2nd Amendment
 

" I've never killed an animal for sport.... and I don't need an UZI to do so. "

I couldn't let this go, and I didn't want to hijack the other thread. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or any type of sport shooting. It has everything to do with protecting ourselves from our government and other outside forces. To own or not to own a firearms is a personal decision. By not owning and training with one you are avoiding your responsibility as a citizen to protect the great nation of ours. Whether you desire it or not you are the Militia.

Re: 2nd Amendment
 

Sorry, but you are mistaken. The second ammendment was written at a time when the "settlers" were responsible for their own security from foreign governments that owned territories bordering the original colonies, Indians, and marauders. Also, the government couldn't and didn't equip the people with arms.

The National Guard replaced these "colonial" militias, and became the de facto MILITIA for each state. THEY are trained, armed, and sworn to the protection of their respective states and the U.S. Government.

Now, I agree that the Constitution gives us the right to bear "arms" but it is NOT a blanket proviso to own "assault weapons." If you want to own guns for hunting, OR for personal protection, that is fine with ME and the government. But, NO government is going to allow its people to own MORE firepower than its established military.

This is a touchy subject, and I DO see both sides to the story, but to help prevent and avoid mass shootings by unstable citizens, I see no reason to NOT register your weapons, nor do I see the need to own assault weapons. There are "clubs" where you can go to shoot them if that gets your rocks off.

But, the fact is.... that the "militia" as you refer to it.... is now the National Guard, established, armed, trained, and commanded by the State's Governor. They ARE the "people" as they are citizen soldiers. So the right of the "people" to bear arms, for the purpose of a well armed militia, is satisfied and authorized in the entity of the Guard.

As for "ME" being the milita.... there is no law saying I HAVE to own a gun. If the s##t hits the fan, I will be there. I'm sure I will be issued a gun. I know how to use it, and I will not shrink from my duty.

Many people overlook the fact that owning firearms is also to protect ourselves from our own government. In that capacity, the citizens of the US should be able to own firearms capable of matching the firepower of the US military. This is also the reason for firearms not being registered, you don't what the government knowing who has firearms and where to come and get them.

As I said, Overloaded.... I know and see both sides to the story. You are just repeating THAT side of it. And I "allow" for your point, but I disagree.

OUR government was worried about the imposition and infractions of the "colonial" government, which was an extension of the British Crown, and foreign governments with designs on our New World.

It would be hard to believe that ANY government, EVER in history, would protect its people from itself, let alone equip them with arms and tell them, "Hey... whenever you feel that we are taxing you too much, or ruining your life, you are free to REBEL with ARMS.

That would be tantamount to political/governmental suicide, and engender constant unrest, and armed conflict - continuous civil war.

The fact that the UNION went to war against the Secessionists of the South is proof that there was NO SUCH intention in our constitution.

In fact, the "militias" of each state, the National Guard, SHOULD be and to some extent ARE armed equally to that of the U.S. military, and therefore, if united against our government, COULD wage an equal war against the government military forces (in theory.)

The registration of firearms is 1) for tax reasons, and 2) to allow police forces to track criminals who use those arms to commit crimes. Are you against helping the dedicated men and women of our police forces to track criminals or protect themselves against them?

I don't have anything against the people owning arms. In fact, I don't really have a MAJOR objection to you owning assault weapons (though I fail to see the need) as long as you REGISTER them. If YOUR side would understand that, maybe MY side would meet you half way. This is a country of compromise.

But, there is nothing in the Constitution that allows you to "bear" UNREGISTERED arms of "mass destruction" (which assault weapons are classified as) .... and you are NOT part of the state Militia anymore. So, the 2nd Ammendment doesn't really apply to you. But, other Ammendments DO provide for your right to bear arms, within the law.

No one is trying to tell you that you can't own a gun. Certainly NOT me!

But, don't try to sell me on the idea that you need an unregistered Uzi to HUNT with.... Okay? I'm not THAT stupid.

