Common ground: A New Second Amendment
 

As was discussed elsewhere, many people are confused or concerned about the wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the USA. It's structure is based in a rather old way of speaking and no longer is as clear as it may have once been. This thread is about a hypothetical reworking of the Second Amendment in today's world.

Before we get started, I'd like to have this thread stay on topic. Please, no personal insults, no posturing and no belittling others. This is about solution-centric discussion.

So I'll start:
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the the ownership of guns by legal citizens os the United States, provided they pass a background check and have not committed a crime with a gun.

Thoughts?

Don't really care for the background check or not committed a crime with a gun part. The gun laws are so batshit insane. Things like having a handgun on your person without a permit would be a gun crime, or having a mag that holds too many rounds, or having forward grips etc.

I like my states take on it (Indiana)

"The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."

I figure that the original intent was along the lines of wanting there to be the facility for citizens to have the wherewithal to form a civil defense unit to overthrow a tyranical government (i.e. the British).

Therefore I would suggest:

"In order that a militia may be formed, the government shall allow citizens to form locally organised arrmed units with standardised weaponry as used by the infantry regiments of national guard units. Citizens joining such militia units shall be entitled to keep their weapon within their dwelling for as long as they continue to be part of the duly constituted milita".

That's what most people think. Still, it does beg the question: would the Second Amendment, in it's current form, really provide the means necessary to state a rebellion?

Would this right extent to the emotionally unstable and criminals?

No citizen shall be deprived of the right to keep and bear arms except by due process of law.

Short, straight to the point, allows judges or juries to decide who's too dangerous. I want due process to be an individual right rather than allowing for blanket deprivation of rights like removing the right to bear arms from those who commit felonies that do not suggest a risk to others, or arbitrarily denying an individual's right to vote.

I agree with this one, but I'll wait for final judgment by our fellow members that are more gun-friendly.

There are nearly as many guns as people in the country and a lot of people who aren't going to take tyranny lightly. In polls, less than half of members of the armed forces said that there was any situation in which they would follow orders to fire on American citizens on our soil, and about a quarter said that they would to suppress a rebellion.

You can't be deprived of liberty without due process of law. My second amendment reinforces that, but it's a no-brainer to my libertarian-leaning mind.

edit: rather than citizen, I want to change mine to encompass lawful residents. If you live here legally, you should have the right to defend yourself, others, and the country just like a citizen.

All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property, the state, and this right shall never be questioned or infringed upon, but the legislature shall have power, by law, to prevent the carrying of concealed weapons.

what? no ccw?:surprised:

ok, i'll edit that last part

i like that version better anyway.

I don't believe it does.

Everyone remembers the "right to bear arms". Nobody (or very few, anyway) remembers the "militia" bits.

I see the 2nd ammendment akin to the old statute that existed in England, requireing all men to do archery practice so an army could be made up from the yeomanry in times of crisis.

I'd be interested to know what'd happen if there was a REQUIREMENT to drill and train so that civil defense forces can be called upon in times of (domestic) need.

http://blog.canoe.ca/mediam/manson1a.jpg
This is Charles Manson. I believe he has been diagnosed with a particularly bad case of anti-social personality disorder, which led to several murders (along with some other really bad things). While he was initially sentenced to death, his sentence was reduced to life without the possibility of parole.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Charles Manson be guaranteed a gun under your amendment (so long as it's not concealed, of course)?

I believe that as a prisoner for life, without parole, is certainly going to meet that standard of the 5th amendment of being deprived of that right after due process, especially now that he's in prison.

If you are looking for exact wording and detail as to who does and doesn't have the right, you're going to be looking at an amendment that will span pages, not sentences.

It would, save for the hundreds of laws out there, namely the hughes amendment to FOPA86 and some others.

In any case, unless a principled and dedicated supreme court were to suddenly spring up, any new amendment would quickly be reduced to the same circumstances our current one has.

MSD's amendment: "No citizen shall be deprived of the right to keep and bear arms except by due process of law." This one seems to cover it.

My concern would be that your wording is somewhat absolute. I think the idea is to provide a summarization or overall idea about the right with the amendment. So an absolute (unless I'm misinterpreting) would seem to negate the 5th.

Change to:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I like daniel's idea of mandatory training and drilling... This way you have a ready militia and a citizenry that has been trained in the use of guns.

The NRA should be a regulated militia. They should be responsible for determining if a person can continue to carry a gun. And even life membership should be revocable.

I understand that guns are good sometimes, but I think the time has come to rework things just a little. Gun owners should have more rights, prior military with a clean bill of health should get more gun options, and there should be a few more limits on who can own a gun.

