I'm a leftie. Here is my take on the second amendment

[mdmc]

The reason that the second amendment is so important is that it allows you the arms, the means, to overthrow our government once our government begins to care more about halliburton than it does about our citizenry.

What say you, DU?
:dem:

[Dookus]

1. I say

your .45 won't do much against the government's weaponry.

In order for us to have any chance against the most powerful military in the history of the world, you'd have to approve individual ownership of MOABS, nukes, tanks, etc. etc.

Does the 2nd Amendment give me the right to own a nuclear bomb?

[mdmc]

4. Only if your named Entergy. Give me your take, sir.

What does the 2nd Amendment mean to you? What do you think it meant when it was created?

My definition kinda does include the right to own nukes, and that is just too far. I should tone it down.

[Dookus]

11. The only honest answer is

"I don't know". Clearly, the amendment can be read two different ways, depending on which half of the sentence you stress.

Only one party can make the definitive claim as to what it means, and that's the Supreme Court of the United States, and they have have managed to avoid doing so for 215 years.

But to get back the earlier point - IF in fact the purpose of the amendment is to allow citizens to fight the government (which certainly isn't stated anywhere in the 2nd amendment: in fact, a well-regulated militia presumes a regulating body - the government), then one would have to allow individual ownership of a class of weapons capable of fighting the US military.

I'm not sure "A nuke in every garage" will do much to improve our lives.

[mdmc]

19. I think that the essence is one of ownership, of securing property

being able to create an army, a police force, and also granting the people the right to overthrow the government.

Some arms that we bear can only legally be done through via the armed forces, police force, etc.

Nukes should not be owned by anyone, governments included, imo. Maybe save a couple for the possible alien invasion.

[Dookus]

20. well

we're having two discussions here.

One is whether is it is right and reasonable for people to own very destructive weapons. I think we agree on the answer to that.

The second one, and more strictly related to your original question, is DOES the 2nd Amendment, in fact, protect our right to bear arms against the government? I don't think the 2nd Amendment states that, and in fact, I think the mention of a well-regulated militia argues AGAINST that opinion.

However, IF the amendment does exist to allow us to use arms against the government, then I can find no logical reason why the government alone should get the good stuff.

[Barret]

62. What I THINK it may have been for

Was indeed to allow the overthrow of the government - but more specifically the FEDERAL government. I read the amendment to give STATES the right to form their own militia INDEPENDENT from the federal government. Now this could have been for either

1. People who feared the federal government, and thus wanted the states to be able to militarily defend themselves from it should it ever go dictatorship on them

OR

2. People in the states didn't want to depend entirely on the federal military for defense.

I am sure one of the people behind the amendment would probably have stated in writing somewhere exactly WHY they wanted that amendment. Perhaps some historian can be consulted.

If you ask me though the whole "it's so we can overthrow the government" line is from nut case right wingers sitting around in their little militia club everytime a dem is in office wondering when they can have an excuse to overthrow a democratically elected democrat. It's obvious the republican party does not believe in democracy or they would not have stolen the last election. They like to have a violent overthrow option available to them apparently, and they believe the 2nd amendment gives them the right to sit around waiting for a democrat to give them reason (in their minds) to take over.

[BlueCollar]

5. a bunch of guys with AK-47s and RPGs

seem to be doing an effective job in a small country in the ME called IRAQ...

and they used small arms against the US and France in Indochina.

The poster has it right...without the second amendment only agencies of the State would be armed...

[Dookus]

7. they've defeated the US military?

I missed that somewhere.

[BlueCollar]

15. more to the point

the "Coalition" hasn't defeated them...

[Dookus]

18. true

but that's really not indicative of much. We certainly haven't brought anywhere close to the full power of the US military to bear on the situation. If our government felt itself on the edge of extinction, they may try a little harder.

[Crachet2004]

67. They ARE trying as hard as they can, and stay within the pale of...

Civilized society and a body count acceptable to the American People. If we use our full power, bomb cities, etc...it is called an atrocity against civilian populations.

The alternative is to use more men on the ground...go after the fighters man to man, dig them out of the population. There is NO other way. The more we use this method, the higher the body count goes...and there will be a point where it is SO high, it becomes politically unacceptable. And remember, for every fighter we kill, we are probably creating several more.

The Iraqi's simply aren't "shocked" or "awed". They are going to fight, and since we cannot take a high body count, or commit atrocities, we are going to lose...just like Vietnam.

Bush lied to everyone. We shouldn't even be there.

[Spiffarino]

94. Insurgents didn't win many battles in Vietnam, nor in Afghanistan...

...and they haven't won any in Iraq. What did happen was that the invading forces found it far too costly to remain in those places over the long haul. The same thing happened to the British in the American Revolution.

I have to agree with the original poster. When the government ceases to work for the people, it becomes incumbent upon the people to change the government. We should certainly resist peacefully as long as possible; but when dissent is met with violence, arrest, and perpetual detention; and when our voting rights are trampled; it may become necessary to take dramatic action to change the government's attitude.

It's exactly why we fought the British in the 18th century, and Thomas Jefferson hadn't forgotten that lesson when he worked to get the Second Amendment written into the Bill of Rights.

