The Second Amendment and the "Right" to Bear Arms

[Belz...]

Think of this like child pornography. Right clicking and saving a kiddie porn pic didn't hurt the kid.

But the harm occurs prior to right clicking.

How does this apply to anthrax ?

 

[WWBDD]

What is it with gun people and their inability to respond to the point?

What is it with anti-gun people and their inability to refrain from insults, invective, and fallacious hyperbole?

 

[Amazer]

Think of this like child pornography. Right clicking and saving a kiddie porn pic didn't hurt the kid.

But the harm occurs prior to right clicking. The person should've reported it and saving the picture makes you an accomplice.

So not reporting where you got the anthrax and being an accomplice to terrorism is the crime.

I'd request you to explain this a little more, because I fail to see the similarities between anthrax on the one hand and child porn on the other hand.

 

[3point14]

You may be right...but are you suggesting we surrender in advance?

Surrender to whom?

You know, the indian populace managed to throw off the yolk of a tyrant without any weapons at all.

 

[Sabretooth]

Well THAT's what makes it anachronistic. Citizens today have no hope of overthrowing a modern state with small arms.

You may be right...but are you suggesting we surrender in advance?

Also, if it were that simple, why are American troops still in Iraq?

I honestly don't see how that relates to my post. I'm simply saying that the best way to influence politics is through the _first_ amendment, and voting.

As for the war in Iraq, you'll have to explain that one to me.

I highlighted what I was following...
...Meaning, pockets of Iraqi and Afghan troops are causing fits and not allowing troops to come home. They are doing so with arms that you or I can purchase today.

As for you intending the meaning as influence through votes...maybe my attempt at a response was not very clear...but I don't think I'm suffering from a lack of comprehension based on what you said.

 

[Sabretooth]

I'd request you to explain this a little more, because I fail to see the similarities between anthrax on the one hand and child porn on the other hand.

He was comparing the 2A (anthrax) and 1A (child pron).

I think.

 

[Sabretooth]

Surrender to whom?

The government.

Belz implied that citizens have no hope of repelling a tyrannical government with the arms available to them.

So I asked, why bother keeping arms then, why not just surrender them now? So if that tyrannical government comes along, there's little we could have done anyway. We'll just take our loss of liberties with a big smile.

Here's the thing, let's look at the hypothetical...let's say the 2A got repealed today. It's quite obvious that not everyone in the USA going to go party. Not just people, but entire states. There are some states (*cough* Texas) that will declare war on DC...heck, they try to secede every damn election.

What I'm getting at is that people are going to view this as stripping of our rights...what's next? The 1A? 4A? 14A? If any of the Amendments of the BOR's can be stripped away, then none of them are safe. With no 2A, the people don't have a snowballs chance in hell of revolting against a government who may want to change the whole Constitutional document.

A great many people in this country have ZERO faith in the government today.

Now...let me say this...what I just said is probably a huge reach and very speculative...but people, large numbers of them, really fear such an event happening in their lifetimes. I see it constantly on some of the other forums I peruse.

Anyway, I'm straying from the OP...I was just trying to explain a bit and I got into a ramble, sorry.

 

[GlennB]

Not trying to be obtuse, but that's a matter of interpretation. If we want to go with the militia route, what good is being part of a militia if you aren't armed?

The service people of the mighty armies of the USA don't go round with tanks, fighter jets and all at their immediate disposal. Countries get notice of armed invasions. National forces take time to get mobilised.

A casual, pick-up militia has no place in the USA's military strategy. None. And this is why the 2A is an anachronism. When things get really tough the USA might invoke a draft and the soldiers get kitted out with army issue weapons. Not the guns they bring from home.

I repeat - not their personal weapons, and that's the truth.

Let's just say (bear with me here, I get this is outlandish) a band of North Korean soldiers parachutes into your little town a-la Red Dawn style. You're driving to work or hanging out at the mall...and, crap, you don't have your gun! Whadaya do? Tell the Koreans to hold on a few minutes, cuz you're part of the militia, but you gotta run home to get your gun first?

Yes, it's totally and utterly outlandish. It aint gonna and can't happen.

But when armed US citizens (those militia-ready ones that 'carry', as you describe) show themselves capable of thwarting spree killings in US malls, cinemas and schools then I might begin to believe they could thwart an attack by armed-to-the-teeth and well trained enemy commandos.

You're describing a fantasy situation to justify a personal preference that is a result of historical accident. Accept that you have that preference by all means - and quote the constitution and the law if you like - but don't invoke fantasy situations to justify it.

Point is, a militia member is one that needs to be prepared regardless of locale...not just when he's sitting home watching Jeopardy.

See above. Firefighters and other first responders might need to go to their headquarters to collect their kit if they're not already on duty, and they get far less notice that they need to get about their work than those defending the USA ... THE friggin' mighty USA (seriously) ... from outside attack.

The US has no requirement for a militia in the 2A sense. None, zip, nada. The need to 'bear arms' in order to form a militia expired at the same time the possible need to form a militia expired.

But you're stuck with the consequences of the fact that that right is enshrined in The Constitution. Like I said earlier "You wouldn't want to start from here", but don't deceive yourself that you're not lost in the first place.

 

[CORed]

The reality is that your founding father were dyslexic ursophile.

And the rest is history.

No. They just wanted the right to wear sleeveless clothing (spend a few summer days anywhere within the original 13 states with no air conditioning and you'll discover why) and spelled it wrong.

 

[3point14]

The government.

Any government trying to take away your country isn't going to do it by force of arms. It will be a little piece at a time, a slow erosion of liberties until you're just a wage slave. They won't do it with weaponry, they'll do it with legislation.