Why are we offhandedly discussing as experts changing something that has withstood the test of time for over 200 years?

I don't believe the voting majority -- who understands the "spirit" of the law (rather than the "letter of the law") thinks that the 2nd Amendment applies only to organized militias. If they did, it would've been corrected long ago. The fact that people argue for a "militia only" 2nd Amendment demonstrates that people will always try to use words out of context, but I'm comforted by the fact that disarmament of the US population will never occur, and that those who understand the 2nd Amedment as a God given right to protect oneself represent the majority.

I'd accept a clarification, but not yours, will. The Constitution and Bill of Rights don't deal in specifics, simply because "background check" and "gun crime" are so vague. As a democratic republic of States, we should allow the States themselves determine the criteria for lawful use of a firearm.

It hasn't at all. If you'd like, review case logs of Second Amendment cases before the Supreme Court. There have only been two major supreme court cases to directly address the Second Amendment, and they're both well over 100 years old. That speaks in volumes.
We don't vote for supreme court justices. This thread is simply a hypothetical exercise. As for using words out of context, the sentence structure of the amendment as it stands was debated elsewhere.

As for "god given", Christianity predates the US and even guns by quite a long time. I see that as moot.
And how would your amendment read?

I've always thought it was interesting that the original 2nd has a justification built into it. To put it in plain, modern english, the 2nd reads, "People's right to have and use guns shall not be infringed upon, since it's necessary for a free state to have a well-armed army."

It's the only amendment that has a rationalization built into it. You don't see "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, because, you know, no one religion is truer than any other, and we had enough of that nonsense back in England, and most of us founding fathers are Deists anyway, not Christians, so, yeah, we're doing that."

Kind of makes you suspect that this was controversial even when it was written, doesn't it? Like, they had to put that in there to justify something.

Also, those who say amendments to the constitution shouldn't contain specifics, you're probably not familiar with the Seventh: "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." That "twenty dollars" is both VERY specific and HORRIBLY out of date.

How about: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the legislatures of the several states shall be empowered to form National Guard units of the Federal Armed Forces; and furthermore, the legislatures of the several states shall empower duly constituted authorities within their jurisdictions to create police departments, whose agents may be armed during the course of their duties."

I have no objection to the governments of states permitting individuals the right to keep rifles or shotguns for the purposes of hunting during game seasons. But handguns cause more trouble than they are worth; and I certainly cannot see any reason why individual citizens should ever need military-grade assault weapons, to say nothing of heavier weapons.

The very first court case to declare that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right was the kansas state supreme court in City of Salina v. Blaksley. Up until that time, there isn't a single case out there before 1905 that even hints at that. The 'collective rights' idea would have been laughed at before then. Since then, numerous anti-gun courts and politicians have pushed hard to rewrite the second amendment through the courts. Hell, you even have presidents right up in to the early 60s that still spoke of the 2nd amendment as an individual right.

How about: "A person's life and health being of greater value than another person's rights to property, the privilege of owning firearms of any type shall be reserved only for those who have demonstrated the ability to use them safely and responsibly. Crimes committed with firearms will be punished especially strongly."

This thread is interestingly tautological. We're dealing with a MAN-given right, given by the MAN-written 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. We're talking about rewriting it completely, and yet there's this concern here for preserving some big fancy Right? That makes no sense, if we're chucking it and rewriting it from scratch.

God didn't give anybody the right to have guns. Thomas Jefferson and his buddies made sure Americans could keep and bear arms, given the necessity to a newly-formed and fragile nation of a well-armed military.

I can tell you with 100% certainty, that if the majority of US citizens stopped supporting the government, currently available firearms would be sufficient to overthrow the gov.

An insurgency doesn't have to have superior, or even equal firepower to be effective. Insurgencies are almost always impossible to stop provided they have the support of the local population.

I don't believe the second amendment was written with the intent of only allowing 'certain' firearms. Afterall, many wealthy landowners owned their own cannon, which were employed in the revolutionary war.

Alas no, but God did give us the right to defend ourselves at all cost against those would harm us or Him. In Jesus' day, that meant sabers. Nowadays? Colt 45.

"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him", Exodus 22:2

Judges 5:8 reminds us of what happens to a foolish nation that chooses to disarm: "They chose new gods; then was war in the gates: was there a shield or spear seen among forty thousand in Israel?"

Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

who determines the qualifications for safe and responsible?
this is the problem with rights being reserved for those who 'qualify', much like what happened to freed blacks in the jim crow days.

