dksuddeth

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.

Not since the Kelo v. New London decision has a constitutional amendment been so hotly debated. Currently, there are three interpretations of this amendment. The individual right, the collective right (states right), and the limited individual right.

My opinion is that this amendment affords ALL citizens the right to keep and bear arms. This is proven by many points as listed below.

1) The many quotes from the founding fathers that were recorded during the conventions which explicitly claim an individual right to keep and bear arms.

2) In the Bill of Rights, 'the people' is mentioned 5 times. The 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 10th. In numerous court decisions, 'the people' has always been referred to 'individual' rights when it concerns the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th, yet most circuit courts tend to interpret the 2nd as a collective right. I hardly think the founding fathers would throw a states right in the Bill of Rights that apply to individuals. The 5th and 6th amendments also refer to 'individual' rights via 'person' and 'accused' respectively.

3) The constitution was written to specifically authorize certain 'powers' to the government, both federal and state, while the 9th specifically says The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. meaning that only the people have rights, and they have ALL rights that are not specifically addressed as powers to the government.

Many arguments and debates that have centered around the second amendment have focused largely on the 1939 US v. Miller court ruling as direct adjudication of the 'collective' right, but in actuality, the 39 decision is so vague and only references the militia in regards to the short barreled shotgun of the case.

To this day, there has been no definitive case deciding that the second is indeed an individual right, but there are 35 cases where the 'right' is referred to as an individual right in the opinions citing the dicta of those cases.

The 2nd amendment is an individual right, not a collective right, since the state governments only retain 'powers, and the people retain 'rights'.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

politicophile

Not since... last year? Ok...

That's a pretty hard pill to swallow. Remember that many released criminals are citizens, as are the insane and children. There seems to be ample reason to deprive certain citizens of deadly weapons.

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

shakran

And remember that it's illegal to own machine guns, tanks (unless it won't shoot), etc. If it were truly an individual right, then that would not be the case. The second does not say anything about limitation on the power or speed of the arm you are allowed to bear.

samcol

I don't understand how someone can selectively apply "the people." Either we have individual rights in all the cases where it says "the people" or we don't. The people who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights were very precise in their wording and I find it unlikely that they made a mistake by adding "the people" to the 2nd amendment.

samcol

There's already an amendment that handles criminals. No life, liberties, or property to be deprived without due process.

Elphaba

dksuddeth
Dk, I am not clear about the discussion point that you are suggesting. Others have mentioned the logical restrictions that have come to pass. To my knowledge, the majority of the "people" can buy a gun. Would you clarify your intent for me?

dksuddeth

that was poorly worded. I meant to say that the second amendment has been the most hotly debated amendment until last years kelo v. new london. so much for brevity.


but remember, in the early days after ratification, criminals were kept locked up longer OR executed and those deemed mentally unsound were looked after very closely by family members at all times.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

the amendment says 'shall not be infringed'. to me, that means that the gun control laws making machine gun ownership illegal post 86 SHOULD be unconsititutional. I consider that it's because of the liberal courts at that time that made those laws stand up when a less liberal court would not have upheld them. Tanks are not 'firearms'. Nor are nuclear weapons and MOABs, nor are ICBMs.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

gladly. MOST states (38 at this time) are 'shall issue', meaning that if an individual meets the current federal requirements to carry a weapon, that state MUST issue the license to carry. 10 states are 'may issue', meaning that after one meets the federal requirements, the county sheriff (of appropriate law enforcement official) MAY issue the license. This usually means a no, but could be a yes if the person is politically connected, a celebrity of sorts, or a contributer to the sheriffs election campaign. There are 2 states that do not issue carry licenses at this time. There are a several states that are open carry at this time as well. The federal requirements should be well known by now, but require a background check to ensure one is not a felon (not much problem with this throughout the pro-gun community), although some believe that if a convicted felon cannot be trusted with a firearm, that convicted felon should not be let out in the first place.