Re: 2nd Amendment
 

This is more masturbation law... feels good, but doesn't really do anything but make those doing it feel better!

Assault weapons are no more powerful than a deer rifle. There was one senator who changed a deer rifle into an assault weapon using a toilet paper tube and some other paper items. This is more symbolism over substance.

If an American can own a sports car they should be able to own any weapon that they wish. Guns are a heck of a lot less dangerous than cars to EVERYONE yet they are allowed on the streets day and night, night and day.

Interesting point... I guess you could make the argument. If citizens are not allowed to own more firepower than the government then citizens are not allowed to own faster cars/motorcycles than the cops.

Ahhh.... Fozzy! I thought you would join in with your usual disconnected reality! :lol:

You're kidding, right? You're trying to tell me that you can spray 30 bullets in a crowded MacDonalds in about 5 seconds with a lever action 30/30? Man.... you've been trucking too long, cuz that's a trucker's lie if I ever heard one! :roll: :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :shock: :roll: :roll:

Name the Senator, give me a link, and/or shut the Heck up! That's laughable!!! :roll:

What's the highest number of persons killed in a single accident caused by a vehicle? Does that exceed the number dead at Columbine? Or many other mass shootings? Tell this B.S. to the survivors of Luby's Diner! Cuz "I" ain't EVEN believing it! :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol:

Does this include small tactical NUKES???? Would you EVER draw a line? And, if so, just WHERE???

:lol: :lol: Thanks for the "input" Fozzy! I needed a good laugh to loosen me up! :roll:

[quote="golfhobo"][quote]Ahhh.... Fozzy! I thought you would join in with your usual disconnected reality! :lol: [quote]You're kidding, right? You're trying to tell me that you can spray 30 bullets in a crowded MacDonalds in about 5 seconds with a lever action 30/30? Man.... you've been trucking too long, cuz that's a trucker's lie if I ever heard one! :roll: :lol: [quote]

Your are confusing power and capacity. There are many deer rifles you can get a higher capacity magazines for. It just doesn't look "evil." Besides, deer rifles or assault weapons don't spray. Assault weapons, as the term is mistakenly used are semi-auto weapons, not full auto. Anyway since full autos were restricted there has been less than one percent of one percent of them used in crimes.

[quote]What's the highest number of persons killed in a single accident caused by a vehicle? Does that exceed the number dead at Columbine? Or many other mass shootings? Tell this B.S. to the survivors of Luby's Diner! Cuz "I" ain't EVEN believing it! :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: [quote]

Why do you limit it to a single incident? In total more people are killed each year than with firearms. One of the survivors of Luby's Diner is one of the strongest proponent of the individuals right to carry and bear arms. She feels strongly that the pistol ,she left in her car under then current law, would have save many people that day, including her parents.

[quote]Does this include small tactical NUKES???? Would you EVER draw a line? And, if so, just WHERE???[quote]

Sure with individual hand held weapons.

No, I'm not. I'm not even addressing power. I'm talking capacity AND rounds per second. (leaving NO time for victims to get out of the way.)

Deer rifles don't, I agree. That's why I have no problem with them. Assault weapons most certainly DO spray a full clip in any "un-aimed" direction in which the weapon is pointed while the trigger is pulled! (if set to auto.) There is NO mistake in the term assault weapons... even for a semi-auto. Ask the SWAT team if they don't train to "Assault" a target with their weapons. The definition of an "assault weapon" is one that can fire on auto or semi, up to 30 rounds without stopping to reload.

I once fired a MAC-10 on full auto (owned by a private citizen) on the Natchez Trace Parkway. I was aiming in the general direction of a sappling. I had a 30 round clip, and the LAST round left the barrel before the first round hit the tree. I cut the sappling in half! Had I not had a steady hand, and let the barrel sway a bit, you would most certainly call it a SPRAY!

This kind of firepower is meant for one thing. To "assault" a position, and cover the entire area with suppressing fire! That is an "assault weapon."

