[Centrixo]

the thing is, sorry about this.

but the people of the united states care more for thier version of privacy as long as law suites are involved and dont want to see past it.

lets see what happens first.

[Nuclear1]

the thing is, sorry about this.

but the people of the united states care more for thier version of privacy as long as law suites are involved and dont want to see past it.

lets see what happens first.

The American people want their privacy to the extent where the government shouldn't be interfering at all with one's private life, unless it presents an immediate danger to other citizens.  A law-abiding citizen owning a firearm is just one such example.

What defines the "American version of privacy" when compared to the "European version" or any other type, might I ask?

[aldo_14]

european countries dont need firearms and the usa should be the same as an example

Personally I don't like the thought of having my house raided by the police and letting them cart off my personal stuff just to make an example of me to someone in some other part of the world.  The very notion that a US politician might honestly think that way sends cold shivers down my spine.

If other nations want it so, silly as it may seem, thats their own choice to make.

I'm not quite sure you're familiar with how UK gun laws work, both pre and post Hamilton report.  I'm not aware of any private citizen being 'raided' by police for gun ownership, with the exception of arms dealers who have been raided as i'm sure unlicensed/street dealers would be in the US.

Of course, the UK never really had the same impulsive need for its citizens to arm themselves to the teeth in a quasi-arms race with criminals lurking just-around-that-dark-corner....

[Nuclear1]

Of course, the UK never really had the same impulsive need for its citizens to arm themselves to the teeth in a quasi-arms race with criminals lurking just-around-that-dark-corner....

And the UK never really had a Second Amendment protecting the citizens' right to arms.  (Or even a written constitution, but that's another story).

[Centrixo]

where does the uk fit into american liberal democrats? back on topic.

[aldo_14]

Of course, the UK never really had the same impulsive need for its citizens to arm themselves to the teeth in a quasi-arms race with criminals lurking just-around-that-dark-corner....

And the UK never really had a Second Amendment protecting the citizens' right to arms.  (Or even a written constitution, but that's another story).

I think it's pretty debatable, though, that that's what the 2nd amendment means.

where does the uk fit into american liberal democrats? back on topic.

I'm not sure the US Democrats could be described as 'liberal'.

[Nuclear1]

Of course, the UK never really had the same impulsive need for its citizens to arm themselves to the teeth in a quasi-arms race with criminals lurking just-around-that-dark-corner....

And the UK never really had a Second Amendment protecting the citizens' right to arms.  (Or even a written constitution, but that's another story).

I think it's pretty debatable, though, that that's what the 2nd amendment means.

No, it isn't really debatable.

“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.

It's out there in plain letters.  The extent of the right to keep and bear arms is debatable (i.e should Americans be allowed to have automatics or machine guns in their own, as opposed to just a sidearm for greasing an intruder), but the right is stated clearly.

[Ace]

Personally I believe that the liberal establishment has gone to far in curbing my GOD GIVEN RIGHT to thermonuclear weapons.

Who Would Jesus Destroy?

[Jeb Hoge]

The interesting thing is that there are still plenty of firearm owners in the EU.

They just tend to be rich and/or powerful. Or Swiss.

As far as 2008 is concerned, I think this is going to be the least predictable election in a loooong time.

[aldo_14]

No, it isn't really debatable.

“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.

It's out there in plain letters.  The extent of the right to keep and bear arms is debatable (i.e should Americans be allowed to have automatics or machine guns in their own, as opposed to just a sidearm for greasing an intruder), but the right is stated clearly.

You bolded the wrong bit;

“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.

To me that says, people shall be allowed to bear arms as part of a militia.  The 1792 Militia Act defines what a (well) regulated militia is quite clearly, and it's not just 'citizens'.

Ergo, there is your room for debate.

[Quest_techie]

darn, so I need to be in a special club to get ahold of that tank I always wanted....

I woulda pretty much been guaranteed to vote mccain until his falwell thing, I know it was a solidify the base thing, but the 180 turn really hurts my opinion of him

[Maxwell]

This amendment obviously does not protect the right of your standing army to own guns, that would be a waste of paper.

Now where does it say "only people in a militia"?
It says one thing (that a militia is important for security) and then it says "the people", (the same bloody people that everywhere else in that document means individuals) have the right to keep and bear arms.

Where else are they supposed to get the guns if they don't own them?
The governments not going to hand out weapons in the middle of a disaster, we supposed to steal them?

[Nuclear1]

The Militia Act also says:

and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

The Act states that the militia would consist of American male residents between 18 and 45, and that each citizen is required to obtain his own weapon. The rest of the Act is just organization of the militia and chain of command, but the principle of the Act stands:  the citizen is given the right to acquire necessary arms and equipment in defense of his community.

Hence where the debate only rests with what is absolutely necessary; do you really need a full automatic to defend your community, or will a Winchester rifle or a handgun do just fine?

EDIT: No wonder I'd never heard of this Act.  The 1903 Act replaced it.

[aldo_14]

The Militia Act also says:

and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

The Act states that the militia would consist of American male residents between 18 and 45, and that each citizen is required to obtain his own weapon. The rest of the Act is just organization of the militia and chain of command, but the principle of the Act stands:  the citizen is given the right to acquire necessary arms and equipment in defense of his community.

Hence where the debate only rests with what is absolutely necessary; do you really need a full automatic to defend your community, or will a Winchester rifle or a handgun do just fine?

EDIT: No wonder I'd never heard of this Act.  The 1903 Act replaced it.

Nonetheless, the 1792 militia act is the clearest indicator of the meaning of 'militia' with regards to the Constitution; unless it was updated post 1903 to that regard, which of course I may have missed.  Section 4 of the 1792 act, to me, makes it clear that militia are only in service for a set period and paid.  It also states that members of the militia - said 18 to 45 years olds - shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company.  It also describes the military organisation - size, structure - of the militia.  I don't think there is a single civillian outside of National Guard, etc, who fits those requirements.

Hence, I would think there is a strong argument that the constitution only allows free holding of weapons where those weapon holders are to be prepared for conscription into a national militia which is now, effectively, the National Guard; i.e. the the 'spirit of the law' is not the random armament of civillians for any purpose said civillian deems fit.  And I would certainly think that argument is not as legally clear cut as you say it is - but, of course, it's not politically expedient to actually investigate it when the NRA is willing to fear-monger alongside hefty campaign contributions.

[Nuclear1]

The Militia Act also says:

and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

The Act states that the militia would consist of American male residents between 18 and 45, and that each citizen is required to obtain his own weapon. The rest of the Act is just organization of the militia and chain of command, but the principle of the Act stands:  the citizen is given the right to acquire necessary arms and equipment in defense of his community.

Hence where the debate only rests with what is absolutely necessary; do you really need a full automatic to defend your community, or will a Winchester rifle or a handgun do just fine?

EDIT: No wonder I'd never heard of this Act.  The 1903 Act replaced it.

Nonetheless, the 1792 militia act is the clearest indicator of the meaning of 'militia' with regards to the Constitution; unless it was updated post 1903 to that regard, which of course I may have missed.  Section 4 of the 1792 act, to me, makes it clear that militia are only in service for a set period and paid.  It also states that members of the militia - said 18 to 45 years olds - shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company.  It also describes the military organisation - size, structure - of the militia.  I don't think there is a single civillian outside of National Guard, etc, who fits those requirements.

Hence, I would think there is a strong argument that the constitution only allows free holding of weapons where those weapon holders are to be prepared for conscription into a national militia which is now, effectively, the National Guard; i.e. the the 'spirit of the law' is not the random armament of civillians for any purpose said civillian deems fit.  And I would certainly think that argument is not as legally clear cut as you say it is - but, of course, it's not politically expedient to actually investigate it when the NRA is willing to fear-monger alongside hefty campaign contributions.

You're right in some cases.  However, none of the 1792, 1862, or 1903 Acts hold supremacy--the Constitution and its Amendments do.  Call it fear-mongering by the NRA if you will, but Americans like their guns, and most of them interpret the Second Amendment in the same way that I just have.

With regards to the militia, it's hardly been disbanded at all; the National Guard is now the "official militia" of the US.  There are dozens of more private militias that fulfill a similar role.

[Ghost]

The militia is the people, and the people have the right to protect themselves from anything. That includes a tyrannical government. How do tyrannical governments get into power? By meeting little to no resistance. How do you put up a resistance? By using guns.

[Turey]

Americans like their guns

Israelis like their guns too.

EDIT: Damnit sandwich, put those photos back!

[aldo_14]

The militia is the people, and the people have the right to protect themselves from anything. That includes a tyrannical government. How do tyrannical governments get into power? By meeting little to no resistance. How do you put up a resistance? By using guns.

How do you launch a coup?  By using guns..... Sorry, little triviality there.

I think the definition of a militia - an organized, regulated force to 'protect' the people and overthrow the government - is still an important concept with regards to the 2nd amendment.  Albeit the people could do very little nowadays against a government with the current US govs' resources, plus my reading is that the militia was created - whilst with a steadily watered-down capacity to usurp the president - with a mind to defending the nascent US from external invasion by the Great Powers and from internal strife with indigenous peoples.

You're right in some cases.  However, none of the 1792, 1862, or 1903 Acts hold supremacy--the Constitution and its Amendments do.  Call it fear-mongering by the NRA if you will, but Americans like their guns, and most of them interpret the Second Amendment in the same way that I just have.

With regards to the militia, it's hardly been disbanded at all; the National Guard is now the "official militia" of the US.  There are dozens of more private militias that fulfill a similar role.

Regardless, surely if you want to interpret the constitution you need to decipher the meanings & context of the words within?  How many americans, yourself notwithstanding, are taught about the various militia acts et al in school?

I'm well aware the national guard exists as the current militia; you'll have to forgive me for not being au-fait with the official legality of private militias (who could just as well be Koresh-esque nutters in a camp in the woods, surely?).  However, I'm pretty sure the concept of a self-armed, fully conscriptable male militia doesn't exist in US society as it did at the definition of the 1792 act and thus - I'd expect - in the minds of those drafting the 2nd amendment.

To be honest, I'm not all that interested in arguing the 2nd amendments' interpretation; I'm neither a judge nor American after all.  But I just think there is still an argument, regardless of common interpretations, to be made for an alternate interpretation.

[Ulala]

Don't worry, I often interpret the Constitution in a regrettable, but necessary way. How else am I supposed to justify all those bank robberies?

[Maxwell]

surely if you want to interpret the constitution you need to decipher the meanings & context of the words within?

Whats to understand about the context in which the constitution was written?
The people who wrote it were just secured in power, through no small part, by armed citizens bearing personal weapons and ammunition.  They knew these people would be useful in fending off future attacks, from inside or outside.  Its been a factor in US security as recently as WW2.

The founders could not have imagined how powerful the US would be today... but likewise, how can you say with any assurance where we will be tomorrow?  Why thin out your own rights to the favor of politicians and foreigners that wont have to live with the effects?