Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Erm, I was answering your point, I wasn't saying that you'd said that other nations police forces had not had to think about it.

Except this is not what I said. You muddled the second paragraph with the first, thus creating something I never intended. So, yes, a straw man.

You are leaping to a conclusion that one must equal the other and that simply is not so.

one of the reasons for this right is to be able to rebel against a tyrannical government

After the Revolutionary War, Jefferson advocated restraining government via rebellion and violence when necessary, in order to protect individual freedoms. In a letter to James Madison on January 30, 1787, Jefferson wrote, "A little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical...It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."[125] Similarly, in a letter to Abigail Adams on February 22, 1787 he wrote, "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all."[125] Concerning Shays' Rebellion after he had heard of the bloodshed, on November 13, 1787 Jefferson wrote to William S. Smith, John Adams' son-in-law, "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."[126] In another letter to William S. Smith during 1787, Jefferson wrote: And what country can preserve its liberties, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.[

The next amendment is: "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." {[In Story's Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1840), the following two sentences are also added:] One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia. The friends of a free government cannot be too watchful, to overcome the dangerous tendency of the public mind to sacrifice, for the sake of mere private convenience, this powerful check upon the designs of ambitious men.}

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.

I get it, you think it's a stupid idea to allow the possibility of resurrection

One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia.

GMTom wrote:I may have stated Jefferson had more impact than he really did, I was thinking of the Declaration of Independence that was his baby. That being said, he most certainly did have a very big role in the Constitution, it was his idea to add the bill of rights and this issue is after all part of that section is it not?

GMTom wrote:Jefferson most certainly was consulted and sent the drafts and asked for his input, the bill of rights was one of his ideas to add to the constitution. He did not write it but he had his input without a doubt.

GMTom wrote:Are you suggesting Hamilton's opinions about the right to bear arms and why is irrelevant?

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?- Federalist #84

rickyp wrote:Archduke
I'm not so worried about the origins as I am about the effect. I've not disagreed that anti-federalists and the southern states all had concerns about states militias, and indeed about private ownership of guns. But Hamilton finaly wrote the amendment and it was voted into force and ratified. And we have in hand what he wrote. A strict constructionist view is that we deal with the written law, no?

In your opinion, does the 2nd amendment provide a right for citizens to take up arms against the govenment?

Archduke Russell John wrote:The 2nd Amendment doesn't provide anything. It specificies a limitation on the government, i.e. passing laws infringing on gun ownership.

Doctor Fate wrote:Does Germany have gun control?

How can something like this happen since guns are hard to get?

Btw, I have no info other than a report the shooter is from Kosovo. Still, I'll guess he'll be an Islamic extremist. If I'm wrong, I will apologize and invite a deserved verbal beating.

A man whose office is near the site of the shooting, speaking on condition of anonymity to protect his business, said witnesses told him that before opening fire the gunman shouted “God is great” in Arabic. Mr. Füllhardt said he could not confirm such reports.