[mdmc]

21. in Afghanistan

against Russia.
Granted they got some help for us and Rambo (I just saw Rambo III where Rambo helps against <the EVIL> Soviet Union. Why didn't I know this movie existed?).

[Dookus]

23. again

an invading/occupying force generally uses a fraction of the available power of the occupying government.

If the Soviets thought that Afghanistan was going to cause the collapse of its government, it'd be a glass-topped parking lot today.

[PeaceForever]

49. Not defeated, but are still resisting effectively.

In a guerilla war, the armed populace can never really "defeat" the more powerful army. But it can steadily weaken it.

[jukes]

115. Viet Nam

Korea, soon iraq.

i wd never suggest insurrection against our legal government, but what if they had to deal w/the same mess here, simultaneously?

[Crachet2004]

66. Exactly right. I think a lot of Americans are more "shocked and awed",

By our high-tech, overpriced military, than are the Iraquis...who are doing a pretty credible job armed with nothing but communist-era eastern-bloc surplus.

But yeah, the 2nd Amendment is definitely to balance the Police Power of the Federal Govt.

When only agents of the State are armed, you live in a Police State.

[Shoeempress]

6. The Mahdi Army seems to be doing pretty well against our army.

Granted the 2nd amendment does not address the issue of Shoulder fired rockets, but the weapons they have does seem to be working. And although I am way left of center, I am considering the purchase of a gun. I'm not sure what's going to happen if Bush re-steals the election this time. Somehow I don't see a rose revolution working with this gang of thieves.

[tabasco]

8. You're making assumptions that may be wrong.

In the event of some kind of revolution, why do you assume that the military, or the entire military, would be on the side of the rulers? Take a look at history. Militaries or parts thereof have often gone over to the rebels.
I think everybody should be allowed to own a bolt-action rifle or a shotgun. I don't care if handguns are outlawed because they serve no real purpose in a militia. I was in charge of regular army infantry units and nobody carried pistols (except the medics).

[Dookus]

16. well I think

the question is about what the amendment means and why it was put there. If the reason for it was, in fact, to allow the populace to fight against the government (which I disagree with, but that's what we're discussing) then as the government's weaponry got more powerful, so should that of the populace. At the time it was written, the government really didn't have bigger and better guns than were available to individuals. That has changed drastically.

[tabasco]

26. As far as banding together to fight the government ...

(in a hypothetical revolution) I'm afraid the tanks and mortars would have to wait for either part of the military to come aboard or for an arsenal to be taken. But don't underestimate the effectiveness of light infantry. I think that's what the authors of the Second Amendment contemplated. A whole lot of people with accurate rifles can be a big military problem. Especially in urban or other difficult terrain.
All weapons other than rifles and shotguns are just too dangerous on the streets and should be regulated. I personally favor a handgun ban. They have no real value to a militia and are a great problem for law & order.

edit typo

[Columbia]

101. You should tell the military to turn in their handguns then

Since they have no real value to them.

[PeaceForever]

50. Seriously, study the history of colonial and early America.

At the time the Constitution was written, the "militia" was made up of EVERY able-bodied adult male in the country.

Really I'm kind of against the idea of people owning firearms, but as a student of history (it was my major in college), I was surprised to discover what exactly the militia was in the late 18th Century. It wasn't the National Guard.

[BiggJawn]

45. They're doing just fine w/o tanks and MOABs in Mosul, aren't they?

The events of the last year since Rumsferatu found out that somebody forgot to tell the Iraqi people about the roses and open arms and legs they were supposed to greet our troops with sort of renders your "but they have Tanks! and Fighter jets! and BOMBS!!!" argument rather moot, doesn't it?

So Rummy thinks he can fight a 2-front war. Wonder what he thinks about adding a THIRD front? Right HERE.

Yes, yes, I know, "Resistance is FUTILE". They want us to believe that. They wake up in the middle of the night hoping that. But you know what? The so-called "Baathist Sympathizers" have shown us (me, anyway) that our mighty Army is not invincible, just like Osama Bin-Forgotten showed the Soviets the mighty Red Army was not invincible, either.

[Dookus]

47. again

and YET again...

We have not brought the full weight of the US military to bear there. If they threatened the existence of the United States, they would be defeated.

As I've said many times in this thread, using examples of small-arms being used to frustrate an occupying army is NOT terribly relative to the central question of this thread.

[PeaceForever]

51. We would also be defeated though.

The US cannot nuke other countries at will. The reason is that we're not the only country that has nukes. I guarantee you, you would not want to see what would happen when the UN condemns the US and imposes economic sanctions. You would not want to see the rest of the world organizing a military alliance against our country. We could not "win" that war.

[Crachet2004]

68. The scenario you just mentioned is that of "George Washingtons Dream".

A nightmare really, that he had at, I believe, Valley Forge-full of apocalyptic symbolism...and final victory, for America. But not before terrible destruction had occurred, and not without Divine intervention.

But certainly, if Bush and his gang of fools are not reined in, we may be in just such a jam-maybe sooner than anyone thinks.

