So everyone who thinks firearms should be controlled, restricted or banned and the Second Amendment repealed........Riddle me this.

After the second amendment goes. Which one is next? 1st, 4th, 8th? I'm sure it would just be to keep us safe right? right?

Originally Posted by 03USMC

So everyone who thinks firearms should be controlled, restricted or banned and the Second Amendment repealed........Riddle me this.

After the second amendment goes. Which one is next? 1st, 4th, 8th? I'm sure it would just be to keep us safe right? right?

Do you believe laws should be changed to suit the standards and requirements of the society they are applied to?

If no how can you support or uphold any laws that are not directly referenced to constitution (traffic safety etc.), if yes then how can the second amendment not be up for modernisation if that is the will of the people.

As I understand it (and I may be wrong as this is my interpretation of limited data) the 2nd Amendment was formulated because the USA did not have or want to have a standing army which it now does therefore it could be argued that there is no longer a need for a militia and as a consequence the 2nd Amendment is effectively irrelevant.

I would also like to point out that surely the name "Amendment" itself leads to the understanding that it is not set in stone if it was it would probably be called a commandment.

For the record I am a "controlled" supporter although I could be a "restricted" candidate depending how they are defined and I don't see why the 1st, 4th or 8th Amendments would need changing unless they are no longer applicable.

No, it was to give the people the power to stand up to all powers, even their own government to be free of tyranny.
Therefore I see it valid now just as it was two hundred years ago.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

No, it was to give the people the power to stand up to all powers, even their own government to be free of tyranny.
Therefore I see it valid now just as it was two hundred years ago.

But that's not what the Amendment says it says (and hopefully this is the correct wording)... "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.

If a militia is no longer necessary because its role is now carried out by a standing army then surely the Amendment is no longer valid in anything more than spirit.

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth." - George Washington

There we have it.
That's what it was for.

Originally Posted by major liability

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth." - George Washington

Interesting, Patrick Henry said something similar however once again they said all this 200+ years ago and the world has changed a lot in that time, therefore what needs to be determined is the validity of the amendment today in terms of its intent at the time of writing.

I am not entirely convinced you can split the two points and just keep selling the "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." without understanding the intent of the first part "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Technically the definition of a militia is every armed man 18-45.

The only problem today is there are _way_ too many people. Makes crimes of passion more likely.

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes


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

Section two of US Code 311 clearly states that the militia is still alive and well. The organized Militia is the National Guard. The Unorganized Militia is the people.

As for a Standing Army, read the Federalist Papers. It clearly states a need for both a Standing Army and a Militia. The Standing Army was to be staffed of combat veteran Officers and NCOs. The Militia was to be the rank and file of the Standing Army and also the "first responders" to any conflict. Since the Militia is an Area unit. The Militia would know better of locations in which to defend and attack. The Standing Army was designed to be a national active duty force but not one of enough force to cause a coup. Hence the Militia was created as the counter point of the Standing Army.

Also the Founding Fathers of this nation believed that an armed society with the same basic combat effectiveness of a infantry soldier would provide a counter point against a Despotic Government. Remember.... the Founding Fathers just defeated a Major World Power and it all started with a group of armed civilians. They believed that keeping the people armed would prevent the US Federal Government or State Governments from becoming despotic.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? and how many European countries have you lived in? Frankly I find Europeans are much more polite. I say this because I live in one and I used to regularly shuttle between the UK, BE, and NL for business.

The Dutch are extremely friendly, as are the Swedes.

The Europeans I met in person in Lithuania and Germany were very pleasant. But the ones I've conversed with over the internet certainly don't reflect this in the least.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

For example, comparing people to cockroaches because they disagree would be considered bad form in Europe.

A bit of an exaggeration, as I wouldn't have even bothered posting a reply if I didn't worry about their misguided opinions... Not comparing the people themselves to cockroaches, just emphasizing how little I care if they want me to have firearms or not.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

I would say your attitude is that of the locals that dislike people from the big city. Believe me I have heard the exact same arguments from French people against Parisians, English people against Londoners, Dutch people against those that live in Amsterdam, people in rural Indiana against both people Dayton, Cincinatti, and Indianapolis. Country people always think city people are rude, let me tell you I lived in the country too for 4 years in the Mid-West, contrary to the advertising, I didn't find the people so friendly.

This is true everywhere, but the thing is I am not a country boy. I was raised in the city of Pittsburgh and later Brooklyn, though I admit I much prefer the rural surroundings of my current home. Even when you go over the border into Connecticut, the people seem easier to talk to and less concerned with appearances. It's not just a city thing; it's a New York thing.

Edit: Apologies for the off-topic post.