Too many guns eh well we all know criminals will still be able to get weapons no matter what and crime will still continue. Also we know that the guy that enters your home at 3Am in the morning uninvited is not there to say hello. So you may be willing to wait however long it takes the police to arrive if they even do while in the meantime he does whatever he pleases to you and your family but i'm not. If more of these wastes of society were blown back out into the steet by the man who is trying to protect his family with a gun then maybe this crap would end. The way it stands now the criminals have more rights then you do. So live in your fantasy world and keep believing that taking guns away is the right answer but don't come crying when your family is threatened by some jackass with a gun and you can't protect them because some politician living in a gated community took away your right to own a gun.
This is a great example of where it went wrong. The right to bear arms wasn't put there to protect the people from each other. The responsibility to uphold and enforce the law lies with the state. That's one of the benefits with belonging to a community, that within the community there are laws upheld by the state so that the people won't have to protect themselves against each other. The right to bear arms was put there to prevent the government from trying to get too much power over the people. It's when people start thinking that the government is always right and shouldn't be questioned and that the right to bear arms is there to protect them against other people, that's when things go wrong.
Well, that may be a nice by-product of the principle, but the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States sums it up pretty nicely: "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." The Founders of The U.S. saw the people as the real government and not some great tyrannical beast---"We the people...." The keeping and bearing of arms by the people was, therefore, more like the Swiss examples used herein, where a military body could easily be created by the arms bearing citizens of a given state---to protect the people from invaders.
Further, though it is a nice thought to consider that self-protection is left up to the "government," it is physically impossible for the government to protect an individual of physical peril. Nor is it really the role of a government, beyond invasion of outside forces. The individual is responsible for his/her own protection, i.e., the intruder into one's home. The individual always has the right of self-protection.
Jason
Yes that quote sums it up pretty nicely. The people before the state. The people had the right to bear arms to protect themselves from outside forces but also from their own government.
The rest of your post is really confusing. Are you actually claiming that the state is not responsible to uphold the law but the people themselves? One of the benefits you get from belonging to a community is that you're protected by the laws and those laws are upheld by the government. A 'community' where the law is upheld by the people themselves is called anarchy.
If someone breaks into a store at night and robs it and the owner watch the security tape the next day and see who it is. Should he go smash the guys kneecaps in and take enough money from him to replace what the guy stole/destroyed or should he go to the police? In a state where the people upheld the law by themselves the first option would be the obvious one. Do you think that would end well for the store owner if he did that in America?
One of the states main function is the law. Protection from outside threats are way down the list.
Too many guns eh well we all know criminals will still be able to get weapons no matter what and crime will still continue. Also we know that the guy that enters your home at 3Am in the morning uninvited is not there to say hello. So you may be willing to wait however long it takes the police to arrive if they even do while in the meantime he does whatever he pleases to you and your family but i'm not. If more of these wastes of society were blown back out into the steet by the man who is trying to protect his family with a gun then maybe this crap would end. The way it stands now the criminals have more rights then you do. So live in your fantasy world and keep believing that taking guns away is the right answer but don't come crying when your family is threatened by some jackass with a gun and you can't protect them because some politician living in a gated community took away your right to own a gun.
This is a great example of where it went wrong. The right to bear arms wasn't put there to protect the people from each other. The responsibility to uphold and enforce the law lies with the state. That's one of the benefits with belonging to a community, that within the community there are laws upheld by the state so that the people won't have to protect themselves against each other. The right to bear arms was put there to prevent the government from trying to get too much power over the people. It's when people start thinking that the government is always right and shouldn't be questioned and that the right to bear arms is there to protect them against other people, that's when things go wrong.
Well, that may be a nice by-product of the principle, but the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States sums it up pretty nicely: "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." The Founders of The U.S. saw the people as the real government and not some great tyrannical beast---"We the people...." The keeping and bearing of arms by the people was, therefore, more like the Swiss examples used herein, where a military body could easily be created by the arms bearing citizens of a given state---to protect the people from invaders.
Further, though it is a nice thought to consider that self-protection is left up to the "government," it is physically impossible for the government to protect an individual of physical peril. Nor is it really the role of a government, beyond invasion of outside forces. The individual is responsible for his/her own protection, i.e., the intruder into one's home. The individual always has the right of self-protection.
Jason