Piers Morgan is a Retard
-
To paraphrase Chris Rock, make bullets cost $50,000 and there'll be no more innocent bystanders. I don't have a strong personal stand on this, I think gun control probably wouldn't solve the problems people want it to solve; someone interested in killing themselves or someone else will find a gun somewhere if they really want it. Or they'll find another way that is just as harmful and destructive. Having said that, the one thing that struck me as I read your post was the thought of our Government going "rogue" and/or there being a military coup. I'm just not sure that given the power of our military that the presence of gun owning Americans would dissuade them, or could in reality prevent such a thing from happening.
Quote:
I'm just not sure that given the power of our military that the presence of gun owning Americans would dissuade them, or could in reality prevent such a thing from happening.
Funny, that's what the British thought about the American settlers.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Most of you have probably heard about the football player who killed his girlfriend and then went to his team offices and killed himself in front of his coaches. The whys and wherefores of those events are not important, but are a necessary lead-in to this post. During halftime on Monday Night Football, Bob Costas expounded on how guns should be banned and the 2nd amendment is specifically to blame for the previously fore-mentioned "tragedy". I have news for Mr Costas - it's not the gun's fault that someone picked it up and used it to commit a crime. It's also not the 2nd Amendment's fault. It's the fault of the as*hole that USED the gun that way. This is fodder for another thread, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention the severe backlash that has resulted from his comments, and the NFL and NBC are going to suffer as a result (not that I'm at all heart-broken over that silver lining). Following that broadcast, Mr. Morgan tweeted the following: “Quite incredible that Bob Costas makes an impassioned plea for less handguns, and Americans go crazy with indignation," "He's 100% right." “The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles, Fact.” I'm really tired of foreigners expressing their uneducated opinions about our constitutional rights. Here's a FACT for Mr. Morgan: The framers of our Constitution were highly reluctant to support the idea of a standing army due to the government's ability to wield said army in any way that was deemed to fulfill the government's purpose, or the possibility that the military would attempt a takeover of the duly elected government. The 2nd Amendment was put in place as a compromise toward that idea. The first part of the 2nd Amendment clearly illustrates that they recognized the necessity of a standing army (a *well regulated* militia) to provide for the country's defense from foreign aggression: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State,..." Some people are interpreting this to mean that the militia must be "well regulated", as in controlled and registered, and this interpretation couldn't be more wrong. In the era in which this document was written, it was common practice to refer to soldiers in an organized army as "regulars", because they were "well regulated" in terms of training and provisions (ammo). This means that the first four words were intended to mean that the militias - as opposd to the idea of a standing army - must be well trained with *m
Amen, well said. I normally don't read this long of a post but your defense of the Constitution is admirable. This is a less and less popular opinion and I'm glad to see you defend it well. Thank you.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
He is not known as Piers Moron for nothing. The man is a twat, but that doesn't mean I agree with your assertion.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
He might be a moron, but he's a filthy rich moron. So he's doing something right.
People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.
-
Most of you have probably heard about the football player who killed his girlfriend and then went to his team offices and killed himself in front of his coaches. The whys and wherefores of those events are not important, but are a necessary lead-in to this post. During halftime on Monday Night Football, Bob Costas expounded on how guns should be banned and the 2nd amendment is specifically to blame for the previously fore-mentioned "tragedy". I have news for Mr Costas - it's not the gun's fault that someone picked it up and used it to commit a crime. It's also not the 2nd Amendment's fault. It's the fault of the as*hole that USED the gun that way. This is fodder for another thread, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention the severe backlash that has resulted from his comments, and the NFL and NBC are going to suffer as a result (not that I'm at all heart-broken over that silver lining). Following that broadcast, Mr. Morgan tweeted the following: “Quite incredible that Bob Costas makes an impassioned plea for less handguns, and Americans go crazy with indignation," "He's 100% right." “The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles, Fact.” I'm really tired of foreigners expressing their uneducated opinions about our constitutional rights. Here's a FACT for Mr. Morgan: The framers of our Constitution were highly reluctant to support the idea of a standing army due to the government's ability to wield said army in any way that was deemed to fulfill the government's purpose, or the possibility that the military would attempt a takeover of the duly elected government. The 2nd Amendment was put in place as a compromise toward that idea. The first part of the 2nd Amendment clearly illustrates that they recognized the necessity of a standing army (a *well regulated* militia) to provide for the country's defense from foreign aggression: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State,..." Some people are interpreting this to mean that the militia must be "well regulated", as in controlled and registered, and this interpretation couldn't be more wrong. In the era in which this document was written, it was common practice to refer to soldiers in an organized army as "regulars", because they were "well regulated" in terms of training and provisions (ammo). This means that the first four words were intended to mean that the militias - as opposd to the idea of a standing army - must be well trained with *m
Well, I don't think that less guns means less brutality. Look at Vermont: 35% of the citizens got a gun (37% in Texas), but only 0,7 murders per 100.000 people annually (12,7% in Texas). In New York 11% have a gun and there are about 13,2 murders per 100.000 people anually.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Some people are interpreting this to mean that the militia must be "well regulated", as in controlled and registered, and this interpretation couldn't be more wrong. In the era in which this document was written, it was common practice to refer to soldiers in an organized army as "regulars", because they were "well regulated" in terms of training and provisions (ammo). This means that the first four words were intended to mean that the militias - as opposd to the idea of a standing army - must be well trained with *modern battlefield-capable weapons of the time* and supplied so that they might be called up to defend the country.
