Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Random Ramblings' started by mom'sfolly, Dec 15, 2012.
argue it here and keep it off the other thread.
Posted for those who just can't help themselves.
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.
I realize this will probably be closed pretty quickly, but can I ask, who regulates the militia?
In-context, well-regulated means well-armed and well-trained. "Regulation" means different things based on the context.
Ideally, the militia - that is, the whole people, excepting a few public officers, to paraphrase George Mason - would be answerable to the governor of their state. As it is, since the governors have ignored this responsibility, the militia is only answerable to itself.
For the British who think their country is somehow safer:
Somehow, even with Illinois, California, New York, and other states, we're STILL safer than they are.
I am a law abiding gun owning citizen. I taught my children gun safety first and foremost. They grew up and turned out as productive citizens in their community. I have never pointed a firearm at anybody, and if I did, it wouldn't be to talk about it.
If somebody else believes there should be no guns, then it certainly their right not to own any. But don't trample my rights to protect myself, my home, my family and my chickens. (just had to throw that in there) I remember seeing bumper stickers which read, "If Guns Are Outlawed, Then Only Criminals Would Have Guns." Ri-i-i-i-ght! If anti gun people were tyring to win me over to their side, that bumper sticker ain't gonna get it. Why would I consent to make myself defenseless so an armed criminal could break in and do whatever he pleased in my home? Newsflash anti-gunners---criminals will ALWAYS get their hands on firearms.
I am grieved that these type shootings have become the new way to commit suicide. The sad part is all the media coverage which makes it appealing to an unbalanced mind.
We could argue this until we turned blue in the face, but the lack of God in our lives, the lack of respect, love and care leads down this path. This country has been and is working overtime to take God out of our lives. When you throw God out, guess what? He leaves! When there cannot be the Ten Commandments posted in a courthouse, when there cannot be a Nativity scene on state property, religion is a bad word, when there can be no public prayer, then what replaces that gaping hole in people's lives? Video games?
I realize my views might incite others, but I have the right to my beliefs and you know what? You have the right to your beliefs too. That is what this country is all about. But remember, this country was set up on Christian-Judeo principles and laws. It has worked pretty good for over 200 years. It's time we got back to our roots.
I think you are confused. That bumper sticker is a pro gun bumper sticker not a gun control bumper sticker.
Can you please point to the time in our history in which religion lead us into kindness and non-violence? Or in world history for that matter?
I think you are right that you need to look at the context. This was a time that we had recently fought a war for our independence. We had a fairly low population and were not nearly as strong militarily as several European powers. There were real worries that the English, French, or Spanish might try to take over us or at least take some of the land we claimed. The Portuguese and Dutch were pretty much looking elsewhere so they were not the big worry. We were able to win our independence because it was basically a defensive war.
George Washington was among those that favored requiring Americans to own guns. I think how he handled the Whiskey Rebellion shows a lot of how he felt about the citizens turning their guns on the Federal government. I personally think in the context of the day, it was more to have people familiar with guns and readily armed to defend our nation from invaders, not overthrow the government.
I don’t think you can ignore history either. The people that signed the Constitution were pretty much not the ones that signed the Declaration of independence. I have not gone to look it up (you probably should verify it yourself instead of blindly trusting what I say), but I believe only five people that signed the Constitution had also signed the Declaration of Independence. The radical liberals that spoke so much about individual liberty in firing up the people to fight for their independence had their effort at establishing a government based on individual liberty and state’s rights. It was called the Articles of Confederation. It failed so miserably that the more pragmatic got together to write another document to strengthen the power of the Federal Government. Foremost in that was to strengthen the federal Government’s power to tax but there were other parts that were strengthened
The liberals still had enough power that they forced 10 changes (The Bill of Rights) to the original Constitution before it could gain approval. I’m glad they did. Those ten changes have probably been what kept us a free society. But the purpose of the Constitution was to establish order out of the disorder of the Articles of Confederation.
So in the context of history, I think it was more of the pragmatic purpose of defending our nation than setting up armed cells to take down the government. Which view passes the common sense test?
The Constitution is a legal document set up to establish the law of the land. It seems intuitive in that context that regulate would mean by the government. The States had their own militias. Many communities had their own also, set up combat banditry and highwaymen, maybe piracy inland and from the sea, and protect against Indian raids.
If you check history, even on the frontier one of the first things a community did when it got to a certain size was to form a government (read about the Watauga Association). One of the first things they did was to set up a militia, under the regulation and control of that government.
So based on the context of history, I don’t see regulated quite in the context as you do. The training would come from the government, either state or local. The arming would come from themselves, though the government might reimburse them for some of the cost of powder and shot.
I live in a country where it's very very hard to get a gun, and it makes me feel safe.
But I'm not going to explain myself, simply because I've experienced that people who are pro gun are not interested in discussions about it.
I visited the USA in 2009, and had some americans ask me for my honest opinion, so they could tell me that if I don't own a gun, I can't protect my family like I'm supposed to. Kinda rude.
Can you please point me to a time in our history when atheism led us into kindness and non-violence? Or in world history for that matter?
Can you please point me to a time in our history when anything led us into kindness and non-violence? Or in world history for that matter?
exactly. I think the problem is more than we see ourselves and our own beliefs as superior to others which results in a lack of empathy. Without empathy we can not hope for real change.
I am tired of hearing any sort of arguement that is 'well if everyone just believed what I believe....' We can not work together this way.