Assault weapons aka "commonly owned firearms" are the best most available firearms for one to use to defend themselves. They give you the best chance of stopping a threat. Tho I don't agree with people openly carrying a firearm, because I believe concealed give you the chances to have a little up on your threat because you already are behind because they already have the drop on the situation.
The second amendment was written so we as citizens could have firearms to protect ourselves from tyrannical government as well as people meaning to do is harm. And yes it grows as technology grows. It does not cover only weapons from that era, if that were the case the 1st amendment would only cover things written on parchment paper.
Actually, if you read the 2nd amendment it was to allow regular citizens to be able to fight back against our own government in the case that it becomes tyrannical. If you get some group that tries to take away our freedoms and tries to kill any and all who disagree with it or whom they deem undesirable. Like the Germans did to the Jews.
How did the founding fathers free themselves from a tyrannical government? By having the people have fire arms. How did they ensure that people where safe? By having the people have fire arms. They where legally allowed to carry multishot weapons, cannons etc. as stated on several occasions by the founding fathers. The notion that its stupid is well stupid. Just because you would murder some one doesn't mean some one else will.
Also could you actually define what an "assault" weapon is? No, no you can't because such designations don't exist. Automatic weapons are illegal, so its not that, so what is it? Rifles or shotguns? Pistols are the most common gun used by an overwhelming majority (your more likely to be stabbed to death then be shot with a rifle or a shotgun, in fact your more likely to be beaten with to death with bare hands then be shot with a rifle or shotgun). So that couldn't possibly be it, so what is it?
I often see people on both sides of this argument who don't fully understand the wording of the second amendment. The first statement is a qualifying clause that gives the justification for the second statement which is the actual right being guaranteed. The term "well regulated" is an idiom that was in common use in the 18th century but fell out of use in the 19th century. It refers to something that is in proper working order. Militia refers to the people taking up arms to defend themselves, their family, community, state or nation from any threat. It is not the state police or national guard or any other government standing force. It is the people. A man who defends his business with a gun against looting from rioting going on all around him constitutes a militia of one. The second amendment, like all of the other amendments that make up the bill of rights does not give us the right to do anything. What it does do is to guarantee that these pre-existing basic human rights won't be infringed upon by our government.
Then it says ", the right of the people"
Oh you need to absorb all the words. OK Here you go. "A WELL REGULATED militia, COMPOSED OF THE BODY of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed: but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." Your point? Again, I dont think the Founding Fathers believed their words would be so bastardized by future citizens as to solely reference one group of words in the Amendment over another to suit their individual desires.
Where the heck did you get that rendition of the 2nd amendment?
That was James Madison's initial proposal in 1789. Over the course of the next 2 years various changes were made mostly revolving around the placement of commas but the last clause regarding conscientious objectors (religiously scrupulous) was omitted in the final 1991 draft. I left it in so as to give you a flavor of all Mr Madison was thinking at the time of his entry. Every iteration of the amendment did however include the WELL REGULATED wording.
Ok so tell me how it changes the meaning in your opinion? To me is still doesn't change the meaning.
It doesn’t but while you seemed to only find the need to focus on “rights of the people“ I wanted to focus on its entirety.
Ok but is still means the individual has the right to bear arms, so the militia can be possible.
If that militia is well regulated, sure. You seem to not be interested in that part of the 2nd amendment.
So you can only have firearms if your in a well regulated militia?That's like Australian believing you can only have a baseball bat in your house if you play basketball.
You really seem to be having a tough time grasping this. As long as the people ARE WELL REGULATED, they shall be able to purchase, own and use guns. Try this analogy. The Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) Regulates who shall be able to purchase, own, and (use) drive a Motor Vehicle.
Your twisting it around. Then tell me the regulations the people were under then that permitted them to own firearms?
oh boy. I can't, I just can't go on with you. Good luck.
Exactly there were no regulations! Any person was able to go to a hardware store and purchase any firearm they so choose!
"Well regulated militia" means a well trained militia.
