• Please visit and share your knowledge at our sister communities:
  • If you have not, please join our official Homebrewing Facebook Group!

    Homebrewing Facebook Group

Concealed Carry

Homebrew Talk

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just curious, if anyone knows; What is the rate of gun-related crimes in Texas compared to say, California?

Sure, here you go. Not what you expected is it?

Code:
Homicides in 2005 State
Number of homicide victims - Percent of homicide victims by --
  	Weapon type
                                 Gun 	Knife 	Other Weapons
  	
California 	2503 	  	73.8 	11.5 	14.7
Texas 	         1407 	  	67.1 	14.7 	18.1

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Homicide/State/RunHomOneYearofData.cfm


Again, criminals don't care about the law, which is why they are criminals. More restrictions don't make a safer place.
 
Not sure what you thought I was expecting. I have no idea, that's why I asked.

Is that total numbers, or percent per thousand? I think that would be more accurate. Percentage by population.

Edit: yeah, the population difference of CA to TX is about 10million, so that changes the numbers a bit.
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004986.html
 
Not sure what you thought I was expecting. I have no idea, that's why I asked.

Is that total numbers, or percent per thousand? I think that would be more accurate. Percentage by population.

Since you quoted 3 people saying God Bless Texas, and you suggested rates from CA, where you are from, it seemed you thought Texas would have much more gun crime since they are so lenient toward guns, and CA is very strict. I could have read into that post wrong since I just got finished responding to anti-gun guy, then read and responded to yours.

Anyway, here is Gun Homocides per 100,000 people.

Cali: 4.82
Texas: 3.93

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

And I quote this wiki since they reference that .gov site, and I looked up populations for 2005 myself and it was correct.
 
My point wasn't trying to prove more crime because of lenient laws, but the false security that those lenient laws bring.

But hey! A wise man once said "Guns don't kill people, Cops kill people."
 
OK here's my drunken ramble:

Go take your macho selves and your guns, concealed or otherwise, and volunteer at a food bank. Or join the pro Mubarak thugs and get yourselves to Egypt to beat up some peaceful non gun wielding protesters. Or, better, quit polluting the world with your arrogant pseudo-violent pecker contests and finally realize that you are just pathetically living out your comic book fantasies and at the same time f0cking up the universe, and the lives of decent empathic caring people with your juvenile insistence that you need to be armed. For what Communists? Brown people? Atheists? Democrats?

IMHO

Steve da sleeve

Steve I haven't had really any interaction with you but I have had a full carry in NY since 1986 when I became a police officer I had to as we did many private functions for the residents and we we could not use the badge to carry . I have never had to draw my sidearm both in my job or as a civilian ... I did use a shotgun once apprehending a home invader on the job.He was exiting a home that he just broken into and he had a 45 cal on his person at the time ... I am sorry that GB has removed your right to defend yourself but this isn't GB .. well since 1776.

my wife also carries as do my three kids...
 
OK here's my drunken ramble:

Go take your macho selves and your guns, concealed or otherwise, and volunteer at a food bank. Or join the pro Mubarak thugs and get yourselves to Egypt to beat up some peaceful non gun wielding protesters. Or, better, quit polluting the world with your arrogant pseudo-violent pecker contests and finally realize that you are just pathetically living out your comic book fantasies and at the same time f0cking up the universe, and the lives of decent empathic caring people with your juvenile insistence that you need to be armed. For what Communists? Brown people? Atheists? Democrats?

IMHO

Steve da sleeve

...and then there is this a$$hole who invalidates my comment about no flames...

I am arming myself from people like you who think that firearms are a political chess piece to only be used to score points as an enlightened pacifist. Once the zombe apocalypse happens you will be begging for my firearms.
 
dunnright00 said:
But hey! A wise man once said "Guns don't kill people, Cops kill people."

Sounds like a dumb a$$ until they need a cop to save there butt.
 
Egypt 2011 is absolutely not Iran 1979. The military is essentially the middle class of the country where you either rich or poor otherwise, and it is a conscript army respected by the population - made up of siblings and children of the protesters. Iran is a Theocratic dictatorship. Egypt is made up of highly a educated largely secular population.

The Arabic chant you heard the day after Mubarak refused to step down was "Peaceful, peaceful." This was/is a profoundly poetic revolution, remarkably peaceful and a testimony to this civilized 7000 year culture.