The NFA that restricts automatic weapon ownership to people as long as they pay a $200 tax is a form of infringement. It was initially meant to provide a steep price to ownership thinking that moonshine runners would not be able to afford it. It is a law that is still on the books today and should not be. The Firearms act of 86, a law that restricts automatic firearms ownership to no automatics manufactured AFTER 1986 is also infringement, especially because it does not allow the civilian 'militia' to own the same types of firearms that the standing armies currently own.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

ratbastid

Not true; they were deliberately vague. Those documents are intended to lay out a philosophical groundwork, not a to-do list. They were built to last, with the understanding that times change and policy needs to change along with them. Hence the political and social-policy game of constitutional interpretation we've played ever since.

thesupermikey

1) i think it would better to cut this one down the middle. In places where they were clear they were precise (1st Amendment). In places where they were unsure they vague (Commerce & Necessary and Proper Clauses). There were many unknowns at the end of the 1700s, and there was a lot of bet hedging going on.

2) Which is all a way of saying - I dont know how i feel on this Second Amendment thing. I dont think that framer had a clear view of were guns were going. There hadnt been a lot of change in the 50 years before the bill of rights and where wasnt much change for 50 years after the bill of rights (i understand this is an overstatement, but my knowledge of 18th-19th century arms is small)

i do not believe that they could of saw the major tech shifts coming and i think that the 2nd Amendment needs to be looked at in that light

that is not to say we ought to be banning guns b/c of this, it is something that needs to be kept in mind when talking about things like wait times and trigger locks.

__________________
If you are not outraged than you are not paying attention!

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert

ubertuber

Well, I think this argument works against gun control. Guns were the major military armament in the late 1700s. Now they're eclipsed by bombs, missiles, rockets, grenades, artillery, tanks, etc. So in terms of their comparative power, guns are much less formidable in today's world of force. They're hardly even a credible means of resisting a government like ours (on an individual basis).

I'm not saying this is my thought, I'm just following your point through...

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

ubertuber

This is from author Neal Stephenson's website. It is taken from an interview he did for Slashdot. I think this point (which Stephenson dismisses on practical grounds) is germane to this thread, particularly in terms of the question of flexibility of terminology. What exactly constitutes a protected arm? Mostly that line of reasoning goes to the absurd, like bombs and tanks. This time it goes to the more subtle methods of defense.



I link only for form - there's not anything else here that relates to our discussion.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

shakran

The 2nd does not say "firearms" It says "arms" which means "weapons" Tanks, nukes, MOABs, and ICBMs are all weapons. Therefore if one is to interpret the 2nd as you want us to, I should be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.

joshbaumgartner

The following is my own opinion and interpretation in regards to the Second Amendment.

The heart of the matter is the ability of the people to defend themselves from tyranny, both of a foreign nature as well as from their own government should it no longer be in their service. While the First Amendment is critical to protecting the people's right to develop and implement their will upon the government, the Second ensures that the government not have the ability to trump that freedom by use of force, and that instead, the people have the ability to defend themselves and enforce adherance to the Constitution by force if necessary.

Some view the well-regulated militia part and the right of the people to keep and bear arms part as seperate concepts, but I see no real rationale to that distinction. The militia is a military force by of and for the people as opposed to the standing army which is an arm of the Federal Government. A militia is not a permanent force but one that is drawn from the people as called for. The maintenance of such militia demands that the citizenry be able to keep arms such that they be available in case of such a call.

The states' National Guard forces could qualify as such a militia, well regulated as they are, but their increasing Federalization makes this less and less credible. When cases arise such as Louisiana last year, in which case the state did not have the ability to call on its own forces to meet its own needs due to their obligation to the Federal Government, this point is made all the more clear.

The regulation of weapon ownership is an interesting issue as well. On one hand it is clearly stated that the militia is to be well regulated, but on the other hand the right to keep arms shall not be infringed. My take on it is that regulation is self-imposed, and is essentially what today we would call organization, not necessarily regulation by the Federal Government. The essence of it is that in our own community, we have the right to form organized militia, with arms available for our equipment, ready to bear those arms when called upon in the defense of a free state.

