outsider's view on 2nd
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: outsider's view on 2nd

  1. #1

    outsider's view on 2nd

    I am German but have lived in the US for 12 years now ... when I read dicussions about the 2nd, a few things occur to me:

    A militia of the time was comprised of normal citizens comming together for the purpose of defense. It was not a state armed or state organized militia, much less a federal affair.

    I have read some left oriented people arguing that the founders surely could not have envisioned assault rifles or the likes. That is true, but neither could they have envisioned most of anything else that would nowadays be considered "normal" equipment for an armed force. What they seem to have had in mind was for the militia was to be armed with contemporary arms.

    Does it sound crazy to arm normal citizen with automatic assault rifles? Maybe, but I may point out that every Swiss citizen does compulsory military service in the Swiss army. When that stint in the army is finished he goes on reserve status and HAS TO take home his assault rilfe complete with ammo. My Swiss friend showed me his in his closet years ago and while I would have chosen a different make and model (the Swiss favor ruggedness over portability, it was heavy as hell) it still was an eye-opener. So do the Swiss regularly make the news with shootouts between neighbors hosing each other down with automatic fire? They do not.

    What conclusions one might draw from this is up to the esteemed reader but I think it's worth thinking about.

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Red Lion, PA
    Posts
    40
    Very interesting points

  4. #3
    I don't own a rifle, but why not have one? I don't buy into the arguement that just because a few unbalanced people use them for "unlawful purposes," that no one should have them. No country is perfect, but it is my understanding that Switzerland has a low crime rate, and I'm pretty sure this is a big factor.

    Glenn Beck goes into significant detail explaining the second amendment in his book "Arguing with idiots." He goes into detail about how the first two phrases of the second amendment are preamble phrases, leading up to the main point of "The right to bear arms..." It doesn't say the right to a well regulated militia, although Justice Breyer will try to convince you that the founding fathers didn't really mean what they said and wrote in the Constitution! And what did "well regulated" mean 224 years ago? Possibly not quite the same as it does today. It would be like taking the "20 dollars" out of context in the eighth amendment, but you won't hear people protesting from the roof tops on that one!

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Texas, for now
    Posts
    57
    I would suggest that you review the post below and the link inside.

    It explains, with references facts about firearms.

    It also explains where the 2A came from and the thinking of the founding fathers when it was written. Look around page 93.

    http://www.usacarry.com/forums/gener...acts-info.html

  6. #5
    Thank you, I actually just finished reading the whole thing, I found it very interesting. I have to admit to a little bit of vanity here and say that I feel a little proud that I seem to have come to the in essence same conclusion without the benefit of being familiar with and or taught about it from childhood.

    It also made me a little upset because oviously much has been done infringing on the second amendment and you can't help but wonder how this could have happened (and for the love of cheese, I am not suggesting any aggressive recourse here, I am simply partaking in an educated dicussion).

    I guess what should be done is to continue to educate the people on the issue, calmly and rationally, and maybe eventually improve the overall situation for the law abdining citizen.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    washington state
    Posts
    817
    the ultimate purpose behind the 2nd amendment was so citizens could protect themselves against criminals especially those in government. i might get myself in trouble for saying what im about to but in my opinion the right to keep and bear arms is a god-given right that the framers of the constitution recognized by writting the 2nd amendment. it seems to me that most of the founders of our republic were deeply religous men who recognized that humans have certain rights granted from the Almighty and put those things in the constution. there are other rights in the constution but as this is a site for firearms i have tried to contain my comments to the 2nd amendment. bless the founders of our great republic. some might think its corny but im proud to be an american

  8. #7

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by jg1967 View Post
    I guess what should be done is to continue to educate the people on the issue, calmly and rationally, and maybe eventually improve the overall situation for the law abdining citizen.
    I agree with this statement, however, it is impossible to deal with the ultra-liberals in a calm and rational manner. They insist that everything has to be done how they want it. They do not want the average citizen to have any say in the matter. The previous post showing all the national leaders who imposed gun control in their countries and their rationale completely underscores what is happening here. In the end, I believe that the liberal's stance will cause untold problems in this country and blow up in their faces. Literally!

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Texas, for now
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by santa View Post
    the ultimate purpose behind the 2nd amendment was so citizens could protect themselves against criminals especially those in government. i might get myself in trouble for saying what im about to but in my opinion the right to keep and bear arms is a god-given right that the framers of the constitution recognized by writting the 2nd amendment. it seems to me that most of the founders of our republic were deeply religous men who recognized that humans have certain rights granted from the Almighty and put those things in the constution. there are other rights in the constution but as this is a site for firearms i have tried to contain my comments to the 2nd amendment. bless the founders of our great republic. some might think its corny but im proud to be an american
    I"ve seen it mentioned that the reason for the 2nd Amendment is to protect the 1st Amendment.

    I've also seen it mentioned that the 2nd was to enforce the rule of the People and remove elected officials that refused to leave their offices once un-elected.

  10. #9
    I agree.

    Not only are the Swiss required to take their fully auto home, the goverment funds an annual target competition for all the families. The government pays for the ammunition. That sounds like something the U.S. founders would have done. I would not be shocked to learn that the Swiss gleened this idea from them. Thw Swiss are very libertarian in their approach to life.

    I don't use the term "assualt rifle" becase that was a made up term. Any weapon used in an asssault can be termed an assualt weapon. Including a fist, foot, rock, or stick.

    For those who don't know... The identifer AR still means Armalite Rifle, the manufacturer of the original M16 rilfe. The politicans got a hold of that acronym and came up with the term "assult rilfe" because they pray on fear and ignorance of it's people to maintain their powers.

  11. #10
    I think the term "assault rifle" does indeed exist, it's the "assault WEAPON" that does not and means about as much as "premium" beer.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast