I decided to go with a different format today for my blog post. Instead of the usual "I answer your questions", this time I'm going to ask a question and you supply the answer via comments. Without further ado, here we go:
Where should the government draw the "right to bear arms" line? At what point should a weapon become military-only and not available to the general public?
Before you answer, let me give you something else to think about: What was the founders purpose behind allowing people to bear arms?
Monday, April 2, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You can be paramilitary for all I care - the right to bear arms should not be restricted to the military. Any weapon that can be feasibly used for self-defense must not be disallowed under any circumstances to anyone formally trained in its safe use, and should not be disallowed under some circumstances to anyone who isn't.
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts on this are not complete, but I'm working my way there.
ReplyDeleteThe reason why the founding fathers gave us that right was to keep the federal and state government in check. If people have the power to overthrow a government, then the government will tread softly. Back in the days when they wrote that, "military" firearms were essentially the same as the civillians. Does this mean that civillians should have access to the same weaponry as the military (Bombs? F-22's?) because we need enough firepower to overthrow our government, which includes the US military forces? I don't know.
I think we ought to be able to have and bear whatever arms we like or can afford, without Federal permission, (or state either) but I do not think that a felon should be able to bear arms (which is another issue entirely). But as to what type, how big, how many etc... that should be entirely up to the the person who is buying.
ReplyDeleteHeres an example of the good of everyone having a firearm.
A man walks into a bank, waving a gun and yelling everyone on the floor, if no-one has a firearm they go to the floor and he get away. Now if everyone had one they just turn to him and say "KABOOM" now sir you get on the floor. That way only the criminal is hurt. Think about it in a school setting, if a student comes in waving a gun and shooting people, if the teachers have a firearm they can obsolve the problem with few people being hurt.
Adolf Hitler once said "One man with a gun can control 100 without"
I tend to be a bit of a libertarian on some issues and the right to bear arms is one, no one should be able to tell you what you can and cannot own. If I want a F-22 I think I have the freedom to have it, (Now using it for pleasure--- maybe not so much)
Excellent thoughts TCR (I hope you don't mind that I abbreviate your name).
ReplyDeleteA friend of mine said this in an email:
ReplyDelete"I wrote an overly lengthy reply to your blog. It got eaten. I don’t have the energy to re-type but I believe the 2nd amendment is an individual right as are all the first 8 amendments. For those who hang their hat on the word “militia” I counter with:
mi·li·tia (m-lsh)
n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
All are definitions that refer to individuals not part of a standing army."