[Zaitsev]

I hate to get off subject but this deserves a post

Action Alert - Pennsylvania Residents

Don't let Pennsylvania lawmakers take away your autoloading or pump-action hunting rifles!

In an effort to further restrict your Second Ammendment rights several members of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives have introduced legislation (HB 2451) that would further restrict gun ownership rights in the state. According to one of the bill's co-sponsors, state Rep. T.J. Rooney, D-Northampton, "I think that, in today's practical society, there are exceptions to protected rights."

This bill, which is co-sponsored by 23 members of the House, goes above and beyond the current federal "assault weapons ban" to also include firearms currently used for hunting and sporting purposes. Pennsylvania residents should remember that their state Constitution clearly states, "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves shall not be questioned."

Please take five minutes of your time and protect your Second Amendment rights. Contact your state Representative today and have them oppose House Bill 2451!

This was taken off of Remingtons Political website

 

[Jeff_850]

is a little off topic perhapes it would abeen better in the misc section?
but i agree that its an important post... ill forward it to some PA residents i know and some boards that i either run or am a member of

 

[Yimmy]

re

"restrict your Second Ammendment rights"

I do not mean to give the grounds to an argument; but could someone explain to me how the "Second Ammendment", gives civillians the lawful right to own a rifle?

I have seen it argued often, yet I have never seen anyone say exactly why...

 

[Zaitsev]

Yimmy,

This is just part of the Second Amendment right Amendment II--

"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."

All Citizens have had Firearms since the begining of this country why change it now? And if they ban all of these weapons Troublemakers or Ciminals WILL STILL HAVE THEM!

 

[APK]

Yimmy wrote:

I do not mean to give the grounds to an argument; but could someone explain to me how the "Second Ammendment", gives civillians the lawful right to own a rifle?

I also do not mean to start an argument here Yimmy, but what part of

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

is unclear?

 

[Yimmy]

re

Well you see, how I understand the 2nd ammendment; it does not give civillians the right to bear arms, it gives militias the right to bear arms; now that Americas armed forces have become profesional I would say said militias of hundreds of years ago have now evolved into your National Gaurd.

Causing to mean any people of America can join the National Guard and have a weapon, be it in the care of the NG armoury.

 

[mele]

There in lies the large debate.

It clearly says the right of the people shall not be infringed, it did not say militia or army, but people do associate it with the first part which says a well regulated militia. If you actually go back and research what the founding fathers of the USA based that amendment on, it becomes clear that they recognized that a people that could not defend themselves and fight for their freedoms, were not free at all.

Also, what needs to be clear is that the national guard is clearly not the militia, the national guard is simply part time professional soldiers, directed by the exact same officers that run the regular army.

It is even widely believed by many that the militias referred to in the 2nd amendment are militias of the people to protect themselves from government itself, to prevent the same sort of tyranny that caused the revolutionary war. (or Hitler Germany to give a more recent example. He banned guns in 1936 I believe it was). Ol' Ben Franklin actually felt a revolution every so often was good for a country....

The argument most use is that no matter how much you ban guns, all it does is take the guns out of the law abiding citizens and puts them in the hands of the criminals. Even in England, in the year leading up to march 2003, there were 10,000+ gun crimes (which continues to increase, BTW). What doesn't get reported in the USA is how many times guns were used to PREVENT crime, or save a life.

anyway... I understand you are in the UK, so I'm trying to give a better understanding of how it is in the USA. In our eyes, there was a darn good reason why the 2nd amendment was added, and yes, many argue the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments) are written in level of priority, putting the right to bare arms 2nd only to free speech in terms of importance to the founding fathers.

good discussion

MEL

 

[Jeff_850]

Well said Mel:
the national guard is NOT a militia it is a PROFESSIONAL military force that takes orders from the same commander in cheif
and yes the 2nd amendment gives us the right to arm ourselves and protect ourselves against criminals or even against an oppressive government should we ever have one... lets all hope we dont ever
and yes Hitler did ban guns so he could round people up and kill em later
could he have easily and efficiently eliminated 6 million armed Jews?
and yes criminals would always have them regardless of the laws
my opinion on the 2nd amendment is that it was the 2nd amendment cause it is the 2nd most important right we have only less important than free speach
and citizens armed does more good than harm in this country

 

[Zaitsev]

Another thing WE HAVENT BEEN ATTACKED BY NOTHER COUNTRY SINCE 1775. The reason being ALMOST ALL of the CITIZENS HAE ATLEAST ONE FIREARM IN THEIR HOME. Now if we couldnt have guns we would have been over run by now dont you think?

 

[Yimmy]

re

Don't you think you are being just a little flippant concerning my point?

I never said the National Guard was a militia, I said the militias of old have evolved into the National Guard.

The ammendment was written in the context of the time (where militias were used frequently to back up otherwise inferior profesional armies); these days there is no such this as a militia in practice, at least not in the developed world.

I am not saying I am against civillians being able to own weapons, I am saying the second ammendment in my opinion is poorly used to justify it.
Also, I think it is a tad overboard to suggest America has not been invaded simply due to civillians being armed, I would say a huge navy and later nuclear weaponry would have something more to do with it.

 

[Jeff_850]

how is the 2nd amendment poorly used when it says "The right to bear and keep arms shall not be infringed"???

 

[Zaitsev]

Yimmy,

Ok so we have a Navy and Nuclear bombs but who in the hell is gonna drop a nuke on their own country or anywhere for that matter? IOf you drop one nuke it effects the WHOLE WORLD not just oe country.

