Why should military small arms be banned for civilians?

Three articles (well two academic articles and a quotation) that every student, every politician and every media campaigner should read. And have explained to them if necessary.

Start with the quote;

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/the_beauty_of_the_...

Jefferson made numerous references to the purpose and meaning of the Second Amendment, this one is very good in that it tends to roll several of them into one. For that reason there has been a campaign of late to prove that he never said that. Having made that statement, I can't find the site that called it bogus. They do have their work cut out for them as proving the null case is always impossible. Here are quotes on the subject from several people that show what the founding fathers intended.

http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

Next, take a look at what "well regulated" was taken to mean. It was insuring that this part of the law were upheld that caused certain national organizations to be founded.

http://yarchive.net/gun/politics/regulate.html

You have probably noticed that nowhere is there an implication that the law is in reference to sports or subsistence hunting. In the first draft of the Second Amendment, there was a prohibition against members of the militia being conscripted into military service. Only an all volunteer military was intended. But in the final form, that has been removed opening the way for the well regulated militia members to be conscripted. And that brings us to what exactly can a militia be if at first they wanted to prohibit it being part of the military? This last article covers it very well;

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/fieldsandhardy.html

One of the most important concepts contained in this article takes us back to the Jefferson Quote, and restates it plainly.

"Just as militias are essentially local, so also are they essentially independent of established authorities, since the militia may have to challenge or bypass those authorities if they abuse their authority or fail to perform their lawful duties."

All the opportunistic politicians and media types have managed to do is to convince an awful lot of people that we have arrived at that point where the law is needed, where it may be time to challenge abusive authority.

< The National Guard is NOT a milita, and beacuse it is a government entity.

The definition of a milita does not say it isn't a government entity. It is sometimes called an irregular army because they are not employed full time. Although the government had trouble raising the money, the militia during the revolutionary war did get paid.

< the greatest military on earth is struggling to fight against 20,000 remaining Taliban

They are not fighting the Taliban, they are fighting Al Qaeda, the number is less than 1,000, and they aren't even fighting anymore, they are training Afghani police and soldiers.

< That's pretty clear, the second amendment is so that civilians can protect themselves from tyranny.

Not even close. No country legalizes a way to overthrow the government by force. The reason for the militia is that George Washington and most of the founders did not want a standing military (army and Navy). They decided on a militia form of defense and created the post office as the method of calling up troops to DEFEND the country. This militia consisted of ALL able bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 45 and the Militia Act of 1792 specified how they would arm themselves. z

You are aware that police are civilians too, aren't you? Yet the have military weapons such as sub-machine guns, armored vehicles, drones (a drone in Houston crashed into what was described as a "police tank" during training.

A militia is all the men above the age of 17 who are in fit condition, it is specifically not ruled by any governmental body at any level BECAUSE the purpose of the militia is to take over when the government becomes oppressive.

To make that happen, our militia is supposed to be well regulated. That means they have access to weapons as god as or better than those the military and the police and other civilian organizations have, and know how to use them.

That is the basis of a free nation.

The National Guard is what the founders would consider a militia. A militia back then, was organized and regulated by the community. It was never intended to be private armies.

You claim you need the weapons to fight tyranny, but how do you define it? Just because your candidates didn't win, and your political parties platforms are losing, is not tyranny.

Even the conservative Supreme Court ruled certain dangerous or unusual weapons can be banned.

they should not be banned. why should law abbieding citizens of the same country not have the same arms as those protecting them. there is no reason except that our government has been comprimised and they are not going to stop untill the common person with a gun is considered uncommon. they want everyone to think that anyone with a gun is a crazy person just waiting to go on a rampage. and most people are dumb enough to belive it. that is the problem “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” there is another good quote from our forefathers that is better than i have every heard any of our presidents or congress ever say. we need to go back to the old way of thinking and try and fix the mess we are in although it might be to late

Good points and here is my opinion

In our not perfect world only the good guys would turn in their guns and we would be helpless and at the

mercy of the bad guys.Too bad we will never know if a police officer was assigned to that school how many lives could he have saved. Drugs and drunk driving have been against the law for years and that does not help.

Having a gun will not help all the time but being defenseless will never help..

We could use the money we give to countries that hate us,our children are more important!!

Isn't it better to have a gun and not need it than to need it and not have it!!

I agree. But why stop there?

I deserve a small nuclear arsenal all to myself! Who's with me?!!?!?!

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"And a few things to remember,

The National Guard is NOT a milita, and beacuse it is a government entity."

"A well regulated Militia..."

"well regulated Militia..."

"...well regulated..."

EDIT: "WMDs have no purpose in defending liberty, therefore are not protected by the second amendment." They're called nuclear ARMS. Therefore, since we strictly interpret the language of the Constitution, they're mine for the bearing.

It is amazing how many people who I know are not that stupid, insist on obfuscating the 2A. Even one supreme court justice commented that he thought that "bear arms" meant that whatever weapons you had need to be small enough to carry. Others say it should apply only to weapons that existed at that time. And those are some of the least crazy arguments.

If it applies only to weapons available at that time (and keep in mind that repeating rifles did exist, just didnt use brass cartridges) and that hand grenades had been around for at least a couple of hundred years. Grenades fit both of those bogus arguments. And of course if 2A is restricted to what existed at the time, does that mean broadcasting, electronic communications etc. are not covered by 1A?

They already are. Civilians cannot own an M-16, but they can own and AR-15 (for now) which is a completely different weapon. Of course most libs can't tell the difference between an AR-15 and a cap gun, and even recently had a child suspended from school for making a gun gesture with his thumb and finger and saying "pow!". They don't know their a.. from a hole in the ground, and also don't understand that someone who is trained can do more damage with a .22 pea-shooter than someone that does not know what they are doing can do with an AR-15.

One of the favorite things for people degrading our freedom to say is "If you have not done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear"

Right.

Tell it to the kids shot down at Kent State and elsewhere that the media doesn't talk about.

The other side of that coin is "If the police (who ARE civilians) and government have done nothing wrong, they have nothing to fear from a well regulated (up to date arms and training) militia (all able men above the age of 17), i.e. the People."

It is a whole lot easier to govern by force then to govern by ability and honesty.