[BiggJawn]

70. Well, I suppose if the PNACer's wanted to stand on a pile of skulls...

They could nuke their own country to "put down" any insurection, but that's a pretty good way to "Lose the Peace", isn't it?

Sure, they could put down Iraq in a week. Pull everyone back and order carpet bombing that made Hanoi look like a half-hearted effort, but they're not THAT crazy, are they? the "Coalition of the Shilling" would pull out faster than a teen boy hearing his girlfriend's parent's car in the driveway.

And I think the irrelevant UN might have a few things to say about it, too.

You don't understand. We HAVE to believe we have the power to take back our country by any means possible. To say "oh, they have tanks and guns and NUKES!" shit, we might as well drink the fucking Kool-Aid, watch those good-looking young people on FAUX Nooz (they're Fair and Balanced, didja know that?) and not even bother to go vote anymore.

[PeaceForever]

48. What about Iraq?

Doesn't the experience from Iraq show that a citizenry armed with light weapons can effectively resist the most powerful military in the world?

I'm just asking the question and playing devil's advocate here. I'm undecided myself.

[Beam Me Up]

54. Which does the US Military defend -- "the government" or the Constitution?

First of all, we have to ask what "the government" is.
Is "the government" of the United States today those duly elected officials that have sworn oaths to the Constitution? Certainly that is the way things are made to appear and, perhaps, in many regards that is the way things actually are. That "government," has power within certain limits to achieve certain aims on behalf of the people.

However, is there not another "government," a "secret government," comprised of very wealthy, privileged and powerful "persons", both natural and corporate, who use the aforementioned "government" to further solidify their hegemony and control outside Constitutional reach?

The Military is sworn to protect the Constitution but the hand-in-glove national-security-state /military-industrial-complex has to a very large extent usurped both the Constitutionally derived "government" AND Military.

As citizens of the United States with all the goodies that provides, we are not used to thinking of ourselves as being in an OCCUPIED country. But that is precisely where we are. Worse, the beast the actually rules us is sustained moment by moment by our own selfishness and ingnorance.

This happens when dollars become more important than ideals.

[Sirveri]

79. the military is sworn to two things.

They are suppossed to protect the constitution. However they also are suppossed to obey the orders of the CinC.

In either case, in the event of a civil war the army and all branches of the military would likely start to fight each other as well. The people in the military aren't all incredibly stupid brainwashed morons.

[Beam Me Up]

100. "The people in the military . . .

. . . aren't all incredibly stupid brainwashed morons."

I agree, but who do they really serve? Would they ever go against the interests of the 'national-security-state' / 'military-industrial-complex' nexus? Would they ever defend THE PEOPLE against the tyranny of this nexus itself? THEY, far more than we, have the power to do so. THEY, far more than we, have the intelligence networks capable of discovering and presenting what the ACTUAL chains of command for the terrorist networks are. They COULD, if they so chose, DISCLOSE the illegal arms and drugs trades that are feeding global insecurity. But will they? I'm not optimistic. I WANT to be, I'd really like for someone to rescue us from this nightmare, but I remain skeptical.

[Sirveri]

111. They can't disclose anything like that.

Because the Average they is a enlisted man, and thus doesn't have access to that information. I honestly believe that there would likely be a large split down the basic enlisted men should a civil war scenario occur. The problem with the military is that basically they have to be told what to do, or they will just sort of sit around doing nothing. Generally they also won't ask why when told to do something as well. That's military training for you though.

[sendero]

55. You've apparently..

.... never heard of guerilla warfare.

Since when has any army won one of those against a numerous and well-armed (with guns of the sort Americans own) opponent?

Tanks are useless when you are outnumbered 100 to 1 and the enemy is everywhere and nowhere.

[TransitJohn]

95. No kidding

What's a .45 gonna do against an Apache Helicopter?

[FeebMaster]

104. I think a better question is

what is an Apache helicopter going to do against a guy with a concealed .45 walking down the streets of NYC.

[TransitJohn]

109. Waste him

and the rest of the block. He'd obviously be in an insurgency area.

[FeebMaster]

110. Right. An insurgency area.

Maybe they should just use B-52s and carpet bomb the city to be safe. :eyes:

[jukes]

114. i don't know

the iraqis are doing pretty well...

[MrBenchley]

2. Ahem...

Boy, we sure have a lot of "second amendment democrats" itching to plug their fellow citizens, don't we?

Seems like the number picked up after Rush Limbaugh started calling us a "hate site" too....

[mdmc]

12. Did Rush really mention DU by name?

I had no idea that this site was so large and well know. I don't know anybody that posts here personally. I always thought that we were a tiny outfit, until Skinner announced that DU raised $40 k for Kerry. I wonder if Rush ever talks about That...

[MrBenchley]

14. Yup, he did....

Own a gun? Want to support the Democratic ticket? Why not go to any gun owner discussion forum and put up some Democratic talking point?

Right now those forums are nothing but dittomonkey lies and bigotry...

[mdmc]

25. there is a local hunter club that works locally to save open lands

. Some of the guys there mention this theory of self defense to me, and I kinda ate it up.

[LoZoccolo]

99. Yes, we all know that...

...we have to agree with every single liberal point on every issue to remain here.

