The Second Amendment and the "Right" to Bear Arms

[Nessie]

Sorry, but that's complete nonsense. The first British firearms legislation was in 1920 (we'll ignore the 1903 Pistols Act, which was really just an administrative money-earner), i.e. almost a century ago, and about 60% of the way between 1776 and now. How is that "recent"? And, seriously, the idea that "Britain had the same gun culture that the US had" is preposterous. Just because there was no legal impediment on firearms ownership before 1920 did not mean that British people armed themselves and used those arms as contemporary Americans did, because they clearly didn't.

To add to the above, the British had a not too dissimilar love affair with guns as the Americans do until the First World War. There were tons of guns and few regulations. The big difference in the UK was that guns were seen more as tools for farmers, pest control and for sports and game. Despite tons of guns people here did not shoot each other very often and with an unarmed police and tough sentences for police assault/murder the criminals preferred to be unarmed as well. The bulk of the legislation was to stop poaching and the Gun Licence Act of 1870 was a money earner, like Vehicle Excise Duty or the TV Licence today.

The love affair drifted with WWI because so many died and so many more guns appeared back in the UK and they were in the hands of criminals, nuts and angry people. Hence legislation began to appear to tackle that issue.

The two World Wars also showed Europeans that an armed civilian population has not impact when it comes to invasion and tyranny. That lesson has not be learned by many Americans who still have the fantasy they can protect against invasion and tyranny.

 

[Sabretooth]

Whichever way you look at it, the 2A is inextricably linked to the formation of a militia and not to self or home defence. That the weapons can be used for personal defence is a consequence of their being owned and not the intent of the 2A.

I tried to touch on this in another thread...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9508757&postcount=125

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.

The text of the 2A doesn't specify what entity "regulates" this militia, or even what this "militia" is. Wiki has this:

Today, the term militia is used to describe a number of groups within the United States. Primarily, these are:

- The organized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903, which repealed section two hundred thirty-two and sections 1625 - 1660 of title sixteen of the Revised Statutes, consists of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.[2] The National Guard however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.
- The reserve militia[3] are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.
- Former members of the armed forces are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.[2]

So, one can assume, that "militia" basically encompasses all able bodied men, 17-45, are considered part of a "militia being necessary to a free state".

In other words, the "militia" part of the 2A is reinforced by the Militia Act of 1903. It's not a reach to qualify that the "regulated" part comes in when a young lad registers with Selective Service.

With "militia" being addressed...and basically required by the Federal Government...all that's left of the 2A is "the right of people" (which has already been covered).

The 2A recognizes that the people are the militia, and no militia is worthy to protect a free state without access to firearms.

 

[Belz...]

Anything that does not infringe on another's rights, ought to be a right.

Then they should have made the second amendment read "the right or people to own stuff shall not be infringed."

 

[Nessie]

Let me spell it for you.

The right to bear arm.

Ursophile : like bears.

dyslexic : reverting order of word or letters

The right to arm bears.

Got it now ? it was a joke.

A pretty old one by that. ETA: not even a french one, first time I heard it was 20 years ago by American colleague.

It went over my head, when I looked up ursophile I found "An ursophile is A young smooth slender gay man that loves bears (fat men)."

 

[3point14]

Do you have a right to life?

Then you have a right to protect it.

Do you have a right to liberty?

Then you have a right to protect it.

Do you have a right to the pursuit of happiness?

Then you have the right to protect it.

Imagining a world where those in government are special people who can be trusted with the power to protect these things, and they alone can be trusted is a logically fallacious.

So, the counter question is, how do you justify limiting the power of arms to the government alone? What logical justification can you bring to bear?

*So long as arms exist, the question is not why should citizens have them . . . the default position should be why should anyone be restricted from having them, and if this person then why not that person? We all share these essential goals.

Arbitrary and anecdotal.

The question should be COULD a situation exist where your life, property or liberty is in joepordy by anyone, not just the government?

The clear and simple answer is that history is full of such examples, and they happen daily on an individual scale. As it happens every murder deprives that person of these things . . .

then, in order for one to properly defend the liberties you describe, one mus have the biggest possible gun. One cannot defend one's liberties from someone with a bigger gun, or perhaps one with a greater range, so, one must have a bigger, more poerful, longer range wewapon than anyone else at all or else one's liberty is in danger.

 

[3point14]

No, because CBNR weapons are not and have never been suitable for individual self defense, or items allowed to be owned or controlled by individuals.

You need to read the exchange, not just my reply.

