Yep,agreed! The list of reasons why societies have historically fallen is a long one, but "not enough government" is pretty low down on it!

 

It's only 27 words.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State: 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.

The last 14 words are not hard to understand.

I have a fire extinguisher in case of a fire. I have a 45 in case a bad guy shows up. I've never been in jail, never committed a crime, not even a tat, but I'm not foolish enough to think that bad guys don't exist. I pray I never need to use it. If a bad guy shows up at your house what's your plan? What's your wife's plan if you're not home? People love to blame the gun, but it's the bad guy you should go after. They just use other weapons in areas that don't have guns. China has a problem with nuts showing up in schools with knives and axes. I'd still prefer to have a gun at a knife fight. I'm not worried about my fellow American (or Canadian) having a firearm. I'm worried about the bad guys looking for their next victim. Would you be inclined to become a criminal if you had a gun in your hand?

 

I'm happy to discuss the topic...even if it is off topic. And I'm not offended at all. I am not an expert on constitutional law, though it is very important to me.

I think the authors made a strong effort at writing the constitution and bill of rights in as direct and plain language as they could. I'm sure they intended for it to be interpreted exactly as it is written.

However, as with any text, a reader can interpret it differently than the author(s) intended - especially if the reader has a specific purpose or point of view. You know, people read what they want to read, or hear what they want to hear. Look at how many different ways people have interpreted the Bible (disclaimer, I am not attempting to start a religious discussion). Anyway, to clear up any uncertainty, it becomes quite helpful to consider the other evidence that can clear up the meaning.

On the intended meaning of "regulated," most generally it seems to mean functional. This can mean orderly, trained, organized, controlled and/or armed, depending on the reference. In context of what it means to 2A, all the evidence makes it quite clear that the intention was that private citizens (the people) be ensured the right to own and use their own firearms, such that they may be proficient (well regulated) in their use; come a time when a well regulated militia were needed, these citizens (with their guns) would be better prepared for service.

 

This is one of the best sites for understanding the reasons why the founding fathers were so concerned about the common man retaining his ability to be armed. Everybody quotes numerous Thomas Jefferson opinions on this issue, but there are many others from surprising sources.

What the Founding Father Said About Guns

 

I suppose the part that is still interpretive in my mind is finding a reasonable definition of “arms”. Is it a stick? A hand gun? An assault weapon? Nukes?

In all honesty, I don't have a plan for something that, in Canada, is statistically about as likely to happen to my family as a plane crash. The risk of an accidental firearm tragedy arising from having a gun in the house outweighs the benefits to my way of thinking.

Thank God!

Lots of interesting quotes there! Certainly plenty of musing about the role of arms in defending one's self from foreign invaders, tyranny, government and such. Are you aware of anything the founders might have said about the role of arms in individual assaults on other individual citizens? There seems to be silence on this topic. Was it anticipated that reasonable individuals citizens would not assault one another?

I appreciate the off-topic indulgence guys!

 

I think a reasonable person would define a firearm as a pistol, revolver, or rifle. Assault weapons have been illegal for the common citizen in the US since 1934. Every weapons ban since has been based on how a firearm looks and the number of rounds it holds.

I just ran across a site that shows the murder rate in the US at 64x that of Canada. If you lived here, I think you may want to have a gun too. I don't think this stat is based on the number of guns here. I thinks it's based on the number of criminals walking around. Our system breeds them. Canada's murder rate is 112% higher than Switzerland's and they have one the highest gun ownership rates in the world. It's not the gun, it's the people that's the problem. You can play the stats if you like, but I only have one family and it's my job to be their protector. I'm more likely to have an accident with my KLX than with the firearm. I play with the bike, no one plays with the guns. My kids have bb guns and airsoft guns and they know the rules. Firearm safety is a big deal to me. They have zero access to the real stuff.

Murder has been illegal for quite some time regardless of the weapon used. If Canadians had guns would they start shooting each other just because they had one?

 

Enjoying this thread...


I respect your honesty. If nothing else, stash some cans of good wasp/hornet spray around the house/auto/business. Nasty stuff on anything.

Statistically speaking, the odds of needing life insurance to provide quality of life for your wife/kids is small. While the odds of encountering violence may be tiny, the lives of my loved are priceless and harm is permanent. While you hope not to cross it's path, there is mental illness, drug abuse, and evil out there. God forbid it's encountered, I'm not interested in a fair fight for my wife, if you know what I mean. So thankful to live in a country where I have the right to protect myself/loved ones against harm.



.

 

This is a difficult subject and I am passionate about the right to bear arms but not so much as to be closed to reasonable change.

"Go cytocis" asked if we knew our founder's intent regarding the "role of arms in individual assaults on other individual citizens." Yes, I know: their intent, based on Christian belief, was and still is crystal clear: it is illegal. That being said, to this day law abiding citizens do not kill. Nor do they break the law period.

Gun control advocates choose to impose laws that only law abiding citizens will follow without considering the laws affect on the criminal and the mentally ill. That affect is zero. The scumbag will still break the law and the unmediated mentally ill will do the same.

Banning guns is not the answer. Keeping them from society's criminals and mentally ill is, and this is not what the gun control advocates are not focusing on.

 

go cytosis said: Lots of interesting quotes there! Certainly plenty of musing about the role of arms in defending one's self from foreign invaders, tyranny, government and such. Are you aware of anything the founders might have said about the role of arms in individual assaults on other individual citizens? There seems to be silence on this topic. Was it anticipated that reasonable individuals citizens would not assault one another?

gc, one thing the U.S. founders would not have tolerated in our current scenario is the surrender of citizen rights to accommodate a false sense of "safety". Anyone recall the high pitched scream from the liberal left when the Bush administration was trying to introduce the Patriot Act and other security measures in an attempt to make us "safer" after 911? The left is afraid of the government "knowing" too much about our personal information...and I am somewhat in agreement with them...but then the left is aggressively intent on diminishing or removing many gun rights.

This mentality of trying to legislate safety regardless of the effect to citizen's rights has been a disturbing trend for some time now, coming from both sides of the political fence. If we were to apply the "safety at any cost" philosohpy, we should have removed personal automobiles and other such devices long ago. And even with mass public transportation, airplanes fall from the sky, commuter trains come off the tracks, etc., etc. The fallout, if one wants to be so cynical as to call it that, in a free society is that there are risks in being able to move about freely and participate in many of the activities we enjoy. Believe me, as someone who was a cop for over 30 years, I can envision a society where an unfettered government could almost guarantee a huge level of "protection" and "safety" in our daily lives. Think about it...sound like something most of us would be interested in.

At least in the U.S., our federal government is and has been on a disturbing path to taking more and more control of our daily lives and the activities in which we participate. This is a motorcycle forum. How's the federal land grab going for you in removing places where we ride and recreate? How about the nation's biggest city's mayor telling you how many ounces of carbonated beverage you can consume? The removal of rights and freedoms in the U.S. will probably never be attempted in on fell swoop but through the slow, chipping away of the "little things" being justified by the noble motives of safety, health, the environment, our children.

 

Anybody heard of the Godwin's law??

How many more post in this thread are needed?

I'm feeling we are close!