Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

I imagine when the law was written, just about every able-bodied white male was an active member of a militia. Today we don't have other nations claiming as theirs the same territory we claim as ours.

BTW, I would never trash you and I doubt I've ever thrashed you. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, ACPlayer: why didn't the government do just that when it was far smaller and more efficient than it is today, when the Constitution and 2nd Amendment were actually written? Why didn't they follow through and ban gun sales, just as you suggest, way back THEN?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the Constitution is a living-breathing document. Plus, what is actually written down shouldn't be taken seriously. It is what a Justice currently believes as his or her own opinion that really counts. We must recognize the "right to privacy"...which includes the government looking in people's bedrooms to see if they own a gun, aparently.

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

[ QUOTE ]
I imagine when the law was written, just about every able-bodied white male was an active member of a militia. Today we don't have other nations claiming as theirs the same territory we claim as ours.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is true, but why not amend the Consitution then? If we no longer need people to own guns to keep the British away, wouldn't passing an amendment be the proper way to go, rather than just ignoring the amendment as it was written 200+ years ago?

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

[ QUOTE ]
.... one that only spends money on my priorities and passes laws I agree with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody knows your personal definition of satisfaction better than YOU! Cut out the middle man! Pay directly for your own security and hand-select how you want your rights enforced!

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

[ QUOTE ]
That is true, but why not amend the Consitution then? If we no longer need people to own guns to keep the British away, wouldn't passing an amendment be the proper way to go, rather than just ignoring the amendment as it was written 200+ years ago?

[/ QUOTE ]

Amendments are the prescribed and only proper way to effect Constitutional change.

Also, only an armed people can truly be free, or able to defend their liberty.

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
.... one that only spends money on my priorities and passes laws I agree with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody knows your personal definition of satisfaction better than YOU! Cut out the middle man! Pay directly for your own security and hand-select how you want your rights enforced!

[/ QUOTE ]

That wouldn't work for me because I want other's to live by my laws as well.

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

whoa, only an armed people can truely be free???? Ghandi wasnt armed and neither was Martin luther King Jr. The fact of the matter is that many types of guns a designed for the sole purpose of killing human beings. Handguns in particular fall into this category. Rifles to hunt with are one thing, but tech 9 machine pistols are another.

how are special purpose people killers needed when a rifle could defend liberty all the same????

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

I'm not advocating ignoring the amendment. I'm advocating adhering to it as it was written.

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

"what is actually written down shouldn't be taken seriously."

It is those who ignore the militia clause who believe that what is actually written down shouldn't be taken seriously.

Re: I favour a small efficient government
 

[ QUOTE ]
whoa, only an armed people can truely be free???? Ghandi wasnt armed and neither was Martin luther King Jr.

[/ QUOTE ]

"people" / "person"...there is a subtle difference.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact of the matter is that many types of guns a designed for the sole purpose of killing human beings. Handguns in particular fall into this category. Rifles to hunt with are one thing, but tech 9 machine pistols are another.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, and guns designed to kill people are especially in keeping with the rationale of 2nd Amendment. Defending your self, country or liberty, is best done with weapons designed for killing people not woodchucks.

[ QUOTE ]
how are special purpose people killers needed when a rifle could defend liberty all the same????

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is a steak knife better than a butter knife for certain purposes? The purpose of a weapon with which one defends liberty, is to thwart those who would usurp that liberty by force. Hence an "anti-person" gun is a much better tool for the purpose. Moreover, if they have the better anti-personnel guns, and you have only light hunting arms, you are at a severe disadvantage.