<p>They imagined neither. They imagined citizens, with flint guns (but without any ammunition - too heavy to carry) being mustered into well-regulated militias, where they would be issued powder and lead paid for by the government, as was used in the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. Washington ordered the marshalling of the militias in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and several other states, totaling 13,000 men, and, this being post-Bill of Rights, providing all the powder and lead (they ended up rounding up a total of 20 rebels, with only two ever convicted, both pardoned). The main rebel force was never to be found (and may still be hiding out in the hills of western Pennsylvania).</p>
<p>“I can’t see why;”</p>
<p>Because the problem at hand is not guns, knives, motorcycles, poison,…etc; it’s the felonious violence that’s planted in (or, perhaps, a product of) our unique culture. This culture which happened to be sufficiently different from the cultures of those “nations without widespread gun ownership.” The ruslt of MERELY illegalizing guns in a society like ours won’t be what many wish: “A tragedy-free utopia,” to exaggerate a bit.</p>
<p>I’m not a supporter of widespread LEGAL gun ownership; I’m not agianst it either. I just don’t think it’s that <em>significant</em> reason we have so much criminal violence; accordingly, I don’t believe the gun-control debate deserves so much energy and resources.</p>
<p>Would outlawing gun ownership reduces the rate of vilont crime? Perhaps. Is this “outlawing” a solution? Of course not. In fact, this is what may be defined as “sweeping under the thin, worn-out rug of social problems that exist in variety of forms in all societies.”</p>
<p>What do we need? A complete “aesthetic facelift,” a flag makeover: <a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiXhQUym0fA[/url]”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiXhQUym0fA</a> Maybe when I become a president I’ll think of a real answer ;)</p>
<p>Edit: And why is the debate about principle and not evidence?</p>
<p>Ha…you make my point in some of those countries. Would you really like to live in Latin America or South Africa without a gun? Because they have some of the worst crime rates in the world…and gangs and cartels have no problem getting ahold of a gun, so in defense I’d like to be able to have one as well. </p>
<p>As for australia:</p>
<p>"However, the International Crime Victims Survey notes that overall crime victimization Down Under rose from 27.8 percent of the population in 1988, to 28.6 percent in 1991 to over 30 percent in 1999. </p>
<p>Advocates of less gun control in the U.S. say the drop in gun murder rates was more than offset by the overall victimization increase. Also, they note that Australia leads the ICVS report in three of four categories – burglary (3.9 percent of the population), violent crime (4.1 percent) and overall victimization (about 31 percent). "</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html[/url]”>http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html</a></p>
<p>Geoff Metcalf as your source? You must be kidding.</p>
<p>And I DO actually live (when I can) in south India. India is a country with a huge violent recent history. but if you add ALL of the terrorist bombings, killings in Kashmir, guerrilla killings, and gun-murders together each year, they are barely one-fifth of gun-related homicides in the U.S. Is there more burglary? You bet! I can live with that. </p>
<p>What Australia intended to do was lower the rate of gun-related deaths, and it did so, very effectively. </p>
<p>The CDC found that the rate of death associated with gun ownership more than offset, by fourfold, the successful use of guns in self-defense. So the question, really, is why it makes people FEEL safer when the data clearly show it doesn’t? (That’s not an argument for gun control, but for trying to understand the violence of the culture underlying it.)</p>
<p>Anyhow, the well-regulated militia mostly went the way of the whooping cranes at about the same time as the Second Amendment was being written. In November 1990, 1,500 militiamen were defeated by the Ohio Indians in “Little Turtle’s War”. Then in an attempt at retaliation, Washington organized a “Legion” (a standing army) which, combined with militia (who, again, were supplied with powder and lead by the government), was slaughtered at the Battle of Wabash in 1791, with 623 “soldiers” and only 23 Indian braves killed (prior to that, the militia massacred a whole bunch of women and children, which is what brought on the battle.) By the end of the Whiskey Rebellion, Washington had had enough of relying on “the right to bear arms” in “a well-regulated militia” and brought us the very thing many of the Founding Fathers had given their lives to prevent - a standing army.</p>
<p>No, the International Crime Victims Survey was my source, found at that site. Many times more people are killed from heart disease every year then by guns, so should we be focusing on that? I mean that sounds like your reasoning with you terrorist bombings + Kashmir killings logic. And please, next time you state facts, cite sources…</p>
<p>