Anybody used to be able to buy a horse and ride it down the street too. Times they are different now, try to keep up with the changes.
please go away. bother someone else. Or better yet look up the word "regulated" and its synonyms then look up the word "trained" and its synonyms. you will not find them to be the same thing, at all.
Changed for the worse, in many ways.
This was my question, lol😂
That's not what the founders intended to happen though you're going off of what people today have decided for to intent.
Why are "commonly owned firearms" not necessarily for "guarding their household"?
They are unnecessary just like bazookas and other weapons that people want to get. You don’t need that to protect your household.
Sure do one is going to use a bazooka to defend themselves in there house because that's an explosive. AR-15 & AK's are not explosive and they are the best tool to stop a threat or multiple threats.
Actually rifles are the weapons of choice for defense
The likelihood of you being attacked and needing a rifle (which I’m sure other forms would work just as well) is slim. It’s just ignorant paranoia.I don’t care about you having guns. I do care when paranoid, blind, mentally ill etc have guns who don’t properly practice and can cause more accidents than help.
Have you ever shot a rifle or a handgun? Yes the likely hood of it anything happening is really small so why take them away? Hey the mental health issue is the problem but it's such a hard issue to find solutions for without innocent people getting could under the umbrella that all the liberals want to create.
Assault weapons are still banned. You can't buy an assault weapon unless you have a specific federal firearms lisence. You can however buy a semi automatic rifle which is NOT an assault weapon at all. It may look like its counterpart but it cannot shoot like an assault weapon.
The 2nd amendment was not just for personal protection against individuals who want to hard you. If you read the 2nd amendment was to give citizens a way to rise up against a tyrannical government. Sometimes people come into power such as a Hitler whose government killed 6 million Jews and also anyone else that they said were undesirable. Just say that our government tried to start slavery all over again. Then it would be up to the citizens to fight back against that government.
First and foremost, whats sensible about punishing an entire nation of people for something some one else did? If your father killed some one, should you be put in prison? If some one three states over is an alcoholic should you be forced to go into sobriety meetings? The answer is of course no (no sane person would suggest this) so why would you punish the overwhelming majority of law abiding citizens rights to bare arms because some asshole who more then likely stole a gun (one study found 80% of gun related homicides where commited with a stolen gun (almost all of murders are commited with pistols not "assault rifles"). Also define assault rifle because their is no actual definition for it so no one can really argue against your statement because it doesn't actually exist. What precisely are you arguing against when you say assault rifles?
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Along with body armor would also be protected under the defensive part of the meaning arms.
Yes it would
There was a while people demonize body armor, even tho it's a passive way to defend yourself.
XD Nukes I like u XD
Well a nuke is also a weapon of the time. I'm just not sure I would be comfortable with my neighbor having one
To fight back against a tyrannical government.
Most people with hand guns carry them for self defense. You can't carry a big old rifle slung on your back all day and pull it fast if confronted by an assailant. Pistols are for self defense of your person out and about and in confined areas like small apartment. Rifles are for hunting and self defense of property with larger areas.
@ThatDarrenGuy helpful against the military using drones against violent insurgents eh? Good job.
@bamesjond0069 funny how every other western country doesn't carry them and has less problems with personal safety. Almost like pre-emptively escalating a situation leads to more deaths... go figure.
I love how people are like "well we don't stand a chance so night as well roll over and take it and hope they ate merciful"That's like a woman is about to get raped and she thinks to herself "well I have no chance in fighting this man of so I might as well just let him have what he wants and hope he doesn't kill me after".
You can to hunt with handguns. They are normally revolvers.357 magnum and up. Handguns also can be single shot and be chambered in rifle calibers. Both these and revolver can have barrels up to 16 inches, which is the minimum length of a barrel on rifles in the US, just can't have butt stock. Even with a.357 magnum revolver with a 6 inch barrel paired with a scope it is feasible to take medium game out to 100yrds.
Yes firearms are tools and each can feel many rolls, depending on there features. If say your more fearful of this world than what we are. Unlike you we carry a firearm to protect ourselves and or others if need be in case evil tries to do harm to innocent people or ourselves. You ban stuff in a false hoping that it will remove the problems from this world.We have the option to do something about it when these terrible things have, you don't. Will it ever happen? I hope not. Do I hope to have to use it? No.
