There's nothing like a good debate to stimulate the mind, and nothing like talking down to someone to close their objectivity permanently.
RealFastV6, while I am certian that you and I are on the same side of the political spectrum I feel compelled to offer some criticism as to your tactics of persuasion. I completely understand your frustration in regards to this topic, especially considering the fact that logic and rationale overwhelmingly reside with our perspective. However I must be blunt when I say that your methods are less than desireable. Simply put... you just ain't helpin the cause. You arent gonna acccomplish anything by telling someone that they are ridiculous or stupid. If anything you're gonna piss them off and probably validate the misconception that us gun owners are a bunch of redneck hicks with some kind of fetish for firepower. Instead, why dont you show a little patience and tolerance for those who probably havent had the opportunity to fully understand the importance of the second amendment. Like it or not you are representing a community of individuals.
Now then.... with that off my chest....
BOOSTD, you bring up several concerns and Ill try to address each of them.
First, let me start with the premise that gun, like a hammer or a buick, is an inanimate object neither good not bad. People who would tell you different are inherently biased. Why? Well, if a measure of an object's "evilness" is how many people it has killed, then cars, as the number one cause of deaths in America are far far more evil than guns.
That might surprise you, and so it should as the people that are opposed to firearms usually fail to tell you that guns are 7th or 8th on the list of things that claim the lives of Americans every year. Remove gun related crimes from that list and the number would drop even further. Furthermore, this number does not take into account the MILLIONS, yes MILLIONS of times that firearms save lives every year, in many instances without ever having to fire a shot. It is very likely that overall guns save more lives than they claim. But this is another fact that the anti-gun crowd leaves out... I wonder why.
None of this however addresses your point of whether or not me and you have the right to own a gun which I will cover now.
You pointed to the second amendment, specifically the part regarding "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State." You are correct in commenting that too often people forget to include this part when talking about the second amendment. I find that highly ironic considering some of the strongest evidence for individual gun ownership comes from this phrase. To show this, I will need to go through it step by step.
Your first objection says that we have a militia today because we have the Army and police and so on and so forth. If you look at the definition of a militia however you will find that a militia is specifically a group of citizens that have banded together to serve a military function. A militia is NOT an official military organization. You might be surprised to know that you yourself are a member of the militia. You enlisted the minute you turned 18.
Furthermore, back when the Bill of Rights was written they too had an army and a navy and police. The common allusion to the national guard is also false as the national guard was not established till 1918, not to mention that it is a governmental organization. With all this the founders still felt it necessary to include this right. Why? That is answered with the second part of the phrase "the security of a free state". They understood that the last line of defense against a tyrannical government was an armed population.... specifically the people. Juse as freedom of speech and religion is granted to "the people" so is the right to bear arms.
This single reason is the entire purpose for the second amendment. Its not for hunting or protection or sport. It is to allow the population a means of defense should the government overstep its power. It is because of this reason that law abiding citizens should have the freedom to purchase powerful rifles with standard capacity magazines. If you deny them the right to adaquately arms themselves as they see fit then you are defeating the entire purpose behind the amendment. You cannot protect your freedom unless you have the proper tools.
Please understand that this is only the briefest of explanations and doesnt really cover every pertinent point... but it is a start and hopefully one that makes you think.
RealFastV6, while I am certian that you and I are on the same side of the political spectrum I feel compelled to offer some criticism as to your tactics of persuasion. I completely understand your frustration in regards to this topic, especially considering the fact that logic and rationale overwhelmingly reside with our perspective. However I must be blunt when I say that your methods are less than desireable. Simply put... you just ain't helpin the cause. You arent gonna acccomplish anything by telling someone that they are ridiculous or stupid. If anything you're gonna piss them off and probably validate the misconception that us gun owners are a bunch of redneck hicks with some kind of fetish for firepower. Instead, why dont you show a little patience and tolerance for those who probably havent had the opportunity to fully understand the importance of the second amendment. Like it or not you are representing a community of individuals.
Now then.... with that off my chest....
BOOSTD, you bring up several concerns and Ill try to address each of them.
First, let me start with the premise that gun, like a hammer or a buick, is an inanimate object neither good not bad. People who would tell you different are inherently biased. Why? Well, if a measure of an object's "evilness" is how many people it has killed, then cars, as the number one cause of deaths in America are far far more evil than guns.
That might surprise you, and so it should as the people that are opposed to firearms usually fail to tell you that guns are 7th or 8th on the list of things that claim the lives of Americans every year. Remove gun related crimes from that list and the number would drop even further. Furthermore, this number does not take into account the MILLIONS, yes MILLIONS of times that firearms save lives every year, in many instances without ever having to fire a shot. It is very likely that overall guns save more lives than they claim. But this is another fact that the anti-gun crowd leaves out... I wonder why.
None of this however addresses your point of whether or not me and you have the right to own a gun which I will cover now.
You pointed to the second amendment, specifically the part regarding "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State." You are correct in commenting that too often people forget to include this part when talking about the second amendment. I find that highly ironic considering some of the strongest evidence for individual gun ownership comes from this phrase. To show this, I will need to go through it step by step.
Your first objection says that we have a militia today because we have the Army and police and so on and so forth. If you look at the definition of a militia however you will find that a militia is specifically a group of citizens that have banded together to serve a military function. A militia is NOT an official military organization. You might be surprised to know that you yourself are a member of the militia. You enlisted the minute you turned 18.
Furthermore, back when the Bill of Rights was written they too had an army and a navy and police. The common allusion to the national guard is also false as the national guard was not established till 1918, not to mention that it is a governmental organization. With all this the founders still felt it necessary to include this right. Why? That is answered with the second part of the phrase "the security of a free state". They understood that the last line of defense against a tyrannical government was an armed population.... specifically the people. Juse as freedom of speech and religion is granted to "the people" so is the right to bear arms.
This single reason is the entire purpose for the second amendment. Its not for hunting or protection or sport. It is to allow the population a means of defense should the government overstep its power. It is because of this reason that law abiding citizens should have the freedom to purchase powerful rifles with standard capacity magazines. If you deny them the right to adaquately arms themselves as they see fit then you are defeating the entire purpose behind the amendment. You cannot protect your freedom unless you have the proper tools.
Please understand that this is only the briefest of explanations and doesnt really cover every pertinent point... but it is a start and hopefully one that makes you think.
Heres the kicker. The 2nd guarantees the righyt of individuals to keep and bear arms. There is a strict distinction today as well as back in the late 1700's between arms and ordinance. Arms are almost always considered to be weapons carried/used/intended for individuals on a one on one basis, specifically pistols rifles, and even machine guns. Ordinance on the other hand accounts for everything else... today that would be tanks grenades C4 and all that good stuff... 200 years ago it was cannons, expolsives and such. Therefore the government has no right to prohibit individuals from purchasing AK 47's m16's or your grandfathers 60 yr old WWII rifle. What It can legally prohibit is the sale and possession of those other things that I mentioned. 