Well regulated means also well educated not only well armed. By, the way I'm not citizen of the USA, but I think it's allowed to talk about it. I got no influence to your politics, but everyone has the right to his own opinion. In my opinion: Just because a right was correct in 1791 it doesn't me it must be correct nowadays. Times are changing. So every paragraph and every right should be looked at from time to time. Yes, there should be talked about, and that doesn't mean that it should be abondoned or be valid automatically for the future. If someone doesn't like that, well perhaps he (she or it) is from yesterday. Times are changing sometimes and trying to get this under control is pure communism.
------------------------------ Author of Primary ROleplaying SysTem How do I take my coffee? Black as midnight on a moonless night. War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
Most of you have probably heard about the football player who killed his girlfriend and then went to his team offices and killed himself in front of his coaches. The whys and wherefores of those events are not important, but are a necessary lead-in to this post. During halftime on Monday Night Football, Bob Costas expounded on how guns should be banned and the 2nd amendment is specifically to blame for the previously fore-mentioned "tragedy". I have news for Mr Costas - it's not the gun's fault that someone picked it up and used it to commit a crime. It's also not the 2nd Amendment's fault. It's the fault of the as*hole that USED the gun that way. This is fodder for another thread, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention the severe backlash that has resulted from his comments, and the NFL and NBC are going to suffer as a result (not that I'm at all heart-broken over that silver lining). Following that broadcast, Mr. Morgan tweeted the following: “Quite incredible that Bob Costas makes an impassioned plea for less handguns, and Americans go crazy with indignation," "He's 100% right." “The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles, Fact.” I'm really tired of foreigners expressing their uneducated opinions about our constitutional rights. Here's a FACT for Mr. Morgan: The framers of our Constitution were highly reluctant to support the idea of a standing army due to the government's ability to wield said army in any way that was deemed to fulfill the government's purpose, or the possibility that the military would attempt a takeover of the duly elected government. The 2nd Amendment was put in place as a compromise toward that idea. The first part of the 2nd Amendment clearly illustrates that they recognized the necessity of a standing army (a *well regulated* militia) to provide for the country's defense from foreign aggression: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State,..." Some people are interpreting this to mean that the militia must be "well regulated", as in controlled and registered, and this interpretation couldn't be more wrong. In the era in which this document was written, it was common practice to refer to soldiers in an organized army as "regulars", because they were "well regulated" in terms of training and provisions (ammo). This means that the first four words were intended to mean that the militias - as opposd to the idea of a standing army - must be well trained with *m
Bravo!:thumbsup:
-
As this will probably run afoul of the rule against discussing US politics, I don't expect it to last long. But I do want to agree with you that Piers Morgan is an idiot, for more reasons that you listed here.
The backroom is basically abandoned. I miss it.
-
The backroom is basically abandoned. I miss it.
This place has a backroom? Clearly I have not explored enough.
