Upstream | February 02, 2013 | 113 comments

How the Greeks Viewed Weapons

source: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2013/02/how-the-greeks-viewed-weapons.html

Image
coolplanet
Pythagoras, legislator for Greek settlements on the Italian mainland, said: “Let the laws rule alone. When weapons rule, they kill the law.”

By Melissa Lane | February 1, 2013


One of the guns used to murder children and adults in Newtown, Connecticut, was an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that’s similar to a weapon used in war by American troops. A weapon of war was turned on innocents at home. That would have shocked the ancient Greeks.

The pioneers of citizen armies were also pioneers of withdrawing weapons from the places of civilized life. The ancient Greek armies were manned exclusively by citizens who brought their own weapons into battle. Getting to serve in an élite combat unit required being wealthy enough to afford to buy one’s own armor. It was this vision of citizen militias, further developed by the Romans, that went on to inspire the English revolutionaries of the seventeenth century and the American revolutionaries of the eighteenth—so shaping the values expressed in the Second Amendment.

Nevertheless, when one early-nineteenth-century American reflected on what the new American Republic could learn from the ancient Greeks, he drew attention to another feature that was widespread in their politics: refraining from carrying weapons in public spaces. In some cities, this was a matter of custom, in others it was a matter of law. Citizens carried their weapons abroad when serving in the military for public defense. But, even in these cities, it was believed that carrying weapons at home would be tantamount to letting weapons, not laws, rule.

This point is emphasized in a study of ancient-Greek laws attributed to Benjamin Franklin, though apparently composed by the founding editor of the Western Minerva, who published it in 1820. The laws, the author insisted, “apply with peculiar energy and propriety to the circumstances of the United States.” Number fifteen in this collection of a hundred “principles of political wisdom,” drawn from the school of Pythagoras, legislators for Greek settlements on the Italian mainland, was this: “Let the laws rule alone. When weapons rule, they kill the law.”

This is the opposite of the view attributed to the Founding Fathers by the N.R.A.’s chief executive, Wayne LaPierre, in 2009, when he said that “our founding fathers understood that the guys with the guns make the rules.” On the contrary, letting the guys with weapons make the rules of ordinary life was the opposite of the classical practices that inspired the American founders. Writing of the evolution of Greek societies in the first book of his “History of the Peloponnesian War,” the Greek historian Thucydides reported that the Athenians were the first to lay aside their weapons.

Whereas men in all Greek societies used to carry arms at home, this had been a sign of an uncivilized era of piracy in which the most powerful men could dominate all the rest. Laying aside the everyday wearing of weapons was part of what Thucydides believed had allowed Athens to become fully civilized, developing the commerce and culture that made her the envy of the Greek world. The Romans, too, banned the carrying of weapons within the pomerium, the sacred boundary of the city.

The banning of carrying weapons in public was based on the idea that civilized coexistence could not tolerate public spaces that were dominated by those wearing weapons, on pain of intimidating those around them. Apart from the physical risks posed, such intimidation would inherently undermine civic equality. It is hard for the unarmed to argue with the armed. Key to civil society was that citizen-warriors put their weapons in storage when they returned to everyday social and political life.

If weapons were taken out of storage and carried into public spaces, this was seen as an attempt to bring about violent constitutional change. To be sure, an outright ban on the possession of weapons was a measure of tyranny, since tyrants might seek to disarm the citizens in order to take power. Yet carrying weapons in public was as much a threat to the constitutional order as depriving citizens of weapons altogether. Aristotle’s remark that “those who control the weapons also control whether a constitution will survive or not” (as translated by C. D. C. Reeve) must be understood in this context. The carrying of arms in public spaces is to be seen as a revolutionary move to overthrow the constitution; it has no part in daily life or politics.

For a dramatic illustration of this point, consider the story of the lawmaker Charondas, of the Greek city of Catania, in Sicily. Charondas made a law against anyone entering the Assembly while carrying a weapon, but one day, having been out in the countryside fighting robbers, he returned and went straight into the Assembly without realizing that he still wore his dagger at his side. When he was accused of nullifying his own law, he made the ultimate sacrifice to uphold it: he drew the dagger and killed himself.

