Just when I was thinking of selling my T-34

[kandrathe]

So but what about criminals who have served their time in prison. Why does the 2nd amandment not go for them, and the mentally ill? Who are we to deny them the right to defend themselves. In other words we do think that certain 'conditions' are so important we just forget about the 2nd amandment.

The Law™ -- as a part of punishment takes away "liberty" and rights from felons. Those deemed to be incompetent (too young, or mentally incapable) have their rights restricted and administered by guardians.

To take this a step further. The militia groups of crazies who think their government is after them. To me they are a risk group that could become violent, and so should not have access to guns.....however they are probably the strongest opponents of regulation.

Some of them may be mentally incompetent, but in order to restrict their rights they would need to do something that would initiate a due process.

The few posts about size of weapons were all wrong anyway. Let's not forget that 'the army' in the days the 2nd amendment was made did not own automatic weapons, Kevlar suits, tanks, guided missile etc. So if the 2nd amendment is your argument you should also allow the public to buy bigger stuff.

The American plains natives had bow and arrows, spears, and war hammers made from stone -- against army troops with rifles (a step up from smooth bore muskets). Had the weapons been equal on both sides, it is clear to me that the tactics of the Native American warriors were most often superior. The 2nd amendment asserts the rights of the people to defend themselves from their adversaries, foreign and domestic. The Americans were outmatched by the British Empire well up until World War I. The only advantage we had in the Revolutionary War, and the War of 1812 was that we lived here, and the British had little means to occupy and control such a vast territory indefinitely. Also, the northern colonies were an integral part of the British Empires war production where we made guns, and gun powder, as well as liquor, tobacco, and other raw materials used to supply the British Empires wars and conquests.

For the first century of the US existence, most any of the European empires could take some territory at whim, but the mostly civilian militia engaged in what was considered the "ungentlemanly" asymmetric tactics of guerrilla warfare (or what we now call terrorism). We were protected by being far away from Europe, and we didn't have much of a standing army, or navy until after WWI and especially after WWII.

Everybody know you don't stand a chance with a simple 6-shooter against armored vehicles patrolling your streets. So or you agree with me that the 2nd amendment is really outdated and makes as much sense as literally following the bible or you don't agree and think it is really necessary to defend yourself, but then you should also be consequent and allow bigger weapons to be bought.

I would like to not conflate this topic with Christianity. When fighting hypothermia, I would have a better chance with some inadequate clothing, than being buck naked. When the times comes that citizens are defending themselves from criminals, or insurgents wielding heavy armor, then yes, the 2nd amendment would guarantee our right to defend ourselves with RPG's. It is the government and societies duty to not allow our peace to be so eroded.

Anyway nothing will change, the NRA and weapon industry can write extra good profits every time something awful happens because gun sales go through the roof and it is always best just to trust big and powerful cooperations. (who interestingly enough are the ones that sell guns to the army that all those 2 amendment nutters are afraid off).

I don't think they are afraid of "The Army", so much as "An Army" being used against the populace. The wound that much of America seems to have forgotten was the abuse of the colonists by the British empire's armed forces. Objectively, it was propagandized, and the flames of insurrection were fanned by what were then considered by the empire to be treasonous rebels.

But, it is part and parcel to why we have in our US Bill of Rights, and oddities like the prohibition of military forces being quartered in civilian homes. The colonists, most of whom were formerly from Britannia, enjoyed "rights" in the motherland (English Bill of Rights from 1689* ). But, they found in America that they were left to the whims of corrupt governors, and military despots. The rights they enjoyed as British subjects ended out of the sight of England. The colonists tried very hard to have the King extend their rights to the new land, but in the opinion of many of the colonists he was tyrannical and unfair. It led to the Declaration of Independence, which outlines the grievances they suffered. Many of these grievances were explicitly prevented in the language of the US Bill of Rights.

* The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

The *real* origin of the US seemingly odd attitudes on religion and guns, are historically related directly to King James II, then to King William III and Queen Mary II, and the Glorious Revolution of 1688. In religion, by the actions of the Monarchy to assert one set of religious beliefs on the people. With guns, by the actions of James (II & VII), to disarm Protestants, and arm Catholics. Many of those disenfranchised left Europe for America, where they could be free of what was considered unfair Imperial tyrannies.

So, all in all, we can blame the Dutch!