Gun Safety

[Майор Хаткевич]

Do you also advocate having a .50 Cal Machine Gun mounted in the back of that pickup? Because I'm sure the Founding Fathers imagined such weapons and wanted us all to have one.

You're actually right. The purpose of the 2nd was for the common man to posses military grade hardware to be able to form a militia to protect the country. The concept of standing armies was a distasteful one for the founders.

Can you show me some historical documents stating that? I know we were hard for cash back then, so militias were the way to go, but is there anything official about standing armies being distasteful?

"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 don't agree with laws like we had/now have in Chicago, but there has to be a line. Back in 1776 Muskets were the top of the line. Revolvers and Semi-Automatics were in the future. So were Machine guns. Maybe if the Founders knew, they could have said "any and all arms", however they did not, and I personally believe there is no need to have machine guns for "personal use/safety/anti-government paranoia".

[TCMajor]

USAFaux2004.

The rifles were there because we had been hunting in the morning and went to school from the hunting area, then were headed back to hunt after school.  When school, home, and the hunting area are separated by great distance it makes more sense to go to school straight away.  In my case it would have been a 50-mile round trip to drop the rifle off.  So the rifles stayed in the truck.   Those people that do not live in a rural areas, don't understand these things yet continually try and regulate our lives based on their concept of what is right.  I think Hank Williams had a line in a song about that.

And yes, the Second Amendment was meant to allow individuals to have military grade weapons.   The real purpose though was so the States could maintain a standing militia to protect themselves from excessive power of the Federal Government. You have to understand the mindset of the founding fathers.  The last thing they wanted was a strong central government.  That is why they chose a "Federal Republic."   Remember, the Federal Government exists because the States exist, not the other way around.  Read Jefferson, Adams, and the other Federalist papers and gain an understand of how they intended it to work.  Guess what?  It's broke! 

[DakRadz]

I first address the mods- we are somewhat off-topic, but it's a friendly and educational debate right now. Just saying. And it relates back to the topic. So, still a mod's call, but maybe we can continue.

USAFaux, I present you with two lines of the Constitution:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy

Navy (with Coast Guards not so much utilized) being mostly because of the British preying on us, trade lanes, coastal protection, etc.- plus a Navy couldn't really invade or attack land at the time.

Armies weren't popular BITD- there's a reason one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights specifically addresses quartering troops. British forces had done a lot to provoke and even validate the reasons why NOT to keep an army, other than a militias (which was redesignated as National Guard).
Look up the history of Generals and Admiral ranks- heck, the rank of Navy Captain (O-6, Bird insignia, equivalent to Colonel) was a struggle, with Commodore being preferred for quite some time- Many of our upper echelon ranks were made of international neccessity, so our commanders were not subservient to other country's.

[TCMajor]

DakRadz,

  Agreed on your comment to the mods.  Maybe it should be moved to the Lobby.  Not sure, but the discussion is worth having.

[Eclipse]

Kids hunting on the way to school is hardly a "well regulated militia" - the argument pretty much falls apart right there.

[TCMajor]

I don't see how the argument breaks down at all.  The law says that I have a right to posses the weapon, regardless of the reason, I still have a right to posses the weapon.   As long as I carry out legal acts with it.   So I do  not see how the argument falls appart.  It is an individual right based on the need of a Sovereign State.  Mine happens to be New Hampshire. 

Here is Article 2a from the NH State Constitution: [Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

[CAP Marine]

Apparently Eclipse never saw Red Dawn. Don't worry, it is being remade!

[TCMajor]

Awsome Movie!  Who is in the remake?

[Майор Хаткевич]

Apparently Eclipse never saw Red Dawn. Don't worry, it is being remade!

Red Dawn is pretty much the reason the argument is flat these days...

A half dozen teenagers or a division of angry, evil Russian commies? My money on the Commies.

[DakRadz]

My money is on the teenagers.

[TCMajor]

You seem to forget what a ragtag bunch of Afghans did to the Soviet Army in the 80s.  Besides it was Nicaraguans that came across the border with the help of the Soviets.  The kids taking on the invaders was simply the surface plot.  You have to really watch the movie to see the subplot.  You do know that the first thing tyrannical governments take from the people is their weapons.