-
Well, I don't think that less guns means less brutality. Look at Vermont: 35% of the citizens got a gun (37% in Texas), but only 0,7 murders per 100.000 people annually (12,7% in Texas). In New York 11% have a gun and there are about 13,2 murders per 100.000 people anually.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Some people are interpreting this to mean that the militia must be "well regulated", as in controlled and registered, and this interpretation couldn't be more wrong. In the era in which this document was written, it was common practice to refer to soldiers in an organized army as "regulars", because they were "well regulated" in terms of training and provisions (ammo). This means that the first four words were intended to mean that the militias - as opposd to the idea of a standing army - must be well trained with *modern battlefield-capable weapons of the time* and supplied so that they might be called up to defend the country.
Well regulated means also well educated not only well armed. By, the way I'm not citizen of the USA, but I think it's allowed to talk about it. I got no influence to your politics, but everyone has the right to his own opinion. In my opinion: Just because a right was correct in 1791 it doesn't me it must be correct nowadays. Times are changing. So every paragraph and every right should be looked at from time to time. Yes, there should be talked about, and that doesn't mean that it should be abondoned or be valid automatically for the future. If someone doesn't like that, well perhaps he (she or it) is from yesterday. Times are changing sometimes and trying to get this under control is pure communism.
------------------------------ Author of Primary ROleplaying SysTem How do I take my coffee? Black as midnight on a moonless night. War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
Another reason for the 2nd amendment is that the people could fight back against unreasonable government (I know this can be whatever you want it to) by forming groups (think minute men). I am not as good at explaining as John but I think you can get my meaning.
-
This place has a backroom? Clearly I have not explored enough.
-
Another reason for the 2nd amendment is that the people could fight back against unreasonable government (I know this can be whatever you want it to) by forming groups (think minute men). I am not as good at explaining as John but I think you can get my meaning.
djj55 wrote:
Another reason for the 2nd amendment is that the people could fight back against unreasonable government
Well, I understand that, as I said, I don't want to say it should be abondened or changed, but there must be the chance to talk about every law - It's over 200 years old - so sometimes a review might be a good idea. If the majority decides that it should stay like it is. Well let it be, otherwise - as it's democracy and the US calls itself the land of the free - the majority of the free should have the right to change something - of course only in the meaning of democracy.
------------------------------ Author of Primary ROleplaying SysTem How do I take my coffee? Black as midnight on a moonless night. War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
Quote:
I'm just not sure that given the power of our military that the presence of gun owning Americans would dissuade them, or could in reality prevent such a thing from happening.
Funny, that's what the British thought about the American settlers.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Point taken. And I'm sure what Syria was thinking about their rebels too.
-
This is not the first time that I have heard this pro/contra gun argument amongst Americans. And yes, you can say that guns do not kill people, but peolpe kill people, guns just make it easier for people to kill other people. I am sure that many a murder could have been averted if the murderer did not own a licensed weapon. The problem is that many gun owners are not fit to carry a gun. Personally I think that you should be able to own a weapon if you wanted one, but only if you met the following conditions: 1. A prospective gun owner should pass a psychological evaluation to make sure that he/she does not have psychopathic tendencies or other psychlogiacal disorders such as anger issues, etc. 2. The prospective gun owner should have no criminal record (juvenile or otherwise) what so ever. 3. The prospective gun owner must undergo proficiency training on how to safly handle his or her fire arm of choice. 4. The prospective gun owner must prove that he has secure storage for the gun; i.e. a gun safe. 5. Gun licence should be revoked, and weapon confiscated if the gun owner uses his or her weapon irresponsibly. 6. Gun licence should be revoked if the gun owners weapon is stolen (while the gun owner is not carrying the weapon) due to not storing the weapon in a gun safe. 7. If a prospective gun owner was found guilty of negligence or irresponsible gun use in the past he should not be allowed to own a gun again. IMHO if a person meats meets the restrictions I mentioned above, that person would more then likely be a responsible gun owner and not pose any threat to society.
If only closed minds would come with closed mouths. Ego non sum semper iustus tamen Ego sum nunquam nefas!
sucram wrote:
The problem is that many gun owners are not fit to carry a gun.
Define "many". 80-85 million people in the US legally obtain and carry firearms. That's more than 1/4 of the population here.
sucram wrote:
1. A prospective gun owner should pass a psychological evaluation to make sure that he/she does not have psychopathic tendencies or other psychological disorders such as anger issues, etc.
