What about pop tarts?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The 2nd Amendment
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
This is exactly the type of "enemy" the US military has been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, in fact, nearly all military training basically revolves around fighting the average citizen with an assault rifle and homemade explosives, because that is who the enemy is right now.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Last edited:
Octavia156
OTO/EGC
Every wo/man should have the right to defend hirself.
There was a time (under our previous idiotic government) that a couple was sued by a burglar who injured himself whilst robbing their house, and the poor farmer who was sensationally charged for finally and frustratedly shooting at the young man that had been contiunally robbing and vandalising his property for years.
But I don't understand why Americans want to own semi automatic weapons.
I'd rather live in a country where a small minority are illegally armed, as opposed to a country where the overall majority are legally armed.
As the USA contiunally shows the world, the latter is a recipe for disaster, and as we demonstrate - totally unnecessary.
There was a time (under our previous idiotic government) that a couple was sued by a burglar who injured himself whilst robbing their house, and the poor farmer who was sensationally charged for finally and frustratedly shooting at the young man that had been contiunally robbing and vandalising his property for years.
But I don't understand why Americans want to own semi automatic weapons.
I'd rather live in a country where a small minority are illegally armed, as opposed to a country where the overall majority are legally armed.
As the USA contiunally shows the world, the latter is a recipe for disaster, and as we demonstrate - totally unnecessary.
Last edited:
Draka
Wonder Woman
No. At least not for this country, not anymore.
Absolutely - the 2nd Amendment is vital to this nation as it protects the individual right to defend life and property.
Xeper.
/Adramelek\
Does it? The second amendment says nothing about defending life and property. It seems to be entirely about national security and overthrowing governments to me.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Pop Tarts should be banned on GP.....but don't touch my Toaster Strudel...:drool:
To the extent that its interpretation has given carte blanche to people to use a gun to "defend" their home, no.
I think you're right.
I'd support changing the wording of the 2nd to remove the "well-regulated militia" (which has been obsolete sine the National Guard Status Act of 1933, if not before) and inserting a clause to ensure self-defense on an individual level.
I think it's obvious that defending life and property is a part of its premise.
But even that is not what the amendment was for. Its purpose was to insure the country from possible despotism by the "executive power," utilizing the people (as militia). It's about the country, not the people.
The 2nd Amendment was meant for the country and the individual.
Skwim
Veteran Member
"A well-regulated militia" defines the "why" of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Removing the clause effectively removes the sole reason for the amendment's existence. And the way I see it, if this reason is no longer valid then there is no reason to retain the amendment. If the people want the right to buy Pop Tarts then let them petition their Congressmen for it.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Personally I interpret this as individual rights. People involved in the militia actually owned their guns to my knowledge. I think there was foresight regarding the ownership of personal arms.
Sadly though, it's such a grey area for interpretation I don't think it will ever be clear what the founding fathers actually meant.
Arming the individual to protect the family and property of the individual implies ownership, which is already covered under the 4th Amendment*. Arming the individual to protect himself, though, against other individuals who are simliarly armed, and for the same reason, defies a democracy and implies anarchy.
*"The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose." Sir Edward Coke
Last edited:
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
:yes:
That's how I understand the thoughts behind the 2nd. At least, that's how it was explained to me years ago.
But they didn't foresee the huge array of extreme weapons (assault rifles, 50mm, fully auto, and more). I don't think they would even imagine that the police today are starting to use drones (bought from the military, if I understand it right). It's almost have become a race between law enforcement and the villains. The bad guys using illegal explosive rounds and the police carries more weapons in the trunks. And the law abiding citizens get stuck in between.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
The appeal to hopelessness.
There are always the writings of political commentators of the era.