The framers believed that the right to bear arms pre-existed the constitution, not granted by it.

they learned first hand that governments with strong armies could deny and remove liberties and freedoms and that the only true and final protectors of our rights would be us, we the people.

Oh, man, Jinn, I REALLY don't think you want to go to biblical sources for justification on this one. Because there's some CRAZY shit in the bible, and I doubt you really want to be on the same level with "Do not lay down with a man...". Literally, until you're living true to all the rules of the ancient Hebrews yourself, don't go to the Old Testament for support for your pet policies. Because it's NUTS in there.

On to the New Testament. You're taking the Luke quote horribly out of context, btw. Matter of fact, you're taking the whole thing out of context. God doesn't say "Defend yourself with deadly force if necessary." God says "Turn the other cheek." I guarantee you, Jesus would not be a gun owner.

Congress would have to make laws to flesh out those specifics. Those details shouldn't be tied to something as universal as the Constitution, they should be more open to interpretation over time. A Constitution lays out general principles that guide the creation of specific law.

Also, I deliberately didn't use the word "right". I used the word "privilege".

Show me some evidence of this assertion. Otherwise, it's just more "God wants me packing", which I'm telling you is against centuries of biblical and theological tradition.

I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. - Robert A. Heinlein

Perhaps the most interesting dichotomy in thought, and its not universal but the trend is apparent, that those who complain the loudest on things like the patriot act or say things like 'Bush is shredding the constitution' are also those who are in vehement favor of disarming the populous. If anything I would expect the opposite if such claims were based on being rational but instead its more based on rationalization.

I subscribe to the above Robert Heinlein quote. I am free to make the choices I make in life based on what I find tolerable. I am responsible for my own actions. Those actions may include defending myself from a petty criminal or may include defending myself from the government imposed upon me. By telling me I am not allowed to defend myself using the technology of the day (firearms) you are removing my freedom, you are saying I am not personally responsible, I am not to be trusted with my own fate, and it should be left up to others who you say know whats best for me.

This is not tolerable.

As such, if changes must be made to the 2nd amendment to be more clear I'd state it as the following.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Well, if we're really playing the role of editor here and changing the way the Constitution reads, I'd steal Ustwo's and add a little bit.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except as necessary for the defense of this Nation and its populace. The Government may prevent the sale, transfer, or ownership of firearms by anyone convicted by due process of law of committing violent crimes; murder, forcible rape, forcible sodomy, robbery, aggravated assault, or simple assault for a period of 10 years or one-half of the time sentenced, whichever is greater. Any person convicted of the above crimes two (2) times will be prevented by the force of law from owning a firearm for the remainder of their natural life.

I think this serves a dual function of clarifying that it is a (a) citizen's right to bear arms, not a militia's, and (b) that violent criminals and repeat criminals are sentenced to long sentences, but will regain their "human right" of armed defense of person if they've demonstrated non-criminal behavior. If they're convicted to 50 years in prison, for example, they have to be 25 years out before they can own a gun again. Likewise, if they've been convicted twice, then we can remove their natural right of self defense in a lawful "defense of the Nation."

It's a good response, Ustwo. I don't agree with all of it, but I can respect it a whole lot more than "God wants me to have a Glock".

One question, mostly just because I'm interested in your take on it:

If you were a speculating man, why would you guess the Framers wrote it the way they did? What was the point of putting the "hey, come on, we gotta have a well-regulated militia, guys!" rationalization in there?

rat, this sounds suspiciously like the 'living constitution' theory, where people can use judical activism to redefine terms when something that started out great, becomes not so great because of personal displeasure.

If it's a 'privilege', then there would be no need to have an amendment in the bill of rights. Since you created a new amendment, I merely assumed it was a mistype on your part. my apologies.


US v. Cruikshank. 'The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.'

on top of that, most of the documentation from both pre-ratification as well as post-ratification talk of the right to bear arms. I would imagine that since they believed that the right to bear arms was inherent before the 2nd amendment was ratified, therefore it pre-existed.

I believe george mason said it best when he said "Who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

I believe the founders gave us the power to amend the Constitution for a reason. It was never intended to be set in stone. They designed it to be flexible, and to be open to interpretation. That's a GOOD thing.