[MrBenchley]

108. Jeepers...

So few people I know think that there's anything exclusively liberal about not avidly planning to shoot their fellow citizens....

[Warpy]

3. I say those little popguns aren't going to do you a damned bit of good

against planes, tanks, missiles and artillery. However, if they help you sleep at night, be my guest.

[Shoeempress]

9. You know the government won't launch planes and missiles against it's

citizens. Hell they wouldn't fire on the hijacked planes on 9-11

[mdmc]

41. welcome to DU

Yup, our govt is good like that. :~)

[MUSTANG_2004]

10. Tell it to Iraq

I think we're seeing there how difficult it is to subdue a populace, even when they don't have "planes, tanks, missiles and artillery."

[tabasco]

28. Tell that to the Viet Cong.

They weren't humping too many tanks down the Ho Chi Minh trail.

[Dookus]

29. Do you believe

that we could NOT have defeated the Viet Cong given the political will to do so?

[tabasco]

36. And left with the largest parking lot in the world.

Hell, if we had the political will, we could destroy all life on the planet. Would that be a victory? Who willl have the political will to win in a hypothetical revolution? The government in a future hypothetical US revolution would hopefully not want to create a giant parking lot.

[mdmc]

38. and the rebels would want to keep the USA from becoming a

parking lot.

[Dookus]

42. I agree

but it's not quite logical to say that because the Viet Cong weren't defeated, that small arms can therefore defeat the full power of the US Government.

The Viet Cong did not directly threaten the existence of the United States. If they had, they would've been beaten, and beaten badly. Showing examples of small arms being used against powerful militaries doesn't really address the central question of this thread.

[Crachet2004]

69. Russia extended their nuclear umbrella over them, so no, I don't.

I DO think we would still be there to this day, had we continued the ground war.

Eastern tactics are to melt away when you are strong, only to reappear, where you are weak.

The purpose is to wear you down...and you cannot kill as many as are born-and even if you could, again, the name for that is atrocity.

[Trillo]

13. Seems kinda violent....

I continue to believe our civil war can be won peacefully with pens. Perhaps it's optimistic to think so.

The 2nd amendment provides a disincentive for foot soldiers armed with automatic weapons to come marching up our shores. A well-armed populace can at least defend itself (to some degree) while the same country's military and national guard are tied up in foreign expeditions.

Self-defense (even just within one's own home) seems to be a necessity of animal life since the beginning.

[MrBenchley]

17. Worth noting that the Second Amendment

concerns only the right of us all collectively to have a well regulated militia for the defense of a free state...as the courts have ruled again and again and again...

"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration. "

http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html

[Elwood P Dowd]

24. Quotes from our founding fathers

"...to disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them..."

-George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380.

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...nothwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

-James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46, at 243-244.

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all the world would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived the use of them..."

Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894).

"A free people ought...to be armed..."

-George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."

-Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution...Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia, ...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 (2d ed. Richmond, 1805). Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

-Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d Ed. Philadelphia, 1836.

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8.

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

-Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, June 1776.

"Arms in the hands of citizens be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense..."

-John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788)

"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government."

-Thomas Jefferson

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."

-Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850.

[mdmc]

31. Tommy J

"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government."

[MrBenchley]

34. George Mason...who voted against the Constitution....

This obscure yobbo is the right wingers favorite founding father....

Check out the rest of those quotes....they're either bogus, or so selectively snipped as to mean the opposite of what the full quote says.

The Samuel Adams quote is especially funny, since A) there's no record that Adams actually was the one there who said it; and B) the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts then proceeded to vote against that idea...

[robcon]

56. That's a misleading story, MrBenchley

The only reason that Mason voted against the Constitution is that he insisted that it contain the Bill of Rights, which were later amended.

Mason is, in effect, the greatest proponent of the Bill of Rights of all the founding fathers.

[MrBenchley]

92. Mason is the right wing's patron saint

He's an obscure gump who voted against the Constitution and had nothing to do with drafting the Bill of Rights...

[Mr_Spock]

103. "When the citizens fear their government, you have tyranny."

"When the government fears it's citizens, you have freedom"

Thomas Jefferson

Don't give me a hard time if the quote isn't exact - it's from memory.

Our current government is tyrannical and is striking fear into it's citizens. The government needs to fear it's citizens - if part of that means an armed independent citizenry, then so be it. If the "sum of all fears" were to happen and the lying mass-murdering war-criminal was reelected, I will be ready to defend myself from his jack-booted thugs.

[mdmc]

27. interesting point

I have to look up anachronistic. on edit. I agree with the aclu on their follow up points, but suggest that the posistion could be anachronistic and futuristic at the same time.

[MrBenchley]

35. Not unless flintlocks make a comeback....

[mdmc]

39. flintlocks?

whats that?

[Trillo]

44. Thanks for the link.

There's a typo in the ACLU's quote of the second amendment. As our forefathers wrote the constitution, "Militia" and "Arms" is capitalized with 'small caps', "State" is fully capitalized. This is as close as typical character sets can approximate what was handwritten.

Here's a more flexible HTML example (with typograpical weaknesses of its own):
Article the fourth.....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.


