Ten oz

You provided some of the reasons why the 2nd Amendment empowers local populations. I do not disagree with any of if. In context to when the 2nd Amendment was written people were distrustful of centerlized power. States and local communities were left with the ability to enforce law and protect their lands. The question I have asked and thus far hasn't been addressed is how the 2nd Amemndment limits the right to arms? When discussing arms the debate is always about guns. However guns are not the only arms used by militia's or groups protecting the security of a state. You mention black markets yet that is not the source of guns in this country. While it would be possible to ship guns in from russia or some place that currently isn't a problem. Aslo, those guns would be far more expensive to purchase than the mass produced ones people currently get. The extra expense itself would limit the number of people who had access. However I have not called for a gun ban. So it is a meaningless dicussion to get drawn into. Washington DC is not a model I have suggested would work nationally. I feel your community remarks reflect a somewhat classist view. There are over a million local law enforcement officers in the united states. Over million military and federal law enforcement members. There are tens of millions of teachers, bus drives, firefighters, pilots, engineers, and etc. They are community members when they go home from work. I assume when you mention severe impediments to community involvement these millions mentioned are not who you have in mind? Yet our governements on the local, state, and federal levels are elected by us. Our laws and how they are enforced are chosen by us. I don't feel "community" can be used to single a sub sections of our population out. Especially when discussing something as wide spread and coast to coast as guns. There is not a town in this country that does not have guns. "If you want more regulation then do it the right way and amend the constitution", what regulations have I advocated?

I am not looking for a debate. I just don't make the connection between "well regulated" and arms used people or militia being strictly limited to a specific type. I think we all agree that the objective of the 2nd admendment was to empower local populations with the ability to police and protect themselves. During the war for independences people & militia were not limited to only using guns. Washington D.C. is a city with highways and public transportation that connects it to other cities which do not share its gun laws. It renders their laws pointless. I have not implied DC's is a model which should be used. I mentioned our prison system because you talked about gangs and culture and the need to "rat-out" and "tell the authorities". It follows that by ratting someone out or reporting someone to authorities the police would then be involve and legal action would follow. My point was that what you suggested is already happening in this country. It is hard for me to imagine the police being any more involved than they already are.

1 - This does not directly answer the question I asked. Is the 2nd Amendment limiting in how a individual or militia practices security? 2 - Changes to any number of laws takes decades to have an impact. How is that a reason for doing nothing? 3 - Can you list the daconian anti gun laws myself of the other forum members in this thread have advocated for? 4 - USA has the highest prison population in the world and in one of the world leaders in execution. We (USA) do not have a kids glove approach to gangs or criminals in general. How much tougher would you like to see us get?

Is the Government empowered to regulate your right to keep explosives?

"all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" As written in the Declaration of Independence unalienablbe rights are endowed ones "Creator". You read that to mean evolution or nature broadly? "All men" clearly did not mean all humans to the founders considering the fact that many were slave owners, actively subjugated natives, and did not provide equal rights to women. Your interpretation of where unalienable rights come from and whom is entitled to them is not explained or supported by the Declaration of Independence. You still have not address why ones "natural right" to self defense/protection is limited to guns? Is the 2nd admendment limiting in how an individual or militia practices security?

@ waotforufo, I don't think a single person in this forum has argued that all humans do not have a basic instinctive and nature need to defend themselves.You have specifically stated that humans have a natural right to guns. Not self defense broadly, but guns specifically. In you lions, tiger, and bears explanation you suggest that since humans evolved to have the ability to use animals that it has basically became our right to do so. This suggests that humans have a right to anything we have developed/learned. If that is the case why are we limited to just guns? Why not chemical weapons and nuclear weapons?

Nature is a process. It is neither good or evil. How does nature award rights? If the right is to defend oneself why must it be a gun? Why not a grenade?

The National Guard is not mentioned specifically and nothing like it existed. That is an interesting argument. The word "gun" is not mentioned specifically either and nothing like an AR-15 existed. In the 2nd amendment what precedes "the right of the people " ; "being necessary to the security of a free State". Stating "necessary" and for the "security of a free state" provides additional and necessary detail. "Necessary" does not read the same as "preferred" and "security of a free state" does not translate to "any purpose an individual shall choose".