You CAN use a hand-gun to hunt. Just like you CAN use a wrench to hammer in a nail. It's clearly not part of the design.It amazes me that for some reason the peak of the fear culture is in the US. Those in other western countries have no less 'to be afraid of' other than neighours and accidental or insane use of their guns.Since most rapes, to use your example, are perpetrated by someone known to the victim, the chances of them effectively using a gun drops from small to miniscule, and there certainly is no evidence that having access to guns reduces the rates.Justifications like this just show that access to guns is more important to the American people than children's lives.
That's precisely what Hitler said, its or the children. I think leaving them in a venerable environment is worse.
Experience has proved you wrong in numerous countries around the world.Sorry to hear you are so fearful.
I am not fearful of this world. I respect this world and acknowledge that evil exists in this world and how dangerous it can be.You do not respect this world, you fear it. If you didn't fear this world you wouldn't have a problem with others owning firearms. You taking them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens proves you fear this world.I am not afraid of law-abiding owning firearms. When I worked in retail and saw a customer open carrying a handgun I paid them no mind because I knew they are not a threat.
If owning firearms is against the law, then people owning firearms cannot, by definition be law abiding.I don't have to fear them, I live in a country that cares for it's citizens and residents.The simple statistics of deaths and injuries generated by or avoided by having the general public owning or not owning guns keep mounting up.
Will it's not against the law here.Sure until they no longer do and you have no physical means of standing up to them as citizens because now you fear them instead of them fearing you.
And we the people are the militia
Adolf Hitler also said that to conquer a nation you must first disarm its citizens. Is that your suggestion?
@stephen1488 In that case USA is already disarmed. Warfare has moved past the point where "men with guns" wins wars so they serve no real strategic advantage except getting your people killed both in peace time and in wartime.
Actually "men with guns" built this country and still today "men with guns" defend this country so that we can sit on a couch or in traffic and not fear getting attacked by a foreign nation. The only difference is we now have bigger and more effective guns to defend our country with.
@stephen1488 That is the mentality that has ruined many countries and empires before you. The inability to look forward, or even look where you are right now. You try to use old examples to prove your point but it just goes to show how outdated your views actually are.
Can you name 1 country who's downfall was an armed population? Look at countries that were disarmed. Look at Venezuela right now where the military is shooting citizens in the streets
@stephen1488 Rather than that, show me an example of armed men repelling modern military forces.
So you can't answer the question. And afganistan repelled the us military and Russian military
@stephen1488 No they did not. They might have caused issues for the occupation but since they are occupied they already lost anyways. Not to mention this was a learning experience for modern armies in how to fight these types of battles in the future so that will not happen again.
@Soteris Why do you think that they have an AK-47 on their flag?
They are not occupied the USA withdrew from the Afghan "conflict" because we couldn't beat the people.
How should I know why they broke every law on flag design and put an AK in it?@stephen1488As for the Afghanistan they are still under US occupation to this day and they lost REALLY fucking quick. Within months the whole country was under occupation and the only real reason it has proven to be such an issue for USA is because of their inept leadership and unusual mission goals. USA is trying to "free" the Afghanistan and help them rebuild. This is by no means necessary in a military conquest and in fact USA could just have said "Well this is mine now" and taken whatever they wanted including the whole country. Without playing around trying to rebuild Afghanistan into something they approve of they could have easily crushed all resistance and taken the land as it is without the whole problem with terrorists.But this is irrelevant really to the big question. People with guns working as underground resistance fighters in otherwise occupied territory is not going to win you the war. In fact chances are pretty high you already lost the war which is why they are occupying your fat ass to begin with.
They put an AK on their flag because they took out their tyrannical government and they contributed it the the use of the AK because is played a huge part in their success. To them it's a simple of freedom.
Ah, the great army of Portugal in 1983. Truly an equal to the USA and definitely representative of todays modern armies. I especially like the part where you expect Portugal to care overly much about an overseas colony. Reminds me of the British only sending a token force to stop the American uprising and the Americans believing they fought off the entire British empire for their freedom.
