Can we all take a look at the "well regulated" element?

Because from this side of the pond, if you argue that "The People" are "The Militia" then that's fine - but who the hell is regulating them?

Most of the re-writes here simply drop the militia bit totally, which puzzles me - it's not like the founders would look on and say "hey guys just trim thole bits out - we were kidding about the well regulated militia part".

Wow, that's an interesting idea. I'm VERY strongly for having a civilian as Commander in Chief of the military. Though, obviously, that hasn't worked out so well in the last eight years with this particular civilian in charge. We're pretty far afield of the OP now, but since you brought it up... what's your counter-proposal to how military leadership is currently constructed?

If I recall from my reading of the Federalist Papers (admitedly 20+ years ago), the issue of the "rights of the people" were directly mostly towards protection from a potentially oppressive government.

But, discussion in the papers also acknowledged that in ensuring the "rights of the people, the goivernment may also need to protect one faction (or group) of "the people" from the potential excesses or abuses of another faction.

Thus...IMO, the "rights of the people" are not absolute in the Constitution

My new second amendment:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be absolute, but may be subject to reasonable regulation for the protection of the people.

Several of the amendments in the BOR are intentionally vague in a simlar manner....."in a manner prescribed by law", "unreasonable search and seizure", "probable cause", "excessive fines", "cruel and unusual punishment".

All require Judicial interpretation....thats why the Constitution also created a federal judiciary.

The problem with this is that great emperors started out in similar ways. Julius Ceasar, Napolean, and so on, all had control of the military and took advantage of the people's dislike for their current government. It made it much easier for those "non political" leaders of the military to overthrow the government and take over.

Ceasar was able to destroy the Triumvirate, Napolean was able to take advantage of his military experience and became a leader in the revolution.

I just would be more scared of this and would not accept it. I do believe we need more clear rules on how the president can or should use the military.

First off, it should be more difficult to go to war. And outside of war, it should be much more difficult to have military activity. It was way too easy to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. There should be absolute criteria.

As for military leadership: the admiralty (or military leadership) creates military proposals which get approval from Congress and then the president. In other words, people working in the oval office or capital building don't get to decide how we wage war. They haven't got a clue, anyway. The military generally knows how to run the show. It's when they get mixed messages from above (ex: every war since after WW2) that things get messed up.

I don't see where this part is going, and it is extremely hypothetical.

We all welcome our Chinese overlords. I don't know if you have noticed in your history books, but we white folk are pretty good at war too, I think we could manage.

Ah well, I'd give you a gun and put someone who wasn't afraid of the Chinese in a 1-1 fight in charge ;)

And you trust these people with your ability to defend yourself? I am curious though as in who should have the power to make a military decision then if not the president/congress.

Yes thats my thoughts as well.

You trust your military men to figure out how to do something militarily, but not what to use the military for.

interpret that law can be and has been done to thwart the intent of the people before. Look at the 13th and 14th amendments. With the 2nd amendment, what we have is an individual right, always assumed to be individual, yet 113 years AFTER it was ratified, a court suddenly muting an individual right by deciding that militia actually means national guard. We cannot allow a court, any court, to remove a right by redefining a term with their idea of the current times.

'well regulated' originated from your side of the pond. If you were to take a rifle and scope in to a gunsmith and ask him to 'regulate' it, he would fix it so it shot straight and true, would he not? 'well regulated' wasn't written to mandate government control or it could not possible have been a right of the people.

which will leave every right, and the protection thereof, up to the whims and ideology of any current majority branch of the government.

a new law could simply then be written that says 'no individual shall be allowed to manufacture, sell, possess, or trade any weapon that uses an explosive or explosive material that uses high pressure to force a projectile down a barrell of any length.'

usual exceptions of course would be the military and law enforcement. Then eventually we'd end up with exceptions for the politically connected and soon it would only be the powerful who have weapons.

rights must be absolute or they aren't rights, they are just loosely regulated privileges.

dk....how does the Article I, Sec 8 use of the term "militia" to "SUPPRESS INSURRECTION and repel invasion" conform with "well regulated" in the 2nd.

It seems to me, part of the role of the militia is to stop armed citizens from illegal acts (ie insurrection) in order to protect "the people" from such acts.

if rights are absolute.....how do you explain that the right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" is only subject to UNREASONABLE searches and seizures.....REASONABLE searches and seizures are ok.

IMO, it was not the intent of the framers to leave these rights to the whims of future legislatures, but rather to the interpretation of such vagueness to the judiciary.

If its that important and worthy of national support feel free to amend the constitution, and stop trying to stack the courts to subvert it to your liking.