And since they did NOT restrict semi-auto weapons... there have been COUNTLESS incidents of them being used in crimes. They are, in fact, the preferred weapons of drive-by shootings and gangland assaults. Where have YOU been? You just MADE my point for the restriction of semi-auto assault weapons!! :roll:


Quote:
Guns are a heck of a lot less dangerous than cars to EVERYONE


[quote]What's the highest number of persons killed in a single accident caused by a vehicle? Does that exceed the number dead at Columbine? Or many other mass shootings? Tell this B.S. to the survivors of Luby's Diner! Cuz "I" ain't EVEN believing it! [quote]

Because I am comparing single incidents of deaths caused by a single sports car with single incidents of death caused by assault weapons. I have no desire nor need to compare total numbers. If you want to do that.... you might want to outlaw ALL vehicles in general!


I'm aware of this. Are you aware that she is talking about a PISTOL? And a completely different law than we are discussing? This is a typical NRA argument.... comparing apples to oranges. And you might note that her pistol might not have been necessary if the assailant didn't have an assault weapon!

[quote]Does this include small tactical NUKES???? Would you EVER draw a line? And, if so, just WHERE???[quote]

A tactical nuke can be fired from a grenade launcher, or a shoulder mounted AA type weapon. These are "individual handheld weapons." So, again I ask, where would you draw the line?

There are reasons for limiting clips to 15 rounds (they have to momentarily stop to reload... giving the cops a chance to overtake them) and outlawing fully auto weapons (for similar reasons.) They (the gov't) are giving you ALOT of leeway in allowing THAT much!!

If it were up to me, there would be NO clips allowed. Only what can be loaded into a rifle's built in magazine. If you can't hit a deer with 7 rounds or so, with a lever action or automatic rifle, you don't deserve to be out there hunting!!!

And the same goes for your self defense.

Re: 2nd Amendment
 

Where in the World did this quote come from and the 2nd Amendment? :P :P
Also-I know you're a Marine, once a Jarhead always a Jarhead :P , but you ever hear this people from the Cities on TV talking about people hunting with "Automatic Assault Rifles" lmao

Good Grief-Now a "Semi-auto" Ban????
A Pistol is a Semi-auto then-everytime you pull the trigger Bang
Obvious where you're heading and this Country isn't going there.

Ahh the mindset of those who wants to allow only the right to bear arms to the government and the police. The police are not to protect people and they never have been. The police are there to apprehend people one a crime has been commited and to investigate the crime scenes and report this to the courts systems for them to taek it over from there to pass on the punishments and or fines to be placed on the accused.

The problem with this who issue is that these cases where not about one person with a gun, it was the fact that there was no one else there with ANOTHER gun. All of these cases of loonies using guns could have been limited and even stopped cold had there been an armed or several armed people in the areas. The victims were powerless to do anything but die and it really didn't matter if the loonie was carrying a spear or a wrist rocket.

What is an assault weapon?

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

An example of assault weapon legislation is the Federal 1994 Crime Bill. The bill in part outlaws new civilian manufacture of certain semi-automatic assault weapons. It also prohibits new civilian manufacture of "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" declared certain weapons as assault weapons, and states a semi-automatic rifle is an assault weapon if it can accept a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following:

* A folding or telescoping stock
* A pistol grip
* A bayonet mount
* A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one
* A grenade launcher.

MOST weapons that act like these "Scary looking" assault weapons are not banned!

The point about scary looking guns being banned over any other type of gun is the same thing about "scary looking" or high performance cars or motorcycles. There are more people who use and enjoy them legally than illegally, yet no one calls for their banning.. In fact when people start taking about simply slowing trucks down the toddler like screaming fits are humorous!

Even Diane Feinstein admits that her anti-assault ban was based PURELY on cosmetics!

I also want to see this AAA or shoulder fired nuke.... :roll:

golfhobo wrote:



Do criminals register their guns in a spirit of fairness? Which group do you think has less firepower than they otherwise would have because of registration laws; criminals or law abiding citizens?

