The UK continues with restricting weapons from it's subjects and the crime rate increases. The US has proven that fewer laws prohibiting weapons actually reduces crime. So we can use the UK and US for a measuring stick in that respect. Also, I didn't say the UK has a form of tyranny strictly based on your not being allowed to own guns, but also for the several other reasons I mentioned.
There's the catch. Both Washington and Jefferson CLEARLY defined the militia as CIVILAINS who kept arms for the purpose of defending their nation and homes and were not referring to the Nation Guard. In fact the excuse of the militia that's mentioned in the 2nd Amendment being a reference to the National Guard is quite silly, as the National Guard was not formed until over 100 years later. We have a better chance of defending our nation against a tyrannical government than a people who allow their firearms to be taken and can always opt to use them for the purpose of seizing the larger forms of weapons to be on equal footing.
If you are going to get that retroactive about it's interpretation you should probably throw out every weapon you have that is rifled, breech loading or capable of semi automatic fire, also, i don't exactly work out how you can narrow the definition of the amendment so that only half is applicable, it never stated the nature of the militia, it just required it to be well regulated. Further more, "a better chance" doesn't really equate to having anything resembling a hope of success.
Well, I'm glad that's settled! We better start opening some gun shops, it'll make things so much more peaceful!
He does overlook that in america, violent crime is one of four things, murder/manslaughter, rape with violence, armed robbery or aggravated assault occasioning in bodily harm, in the uk, someone being booked for shoving someone is considered a violent crime.
Perhaps you should actually read the 2nd Amendment? Here, I will post it's wording. "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". Obviously the security of a free state could not be maintained today by the use of antique weapons, so your argument there is not valid. The 2nd Amendment applies to weapons capable of maintaining our freedom then and now, without specifics about the weapon being of the variety available in the 18th century or 21st.
If my argument is not valid, by making the same conclusions, neither is your argument about the national guard, which brings us back to the fact you personally own guns and are not a member of a militia, thus are violating the 2nd amendment.
So how well regulated is your militia? What is the criteria for what constitutes "arms"? Why can't you have an RPG or a drone armed with guided missiles?
Or mutated weaponized anthrax, which can of course be used for duck hunting, provided it's the right time of the year.
Actually, every link disproves the comment you made about violent crime having dropped in the UK. Look at some of the examples from the Wnd The percentage of the population that suffered “contact crime” in England and Wales was 3.6 percent, compared with 1.9 percent in the United States and 0.4 percent in Japan Burglary rates in England and Wales were also among the highest recorded. Australia (3.9 percent) and Denmark (3.1 per cent) had higher rates of burglary with entry than England and Wales (2.8 percent). In the U.S., the rate was 2.6 percent, according to 1995 figures;
Were those figures for Australia, Denmark and England also for 1995, cause if they are not, there is no reason to compare them.
https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/ You're big on making people read things, figured you could use something to have a cuppa over. Also, if you are going to make me read something, please make sure it has a bibliography.
My argument is valid because the 2nd Amendment clearly states the purpose is to ensure the necessity of a free state, which does not limit us to 18th century technology, but whatever firearms that exist in the 21st century which are most favorable to carry out that task. Also, the national guard wasn't around until over 100 years after the Constitution was ratified, and the Founders were very specific about what they meant by a militia.
