166
General Discussion / Re: Supreme Court strikes down Chicago gun ban, may set national precedent
« on: June 29, 2010, 07:24:33 pm »
Various arguments for your perusal:
Terrorist groups are less "a bunch of angry people" and more "a non-government military organization." They do have organisation. They do have training, they can be effective for the same reason that the Viet Cong were effective. But that doesn't mean that a bunch of untrained citizens could do the same thing. Training, organisation, and foresight are characteristics necessary for any military to be effective. And giving the right to own guns does not mean that people are suddenly going to organize into paramilitary groups to strike the government down, just in case.
The 2nd amendment was created a long time ago. Military technology has advanced to the point where having firearms is not a threat to the government, but is a threat to the citizenry. This is a problem. I believe that the people should be, on an individual level, allowed to have firearms for self-defense, hunting, and (with restrictions) collecting. However, the new reality of the military situation means that we need a reevaluation of the second amendment. Not a removal, but changes need to be made.
I'd make some response to Phmcw, but I can't for the life of me figure out what he's trying to say beyond "AMERICA SUKS," as Earthquake Damage already said.
Terrorist groups are less "a bunch of angry people" and more "a non-government military organization." They do have organisation. They do have training, they can be effective for the same reason that the Viet Cong were effective. But that doesn't mean that a bunch of untrained citizens could do the same thing. Training, organisation, and foresight are characteristics necessary for any military to be effective. And giving the right to own guns does not mean that people are suddenly going to organize into paramilitary groups to strike the government down, just in case.
The 2nd amendment was created a long time ago. Military technology has advanced to the point where having firearms is not a threat to the government, but is a threat to the citizenry. This is a problem. I believe that the people should be, on an individual level, allowed to have firearms for self-defense, hunting, and (with restrictions) collecting. However, the new reality of the military situation means that we need a reevaluation of the second amendment. Not a removal, but changes need to be made.
I'd make some response to Phmcw, but I can't for the life of me figure out what he's trying to say beyond "AMERICA SUKS," as Earthquake Damage already said.