tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12171673.post1330129794052041145..comments2024-02-13T01:25:33.947-05:00Comments on The Gods Are Bored: That Pesky ConstitutionAnne Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15478513906953607043noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12171673.post-40537297348534721022008-03-21T21:39:00.000-04:002008-03-21T21:39:00.000-04:00Anne, by 18th-century rules, the "well-regulated",...Anne, by 18th-century rules, the "well-regulated", i.e., well-trained, militia, was all able-bodied men (so you are out) between roughly 16 and 60.<BR/><BR/>In other words, the voters.<BR/><BR/>The word has been perverted by subsequent splinter groups, but that is what it meant in the Founders' day.<BR/><BR/>It did not mean the National Guard or similar bodies. To read the Second in that sense makes about as much sense as having an amendment to authorize the Navy to own ships.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12171673.post-46369162632562523622008-03-21T18:32:00.000-04:002008-03-21T18:32:00.000-04:00Right off the top I own a few guns. I disagree wit...Right off the top I own a few guns.<BR/> I disagree with the notion that we need guns to “protect” ourselves from the government. Gandhi proved this point. Further, should we reach the point where armed rebellion becomes necessary, the US Army would blow the “rebels” away in a heartbeat. The discrepancy in firepower is simply way too lopsided. The vision of an armed populace, plinking away at tanks, planes and such with hunting rifles is just- ridiculous. <BR/> The “problem” with gun ownership is that it is the source of most of the guns on the street. It drives me up the wall when I read of a break-in where 78 guns were stolen. Why anyone would need 78 guns is just beyond me. Those living in rural areas do indeed have reason to own a gun. Protection from dangerous wildlife, slow police response and those that rely on a good fall hunt to feed the family should be considered. <BR/> I don’t know the answer. But something is wrong.<BR/>KayakdaveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12171673.post-69198703033510018852008-03-21T11:09:00.000-04:002008-03-21T11:09:00.000-04:00It only seems contradictory if you don't know what...It only seems contradictory if you don't know what the founders meant the militia to be. Fortunately, that is codified in the US Code Title 10 Sec 311. Basically the militia is We the People. Voila, no more confusion...unless one insists on searching for some other explanation to fit one's worldview.<BR/><BR/>Also, well regulated in this context in 18th century English meant well trained and orderly, not the 21st century meaning of bureaucratic red tape.<BR/><BR/>In fact, the need for the Second Amendment is growing clearer and more noticeable by the day since 9/11/01, and it's not because of the "terrorists,"...or at least not the terrorists "over there."<BR/><BR/>That with rights come responsibilities is widely if not universally accepted. So what is the responsibility that comes with the right to keep and bear arms? It’s in the opening phrase of the Second Amendment. “Owning guns and complaining to your representatives being sufficient to the security of a free state,…” Right? Well that’s what most gun owners seem to think.<BR/><BR/>For any who wish to take seriously the responsibility that comes with the right to keep and bear arms, I’d like to invite you to explore today’s militia at http://www.awrm.org. We might surprise you, especially if you still believe what the mainstream media and groups like the SPLC say about us.<BR/><BR/>Peace.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12171673.post-89245694052553672702008-03-20T21:39:00.000-04:002008-03-20T21:39:00.000-04:00Until the government can guarantee me that no crim...Until the government can guarantee me that no criminal, or anybody other than a cop or soldier, can get their hands on a handgun, then I demand equal access to my only means of self defense. But, even then, I believe the forefathers meant to make it extremely dicey for the government to oppress us without a good fight. Donald Rumsfield thought subduing the Iraqi's would be a piece of cake. Donald Dumb Ass was WRONG.<BR/><BR/>I have had this one Walther PPK sitting on my headboard for over a decade, and the only time I used it was to protect my animals and wife from a huge rattlesnake. If nobody threatens me in my own castle, no one need fear anything from me owning a handgun.Alex Pendragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15877845166621794334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12171673.post-20308997557398567282008-03-20T20:35:00.000-04:002008-03-20T20:35:00.000-04:00I was under the impression that the 2nd amendment ...I was under the impression that the 2nd amendment was there so that if the government got out of whack and crazy with power the people would be able to defend themselves and overthrow it. Because only allowing the government to have the weapons is a recipe for an oppressed populace.<BR/><BR/>But maybe I just had an anarchist Government teacher in high school.<BR/><BR/>Also, that in 1780-whatever if you were to eat a gun was a necessary thing, and banning the people from having them meant they might starve.<BR/><BR/>NOT that I disagree with you, I should stress.Thaliahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05538044570680239501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12171673.post-65234309273171141252008-03-20T13:14:00.000-04:002008-03-20T13:14:00.000-04:00ahh, you always get it right..ahh, you always get it right..yellowdoggrannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14906624317290990109noreply@blogger.com