What does that mean for the regulation of specific weapons? First off, I don't see any distinction especially for firearms. The Amendment neither specifically allows nor excludes firearms, or any other specific weapon, in the matter. We all can pretty well agree that firearms are weapons, or 'arms' as stated, but what about knives, or a stick of TNT? Depends on usage, doesn't it? Thus in many states, it legal to own a working howitzer, provided you get the right permits. I guess it all comes down to how one see the idea of 'shall not be infringed'. Many see permits and registration as a form of infringement. In the strictest sense of the word, that is correct. But it is impossible to have rights without any infringement. Afterall, it doesn't state what I can or can't bear arms against, so restricting my freedom to bear arms against other citizens is, in the strictest sense, an infringement. Thus, I have to conclude that 'to infringe' does not mean 'to regulate', but instead to place undue restriction upon.

Thus I think it is reasonable that there be some regulation of firearm and other weapon ownership, manufacture, transfer, transport, storage, and usage. This is a requirement so that such weapons do not pose a greater threat than that which they are to protect us from. In the end, however, the people shall not be prevented from acquiring and keeping such weapons as necessary for the maintenance of militia.

How does this translate to various issues today?
1) People should be able to have weapons on their own property. The SF Ban goes to far by preventing this.
2) Carriage of weapons in public is not protected, thus the SF ban is within bounds to ban carriage in public. Concealed carry is not a right.
3) The well-regulated militia referred to is not limited to nor satisfied by the existance of the National Guard. Other militias may be organized by the people and may be called into action in defense of the free state.
4) Regulation is necessary to ensure that weaponry does not represent greater danger than defense. Registration, safety and operational training requirements, and verification of citizenship are all valid regulations in the interest of the people of a free state.
5) Prohibition of weapons is contrary to the Amendment, regardless of the nature of the weapon. Thus things like automatic weapons should not be arbitrarily banned, but instead, so long as the citizen operates within due regulation, they shall be permitted to keep such weapons. Yes, this means you can buy a howitzer or an anti-aircraft missile. This also means that if you are not currently incarcerated or otherwise prohibited expressly by terms of the court as the result of a criminal conviction, your right to keep arms shall not be prohibited. Yes, this means ex-felons shall be allowed to own weapons, provided that the court did not see fit to specifically prohibit such ownership as due sentence of a criminal conviction. Blanket restrictions based solely on a person's status as an ex-felon, even after all terms of a sentence have been served, are in my view an infringement of rights.

I doubt such conclusions will make wither pro-gun or anti-gun folks happy.

A note on crime: Nowhere in the Amendment does it list crime as a justification for either the right to keep nor for regulation of weaponry. Thus, any debate about the effect of gun ownership on crime rates is completely irrelevant to discussion about the Second Amendment. The only stated rationale for keeping and bearing arms is the maintenance of militia for defense of the free state. The defense of the free state demands that weapons be available for a militia, but also that said militia be regulated. It is only in the interest of the maintenance of the free state that said right and said regulation exist. Other rationale is beyond the Amedment and thus not protected by the Amendment.

joshbaumgartner

I agree, as stated above. Certain regulations are appropriate for each of these, and for all should include assurances that the existance of these arms not pose danger to others. So if you want to have a nuclear weapon, you should be required to create and maintain the full infrastructure for the safe strage and maintenance of such an item. I think that is pretty well out of reach for a citizen, so the idea is purely theoretical.

It's a lot more reasonable to talk about tanks and other 'heavy weapons'. I know that it is legal in some places to own such things, fully operational. There's a club in Arizona, for example, that operate half-tracks with anti-tank guns and do shoots in the desert and such. All highly regulated by state laws, but still permitted.

joshbaumgartner

You are pretty much right about firearms of that period. Yes, I'm sure an enthusiast can point out numerous technical improvements made, but in essence, if a militia formed of soldiers with weapons from 1725 were to face off against one with weapons from 1825, the weapons would be one of the more minor factors when figuring out which force would win the battle.