You still have not explained where these "natural rights" come from? You just keep stating that they exist and are recognized. You also haven't explained how exactly the rights you speak of are specifically protected by guns. Surely any weapon capable of killing people would be sufficient. Why not hand hand grenades? How are you defining evil? Is evil also a natural process or an artificial creation?

Standing armies were common is Europe? What does that have to do the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Do you believe it was written to specifically protect an individuals right to own a gun or to allow individuals the right to combat tyranical governments and other threats to personal and public safety? While Europe may have had standing armies the States did not. It was the people who were to form militias and needed to protect their home and uphold law. When the 1st Admendment was wriiten the most popular forms of "speech" were written and was one said. As technology advanced and times changed what's said on radio, television, phones, the internet, and etc is all covered. An argument that only speech most readily used during the times of the countries founding is covered was never successfully made. Such an argument was successfully made with regards to the 2nd amendment. A fact gun advocates ignore because it means that the 2nd amendment no longer serves it orginal purpose. During the revolutionary war were any explosive devices used? Does one need to already have such devices to bring with them when the militia is raised?

I have repeatedly made the argument in this thread that the 2nd Admendment itself is not limiting as to what "arms" are. The founders themselves wrote the and amendment during a time when standing armies and armed local law enforcement did not exist. The Founders explicitly wrote about the people being empowered to protect their own local populations and form militias as need to defend against everything up to the level of an evading army. Arms in context to the time was not restrictive. The peole were meant to bar whatever arms were needed to combat the threats they faced. A hundred plus years later a supreme court decision defined "arms" as gun. You accept the definition of "arms" to specifically mean gun, as do most gun advocates, because the later is too obvious a of loser. Then attempt to argue that somehow guns are sufficient to conducting war against powerful governments and use guerilla tactics as explains. Of course those tactics themselves do not limit their use of "arms" to guns. The Second admendment has already be greatly limited; it has been defined as purely a right to guns and not all arms which may be needed for protection against any and all threats. To square that corner you practice ethical realitism. You make an argument which is common to people on your side of the agrument and then proceed to assume that by doing so you have irrefutably proved something without individually addressing the counters. Then later lament that the counters persist.

@ John Cuthber, my comments were not to expand the definition of gun but rather to reflect how silly the notion is that guns protect average people from the prower.

The powerful have drones, spy satellites, nuclear powered submarines 7 aircraft carriers, and etc. If the the right for well regulated miltia's to bear arms is meant to defend local populations from the tyranny of the powerful than it would need to protect far more "arms" than just guns. The Government owns tanks that are bullet proof.

You are referencing evil I am more specifically referencing Satan. Evil is a very broad and nebulous concept while Satan is a specific individual. The thread's OP references Satan specifically as well. Yes, this is true if we assume Satan is merely the name of a source or system and not an individual. In which case who or what Satan is becomes less meaningful than evil which is the real product we are discussing. I am addressing Satan the character, the individual, as written and believed in by those who initially wrote of him.

@ Sorcerer, you can invent a new religion and a new God but the character Satan still has a traditional mythology. If a "New" religion chooses to include the characters from other known religions than they are saddled with those mythologies on certain levels. Others why borrow the character at all? Just make a new one up.

Satan is not a character in all religions. In context to the one(s) where Satan is God is the creator of all things. The obvious implication that God then also must have created evil is masked by the concept that Satan was given "free will" and used that gift for evil. For that to be true at least one of 2 things must be true: -free will comes with the power of not just choice but creation itself. -evil has always existed. In either case God is Satan's enabler.

Rights, as designated and protected by governments, are legal documents. That is what the 2nd amendment is, law. If you are implying that above and beyond that it is a natural right it is a fair question to ask whom or what gives us that right? Because nature itself does not provide rights. Deer do not have a natural 2nd amendment right to bar arms to protect themselves from mountain lions. So the U.S. is and has always been evil as have all governments been which is why the U.S. is " nation founded on the principals on natural human rights"? Which explains why we have a 2nd amendment?

I am not sure we have the needed context to answer this thread's question. I think if life is adundant throughout the universe than how natural the selection of life here is matters less than if Earth is the sole source of all life and only place where natural selection exists.

Where do these "natural human rights" come from? Segregation just ended in the 60's, women national just got the right to vote in the 20's, and Same-Sex couple were just given the right to mary. Has the United States been evil this entire time or are the things I mentioned not natural rights on par with gun ownership?

