How would you amend the second amendment?

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

If you would dignify with "warship" any armed hulk which could put to sea, then you might have a point.

The point remains if you define "warship" as an armed vessel capable of defeating top-of-the-line warships of US peer competitors. The point is this: the people who wrote the US Constitution anticipated that the US government would hire private-sector firms to defend the country. A sea-bourne Blackwater Security, in effect.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

One further note; The cannon that "warships" would have had in the 1790s would have been smoothbore muzzle-loaders with black powder charges.

Neither did freedom of speech and of the press apply to radio or TV or the internet or to computer-operated printing presses, also. Smoothbore muzzle-loading naval cannons were state-of-the art weaponry when the framers gave to Congress the power to grant letters of marque.

I recommend That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right by Stephen Halbrook.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

For any arguing that having an armed population is important to stop the state being able to take away your rights, how you respond to the following hypothetical:

The US government could (hypothetical, remember) "amend" the 2nd amendment. Would you expect US gun owners to defend themselves with violence against the government's edict?

Some will. Laws restrain people when people obey laws. Constitutions restrain government officials when government officials obey constitutions. Eugene Volokh says that the Second Amendment is a trip-wire. People will know that their government has moved against them when it deprives them of the means to resist.

 

[mikeyx]

What sorts of rockets are they allowed to launch? Do they seriously allow people to have a weapon that could take down a plane or helicopter? If so, I have a little problem with that.

I clearly stated in my vision that ownership was mandatory, you will have one and you will like it. I think everyone should manditorily have a punkin chunkin trebeauchet as well. Except for the french, they would just use it to launch surrender flags.

 

[BenBurch]

The point remains if you define "warship" as an armed vessel capable of defeating top-of-the-line warships of US peer competitors. The point is this: the people who wrote the US Constitution anticipated that the US government would hire private-sector firms to defend the country. A sea-bourne Blackwater Security, in effect.

*sigh* every single vessel of any note was armed at that era. You would not have been able to survive at sea otherwise.

 

[BenBurch]

A scary pirate "warship";

 

[marksman]

Can I ask, which century would you actually like to live in?

I'm just laying out the facts. I already gave the version of the 2nd amendment I think would be appropriate, which I think would be perfectly consonant with modern issues, and true to what I believe were the purposes to which the 2nd amendment were intended.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Rocket launchers are fine, it's the rockets that are illegal.

Rockets are subject to FAA licenses. You need to be sure that the airspace is clear before firing it. You know... for airline safety.

 

[mikeyx]

Rockets are subject to FAA licenses. You need to be sure that the airspace is clear before firing it. You know... for airline safety.

for keeping my airspace clear, what's hard about that?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

*sigh* every single vessel of any note was armed at that era. You would not have been able to survive at sea otherwise.

(Sigh). Okay. We agree. The people who wrote the US Constitution expected private shipowners to own vessels armed with antiship weapons.

 

[Newtons Bit]

(Sigh). Okay. We agree. The people who wrote the US Constitution expected private shipowners to own vessels armed with antiship weapons.

That's why Congress has the power to issue Letters of Marque

 

[BenBurch]

That's why Congress has the power to issue Letters of Marque

Actually, we gave up that power by treaty.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

The 2nd amendment reads so poorly I've always imagined that the final version was what was left after a prolonged argument, and by the time they got there nothing made sense anymore but nobody wanted to admit that they were too brain burned to comprehend anything.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Actually, we gave up that power by treaty.

Which treaty? Treaties can override the Constitution?

 

[Robert Prey]

Actually, we gave up that power by treaty.

Treaties are only lawful if not repugnant to the Constitution. A treaty cannot abrogate any provision of the Constitution.

 

[Chaos]

The point remains if you define "warship" as an armed vessel capable of defeating top-of-the-line warships of US peer competitors.

And back then, pretty much any civilian vessel could be transformed into one of these. Nowadays... not so much.

The point is this: the people who wrote the US Constitution anticipated that the US government would hire private-sector firms to defend the country. A sea-bourne Blackwater Security, in effect.

The people who wrote the US Constitution lived in a time where private-sector firms were capable of defending the country. Nowadays... not so much.

Besides, do you really believe the US government could pay ANY private-sector firm enough money for them to go toe-to-toe with an organized, well-trained and well-equipped enemy force and slug it out until the enemy quits, with all the losses in expensive equipment and scarce professional personnel that this entails? And do you really believe, even if that was possible, that it wouldn´t be many times more expensive that a regular army?
And, lastly, do you really believe that, if the private-sector firms had effective armies and the government did not, the private-sector firms would meekly obey the law and do what the government tells them?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And back then, pretty much any civilian vessel could be transformed into one of these...The people who wrote the US Constitution lived in a time where...
...Besides, do you really believe the US government could pay ANY private-sector firm enough money for them to go toe-to-toe with an organized, well-trained and well-equipped enemy force...
And, lastly, do you really believe that, if the private-sector firms had effective armies and the government did not, the private-sector firms would meekly obey the law and do what the government tells them?

None of these considerations diminish the point: the people who wrote the US Constitution expected that private citizens would own significant weaponry, independent of membership in State-organized armed forces. This has implications for an understanding of the Second Amendment.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Treaties are only lawful if not repugnant to the Constitution. A treaty cannot abrogate any provision of the Constitution.

Yah. I was trying to imagine what kind of treaty Ben had in mind: "The governments of the United States and Spain agree that the government of Spain will not object if the government of the US deprives the citizens of the US of firearms"? What other Constitutional rights can a US administration negotiate away with the help of a compliant foreign power and a majority in the US Senate?

 

[marksman]

The US still has the Constitutional authority to issue letters of marque, though it hasn't been invoked since the War of 1812. In fact, one of Ron Paul's wackier ideas (and that says something!) was to issue Letters of Marque to let privateers go after the Taliban and Somali pirates.

 

[Dancing David]

*sigh* every single vessel of any note was armed at that era. You would not have been able to survive at sea otherwise.

Some had very small arms for the time, certainly nothing of note.