To be sure, that’s not the kind of action that we need—we don’t need any more killings. But the story of Charondas is a model of the seriousness with which such Greek societies took the issue of protecting public life from the threat posed by weapons. Remembering that seriousness could help inspire American lawmakers to get serious about gun control today without fearing that they are betraying the classical heritage of the citizen militia.


Melissa Lane is a professor of politics at Princeton and a 2012-13 fellow of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford.

Illustration by Sergio Ruzzier.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Culture,   Current Tonight,   Upstream,   7 more
  2. tags:
    Democracy,  Weapons,  NRA,  militia,  2 more
  3. recommended by:
    Vierotchka
  4.     
    |

113 comments // How the Greeks Viewed Weapons

  • mitekillem
    • +1
      mitekillem  

    • You cannot ban ignorance. If you try to ban weapons, then those who cling to ignorance will cling even more to their precious weapons as if it were the only thing keeping them alive. In their minds it is true, because they see the world through dark and shaded lenses that show them the world as a nightmarish land, just as our cave-dwelling ancestors did.

      Where as in Pythagoras' time, weapons were always clearly visible on a person, and they had enough security and enforcement to keep people to obey the laws, today, those who legislate do so in favor of pushing this gun culture, while cutting funding to local and state police budgets.
      How does society thrive when each man has to worry that his neighbor might shoot him. When the weapon is there, the threat exists. The more weapons that surround us, the more threats we see, and the more guarded we become.

      Guns don't make sense in the trading epicenters. However, cities these days are concrete jungles. There are areas that are wild, where the taker mentality is at large, and it is a threat to your person.
      It would be grand if we could just say, no guns within any cities, or city limits.
      However, each city varies. And there are some parts of some cities that you dare not walk through at night.

    • 3 months ago
  • sedwin
  • artemis6
  • hammywill
    • 0
      hammywill  

    • Of course in Greece almost everyone was a slave..there were very few actual citizens. Punishments were severe in the extreme. Bringing up something from a culture like this could as easily turn on you. Let's discuss the pros and cons for our own society.

    • 4 months ago
  • DianaCancer
    • -4
      DianaCancer  

    • In a vaccuum, arguments for gun control make some sense. In the real world that we face now with ever eroding civil rights, a violent torturing waring broke government who is the main purveyor of armaments of death throughout the world, who has now militarized the small town police officer at home,and is a dispenser of daily propaganda,etc.etc., gun control is nothing more than people control.

    • 4 months ago
  • savroD
  • Paratus
    • -3
      Paratus  

    • Interesting historical stuff, if true, but it has no relevance today. Funny how in this article there was such an influence of the ancient Greeks on the writers of the Constitution but the role of God and religious belief on them is minimized.
      Anyhow, for a much more accurate reflection of what the writers thought of guns let's look at some quotes.

      "A free man ought to be armed" George Washington

      "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms" Thomas Jefferson

      "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
      - Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

      "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson

      "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
      - Thomas Jefferson

      Just a few.

    • 4 months ago
  • sedwin
  • hammywill
  • sedwin
  • hammywill
    • +1
      hammywill  
    • sedwin:

      My POINT is that your assertion that YOUR interpretation of the 2nd Amd being the ONLY accurate one is absurd. Everyone could make interpretations of that amendment and based on the wording ALONE, could draw all sorts of ACCURATE, yet different interpretations. If you want to know the intent...read up on what the Founders though regarding the right (and responsibility) to bare arms.

      On a side note, even IF the founders wanted everyone armed in case they were needed to form a militia, it does NOT negate the fact that the amd allows for the PEOPLE to be armed. Regardless of whether or not we still use militias as they were formed 250 years ago. I was explaining that there is a MECHANISM already available to change the Amendment. Such as was used to rectify past issues in the Constitution i.e. allowing women to vote, freeing slaves, etc...as you so kindly pointed out while trying to lump me in with misogynist, racist, slave owners. Good try though.