Yes, we have the capacity to self govern and write new or different laws. The Bill of Rights was not discovered in a cave etched in gold leaf. It was written, debated, and ratifiied . If compromised debate led to such a great document being produced in 1787 why can't it today? The 2nd Amendments scope has already been restricted. U.S. v Miller in 1939 basically defined "arms" to mean gun. The founders intended for local populations to be armed to protect themselves, townships, and form militias to combat war if needed. Police departments and a standing military did not exist. The 2nd Amendment was designed to allow individuals to act in those capacities for their own communities. Faster forward to today and we do not limit our police or military to only having guns. The "arms" they have access to is far greater yet the 2nd Amendment has been ruled to only cover an individuals right to a gun. The 2nd Amendment as written was not limiting. A Court decision over hundred years after the 2nd Amendment was written limited its meaning. It is that more limited meaning you defend today.

It is not dismissive of the Constitution to point out that it is Admendable. It was designed to flexible and not carved in stone. As society changes so too does the Constitution. If not than blacks would still only be 3/5 a person and only land owners would be allowed to vote. Gun advocates try to draw the line in the sand at the 2nd Admandment and pretend it's monolithic, it is not. How many of the initial 10 Admendments are practiced today as they were in 1789? Did the 4th Admendment protect all people from unreasonable searches; i bet slaves, indentured servants, and native didn't feel it did. What about the 6th Admendent, where minorities and single adult women truly recieving impartial juries? And of course the 2nd Admendment did not cover slaves in 1789 either. The Constitution has evolved and its Admendents have be re-defined throughout the years. To pretend otherwise as a non-starter to reasonable debate lacks integrity.

God is not treated as an "abstraction" by people who believe in him/her/it. God is a specific entity with a name (Jesus, Krishna, Apollo, Buddha, Zeus, etc) and a laundry list of human like thoughts and judgements. No scientist or atheist claims the "abstraction" that is time has an opinion about the universe, an awareness of itself, or power over anything. By definition God is an individual. You are attempting to broaden the definition of God out into a vagueness that is not applicable to this conversation.

The 2nd Admendment is just a law written by men. Over the years its meaning has been interpreted by politically appointed judges. The 2nd Admendment can be unwritten by men and its meaning interpreted differently by a different set of politically appointed judges. Wrapping oneself in the constitution as a means of insisting on the status qou is a ethical trap. The 2nd Admendment is not a natural law akin to the law of conservation or the thoery of relativity. We have a choice in how we choose to govern ourselves.

Perhaps I have viewed the spirit of this debate wrong. Most people by nature are compromising. They see a reasonable solution as existing half way between two competing sides. Pro gun advocates take advantage of that by spooling up the tubro in the opposite direction whenever any reform is discussed. If people ask for better back ground checks so that peole with mental health issues can't get frearms Pro gun advocates go straight to crying about government tyranny. We have seen arguments in this thread imply that guns are a right akin to other natural rights and should be as near to free for all as possible. With reasonable people arguing for measured approaches that allow for the general public to keep and bear arms vs pro gun advocates screaming out for total unfettered access to any and all firearms the middle ground with always error toward the side of pro gun advocates. They win on the issue by placing themselves at such an extreme. Maybe it is time for a true anti gun argument to combat the pro gun argument? Overtime that may change where the "middle ground" lay. Change the rhetoric and deglamorize guns bit.

I am all for solving my countries (USA's) gun problem. I find most of the justifications for firearm ownership ridiculous and dishonest. People in this country just have a fetish for firearms. With that said our laws do provide people the right to own guns. Silly as it may be the majority of our population view gun ownership as a founding principle of this country. Any messaure, like insurance, meant to price people out of firearm ownership overtime will fail. Modest safety features that raise the price a by a few percent the total cost I believe could be tolerated. Something like insurance is a reccuring cost that for people with several or more firearms would be too expensive and prevent them from owning the firearms they wanted. Politically it is a loser. Any politician that campaigns hard on such a proposal would be doomed. Some societal shifts require baby steps. The government mounted an information campaign against tobacco and over time that has significantly reduced use. Meanwhile the government started a war against illicit drugs and that hasn't accomplished anything. People must participate in change. It can not be forced upon then or else they will revolt. Safety devices like safes and gun locks allow for participative change. People can have their firearms; all the government would be doing is incouraging safe keeping of those firearms. It is a baby step but one which can be made. A debate over insurance will only make pro gun advocates dig in deeper in my opinion.