Its quite simple.

The Constitution provides for two means of redress.....the federal judiciary and the amendment process.

They saw value in both.

Its hard to imagine they envisioned amendments each time an (intentionally vague?) clause of the Constitution was subject to interpretation....or we would have a hell of alot more than 26 amendments in 200+ years.

a group of people who know how to use their weapons AND know basics of martial combat would be well regulated. well regulated was never meant to be defined as having a governmental structure of command, control, rules, guidelines, orders, etc.


'reasonable' is a term that was invented BY the courts when protecting a right didn't serve the needs of the law. The problem is we've gone from the founders version of 'letting the guilty go free instead of an innocent going to prison', to 'they all should go to jail, except for the obviously innocent'.

I don't believe the judiciary was created to provide a balance between rights and laws. The judiciary was put in place to protect our rights from the encroachment of government control.

"unreasonable" (search and seizure) is a term in the Constitution...as is "speedy" (trial), "excessive" (bail), "cruel and unusual" (punishment).

IMO and understanding, these are intentionally vague.

These werent invented BY the courts, but were envisioned to be subject to interpretation by the courts.

one slight correction. the amendment process is specifically to alter the constitution, not provide a means of redress.

which is why there is such a steep obstacle to overcome when altering it.

I disagree, but only because I think the courts have swayed from their original position of protecting rights to protecting government interests.
IMO, unreasonable was used to prevent the things that the british soldiers had done, like writing their own warrants or stopping wagons on the road for searching. seems that it didn't last even 200 years. There are qualifications written in to the 4th that specifically outline how searches and seizures are legal and we certainly don't have that today, but you'll be sure to hear alot of politicians say that they are 'reasonable' to protect us from ourselves.

dk...it sounds to me like your concern is with the judiciary and how it performs its Constitutional function of adjudicating:

"all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution"

I share that concern. I often disgree with the Court's interpretation (I dont agree with the USSC ruling today on the IN voter id law...I think its intent is discriminatory).

But judges are human and subject to their own biases and external forces.

I dont have an answer and the framers arent here to guide us as to their intent.

dc, that is it exactly. That is why I stress and believe that rights are absolute, no room for 'interpretation'. If people could see them as absolute, then it would be politically easy to remove justices for obviously biased and wrong rulings.

dk...therein lies the issue.

There is a wide diversity of opinion among Constitutional scholars as to original intent. Many do do not see the rights as absolute..nor do they see the powers of government re, the general welfare clause, as clearly limited to those that are enumerated.

We may have the words of Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson,in the Federalist Papers and other docs, but those words are often contradictory and subject to interpretation. And we know little about the intent of most of the other members of Congress or the state legislatures that ratified the Constitution.

Yeah, but.... Dude. Think about this for a minute. Do you think it's a coincidence that this "absolute" you're pointing to happens to be exactly the same as your opinion?

Am I the only one that thought this phraseology was funny?

hell no!! of course it's my opinion. it's also the opinion of alot of others, but that doesn't matter. it should be the opinion of everyone. they are YOUR rights after all.

No, what I'm saying is... if the way those rights "are" is "absolute" and not open to interpretation, you might start to get suspicious about the fact that they're exactly the same as how your opinion thinks they should be. Especially if other opinions even EXIST in the world. You might start getting suspicious of the absolute nature of those rights, and start wondering if perhaps it isn't more of a strongly-held opinion on your part.

Do you believe that freedom of speech and religion are absolute human rights? Isn't it suspicious how they're exactly the same as you think they should be?

Colt 45 is mediocre malt liquor popular amongst the urban poor.

Colt 1911 is a popular .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol.

...

Does removing the vagueness from the 2nd amendment strengthen it or weaken it? Do we trust due process of law to do us right?

Everything in the Con-stuh-too-shun is supposed to vague IAW legal religion.

WillRavel's original proposal is too specific in its language.

I approve of MSD's proposal but I still remained skeptical.

Gradeschool Lesson sez: The Constitution was meant to be interpreted by the courts. There are no absolute rights despite our belief otherwise.

So how many courts get to decide its one thing, before another decides its something completely different?

The "one supreme Court, and .. such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish" (Article III, Sec 1)

Hmmm...

http://www.uscourts.gov/understand03/content_6_5.html

Ok let me be clearer.

If for 200+ years the right to bear arms was you could own firearms, and then one day you get the court stacked with one side who now decide it means you can own firearms if you are part of the national guard, how does that make any sense from a constitutional stand point?

The constitution isn't a work of literature to be discussed and reinterpreted, its the framework of the government. Changing it is hard on purpose. It should not be changed because a few unelected judges feel it means something completely different based on their own personal feelings.

like the one supreme court that decided kelo?

