You guys gotta remember one thing. People here in the US only remember the "right to bear arms" part, not the "Well regulated" part
The "well regulated militia" part? Easy, and no ,we don't forget that part because it can be simply explained.
In the American Revolution and after it , most of the army was created from the citizenry itself and was highly informal until Washington got to the task of making it into a formidable force. Maybe by the time of the Civil War it was better reigned in , but much of the militia concept was by the state even to that point, like how the colonies had each their own army, so would the states. However, we still have to remember that the right to bear arms existed to allow the citizens, if the government were to run seriously afoul of the Constitution, to form their own militias with the help of the army to take back their country.
The right to bear arms was even highly derived from the Battles of Concord and Lexington where the British tried to destroy our weapons and the only way to make us independent from a tyranny. You have to remember that prior to the War, the British monarchy imposed unfavorable taxes on the colonies, had soldiers sleep into their homes all the while the colonies were given little to no representation in the British Houses or Lords or Commons. With a burgeoning empire that sees you as a non entity that it can beat you until you are raw without much compensation, its no wonder why America's forefathers broke away from Britain .
Translated Cesare Beccaria's Essay on Crimes and Punishments said:
""A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, who dares say to reason, 'Be thou a slave;' who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.
The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons."[4]
"
It seems America was better off away from Britain seeing as the current monarchy are living like welfare queens and kings off the people's back and with no tightening of their budget. How much should I bet that in a few years, the British monarchy will be abolished or even, annihilated from their recent shenanigans in messing with governmental affairs [which they weren't supposed to be doing anymore] and now this? While America's crime rates are plummeting, England's is rising.
Guns aren't the issue, people who kill with anything are. Hell, a conservative chick posed as a liberal and had many people sign a petition to ban pressure cookers, since they were used for the bombings in Boston.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TH8sHv3XTxI
Whether it is a police or a nanny state, both are the same and horrible and frankly, I don't want to live in 1984 or if not that, with mean world syndrome and apathetic nihilism.
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/04/22/george-orwell-on-gun-control/
http://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/phil8.htm
http://www.letusreason.org/doct40.htm
http://www.wired.com/geekmom/2011/01/fighting-mean-world-syndrome/
I think that I'll have to agree with Dr Kain on this one.
If there were no guns, or if at least there were gun control, then maybe there would be less gun deaths happening.
Just go to bricks , swords, knives, forks , spoons, cars, pressure cookers,
3D printed guns [no checks ,no nothing] , or any blunt and heavy object. Hell, just drinking a bit of bottled water and freezing it can be weapon of itself.
The OWS people did well with bricks , using bombs , and other sorts of weaponry while they destroyed and vandalized wherever they went.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...bricks-and-bibles-at-police-in-san-francisco/
http://www.punditpress.com/2011/10/compilation-40-examples-of-ows-violence.html
Remember the Seattle riots on May Day this year?? It looked like the Greek riots I've seen a year ago if not Arab Spring lite.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToX8Zm6ym2c"]May Day, Seattle 2013 - YouTube[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWwblV9-lI8"]The Battle For Seattle: May Day, 2013 - YouTube[/ame]
Guns are totally the problem.... and you want to protect your freedom of free speech online while taking away other rights? Makes so much sense.
