Quote Originally Posted by Nicoli
Back in 1776 that would be true, and, even today, under normal circumstances the 2nd amendment contributes to the functionality of the constitution as a whole. In N.O. Shortly after the hurricane, the right for anyone to carry a gun around was causing some serious problems. We as a country canâ??t allow rescuers to be fired on and citizens to gunned down in the streets. Laws require balance in order to function in N.O. That balance was lost. The imbalance resulted from criminals having been released from the jails, and large numbers of guns having been looted after the storm by those same criminals.
The end result of this imbalance was more guns being used to perpetrate crimes(or to violate the constitutional rights of others) then were being used to deter or prevent them.(or to protect the constitutional rights of others) Under normal conditions more guns are used to prevent and deter crimes then are used to perpetrate crimes and thatâ??s why we have the 2nd amendment.

Now if you know anything of history you must know that N.O. Was subjected to Martial Law during the war of 1812 by none other then Andrew Jackson. He had to temporarily deprive citizens of their constitutional rights by forcing them to stay and defend the city from the British. In this case Andrew Jackson was breaking the law in order to preserve the law. Now had he chosen not to take this action itâ??s quite likely that the British would have captured N.O., and in doing so would have threated the very survival of the Republic and its constitution.(the law) Now do you think what he did was wrong? If not then you shouldnâ??t be so quick to judge some of the actions taken in the wake of Katrina, because the justification for those actions is not all that dissimilar from those taken in 1812.

Also, suppose guns hadnâ??t been confiscated, and then suppose that many people died as a result. Donâ??t you think that might have given the anti-gun advocates plenty of ammo? I mean thereâ??s tons of soccer moms that are fence sitters now, but show them a bunch of people gunned down by criminals and the next thing you know you have another anti-gun/gun control advocate.

seems to me that the 2nd amendment says it is in place to insure a free state not as a deterrent to crime, in fact a well regulated militia is said to be necessary to the security of a free state.
wouldn't that mean that the guns were there to keep the government in line?