The debate "We should ban assualt weapons" was started by
June 14, 2016, 1:44 pm.
By the way, dalton7532 is disagreeing with this statement.
17 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 21 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
historybuff posted 6 arguments, Nemiroff posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
dalton7532 posted 5 arguments, historybuff posted 4 arguments, RogueAmerican posted 5 arguments, Nemiroff posted 5 arguments to the disagreers part.
SwaggerPoptart, DemonLlama, Sugandha, sickboyblonde and 13 visitors agree.
dalton7532, historybuff, Bodaciouslady16, ototoxic, Sad_Teddy_Bear, Nemiroff, RogueAmerican, fadi, TheC16, Zuhayr, moneybagboyz and 10 visitors disagree.
your totally missing the point.
they are not individuals but an ORGANIZED fighting unit, whose only difference from an army is full time vs on call.
But nonetheless self armed individuals
it doesn't matter if they stole the weapons or made them. it doesn't matter what those weapons are.
if they are organized and not soldiers, they are militia.
if they are organized and soldiers, they are an army.
If they are disorganized and not soldiers (as you implied) they are simply a mob.
How were militias armed at the framing
state guards are militias. they are not professional soldiers, they are civilians with day jobs. but they are trained, organized, and can be called upon in an emergency.
they are not just citizens that may or may not choose to respond when needed. that is the definition militias have always had.
I'm saying militias should be verified by the government to make sure they aren't secretly neo nazis or skin heads arming up for a coup.
So are you arguing that they were armed by the government
they weren't professional, but they were recruited, trained, and had a chain of command. American militias during that period are well documented. the only difference between them and soldiers is a day job.
Precisely, militia has always been well defined. They werent regulars.
this was the late 18th century. this wasn't ancient times. the word militia was very well defined.
exactly where are you getting your definition from?
you're right, militias aren't regulars. that is why they don't report for duty, they can come or go as they choose and they don't receive pay. but they are still organized. the word regulated was used other times in the Constitution and they never meant "working". they meant regulated by the government. and they specified by the government. they left out the by the government because they wanted these militias to be independent of federal control. but they still intended for them to be regulated, that is why the specified "well regulated". a disorganized mob is a direct threat to the state and to society.
You cant look at well regulated by modern definitions. Gay used to mean happy everywhere; the definition has changed. Well regulated used to mean in working order; the definition has been changed to, well you know, well regulated. In working order therefore implies that it can work, and if the 1st clause is to make sense, the second must make it in working order. That comes from the right to bear arms.
Militias arent regulars; they are militias for a reason.
and open to oversight by press and the general public.
that is what we are saying, yes. a militia doesn't mean a bunch of people with absolutely no connection to each other who privately own guns. a militia is a group of people who are part of a specific militia organization. it has a chain of command. it has regular meetings and/or training. if you are not part of an actual "well regulated militia" then you are not part of a militia. if you don't know who the commanding officer is in your militia, you aren't in a militia.
well regulated doesn't mean government regulation. but it still means well regulated by someone.
"THE BILL OF RIGHTS APPLIED TO ALL NOT JUST PEOPLE IN A DAMN MILITIA. TELL ME WHERE EXCACTLY IT SAYS THAT IN THE CONSTITUTION. DONT GIVE ME SOME BS OPINIONATED SITE. MILITIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A CRAZY MILITIA!!!!!!!!!!!"
"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."
source: The Constitution of the United States of America.
random people carrying guns into a night club is not a militia. we can debate what well regulated means. but to me it clearly means organization, a chain of command. some sort of regular meetings. if it doesn't have those things it is just a mob.
and history has proven that the mob is one of the most destructive elements in a society. seeing as the founding fathers borrowed so heavily from Roman history, they would certainly have known that.
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 words of the fathers.
and if people are allowed to carry guns into crowded areas while drinking, people die. that is probably the worst thing you could do.
The way to solve it is to make sure you cant shoot the unarmed. If I had a gun in that nightclub, I would have had a chance to end it before 50 people died
it is that kind of thinking that is making this happen to America hundreds of times a year. while every other country responds to tragedy by trying to deal with the issue, Americans say (to quote you) "you can't prevent it" and then do nothing.
getting control of your rampant, runaway gun issues will be hard. it will take time. and it will be unpopular. but until you do, these tragedies are just going to keep happening to you over and over and over again. and finding the will to even accept that there is a problem is something you can't seem to do.
You cant prevent it; it was one gun.
the need for a militia is long past. militias are completely useless in the modern world. they serve no purpose. therefore arming everyone because someday you might potentially want an armed group of civilians is rediculous. especially when there are so many people dying for it.
Well organized meant in working order, not regulates. At the time militiamen were just ordinary men.
But does this make sense to you: if a government wanted power, why would it take away its own guns? Surely it must protect individuals since no ambitious men would weaken their government.
and the vast majority of Americans aren't in a militia of any kind.
Disciplined is not there
You must interpret it based on the time, and a well regulated meant in working order at the time.
it specifically says a well regulated militia. the right to bear arms is specifically for the purposes of being in a well regulated militia. that is exactly what it says.
THE BILL OF RIGHTS APPLIED TO ALL NOT JUST PEOPLE IN A DAMN MILITIA. TELL ME WHERE EXCACTLY IT SAYS THAT IN THE CONSTITUTION. DONT GIVE ME SOME BS OPINIONATED SITE. MILITIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A CRAZY MILITIA!!!!!!!!!!!
well organized and disciplined militia!!! a bunch of random guys with assault rifles is not any of those things. if you are not in an organized and disciplined militia you don't even begin to qualify for the second amendment.
MILITIA!!!!!!!!!! A CRQZY MILITIA FOR A CRAZY GOVERNEMNT.
as the founding fathers said "a well organized and disciplined militia"
not everyone gets a gun.
militias should be allowed to form by various more local governments, with discipline, rules, and oversight. but personal ownership really does not need anything crazy.
there is absolutely no reason a private citizen needs an assault weapon.