Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Politics
 Second Amendment
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 6

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 08/27/2007 :  21:24:43  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
What do you think the meaning is?

Second Amendment

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.




What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 08/28/2007 :  05:18:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Sadly, it is an outdated sentence.

Back in the day the militia used their own personal weapons. This ammendment was written with a few objectives in mind.

First, and most relevent to today, is that the founders didn't trust government. They wanted people to have the right to keep guns so that they could oppose an opressive government. I'll grant that this isn't explicitly clear in the wording, but it is what I get from reading other things written by many of them.

Second, the concept of a huge standing army controlled by the government would have been a horrifying thought to them. The concept of a militia, citizens responding to the call to defend the country, was how they intended to defend the borders against invaders. Citizens with their own weapons forming up to fight alongside a small corp of professional soldiers. The concept is outdated now, due mostly to the advance of military technology and warfighting theory. To be a member of the US armed forces today requires significant training and commitment.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 08/28/2007 :  05:45:38   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Yeah, it's a grammatically awkward sentence to the modern reader and trying to discern a definitive meaning from it as written is almost impossible. Thus, one is left having to dig through other writings to try and figure out its intent, though that, too, can be difficult.

If what Dude says is correct (I've done little research into the matter), then there is an element of outdated-ness to it. Since armed citizens wouldn't stand a chance against our army. So I don't know.

Perhaps, Jerome, you might tell us what you think??
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 08/28/2007 :  06:02:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Cune said:
Since armed citizens wouldn't stand a chance against our army.


Oh, I am not so sure about that.

In a stand-up fight, no one can win vs our military. But the Iraqi militia are doing a fine job of inflicting casualties on us, and there is no question in anyone's mind (anyone in touch with reality) that there is no way we could militarily pacify Iraq without overwhelming force and a near genocide. I'll also point to the USSR's occupation of Afghanistan as an example of armed citizens bleeding a modern army to death slowly. The modern army wins every fight, but loses anyway. Insurgency is, obviously (Iraq), incredibly difficult to deal with if your tool is a modern army.

No army could ever occupy the US (the size of the country and logistics of the army you'd need to try make it an absurd notion, say nothing of the fact that they'd have to either defeat our army first or BE our army,...) because of the number of personal firearms we own. We'd bleed any army who thought they could make the attempt, their casualty rate would be significant.

And yes, the sentence is old. Unless you have spent some time reading other old stuff, from the same period (I like Philip Freneau and Thomas Paine myself, great writing, though Jefferson and Adams are interesting too) the usage will probably be a little confusing.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 08/28/2007 :  06:17:56   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dude

Cune said:
Since armed citizens wouldn't stand a chance against our army.


Oh, I am not so sure about that.

In a stand-up fight, no one can win vs our military. But the Iraqi militia are doing a fine job of inflicting casualties on us, and there is no question in anyone's mind (anyone in touch with reality) that there is no way we could militarily pacify Iraq without overwhelming force and a near genocide. I'll also point to the USSR's occupation of Afghanistan as an example of armed citizens bleeding a modern army to death slowly. The modern army wins every fight, but loses anyway. Insurgency is, obviously (Iraq), incredibly difficult to deal with if your tool is a modern army.
OK, point taken. Our armed and rather smart citizenry would make life difficult. How easily could they hold down, sat, parts of East LA? Or Camden, NJ?

I was more thinking that if you took a given town X and had two squads try to lock it down under martial law: a) a local police force; and b) the US military, that even if the squads were the same size in terms of manpower that the military would have an easier time of it.

And yes, the sentence is old. Unless you have spent some time reading other old stuff, from the same period (I like Philip Freneau and Thomas Paine myself, great writing, though Jefferson and Adams are interesting too) the usage will probably be a little confusing.
Agreed!
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 08/28/2007 :  07:30:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I never met a grunt who didn't hate Charley; I never met a grunt who didn't respect him.

I do not believe it is possible to defeat a determined and well-led, guerrilla force. The Germans got their ass' kicked every time they bent over by the Marquis even though the Vichy traitors in Paris capitulated. The IRA and ETA are still in contention after lo, all of these decades.