    • 4 months ago
  • hammywill
    • +1
      hammywill  
    • sedwin:

      Oh..and all those changes happened through AMENDMENTS. Which is EXACTLY what I said should be done. But it was a good hearted effort to attempt to color me as a racist, woman hater. Even though your attempt failed miserably, I will give you credit for trying.

    • 4 months ago
  • AmericanStandard
  • AmericanStandard
  • MSII
  • MSII
    • +2
      MSII  
    • sedwin:

      Very correct about the constitution and the fundamentalism that the right-wingers hold to it (yes the right would love to set the clock back in oh so many ways), but this shouldn't surprise considering the simple-minded "fundamentalism" that dominates the right-wing mental-illness in just about any area of controversy.

    • 4 months ago
  • sedwin
  • sedwin
  • AmericanStandard
  • AmericanStandard
    • -2
      AmericanStandard  
    • sedwin:

      hammywill:
      In your opinion. I guess that is based on the fact that you are taking an absolute position on the Second Amendment. Therefore you would take an absolute position on all amendments and the original Constitution (since in your opinion that is what the founding fathers intended). So you would argue it's OK to yell fire in a crowed theater when there is no fire, or child pornography is OK since those limitations on the First Amendment would also be wrong.

      I'm assuming you are also for not allowing women to vote and are still for slavery and the other multitude of changes that have been made to the original Constitution including the whole of the Bill of Rights the first of which were added in 1791.

      Your opinion doesn't hold water as out Constitution has been an evolving document since the day it was written.

      The point is that your rights end when they begin to infringe upon the rights of others. My gun in my safe will never infringe on your liberties. Your attempt to hyperbolize people's opinions and parrot mindless talking points only solidifies your persona as a useful idiot.

    • 4 months ago
  • Paratus
    • -2
      Paratus  
    • sedwin:

      I have no idea what you are trying to accomplish with the Reagan and Bush statements. This may come as a surprise to you but neither one of those two gentlemen had anything to do with the writing of the Constitution and by extension what they meant when they wrote it. It is completely irrelevant as is the Greeks attitude toward weapons at least as it concerns the Second Amendment. Besides the Second applies not any opinions, ideas or ancient Greek beliefs true or false.

      Oh, "Tommy Guns" can be purchased by civilians as can other select fire guns. I find it interesting that you are defending anything done by Bush of either generation. I thought he was the antithesis to those on your side of the aisle. I guess politics DOES make strange bedfellows.

    • 4 months ago
  • Paratus
    • -3
      Paratus  
    • sedwin:

      "an absolute position on the Second Amendment. "

      2A says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It sounds pretty absolute . What you are arguing is to remove the right to yell fire in a crowded theater even if there is a fire. I don't think child porn is ok because it is a child. That is different than the legal concept and the freedom to have it. You have the freedom to get in someones face and call them any name in the book but that freedom does not prevent you from loosing some teeth.
      The original Constitution does not impose slavery or remove a womans right to vote. The Constitution can only be "evolving" by amendment. Other than that it means what it says. IF it doesn't the rule of law is dead and we have the rule of man which is subjective meaning that whatever I think is right is just as valid as whatever you think it right. Anarchy. The living, breathing Constitution that changes with the times willy nilly is meaningless and incorrect.

    • 4 months ago
  • Vic_Romano
  • sedwin
  • Vic_Romano
    • 0
      Vic_Romano  
    • sedwin:

      That's because nothing was ever truly banned. Having satisfied the proper licensing requirements, a person can still obtain, use and sell fully automatic weapons in the United States.

    • 3 months ago
  • AmericanStandard
    • -2
      AmericanStandard  

    • So what she is saying is that it is ok for us to keep our weapons of war at home but not bring them into public as per the ancient greeks? Further does anyone else feel like it is a bit of an over reach to say "Since the greeks had bans on weapons, and the founding fathers were inspired by the Greeks, then the founding fathers wouldn't mind gun control."? I don't know how they could make it more clear than "Shall not be infringed". What other amendment is that concise?