If I am shooting at you, you don't have time to get out of the way if I fire only one round.

Deer rifles don't, I agree. That's why I have no problem with them. Assault weapons most certainly DO spray a full clip in any "un-aimed" direction in which the weapon is pointed while the trigger is pulled! (if set to auto.) There is NO mistake in the term assault weapons... even for a semi-auto. Ask the SWAT team if they don't train to "Assault" a target with their weapons. The definition of an "assault weapon" is one that can fire on auto or semi, up to 30 rounds without stopping to reload.[/quote]

Whos definition is this?

I would rather fight you if you are spaying and praying than if you were aiming. So what, you cut down a sappling. Paraphrashing Bruce Lee, saplings don't shoot back. That is what firearms in the hands of responsible citzens are for, to cut down the nut cases.

And since they did NOT restrict semi-auto weapons... there have been COUNTLESS incidents of them being used in crimes. They are, in fact, the preferred weapons of drive-by shootings and gangland assaults. Where have YOU been? You just MADE my point for the restriction of semi-auto assault weapons!! :roll: [/quote]

I didn't make your point, I made mine. There were restricted, not outlawed. The are many thousands in the hands of fine upstanding citizens. They are not misused. "Assault Weapons" were banned for 10 years. It had no effect on their misuse. The law sunseted because no credible case could be made to renew it.


Quote:
Guns are a heck of a lot less dangerous than cars to EVERYONE


[quote]What's the highest number of persons killed in a single accident caused by a vehicle? Does that exceed the number dead at Columbine? Or many other mass shootings? Tell this B.S. to the survivors of Luby's Diner! Cuz "I" ain't EVEN believing it! Using your logic we should, outside of war, they have killed many more people than firearms.


Actually, she is a proponent for all gun rights. She was instrimental in the Concealed Carry Laws in Texas. She does not limit her fight to only handguns.

[quote]Does this include small tactical NUKES???? Would you EVER draw a line? And, if so, just WHERE???[quote]

Name this unknown handheld grenade launcher and shoulder mounted AA type weapon.

You don't even know the difference between a magazine and a clip. Once again the 2nd Amendment is about protecting ourselves against their government. If the military uses 30 round magazines, so should we. I realize that pesky little 2nd Amendment keeps getting in the way.

Using your senario, what if there are 16 attackers. Roll over and die?

People like Golfhobo cannot hide their true feeling that well, to him, the simple act of gun ownership makes the person a criminal.

True Gun Control is a Steady Hand.

The First thing the Nazi's in Germany did was take away their Citizen's Guns.

The First thing the Communists in Russia did was take away their Citizen's Land.

Look at what happened in Cambodia with the Khmer Rouge. What was that line in another thread about history.

Funny you should mention Hitler's regime, Yoopr. I have been warning against this for some time. Actually, the FIRST thing the Nazis did was to start taking away the citizen's RIGHTS to privacy, and free speech. The guns came later. I am just as much against the revocation of rights perpetrated by the Nazis and the Communists as YOU are. And I see the same thing happening HERE, by Bush!

You don't want to register your guns because the gov't might come and get them. Yet you don't mind them tapping your phone where they might hear you DISCUSSING owning a gun? What's the difference?

And it was BUSH who signed the law allowing personal property to be taken NOT only under Imminent Domain, but for another's PERSONAL/Capital/Business use!

Fozzy is wrong! I don't consider a gun owner to be a criminal. I am ALL for personal rights. But, with responsibility. Just because I don't own a gun, doesn't mean I think YOU shouldn't be allowed to. I just don't see the need to have an assault weapon UNLESS you are planning to BE a criminal. (no, J/K! I just don't see the NEED!)

ChapChap wants to know if he should be a criminal so he can have better guns than the law abiding citizens. I say, let's enforce the laws, and quit manufacturing assault weapons, and pay more attention to the smuggling of guns from other countries than we do to smuggling a little pot!
Then the criminals won't have them either!

