a well regulated militia

[LordSludge]

Originally posted by MaggieL
The Pennsylvania constitution is very clear on this point: " The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense <b><i>of themselves</i></b> and the State shall not be questioned." [emphasis added] So this includes the 9mm autoloading pistol I carry, as well as the Springfield M1-A/M-14 "assult-style rifle" I''d like to own, but can't afford at the moment.

Interesting tidbit on the PA constitution! Of course it's irrelevant to the national constitution and, by extension, national arms rights. But my implicit question remains unanswered: What defines "arms"? How do you arrive at the conclusion that pistols and assault rifles are okay? Just your arbitrary personal opinion? Why not shoulder-fired rockets? Sure would be easier to defend my home with a 50 cal machine gun mounted on the porch and an M1 Abrams tank in the garage. Who are you to tell me I can't have them?? I have a constitutional RIGHT!!!

(As an aside, capping an unwelcome boinker will get your guns conficated and you thrown in the slammer...unless the boinker was unwelcome by the <i>spouse</i>, too, in which case it's justified use of deadly force in this state...rapist season is always open.)

No argument here, although a simple gunshot is probably too kind...

The intent of Amendment 2 was manifold--danger can come from many directions, not just an out-of-control government...

Maybe, maybe not, but it's kinda hard to support that position in light of the more specific language present in, say, the PA constitution -- language which is conspicuously absent in the national constitution.

--but clearly the founders thought a disarmned populace was a bad idea, and I agree.

This is probably the heart of the issue, and the key point that we disagree on. I really do think the constitution right to arms argument is bunk, but the question remains: Are we safer with armed citizens or with disarmed citizens? It probably boils down to different viewpoints on human nature. I tend to think that even basically kind, decent, "good" people can lose it from time to time. A gun greatly facilitates death in such a situation.

[anecdote edited to protect the guilty; sorry -- I just reconsidered that a public forum prolly isn't the best place for this story]

Guess that's where I'm coming from... I think that gun-advocates tend to see in more black and white, but you tell me?

And and out-of-control government is nothing more than a biggish gang of hoodlums...your "fellow man" writ large.

Maybe true, but the power of their weaponry makes pistols and assault rifles utterly irrelevant. (see below)

The idea that an armed citizenry is pointless simply because the government owns bigger guns is silly. Don't underestimate the power of small arms widely held by a large population. Nice thing about it is that it's inherently democratic. The republic was born in guerilla warfare, and it could, if need be, happen again.

You've got to be kidding. I gotta assume you're just saying this for argument's sake. Please tell me you don't really believe your subdivision, armed with M-14s, could hold off a full assault of marines, complete with automatic weapons, mortars, artillery, heli gunships, etc.

That was then -- we fought muskets with muskets. This is now -- there's just no contest. I guess, you might argue that North Vietnam fought off the U.S. through guerilla warfare, but they had much more than mere pistols and semi-auto assault rifles with which to fight, not to mention that was 30 years ago. U.S. military tech hasn't exactly stood still.

I can't believe I even have to argue this point. You might as well be insisting the sky is green...

Unless people who think our rights are "obsolete" surrender them for us.

MODERN WEAPONRY has made any constitutional right to arms that may or may not exist obsolete. It just doesn't matter -- "armed" civies vs. "ARMED" govt don't have a prayer, NONE, even w/ guerilla tactics, *unless* the civies have access to real weaponry, e.g. fully automatic rifles, grenades, rockets, etc. at a MINIMUM. They'd need tanks, heli gunships, etc. to even approach a fair fight.

I'll ask again: Would you feel safe if Joe American had access to bona fide modern weaponry? After all, ICBMs don't kill people; PEOPLE kill people.