The "ia" ending in militia is used in the Old English plural sense, and my understanding is that it can be used as first, second, or third person. It appears to be a holdover grammar convention from Old English, during the transition to the new English that had mostly gelled by 1600. "Militate comes from Latin militatus, past participle of militare, "to serve as a soldier," from miles, milit-, "a soldier.""
http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/2001/08/06.html
It follows that milit appended with an ia refers to the plural soldiers.

How does "a well regulated Militia" and " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms", relate to a free State, since an unfree State can also have a military or militaries?


edit, typo, HTML fine-tuning

[mdmc]

46. both a free state and a regime bear arms

thats how they relate.

[PeaceForever]

53. Interesting perspective from the ACLU

I had never thought of the 2nd Amendment that way. Interesting.

[MrBenchley]

93. And backed up by every court decision

[J Williams]

22. The Ultimate Weapon

Actually, it will be the "pen" that proves mightier than the "sword" (or gun or bomb).

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but they are mighty for pulling down strongholds."

That's written in the New Testament Bible, and even though Bush and the Religious Right don't have a clue as to what it means, it is true.

Religious bigots and hypocrites like Bush have a big surprise in store for them.

[BlueCollar]

30. agreed

and welcome to DU

[mdmc]

33. great post

welcome to DU! Did you hear that Rush was talking about us?

[Lori Price CLG]

32. Here is my take.

Arming the Left: Is the time now? --by Charles Southwell "As long as we pose no REAL threat to the powers-that-be, to what is shaping up into a dictatorship, we will continue to be ignored. Right now, we are ignored because we present no organized power to fight this onslaught of anti-democratic, totalitarian government that we are up against..."

Lori Price
http://www.legitgov.org/

[mdmc]

37. yikes! That Southwell article scares me! I like the legitgov site

At first I thought it was going to be a super crazy link, based on my take of the southwell article. The site has alot of great info and links.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. "..a well regulated milita."

Seems pretty clearcut to me. Had my fill of guns in the marines. Besides, if you're thinking of taking on an Abrams tank or an Apache helicopter with a rifle, you have my sympathy.

[neverborn]

43. Well, yes. It does.

Supreme Court, U.S. vs. Miller (1939):
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appear from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense..."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

58. Do you consider some goober with a can of beer and a rifle

"well regulated"? Or, some cami-clad rambo wannabees?

[Barret]

63. "Capable of acting in concert for the common defense"

Do you consider a bunch of right wing nuts sitting around in their garage gun club drunk off their ass wondering when a democrat will give them reason to overthrow the government to be a group of people "capable of acting in concert for the common defense"?

In order to be "capable of acting in concert" you need regulation and training. (Read: a militia, standing army, etc) That means actually training and being prepared to work together. Not sitting around with 5 of your buddies saying "hey guys look at my rifle! it compensates for my small penis".

How many right wing gun owners are actually willing to serve with their gun when the time comes? Apparently not many considering I am not aware of any mass republican enlistment just before the Iraq war which so many of them wanted. If the republican "we have to have our guns" party members aren't willing to serve in a war THEY wanted then they have no business owning a gun for the constitutional purpose of providing for defense. Since they claim Iraq was about to take us out you would think they would have been the first ones grabbing their gun and going to enlist. Funny how it didn't work out that way. Yet, apparently they need a gun so they can put their ass on the line in defense of the country. (yea right)

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

52. I am a liberal

and I own guns.

That's about as far as I can go with the argument, as it's not really one of my "issues."

I'm glad I have the right to have a gun, but I don't think we all need Uzis and shit. I am for the assault weapons ban.

I am a tangle of contradictions on the second, sorry.

[robcon]

57. I think there is a contradiction among some people

We rightly take an expansive view of 1st amendment freedoms, and we should do the same for the 2nd amendment...

-Freedom of speech includes freedom of the spoken, printed, faxed, emailed and posted word.

-Freedom of the press includes not just things that are printed on a press, but also include freedom of radio, TV, internet, telegraph, telephone and other methods unanticipated by the Constitution.

So the 2nd amendment should be read as broadly as the 1st. Unless amended to reduce that freedom, freedom to bear arms is much broader than the mere need to serve in militias.

[OnionPatch]

59. Agree with you mdmc

That's also why I think the second amendment is important. I'm a big leftie in most other ways.

[mdmc]

61. cool-io

:kick:

[Alex146]

60. Do you seriously think you could take the US army

They have technology that can blow up people from thousands of miles away. How would you overthrow the government?

[ronabop]

80. One does not overthrow weaponry.

Revolution is about winning psychology, and individual manpower, not total firepower.

Some examples:
Soviets vs. Afghanistan
Britan vs. Colonies (pick one! pick one I disagree with, and I'll counter with another!)
Soviets vs. Soviets

On a warfare level, it's quite simple. A tank needs a commander. If you can shoot the commander in a bathroom at a bar, you don't need to take out the tank. If you can pick off the misslie technicians, you don't need to have a nuke.

We (meaning the west, or the US) had superior firepower in Korea. We gave up.
We had *vastly* superior firepower in Vietnam. We still lost.

