Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/24/08 10:19 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

The Second Amendment is not just about well regulated militias.
It says: 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.

Sure as hell sounds like the people have a right to own guns and the government can't stop them.

I and a lot of other people think that as long as we're revising the Constitution, we should make this law a little more specific.

It's not really a law, but an inalienable right enumerated in the US Constitution. Like the first and fourth amendments, it should've been drilled into your and a lot of other people's heads that the second amendment merely codifies a pre-existing right.

Sheesh.

At 7/24/08 10:19 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

The Second Amendment is not just about well regulated militias.
It says: 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.

Sure as hell sounds like the people have a right to own guns and the government can't stop them.

I and a lot of other people think that as long as we're revising the Constitution, we should make this law a little more specific.

GNE,

How do you mean specific? Do you mean:
1) Specific in terms of making the language easier to understand.
or
2) Specific in terms of restricting who can have what type of gun.

As for the first point, the language of the amendment is not really vague if you have a grasp on grammar and the historical context of the amendment.

1) The part pertaining to a militia is an explanatory clause. The only verb acting upon "militia" is "being" which is not an action but rather a state of existance and/or establishing a correlation. On the other hand the "right of the people" has the verb clause "shall not be infringed" upon it. This is an action of prohibition.

2) The Founding Fathers were products of the Enlightment and understood science and its advancement. The notion that they could not have predicted assault rifles, etc is frankly preposterous. They knew arms technology evolved and would become more deadly (afterall that is the direction of technology and history). Therefore they made the right to bear arms despite the knowledge that weapons would get more deadly.

3) The National Guard is not what they had in mind for a militia. What they envisioned was a skeleton Army and well funded Navy that would exist in peacetime. During war and national crisis the Army's ranks would be filled by civillians who would bring their own "kit" (military term for gun and equipment).

So in the end the Second Amendment is no more opaque than any other Constitutional Amendment.

I actually did a research paper on this subject in the USA, and besides agreeing with the original poster (for obvious reasons, like april 16th at VT), the overall situation is that GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM, PEOPLE ARE THE PROBLEM. You don't need a PhD to see that plenty of Americans are fucked up.

Basically, the regulation of guns accross the US varies alot state-to-state, but there is no HUGE trend in crime rates that would suggest more/less guns will change all that much.

At 7/1/08 07:16 PM, TheMason wrote:
In France the Army is going around shooting French civilians. Proving once again the first rule of French warfare: the French only win when they fight the French.

With the obvious exceptions being: The Romans, the Alamanni, the Visigoths, the Muslims, general barbarians, the Anglo-Saxons, the Seljuk Turks, the Fatimids, Saladin, the Germans (be it Germany, the Holy Roman Empire, Prussia or the Nazis), the English, the Flemish, the Venitians, the Swiss, the Spanish, the Austrians, the Mamelukes, the Egyptians, the Turks, the Russians, Algeria, the Chinese, Syria, Italy, Iraq and the Ivorians. Oh, and George Washington thought they could fight a bit, too, so asked for their help in the War of Independence.

That's a fine display of willful ignorance on your part.

At 7/27/08 09:26 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 7/1/08 07:16 PM, TheMason wrote:
In France the Army is going around shooting French civilians. Proving once again the first rule of French warfare: the French only win when they fight the French.

That's a fine display of willful ignorance on your part.

The operative word here being "willful". If you would read my post further down I admit that I include that story in there to be funny and/or sarcastic (or even play the part of the "typical" American).

So while I am sure that you meant this as a slam...thank you for the tacit implication that I was playing a part...an act if you will.