Quote Originally Posted by Bruno View Post
I your point(s) everyone, but the constitution has 1 grave weakness: it can be changed by 2/3 majority vote (at least over here).
Therefore, if someone would have enough influence in congress, they could simply rip out the 2nd amendment and suddenly, everyone with a gun would be a criminal.

I know this is unlikely to happen, but the theory is sound.

Btw, I know it is in your constitution, but is the idea of a militia still useful?
After all, the defense of a country falls to the military and national garde. If you believe in the lawfullness of the government, militias should be unnecessary.
If you don't believe in the lawfullness of the government as an armed militia, you are labeled terrorist and removed. And even if you aren't detained, shooting at the army with rifles isn't going to do you any good if you are againste apache helicopters and abrams tanks.

I don't write these words to troll or insult the US citizens here. I am genuinly trying to understand this issue because it is completely foreign to europeans.
If it is more apropriate to have this discussion elsewhere, could a moderator please move it to a separate thread because I don't want to cause bad feelings.
Your point is valid, and our constitution can be changed in two ways. By a Constitutional Convention of the states, and through a 2/3 majority of the legislature, that is both house and senate. If this occurs then they could remove the 2nd amendment. However, I do not feel that this would change the right to own a gun. The 9th amendment specifically states

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

This means that simply because a right is not enumerated, does not automatically mean that the government has the right to infringe upon it. It would also follow, that if there was a right enumerated (i.e. the 2nd amendment), then removing the specific enumeration does not automatically grant to government the right to infringe upon it. if the 2nd amendment is removed, I feel that an additional amendment would have to be introduced to grant the Government the power to infringe upon this right. This is what I meant by my statement that the people tell the government just how much power it will, and will not, have.


Also, how is a militia not useful? You say that shooting at the military with a rifle would be futile, given the advanced weaponry possessed by the military. The people of Afghanistan did just that when the Soviets invaded, and they beat them back, all be it with our help through the provision of Stinger missiles. If they did not have their guns, there would have been no opportunity for us to help them. Further, if the populace is familiar with firearms, then all the better for the military when it comes time to defend the country. Shorter training for the recruits/draftees and they would tend to make better soldiers.

Like I said, America was founded upon the gun, and the Revolution was started when the British attempted to seize the guns held by the colonies. See the battle of concord. Europe was not founded upon the gun, and I feel there is a completely different sense of personal freedom felt by Americans than Europeans. IMHO. Americans tend to want government out of their life, so that they can pursue their dreams. Europeans want government in their lives so they don't have to worry about certain issues, and they can relax. (see the prevalence of socialism in Europe)