 

[Yimmy]

re

Zaitsev, my point is, one nuclear bomb is a far greater deterrant to attack than 1000 armed civillians.

As for the comment of, "how is the 2nd amendment poorly used when it says "The right to bear and keep arms shall not be infringed"???"

It is poorly used because people do not tend to use it as an argument for people being able to bear arms, people use it to state it should be legal to own a weapon and keep it at home.

Stating that the right to bear arms should not be infringed upon can be interpreted in any number of ways; i take it to mean as i previously stated, that any civillian can join the NG and have a rifle held in the armoury.

 

[muzzleblast]

I'm just a Canadian, so I could be wrong, feel free to correct me if I am.

I always thought that the criteria to be considered "militia" was that you were an able bodied man from 17 years old an up.

In Yimmy's favor, I can see your point...But that amendment is a part of the US Constitution...and, it has never been updated to relfect the fact there is a NG now...but the NG are civillian soldiers, and not militia. For example, I don't think it would be the duty of the militia to go to Iraq, however, that is the duty of the NG...So, as long as the 2nd amendment has not been changed, I think words like "The People" speak for themselves.

In the favor of Zaitsev, he means since 1775, I think...back when there were no nukes and the navy was made of wood. But anyway, thats off topic. Who would you rather invade? A country that has been disarmed? Or a country in which a good many people own personal firearms. In a SHTF scenario I would feel pretty safe in the USA. Or in Canada. (We own just as many firearms per capita).

So I see what Zaitsev is saying. A MILITIA (Of the people, not auxiliary branches of the MILITARY) of armed PEOPLE is one hell of a deterrent no matter what country we are talking about, isn't it?

Mel, I think the number of Americans who use firearms to prevent crime every year averages close to 2 million...That speaks for itself too, since 2 million people are not shot every year, no?

Very good discussion.

Ah, and by the way, I don't see why it should not mean people are not to keep their gun at home...One NG armory with all the weapons? Thats just poor tactics...What good would the militia be if they did not have ready and easy access to their gear?

 

[Yimmy]

re

But you are basing your argument on there being a militia, which there is not any more....

The NG is in effect a well orgainised militia, under a different name. After all, it is a place where civillians are given training, and called up in times of need. Of course there are differences, but I can say with confidence that you will not find an organisation in America today which better resembles a militia.

 

[subThermal]

*yawn* Political Topics suck. Period.

Rifles, Shotguns, Handguns should stay. Automatics should go. I've yet to see a good debate why anyone should be allowed to have an automatic weapon in thier home.

And, for those, obvious college political degree holders, the ammendment never said you can own more than 2 guns, never said what type of arms. It is really too open ended, and will soon be abused. Legally, I don't think it would be against the constitution for them to ban more than 3 guns in any household they way it is written.

You can take it for what it means, or take it word for word. Either way you get burned.

 

[muzzleblast]

Technically, everyone is the militia.

But, you're right SubThermal...The 2nd Amendment is a two edged sword. It truly can cut both ways.

For example, like you said about automatics...I think somewhere in the amendment it says that militia weapons should be of the type used in the military, or some such. Ar 15's? Sure. M240's? Hmmmm....nah.

I agree though...this ain't political debate.com, its SniperCentral. With that in mind I withdraw from the debate lol. Anyone who wants to offline me, go ahead, but I'm over and out!

 

[Shoe]

WE HAVENT BEEN ATTACKED BY NOTHER COUNTRY SINCE 1775

Well, there was that entire World War 2 bit...

 

[CM2k]

Re: re

But you are basing your argument on there being a militia, which there is not any more....

The NG is in effect a well orgainised militia, under a different name. After all, it is a place where civillians are given training, and called up in times of need. Of course there are differences, but I can say with confidence that you will not find an organisation in America today which better resembles a militia.

The way in which the second ammendment was referring to the people's right to bear arms has changed. It is no longer because of a militia, but more because it is now a right to bear arms. Everyone owns a gun, and likes it, so why should the government tell it's own people what to do? It's supposed to work the other way around.

Arguements to take away firearms or restrict and prohibit firearms usually take the guise of "It's good for the people". In many cases, yes. Yes it is. But, to draw from a similar case, it's like banning homosexuality, homosexuality being deemed wrong by many. Some may feel better, and more protected by this, but, in reality, it can still cause harm. Same applies here. Banning firearms can profit, yes. They are used as weapons, yes.

But, that is a problem of culture. Take Canada, for instance. Muzzleblast pointed out that we have just as many firearms per capita as the US. So, in theory, we should have just as many murders per 100,000 as the US. Well, we only have about 1/5. The problem being that in the US, crime begets crime. It's not like every criminal you run into is going to just one day up and say "Man, **** crime. I'm getting a job", so their actions typically brush off an influence others. Others see him stealing. Some will decide that they should do it as well, and they'll give it a shot. Monkey see, monkey do, so you'll see little or no drop in crime.

There is no real solid way to stop firearms from being used as weapons for murders. If they want illegal weapons, they will get illegal weapons. Banning all firearms from the populace will cause more harm than the 10,000 murders a year caused by firearms. That, and if a criminal really wants to, he can just stab a man, or hit him with a car. Guns make things easier, yes, but the desire is still there.

 

[subThermal]

I would also like to point out canada doesnt have nearly the minority and illegal alien "problems" the U.S. has. By problems, I mean crime rate per/race/type of crime.

Me? I'll probably open a resturaunt in Wyoming and die of old age there.