Congresswoman Giffords, Others Shot/Killed in Arizona

[ChriswUfGator]

Stephen,  Don't you think the wording of the second amendment limits the kinds of weapons that are legal for civilians to those that can be "borne"?  That is only those that can be carried.  

The reason they chose that word was not to limit the size of weapons, it was to cover both possession and use/carry. They foresaw that being legal to own something and legal to use it were two different things, and that word covers both ownership and use so they chose that. They didn't anticipate whether you can "bear" a B-52 or not, because that wasn't foreseeable, all of the arms at that time, which were basically just pistols, rifles, and cannons, could all be "borne" by men. Given that fact, the word itself wasn't meant to limit size, since there was nothing that couldn't be "borne" at that time, the intent seems to have been to cover both ownership and use. Self-propelled weapons, like tanks, planes, helicopters, etc., that challenge that word use didn't exist then.

[Dog Walker]

I was making a pretty lame joke, Stephen & Chris.

However, at the time of the framers, civilians could privately own military weapons like cannons as well as pistols and muskets.

I find the limits on automatic weapons in civilian hands a reasonable limit as well as the limit on the size of magazines.  They seemed to have worked pretty well where an outright ban on handguns would never work.

I also do not find the arguments that the second amendment is meaningless now because the government has fighter planes and nuclear weapons so civilians would always be beaten.  As we have found in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, an Army cannot control a population.

The Hungarians even had to call in the Red Army to put down a revolution even thought the Hungarian population was basically unarmed.

[Ralph W]

I also do not find the arguments that the second amendment is meaningless now because the government has fighter planes and nuclear weapons so civilians would always be beaten.  As we have found in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, an Army cannot control a population.

So, if our population found itself in armed conflict with our government, we could expect to prevail? Not without outside help as in Viet Nam where the Soviets armed and trained the VC, or in Afganistan, where our CIA with the influx of billions of U.S. dollars armed and trained their fighting population against the Soviets.

[ChriswUfGator]

I was making a pretty lame joke, Stephen & Chris.

However, at the time of the framers, civilians could privately own military weapons like cannons as well as pistols and muskets.

I find the limits on automatic weapons in civilian hands a reasonable limit as well as the limit on the size of magazines.  They seemed to have worked pretty well where an outright ban on handguns would never work.

I also do not find the arguments that the second amendment is meaningless now because the government has fighter planes and nuclear weapons so civilians would always be beaten.  As we have found in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, an Army cannot control a population.

The Hungarians even had to call in the Red Army to put down a revolution even thought the Hungarian population was basically unarmed.

I get it now, lol, sorry about that. When you get into these back and forths with NotNow you have to be so tediously literal with your interpretation of every letter that sometimes you have blinders on, otherwise if there's any room at all he'll try and wriggle out of it. I was in NotNow discussion mode and actually missed it completely.

[NotNow]

Yeah, I'm tedious.   

[Dog Walker]

Ralph,  We wouldn't need outside help because so many of us are armed.  They might be able to kill a lot of us, but not subjugate us.  THAT is the point of the Second Amendment. 

The last time the Federal Gov't forced its will on a population in this country, they actually used local units of the National Guard (successor to the "well regulated militia) and the local population didn't resist with armed force and the Guard soldiers obeyed their orders.

There are other reasons for being armed.  In 1923 white mobs killed and drove away most of the inhabitants of Rosewood, Florida and Ocone, Florida.  Local law enforcement figures were actually involved.  At the time it was illegal for black people to own guns without permission of the sheriff.  Very few were given permission.  If most of the population of these towns had been armed, do you think these massacres would have occurred?