The guns were in the hands of Mubaraks hired thugs.
 
stevedasleeve said:
egypt 2011 is absolutely not iran 1979. The military is essentially the middle class of the country where you either rich or poor otherwise, and it is a conscript army respected by the population - made up of siblings and children of the protesters. Iran is a theocratic dictatorship. Egypt is made up of highly a educated largely secular population.

The arabic chant you heard the day after mubarak refused to step down was "peaceful, peaceful." this was/is a profoundly poetic revolution, remarkably peaceful and a testimony to this civilized 7000 year culture.

The guns were in the hands of mubaraks hired thugs.

off topic
 
Egypt 2011 is absolutely not Iran 1979. The military is essentially the middle class of the country where you either rich or poor otherwise, and it is a conscript army respected by the population - made up of siblings and children of the protesters. Iran is a Theocratic dictatorship. Egypt is made up of highly a educated largely secular population.

The Arabic chant you heard the day after Mubarak refused to step down was "Peaceful, peaceful." This was/is a profoundly poetic revolution, remarkably peaceful and a testimony to this civilized 7000 year culture.

The guns were in the hands of Mubaraks hired thugs.

If your peaceful protesters were armed, they would not have had to endure thirty years of this dirtbag. Some things are worth killing and dying for. Liberty is at the top of that list.

Make no mistake; the Second Amendment is not about hunting, it's not about concealed carry, and it's not about target shooting. What it IS about is protecting and enumerating an inherent right of men and women to live freely, by assuring the ability to arm oneself in such a way that We The People can oust a tyrannical government if such a need shall arise.

President Washington said it well:

George Washington said:
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)
 
If your peaceful protesters were armed, they would not have had to endure thirty years of this dirtbag. Some things are worth killing and dying for. Liberty is at the top of that list.

Make no mistake; the Second Amendment is not about hunting, it's not about concealed carry, and it's not about target shooting. What it IS about is protecting and enumerating an inherent right of men and women to live freely, by assuring the ability to arm oneself in such a way that We The People can oust a tyrannical government if such a need shall arise.

President Washington said it well:

+1 Spot on!!!
 
Sure do. I've been carrying a firearm every day of my life since 1996, and I will do so until the day I die.
 
I carry one of two guns on me at all times...Ruger SP101 .357 Magnum, or Sig 2022 in .40
 
I've had a LTC before, when living in MA. Now that I'm in NH, I'm thinking about getting it again. It's MUCH easier to get in NH than in MA. I'm just holding off a few weeks until I know if I'll be staying in NH or going to Maine. :rockin: :D
 
Make no mistake; the Second Amendment is not about hunting, it's not about concealed carry, and it's not about target shooting. What it IS about is protecting and enumerating an inherent right of men and women to live freely, by assuring the ability to arm oneself in such a way that We The People can oust a tyrannical government if such a need shall arise.

The second amendment as ratified by Congress (copypasta from wikipedia):

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.

Nowhere in this amendment does it mention that the right to keep and bear arms is to protect ones' self from a tyrannical government. It does state that the populace has the right to arm themselves in order to have a militia, however. This is because at that time the US government did not have a suitable standing army (except for the Continental Army, but that wasn't much of one). The militias were all they had.

In my opinion, the whole keep/bear arms to prevent a tyrannical government is nothing more than NRA boilerplate ramble-rousing for the purpose of getting dues.

This country has not degraded to a tyrannical government because the Constitution establishes some very powerful methods of self-governance: 3 branches of government, checks and balances, federal vs. states' rights, Bicameral legislatures, etc. etc. etc. To attribute it to the second amendment is a bit specious and self-serving to the pro-gun element in this country.
 
Deleting my original post. I refuse to qualify utter ignorance and stupidity, especially when it comes to a total lack of understand about what the 2nd amendment means and how it was MOST CERTAINLY DESIGNED TO PROTECT OUR COUNTRY FROM TYRANNY, which I foolishly thought any idiot would be able to see.
 
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks. -Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; -Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. -Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character. -Alexander Hamilton

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. -James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws. -John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. -Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

During the Massachusetts ratifying convention William Symmes warned that the new government at some point "shall be too firmly fixed in the saddle to be overthrown by anything but a general insurrection." Yet fears of standing armies were groundless, affirmed Theodore Sedwick, who queried, "if raised, whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?"

