If so - then I'd be happy to have well-regulated civilian militia.
2007-04-14 03:21:58 · 8 answers · asked by Longhaired Freaky Person 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If the Chinese had no standing army, there would never have been a Tiananmen Square Massacre.
2007-04-14 03:27:43 · update #1
No
2007-04-14 03:24:42 · answer #1 · answered by WC 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We already have a well-regulated militia. The entire able-bodied population of the United States comprise the militia thereof.
If the Chinese had something analogous to the Second Amendment, there would never have been a Tiananmen Square Massacre.
EDIT: In theory, I probably agree with you. That will never happen. No major world power can afford to NOT have a standing army.
2007-04-14 10:26:29 · answer #2 · answered by Rick N 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
no actually i think the constitution requires that we have a standing army. the purpose behind the 2nd amendment was that the original founding fathers realized it would be necessary for individual citizens to have protection not only for self defense of life and property but also against foreign invaders as well as domestic tyranny.
for example, there was a story of a woman being raped in central park in broad daylight (NOT the PR Day parade incident) and people simply stood around "enjoying the show" while waiting for the police to arrive. they never got there in time.
the erosion of 2nd amendment rights along with other laws severely handicap the general population when it comes to self protection. this creates a mindset where people believe that some "higher" authority will protect them. it's obvious this is a routinely failing condition for this society when a small group of terrorists with knives can take over a larger group of passengers on an airplane and fly it directly into national monuments.
anyway, i go too far off course here. activists believe in a standing army which is basically nothing more than a well regulated civilian militia anyway. that would be a perfectly raw definition of what this nation has now. but they also believe in a level of vigilantism. this is not about playing batman in gotham city. it's about protecting yourself, your family, and your home. and if you come across a situation that you can help prevent, you shouldn't stand around "enjoying the show!"
2007-04-14 10:40:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anthony Taurus 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Don't you mean ANTI-2nd Amendment?
Even so, name me some civilians that can fly combat jets, or captain an aircraft carrier flight group. A civilian militia is a joke compared to our real military. Name one "patriot" group with an Apache' attack helicopter group or squadron of fighter jets... and nuclear missiles - good luck.
2007-04-14 10:27:58 · answer #4 · answered by Paul Hxyz 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why can't we have both? We do, in fact have both in some states. In a severe time of war, I would pick up my rifle to defend my country. Does that not make me part of a militia?
2007-04-14 10:28:43 · answer #5 · answered by Captain Moe 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it was ever supposed to be a choice of either/or. There are provisions for both in the constitution. But no one has to own firearms if they choose not to. That is also one of our many freedoms that all sorts of people would like to control.
2007-04-14 10:30:28 · answer #6 · answered by AK 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
you said earlier that freespeech is good and guns are dangerous- but the pin is mightier than the sword and do you remember a little thing called the holocuast and racist lynchings, both of which were caused by speech that people believed!
2007-04-14 10:29:20 · answer #7 · answered by NO SOUP 4 U! 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Bend over here comes AlQuaida!
2007-04-14 10:45:03 · answer #8 · answered by mark k 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