Hmm, well I've just had a quick look at the text:

It's not written very clearly unfortunately, but isn't the intention of it to say that in order to form a well-regulated militia citizens have the right to keep and bear arms? Does this not suggest that they intended a limit on "maverick" gun ownership?

As for other countries, many in South America perhaps as they often used the US consitution for a model. Iraq?

Early US legal documents often list things without a clear, easily recognizeable structure to the list. As an example, look up the Declaration of Independence, specifically the usurpations part. It starts out pretty clear, then starts to be kind of hazy in its writing, then comes back again.

I see the second amendment as a list of 2 things: The right to a well regulated militia, AND the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

One could also make a case that this is a failsafe---that the framers of the Constitution felt that the people would make up a well-regulated militia, in case of the failure of the official army.

I like that interpretation, partially because it seems the most apt to be correct, historically speaking (after all, most of the Revolutionary Army was composed of simple people who'd grown up with guns in their hands), and partially because it reminds me of the Admiral Isoroku Yammamoto quote:

Speaking on behalf of my entire home county in Northeastern Kentucky...especially since Dron_Cah isn't here much nowadays...we really like the sentiment that quote expresses.

Regarding CD's comment regarding "gun the military uses," I'd like to point out that, AS I SAID BEFORE, we can't own those. Semi-auto is the best your common pedestrian gunowner can get. Again, your comment is probably focusing on the cosmetics, which Felix nicely pointed out don't mean spit. Now, he made a comment about liberals in there, too, and I'd like to take the time to remind him that some liberals own guns, too, and them's fightin words. :devil:

Regarding CD's comment that it is sometimes one's duty to fight one's country's military, I wholeheartedly agree. I think that time is now, today, when we should be storming D.C., but that's just me. Give me 10 or 20 thousand more like me, and I'll go Che Guevera on your ass, but that's a pipe dream. Regardless, that comment militates against his querry as to why we need such guns. I actually believe we should be allowed to own howitzers, RPGs, M16/M203 combos, tanks, etc., for that very reason. The 535 major bastards and the 1 uber bastard in D.C. should always feel like they are 10 seconds away from being quartered and drawn, as far as I'm concerned.

Regarding the language in the Second Amendment and all these nice arguments about how it doesn't mean this or that, drop it. File it with your argument that you don't have to pay income taxes, and with your dissertation that West Virginia was never legally chartered as a State. Put both of them together with $1.50, and you might be able to get a Venti Starbucks coffee with it.

Now, while we keep talking of America as if it were the land where you stepped off the boat and they handed you a Remington, I'd like to point out to you folks that some of us live in Socialist/Dictatorial little fiefdoms in this country, where gun ownership is nigh on illegal.

And what's with Ilander acting as if he's got a monopoly on bluegrass bragging rights?

LOL...'cuz you and Felix aren't mentioning all the weapons you shoot on a monthly basis just because it's fun.

Besides, are you from Appalachia? Lewis County all the way, man, but I doubt you and Felix live there, otherwise I'd know you, in all probability. :D

[ 09-30-2005, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Ilander ]

Pike County, originally. So I got you beat by a mile on any and all Deliverance Country issues, you city slicker.

I'm a law abbiding country, I want a WOMD to defend myself and my people!

Banning WOMD didn't decrease the number of WOMD crimes commited, legalise them! ;)

Sorry, that came across wrong. What I meant was, if one's military protects the nation, why does one need arms - be it of a similar type or not - i.e. rifles, for example. The only reason one would need arms in that case, is if one had to protect oneself - in which case, it makes the military redundant on home soil. Or, to get rid of the goverment in power ;) .

Do feel free to correct me if I'm misguided in anyway. That's just how I see it.

If that's the case - why would you need an army, other then to protect against foreign nations invading? (to owning howitzers and the like)

Good point, CD. It assumes, however, that the purpose of a weapon is solely for protection. There are many who use weapons to hunt and put food on the table - that would prevent them from doing so. There are also those who carry weapons in the course of their jobs, such as the police - they would have a decided disadvantage. There are also many of those who do not care what the law is, and will find a way to get a weapon anyway - who shall protect you from the criminals?

With every exception comes another loophole, and with every loophole the law behind it becomes weaker.

My [img]graemlins/twocents.gif[/img]

Next!

There are exceptions, of course - as you said, such a hunter, but - why would the general population need arms? And, generally, crimials aren't armed (well, firearms) unless the police are - at least, if you take Britian as an example. Of course, that is changing, but... sigh.

I personally don't own any guns, but I don't think it's wrong for our population to own them. I had my first hunter safety course at 8 years of age, and fired my first shotgun during the same period, which is really funny to look back on now...I wasn't very big, but that 10 gauge was.
Do I feel the need to own an "assault rifle", nope. Although, a friend of mine does own an AR-15, and it's a really fun weapon to target shoot with, and it will drop a deer, personal experience. If some one feels uncomfortable about guns, don't own one, it keeps them out of your house, and that's cool. To the people that do own them, most are responsible enough to keep them out of a child's reach.