The Second Amendment

[John Galt]

The Second Amendment to the US constitution reads

 

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.

 

What, in your opinion is " A well regulated militia?", and to what extent does the "right of the People to keep and bear arms" reach? For those outside the US, I'd like to hear how your nations deal with militias and firearms ownership, and what you think of the issue.

 

I think this debate deals with the core values of Democracy, but I'll wait to elaborate on my musings until I hear some other opinions.

[SilentScope001]

It means that the US Government is able to go and establish militas to protect itself. Such as, say, the National Guard.

 

So, in other words, the US Government is not allowed to ban weapon sales to its own military forces.

 

It is allowed to ban weapon sales to ANYONE ELSE.

 

So, the Milita Movement technically is not protected, as the Militas are not established by the US Government. So if the US Government is a corrupt, evil body, oh well, you're still breaking the law by rebelling. Sorry.

[Achilles]

What, in your opinion is " A well regulated militia?", and to what extent does the "right of the People to keep and bear arms" reach? For those outside the US, I'd like to hear how your nations deal with militias and firearms ownership, and what you think of the issue.

My 2 cents:

 

I believe the Framers sought to set up a system of government in which the people were empowered rather than the gov't. As such, a great deal of responsibility would also fall to the people as well.

 

The early roman republic was used as a foundation for many of the principles set forth for this one. For instance, rather than maintaining a standing army, landowners were called upon to defend the republic in times of conflict. Identifying the creation of a standing army as one of the things that eventually led to rome's downfall, the Framers sought to revive the idea of "a well regulated militia". I guess they should have included something more specific regarding a standing army

 

As for the "right to keep and bear arms", I view it as yet another attempt to limit the power of the gov't. An unarmed populace can be lead anywhere by an well-armed military force under the command of the gov't. Best way around that? Make it so that the gov't cannot legally take your weapons away.

 

I think this debate deals with the core values of Democracy, but I'll wait to elaborate on my musings until I hear some other opinions.

I'll be interested to see where this thread goes.

[mimartin]

I’ll agree with about 99% of what Achilles wrote with the only exception being I do not believe the Framers trusted the people to that extreme (look that the Electoral College to get my meaning). I believe their intention was to place this power with the individual states.

[Achilles]

I agree that more emphasis was placed on "decentralized" gov't via the states, but I do think the goal was still to put the power in the hands of the people. If I had to take a guess, I'd would have to say that they thought while the gov't might occationally forget their place, the people never would. I think they would hang their heads in defeat if they knew that barely half of all people participate in elections and that many people can't identify more than one or two freedoms outlined in the first amendment.

 

As for the electoral college, I subscribe to the school of thought that says that it was established because it was not reasonable to expect people in Georgia to form an educated opinion about a doctor from Maine if he was running for a federal position. Now that we have radio, tv, internet, etc, I think it's time to accept that the electoral college might no longer be necessary.

[Nancy Allen``]

In my opinion a well regulated militia is one that is capeable of defending it's country and it's citizens. That means no nukes, no ICBMs, weapons of that nature. Similarily the right to bear arms is something that had been restricted in other countries, the Port Arthur massecre for example which brought in sweeping reforms to gun control outlawing guns that really nobody should have. Automatic rifles, machine guns, why would someone want those? The largest problem I think is small weapons, handguns, Ingram and Uzi machine pistols and the like. On the one hand such weapons are the easiest to be used in a crime (as opposed to, say, hefting an M249 around), you can just go into a shot or bank with one and rob the place, be in and out where as with something larger you'll be seen carrying a weapon about and be pulled up. On the other hand such weapons make them ideal for personal self defense in that pulling a gun on someone will scare off even the most determined assailent. And on that topic a shotgun, something that is a large, powerful, close range weapon is ideal IMO for home protection, to scare off or remove the threat of an intruder, especially were such a weapon that is loaded for less than lethal purposes (rubber shells for example) to prevent a victim from doing their part to help overpopulation with a criminal oxygen thief.

[Totenkopf]

My 2 cents:

 

I believe the Framers sought to set up a system of government in which the people were empowered rather than the gov't. As such, a great deal of responsibility would also fall to the people as well.

 

The early roman republic was used as a foundation for many of the principles set forth for this one. For instance, rather than maintaining a standing army, landowners were called upon to defend the republic in times of conflict. Identifying the creation of a standing army as one of the things that eventually led to rome's downfall, the Framers sought to revive the idea of "a well regulated militia". I guess they should have included something more specific regarding a standing army

 

As for the "right to keep and bear arms", I view it as yet another attempt to limit the power of the gov't. An unarmed populace can be lead anywhere by an well-armed military force under the command of the gov't. Best way around that? Make it so that the gov't cannot legally take your weapons away.

 

I'd have to say Achille's summed it up pretty succinctly. It would be interesting, with the march of technology over the last 250 years, to see how they'd feel about the second amendment in light the types of weapons available today. Knowing then what we know today, would they have tightened up their language or still left it ambiguous?