If you're under the care of a psychologist, you can't pass the federally mandated background check. If you own guns when you go insane, and they detect your insanity ahead of time, they take your guns. Unfortunately a fraction of a fraction of otherwise legal gun owners go insane before it's detected, or make irrational decisions based on anger or frustration, and use their guns to kill people. That cannot be avoided.
sucram wrote:
2. The prospective gun owner should have no criminal record (juvenile or otherwise) whatsoever.
So, if I were to get a speeding ticket, or run a stop sign, that would make me ineligible to own a firearm? Once again, the federally mandated background check will not allow Class B felons to pass, and therefore, they must acquire their guns illegally (remember that criminal thing I mentioned earlier?)
sucram wrote:
3. The prospective gun owner must undergo proficiency training on how to safely handle his or her firearm of choice.
States that allow concealed carry require a proficiency test to make sure the perspective licensee can hit what they're aiming at. IMHO, it shouldn't be mandated any more than wearing helmet when riding a motorcycle should be. IMHO, it's just common sense to to learn how to properly handle and maintain your firearms, and anyone that doesn't do so is a retard. However, I'm certainly not going to insist (or even suggest) that they give up their right to own said firearm. I will highly recommend training to anyone that wants to own/carry, though.
sucram wrote:
4. The prospective gun owner must prove that he has secure storage for the gun; i.e. a gun safe. 6. Gun licence should be revoked if the gun owners weapon is stolen (while the gun owner is not carrying the weapon) due to not storing the weapon in a gun safe.
I have a large gun safe, bolted to
-
Nice interpretation. It made me consider some issues they faced at the time. The state lacked resources and logistics. Due to organizational differences the US may have not had the power to maintain a standing army to fight the likes of the British Empire by itself. Add the simple fact that militias were a huge part of winning independence. The logical conclusion at the time was that every able bodied man needed to have their own weapons to be able to help in the defense of the country. You now have an outstanding armed forces. The 2nd Amendment seems absolutely outdated and useless.
Dexterus wrote:
The 2nd Amendment seems absolutely outdated and useless.
I don't agree. The threat/prospect of an out-of-control too-far-reaching government is the PRIMARY reason we have the 2nd Amendment. That's why the revolution happen, and they didn't want to see it happen again. Unfortunately, most politicians today are/were lawyers, and their primary job (then and now) is to obfuscate the law.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
My brother (a naturalized U S citizen) was driving along I-10 from Austin, TX to San Diego when he was pulled over and asked about his citizenship. My brother replied that he is a U S citizen and his two passengers (a sister and brother-in-law) were visitors to the US and showed him their passports. He was politely told that their papers were in order and they could go on their way. My brother pointed out that he had not shown any proof of US citizenship. The policeman told him that in case of claimed US citizenship, the rules are to take the person at his word. My brother was pleasantly surprised at this. This happened in 2003 or 2004 and I don't know if it was in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona or California.
He was pulled over? By a cop? Or did he encounter the border checkpoint just west of El Paso? (Those are two different things.) Cops have no authority to request a citizenship declaration, and you don't have to answer them if they ask, and if you do declare citizenship, they have no right to ask for ID without RAS (reasonable articulable suspicion) that you're somehow involved in criminal behavior. In a traffic stop, only the driver is the "actor", not the passengers. Passengers don't even have to present ID.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
jschell wrote:
I would have thought that staging the invasion across a large ocean would have been the most significant problem.
The Japanese put forward the idea of invading the continental US, but Admiral Yamamoto told his superiors that doing so would result in disaster because "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass".
jschell wrote:
However if people of the US want to change those rights they have the ability to modify the constitution.
Abolishing one of the Amendments would take an act of [insert your favorite deity here], or a tyrranical executive decree in the form of an "executive order". If that were ever to happen, "hell would be a-poppin'" (as an old boss of mine used to say), and the US would fall to the bottom of the "best places to visit" list.
jschell wrote:
Not sure what that means since of course the US was set up specifically with the understanding that nothing was absolute and that things do change. Of course one does have the right to claim that they do not like some ruling/law. However the country was set up with rules in place to strive for a fair system and it is one which has succeeded when one compares it to other systems. This despite those who claim that their favorite cause is being snubbed simply because they don't win absolutely every single fight (and conveniently ignoring the rights/wishes of others in the process.)