Without some context, that sounds to me like judicial activisim. :P


Ok, but that doesn't answer my question. (I was also specifically directing my question at Ustwo, but that's fine, your answer is quite welcome of course.) The question is: given they DID put the "because, you know, militla!" rationalization into the wording of the amendment itself, why do you think they did that? I don't really have an answer, but I think it's interesting, and I'd like to see pro-gun folks' thoughts about the question. It's not a "gotcha", I just think it's curious. It's the only amendment where they included their thinking on the matter. Why do you think they felt that was necessary?

amend, yes. I wholeheartedly agree with the amendment process the framers made. using judicial decisions to re-interpret, not only no, but hell no.


undoubtedly one of the worst USSC decisions to come off the bench. It basically cleared the state from any wrongdoing of not protecting people because the constitution and bill of rights were only a check on the federal government. It's worse than judicial activism, it was a clear cut case of judicial tyranny.


One of the founders main concerns over the constitution was the power granted to congress in Art 1. Sec. 8
because of these fears, it was realized that freedom could be lost by congress simply not arming or organizing the militia, as it is today. In order to allay these fears, the 2nd amendment was created in order to ensure that the people COULD always be armed. That 'well-regulated' militia isn't about a federal or state run entity of volunteers, it's about the people as a whole, knowing how to shoot and fight. WE are necessary to maintaining our security as a free state.

thats how I see it anyway. most of the pre-rat docs show this.

Because regulation of arms by oppressive governments was a common occurrence in their day and the centuries prior.

What made the original roman republic so powerful was that the common man was expected to have his arms and armor ready to be used at a moments notice in defense of the republic. The founding fathers were aware of this history. Every citizen was expected to fight for the republic and being a republic for themselves, not the king or emperor, or whatever lord there was.

I still find this sentiment true today. We, the people, should be armed and able to handle threats to the republic, we should not rely on a professional army and police force to be the only ones capable of defense. That threat may be a lone gunman or an invasion, it doesn't matter, we the people are our own masters.

Its dangerous to think that because things seem 'free' right now they will remain such indefinitely. I doubt those roman solider citizens thought their civilization, perhaps the greatest in the world until the last 200 years, would collapse in chaos either.

So, basically, yes.

But the whole point of the judicial branch is to interpret the law. How you could deem a law constitutional or not without interpreting both the law and the constitution is beyond me. Seems like that'd be the very first thing you'd have to do.

From a stalker on this thread, I am truly proud of the posters on this thread, it shows how they can respect and work together.

Just spewing forth my opinion.....sorry for the threadjack.

"Should" and "are" seem to be 100 miles apart even with the current right to bear arms, though. Most people wouldn't get off their sofas until the invaders were driving down their own streets in tanks. Or if American Idol was cancelled.

If China was somehow able to take care of the US Pacific fleet (like bankrupting the government?), and China invaded, San Francisco would likely become a battleground. Plenty of people around here have guns (I've actually been surprised how common they are here in liberalstown), but fighting a ground war against the Chinese Army would likely not go well. Have you ever opened fire on a tank with a shotgun? I can't imagine that going well. Better? Surrender, lull them into a false sense of security, and then rebel like there's no tomorrow. IEDs are frighteningly easy to build.

I have to wonder if an amendment would really help us in such a time. If we're rising up, we're going to rise up regardless of Constitutional permission.

This thread is about a hypothetical reworking of the Second Amendment in today's world.

This is the issue here which is perhaps the most open to debate. You say todays world like its different than yesterdays world and I don't think it is very different. Our methods may have changed in warfare, but just as we look back and see little difference between 1415 and 1416, I'm sure they thought the world was turned upside down in France as knights lost to mostly commoners. Todays world is nothing special compared to their world, our motivations are the same, our brains our the same, our mortality is the same.

Perhaps, but I also recall lines at the recruitment offices after 9/11. I was motivated to join even though I was over 30 years old, with a wife, in the middle of a professional program. Were at 21 and single again, I could not imagine having not joined.

Tanks control the macro terrain, but men with guns control the micro. You will not win a war with IED's unless the nation at wars will is weak.

And when you rise up, what will you fight with?

Personally I'd be happier if two years of service was required and after you were required to keep your weapon ready to use until the age of 60, after that it would be optional.

And if the military couldn't have paid you?
I don't know if I'd call them "men with guns". If it were China, it'd be some of the best trained military officers in the world, who are quite capable in suburban terrain. While I'd like to think I could fare well in a firefight, realistically they'd kill me quickly. Even if I was well trained and well armed.
I'd likely be the guy who organizes everything. I know how to build bombs and I know how to set traps, but more than that I focus under pressure.
I'd support a draft if Congress and the President couldn't make any military decisions. Until the military is de-politicized, most people, myself included, wouldn't trust our fates to politicians.

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.