The Second Amendment of the US Constitution specifically mentions the right to bear arms, in the context of a "well-regulated militia." Are you US gun owners part of a "well-regulated militia?"

@tommann
The context is still under debate by the US Supreme Court.

As for guns - I miss the sport - but I don't mind living in somewhat gunless China (where outlaws STILL have guns).

I've had to defend myself on at least two separate occasions. I was fortunate to be legally armed - prevented something worse happening to a profoundly physically larger bully (or to me). The propitious display of a weapon in a responsible manner allowed the little old pipsqueak me to avoid physical harm and in my dream reality, saved the aggressor's life.

Banning weapons will never happen in the USA - regardless of the pro-con rhetoric.

1. Huh?
2. Are magazines with 100 rounds necessary for hunting or self-defense? Are automatic weapons really necessary to keep constitutionalists happy? Those are the questions that need to be addressed.

3. Yes you are. You are equipping crazies for murder by protecting their god-given right to buy automatic weapons. And if you define freedom by "being armed," well... I think you may have missed the point.

4. I respect tradition too. But I don't use it as an excuse for my actions now.

5. You've avoided the question completely. Do you think Chinese would be happier and safer if they were able to have the same access to weapons as Americans? You should start a non-profit here and teach Chinese what freedom truly is... guns and ammo.

Here is the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States as ratified and adopted December 15, 1791.

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.

I leave it to Justice Scalia, who in, writing for the majority in Heller, stated:

Nowhere else in the Constitution does a "right" attributed to "the people" refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention "the people," the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase "the militia" in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the "militia" in colonial America consisted of a subset of "the people"— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear Arms" in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause's description of the holder of that right as "the people".

I take this to mean the right belongs to all Americans not just the subset under the control of the government. In the 1710's, first you had to be armed, then you joined the militia. The Minute Men owned their own guns.

Hilarious. People quoting the law as their personal bible when it suits them. Laws have been created by people. No person is flawless. Many laws have been created in different times, circumstances and social environments.

Geezer now quoting the law and referring to long gone moments belonging to history books as if they would apply to any time in any future (or the now) does justify Flatus' question "So you are a fan of slavery too?"

Many laws are arbitrary and outdated, no matter how hard you cling on to them when they happen to suit your mood.

It might be time to admit that you guns holding on to your guys probably in most cases has little to do with self-defense. Perhaps you're equating the size of your gun (or car for that matter) to your manhood...? Try to develop some character instead. Character goes a long way.

@tommann, to invoke that argument you'd have to define what a "Well-Regulated Militia" means. Wikipedia defines it as: "irregular army, is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service."

The Second Amendment reads: "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."

So putting the two together we can interpret it as stating having an irregular army composing of ordinary citizens is necessary in order to safe guard the freedom of the State, therefore, we need to guarantee that ordinary citizens have the right to own guns so that they maybe called upon to defend the security and freedom of the State.

@laotou, I'm not a Constitutional scholar but I do remember my history professor as saying the Second amendment was meant as a safeguard to protect individual states from abuses of the federal government, it has nothing to do with individual rights as the pro-gun lobby is framing it. Another reason for giving the states rights to form militias was to protect itself from foreign forces at a time when federal forces were relatively small and wouldn't be able to come to the aid of states that are under foreign attack. And of course, in order to form militias the populace needs to be armed.

2. I resigned my life membership in the NRA when they supported the sale of Teflon coated bullets. I was a shooter fro the age of eight until shortly coming to China, about 50 years. I owned, over the years, nearly 100 guns. I shot competitively as a civilian and in the military. About 1970, I shot, almost exclusively, antique guns none made after 1870. I have hunted deer, birds, and people (US Army made me do it). I have never ever seen a 100 mag, military or otherwise. That, I believe, is part of the BS nonsense the anti-gun crowd tosses about to win ridiculously framed arguments.

Automatic weapons are illegal, well almost, and I have never seen or heard of one in the possession of a civilian. My question is who is demanding that kind of weapon?

3. I am not and have not equipped anyone, except one of my sons. I do not believe in God, but I would fight to the death to protect your right to attend whatever church you want. I do not, have not, will not condone the right to buy illegal weapons. You make unfounded, unintelligent, inflammatory statements and ascribe them to me. Flail away!

4. Do I use tradition for my actrions today? Which of my actions are you objecting to. I suspect you dislike I am speaking and wish I was stifled because I don't accept your wish to control my actions, and maybe thoughts too.

5. I dod not answer your silly question as I fail to see what China and Chinese have to do with a right held by Americans, granted by the Constitution. Perhaps you can see the linkage. I cannot.

@tony
Thanks - I was too lazy to look it up again - it's a debate with no end until we develop personal WMDs, thus obsoleting guns and the constitutional amendment.

Sorry, when i say automatic, i mean semi-automatic. Like the AR-15 assault rifle purchased legally in Colorado and the 6000 rounds purchased legally online. As far as your responses to issues 1, 2, 3 and 4, we truly live on different planets. And for issue number 5... you think only Americans deserve true freedom? You don't want to make an argument for arming Chinese or not?

Honestly, I had no idea ammo could be bought online. That boggles my mind when I think of the forms I signed to buy ammo with an ID in California.

First of all Americans do not have "true freedom" what ever that is. Read Hayek, Friedman, Sowell to understand just how relative freedom is. At issue, gun ownership, is a right specified, I believe, in the Constitution. If I lose my right to own a gun I have lost something intangible to you but real to me. Obama has begun an attack on religious freedom. Obama complains bitterly about Fox News, Drudge, Beck and others and he is expressing the need to limit speech. It is a slippery slope, hard to tell where it starts and harder to know where it leads. I say, naw, lets not go there. Sooner or later those that think like you do, and have power, will get around to taking something away from you for the collective good.

After more than 25 years in and out of China, including more than ten years living in China, I have concluded I have nothing to say about Chinese freedoms or lack there of. I do think Western calls for more and better human rights, or more democracy, have merit but hope the Chinese solve that problem in their own way and time. Chinese are an intelligent bunch, they can figure it out.

Yes, I do not want to make any statement, or argument, viz arming Chinese other than that is an issue to dealt with best by Chinese.

Westerners are like the seven blind guys describing an elephant. None of us knows, and I think can never know, China well enough to do much more than bitch about the place.