I think more to the point though is to discuss the nature of military forces of the period. There wan't a whole lot of difference between a professional standing army force and a raised militia force when it came to military formations of the period. The pros had an edge in training, discipline, and perhaps better understanding amongst the officers of military tactics, but they were both based on ranks of rifle-armed infantry.

The same can not be said today. Modern professional armies are highly technical with powerful weapon systems that require entire infrastructures to support and deploy, and which have fundamentally altered the nature of the battlefield. Raised militia armed with personal weapons are incapable of even meeting modern professional armies in battle, much less prevailing. Instead, they must fight their own style of war, hence the insurgencies and guerilla wars we've seen in recent times.

In the past, at least the militia could stand opposed to a professional force. They would still have the disadvantages as noted above, but may well be able to overcome them by gaining other advantages (numbers, terrain, leadership, morale, etc.) At least the balance of battle could be measured on the same scale. Today, there is no direct comparison of any value. It all comes down to what kind of war is fought.

Resistance by arms on an individual basis has never been a credible means of resisting a government, it always has required organization of a people to form credible armed resistance. But you are right, firearms alone do not give us the power to form such organization. We must have heavier arms to be able to do so. Thus, call me crazy, but I think tanks and howitzers and such should be permitted within reasonable regulation for the equipment of well-regulated militia in the interest of the defense of the free state.

ubertuber

Strong posts Josh. Thanks for those contributions. I'll have to sleep for a while before I can jump back in.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

balefire88

I simply don't understand how someone can use the argument, "This is what the original framers intended."

I understand that our laws are based on the Constitution, and that laws cannot contradict it. That's why we have amendments. There's a reason the framers were wrong about slavery, were wrong about women, and were probably wrong about atleast a few other things. It's because they lived over 200 years ago. We don't hold all the same values today, because society has progressed a lot since then, although some would say we've actually regressed. Now this does not mean owning a gun in today's society is wrong. The framers may have been right about that one, but then again, maybe not. They weren't gods, they were men; and men make mistakes.

In the revolutionary era, having just won Independance from Britain after a war, it would have seemed rather prudent to the framers that people have weapons ready so that they may be called upon to defend the fledgeling nation. Also, the first 10 amendments were added to the Constitution partly to placate the Anti-Federalists who objected to the new Constitution. The framers agreed to the Bill of Rights as a compromise to get them to ratify it. Now, the Anti-Federalists were worried that a powerful central government would become tyrannical as the British government had been. So, a right to bear arms was also a way for the people to fight the government if such fears came to pass. Why is this historical information important? It provides context. (Ref: The American Revolution -- Edward Countryman)


Personal feelings about the 2nd Amendment:
To me, the historical circumstances make the 2nd Amendment seem outdated in today's times. Protest tends to be mostly non-violent, which I believe in, so I don't feel I need a gun to protest against my government; especially in the United States. I think if there is a war against a foreign country, the government will provide enough weapons. Hopefully, there won't be any wars. I unfortunately don't have the necessary reading done to make an informed opinion on whether gun ownership increases or decreases crime rates.

SteelyLoins

Ouch. My philosophy is to depend on the government for as little as possible. The victims of Katrina would probably side with me, although some are more content to complain about the failures of government than to become self-sufficient. In any case, I don't want to find myself in the circumstances they experienced.

Every study I have seen (and I'd have to spend some time to provide them) has indicated that less restrictive gun laws decrease crime. If there is a valid study that indicates more restrictive gun laws reduce crime, I'd like to see it.

Note--I don't want to hear that "England has less crime." Their crime rate recently INCREASED with more restrictions, and no one has yet explained Switzerland's low crime rate in spite of the near universal possession of firearms. What would interest me is a reference to a US city whose crime rate was decreased by additional gun laws.

jwoody

#deleted post#

Apologies etc.

__________________
.

highthief

The constitution speaks to "arms" not "firearms". Nukes, tanks, MIGs, laser guns - all arms.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

highthief

Ooops, Shakran beat me to it.

Carry on...

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

ubertuber

And I, in turn, don't understand how we can consider these questions without at least considering intent.