That’s why the idea of using “but guns are so much more powerful now!” , as a way to argue against the 2nd amendment... is absolute bullshit
The founding fathers actually considered investing in development of automatic and similar types of guns but ultimately they were too expensive and unproven. They were intimately aware of the existence of such a thing though. On the other hand, canons existed and they allowed for individuals to own and operate them as well without limit. Hmm...
Gatling invented the first SUCCESSFUL continuously-firing weapon in the late 1850s and was awarded a patent in 1862, the same year it was adopted by several countries as an issue military weapon. But there were lots of other multi-shot designs prior.
@MrOracle yes, but it doesn’t count if it wasn’t successful.
Also, I think people should be allowed to own guns, but machine guns should be restricted to the military.
Thats retarded, in that case the 1st amendment doesn’t cover electronic communication because you can instantly spread speech automatically and the founding fathers didn’t know only the government should have social media.
Even in the military do the standard soldiers even use full auto, they primarily use three round burst or semiautomatic with their M4.I think you should be able to own full autos because the point of the 2nd Amendment is to make sure that the people have access to weapons that will allow the people to eliminate a tyrannical government foreign or democratic.
No. The point of the Second Amendment is to ensure that we have a citizen militia to defend against foreign invasion. No government EVER makes a law intended to allow the people to rise up against itself.
No that's was what they ment for it to be, they just got out from under a tyrannical government. They put it in incase that happens here.
Then how do you explain Washington’s harsh response to the Whiskey Rebellion? Or Shay’s Rebellion, for that matter?
@reptocarl thanks :-)
That's why we have the 2nd amendment is so it keeps our government in check. So all this talk about taking away our very best tool to do so, that's available at this instance, means that they want use to fear them because we have nothing to use against them. And the power gap gets larger and larger until like what's happening in Hong Kong, we will have no chance.
Not being mean, but it's odd to see a guy with a Turkish/Middle Eastern name like Amur siding with the radical militia movement.
Lol no offense, because I am not Turkish/Middle Eastern. And that's assuming of you😂😂
Is your first name Amur?
Oh ok. Nvm then. I assumed your name was Amur.
Lol no. Gave me a laugh
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.-- Benjamin Franklin It is the fist responsibility of every citizen to question authority. -- Benjamin Franklin Fear is the foundation of most governments.-- John Adams The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom.-- Justice William O. Douglas The great masses of the people... will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.-- Adolf HitlerWhat luck for the rulers that men do not think.-- Adolf Hitler Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you.-- Benjamin Franklin
my cold dead hand.
@highjinx who said that about the dead hand?
It was functional, by successful he meant commercially successful. If Edison had never managed to sell a single bulb he would still be the inventor.
@MisterAnon69 like the Hunley
Yes, but irrelevant to the argument
@MisterAnon69 what are you guys arguing about?
LITERALLY READ THE QUESTION YOU ORIGINALLY REPLIED TO
@MisterAnon69 that sounds very speculative. Why is the answer so important?
The puckle gun was the first machine gun, it was not the first what we consider continuous fire, but it could get off multiple shots, I believe it was nine, in one minute which in that day in age is in fact a machine gun (as its machined, a machine and a gun). As for the claim that the militia was for foreign invasion that is also incorrect. The British soldiers that the militia repelled where not "foreign" we where a territory of Britain, it was our own government that we fought against. That's what it was for as well as fighting against outside enemies. Also how do you fight against them without machine guns? Well you can't so that makes that point rather pointless, if the government has a machine gun and your forced to have a single shot black powder pistol, your going to lose. That's why it explicitly states the right to bare arms shall not be infringed, because gun control is infringing that right. Also what is a militia made up of? Armed citizens ergo if you ban citizens from owning weapons you ban militias from owning weapons and if the people don't have the power to protect themselves the government then has the power to take over and do what they want (kind of like what is happening in Europe where people are being thrown in prison for words and the government is basically ignoring the people because the people have no means to fight back so they can't do anything about it.).