The Second Amendment and the "Right" to Bear Arms

Dessi said:
Do you ever wonder why slaves, who outnumber white owners, didn't just revolt and overthrow their own bondage?
Click to expand...

So who were the police during the last half of the 18th century? Throw out fugitive slaves for a moment. Who patrolled highways that had become unsafe? Who was in charge of protecting the movement of goods through the interior?
 
Sabretooth said:
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".
Click to expand...

It already is 'infringed'. Or do you have the absolute 'right' to carry a gun on a plane, or in a school or bank, or if you're a convicted felon, or to carry in any manner you see fit?

No, you don't.

The 2A doesn't confer a right, it simply sets out the default position. The law can and sometimes does modify or clarify that default position, as it did with Heller. If the law changes then the application of the 2A changes.

Stop talking about absolute 2A 'rights'. It confers no absolute rights, as is amply demonstrated by the history and practice of US law.

And if you do think the right to bear arms is an absolute, then you have to believe that those restrictions mentioned above are wrong. And if you think they're OK, then you have to believe that further modifications might also be perfectly legal and within the 2A.

Make your choice, but don't cherry-pick what suits you from moment to moment.
 
GlennB said:
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.



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.



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.
Click to expand...
The militia clause is ultimately a red-herring; the Founders wrote extensively and eloquently regarding their views on firearms and firearm ownership was never limited to simple membership in a militia. It doesn't matter why it was decided to limit the federal government in this way -- the simple fact is that the full intention of the amendment is to limit what the federal government is allowed to do and was never a limit on what citizens could own or not own.
 
GlennB said:
It already is 'infringed'. Or do you have the absolute 'right' to carry a gun on a plane, or in a school or bank, or if you're a convicted felon, or to carry in any manner you see fit?

No, you don't.

The 2A doesn't confer a right, it simply sets out the default position. The law can and sometimes does modify or clarify that default position, as it did with Heller. If the law changes then the application of the 2A changes.

Stop talking about absolute 2A 'rights'. It confers no absolute rights, as is amply demonstrated by the history and practice of US law.

And if you do think the right to bear arms is an absolute, then you have to believe that those restrictions mentioned above are wrong. And if you think they're OK, then you have to believe that further modifications might also be perfectly legal and within the 2A.

Make your choice, but don't cherry-pick what suits you from moment to moment.
Click to expand...
You're right in that the 2nd doesn't bestow a right; it limits what the federal government has the power to do. This is why almost every state has a 2nd amendment analog which limits what the state governments may and may not do.
 
Sabretooth said:
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.
Click to expand...

Causing trouble is very different from toppling a government. I still don't see what parallel you see with what I said.

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.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that's what I was driving at but I didn't explicitly say it.
 
Sabretooth said:
The government.

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

I didn't imply, I said so explicitly, this time. And it's true. Your only hope of toppling a tyrannical US government is if the army is at least in part on your side.

So I asked, why bother keeping arms then, why not just surrender them now?
Click to expand...

That assumes the only reason you're keeping arms is to topple a hypothetical regime. I don't buy it. Not from most guy owners, anyway.
 
3point14 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think you got your verb tenses mixed up. ;)
 
Sabretooth said:
You think so? Does 9/11 ring a bell?
Click to expand...

9/11 wasn't a military operation, nor was it an invasion.

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.
Click to expand...

Are those mutually exclusive ? Can't we be concerned about gun deaths AND, for example taken completely at random, pool drownings ?
 
The Norseman said:
The militia clause is ultimately a red-herring; the Founders wrote extensively and eloquently regarding their views on firearms and firearm ownership was never limited to simple membership in a militia.
Click to expand...

If it's a red herring, then why it is there, and how can you say it was written eloquently if a full half of the sentence is worthless ?

Also, how come you know what the people who wrote it intended ? The reason THEY gave in the text is the militia bit. Strange that you think that's wrong, and what's right is not written.
 
arthwollipot said:
Personally, I'm of the opinion that there shouldn't be a right to bear arms.

Why is arming oneself with a potentially deadly weapon considered something that all Americans have a right to do? I don't see it as anything like the right to freedom of speech or assembly, or religion, or anything outlined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Why in America - as far as I know alone in the developed world - is gun ownership considered a right?
Click to expand...

Why? Really?

The question i would pose to you is why should anyone have to depend on someone else, who won't always be easily available for protection? And as a follow up, why would someone agree to let any big guy be able to impose their will upon them? Weapons are an equalizer, and seeing as criminals will always have them, the general populace being forced to be helpless, because some folks find guns icky seems like a horrible idea.

No one is stopping people who don't want to be armed from bring not armed, that is as much your right as being armed is other peoples. If you feel in danger from armed civilians arm yourself, if you don't then there really doesn't seem to be a problem other than finding guns icky.
 
Belz... said:
Well THAT's what makes it anachronistic. Citizens today have no hope of overthrowing a modern state with small arms.
Click to expand...

It isn't about the citizens over throwing the modern state. It's about the modern state being unable to implement tyranny on and armed citizenry. Every firearm, regardless of caliber, owned by a private citizen is a vote against tyranny.
 
Belz... said:
If it's a red herring, then why it is there, and how can you say it was written eloquently if a full half of the sentence is worthless ?