Look at it this way (for a second). There are essentially two discussions that can be had here: 1) What does the Constitution (as amended by the Bill of Rights) say about this issue? (and the auxiliary point of - we know what it says, but what does that mean); and 2) Should we change what the Constitution says because we think it is time for it to say something else.

If these questions aren't the basis for consideration of rights and our relationship to government, we might as well not have a Constitution. You're right the the document isn't inviolate, but until we start talking about how to change it, the sane conversation is to consider what it means.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

ubertuber

Hey - it's nice to see some new faces around here!

I think joshbaumgartner (post 15 in this thread) made a very credible point that crime isn't an argument that relates to understanding the 2nd amendment as it is currently written. It COULD be a consideration in a conversation about how to amend the Constitution. Do you disagree with him?

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

samcol

Yes, I agree. People confuse their views on the way things should be with how the amendment was written. Crime really has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment by itself.

It's as if people form their own view on the subject of guns, then read the amendment to fit accordingly.

dksuddeth

Lets see you 'bear' that nuclear weapon or tank.

You can't. It is a ludicrous and ridiculous argument on the gun ban side to include such obvious heavy weaponry and WMD's as 'arms' and is only designed as a fear tactic to persuade the unknowing populace to the ban side.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

This is incorrect. The definition of 'bear' is to carry. The US supreme court has used this definition in many of its dicta when referring to the second amendment.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

This is a very excellent point. 'Crime' was not the intent of the second amendment. 'self defense' was the intent, not only against a potential governmental tyranny, but individual tyranny as well.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

shakran

If you want to get that absurdly technical, then the 2nd says "keep AND bear arms" which means you have the right to a weapon only as long as you carry it on you 100% of the time. Clearly that's stupid.

Plus you're using ONE definition of "bear" when in fact there's another definition that says "to rightfully have." I.e. by that definition I bear my car. It's an antequated term, but then the constitution is over 200 years old.

Insisting that we use only one definition of "bear" is silly, and could be countered with the equally absurd argument that the definition of "arms" that I want everyone to use is the appendages that attach your hands to your body. By that definition no weapon at all is guaranteed under the 2nd. But then that argument is just as asinine as the argument redefining "bear."


Then your argument falls apart when you consider the bans on machine guns. You can certainly "bear" a machine gun. You can "bear" an RPG launcher. And I think an argument can be made that you can in fact bear larger weaponry as well.

So far in this thread you've tried to redefine the 2nd amendment to suit your purposes twice. You've tried to tell us that the 2nd only guarantees arms that you can physically carry (wrong) and you've tried to tell us that the 2nd only guarantees your right to bear FIREarms, even though the word "firearms" does not appear anywhere within the 2nd.

It would be very easy to win arguments if we could redefine terms at will and then require everyone to accept our definitions.

dksuddeth

an argument about what is stupid and what isn't stupid is pointless when it concerns you. It's something I'm not going to get in to.

from websters.com
To hold up; support.
To carry from one place to another; transport.
To carry in the mind; harbor: bear a grudge.
To transmit at large; relate: bearing glad tidings.
To have as a visible characteristic: bore a scar on the left arm.
To have as a quality; exhibit: “A thousand different shapes it bears” (Abraham Cowley).
To carry (oneself) in a specified way; conduct: She bore herself with dignity.
To be accountable for; assume: bearing heavy responsibilities.
To have a tolerance for; endure: couldn't bear his lying.
To call for; warrant: This case bears investigation.
To give birth to: bore six children in five years.
To produce; yield: plants bearing flowers.
To offer; render: I will bear witness to the deed.
To move by or as if by steady pressure; push: “boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past” (F. Scott Fitzgerald).
I do not see 'rightfully have', but I do see an instance of 'carry', as in from one place to another: transport. You can 'bear' the title to your car, but you cannot 'bear' your car as it would be impossible to carry, much like a tank or an ICBM.

whats asinine is to foolishly interpret 'arms' in the second amendment as 'appendage' when the convention arguments specifically state arms as firearms. Whats also equally asinine is not using the correct definition of 'bear' and trying to substitute it with one of your own that was incorrect to begin with.


