Gun Control Thread- Should we?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Daseal

RR, there are some major issues with this little snippet. First, it was written somewhere between 1811 and 1832. During that time the assault rifle was a musket. Not exactly an efficient killing machine in the situations we deal with today. If you have 50 guys lined up, pretty efficient. One crazy guy with a musket, easily disabled by 2 people 50 yards away.

That's a straw man.

Originally Posted by Daseal

Secondly, it clearly illustrates that the motivation behind the 2nd amendment is to be available to defend the country. Regardless of if those attacks come from an internal or an external source. Most importantly, the militia is meant to be a replacement for a military. He illustrates that clearly by making points as to both the fiscal and political burdens that comes with a full-time military. And a leader (president) that has a military at their disposal.

No, it doesn't it says, in part, 'The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.'

So that would be the tyrannical rule point that the colonials had just rejected from Britain.

Originally Posted by Daseal

Let's be honest.

Just a personal foible, any time someone says 'Let's be honest' or variations thereof I assume that they haven't been honest previously. Otherwise why mention the need. I digress.....

Originally Posted by Daseal

The constitution was written is 1787. The 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791. That's 221 years ago. I don't believe that rules written in the 1700s are still applicable today. Thomas Jefferson said he didn't believe the dead should rule the living and that the constitution should be updated every twenty years. Legislation has to grow with the culture.

If this is the case why wasn't it made part of the Constitution?

Originally Posted by Daseal

You can't use arguments from 221 years ago to defend actions today.

I hear people use scripture (of varying religions) every day to justify their actions. This is at least a decently written document.

Originally Posted by Daseal

While I'm sure Justice Story was a brilliant man -- there's no way he could forsee the way this country has grown and the way technology has evolved. Using a 200-ish year old decision that you selectively take segments from is not a very strong argument.

If we are to attempt to keep pace with a potentially despotic government, as the 2nd Amendment clearly states its goal, then there shouldn't be a limit, should there?