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
  • COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM
    • +2
      COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM  
    • coolplanet:

      CP, I know you are a conscientious person, so I don't assume you are intentionally trivializing the issue and so many people like myself by issuing the aspersion that I am no more than an anti government survivalist.

      In fact, I own no guns, don't hunt and ardently believe that "our" government should be doing more to provide for the "general welfare." Yet, I believe that any infringement on the guarantees of the Bill of Rights is an assault on the future viability of this democratic republic and Americanism as we've all been programmed to believe it to be and mean.

      To protect one's self or country from the tyrannies of oppressive governments, one can not expect those potentially oppressive governments to prevent themselves from becoming oppressive, any more than Wall Street can be relied upon to effectively police itself.

      Slavery, denial of rights to women, the confinement of Japanese citizens during WW11, the experiments on blacks, the experiments with LSD on military personnel, the continued exploitation of American Indians and their property, Watergate, Iran Contragate, the government sponsored poisoning of our environment, the government sponsored transfer of our national wealth to a corporate few, the government sponsored and facilitated wrecking of the global financial system, the Kent Sate Massacre, the government organized suppression of OWS right to peacefully demonstrate without unwarranted violence being perpetrated upon them, the Congressional treason of betraying the electorate by selling their votes to the highest bidder, the disenfranchisement of the power of citizen voting by supporting or tolerating Citizen's United, and the original dilution of the People's vote by instituting the Electoral College and the renewing of the right of government to spy on and arrest without warrant American citizens, are all forms of a tyrannical government engaged in oppression.

      Despite the public's call for election reform, Congress refuses to pursue it.
      Despite the public's call for campaign finance reform, Congress refuses to pursue it.
      Despite the public's call for ending the legislative shutdown of the filibuster, Congress refuses to pursue it.
      Despite the public's call for holding Corporate Criminals accountable, DOJ refuses to do so.
      Despite the public's protest over the corporate conspiracy to take people's homes away, the $25 billion that the mortgage industry was fined for mortgage fraud has not been used to keep those affected people in their homes.

      The list of government abuses and offenses against the People of the U.S. is exhaustive! NO wise person ever suggested that the fox should be left to guard himself from attacking the henhouse. Congress does not, and currently can not, effectively police itself. While I don't own a gun now, I want the right to as adequately arm myself as possible, against further government assault and oppression, and the type of weapons they currently use when they storm the premises of those who they perceive as a threat to their exclusive and abusive power against the People, like Aaron Swartz.

    • 4 months ago
  • hammywill
  • sedwin
  • hammywill
    • -1
      hammywill  
    • sedwin:

      I also think you misunderstand how the Constitution works. The constitution does not GRANT rights. I don't have a right to bare arms because the Constitution says I do. The Constitution does not CREATE rights, it PROTECTS them.

    • 4 months ago
  • AmericanStandard
  • MSII
    • +3
      MSII  
    • hammywill:

      George Carlin had a great bit on rights, and how foolish people are to believe for a second they just "have them", they're like gravity some kind of physical constant. Is it somewhere in the xristian bible did "god" say these absolutes are yours? The only "rights" anyone ultimately has is what the rest of us in some kind of civil society have collectively (oh I know there's a word that'll set off the usual-suspects!) granted each other.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=gaa9iw85tW8#t=267s

    • 4 months ago
  • hammywill
    • -2
      hammywill  
    • MSII:

      I am not discussing the nature of rights. I am discussing the nature of the Constitution and it's intent. The constitution was created to PROTECT rights that our Founders believed were inherent. Be they by nature, god, or anything else. And to RESTRICT government. The Constitution has NOTHING else to say. Of course we know for a FACT that this is true, and that the founder believed rights to be an inherent part of nature when they said "All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights."

      Like I have said over and OVER in previous posts, if you don't like that, then there is a mechanism built into the Constitution itself...amend it. You can ATTEMPT to make it seem as if I am debating the philosophy of rights all you want, but you are only distracting from what is actually being debated. Red Herrings may work on other, but not so much with me.

