Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Zad Fnark wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:
- The purpose of the firearms is geared towards a militia, rather than private use.

Ummmm.... no.

You know how that lame interpretation came about? Here's what happened.

After the civil war ended, you had the terrorist wing of the Democratic party (the KKK) running amok, doing their best to intimidate the recently freed slaves.

It just so happened that some of these recently freed slaves had firearms. There must have been a few times where the Klan got shot up pretty good. Well, we can't have that now. We mustn't have colored folk shooting up the white guys and voting however they want. Enter the "militia only" interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Here's a good way to disarm all those pesky black people so the former slaveowners can run things like they want.

So rest easy, libs and Democrats. You have your KKK forefathers to thank for this freedom-hating interpretation of the constitution.

Don't believe me?

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/heller_2nd_amendment.pdf

Given the context that you pulled that quotation from, I would have thought it obvious that I was talking about Switzerland, unless you live in some really weird part of America.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:
- The purpose of the firearms is geared towards a militia, rather than private use.

Could you expand upon this point please

The guns are predominantly supplied for use by the militia, which consists of practically all men between the ages of 20-30. After your term in the militia finishes, you can choose to keep your gun, but without ammunition. This means that if the militia is ever called up, you can jump on a truck or something, and get to the nearest depot, where they'll supply you with ammunition. Private gun ownership for hunting and shooting does exist, but it's not really very different from England or most other European countries.

 Grey Templar wrote:
None of the reasons I have seen given for infringing on the second have been good enough though.

Yelling ''fire'' in a crowded theater is good reason to restrict free speech. There is not any equivalent reason for restricting the 2nd.

I can think of one good historical reason for restricting the 2nd: Great Britain, as in Great Britain will never invade the USA ever again.

American members, you are safe, you have nothing to fear. The British Army would struggle to break up a meeting of the WI, these days!


Maybe I'm preaching to the converted, but historically, the militia served 3 purposes:

1) To provide a defence against the French, and later the British.

2) To defend communities against any slave insurrection

3) To defend against a mass rebellion of Native Americans on the warpath a la Pontiac rebellion.

Now, given that Native Americans are undermining the rest of America with their Casinos, given that slave insurrections are highly unlikely, and given that the British can only afford 3 days worth of ammunition for its armed forces, the purpose of the militias would seem redundant.

Now, we all know the founding fathers were bitterly opposed to standing armies, but given that America has the world's most powerful standing army, I fail to see the purpose of any militias.

 -Shrike- wrote:
The guns are predominantly supplied for use by the militia, which consists of practically all men between the ages of 20-30. After your term in the militia finishes, you can choose to keep your gun, but without ammunition. This means that if the militia is ever called up, you can jump on a truck or something, and get to the nearest depot, where they'll supply you with ammunition. Private gun ownership for hunting and shooting does exist, but it's not really very different from England or most other European countries.

Thank you. I mis-read that as you saying firearms generally were not suited to private ownership

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
None of the reasons I have seen given for infringing on the second have been good enough though.

Yelling ''fire'' in a crowded theater is good reason to restrict free speech. There is not any equivalent reason for restricting the 2nd.

I can think of one good historical reason for restricting the 2nd: Great Britain, as in Great Britain will never invade the USA ever again.

American members, you are safe, you have nothing to fear. The British Army would struggle to break up a meeting of the WI, these days!


Maybe I'm preaching to the converted, but historically, the militia served 3 purposes:

1) To provide a defence against the French, and later the British.

2) To defend communities against any slave insurrection

3) To defend against a mass rebellion of Native Americans on the warpath a la Pontiac rebellion.

Now, given that Native Americans are undermining the rest of America with their Casinos, given that slave insurrections are highly unlikely, and given that the British can only afford 3 days worth of ammunition for its armed forces, the purpose of the militias would seem redundant.

Now, we all know the founding fathers were bitterly opposed to standing armies, but given that America has the world's most powerful standing army, I fail to see the purpose of any militias.

Sure... that's what you want us to believe... and as soon as we disarm as australia did, you're gonna start retaking "those troublesome colonies"