 

[Sabretooth]

It is probably a dumb question, but what do the US categories as an "arm"

When talking the right to bear arms

I know you have complicated gun categories

Is a Flame thrower an arm you have the right to?

Or explosives

Explosives are not considered arms...but anyone can buy dynamite.

Flamethrowers are legal to own. So are bazookas (with proper permits).

The Heller decision basically allows for any "common" firearms as legal to own.

It is my understanding (though, this is what I've heard, I've not actually researched it) that owning a tank is fine as well...but illegal to drive on a public road. Also, good luck finding ammunition.

 

[Nessie]

It's very likely New York's gun permit system will be struck down by the Supreme Court. But this doesn't happen overnight, cases take years to make their way there.

So how about Hawaii and the CCW laws? Fact is despite the "shall not be infringed" there are lots of regulations which are accepted and in force.

The problem is they do not do a good enough job at keeping guns away from unsuitable people. I am sure laws can be found which can keep the right and not let unsuitable people have guns.

 

[Belz...]

Har har, snark is too clever. Founding father + name calling. Ohh so clever. Yea clearly it not an ad hom becuase the argument being disregarded is not the argument put forth by the founding fathers.

Clever indeed.

 

[3point14]

Consider that America's history is rather unique in the developed world. The United States, as a country, as a "people" if you will, was formed by an act of rebellion against a colonial power.

I understood it was more of a proxy war?

 

[Belz...]

Except that bit about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Apparently it's only in the 2nd Amendment that "the people" aren't "the people"?

Ouch, so much for not taking it literally.

 

[3point14]

Har har, snark is too clever. Founding father + name calling. Ohh so clever. Yea clearly it not an ad hom becuase the argument being disregarded is not the argument put forth by the founding fathers . . .

No clearly I did not understand your sarcastic snark as I am clearly taking this seriously. I did not however take it personally I am actually engaging int he conversation.

This is brilliant!

It's been a pants day, now I will be chuckling for the rest of it. Thank you.

 

[NoahFence]

It does no such thing. The FCC has no power whatsoever to regulate content on the internet, or of any media except over the air broadcasts. And even that is severely restricted, confined to daytime hours and extremely limited subject matter. And even that power has been greatly eroded by the courts in recent years.

Spout your nonsense elsewhere.

Are you actually saying the FCC doesn't hand out fines, while at the same time attempting to be serious???

 

[GlennB]

I tried to touch on this in another thread...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9508757&postcount=125

The 2A recognizes that the people are the militia, and no militia is worthy to protect a free state without access to firearms.

Yes, 'access to arms' makes sense in this respect, as I mentioned. Carrying a gun about your person or in the glove compartment, though, is totally unconnected with any notion of forming a militia yet the 2A is quoted to justify such behaviour. The 'right to bear arms' part of it is cherry-picked as WildCat did above, carefully omitting the preceding phrases.

And then there's the fact that the formation of a militia using the weapons already owned by the citizens is a laughable idea in today's world.

The 2A is an anachronism - it made sense at the time but no longer does. However, it's consequences are virtually unshiftable. US gun rights are an accident of history, not something based on solid common sense.

 

[Crossbow]

I expected this response. What's wrong is that Americans, for some reason, believe that the right to bear arms is necessary to uphold articles 3 and 17 of the UNDHR, whereas people from no other developed nation do.

Living in Australia, with no right to bear arms, I do not find my right to life, liberty or security infringed. These rights are upheld by my country's military and law enforcement, and I reap the benefit of that without being required to bear arms myself. And that works for me.

What is it about America that they feel they should consider gun possession a right when no other developed nation does?

(Note that I am specifically referring to developed nations - what is usually and erroneously called the first world. Developing nations have their own problems which I do not wish to directly address here.)

I have not seen anyone answer your question is quite this way, so I will attempt to do so now.

For most of American history, the personal ownership of guns was very important for the purposes of hunting and personal protection. But now, very people need guns for personal protection (since the control of indigenous people, wild animals, and law enforcement is so effective) and even fewer people need guns for hunting (which is now more of a pastime as opposed to a necessity). Accordingly, the various local, state, and national authorities have been hesitant for quite some time to restrict the personal ownership of guns.

Further, a recent Supreme Court decision has ruled that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution does indeed apply to the personal ownership of firearms.

Therefore, in America anyway, one has a culture where the personal ownership of firearms is long, well established, and legally protected (which a combination that is rarely seen in other countries). Additionally, there are several million good American citizens who really love their guns (in all fairness, guns are items which are both fun and interesting).

Put all of that together, and one has a quite powerful issue seldom seen outside of America.