    • 4 months ago
  • MSII
    • +3
      MSII  
    • hammywill:

      you claim not to be discussing the nature of rights, yet you say -
      "and that the founder believed rights to be an inherent part of nature when they said "All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.""
      so then by this logic all -MEN- are "created" (by god presumably) equal, well now except men-of-color of course and women... well not so much at all (according to the infallible founders) You can't have it both ways, the constitution is either holy-writ, absolute and infallible, or it's not, I say the evidence is absolute that it's not. They themselves talked about the idea of re-visiting and re-doing it ever so-many years.

    • 3 months ago
  • Earthwalker
    • 0
      Earthwalker  

    • I do not advocate guns ...but in light of Americas' global position we are un-liked and more evidence is building that we may have some problems...now we do have the most advanced systems for war and unfortunately our mis-managing leaders have put us in a rash position...Yes gun laws are and should be of interest in the future, but it would be of great injustice to disarm in times like these. I am sorry but we are still in a moderate defcon level.... now...Lets make some changes that move us in a leadership by example position(Globally Speaking) rather a the defensive position we have now. ....We can get back to the guns later!!!
      I have a weapon...a sharp mind!!!
      How about we remove the private companies that make the war machines big and small and give those profits back to the American people who gave them the money to begin with.. at interest!!! wow what a concept..

    • 4 months ago
  • Vortices
    • -1
      Vortices [removed]  

    • If the the Newtown shooter killed himself with the Ar-15, then why was there an aerial photo of the alleged AR-15 being pulled from his trunk, after he committed suicide in the school?

      And don't the Swiss carry guns everywhere? And what is their gun crime rate?

      They won't take the guns, they might ban some of them, they will further inflate the price of ammunition, that's what might happen.

      Sadly what actions they are proposing, and may have the political power to enforce, will just ensure that the haves will continue to have, and the have nots will have not. Reminiscent of Europe in the Dark Ages, already hunting is almost a upper middle class to rich man's sport, and during the Dark Ages, only the elite could hunt on the "King's Land", raising the price of ammo will only cause us to experience essentially the same thing here in our time, as was experienced there in their time.

      And the weak argument that sporting rifles, more commonly made out to be "assault rifles" are not for hunting, and they "destroy" the meat altogether, totally false. There are hunters that use semi automatics, as it's a necessity when hunting wild boar which are notorious for withstanding sometimes multiple shots from high powered rifles. Also worth noting, semi automatic sporting arms generally are not any more high powered than their standard hunting rifle counterparts. They typically are the same caliber as in the Ar-15's case a .223, and in the AK-47's case a .308, extremely common single shot hunting rifles.

      Still if you guys want to turn law abiding citizens into criminals, be my guest, the majority of the gun owning culture has little to no problem defending their constitutional rights in a safe, non violent, responsible manner while showing little regard for unconstitutional laws or otherwise unjust laws. Besides, they'll just nullify when things start going to court.

    • 4 months ago
  • Vierotchka
    • +4
      Vierotchka  
    • Vortices:

      No, the Swiss do NOT carry guns everywhere. People keep pushing a twisted and erroneous Swiss example to justify the possession of assault weapons. I wish people would inform themselves instead of spewing nonsense about guns in Switzerland.

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
  • COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM
    • +3
      COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM  

    • The ancient Greeks would have been amazed by popsicles.

      Pythagoras was one Greek and his philosophy did not stop Greeks from having their swords, spears and knives.

      Pythagoras, like other Greek philosophers dealt in ideals, not necessarily reality. His thought was predicated on laws in an ideal set of circumstances and conditions, not on a set of laws and government wholly corrupted by large corporate forces which commit murder and manslaughter with the counsel of "bean counters," because it makes economic sense!

    • 4 months ago
  • artemis6
  • WisconsinNorm
    • +3
      WisconsinNorm  

    • I am 61 years old. I have never known anyone who has been murdered. How is this possible? I guess I am an ancient Greek who owns guns and most of his friends own guns. Have I ever pulled a gun out on another person? No. Have any of my friends? Not that I know of....So where does this leave us? I guess I must live in ancient Greece as well. or I have a nice little nest in America. I am quite happy with the latter.

