- Joined
- Sep 1, 2009
- Messages
- 10,295
liaerfbv|1384446142|3556372 said:TooPatient|1384445056|3556361 said:From our Declaration of Independence:
(For anyone who is interested, you should read the whole text! It is quite good: Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
The 2nd Amendment (full text & history )
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
Definition of militia (n)
mi·li·tia
[ mə líshə ]
1.soldiers who are also civilians: an army of soldiers who are civilians but take military training and can serve full-time during emergencies
2.reserve military force: a reserve army that is not part of the regular armed forces but can be called up in an emergency
3.unauthorized quasi-military group: an unauthorized group of people who arm themselves and conduct quasi-military training
ETA: I saw your edit, and I understand the point you're trying to make. But I think there's a very big difference in the type of weapons manufactured today and the type of violence in our society vs. the time of the framers. I don't think our founding fathers believed you needed an AK-47 to protect your home and family, if that's your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
1 -- Most of the gun owners I know have training comparable to those in the military. A good chunk of them are current or former military (or reserves). (see #2 also)
2 -- Most of the owners I know are willing should there be a need and stay in touch with officials who are aware of the willingness should there be need.
3 -- There is nothing in our Constitution saying civilians can't be trained. A responsible owner takes classes and those classes try to prepare you for real-world defense situations so that you are prepared and know how to handle yourself.
An AK-47 is more accurate than a handgun even at 7 yards. Fewer shots if you need to protect yourself means less chance of accidentally injuring someone other than the criminal.
With specialized ammunition, you can stop a criminal with fewer shots and have it less likely to penetrate a wall (potentially injuring someone outside your home). I won't go into the details here, but there are special rounds designed for this.
For camping, you can't beat 20 rounds in an AK for protection from a bear. (the right AK with the right rounds of course!)
If you're looking at potential to cause injury in a "mass killing" event, the older rifles are actually more dangerous that way. There is no waiting period. They are CHEAP (one of mine was only $60) and ammunition is easy to get. The rounds they use are VERY powerful and can make it through doors/walls easily and still have enough power to kill people. Most allow you to load multiple rounds and for a practiced person they can be shot pretty quickly.
BTW, a standard round from an AK will (in general) do substantially less damage than a single round from a rifle from the time of the Constitution (and certainly those soon after!). An AK round will make a neat hole through a block of wood and get stuck. A round from a Mosin or 1903 Springfield will cause a poof of sawdust as the block crumbles. (just to mention the ones I have personally used -- at a range in a carefully controlled physics project)
If you're talking damage to a human, this is the difference between treating a gunshot and having an entire limb shattered and un-recoverable. (look at the injuries of the Revolutionary War and the Civil War )
ETA:
My physics project was great!
If you've seen the pictures of a block of wood with a bullet stuck inside in a physics book, that is what I did.
All completed on a range at 150 yards with high berms on three sides. The block of wood was massive (6"x6"x3ft) and held as a pendulum on an 8ft tall frame built entirely of wood. We were the only people at the range during actual testing with very strict safety policies in place.
Oh -- the equations in the book actually work in real life!