Superior firepower means nothing unless a wasted pile of lifeless rubble means something of value to the victor.

-Bop

[LiberalPersona]

64. Nope

As the government is, the only way it could be overthrown is from within, not by force.

[Guaranteed]

65. Sounds like you have a good understanding of the 2nd Amendment

:)

[mdmc]

112. me?

:hi:

[hansberrym]

71. US v. Miller provides historical background on the second amendment

Consider the preamble, as it is sometimes called, to the Second Amendment and note the parallels to the preamble a contemporary militia act that was cited in US v. Miller:

The General Assembly of Virginia, October, 1785 (12 Hening’s Statutes c. 1, p. 9 et seq.), declared: ‘The defense and safety of the commonwealth depend upon having its citizens properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty.’


Preamble (for lack of a better word) to Second Amendment:
”A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,...”


Note that the phrase "A well regulated militia" has the same meaning as "citizens properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty", and the phrase "security of a free state" has the same meaning as "the defense and safety of the commonwealth". Furthermore the statement A "is necessary" to B, is the same as B "depends" on A.


Note also how the Supreme Court in Miller defined the militia:
"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they <307 U.S. 174, 179> were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. Blackstone’s Commentaries, Vol. 2, Ch. 13, p. 409 points out ‘that king Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom’ and traces the subsequent development and use of such forces."


And how the Miller court used the words "to keep and bear arms" to mean possession or use of arms in the actual holding:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158."

And:

"And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

And:


"The General Assembly of Virginia, October, 1785...It further provided for organization and control of the Militia and directed that ‘All free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years,’ with certain exceptions, ‘shall be inrolled or formed into companies.’ ‘There shall be a private muster of every company once in two months.’ Also that ‘Every officer and soldier shall appear at his respective muster-field on the day appointed, by eleven o’clock in the forenoon, armed, equipped, and accoutred, as follows: ... every non-commissioned officer and private with a good, clean musket carrying an ounce ball, and three feet eight inches long in the barrel, with a good bayonet and iron ramrod well fitted thereto, a cartridge box properly made, to contain and secure twenty cartridges fitted to his musket, a good knapsack and canteen, and moreover, each non-commissioned officer and private shall have at every muster one pound of good <307 U.S. 174, 182> powder, and four pounds of lead, including twenty blind cartridges; and each serjeant shall have a pair of moulds fit to cast balls for their respective companies, to be purchased by the commanding officer out of the monies arising on delinquencies. Provided, That the militia of the counties westward of the Blue Ridge, and the counties below adjoining thereto, shall not be obliged to be armed with muskets, but may have good rifles with proper accoutrements, in lieu thereof. And every of the said officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates, shall constantly keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, ready to be produced whenever called for by his commanding officer. If any private shall make it appear to the satisfaction of the court hereafter to be appointed for trying delinquencies under this act that he is so poor that he cannot purchase the arms herein required, such court shall cause them to be purchased out of the money arising from delinquents."


The Collective Rights advocates reject everything the Supreme Court said about the meaning of the words/terms of the second amendment, and cling to a perverted interpretation of the Court's holding(cited earlier). That holding explains the Supreme Court's rationale for reversing a lower court decision which had overturned, on second amendment grounds, Mr. Miller's earlier conviction for illegally possessing a sawed-off shotgun. The Collective Rights advocates claim to be faithful to the Supreme Court precedent in Miller, yet they substitute their own definitions for the actuall definitions and usage given by the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, every Collective Rights opinion has been decided on the basis of standing, yet the collective rights advocates ignore that the Supreme Court in Miller remanded the Miller case for further proceedings. It is difficult to imagine that the Supreme Court would remand a case for further proceeding if Mr. Miller did not have standing to bring a second amendment defense, or that the Supreme Court would waste the lower court's time determining whether the possession or use of a PARTICULAR weapon had a reasonable relationship to the preservation of a well regulated militia, had it actually been the case that Mr Miller had NO right to keep and bear ANY type of weapon.

[CaTeacher]

72. I say that there is NO reason

for ANY private citizen to own a gun ever.

Why do you need to have the ability to kill someone? And what if you accidentally kill one of your loved ones? How could you ever live with yourself? Don't you realize that most of the people killed with guns in the household are innocent victims (usually the children of the household)?

How could you ever live with yourself if your gun was responsible for killing a child?

[mdmc]

113. here is a couple of reasons

you like to hunt
you like to shoot
you like to collect things.

Yet, I would never want a hobby that ends up killing my kid.

[ProfLefty]

73. I respectfully disagree.

The type of firearms available to us citizens would not allow us to battle the U.S. military competitively. Besides guns are inherantly evil tools designed for and, marketed to evil people with violence on their minds. The elimination of all privately owned firearms from our society would be a tremendous boon and a great benefit to all of us who love peace and our fellow man and woman.

[CaTeacher]

74. Thank you!

Sometimes it is scary how many gun nuts there are here! I thought that this was a site for Democrats--the party of peace!

Sometimes I think I am surrounded by RWers when the subject of guns comes up here. Fighting the military off (?) don't people realize how crazy this is? Sounds like a Timothy McVeigh idea.