Look, it's not an easy fight! Just like the war on drugs. Just like the war against Terrorism. But, like Pres Kennedy said, "We choose to do these things NOT because they are easy.... but because they are hard!" (paraphrased.)

I don't own a gun today. Someday, I might. I don't care if YOU own one or several! MY POINT was that the arguement you all use of the 2nd Ammendment right does NOT hold water. Neither does any claim about needing them (assault rifles) for hunting deer. Home protection is your best argument, and I can't really debate that. Except to say to T/L that if you run out of bullets in one gun, have ANOTHER loaded and ready to go! Our forefathers defended themselves without assault rifles. Why can't YOU?

If the truth be known.... your only REAL argument is that you want to be armed to the teeth to protect yourself against OR to overthrow the duly elected government of our country! You've all SAID as much! YOU are the ones who distrust the government led by your annointed Saviour! You may someday be proven to be right. I don't know. But, I pity you for your cynicism! You all claim to be great defenders of your flag and country.... but you really only care about defending YOURSELVES against the government of that same country.

Fozzy wants to return to the days of the Old West, where everyone carried a gun, and the first guy that gets liquored up pulls it and gets himself and maybe a few others killed!

He says the only reason the mass shootings happened is because the "citizenry" (sitting at home) wasn't equally armed! B.S.! The flunky school guards could have stopped it with one or two shots from a six gun had they been properly trained and EXPECTING what they were there for! I've told you many times.... AVERAGE people will get you killed every time!

T/L says I don't know the difference between a mag and a clip. I disagree. According to Fozzy's quote, an assault weapon is one that can accept a detatchable magazine OR "clip." A "CLIP" is a detatchable magazine. A NON detatchable magazine is the part of a rifle (like a 30/30 Winchester) that holds the rounds that will be uploaded to the breach. Not being a "gun nut" I may have not expressed my point properly. But, I beleive I was right.

I'll tell you ONE thing, T/L. If I came after you with a gun, I wouldn't be sprayin' and prayin'. I'm an expert rifleman. Not that I WOULD come after you, but my point is.... just because I'm FOR gun control, don't mistake me for someone who can't shoot! I don't hunt deer for my own reasons. But, if I DID, I doubt I'd miss often if EVER.

Now, you guys can continue to puff yourselves up behind your guns if you want.... and continue to belittle me for standing up for the Constitution and the laws of our land. I'm not really impressed! This thread was about the 2nd Ammendment, and I'm here to tell ya... it does NOT guarantee you the right to own assault rifles.

Hobo

"T/L says I don't know the difference between a mag and a clip. I disagree. According to Fozzy's quote, an assault weapon is one that can accept a detatchable magazine OR "clip." A "CLIP" is a detatchable magazine. A NON detatchable magazine is the part of a rifle (like a 30/30 Winchester) that holds the rounds that will be uploaded to the breach. Not being a "gun nut" I may have not expressed my point properly. But, I beleive I was right."

You believe wrongly. Magazine and clip are two terms that are not interchangeable. A clip holds the bullets that will be inserted into the magazine. It doesn't matter if the magazine is detachable or not. Remember back to your Air Force days when you went to the firing range. The M16 bullets probably came in a box. There were two 10 round clips inside. You inserted your loader onto the magazine, put the clip into it and pushed the rounds into the magazine.

a SKS can have a high capacity, 30 or 40 round magazine, that is non-detachable.

"I'll tell you ONE thing, T/L. If I came after you with a gun, I wouldn't be sprayin' and prayin'. I'm an expert rifleman. Not that I WOULD come after you, but my point is.... just because I'm FOR gun control, don't mistake me for someone who can't shoot! I don't hunt deer for my own reasons. But, if I DID, I doubt I'd miss often if EVER."

Shooting is a perishable skill, if you don't shoot regularly, you are no longer an expert. There is the deer thing again. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting deer.

So he/they want to own an assault weopon to defend themselves against the government. Kinda sad position to be in when you think about it.