[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it. -Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

The Virginia ratifying convention met from June 2 through June 26, 1788. Edmund Pendleton, opponent of a bill of rights, weakly argued that abuse of power could be remedied by recalling the delegated powers in a convention. Patrick Henry shot back that the power to resist oppression rests upon the right to possess arms:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.

Henry sneered,

O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?

More quotes from the Virginia convention:

[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor... -George Mason

Zacharia Johnson argued that the new Constitution could never result in religious persecution or other oppression because:

[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.

The Virginia delegation's recommended bill of rights included the following:

That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

The following quote is from Halbrook, Stephen P., That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, University of New Mexico Press, 1984.

The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of. -Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.

Gallatin's use of the words "some rights," doesn't mean some of the rights in the Bill of Rights, rather there are many rights not enumerated by the Bill of Rights, those rights that are listed are being established as unalienable. -Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790):

[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded. -14 Debates in the House of Representatives, ed. Linda Grand De Pauw. (Balt., Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972), 92-3.




Yeah. Sure sounds like they're talking about hunting and self defense. *rolls eyes*
 
The second amendment as ratified by Congress (copypasta from wikipedia):

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.

Nowhere in this amendment does it mention that the right to keep and bear arms is to protect ones' self from a tyrannical government. It does state that the populace has the right to arm themselves in order to have a militia, however. This is because at that time the US government did not have a suitable standing army (except for the Continental Army, but that wasn't much of one). The militias were all they had.

In my opinion, the whole keep/bear arms to prevent a tyrannical government is nothing more than NRA boilerplate ramble-rousing for the purpose of getting dues.

You're right, it doesn't say that about tyrannical government but it has been affirmed by Supreme Court that it does mean individuals right to keep and bear arms. They did not limit the ruling to any specific use thereof.
 
You, sir, exemplify the problem in this country. That amendment was NOT written for hunting and target practice, and it certainly wasn't written for the army.

Then why mention "militia" at all in the Second Amendment? If the forefathers wanted guns in the hands of the citizens to protect from a tyrannical government taking over, why do we need to form into a militia first?

Continental Army was mostly disbanded after Treaty of Paris in 1783 (the treaty that ended the War of Independence). The US Army numbered 625 men in 1787 when the Constitution was adopted, with most of them were positioned around the remaining British Forts on American soil. Having a well-regulated militia would have been at the forefront of discussions about domestic and foreign security.
 
Then why mention "militia" at all in the Second Amendment? If the forefathers wanted guns in the hands of the citizens to protect from a tyrannical government taking over, why do we need to form into a militia first?

Continental Army was mostly disbanded after Treaty of Paris in 1783 (the treaty that ended the War of Independence). The US Army numbered 625 men in 1787 when the Constitution was adopted, with most of them were positioned around the remaining British Forts on American soil. Having a well-regulated militia would have been at the forefront of discussions about domestic and foreign security.

They mentioned it, because [at the time] each state had a significant militia at all times. These days, militias are looked at as 'nut cases' not as something that's of actual benefit. So, the armed populace is the next best thing.

I pity those that come to try and take my firearms away. :cross:
 
You're right, it doesn't say that about tyrannical government but it has been affirmed by Supreme Court that it does mean individuals right to keep and bear arms. They did not limit the ruling to any specific use thereof.

You are absolutely right, and I am not arguing that....and as a gun-owner I support that position.

What I'm arguing is that the Second Amendment wasn't put in the constitution because the forefathers envisioned a time when the government would want to take away guns, but that they were necessary to keep order in a nascent country that could not fund or maintain a standing army.

Again, why would they have phrased the amendment as they did? If they were really worried about a tyrannical government taking away guns, couldn't they have just worded the second amendment to state as much?

Also, if they thought a tyrannical government could take over (thus necessitating an armed populace to fight it), wouldn't this mean that they did not have faith in the Constitution as they wrote it to prevent a tyrannical government in the first place???

Now, I know this flies in the face of the NRA's narrative that government is always evil and its always trying to take over, and its up to all the little people to stand up to the big government and to never give up until they pry the guns from our cold, dead fingers...blah, blah, blah. Make your checks payable to Wayne LaPierre...
 