Your gun won't help, the only protest one can make with that is to go postal or be Lee Harvey.

 

[Giz]

No no, it's because they never intended to permit those sinister barrel shrouds. All firearms must be "bare".

 

[3point14]

I have contended before that the second amendment is demonstrably inaccurate. Apparently being inaccurate is insufficient to bring the amendment into question.

ETA: the 'in' at the beginning of 'sufficient'.

 

[Giz]

I concur that it would have been nice if the founders had written the 2nd amendment in bullet points.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I have contended before that the second amendment is demonstrably inaccurate. Apparently being inaccurate is sufficient to bring the amendment into question.

The 2nd Amendment isn't the only place where this occurs. From the Enumerated Powers clause:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Current copyright and patent law does not always promote the progress of science: it frequently does the exact opposite.

 

[Dessi]

Why in America - as far as I know alone in the developed world - is gun ownership considered a right?

Its a quirk of American history, heavily tied to slavery.

Do you ever wonder why slaves, who outnumber white owners, didn't just revolt and overthrow their own bondage? In a word, armed militias, the Slave Patrol, who existed to squash slave rebellions and uprisings, enforce racial law, break up large gatherings of slaves, etc.

Abolitionists and anti-abolitionists understand that one can't maintain slavery without a police state. Slave states aren't going to to ratify a constitution which does not protect their citizens "property rights" (slaves). The second amendment was written to appeal to slave states, providing them protection against the abolitionists in the newly armed congress from disarming their militias.

 

[fitzgibbon]

So it's an arbitrary right, not an inherent right? How does that make it equal to the inherent right to (for example) free speech?

It's a cost-saving measure based upon a Rev War myth (a well-regulated militia), the value of which (or lack thereof) was disproved some two centuries ago. And we Canucks thank you for that

Fitz

 

[Sabretooth]

The service people of the mighty armies of the USA don't go round with tanks, fighter jets and all at their immediate disposal. Countries get notice of armed invasions. National forces take time to get mobilised.

You think so? Does 9/11 ring a bell?

A casual, pick-up militia has no place in the USA's military strategy. None. And this is why the 2A is an anachronism. When things get really tough the USA might invoke a draft and the soldiers get kitted out with army issue weapons. Not the guns they bring from home.

I repeat - not their personal weapons, and that's the truth.

You'll need to cite that "truth".

But when armed US citizens (those militia-ready ones that 'carry', as you describe) show themselves capable of thwarting spree killings in US malls, cinemas and schools then I might begin to believe they could thwart an attack by armed-to-the-teeth and well trained enemy commandos.

The subject of what constitutes a spree-killing prevention is of much debate in another thread. Fact is, it is stopped quite often by armed citizens. And, we aren't allowed to carry on school property, so, yeah...

You're describing a fantasy situation to justify a personal preference that is a result of historical accident. Accept that you have that preference by all means - and quote the constitution and the law if you like - but don't invoke fantasy situations to justify it.

I admitted I was being silly...so you're harping on nonsense.

See above. Firefighters and other first responders might need to go to their headquarters to collect their kit if they're not already on duty, and they get far less notice that they need to get about their work than those defending the USA ... THE friggin' mighty USA (seriously) ... from outside attack.

Was 9/11 really that long ago that you are missing that big failure of the mighty USA?
I won't get into the massive border failures we currently have...

The US has no requirement for a militia in the 2A sense. None, zip, nada. The need to 'bear arms' in order to form a militia expired at the same time the possible need to form a militia expired.

While I'll grant you that the chances of a militia being necessary is woefully minimal, the 2A clearly states "shall not be infringed". It doesn't say "until elected officials feel you don't need the right anymore".

But you're stuck with the consequences of the fact that that right is enshrined in The Constitution. Like I said earlier "You wouldn't want to start from here", but don't deceive yourself that you're not lost in the first place.

Thank you for your opinion.

 

[simonxlong]

I would still argue that American's obsession with guns is directly tied to our cultural view of them. For many, especially pro-firearms people, the view of American history is one of gun ownership and freedom being won and protected by men with firearms. From the Revolutionary war to Old West heroes, firearms played a major part, at least in popular view point.

I am not necessarily sure that actual possession of firearms is really the issue at all for most Americans. I think that the right to possess firearms is much more important than actual possession. For instance, I shot pistols competetively, but I don't currently own a firearm. Nonetheless, I don't want anyone to tell me I can't go buy a pistol if I wanted to even though I feel no need to own one at the present time.

 

[Sabretooth]

...Nonetheless, I don't want anyone to tell me I can't go buy a pistol if I wanted to even though I feel no need to own one at the present time.

This is simple, yet important point.

While the OP is questioning that people should have the "right" to a firearm, what right do others have to tell me I can't have a firearm?

This is America after all.

What bothers me is the talk that Anti-Gun folk are just out to save lives. That's not it, because if it were, their efforts would be on to other items. [Opinion Alert] I truly believe 99% of all anti-gunners simply have an irrational fear of firearms because of what they choose to read/hear from the media.

Maybe that's a topic for another thread...

 

[Giz]

What bothers me is the talk that Anti-Gun folk are just out to save lives. That's not it, because if it were, their efforts would be on to other items. [Opinion Alert] I truly believe 99% of all anti-gunners simply have an irrational fear of firearms because of what they choose to read/hear from the media.

Maybe that's a topic for another thread...

that's probably part of it. Another part is likely to be a tribal instinct to attack the 'other' (while still feeling virtuous). Generally guns are perceived as a 'conservative' thing, so a lot of folks on the left line up against them partly because they just don't like (their perception of) the average gun-owner.

Hatred of the 'other' and irrational fears. The pillars of a lot of the gun-control push.