If things are so bad out there, that you really feel the need to defend yourself against the government with an assault weopon, it's gonna be an awfull short war don't you think?? I think you're peeing in the wind my man...

"Now, you guys can continue to puff yourselves up behind your guns if you want.... and continue to belittle me for standing up for the Constitution and the laws of our land. I'm not really impressed! This thread was about the 2nd Ammendment, and I'm here to tell ya... it does NOT guarantee you the right to own assault rifles."

I will suggest, strongly, that it means I have the right to own assault rifles.
In fact I believe it to mean full auto weapons. I'm not sure where I have belittled you, you are the one inserting all the little, eyes rolling, emoticons. The 2nd Amendment amends the Constitution. It is the law of our land. Defend in like your freedoms depend on it.

He was never trained so thought it would be cute to fire a Auto.
Anybody trained in Weapons wouldn't "Spray" unless they wanted to.
anybody tapping a F...... Terrorists Phone is Fine with me and more power to it. Quit your whineing. Anybody who doesn't have anything to hide doesn't have anything to worry about it. Drone on-This arguement is old.
Plus-Better Re-Research your "Nazi" Facts.
Gore Wanted to Negotiate with Al Queda :roll:

Al Queda has made some statements since the recent election and they're very happy with it. Hmmmm-Wonder Why?

Look back in history there was another guy who took the rights away from people to own guns . I think his name was hitler .

You can take all the gun away but people who want to kill will find someway to do it. knife , rock stick what ever it take . people were killing before guns were invented .

Well, after doing a little research, I see your point. However, I noted that MANY people as well as gun nuts and writers use the terms interchangeably. I'm sure I got the useage of "clip" from the movies.

Now..... I said:

If it were up to me, there would be NO clips allowed. Only what can be loaded into a rifle's built in magazine. If you can't hit a deer with 7 rounds or so, with a lever action or automatic rifle, you don't deserve to be out there hunting!!!

You said:

You don't even know the difference between a magazine and a clip.

And the website says:

Most lever action 30-30 hold 6 rounds in the magazine, and one in the chamber

THIS is what I was PROPERLY referring to! I'm saying that a hunting rifle only needs to be something like a Mod 94 Winchester (which is what I'm familiar with) and it holds 6 rounds in the MAGAZINE! Loaded ONE AT A TIME through a slot in the side!

The Government has too much controll as it is. IMOP, I should have the right to own any gun I wish. Wether it is a fully auto, single shot, whatever. I would like to see it go back to carrying a gun on the hip, like in the old days.

Could this cause a problem? Maybe, but it will also take care of alot of problems. But no matter what we do, IMOP it don't matter cause it boils down to what the heart beholds. And since the Love of many grow cold. If there not guns, there can always be somthing else, wether car, knives, projectiles of any kind, and ink and paper!

"Who's come to slay the Dragon, Come to watch it fall? Making arrows out of pointed words, Giant killers at the call. Too much fuss and bother, too much contradiction and confusion. Peal away the mistrey, here's a clue to some real motivation. All there realy is, is the two of us, and we both know why we've come along. Nothing to explain it's apart of us. To be found with in this song.
What happened to our innersense, did it go out of style? No longer Nieve days, No longer a child. Diffrent icing, diffrent things, diffrent hearts beat on diffrent strings. But there are times, when you and me and all such things agree!"
RUSH

Well.... I'll admit that these days I might need some glasses, but I don't think my shooting skills have suffered. I didn't need to be "trained" to shoot, I did it naturally. When I was a kid, I could shoot an Avery pecan (the little ones) off a tree by breaking the stem and not hitting the nut, with a B.B. gun with no sight. In Basic Training, I had to have my targets recounted several times, because so many rounds went through the same hole with only a telltale tear on one side or the other.

