourselves.

]]>