[spectrrr]

I failed to get around to addressing one final point last night on the topic of the 2nd Amendment. Primarily this goes out to the numerous arguments raised that basically state the 2nd amendment is or could be outdated since it was written so long ago. Since obviously slavery was an outdated idea, why not guns? (note that I will not address the right to personal protection and crime prevention issue, as I have already spoken on that at length.)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The simple fact is this: I do not need guns to protect me from the government TODAY. I've never had to shoot a government agent coming onto my property, and I've never had to organize an armed rebellion against the state. Never have, Hope to God I never will.

--BUT THAT IS NOT WHY THE SECOND AMENDMENT EXIST!--

The 2nd Amendment exists to ensure that I never have to do any of the above mentioned things. Our 2nd amendment right exists primarily to ensure that people are always armed. Not because we need the guns now, but because as long as we have them, it is very likely we will not need them.

The argument that our society has evolved, that life today is safer and that we are not at risk from our government TODAY is mostly correct... but fundamentally flawed in that it does not take into account WHY our society is safe today, and why we do not have to fear anything from the government. People are corrupt. Look at history, power corrupts. It always has, it always will. find for me, if you can, me a society whose government did not eventually become corrupt. (you won't). If you take away OR LIMIT the guns from the hands of private citizens, you eliminate the checks and balances that ensure the government does not become TOO corrupt.

-------------------------------
An example of this idea (I'll get back to guns in a minute, I promise!):
Most people operate on a risk/reward system. Is the risk of negative consequences worth whatever the reward is for an action?

lose $20 /vs/ win the lottery
lose my job /vs/ get to tell my boss what an a$$hat he is
beat the sh!t out of the guy that just stole from me and insulted me /vs/ get caught, go to jail, get acquainted with "bubba"

You get the idea. And everyone's risk/reward scale is different. meaning that I might think that it is worth it to lose my job so I can say what I'm really thinking to my boss... and you may value your job more than that and continue on as it is.

Tough penalties on assault and murder (hellllo bubba!), coupled with excellent forensics and detective work that significantly increase the chance you will get caught, and topped off with the small (3% to 5%) chance that the guy you try to assault will be packing, all these add up to stack the odds against most people committing a crime. The risk is not worth the reward (for most), hence the net effect is prevention.
-------------------------------

Guns in the hands of private citizens have the same effect on our government. It is a reminder not to get too far out of line, because there IS a risk to the government if they do so. As long as we continue to have our guns, MOST of the people will continue to remain in line, because the risk is not worth the reward.

(I say "most" because there will always be someone who will do the wrong thing at any cost, their risk/reward ideals are a little different from the rest of us.)

But on the other hand, if you say that we do not need guns now, and you take them away or limit their ownership, THEN you will see the problems begin to rise... because now the risk is diminished, and the reward starts looking a lot better....

AND FINALLY, along the same sort of discussion:
Why do I need to have "nice" guns? why not just allow people to have small pistols for home defense and a single shot bolt action rifle for hunting, since that’s all we really "need"?

I think that after reading this post, the answer should be fairly obvious... IF the primary purpose of guns in the hands of private citizens is to deter the government from getting out of line in the future, THEN it stands to reason that those guns must be EFFECTIVE at the job they are tasked with. If everyone owned a 6 shot .22 cal revolver, then we would all be armed... however the tools would be largely ineffective in performing their duty of prevention because they post very little risk.

Thus, it is not only important that we are armed, but also that the weapons we are armed with have the potential to be EFFECTIVE against an opponent, otherwise there is little point to be armed in the first place. Assault weapons are sometimes overkill for self defense. BUT take a look at the armory of the local SWAT team or the military, and you should see that these so called "assault weapons" are really the bare minimum needed to maintain proper checks, balances, and effective prevention against a superior force. Give us all .22 revolvers and we'll see how much of a deterrent that is to a SWAT member.




ok, i'm done now... I think...

-Francis