I hope this helps.

 

[Nessie]

I understood it was more of a proxy war?

Or even a Civil War, which after being won by the Independence movement became the War of Independence.

The British, being busy elsewhere, got Hessians to fight with the Loyalist side. The rebels, knowing civilians cannot protect against tyranny or defeat a professional army got the French. The French were also fighting elsewhere, against the British and hoped the War would open up a Second Front and take British troops away from the main fight.

 

[Crossbow]

The government does regulate speech on the internet and broadcast media. It's called the FCC and doles out fines on a regular basis.

Umm, ...

I think that you are overstating things a bit.

The FCC does not regulate speech on the Internet, and their powers of regulating speech on broadcast media is quite limited.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

I think that one of the issues that we non Americans do not understand is that "arms" at the time of the Second Amendment are a tad different than the "arms" available today.

Would the people who passed the amendment even have conceived a gun that could shoot 100 rounds in under a minute, or a pony nuke in a briefcase, or a tank? Does the right to bear arms include a nuclear missile, and if not, why not? The Second amendment does not prevent a private person from owning Nuclear Missiles.

The whole thing to me, is not the right to bear "arms", it is simply that the "arms" presently available are so far in excess in what was possible way back then, that had those people conceived what would be available in 2013, perhaps they may have put at least some limitations on what Joe Public should have a right to own.

Yes, I understand that the Supreme Court has made rulings from time to time over the limitations of the Second Amendment, but I really do not think that semi-assault rifles were ever in the mind of the persons who originally decided that the right to bear arms should include such beasts.

Norm

While I agree that the Founding Fathers would be astounded at the power of an AR-15, the basic principle still applies. I have a right to bear arms. As reasonable citizens we can decide how new advancements in weaponry should be available to the public. I wouldn't be opposed to restricting semi-automatics from citizens if it can be done in a reasonably fair way and I own semi-automatics. I wouldn't lose any sleep over being restricted to revolvers, bolt-action, lever action, pump-action, etc. firearms. I think it would be an easy line to define and enforce. Manual actions good, automatic and semi-automatic bad. I would still be able to hunt and defend myself in a reasonable way.

However, one proposal that has been put forth is requiring all guns to be stored at a remote location like a gun club or an armoury. That clearly is at odds with the intent of the second ammendment. I have a right to bear arms. I can walk around my home or property with a pistol on my hip. I have a permit from my local government to carry one concealed in public. I don't need permission from anyone to take my rifle to the woods for hunting or to take my handgun to the practice range. There can be no bureaucratic obstacles to me physically possessing what I legally own.

 

[arthwollipot]

Do you have a right to life?

Then you have a right to protect it.

Do you have a right to liberty?

Then you have a right to protect it.

Do you have a right to the pursuit of happiness?

Then you have the right to protect it.

Imagining a world where those in government are special people who can be trusted with the power to protect these things, and they alone can be trusted is a logically fallacious.

So, the counter question is, how do you justify limiting the power of arms to the government alone? What logical justification can you bring to bear?

*So long as arms exist, the question is not why should citizens have them . . . the default position should be why should anyone be restricted from having them, and if this person then why not that person? We all share these essential goals.

Arbitrary and anecdotal.

The question should be COULD a situation exist where your life, property or liberty is in joepordy by anyone, not just the government?

The clear and simple answer is that history is full of such examples, and they happen daily on an individual scale. As it happens every murder deprives that person of these things . . .

i think you're missing the point. Why is it a right in America, while everywhere else in the developed world it is a privilege? What's so special about America that makes gun ownership a right?

I made this tread partially to encourage people to think about this question, which you're not doing. You're justifying the status quo. How about you consider why the status is quo in the first place?

 

[Sabretooth]

Yes, 'access to arms' makes sense in this respect, as I mentioned. Carrying a gun about your person or in the glove compartment, though, is totally unconnected with any notion of forming a militia yet the 2A is quoted to justify such behaviour. The 'right to bear arms' part of it is cherry-picked as WildCat did above, carefully omitting the preceding phrases.

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?

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?

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

And then there's the fact that the formation of a militia using the weapons already owned by the citizens is a laughable idea in today's world.

Why?

The 2A is an anachronism - it made sense at the time but no longer does. However, it's consequences are virtually unshiftable. US gun rights are an accident of history, not something based on solid common sense.

Disagree. The drafters of the Constitution had just overthrown a government that oppressed the Colonies. The new America did not want a government that ran the people, but vice-versa. By allowing citizens to maintain arms, the government never can obtain true power over the people.

Same holds true today.