Also, how come you know what the people who wrote it intended ? The reason THEY gave in the text is the militia bit. Strange that you think that's wrong, and what's right is not written.
Click to expand...
The argument surrounding the militia clause is a red-herring, not the sentence itself.

How do I know what was intended? By reading what they wrote about the amendment and the entire process of creating the constitution; letters, diaries, government papers, opinion pamphlets; not just limited to the single sentence of the amendment itself. Also, as I just said, state constitutions mimicked very closely that of the federal government which also gives insight.
 
Just to try to give a metric, Google recently partnered with the Comparative Constitutions Project. Here is what comes up when you look for the right to bear arms in the constitutions of the world:

Guatemala 1985 (rev. 1993)

Haiti 1987 (rev. 2012)

Iran 1979 (rev. 1989)

Mexico 1917 (rev. 2007)

United States Of America 1789 (1992)
Click to expand...

Constitute Project

Going further than that gets wooly, but I think America is unique in that gun ownership can be for self-defence, instead of needing a purpose like hunting or sport.
 
fromdownunder said:
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
Click to expand...

Norm, am I understanding this right? You think that because our founding fathers couldn't imagine a gun like we have today, that we should just be allowed to carry bolt action single shot rifles??? Or, more accurately, black powder rifles?

This would mean that any form of speech outside of a printing press or actual verbal speech, could be limited by the government, because surely they couldn't imagine the internet, magazines, and even radio and TV. This is an absurd argument to make.

And nuclear weapons? That's just absurd. If I drop fire a gun, life in Florida isn't going to change much. A nuke going off in my back yard, and central Florida is changed for thousands of years to come. Millions killed, and many more injured. So, it's absolutely absurd to assume that nuke would be covered under the 2nd.

Lastly, we do regulate our guns. We do regulate who can own certain types of weapons, and even firearms at all. It's not a free for all.

I suggest anyone who doesn't understand the context of the 2nd Amendment and the limitations that are and are not allowed, please read the two recent SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) decisions in McDonald and Heller. They're quite informative.
 
Why is it when people mention odd aspects of other cultures from genital mutilation to banging in front of children we hear " but it is just another culture, be respectful" but when it comes to firearms cultural sensitivity goes out the window?
 
triforcharity said:
Norm, am I understanding this right? You think that because our founding fathers couldn't imagine a gun like we have today, that we should just be allowed to carry bolt action single shot rifles??? Or, more accurately, black powder rifles?
Click to expand...

No. What I am suggesting is that had they understood the possible future ramifications of Automatic Weapons and mass shootings, they may have put some limitations on the right to bear arms. The second Amendment was conceived in times when what can be done today was simply incomprehensible.

This would mean that any form of speech outside of a printing press or actual verbal speech, could be limited by the government, because surely they couldn't imagine the internet, magazines, and even radio and TV. This is an absurd argument to make.
Click to expand...
But Governments all over the place do make laws relating to all these things. As new things come along, new laws are made. I think that if I yell fire! in a dark theatre and cause a panic, that this does not come under "free speech" laws. Similarly there are slander and libel laws everywhere, even in the USA. Are you saying that Magazines, radio and TV is not regulated at all? Or the internet? I suspect that Internet Kiddie Porn is illegal pretty much anywhere, and certainly your founding fathers never considered that.

And nuclear weapons? That's just absurd. If I drop fire a gun, life in Florida isn't going to change much. A nuke going off in my back yard, and central Florida is changed for thousands of years to come. Millions killed, and many more injured. So, it's absolutely absurd to assume that nuke would be covered under the 2nd.
Click to expand...
My question is, does the second amendment or subsequent SCOTUS decisions specifically preclude anyone from owning a Nuclear Weapon?

Lastly, we do regulate our guns. We do regulate who can own certain types of weapons, and even firearms at all. It's not a free for all.

I suggest anyone who doesn't understand the context of the 2nd Amendment and the limitations that are and are not allowed, please read the two recent SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) decisions in McDonald and Heller. They're quite informative.
Click to expand...
Yes, I do understand the limitations. How well they are policed is another issue. And, no I am not an anti gun nut. My brother has a shotgun on his small farm to (illegally) shoot Tiger Snakes because he has young grandchildren who often visit and play in the paddocks. Tigers are protected from humans. Unfortunately the reverse does not apply.

Norm
 
Last edited:
fromdownunder said:
My question is, does the second amendment or subsequent SCOTUS decisions specifically preclude anyone from owning a Nuclear Weapon?
Click to expand...

No. The founders used arms to describe individual weapons, the same as they did in the various militia statutes and muster rolls. Crew-served weapons were collective ownership by practice. There are several court rulings that trace the history of usage and context of the term.
 
sadhatter said:
Why is it when people mention odd aspects of other cultures from genital mutilation to banging in front of children we hear " but it is just another culture, be respectful" but when it comes to firearms cultural sensitivity goes out the window?
Click to expand...

It's just the same blind dogma. For instance, the whole premise of this thread is why the US developed a culture of firearms, which really ignores their own history. The southern gentleman's rules for responding to questions of honor was adopted almost directly from the Irish Code Duello which gained popularity here from immigrant Irish. The best makers of mass-produced firearm locks for otherwise American muskets were the British. (German and Swiss are considered desirable to a collector simple because they were artisanal works.) Victorian newspapers were full of those quaint "patent revolver" ads. In fact, the revolver was invented and first manufactured by an American - living in London.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom