Quote:
Originally posted by ChefTyler:
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueSky:
[b]
Turning to guns, I'm not against owning weapons, though I would agree that most normal people have no need or want for an assault weapon. I would also be interested to know - though it would be difficult if not impossible to calculate - how many guns kept for self-defense are ever needed and successfully used for that purpose. Very, very few would be my guess.
It doesn't matter, the second amendment says I can, period. As for the self defense weapons, those that are prepared are, on the whole, more careful and plan ahead. Which skews the numbers.[/b]
Relax, I have no interest in taking anyone's guns away. I'm simply curious about the actual figures in terms of self-protection with guns.

I'm not speaking of you when I say this, but it is interesting that gun enthusiasts can be just as shrill and irrational as anti-gun activists can be.

Quote:
Originally posted by Samueul:
What I don't understand is how the SA can be construed as anything but an individual right? I mean if the whole purpose of it is to prevent a tyrannical government from gaining too much power, what good is the SA if a "collective" has to have some form of government approval whether at the state or federal level, to even bare arms?
Whether you like your arms bare is no business of mine. laugh

Seriously, while your point about preventing the government from becoming too powerful may be valid, look at the amendment's exact wording:

"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 seems very clear to me that the intent was that the Federal government can not prevent individual states from keeping a militia. As you yourself pointed out, the concern was obviously that the Federal government could easily impose its will on the states if they had no means to resist. So the people whose right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed" are those who belong to such a "well-regulated" state militia, not every John Q. Public in the country.

Why else would they make a point of saying "well-regulated", or mention a militia at all for that matter? If they were addressing individual rights, why wouldn't they have just written, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

Again, I'm not arguing the point of gun control, just the meaning and intent of the words that were written.