Why do Americans like guns so much?

Our Second Amendment clearly enumerates what is necessary to the security of a free State.

 

Well done, very mature.

Thomas Jefferson was a pathetic excuse of a man, a more disgusting racist politician have I not come across. 300 slaves on his death was it? What a sordid history.

 

You said what I posted was of the devil. Either you meant me, or the men I was quoting. To equate either with supernatural evil forces... is not mature. Sir.

So... you find no merit in the work of men, because of your assumed knowledge of A man's life. The congress exists to rebuke you. The constitution is not disgusting... and if I had to explain that to you... you wouldn't get it.

 

you quoted thomas jefferson did you not?

- - - Updated - - -

The devil is symbolic of wicked intentions, sir.

 

You even quoted him dismissing tyrants, how hypocritical.

 

So, do you support restricting gun ownership to people whom you would deem responsible?

If so, do you think that is even enforceable? Not only is it nigh impossible to know who will be responsible as a gun owner and who won't, but there is no way to control who might get a hold of the weapon after it's been sold to this person.

Then there's the black market in guns.. We'd have to get control of them right at the source - the factories - and not permit them to go out into the wild.

 

I'll bet your favorite US president is worse.

 

A legion of criminologists would be interested to hear your proof on that assertion.

 

As you said about repetition........

My point was that the Second Amendment needs to be seen in context when there was no standing army in the United States and various states militias were the only means of protection of the state.
It makes perfect sense when there is a yeomanry in place and not a standing army, that all citizens be armed and ready to be called up for service. Given that militias were regulated (patchily in some places but nevertheless, regulated) and were required to meet regularly for training there was a need for the members to have arms and for no local or state authority to forbid them from being armed lest the militia lose its effectiveness.

I don't like repeating a point but I have to because it seems very few want to engage on the point and instead wander off into overblown rhetoric which to them becomes a valid response.

 

Nope, a rate is measured per capita and it stands by itself as a descriptor. When you look for causes then the rate isn't much help. So Bower is perfectly entitled to use it.

 

It seems to me that the existence of a huge standing army would make militias all the more important according to at lest the more libertarian-minded founding fathers, as a check on the army's power.

 

The volunteers who went to Texas to join the Anglo-American insurrection against the Mexican government had various reasons for doing so. But many came in bodies of militia which were raised in other states. The origins of Anglo-American entry into Mexican territory (Texas) was from Louisiana and the Mississippi valley. It is true that Mexico encouraged Anglo-American immigration to its territory of Texas so they weren't invaders. Texas effectively seceded from Mexico (Santa Anna basically caused the secession) but those people who came to join the uprising were probably driven by a mix of patriotism, of belief in Manifest Destiny and desire for land. They weren't operaing under official approval by the US government but Jackson had set about interfering in a highly covert manner. No, they weren't operating as official militia, but the records show that militia were raised in other states to travel to Texas to join the fight. The Alamo was essentially fought by Anglo-Americans organised in the form of militia.

But this isn't about Texas history, as interesting as that subject is.

Now I have to go back to my original point.

If there is a standing army then there is no need for a militia or yeomanry. When the population of a nation reaches levels where the division of labour between civilian and military requirements allows the creation of a standing army which can draw civilian labour without destroying the economy, then the need for a militia disappears. The whole rationale which underpins the Second Amendment is therefore eliminated.

I'm not sure of where the militia survives now, do you mean the National Guard?

 

Posse comitatus? I'd be interested to read your take on it.

The folks who were defending their interests after Katrina didn't need the Second Amendment to protect them, they were using their right of self defence at common law.

 

I'm actually arguing about the intent and purpose of the Second Amendment.

- - - Updated - - -

Forgot to add - tks Txd - am reading your links.

 

You need to read up a little. The militia is of the people and not under the control of the federal government. It is meant as a last resort to repel the federal powers and/or corrupt MILITARY. By the way the founding fathers noted on the declaration that the standing army was one reason for separation:

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. (States rights issue)
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. (again states rights issue)
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: (UN)

 

10 USC 312

(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
(1) The Vice President.
(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States,
the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and
the Virgin Islands.
(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on
active duty.
(4) Customhouse clerks.
(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission
of mail.
(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards
of the United States.
(7) Pilots on navigable waters.
(8 ) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant
in, the United States.

 

It is difficult to change a dead body count - although there are some differences in fine detail i.e. Manslaughter versus murder they all come under the banner "homicide"

Whereas, as I have pointed out spitting, especially at a Police Officer here will have you on a charge of serious assault

 

From that perspective, yes, but the state likes to have a monopoly on power and while the state is benign then that, from my
perspective is a good.

Of course actuality is something else - your perspective and mine are largely irrelevant.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm reading up.

I'm limiting my thinking in this forum to the issue of the Second Amendment as it was originally drafted and the lack of
standing army at the time.

 

And a thick ear...but only if no-one's looking

 

If it has a monopoly on power, then it will not remain benign.

 

Can you cite any sources for your contention? Wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States is prescribed by our federal Congress.

 

Yes I can but you should read up before you argue this with me.

 

Good. But do realize the people are the militia and they are our nations true strength.

 

What kind of bike do you have, archer?

 

Bower was referring to per capita statistics when she made her statement, so...

She was responding to a poster who posted per capita statistics showing that the UK has a higher violent crime rate than any other EU country.