Nobody disputes that those are fundamental human rights. The fundamental right to gun ownership is in dispute--here and in the world at large.

So, you're saying you don't question yourself at all when the "right" and "absolute" answer to something that's under debate coincides 100% with your opinion in the matter? Because I do. I'm constantly skeptical of the rigidity and fixedness of my thinking. It troubles me that people aren't questioning themselves in this way. When we're "right", there's no room for creativity or discussion. "Rightness" kills off possibilities.

Will,

China has a well trained conventional army, and as such if a bunch of average americans tried to fight that army head on they would, of course, lose.

The reasons insurgencies are effective and successful is precisely that the fighters don't get sucked into decisive engagements. Rather, you attack supply lines, support networks, small patrols, etc. in order to force the occupying force to consolidate and waste tremendous resources simply in order to maintain a presence. When it becomes too much of a burden they will leave.

Also, there are quite a few russian tanks scattered around afghanistan. They were all defeated by people with far less resources than available to even the poorest American. Don't underestimate what people are capable of when they make good decisions about when and how to fight.


Also, IED's are surely an effective tool, but alone they are nothing more than a nuisance. Especially to a country with so little regard to human life. If you surrender, or do not have the basic means to fight, then you will not be able to do so effectively. You have to be able to shoot the two soldiers who were put on patrol around a neighborhood, etc. in order to win greater support from the local populace and force the occupying force to use more resources (maybe 10 guys instead of 2, etc.)

It's like you're reading my mind.
IEDs, consistently bombing most to all supply routes + bombing raids on supply depots and attacks on landing strips = massive nuisance. I'd probably model my strategies on the activities of the Maquis when France was occupied, as well. They were quite imaginative.

The Maquis in France were completely ineffective in doing anything of major importance and would never have freed France. It took the largest sea invasion in the worlds history to do that.

This ones for you though...

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/J2LG-ASco6o&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/J2LG-ASco6o&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Yes, but their strategies were sound. It was one of the better organized resistances in recent history.

One of the points I failed to adequately make in my above post is that the success or failure of any insurgency is tied to the support of the local populace. If the people support your effort, an insurgency has potential to be successful, provided you have (or can acquire) a means to fight. If they don't support you, you don't even have a chance. Thus, the second amendment will only help the overthrow of a government which has wronged it's people to the point where the majority of the population is willing to support armed revolution against it. requires the sort of collective will which I would think the liberals on this board would be in full support of.

To once again address Will's post: if the only threat to you is IED's, it is easily mitigated by dismounted foot patrols, heavily armored vehicles, helicopters, etc. IED's have to be used in conjunction with other methods.

I.E. a string of IED attacks will force the enemy to start foot patrols off of the roads, where they may be more easily ambushed and killed with small arms. Or to use helicopters which will force them to use certain HLZ's. Or to stay buttoned up in a heavily armored vehicle, which severely restricts mobility and will force them to push armor into terrain that is less than ideal, where they can be effectively engaged by INS with captured munitions.

You can initiate with an IED, but if you want to be able to get close enough to capture the enemies supplies, weapons, medicines, food, and explosives you need firearms in order to clear into an objective. Captured supplies are a major source of equipment for those fighting an insurgency, and an IED-only approach would eliminate that resource.


If you feel explosives, and not firearms, are the only effective way for an oppressed people to revolt, then would you be in favor of an amendment guaranteeing the right to own explosive devices?

Oh, and USTWO, your Heinlein quote is a favorite between my wife and I. It is a shame people seem to default responsibility to any other person or entity they can. We feel responsibility for your own actions and well being is something to be embraced, because doing so is the only way to have control over your own destiny.

All the things needed for explosives are common enough to find in most grocery and drug stores. I don't think one would need an amendment to have available to them things like cotton balls or styrofoam.

The mighty Chinese army. Unable to be beaten by men with modern weapons and training but brought down by the cotton ball.

Will, you know there won't be a Chinese left saying they have to withdraw every time a Chinese soldier is killed by a molitov cocktail right?

while IED's are wonderful for initial assaults, what are you going to use to finish them off? sticks and stones? and what are you going to do if your IED doesn't kill them all and they close the distance on you?

You use the most effective weapon, a firearm.

I have no delusions about defending my country or stopping a hostile takeover with my 1911. It's there for protecting myself against Americans - doped up crackheads or dope fiends, drunks and felons.. but still Americans.

I support the Second Amendment as a way to protect ourselves from .. well, ourselves. I'm not terribly worried about a foreign invasion.