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks. -Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; -Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. -Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character. -Alexander Hamilton

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. -James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws. -John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. -Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

During the Massachusetts ratifying convention William Symmes warned that the new government at some point "shall be too firmly fixed in the saddle to be overthrown by anything but a general insurrection." Yet fears of standing armies were groundless, affirmed Theodore Sedwick, who queried, "if raised, whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?"

[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it. -Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

The Virginia ratifying convention met from June 2 through June 26, 1788. Edmund Pendleton, opponent of a bill of rights, weakly argued that abuse of power could be remedied by recalling the delegated powers in a convention. Patrick Henry shot back that the power to resist oppression rests upon the right to possess arms:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.

Henry sneered,

O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?

More quotes from the Virginia convention:

[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor... -George Mason

Zacharia Johnson argued that the new Constitution could never result in religious persecution or other oppression because:

[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.

The Virginia delegation's recommended bill of rights included the following:

That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

The following quote is from Halbrook, Stephen P., That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, University of New Mexico Press, 1984.

The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of. -Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.

Gallatin's use of the words "some rights," doesn't mean some of the rights in the Bill of Rights, rather there are many rights not enumerated by the Bill of Rights, those rights that are listed are being established as unalienable. -Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790):

[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded. -14 Debates in the House of Representatives, ed. Linda Grand De Pauw. (Balt., Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972), 92-3.




Yeah. Sure sounds like they're talking about hunting and self defense. *rolls eyes*



We are talking about how the Second Amendment is written, not what various historical figures personal views on the Second Amendment might be.

Would you give any validity to a bunch of copypasta of gun control editorials if I posted them? I didn't think so....
 
They mentioned it, because [at the time] each state had a significant militia at all times.

And they needed to be armed....hence the Second Amendment.

These days, militias are looked at as 'nut cases' not as something that's of actual benefit.

Why is that? Perhaps because they have radical agendas. You could probably have said the same thing of some state militias in the late 1700s in this land.

So, the armed populace is the next best thing.

For what, may I ask?

I pity those that come to try and take my firearms away. :cross:

You say those things, and then wonder why people look at you funny when you say you own guns. I think gun-owners bring alot of this on themselves.
 
You are absolutely right, and I am not arguing that....and as a gun-owner I support that position.

What I'm arguing is that the Second Amendment wasn't put in the constitution because the forefathers envisioned a time when the government would want to take away guns, but that they were necessary to keep order in a nascent country that could not fund or maintain a standing army.

Again, why would they have phrased the amendment as they did? If they were really worried about a tyrannical government taking away guns, couldn't they have just worded the second amendment to state as much?

Also, if they thought a tyrannical government could take over (thus necessitating an armed populace to fight it), wouldn't this mean that they did not have faith in the Constitution as they wrote it to prevent a tyrannical government in the first place???

Now, I know this flies in the face of the NRA's narrative that government is always evil and its always trying to take over, and its up to all the little people to stand up to the big government and to never give up until they pry the guns from our cold, dead fingers...blah, blah, blah. Make your checks payable to Wayne LaPierre...

They used the words they did since they never imagined that the limp-wristed liberal's would try to limit firearm possession of the populace. It was so prevalent at the time that they figured that having the wording as it is would be enough. A bit like a 'less is more' approach.

IMO, adding more limitations on what law abiding citizens can own (above what's already in place) is going too far. It's bad enough they've been adding more and more restrictions over the years. Most people (that are allowed to own firearms) can only have semi-automatic at the most. In order to get something more, you have to apply to the feds to be allowed. They can deny you for pretty much any reason they can think up. It's really disgusting what people in states like MA go through JUST to own ANY firearm. I'm seriously glad to be out of that police state now. :eek: :D
 
Also, if they thought a tyrannical government could take over (thus necessitating an armed populace to fight it), wouldn't this mean that they did not have faith in the Constitution as they wrote it to prevent a tyrannical government in the first place???

No. It means they learned from history at least two things:
1. Power corrupts.
2. Those unable to fight back are pretty much screwed in situations like that.

So, they wrote protection of the right to bear arms into the Constitution.

There is no more that needs to be said about it other than SCOTUS has upheld that an individual right to keep and bear arms is protected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top