What the founding father’s imagined was that in the future the citizens might want to change the constitution. So they made a couple of provisions for doing so. The 2nd A. can be repealed, just as the 18th A. was repealed.</p>
<p>The founders had an inkling that things could change. Thus they enabled a method to amend the Constitution. </p>
<p>However, I think it’s extremely unlikely that Americans will ever give up explicit rights to anything…including the basic right of self-defense and to resist tyrannical government, which is what A2 is all about. No matter what they do in other countries.</p>
<p>The measure commonly applied to firearms is what is the “standard service arm” of the day. In 1789, the [British</a> Brown Bess flintlock](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_bess]British”>Brown Bess - Wikipedia) was perhaps the finest and most capable firearm of the day. It was proven in battle and easily managed by trained troops. Today, you’ll get an argument from people on this but in the US an equivalent to the Brown Bess of 1789 is the [US</a> M16 rifle](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle]US”>M16 rifle - Wikipedia), along with variants.</p>
<p>However, for overall breadth of service in countries around the world the Russian [url=<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ak47]Avtomat”>AK-47 - Wikipedia]Avtomat</a> Kalashnikova<a href=“and%20variants”>/url</a> is perhaps the default world winner in terms of standard modern service arms.</p>
<p>In essence, A2 guarantees the right of US citizens (and others allowed by law) to a “standard service rifle”. By implication this right is extended to handguns, which can also be standard military firearms. It excludes a right to “destructive devices” like explosives, artillery, nuclear weapons and so on (which commonly is mentioned by anti-gun folks as to how bizarre A2 could be unless curtailed under repressive legislation. No one has a right to “destructive devices”.)</p>
<p>While the M16 and the AK are “machine guns” in their military configuration, it is unlawful to possess a “machine gun” (a very specific definition under law) without paying a $200 one-time tax and registering (actually registering, not merely filling out Standard Form 4473) the weapon with the ATF. Because legitimate (and thus transferable) “machine guns” are actually quite rare, they are extremely expensive. People actually invest in them. Anything that could be considered a “machine gun” under law is explicitly prohibited and will land you in federal prison with serious jail time for mere possession. The ATF is extremely serious about enforcing this law and does so regularly.</p>
<p>Mini, I see that my post and question went unanswered. Was there nothing worthy of your remark? Or do you simply agree with everything stated?</p>
<p>Concerning militias and their arms: I wrote this about old relatives. It gives a different aspect to the times…and a different view of guns and militias and protecting ourselves from ourselves (I truly think)…</p>
<p>"Actually these training days were part of a Vermont law passed in 1797 compelling militia service for all men ages 18 to 45. Exemptions from this service could be purchased for $3 and applied to support for the local schools. In the book, “Lyndon Gem in the Green,” Venila Shores writes that for the militias, “officers were to be chosen with a captain, two lieutenants, one ensign and four sergeants, four corporals, six gunners, six bombardiers, one drummer, one fifer and not less than twenty-four, nor more than thirty privates or matrosses. The company’s officers were chosen by the members.” It was also up to members of the militia to provide their own “tools” such as uniform, arms, ammunition and when they did they were exempt from poll taxes. The poor creatively took advantage of these laws and the tax breaks. What’s new? When the law called for a musket with a steel rod, some rustled up a pitchfork or hoe! Each captain was responsible to call his troops together for an annual review the first Tuesday in June. They were to display equipment, drill and establish discipline. This event was to take place beginning at 9 a.m. and they were to stay together throughout the day participating in military exercises. The officer in charge determined how strictly the law this day was to be followed. I can’t help but thinking that William had that twinkle in his eye later ascribed to his son John and later descendants. Being that he was one of the first militia captains for Lyndon Center his influence may have been responsible for these “June Training Days” gaining the reputation of gala holidays! The Lyndon Parade ground that had been set out by the founding fathers in Providence filled up with local troops giving a wink and nod. Clinging to their pitchforks and hoes in one hand and distilled spirits in the other, these men understood without a good battle looming there was fun to be had on a late spring day. The drunkenness and rowdiness of that day described in local legend may have been just that: a great time to blow off steam after a hard winter. Of course all good things come to an end and by the time of William’s death in 1845 the rising wave of the Temperance Movement had put a stop to local shenanigans.</p>