The 2nd Ammendment has nothing to do with you owning assault weapons, either. :wink:

Think back to your days in English class. You remember what a "dependant clause" is? The last part of that ammendment, the part about not infringing on your right to bear arms, is a dependant clause. The part that it is dependant on... is the first part about the need for a militia. These guys were scholars of law and language. They worded things the way they did with great deliberation.

The ONLY reason that they afforded you any gun ownership rights was to serve the purpose of the militia. And, I've already explained how that has been superceded by the National Guard. Any second rate lawyer could make this point in a Federal court and win. The fact that they haven't, shouldn't be confused with the belief that they WON'T.

I didn't really mean YOU, T/L. You've been on an even keel more or less. Of course, you DID say:

"So what, you cut down a sappling. Paraphrashing Bruce Lee, saplings don't shoot back."

And that thing about me not knowing a mag from a clip. But, you know who I meant.

As for defending the 2nd Ammendment like my freedoms depend on it? I will, and I do. I also defend all the OTHER rights in the Bill of Rights. I just happen to believe that Bush is abridging more than ONE of them!

I don't want to take your guns away. I just don't think that you have a need or a right to own UNREGISTERED assault weapons. Mostly, I don't think they should be manufactured or allowed on the market. And like I said, you aren't the "militia" anymore, so even tho YOU don't mention deer hunting, I find it LAME that the NRA uses THAT as an excuse to say that you CAN! (own them.)

That is exactly the point. Our forefathers had firearms equal to the standing armies of the time period, just as we should have now.

I was not belittling you with comment. I was trying to express, in my own way, that the weapon had a very viable use, which was not to cut down sapplings, but to defend yourself from some one who was shooting at you.

To have a discussion about anything you have to have agreed upon terms. Magazine and clip have two different meanings. Your own research indicated that. If you write a law banning clips, then catch me with a magazine, have I broken the law?

And the 2nd Ammendment was for the purpose of establishing and arming a MILITIA. That is now the National Guard units in each state. And they ARE equally armed against the oppressors and enemies. And the government has made SURE that these guard units are made up of volunteers from the people of each state... so that they can conform to the rights of the people as defined in the Constitution and its Ammendments. The Gov't could EASILY station military troops in each state to protect the people, but THAT would violate the Constitution. So... they established the Nat. Guard. That way they are fullfilling their obligation to "The People" without actually allowing EVERY citizen to be armed to the teeth.

I hope you all get to keep your guns. I really don't care about them. But, I'm telling you that neither the LAW nor the Constitution will protect your "right." If the gov't wanted to take them, and you sued them in court, you would LOSE, for the very reasons I have just given. If you then decided to rebel against the gov't, the duly appointed MILITIA in your state WILL enforce the laws against insurection, as THEY were established to do.... equipped and authorized by the 2nd Ammendment.

[assuming, of course, that they could find their way back from their ILLEGAL deployments in Iraq in time to stop you! :lol: ]

America is into excesses and collecting. There is NOTHING different between the man who collects weapons as the man who collects exotic cars. BOTH in the hands of the wrong people can be dangerous. The second amendment did not mention what types of arms that were allowed, it did say that their ownership shall not be infringed.

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.

Let's test your theory of dependent and independent clauses.

Let's change the above by replacing the comma with a period.

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.

Which sentence stands on its own and which is dependent of the other.

dude you are way off !!

The National Guard is basically under the contol of the US government. This is not what the forefathers envisioned, what they meant by the word militia was exactly what it was in their time.

You need to think why our founding fathers wrote the constitution in the first place . Do think maybe they wanted us the people to have way to stand up to OUR own government ? I think it was one of our founding father who said we need a revolution every 200 years to keep the goverment in check The 2nd admenment was put place for that reason. I think they were aware that the government could get out of control.

Sorry, you are mistaken. The GOVERNOR of each state controls the Nat. Guard units in his state. There are certain provisions under which, ONLY in time of war, or national crisis (read insurrection) that the President can USURP this power or control, and gain command of the Guard units. This is what Bush has done during this war. AND, without objection, he has violated the terms of their deployment.