AJP Taylor wrote:
If your quotation is correct they could not possibly have already had the right. Their former colonial government ("almost every other nation") having previously taken that right away. It would need to be expressly restored.
I suspect Madison was prone to hyperbole.

You have the right to protect yourself with a gun at home, but you lose that right when you walk outside? What kind of logic is that?

Heart's deceitful wrote:
The U.S. has 300 million lethal weapons. One for each man, woman and child. No doubt, people will surely die.
Gun Ownership + Total Depravity.
We're idiots if we think this is a good idea.

protect them wrote:
The proof of the premise is to be seen at Sandy Hook.
Prevent these massacres of children by removing the guns from the shopping centres, or continue to allow these slaughters by your current moral standards. One or the other!!

protect them wrote:
The Right to bear arms of necessity includes the right of some to annihilate 20 six year old kids.
To remove the one necessarily requires the removal of the other. Both originate in the same initial human conviction.

When gun grabbers talk about a "civilized" world not needing guns, they usually mean some utopian view in which 6,000 years of human history is somehow recently overturned. It's basically modernistic hubris. If you're saying we don't need guns because humanity has organized itself into functional groups, that's really a non-sequitor.

If civility were the norm, government would not be necessary. Progressives always seem to be befuddled when the laws they advocate based on their model of "normal" produce contrary results, and their solution is usually to enhance the bad policies and make the problem worse. It's like a pilot who flies into a cloud, can't see the ground, and continues to apply the wrong command inputs.

It's evil to force a man to be defenseless, whether you do it yourself or if you do it through your government. Casting a ballot in support of taking away another man's rights is just as evil is clubbing him over the head yourself. You're a perpetrator in either case, but doing it through government saves you the difficulty of feeling guilty since the man in the dark colored costume with the pointy hat does it for you.

Does my obligation to provide for and protect my family stop at my front door? Then why should my right to possess the means to provide equivalent protection do so? Are the police going to provide the same level of protection? If not, then all forbidding me to be armed in public accomplishes is victimizes me without making the perpetrator suffer a bruised conscience.

Salesman, your rebuttal leads me to believe that you don't know what a straw man argument is. Get a dictionary. The world is not civilized. If post-Katrina New Orleans or post-earthquake Haiti is not proof of that, then you're blind.

Yes, it's legal where I live to own and carry guns. It's even legal to do so without asking the government for permission. Owning weapons is not evil. Killing, except in very limited circumstances, is evil.

Yes, the first amendment is a restriction on government, but the public schools are government institutions, albeit illegally so.