For or against?

Here are some points why US have the right to own a gun:

1.) To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.

2.)The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several ... [countries], which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

3.)A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, should not be infringed.

By the way, these arguments are from the best minds of the political world.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

At least ArrowHead have any idea were I quoted those comes from.

For PUG, I got those from:
1.) Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights
2.)James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46
3.)Second Amendment to the Constitution
Here is the site, at the preface section: http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

Originally Posted by ArrowHead

From the eighteenth century. When one of the wonders of the modern world was a shitting mechanical duck. Times change. You don't write with a quill anymore. And you don't need a gun to defend your house from King George.

You know that King George is not only the threat, and that is not only the reason why second amendment was created. Let me emphasize the third point: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ..."

Since the Bill of Rights are for the protection of the people and the states from the thing that they are creating, which was the Union, the second amendment gives the opportunity to check the big government. If you do not have any weapons, how can you and your state fight against the big federal government?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Rock

It's happening in France as we speak - well, these people aren't exactly fighting a war, but they're actually doing a good job at bringing their message across and putting the government under considerable pressure - without guns.

Yes, Paris was successful since the government is still for the people to some degree.

The point that they are making is just so that the people and state have the option to fight or check the federal government. This gives a power to the state. It gives the means for the state the option to secede from the Union.

Everything does not go as smooth as that, protesting does not work all the time. The Confederate States protested at first but was not heard by the federal government so they tried and failed to secede.

Originally Posted by ArrowHead

The Union which they were creating. Well it has been a long time now and anybody who isn't buying into a dozen conspiracies will tell you that there is no need to arm yourself against the federal government.

However, there is still a chance that the federal government can have too much power over the state, and it can become oppressive. It is better that you are prepared for the worse as the saying goes.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Skexis

In the event that there was some sort of uprising, do you think that soldiers everywhere, who conceivably see themselves as patriots, would all be hunky-dory with slaughtering their neighbors?

Union soldiers fought against their Confederate brothers and vice versa.

Originally Posted by Skexis

This is a more complex issue than a show of force. In terms of numbers, we have the army beat.

You should have more faith on war of attrition. They work sometimes.

Originally Posted by Skexis

But we're not mobilized, and we're certainly not equipped and trained to try to fight anyone, even if it is on our own ground.

Underdogs sometimes win if they think the cause is too noble.

Originally Posted by Skexis

Hell, a single tear gas shell into your home and you'd be ready to call it quits.

Depends on what you are fighting for, I hope you do not quit.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I am just saying that it still could happen so it is better to be prepared for the worst. Once something is gone like freedom to own a gun, it is very difficult to get back until it is too late.

I was speaking idiomatically.

I am just pointing out the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and why it should not be infringed. This is not my arguments but merely stating what the framers have in mind. If you have something against the framers intention, you can always propose an amendment to change it.

The point I made with the Civil War is just an example why owning a gun is important as the framers have intended. This gives a means for the state the defend what they think they need to do.

By the way, civil war is just basically civil uprising to a large scale.

Originally Posted by Skexis

I mean, regardless of whether you have a gun or not, my point is that your ability to affect any change in the government (much less by force) is laughable.

If I am the only one doing it, yeah, there is no point. But, if the Southern States or Northern States or whatever tried doing it, they might have a chance. Wait, Southern State attempted that already and almost succeeded.

Originally Posted by Skexis

Most caretaking of the government is doen by watchdog groups and the media, since the government now (as opposed to 200 years ago) have to project a certain semblance of order if they don't want other countries trying to take advantage of civil disorder.

This works because the government still care for the people at some level, but to think about it, there is still a posibility that a powerful political person to take full control.

Originally Posted by Skexis

Should any civil uprising ever come about, I doubt very much that homeowner Bob and his 12-gauge will have any desire to meet even a street cop armed with riot gear.

But, if there is 1 million Bob with a 12-gauge because the government is oppressing them, that is a force that is difficult to stop.

Originally Posted by Skexis

Guns are fine. I'm not trying to pry them from your soon to be cold dead fingers. But the argument that you need guns to protect yourself from big brother is ludicrous.

Again, these are not my arguments. I just quoted Mr. Lee, Mr. Madison, and the second amendment.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Skexis

Okay, are you comfortable with the idea of practicality? Who's going to feed clothe and supply these one million angry homeowners? Who will lead them? Who will ensure they don't break and scatter at the first sight of a column of U.S. trained troops with a tank at their head?

I have no idea where this will lead to. Why not just look through history? You will see that many angry people can do a lot of things against one government even though it is impractical.

Did you ever take history lesson?? (sorry, that was a cheap shot)

Originally Posted by Skexis

Yeah, that's the rub, isn't it? Your arguments are outdated.

Since the Constitution was written by the people that I quoted which whose argument you said are already invalid, by continuing that logic, you are saying that we should scrap the Constitution.

I have nothing to say to that anymore. I have no idea where you got that idea that those arguments are outdated.

FELIPE NO