Maybe they dont. Too bad for them.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

I understand the flawed reasoning that would allow some people to conclude that the original intent of the Founding Fathers, was to allow a mob of the people, to individually keep and bear arms, regardless of the security needs of a free state. Unfortunately, for your position, that is not what the Founding Fathers wrote in the second amendment.

There is no Government that would wish to have its citizens armed.

Militia=private citizen

There was a time when a starting government looked to the Militia to fight any invading army.

Today a government looks to control the Militia if not an out right ban.

Gun control is NOT for your and my saftey, but rather for control of the citizens so that we can not take back the government by force if needed.

No where does it mention in the second amendment that a militia and the right to keep arms are related, here read for yourself. Notice the lack of a conjunction between the two parts of the amendment? Jr High School English, sir.

There is no gray area nor any mandate of a militia and quite frankly I demand the right to be as well armed as the violent criminals that roam the street. In case you haven't noticed, restrictions on such weapons as fully autos and sawed off shotguns has only prevented law abiding citizens from possessing them, what do hardened criminals care? They are already breaking the law, so why not use a full auto SMG as opposed to a hunting rifle. Jesus, utter lack of common sense.

__________________
"Bring the boys back home!"--Pink Floyd

NFA JJG 42-95

Free People/Free Markets

Following the Path of the Beam

Why did the Founding Fathers, specifically, include the words "well regulated" and "militia"; if what they really wanted was to allow an anarchic mob of individuals to keep and bear arms? It could not have been because it is well established that such collective action by an anarchic mob of people is more conducive to the security of a free state than a well regulated militia.

Why not just say it....

Oh Great white Father that lives in D.C. you take care of me..........
What ever you say I will do.

Was the Second Amendment for the Citizen? or the Government?

For your reasoning to be correct, the 2A would simply state, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." I am under the impression that no state would be able to ensure its security by granting such a right to individual citizens without some recourse to utilize the collective action of those citizens for the defense of the state.

Why did they omit the obvious conjunctions if only a militia were to allowed to be armed? Additionally, the only anarchic mob hauling guns around is the same anarchic mob that would be hauling them around if they were criminalized. You do understand the definition of the word anarchy don't you?

So, please do tell, how am I, as a law abiding citizen, to protect myself from said anarchic mob if guns are outlawed? Please don't tell me that the government will protect me because frankly, the government can't protect squat.

__________________
"Bring the boys back home!"--Pink Floyd

NFA JJG 42-95

Free People/Free Markets

Following the Path of the Beam

Think of it this way,

If the writters of the Constitution had known that we today would be working so hard to read some other kind of meaning into the writing, I feel that they would have been more clear..
I am sure that there is a way of making the line "the sky is blue" more clear that it is.


The people here that would like gun control would love to live under total government control.

For your reasoning to be correct the 2A would state "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state so the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Again, it comes down to Jr High school English. Keep in mind that, also, this was written at a time when the average joe needed a rifle or at least a musket (and if you don't know the difference, don't bother responding) in order to feed himself...

Lastly, there is absolutely no where in the US Constitution that limits the rights of people only limits power of the government.

__________________
"Bring the boys back home!"--Pink Floyd

NFA JJG 42-95

Free People/Free Markets

Following the Path of the Beam

I am not sure how you can reach that conclusion.

Even if the 2A were written as, "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."

The meaning of the words and the purpose of the amendment would still be clear.

Any form of statism usually allows for the coercive use of force for the security of that form of statism.

Grrr...stupid forum wiped out my response and I don't have time to rewrite it now...will try again after my meeting.

__________________
"Bring the boys back home!"--Pink Floyd

NFA JJG 42-95

Free People/Free Markets

Following the Path of the Beam

Daniel, I am too busy now to keep this discussion up, perhaps we can agree t disagree? I would hate to have someone with such a great first name be at any sort of odds with me

__________________
"Bring the boys back home!"--Pink Floyd

NFA JJG 42-95

Free People/Free Markets

Following the Path of the Beam

When you actually understand English, feel free to revisit this. Your lack of comprehension is directly related to how poorly you understand the language.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

I am not sure how you reached that conclusion. I am not the one who has to rely on the known fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.