> My interpretation of the Second Amendment that is that the Constitution explicitly grants Americans the right to private gun ownership because it is the last line of defense against an oppressive government.
> I believe it is for the government to be afraid of its people, not the other way around.
HA!
The government is not afraid of you. If you ever tried to actually use your weapon against them, you'd be branded a terrorist (justified or not), and hunted down and killed, or if you are lucky, detained indefinitely.
The logic behind the reasoning in the quote is the same that make people think they can end an oppressive regime (like Iraq or North Korea) by just walking in and killing the leader.
You feel powerful with a weapon in your hand, but the world is more complex than that.
> I believe it is for the government to be afraid of its people, not the other way around.
A country where government is afraid of people because of guns is not a country where you want to live. Trust me. I'm fine with guns, but don't believe you're doing anything useful.
This guy is a part of the problem. The 2nd amendment links the right to keep and bear arms with the need for a "well regulated militia". Congress and the courts have never actually enforced this linkage and indeed pretend that it doesn't exist -- which is the basis of our current problems with gun nuts insisting that the general population be heavily armed. This guy may never go nutso and shoot up a classroom (even though his paranoia about the "govenrment" seems to indicate some degree of mental illness) but some other deluded soul could use the weapon to kill innocents. As long as gun nuts run the government we are truly and thoroughly screwed. (just my humble opinion).
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.
I really don't understand why people have such a hard time with this, when it has been gone over so much. Regulated from the latin origin regula or to supply. So well regulated is well supplied. So the founding father where saying that a well supplied militia is necessary to the security of a free state therefore arms are not to be infringed to guarantee a well supply. It has nothing to do with regulation, AKA a governed group of militia people, but people try to contort regulated with regulation all the time to make the second amendment fit their desires for it to read how they want it to.
> I need it because I don’t need the government telling me what I don’t need.
So why aren't you using drugs? The government is pretty straightforward on those too. That's just a crappy excuse.
Apart from that, this post is an overall crap too and you just (unsuccessfully) try to justify owning a gun by saying 'just in case' and promoting fear of government, opressors, cops, neighbours, everyone.
I don't own a gun, probably never will, and I forbid my children to play with toy guns. There's plenty of other things that they can play with in order to make bonds with their peers, not get afraid of them.
I'm pointing out the false equivalence implied in your "why aren't you using drugs?" not suggesting that a lone individual can stand up to the full might of the US Armed Forces. Several million could, especially if the triggering government issue/event/policy caused defection from within the formal military ranks over to the ad-hoc militia.
Several million drug users mad at the government won't have nearly the same effectiveness.
>Drugs are not an effective defense against an oppressive government. Guns are.
Yes, if you live in 1700. In 2012, not so much. And especially not at all in the US, which is HUGE, segregated into states, and the government has the biggest military power in history.
With a gun you're not even a match for the police, much less the government.
Actually, you only get to have weapons because the government allows you too.
If tomorrow the government decided to forbid private weapons, the writer would have returned his weapon pronto or face jail time or being shot by the police.
In that case (which is not very far-fetched) I don't see him fighting with his weapon for what he considers his right at all. Does anybody?
With a gun you're not even a match for the police, much less the government.
pretoriusB, you have your position on this and I understand that, it's a hot topic, but from the sentence above it is apparent that you lack knowledge of tactical warfare. I would suggest you review the footage of the LA bank shootout, to get an idea of what two men with rudimentary tactical training can do. A well trained squad of 4 to 6 can be absolutely devastating and it is why guerrilla warfare is such a hard and gritty fight to endure for a traditional force. It's why we lost to Vietnam, superior firepower cannot compensate for strategical and tactical advantage. The reality is, that the US could be disrupted by as little as 10% of it's population resorting to guerrilla warfare and quite possible loose. That being said, there is still a need for the government to be balanced by fear of the people, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia is not that far in the rear view mirror, and the evils that lurked in the hearts of those men is not confined to Europe, they walk among all nations and desire the same darkness. The idea of the right to self defense is not an antiquated notion, it may not be as sacred now days but it generally only becomes sacred when you need it, usually by then it's the most important right.
Sure, guerrilla warface can be very potent, but I don't realistically see not 10% but even 1/1000 of the US population resorting to it.
>That being said, there is still a need for the government to be balanced by fear of the people, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia is not that far in the rear view mirror
Yes, but those are countries were the leaders were elected BY the people. I mean, Hitler was elected into office and had huge support even throughout the war, and the USSR come into being by a popular revolt, and it too had mass popular support, at least in the first years.
>and the evils that lurked in the hearts of those men is not confined to Europe, they walk among all nations and desire the same darkness.
True. After all it was the US that dropped 2 nuclear bombs on civillians, conducted medical experiments on unknowing people, had segregation and racism issues until at least the 70's and that has invaded more countries than any modern post-colonial western country. And it's one of the few western countries that still has the death penalty, I mean, what's with that?
You're the BS result of an arcane societal obsession of one certain Western country based on an judicially blessed misrepresentation of what their "founding fathers" had in mind on the issue which even in it's original intent is obsolete anyway (e.g people being armed in militias to overthrow a possible repressive government -- a notion that made sense back in the day, but today's government has 1000 times the resources and most gun owners don't care about the government anyway).
> I believe it is for the government to be afraid of its people, not the other way around.
HA!
The government is not afraid of you. If you ever tried to actually use your weapon against them, you'd be branded a terrorist (justified or not), and hunted down and killed, or if you are lucky, detained indefinitely.
The logic behind the reasoning in the quote is the same that make people think they can end an oppressive regime (like Iraq or North Korea) by just walking in and killing the leader.
You feel powerful with a weapon in your hand, but the world is more complex than that.