@JBD1017

It's simply pathetic!, The NRA ( National Riffle Association) own and have our politicians by the balls! We have Pussy politicians who expect to receive their NRA check in the mail instead of doing what's right for the American People!

Yes. It’s both outdated and misinterpreted… But money buys propaganda, and dead people don’t..

I’ve guns, loaded.. and may actually sell some as I’m no longer a father protecting his family in the deep woods. Never had any military assault weapons with banana clips, though. Strange, raising said family in the woods of the far west - I never needed an assault weapon. And had the government ‘wanted us,’ any of their numerous ‘black helicopters’ practicing night flights over our ‘uninhabited forest’ could have taken us out.

@powder Yes, I realize that it can be modified. I am aware of the changes to address slavery, women's right to vote, and prohibition, as well as many others over the last 242 years. That is a minor point that is a tangent to my main argument. Also, while the Constitution doesn't specifically call for a standing army, it does give Congress the power to raise such an army via the many acts which have been passed to deal with threats throughout the years (and thus the legal grounds for the standing Army we have today). This system allows, at any moment, the ability for Congress to pass various acts to easily and quickly modify the size (increase or decrease)- without the need of states ratification of Constitutional amendments, which can be a lengthy and complicated process, to deal with present and immediate threats.

[britannica.com]

@powder No standing armies was once so very true but then we got involved in many things over seas and thought it might be wise to have standing armies. Our Founding Fathers told us early on that we should not do that but someone knew there was money to be made.

@powder Sure...and just like in Nazi Germany, China, Russia...disarming the population worked out so well. for the general citizenry. The second amendment wasn't written in so we could protect the government. It was added so we could protect ourselves FROM an overbearing government.

@DenoPenno I agree...and in fact Eisenhower even warned us about the rise of the military industrial banking complex, but was ignored. Which in my opinion is further proof that we as citizens need to be armed to protect OUR freedoms.

You are foolish if you think someone else should protect you and safeguard your rights and freedoms.

@powder Well your first paragraph in response is completely off the topic of gun control. I guess since you can't make a logical and reasonable argument, you think to pull me off on a tangent on topics completely unrelated. And again, you choose to ignore the main point of my argument...to talk about the economic structure of the countries, not the condition of the citizen of those countries when guns were confiscated.

Second paragraph - I served MY country (one which you don't live in, so not sure why you find the need to tell us how to govern ourselves) for 6 years in the Marine Corps. I have studied history as well as stay abreast of current actions by said government and what I can garner about the CIA. I try my best to inform my fellow citizen about the lies and deception they are a part of, but unfortunately, most are apathetic. I also write my congressional leaders, something most Americans can't do b/c they don't even know who they are, to voice my concerns and wishes for governmental policy direction. Of course, that doesn't matter b/c corporations run this country, not the people (too many are afraid to stand up, or just to comfortable with cheap gas and 10 different ESPN channels to watch). As former military, I am very aware of the hypocrisy by undermining democratically elected governments with the blood and lives of our young men and women (some might say still boys and girls). And BTW...your country participated in Iraq and Afghanistan from the start, recently declared new missions (see link) in these countries, and typically is in lock step with US policy, so you might want to cut back on throwing the 'hypocrite' label around.

[smh.com.au]

Finally, it's pretty obvious you are getting frustrated at your inability to make a reasonable argument, because you now have turned to name calling and insults in your rhetoric (rednecks - hypocrites), which isn't surprising after reading the judgmental tone your profile bio conveys. I am not in agreement with a lot of US policy, both domestic and abroad, and I am doing everything I can as a disabled veteran to support freedom and democracy...even if that means protecting the freedoms and rights of people I personally can't stand. I do so b/c I honor freedom which I feel should be afforded to all, even if I don't think many actually deserve it.

@powder President as command in chief has NOTHING with my personal rights to possess firearms. And I addressed the reason why we have a standing army, which is granted via the constitution to be raised by congress...just not via constitutional amendment, for the reasons I previously stated. And technically the President doesn't have a standing army. He is granted authority to direct the operations of the army that is controlled by congress (he can't send them to war, he can only direct operational and strategic policy once congress has approved said actions). If congress tomorrow voted to disband all military tomorrow, the President can't keep some of them b/c he wants to, or just go out and raise another. Yes, I know there is a lot of grey in that area, and sometimes the lines are muddled, but ultimately that is how the system works.

Sure, you can comment about our foreign policy, but again, the topic posted was gun control. I don't see how me owning a gun, or 500 of them has anything to do with US foreign policy, your countries sovereignty, or threatens you personal safety. Not like I am going to come to Australia and go on a mass shooting spree with my USA guns. Me owning a gun or not would not have stopped Bush from invading Iraq to line his families big oil pockets

"Amendment II - 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." Take out the word "a free" and yes, it does read that the only reason we have arms as citizens is to be ready to serve the state as militia. In fact, taking your POV, those two words are not even needed, so why are they there? IMO, those two very simple words completely change the intention by not only protecting the freedom of the State, but also the freedoms of the people within that State. In that time there was not a standing army, and even when there was, travel and immediate protection for the populace could not be guaranteed by a standing army, which was hauling ass if they could foot march 30 miles in a day. Even today, we have cops all over the place, but my home has been broken into multiple times (luckily I wasn't home), and not ONCE did my personal cop/soldier body guard stop it. Why...b/c she isn't my personal security guard and wasn't there. While people don't want to accept it, there is no guaranteed safety that society or the government can offer - it really is up to the individual to ultimately be responsible for their own safety and protection of life. I think you will agree that ability is severely limited if all I have is a knife, muzzle loader, or bolt action hunting rifle. And while a 6 shot revolver doesn't put out as much lead as a 10 round magazine pistol, it can still do some serious damage, and via speed loaders be almost as effective (maybe more so if you consider firepower of ( 6 ) .357 rounds compared to a clip of (14) 9mm. But the fact is gun control advocates want all pistols gone, so I wouldn't even have that...and if I did, a criminal can get a semi-auto pistol from Mexico in .45 caliber, and probably out gun me.

Finally, offense wasn't taken for offering an opinion...it was taken at the insulting remarks about being a hypocrite and redneck. that was indirectly directed toward me, although I think it was probably inadvertently done. I have just seen too much name calling on here, and as critical thinking atheist, I always confront people on resorting to that tactic. We are much better intellectually than to stoop to "christian" tactics IMO.

Best answer I have read our of hte half dozen or so here when I read them.