      Don't let paranoia grab you.

    • 4 months ago
  • alexandrekBack
    • 0
      alexandrekBack  
    • WisconsinNorm:

      Would you think you or some of your friends would have been murdered if you haven't own guns?
      The thing is, gun make one fell safer but the more guns put the community in danger

      If one fight has to be made, reform the police forces, make them better, safer, more efficient, let's not let America be a country of militia

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
    • +7
      coolplanet  
    • WisconsinNorm:

      The only paranoia I see is in people who believe that Obama is going to take away our pistols, riffles and shotguns. The issue here is automatic assault weapons with only one purpose - mass killing. These weapons should only be in the hands of the military -- "a well-regulated militia" as America's founders intended.

    • 4 months ago
  • Ricky84
    • +1
      Ricky84  
    • coolplanet:

      The recent gun control debate has nothing to do with automatic weapons. That type of weapon is heavily regulated by the federal government.

      "assault weapons with only one purpose - mass killing"

      This is really an odious talking point forced into the discussion as a means to polarize the debate. If you reject the idea President Obama is trying to outlaw all guns because of his proposals than it shouldn't be so much of a stretch of the imagination to realize a modern semiautomatic firearm wasn't designed for MASS KILLING. It's just as disingenuous to demand any improvement to a specific firearm must constitute an effort to create a weapon for mass killing. By that measure to sharpen a pocket knife is an effort to create a weapon of mass killing.

    • 4 months ago
  • Vic_Romano
  • WisconsinNorm
    • +1
      WisconsinNorm  
    • alexandrekBack:

      It is not guns that make you feel safe or unsafe. It is the people around you. I do not patrol looking for trouble. If trouble is patrolling the areas I and my friends are functioning in, I just don't see it-maybe we look like dangerous mutt owners. I truly believe if you are looking for trouble you will search until you find it. It is really that simple. When I encounter a punk, it doesn't take long to establish we have nothing in common and it is best we both be on our way.

    • 4 months ago
  • WisconsinNorm
    • -1
      WisconsinNorm  
    • coolplanet:

      I agree. The law should be very specific if you use an assault weapon while committing a crime. I could give a rip if you own one. Just keep it at home. Next to your toilet tissue. When all hell breaks loose, that stuff will become extremely valuable.

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
    • +4
      coolplanet  
    • WisconsinNorm:

      "When all hell breaks loose" is what conservatives are threatening, calling for a civil war because Obama won a second term. Sales of assault riffles hit an all-time high the day after the last election and Walmart can't keep 100-round clips in stock fast enough.
      This is BULLSHIT!
      And blatant racism.
      America's founders, who used muskets that took 30 seconds to reload, are rolling in their graves at our misunderstanding of "a well-regulated millita."
      Well-armed conspiracy 'theorists' and survivalists are a danger to civilized society.

    • 4 months ago
  • COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM
    • -2
      COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM  
    • coolplanet:

      Therein is the flaw in your thinking and argument. The Pentagon is not a "well regulated" anything, let alone the militia which the Bill of Rights addressed. It wasn't protection from ourselves that the founders anticipated we would need, it's protection from tyrannical forces like the Pentagon, particularly when it's governed by corporations and not us. Please detail what part of this you don't fully recognize and understand.

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
  • COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM
    • 0
      COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM  
    • coolplanet:

      Wow! It seems you believe the militia forces which have been unleashed upon the people of the U.S. is consistently well regulated. I suppose this is predicated upon one's definition of "well regulated." If well regulated is merely the exact execution of orders from "above," then they are often well regulated. I always assumed "well regulated" in this application was judged objectively against the standards of intent and rights expressed in the Constitution, and particularly in the Bill of Rights. Under these standards, government militia has appeared very unruly and unregulated to me. Guaranteeing the People the right to bear arms adequate to the task and purpose anticipated is part of the checks and balances which the founding fathers strove to weave into the Constitutionalized new government. Checks and balances. People without arms adequate to their need is not balanced.