Should push come to shove, it would be the same here.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

chaloobi
SFN Regular

1620 Posts

Posted - 08/28/2007 :  10:03:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send chaloobi a Yahoo! Message Send chaloobi a Private Message  Reply with Quote
IMHO the 2nd ammendment is pretty clear. Citizens can have fire arms in order to staff a well regulated (presumably by some level of government) militia. Today the closest thing to a militia we have is the national guard. Anyone know if they keep their weapons at home?

While I like the idea of any law-abiding, sane American owning a weapon should he/she desire to, I don't believe said right is constitutionally protected per the 2nd ammendment. Really, our society isn't structured in a way that the 2nd ammendment applies anymore. Either the ammendment's obsolete or the way our military, reserves and/or national guard are structured is unconstitutional. But the claim that the 2nd Ammendment was intended to protect the right of any law abiding American to have a fire arm outside of some structured military context is clearly false. But then, just because it's not a constitutionally protected right doesn't mean it must necessarily be illegal for Americans to own fire arms.

-Chaloobi

Edited by - chaloobi on 08/28/2007 10:04:38
Go to Top of Page

Yojimbo99
New Member

USA
33 Posts

Posted - 08/28/2007 :  11:00:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Yojimbo99 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
What ever you think of the 2nd it is pretty clear we exercise it on the whole as Americans. In your face world.

It's not so much wanting to die, but controlling that moment, choosing your own way. - GG Allin
Edited by - Yojimbo99 on 08/28/2007 11:03:33
Go to Top of Page

Original_Intent
SFN Regular

USA
609 Posts

Posted - 08/28/2007 :  14:16:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Original_Intent a Private Message  Reply with Quote
The Congress made clear the intentions of bearing arms, to protect yourself from others, including the government. For the government to say that people do not need protection from them, is just ludicrous. A prime reason for it's existence is peotection from standing armies and select militias. Some would consider the National Guard a select militia.

The question on whether the citizenry can stand up to a standing army means nothng in regards to the intention of the amendment.

And, why, if it wasn't the intention, would they do this:
[b]§ 311. Militia: composition and classes[b]

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


Adjust for age and sex discrimination.
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 08/28/2007 :  14:31:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Outdated or not, the Second Amendment protects the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. I don't think this means that the government can't regulate the gun trade in order to keep guns out of the hands of convicts and the mentally crippled, as well as an assortment of other regulations, but the government cannot ban guns from individual ownership.

As for militias, the National Guard is not the only type we have today. There are plenty of "unorganized militias" as it is defined by the quote posted by OT.

People who think the Second Amendment is outdated and no longer useful, even harmful, should fight for a Constitutional Amendment. It annoys me when they try to re-interpret the Second Amendment to mean something other than what it plainly means.

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 08/28/2007 :  14:38:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'll add that I don't think we need a Constitutional Amendment. I think the solutions to American gun violence are heavy local regulation, supported by the majority of people in those local communities (which would usually be dense urban populations); efforts to alleviate poverty; increased availability of jobs in the poorest urban neighborhoods; and the end of Schedule 1 (banned) drugs, which would deal a huge blow to the criminal drug traders who are the primary instigators of gun violence.

Although I'm not into guns myself, sometimes guns are just a beautiful and unique part of American culture, and thus I leave you with this from one of my personal heroes, good old Hunter S. Thompson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y68xq4Q5fTI

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Edited by - marfknox on 08/28/2007 14:39:39
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 08/28/2007 :  16:23:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by chaloobi

IMHO the 2nd ammendment is pretty clear. Citizens can have fire arms in order to staff a well regulated (presumably by some level of government) militia. Today the closest thing to a militia we have is the national guard. Anyone know if they keep their weapons at home?


Defining militia as governmental defeats the entire purpose of the amendment.

While I like the idea of any law-abiding, sane American owning a weapon should he/she desire to, I don't believe said right is constitutionally protected per the 2nd ammendment. Really, our society isn't structured in a way that the 2nd ammendment applies anymore. Either the ammendment's obsolete or the way our military, reserves and/or national guard are structured is unconstitutional. But the claim that the 2nd Ammendment was intended to protect the right of any law abiding American to have a fire arm outside of some structured military context is clearly false. But then, just because it's not a constitutionally protected right doesn't mean it must necessarily be illegal for Americans to own fire arms.


The purpose is to protect the citizens from government tyranny, thus it can not mean government militia.