[ProfLefty]

75. Yes! Yes! Yes!

This sounds like something that should be posted on a rw militia web site. It is reminescent of the reactionary rantings of timothy mcveigh. There should be no tolerance of any calls to violence on this progressive site.

[Speed8098]

96. In todays world

It's too dangerous for only those in authority to have guns.

I'm not a gun owner............yet.

But if I want to become one, the government should not be able to stop me. Registration, yes. Restriction, no.

[hansberrym]

76. See also the Federalist Papers

http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/federalist/feder28.html

(Excerpt from Federalist #28)
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.


The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny. But in a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!(end quote) (my emphasis)




From Federalist 46:

"RESUMING the subject of the last paper, I proceed to inquire whether the federal government or the State governments will have the advantage with regard to the predilection and support of the people. Notwithstanding the different modes in which they are appointed, we must consider both of them as substantially dependent on the great body of the citizens of the United States. I assume this position here as it respects the first, reserving the proofs for another place. The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents."

and later in Federalist 46:

"The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it."

[CaTeacher]

77. Things have changed quite a bit since the

Federalist papers were written. Thankfully, I feel quite confident that Kerry agrees with me--his voting record has been consistantly anti-gun throughout his time in the Senate.

[ProfLefty]

78. Right you are.

When the federalist papers were written everyone had muskets. You poor misguided gunowners out there who are contemplating a violent overthrow of the US government have nothing in your arsenals that can even slightly compare to current military weaponry. Of course it is your funeral. But please stop and consider at least for just a moment all of the devastation and tragedy which privately owned firearms have wrought upon our society and then think about how much safer and better off we all would be without any privately owned guns in the US. Get the guns!

[hansberrym]

81. Have governments been less likely to slaughter people?

Even a cursory review of the history of the last century should dispel the idea that "things have changed". The amount of persons killed in wars and genocide far outweigh the private acts of murder.


I am grateful that we have the right to defend ourselves against either.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=104&topic_id=2175640&mesg_id=2178022

Protect Gun Rights And Stop Gun Violence.
John Kerry is a gun owner and hunter, and both he and John Edwards support the Second Amendment right of law-abiding American adults to own guns. But like all of our rights, gun rights come with responsibilities, and those rights allow for reasonable measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists. John Kerry's mainstream agenda means enforcing the gun laws on the books, closing the gun show loophole, and extending the assault weapons ban. These are all measures that George Bush endorsed but has failed to accomplish.

[CaTeacher]

88. I would advise you to look at Kerry's Senate

voting record. Based on his past record, I feel very confident that on this issue he is much closer the left than to the point of view of the RW extremists.

What baffles me is how all these RW extremist gun nuts have ended up here at DU? Wouldn't they feel more at home on a RW website? The left is the party of PEACE.

[Paladin]

97. There's Nothing Accidental.......

...about the droves of gun rights activists turning up in DU, demanding that the Democratic party adopt a Republican, NRA-friendly position on the right to keep and bear arms. These people have been appearing in groups for years down in the Justice/Public Safety Gun Dungeon here at DU. The dead giveaway about these people? They invariably trash Democratic politicians at about five times the rate they criticize Republicans, all the while piously proclaiming that they are for-real Democrats......

[FeebMaster]

105. You're just upset that the Republicans pass all the

good gun control.

[hansberrym]

118. One might check out the Democratic party platform and its

support for the right to own firearms, in addition to Kerry and Edwards support for same.



From the party platform:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=104&topic_id=2175640&mesg_id=2178075
"We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do"



Maybe the Democratic party, in addition to DU, has been overrun by RW gun nut extremists, or maybe it just looks that way from the point of view of gun-grabbing extremists.

[Columbia]

83. I agree

Let's toss out all our rights while we are at it. They are outdated and unnecessary. The government should have absolute power and never have to fear people asserting their personal sovereignty.

[hansberrym]

86. Do you also have an objection to the 14th Amendment?

Congressional debates on the Fourteenth Amendment as quoted by Justice Hugo Black in his disent in Adamson v. People of Californina.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=332&invol=46&friend=oyez

'Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be-for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature-to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; <332 U.S. 46 , 106> the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments. (my emphasis)



Consider also the second Freedmen's Bureau Bill which was written by the same very progressive congress that gave us the 14th amendment:

"...in consequence of any State or Local law, ordinance, police or other regulation, custom or prejudice, any of the civil rights belonging to white persons, including the right to make or enforce contract, to sue,...and to have full and equal benefits of laws and procedings for the security of person and estate, including the constitutional right of bearing arms , are refused or denied to negroes...it shall be the duty of the President of the United States... to extend protection..." (my emphasis)
(Equal Justice Under Law, Hymann and Wiecek, Harper&Row publishers, copyright 1982)

[Sirveri]

82. When they take away our guns

They have just taken our last line of defense against tyranny. It is easy to beat and humiliate a unarmed and cowed populace. It is another matter entirely if that populace is angry and well armed. Would you die to protect your home and your freedoms? I am willing to bet that a lot of Americans today would say that they would not. I for one am willing to fight for my rights, even against insurmountable odds with which I can not win against. It is wastefull and inefficient, but it's the right thing to do.