    • 4 months ago
  • mrpuma2u
    • +2
      mrpuma2u  
    • WisconsinNorm:

      You mean the "they are coming for our gun!" paranoia??? I subscribed to Guns and Ammo magazine in the 80's for 2 years, and every month they had some article that hinted that "the gubmint" were coming for your guns sometime next week, The gun industry has made so much $$$ off paranoid people in these last months, that they are laughing all the way to the bank. The NRA and the gun lobby has been spouting this "THE SKY IS FALLING" crap for well over 30 years now. In those thirty years how many "big gubmint" gun seizures have there been? Oh that's right NONE.

    • 4 months ago
  • Vierotchka
  • WisconsinNorm
    • +2
      WisconsinNorm  
    • mrpuma2u:

      Advertising is advertising. Why every football game makes me feel like if I don't drink beer I am a failure as a human. Not to mention Coca-Cola, Pepsi or fast food joints. What is it these products attempt to appeal to? Certainly not a unhealthy lifestyle. If I manufactured guns, I would want them to sell. So would you. Basically you are stereotyping most gun owners as cowering idiots with insensitive trigger fingers. They are not. Unfortunately some are and EVERYBODY wants these people disarmed-NOW!

    • 4 months ago
  • hammywill
  • hammywill
  • hammywill
    • -1
      hammywill  
    • coolplanet:

      While you seem to feel it's important to focus on one aspect of the Amendment, "Well regulated militia" sentence, you fail to post the part where it says "The right of the PEOPLE." It doesn't get any clearer than that. It's a simple fix if you don't like it, amend the Constitution. Those who choose to debate the "intent" of the 2nd Amd only do so because they know that they would NEVER succeed in amending that right away.

    • 4 months ago
  • alexandrekBack
  • hammywill
    • 0
      hammywill  
    • alexandrekBack:

      Which is LOGICALLY absurd. (Emphasis added so you don't think I am insinuating you are absurd..:-) ...) Cars kill more people every year than guns, but would you make that same statement about vehicles? The more vehicles in a community make the community more dangerous? Or more knives in the community make the community more dangerous?

      While I understand what you are saying, the cause is not the gun. The cause is PEOPLE. PEOPLE are the cause of all those things. Focusing on the object will not do anything. Perhaps we should focus on trying to change the SOCIAL mindset. There are more firearms per capita in Canada than there are in the United States, yet there gun death rate is DRAMATICALLY lower than that in the United States. It is not firearms that make the community more dangerous. It is the Culture. Taking AWAY freedoms will only create more and more problems. Instead we should focus on how to manage our freedoms voluntarily and RESPONSIBLY.

      In my opinion anyway...:-P

    • 4 months ago
  • sedwin
  • sedwin
  • hammywill
    • -1
      hammywill  
    • sedwin:

      No I don't. I also don't own any firearms, nor do I ever plan on owning any..lol..I also don't have a problem with these restrictions. I am just an argumentative bastard who grew up FORCED to read the Constitution and a LOT of the writings of the Founders. So I LOVE debating Constitutional Issues...LOL..

      If you have never done so, in my opinion there are two other works that someone MUST read in order to have a better understanding of the Constitution. "The Federalist Papers" and "The Anti Federalist Papers."

    • 4 months ago
  • AmericanStandard
  • AmericanStandard
  • MSII
  • WisconsinNorm
    • -2
      WisconsinNorm  
    • coolplanet:

      I guess my conservative friends and myself are out of touch. None of us have spoken of the upcoming civil war we are instigating. None of us are stockpiling ammunition or canned hams. In fact, this morning when it was colder than hell up here, all I could think about was how comfortable my abode is and all the coordinated technologies keeping me warm. I keep the thermostat at 58 during the night. It makes for a cozier snuggle with my silk pajama clad wife. Maybe I am a Democrat. Love that down comforter. Sigh...

    • 4 months ago
  • sedwin
  • alexandrekBack
  • hammywill
    • -1
      hammywill  
    • sedwin:

      You make an assumption that I am on the right. I'm not.