I spit in the eye of anyone that would try to take one of my rights away, even if it doesn't appear to affect me. Case in point: Texas is considering establishing permanent DUI checkpoints, and they've already established "no-refusal" laws regarding breathalyzer and blood draws (5th amendment violations). The permanent checkpoints where they pull you over to see if you're drunk is a 4th amendment violation (unreasonable search). Now, considering I haven't had an alcoholic beverage since about 1998, and I've been driving after dark MAYBE half a dozen times in the last 10 years, you'd think this wouldn't bother me much. But it does (for the cited constitutional reasons). I also refuse to cooperate at border checkpoints that are 100 miles INSIDE US borders for the same reasons. I've written at least half a dozen letters to that effect and mailed them to my representatives in the state capitol (trying to work within the system I'm defending).
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Abolishing one of the Amendments would take an act of [insert your favorite deity here], or a tyrranical executive decree in the form of an "executive order".
Since amendments have been added and removed in the past that most certainly isn't true. The second statement is nonsense.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
(5th amendment violations)...4th amendment violation...
In your opinion at this time. The US wasn't set up however to allow resolutions based on your opinion but does in fact have a specific system in place to resolve differences. And it is quite possible that at some point that system will resolve the specific case you referred to in one way or the other. As has happened in the past.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I spit in the eye of anyone that would try to take one of my rights away
Since rights are not absolute there is no one taking your rights but rather a realization that in terms of governing humans (plural and referring to many others besides you) that compromises must be made to allow for the protection of all rights and the rights of all individuals (plural again.)
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I've written at least half a dozen letters to that effect
Have you tried to start a campaign that would pass a state wide law banning all such check points?
-
Nice rebuttal and the points I would make exactly. Here is the kicker! The Constitution does not give us our rights, they are given to us by the creator and are unalienable. Therefore, the Constitution is only a solidification and proclamation of our natural rights.
richcb wrote:
The Constitution does not give us our rights, they are given to us by the creator and are unalienable. Therefore, the Constitution is only a solidification and proclamation of our natural rights.
First of course there is no such thing as a "natural" right. Humans live in societies and a "right" is only meaningful within groups of humans by agreement. If only one human is living by themself on an entire planet then they can do whatever they want. Second, even the rights of the constitution were debatable and were debated when it was created. And the rights have changed since then. Slavery and a woman's right to vote are examples of that. Third, because there are rights (plural) and individuals (plural) that means that there is no such thing as an absolute right. Thus resolution of conflicts between different rights and different individuals require a compromise. And the constitution recognized that. And there have been changes to that over time as well.
-
Well the first thing I took away from this rant is that you seem to think the govt is restrained from what, taking over the country! I instantly thought of Egypt, Syria where tyrannical regimes are being ousted by the populace. Guess what, that is because their voting system does not work not because the populace isn't armed! Sorry relating the US to the Arab spring is dumb I know, you guys had your Spring more than a century ago. Then you witter on about the constitution and how sacred and set in stone it is, for a start it's a century out of date and I think they have been whittling away at it since it was written. I disagree with you about gun control, but I have no problem with you taking that stand, your decision your country! I also think the commentator has the right to put his 2c worth in, the venue may have been inappropriate but not the idea.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
Then you witter on about the constitution and how sacred and set in stone it is, for a start it's a century out of date and I think they have been whittling away at it since it was written.
As written that isn't correct. The Bill of rights, which is basically the core of this thread, has changed over time explicitly. And the interpretation of those rights is a process that has changed over time and one that continues to this very day.
-
Nice interpretation. It made me consider some issues they faced at the time. The state lacked resources and logistics. Due to organizational differences the US may have not had the power to maintain a standing army to fight the likes of the British Empire by itself. Add the simple fact that militias were a huge part of winning independence. The logical conclusion at the time was that every able bodied man needed to have their own weapons to be able to help in the defense of the country. You now have an outstanding armed forces. The 2nd Amendment seems absolutely outdated and useless.
Dexterus wrote:
The state lacked resources and logistics.
Due to organizational differences the US may have not had the power to maintain a standing army to fight the likes of the British Empire by itself.