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 08/28/2007 :  16:30:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.


Unified defense (well regulated militia), needed to keep a population from state tyranny (security of free state), the freedom to carry weapons (to keep and bear arms), can not be outlawed (shall not be infringed).

Unified defense, needed to keep a population free from state tyranny, the freedom to carry weapons, can not be outlawed.


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 08/28/2007 :  17:42:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
chaloobi said:
IMHO the 2nd ammendment is pretty clear. Citizens can have fire arms in order to staff a well regulated (presumably by some level of government) militia. Today the closest thing to a militia we have is the national guard. Anyone know if they keep their weapons at home?


The concepts have changed over the last 200 years. As O.I. posted, the old militia was every single able bodied man over 17 in the nation. The militia was not under government control, and they armed themselves.

Also, the purpose of the militia was twofold. To become the army in times of war and to defend people from our own government, by overthrowing it, if it became necessary.

The idea of a large standing army is not something the founding fathers would have approved of. Technology, however, has made such a thing necessary.

To update this to modern relevance, the right to bear arms ensures that if our own government ever decided to try for military control of the US population, they would never succeed in the long (and hopefully short) term.

A simple look at the many opressive governments that exist in the world today should be enough to make anyone realize that the 2nd ammendment to the US Constitution is still relevant, still provides us with a valuable protection, and should not be changed except to update the grammar and make it specifically applicable to modern times. The citizen militia does not exist, but the need for citizens to be able to defend themselves is still real. As someone famous said, people should not fear their governments, governments should fear their people.

I propose: "The right of US citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Add a ryder that makes concealed carry a federal law applicable in all US states and territories, and we'll be on the right track.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 08/28/2007 :  17:55:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dude

chaloobi said:
IMHO the 2nd ammendment is pretty clear. Citizens can have fire arms in order to staff a well regulated (presumably by some level of government) militia. Today the closest thing to a militia we have is the national guard. Anyone know if they keep their weapons at home?


The concepts have changed over the last 200 years. As O.I. posted, the old militia was every single able bodied man over 17 in the nation. The militia was not under government control, and they armed themselves.

Also, the purpose of the militia was twofold. To become the army in times of war and to defend people from our own government, by overthrowing it, if it became necessary.

The idea of a large standing army is not something the founding fathers would have approved of. Technology, however, has made such a thing necessary.

To update this to modern relevance, the right to bear arms ensures that if our own government ever decided to try for military control of the US population, they would never succeed in the long (and hopefully short) term.

A simple look at the many opressive governments that exist in the world today should be enough to make anyone realize that the 2nd ammendment to the US Constitution is still relevant, still provides us with a valuable protection, and should not be changed except to update the grammar and make it specifically applicable to modern times. The citizen militia does not exist, but the need for citizens to be able to defend themselves is still real. As someone famous said, people should not fear their governments, governments should fear their people.

I propose: "The right of US citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Add a ryder that makes concealed carry a federal law applicable in all US states and territories, and we'll be on the right track.




Dude, check it out. We agree!


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26012 Posts

Posted - 08/28/2007 :  18:06:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dude

Add a ryder that makes concealed carry a federal law applicable in all US states and territories, and we'll be on the right track.
If the point is to ensure that we can overthrow the government if necessary, and to protect citizens from the government, then it seems that concealed carry is worthless. In the former case, it's likely the Constitution will have been suspended, and in the latter case the guns are the protection and so need to be obvious. The only new law that's needed - it seems to me - is one which would keep the police from hassling a person just because she's got a six-gun on her hip.

Years ago, I used to make medieval-style armor as a hobby. The first time I had put together a more-or-less full set, Halloween was just around the corner, so I planned to wear the whole thing to my local bar on October 31st. But, I also wanted to wear my sword, to complete the look. So, I called the local State Police barracks, because they tended to be more tolerant of questions than the county cops, and asked them if I could legally wear my sword to the bar. "Sure," they said, "unlike what most people will tell you, there's no blade-length limit in Virginia. But, if there's any trouble at the bar, like a fight, the cops will likely detain and question you on general principles if they see you with a real sword." So, opting for a hassle-free night, I left it at home. No cops showed up for any reason, and I had a great time. Turns out the sword would have done little but make it more difficult than it already was to take a pee.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 6 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.19 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000