      Also, I have served in the military, and when I was a child lived in Montana. So I know my way around a weapon, thank you.

    • 4 months ago
  • hammywill
    • -1
      hammywill  
    • alexandrekBack:

      All those nations also have lower overall crime rates. I am not against gun restrictions personally. I am only debating their Constitutionality in light of the 2nd Amendment, as that is the issue I have been addressing.

      I will say this though, no, getting rid of the tools won't address the violence issue. It will only make people ignore it since there won't be anymore gun deaths. The ISSUE is violence, NOT guns. The people who don't realize that are really being quite simple.

    • 4 months ago
  • alexandrekBack
  • artemis6
  • aameranth
    • 0
      aameranth  

    • No dude. No. If one man is armed all should be armed.
      Take all guns out of the world and then we can talk.
      Take the Corruption out of governments and then we can talk.

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
  • Ricky84
  • coolplanet
  • Ricky84
  • JanforGore
    • +6
      JanforGore  

    • But we don't live in Ancient Greece. There is no honor amongst men regarding the rules of war and the men who run governments are the most corrupted of all. Taking weapons of war into areas to kill civilians would have shocked the Greeks, but so would the way we wage war as well regarding the innocents killed by those machines. It is in part because of the war mentality where all rules have been broken and conflated and the lines of morality blurred do we now see it part of everyday life, where for many their neighborhoods are battlefields. This is the unfortunate reality we live in today.

    • 4 months ago
  • hammywill
  • sedwin
  • hammywill
    • -1
      hammywill  
    • sedwin:

      My point was, people always make up rules..but those rules are so the politicians and historians can feel better about justifying war. Rules are so people who sit at home and watch the bombs drop can feel morally superior..but in EVERY SINGLE war...EVERY ONE...those rules are violated with abandon. The only rules that are important to the SOLDIER are the ones about discipline, and winning. The first, and most important "Rule" of war, that trumps ALL others is..WIN.

    • 4 months ago
  • AmericanStandard
  • AmericanStandard
    • 0
      AmericanStandard  
    • hammywill:

      exactly! Sec. Of state Magnamara said to Colonel Lemay prior to the bombing of Tokyo "you realize if we loose this war, you and I will be hung as war criminals!". Check out the documentary "Fog of War". I highly reccommend it

    • 4 months ago
  • sedwin
  • hammywill
  • coolplanet
  • Vierotchka
    • +2
      Vierotchka  
    • coolplanet:

      Alexander the Great was not Greek, he was the king of Macedon which was not part of Greece. Just sayin' :)

      And his death was likely the result of his having been poisoned by his Afghan wife Roxana who was jealous of his long-standing and deep homosexual love affair with his friend Hephaestion.

    • 4 months ago
  • oldbanjo
    • 0
      oldbanjo  

    • This makes sense if you change the other laws and kill the drug dealers if they use a gun in a crime not 10 year from now but the next day. The ones with guns will rule sounds like Mexico to me. You need guns due to the crimes today and the sorry legal system that lets them out to commit another crime while they're waiting to go to Court. I have a neighbor about a mile and a half from me that gets arrested for stealing or mfr'ing drugs every couple of years, right now he is at home waiting for Court on four cases, they did get him for failure to appear on these four cases a few months ago. Now they are waiting on his leg to get well before they put him in jail. I have lived here 15 years and he is arrested often and never goes to jail, he pays his lawyer $10,000 these days and she keeps him out of jail.

    • 4 months ago
  • remanns
    • +2
      remanns  

    • YOU ROCK.

      "Public Spaces" ; lets define them.

      ( Harder than it might seem at first thought . . . .)

      THIS is a GOOD place to start on this issue.

    • 4 months ago
  • Vic_Romano
  • Vic_Romano
  • artemis6
  • Vic_Romano
  • artemis6
  • Vic_Romano
  • coolplanet
  • remanns
  • Vic_Romano
  • artemis6
12
1 - 100 of 113
more from Upstream:
from the community

top videos