Add the simple fact that militias were a huge part of winning independence.I would suppose that the reason many people owned guns then was because it was considered a necessary 'tool' just as many probably owned a hammer.
Dexterus wrote:
The logical conclusion at the time was that every able bodied man needed to have their own weapons to be able to help in the defense of the country.
You now have an outstanding armed forces. The 2nd Amendment seems absolutely outdated and useless.That isn't why it was added. Following (although probably extremist) provides specific historical perspective. http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2005/12/09/why-does-the-second-amendment-exist/[^] And at the time it wasn't hypothetical either since the British government was trying to outlaw ownership. As well as outlaw speech and assembly, two other rights in the bill of rights.
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
During halftime on Monday Night Football, Bob Costas expounded on how guns should be banned and the 2nd amendment is specifically to blame for the previously fore-mentioned "tragedy".
For those who don't pay attention to American football, the issue of head injuries and the effects they have on players has become a big issue. Many players have committed suicide as a result of their head injuries. Now, I think it's safe to say that the player in this case committed suicide because he didn't want to spend the rest of his life in jail, so at first glance this situation looks unrelated to the brain damage issue. But I think it's a fair question to ask if brain damage contributed to this player's lack of self-control. The manner in which he committed suicide may prevent us from finding out. I don't know if an autopsie has been suggested or will be attempted. I'm not suggesting football or anything else be banned, I'm saying that there are more relevant issues involved here and that Costas (and Jason Witless) did everyone a disfavor by bringing up gun control. It's become a huge distraction.
Leslie Sanford wrote:
Many players have committed suicide as a result of their head injuries.
Huh? What exactly is "many"? And in comparison to other reasons for suicide?
Leslie Sanford wrote:
Now, I think it's safe to say that the player in this case committed suicide because he didn't want to spend the rest of his life in jail,...
And that conclusion comes from what? A more likely scenario is that he was distraught over a failing/failed family life.
-
Well, I don't think that less guns means less brutality. Look at Vermont: 35% of the citizens got a gun (37% in Texas), but only 0,7 murders per 100.000 people annually (12,7% in Texas). In New York 11% have a gun and there are about 13,2 murders per 100.000 people anually.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Some people are interpreting this to mean that the militia must be "well regulated", as in controlled and registered, and this interpretation couldn't be more wrong. In the era in which this document was written, it was common practice to refer to soldiers in an organized army as "regulars", because they were "well regulated" in terms of training and provisions (ammo). This means that the first four words were intended to mean that the militias - as opposd to the idea of a standing army - must be well trained with *modern battlefield-capable weapons of the time* and supplied so that they might be called up to defend the country.
Well regulated means also well educated not only well armed. By, the way I'm not citizen of the USA, but I think it's allowed to talk about it. I got no influence to your politics, but everyone has the right to his own opinion. In my opinion: Just because a right was correct in 1791 it doesn't me it must be correct nowadays. Times are changing. So every paragraph and every right should be looked at from time to time. Yes, there should be talked about, and that doesn't mean that it should be abondoned or be valid automatically for the future. If someone doesn't like that, well perhaps he (she or it) is from yesterday. Times are changing sometimes and trying to get this under control is pure communism.
------------------------------ Author of Primary ROleplaying SysTem How do I take my coffee? Black as midnight on a moonless night. War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
ihoecken wrote:
Well regulated means also well educated not only well armed
You are wrong. As noted the "regular' in that referred to a specific type of armed individual and expressed that others should be able to arm themselves as well. It has nothing to do with being educated. And I suspect that the framers would have specifically not expected that.
ihoecken wrote:
but everyone has the right to his own opinion.
For everyone in the US. In many other countries it is quite possible that one not only does not have the right to express the opinion but in reality do not even have the right to a private opinion.
ihoecken wrote:
In my opinion:
Just because a right was correct in 1791 it doesn't me it must be correct nowadays.And that is how the US works. In point of fact slavery is no longer allowed and women are now allowed to vote. Because rights changed. However the one you are referring to hasn't. And support for allowing such a change does not exist.
ihoecken wrote:
So every paragraph and every right should be looked at from time to time.
And they are. Many of the cases the US Supreme Court hears are based specifically on the bill of rights.
ihoecken wrote:
and trying to get this under control is pure communism.
No idea what that statement is supposed to mean.