Yes, you can bear an RPG launcher and you can bear a machine gun. You CANNOT bear a tank unless its small enough to strap across your back and you can aim it in your hands and shoot it.

I've defined the second amendment as the founders did, unlike you who has tried to define the second as some sort of states rights or an outdated concept that should be scrapped because we're so far advanced now that the founders couldn't have imagined things like nuclear weapons.

The founders didn't care about nuclear weapons or tanks. They only cared to protect a pre-existing right to the people as protection from tyranny.

Read the founders statements sometime if you're not afraid to be proven wrong.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

ubertuber

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

ubertuber

I'm curious about exploring how the right to bear arms is related to a militia. Josh made some good points, including a seldom-heard argument that the arms necessary to the maintanence of a militia include items much deadlier than guns.

From the Consititution itself, I don't see any indication that the Framers intended to limit these arms to guns. Of course, military technology was a narrower field 225 years ago, but I don't see anything that would indicate that the people who wrote this document would think that citizens couldn't have canons and artillery items.

Can anyone provide information on whether private citizens owned these items? I'll look around a little.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

dksuddeth

from a historical perspective, the 'militia' as it was known back then did not own cannons, but they did know how to make small explosive devices with the gun powder that they had. Of course, the 'guerilla' type warfare that the militia ended up using against the british showed that a properly armed militia could repel enemy invaders as well as fight a tyrannical government.

As george washington had said, "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

Back then, if a civilian had the equipment and money available to build a cannon, there would have been no law against it nor would he have received any flack about it from the government.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

A well regulated militia: I *think* this means an organized militia, possible state or even nationwide, with the task of defending the country from any threats forign and domestic, without any ties to the military. The problem is that a regulated militia can't beat the US military. Only small, disconnected cells can stand a chance against a military such as ours. This means that 10,000 men with guns marching would lose, where 12 men with expolsives in trucks could win. Does this mean that we shouldn't have a militia? Not really, but don't expect to win any battles with your guns registered and your intent in the open.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed: Here's where we run into a problem. Does this mean that the militia has the right to oppose the state, or does it mean that the individual has the right to heep a 9 mm in his house? The bottom line is that we don't know. The supreme court has stayed away from this like Thomas Jefferson stayed away from white girls. I personally think that the second amendment gives us the right to oppose an oppressive regeim in power, not unlike the 13 colonies opposing and going to war with the UK. Can I prove it? No. Can I make a case for it? Sure, but it would be no more or less of a case than dksuddeth makes for the inaliable right to carry guns.

It's a stale mate.

dksuddeth

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." -George Mason- 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.

The 'militia' is all of us, organized and unorganized, apart from the standing military which is just a branch of the government.

Another topic for another day.

This is not exactly correct. The Supreme Court has never decided a case that directly concerned the second amendment, but there are 35 cases where the supreme court has discussed the second amendment.

The founders of the Bill of Rights, both federalist and anti-federalist, refer to the right to bear arms as an individual right for both self defense as well as state defense. I would like to believe that even the circuit courts could read and understand plain english, but apparently thats not the case. I have to wonder which constitution it is that they are reading. For those of you who choose not to acknowledge the 1982 senate report on the second amendment and would rather wait on the supreme court, I remind you that this is the same supreme court that ruled on Kelo v. new london in violation of the 5th amendment and has ruled consistently against the 4th amendment in regards to the patriot act. While those who are anti-gun are perfectly willing to wait for that decision, can we as a free people afford it?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

balefire88

I think I was wrong to say don't use the argument "This is what the Framers intended." I shouldn't be telling you not to consider what the Framers intended. I want you to consider what the Framers intended. I honestly believe that historical study provides us with a best estimate of their intentions. I am no by no means a historical expert, but have studied it farther than most college students except history majors. I personally believe that the historical circumstances I explained before best explain the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment, and so there is no need for it anymore. However, there is no way for me to prove this explicitly. I can just offer what I have read in history texts, and show what was likely to be their reasoning. (Further reading also tells that the army of that day was extremely poorly underfunded, and had mostly broken up once the major fighting was over. This means, under new attack, the framers were possibly afraid that the country would be vulnerable.)