Either way, gun control isn't going to matter much, there will be plenty of guns lying around when the time comes.

[hansberrym]

84. "When guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns"

Isn't that a comforting thought?

It is strange to me that so many "liberals" apparently think so.


"If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." -- Edward Abbey

[Sirveri]

85. I am a social libertarian.

Their fiscal policies are pyschotic. But I want all the civil rights I can get.

I want to be able to eat red meat.
Own a gun.
Do drugs.
and have sex with whoever I want, even if they require payment.

That's what I want.

Fiscally I actually align most closely to FDR New Deal policies.

[Gore1FL]

87. The second amendment ahs never been used to dney gun legislation

The right to bear arms comnes from State Constitutions coupled with the 9th and 10th moreso than the second.

[ProfLefty]

89. What is going on here?

Where are all of you gun nuts coming from? Respectfully, I have always equated liberalism with caring, concern and compassion for one's fellow citizens not a madcap desire to inflict wholesale slaughter in the manner that guntoting americans currently inflict Cateacher is absolutely right...guns are inherantly dangerous designed for only one thing...killing, the taking of life abruptly be it human or animal and one thing we all should know is that killing is wrong! Besides in this country we do (limited as it may sometimes be) have the right to vote and in that right is the path to successful and peaceful revolution and resistence.

[Sirveri]

90. This isn't technically a site just for liberals.

It's a big tent that encompasses progressives of all stripes.

Surprisingly enough, aside from the two topics we've been relating on recently, we're probably pretty much on the same page with regards to other issues.

[ProfLefty]

91. I hope so.

As I said earlier Sirveri, I completely respect your right to disagree with me on any issue. Also I think that for the most part you voice your opinions with a certain intelligence as well as, a degree of real style. Don't have anything against you personally and hope that in the future you and I can find many points of agreement.

[LoZoccolo]

98. I bet that "Che" guy had a gun.

I'm just guessing, though.

[ProfLefty]

107. Che

Yes LoZoccolo Che Guevara did on occasion bear arms. However he was involved in an organized revolt against a dictatorial system which did not allow the right of universal enfranchisement. In our society we have other avenues of political dissent available to us and when considering the havoc that firearm use and ownership by the general public has wreaked upon us don't you think that private gun ownership is an unnecessary and evil burden upon our society? I certainly do.

[Columbia]

102. Killing is not always wrong

And what you going to do if voting is stopped, or the more likely scenario, not counted?

[OnionPatch]

106. I wish I would live to see the day

when all you say about liberals rings true to the reality of our whole country. But reality is that this is not the world we live in. I agree with Teddy Roosevelt... Speak softly and carry a big stick. A gun is simply a piece of metal. What one chooses to do with it defines what kind of person he/she is. I am very liberal and yet it scares me to think of a country where the populace is unarmed and unable to launch any type of physical resistance to the government should it be needed. You mention that we can vote. As we speak, we are facing an election year with electronic voting machines that may have already taken away that right for many people. When that's gone, what are we left with? Protest? Think Tianimin Square. (excuse spelling please.) As a liberal, I strive to make reality a peaceful world where guns are unheard of. We are not there yet.

[ProfLefty]

116. My thoughts.

I really respect what you have to say here onion patch and I admire the manner in which you are able to express yourself. I cannot completely disagree with what you say either but, I would ask you to contemplate this: what has private gun ownership done for our country? Particularly in the past thirty years or so? Guns have not been used by private citizens to secure our collective freedom but rather to assault, rob, maim and kill one another giving us by far the highest homicide rate of any developed nation. One more thing firearms constitute the number one statistical cause of death among African American males between 18 and 25 years of age. That is a shame and a tragedy. So I ask you what has private gun ownership done for our country? And what do we expect it will do for us in the near or immediate future other than add to the numbers of our fellow citizens who are being slaughtered in wholesale fashion?

[OnionPatch]

117. I see what you're saying

I really do. Guns have done awful things to our society. I totally respect your argument and believe your points are valid but I don't know what the answer is. I have the feeling that there's no way we can effectively put Pandora back in the box if we wanted to. I know the stats on the gun deaths of young African American guys but there is some larger problem in society that affects them in a negative way. The guns are incidental in a way. Maybe if we had more to offer them than jobs at McDonald's they would feel they have more options than street gangs. And our society as a whole is so pumped full of macho bravado that I'm not so sure it's the guns or just the attitudes behind them that's the biggest problem. Why do we glorify violence? I don't think it's because we own guns. You say we have not used them to secure our collective freedom, and this is true. I hope there is never a time when we would need to use them for this purpose but if that times ever comes, I don't want to be standing in front of the bulldozer empty-handed. Sounds dramatic, I know, I know. But these things have happened in this world and can happen again.

[ProfLefty]

119. I hear you.

You know OP you make some damned good points...I am left sort of confused and thinking that you and I are both about half right. In any event it was an enlightening and pleasant discussion and I must say you have given me some real food for thought on this issue. Thank you very much...I look forward to seeing more of your thoughtful and thought provoking contributions here on the du.