Originally Posted by major liability

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.

True but are they not also organised and controlled by their home state?

According to legal lexicons:

MILITIA - The military force of the nation, consisting of citizens called forth to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasion.

The Constitution of the United States provides on this subject as follows: Art. 1, s. 8, 14. Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.- 15. to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia, according to the discipline prescribed by congress.Under the clauses of the constitution, the following points have been decided.

If congress had chosen, they might by law, have considered a militia man, called into the service ot the United States, as being, from the time of such call, constructively in that service, though not actually so, although he should not appear at the place of rendezvous. But they have not so considered him, in the acts of congress, till after his appearance at the place of rendezvous; previous to that, a fine was to be paid for the delinquency in not obeying the call, which fine was deemed an equivalent for his services, and an atonement for disobedience.

The militia belong to the states respectively, and are subject, both in their civil and military capacities, to the jurisdiction and laws of the state, except so far as these laws are controlled by acts of congress, constitutionally made.

Originally Posted by MontyB

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depending how they are defined and I don't see why the 1st, 4th or 8th Amendments would need changing unless they are no longer applicable.

My point was this. Whem you allow your rights as a citizen to be curtailed amd infringed upon by your goverment in any small way, then you put other rights in jeopardy as well.

There have been amendments repealed. It can be done. Should it be in this case. I don't really think so. But can it be done? yes.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

My point was this. Whem you allow your rights as a citizen to be curtailed amd infringed upon by your goverment in any small way, then you put other rights in jeopardy as well.

Sentimentally I agree with you completely it would be great if we could just regulate ourselves however practically that will never happen.

The "slippery slope" argument is often used in these discussions the problem is that if we were to enact it we would still be living in caves clubbing each other as it would be impossible to organise the activities of anything.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

My point was this. Whem you allow your rights as a citizen to be curtailed amd infringed upon by your goverment in any small way, then you put other rights in jeopardy as well.

A tiny risk yes, but most of the time a small curtail has no effect.

Most European countries ban private ownership of handguns, France did so in 1996 did society fall because of it...no. We in America abolished the right to own slaves, that too had no effect on the rest of our democracy, in fact it enhanced it.

Neither MontyB nor I favor banning firearms, but I do believe in 'reasonable restrictions', just as there are rules for owning a car, a house, a boat, etc. People like to hide behind the 2nd Amendment, but even Justice Scalia said that the 2nd amendment might be outmoded. The 2nd Amendment talks about Militias as a primary means of defense (the standing army in 1789 was tiny), but we dont have Militias anymore. We have a $240 Billion Standing Army and a Volenteer National Guard. Its time to accept the fact that what goes in 1789 doesnt necessary fit in 2008.

Major

1. Living in a country is not the same as visiting or even talking on the internet. Personally I find internet people to be rude in general, regardless of nationality. So you really cannot make such a blanket statement based solely on an impression.

2. I only quoted what you wrote, you said "as I value the opinions and feelings of a cockroach over theirs." Meaning: You have more respect for a roach. Not exactly the nicest thing to say to someone who merely disagrees.

3. That doesnt matter, you dont live there now. I have never met anybody living outside the city with a special fondness for city folk. And that goes for people living outside city limits.

I lived in Europe for a while... you have a mix of pleasant and not so pleasant people. But there seems to be a surplus of not so pleasant people for some reason. Dude is packing a Porsche and looks like he's going to jump off a bridge at the same time.

As for firearm ownership... I did agree on some level of licensing until the whole New Orleans firearm seizing deal. It's always at times like these you wonder if you're allowed to protect yourself from stupid LEOs.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

A tiny risk yes, but most of the time a small curtail has no effect.

2nd amendment might be outmoded. . Its time to accept the fact that what goes in 1789 doesnt necessary fit in 2008.

Why persevere with the constitiution then? Want a new constitution? How would you change 2nd Amendment when such matters are supposed to be above the reach of the lawmakers? By referendum?
Would this attitude not put the whole question of the constitution at risk?

Originally Posted by Del Boy

Why persevere with the constitiution then? Want a new constitution? How would you change 2nd Amendment when such matters are supposed to be above the reach of the lawmakers? By referendum?
Would this attitude not put the whole question of the constitution at risk?

The Founding Fathers were visionaires, they knew as time changed society would too. Thats why they added features that allowed that the Constitution be modified. They didn't make it any easy process to avoid abuse. To make a change it has to be ratified by both houses and 2/3 of the states. The last successful change was in 1992.

We have done so many times in the past, we gave women the right to vote, we abolished slavery, allowed for the direction election of senators, etc. All of the above were not in the original document. In our entire 250 year history we have made 17 changes, and we are still here. So no, I dont think it would have any monumental effect.

I am not advocating a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, just a modification to allow some level of control. Just as the government can control cars, and communications and just about everything else.

Why is it that the government IS allowed to control automobiles and TeleCommunications and not firearms? If the federal government chose to restrict travel or communications the damage would be far more devestating than a restriction on firearms. In fact it would probably paralyze the entire country with moments.

Mmarsh makes some pretty good points here.
What's a little firepower if you're stripped of communications and mobility?

Originally Posted by mmarsh

A tiny risk yes, but most of the time a small curtail has no effect.

Most European countries ban private ownership of handguns, France did so in 1996 did society fall because of it...no. We in America abolished the right to own slaves, that too had no effect on the rest of our democracy, in fact it enhanced it.

And most european countries display a pronounced socialist bent as of late.

Slavery vs firearms is apples and oranges.