I just think that the Framers intended a lot of things for the 1790s because they could not see that far into the future. No one really can accurately say what's going to happen 50 years from now. So feel free to consider their intent, I just think people are making a mistake when they use it as a basis for their argument. That's why I said I'm willing to be pro-guns if someone was to post detailed analysis of crime rates and things like that. (I'm not anti-guns either, I just don't own one, and don't mind if my neighbor owns one. I think major gun crimes are much more of a socio-economic issue. Being lucky enough to be in the upper-middle class, I think the peopel around me and I are relatively lucky to be untouched by this issue.) I see crime as the most relevant issue when it comes to guns today, especially in terms of self-defense as some have mentioned is its intent; not tyranny from domestic and foreign government. So, let's consider what fits best for our soceity today, and not stick exactly to what people 200 years ago, no matter how brilliant and forward-thinking they were, said.

Disclaimer: I don't feel very clear-headed. I just woke up, so if any of my thoughts sound downright jumbled, forgive me.

dksuddeth

I've heard alot of people say that in todays society there is no need for the second amendment anymore, and as you've said, there is no way to predict what would be happening 50 years from now, so I don't think that we as a people should EVER give a right away because we don't feel it's needed anymore...especially those that our founders believed were god given rights (if you choose to believe in god) or for those not inclined to believe in a faith, those that pre-existed the constitution.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

balefire88

"especially those that our founders believed." Why is it so important to keep exactly what they believed? I'll support to keep it if you can prove to me that it reduces crime, and I'll support getting rid of it someone proves to me that it increases crime. I want to deal with the relevant issues of today. I'm a realist. If it would help society today to get rid of the 2nd amendment because the end result would be decreasing crime, then I'd rather do that than prepare for the possiblity that I have to fight against the US government. If people have to fight against an oppressive US government, they'll find whatever means possible. I'll choose non-violence. A gun lover can procure guns from outside sources, as the founding fathers did from France. Another, and I absolutely detest having to use this example, can use IEDs, as evidenced by Iraqi terrorists, to fight.

Now, I pointed this out before, but I shall do so again because I think its a strong point against what our founding fathers believed. Many of them, in fact some of the best of them, believed that slaves and women were inferior. They believed these things because in those days, it made sense to them. In the same way, owning guns made a lot of sense then, for the reasons I outlined in previous posts. Today, it might or might not make sense depending on, to me, the crime issue. If the crime issue was resolved, then yes, I don't have any objections to the 2nd amendment. So, I feel that our energies would be better devoted to arguing about crime rather than whether founding fathers meant or did not mean for us to have guns in the year 2000.

dksuddeth

Ok, so lets deal with real issues of today, like crime. Does gun control reduce crime? that answer is patently no. Look at Chicago and D.C. constanly competing each year to see who can be the murder capital of the world. Both have city wide gun bans, not just handguns, but all guns.

Now, do carry states have less crime? thats debatable. some states claim to have lower crime, some higher, and some have not changed at all. But I can tell you with all certainty that those carry states at least allow for the people to defend themselves. What should this tell us? Crime isn't going to go away because of gun control. There will always be crime. But law abiding citizens who carry can better protect themselves. But theres already a thread about that issue.


study history some more, especially world history. When one side has all the guns, it's easy to commit massacres.

If you'll notice, the bill of rights mentions nothing about slaves or women. It specifically refers to individual rights. As time went on and slavery came to be regarded as oppression, it was remedied with another amendment (13th). When the southern states grudgingly dealt without slavery, they still treated blacks as second/third class people, so along came the 14th amendment.

It should be also noted that only one time in our history did our nation use the amendment process to prohibit something and it turned in to a colossal failure and was soon repealed.

The US was built upon the tenets of individual liberty and freedom. Those were bought with the lives of many and attained with the use of firearms. The surest way to lose those would be to willingly deprive ourselves of that right. The founders saw this to be true from history.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."