[Nancy Allen``]

Well the police and military have that much more responsibility than everyone else, which means that in order to do their jobs safely they need to necessary tools, and that means they are expected to be supremely disciplined. Forget the SWAT movie, real life special police are imhuman in their discipline, they will not use their weapons unless there is the imminent threat of innocent life. They're not going to go postal, rob a bank, react violently to words and opinions, the organization has to make certain of that.

[Web Rider]

In my opinion, this is how I read the second amendment.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"

 

-people need to decide on their own if they want to get together and protect themselves and each other. Without the government doing it for them. Likewise, they are not prevented from saying: "well, I'd rather let them do it." However, it IMO, essentially says that people, with or without guns, have the right to organize and defend themselves from oppression, local, state, federal, or external.

 

"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

In order for people to protect themselves from oppression, they need to be able to defend themselves. History shows nothing really stands up to guns, save more guns. So, people need the ability to own guns. However, my own personal interpretation of this is "arms within reason." There is no need for somebody to possess a nuclear bomb. Nor any sorts of bombs, not any assault weapons or high-powered similar weaponry. People have the right to own enough guns of enough power to protect themselves from oppression, internal or external, they don't need the power to start a war.

 

I'd have to say Achille's summed it up pretty succinctly. It would be interesting, with the march of technology over the last 250 years, to see how they'd feel about the second amendment in light the types of weapons available today. Knowing then what we know today, would they have tightened up their language or still left it ambiguous?

 

if they truly believed that the responsibility fell on the people, they'd probly just have given up on us now as hardly anyone takes responsibility for anything anymore. But, if we did, I'd say that if they truly believed in personal responsibility, they'd leave it vague for us to decide that's best for us. They can't hold our hand forever.

[Samnmax221]

(look that the Electoral College to get my meaning)

The Electoral College actually has more to do with the calculation and communication limitations of the time, made sense then, doesn't anymore.

[SilentScope001]

To better explain the Founding Fathers' view:

 

The Electoral College exist because we don't want the President to be elected by the mob. Otherwise, the mob will be capatived by a demogague and it would turn into a democracy, with all its terrible flaws. Do we want people to start electing popular people who make stupid desicions? Of course not! That's how Athens fell to Sparta. We need compenent people to run America, not the most popular ones.

 

America always follow in the tradition of the Republic, taking the best of democracy and avoiding the flaws.

 

People should elect those who they TRUST to vote in the best interest of America, they should not go and think themselves as the sole artibtars of what is right and what is wrong! Many of these people don't even know anything about politics.

 

The Electoral College makes sense then, and it makes sense now, altough now nobody actually pay any lip service to the concept of a Republic. Nobody also cares about the sound advice of not dividing ourselves into factions and political parties, and look where that ended up.

[Achilles]

However, my own personal interpretation of this is "arms within reason." There is no need for somebody to possess a nuclear bomb. Nor any sorts of bombs, not any assault weapons or high-powered similar weaponry. People have the right to own enough guns of enough power to protect themselves from oppression, internal or external, they don't need the power to start a war.

Keep in mind that at the time of it's writing, warfare was pretty much a "my gunpowder rifle vs. your gunpowder rifle" scenario. Bullets, as we know them today, didn't even exist.

 

if they truly believed that the responsibility fell on the people, they'd probly just have given up on us now as hardly anyone takes responsibility for anything anymore.

Yep.

 

But, if we did, I'd say that if they truly believed in personal responsibility, they'd leave it vague for us to decide that's best for us. They can't hold our hand forever.

I'm not quite sure I take your meaning. They didn't devise a system of gov't that necessitated them "holding our hands". They are generally referred to as "Framers" because they built the framework for our democracy, not every nuance. The three branches, working in conjunction with the will of the people and within the rules of the constitution, are free to make changes whenever they see fit (via Amendments). They themselves saw the need to make amendments not long after the constitution was ratified (there were 10 of them and that first collection of amendments is commonly known as The Bill of Rights).

 

So they did leave it "vague" for us. We (the people) just stopped paying attention at some point.

 

Again, my 2 cents.

[Jae Onasi]

The 'right to bear arms' came into being because the average citizen in Great Britain (and much of Europe) were not allowed to carry weapons, while the military or ruling elite were. This created an imbalance of power that the Founding Fathers wanted to eliminate. They didn't want the government having enough weaponry to force another type of government on people who had no way to defend themselves, and more importantly be without a way to protect themselves and provide for themselves (hunting).

 

The challenge now is how to implement that original reasoning (which I think is good) in today's technology. Is it right, for instance, to ban people from carrying assault weapons (as the have in Chicago) or not, under this amendment? I'd hate to live in a community where I have to put everyone in bullet proof vests and make sure I have enough ammo in my AK-47 just to go to the grocery store, but I don't want the police to be the only ones with the guns, either--I think that opens things up for too much abuse of power.

Is the military/government over-powered enough that people wouldn't be able to defend themselves appropriately if someone wanted to come in and create a dictatorship? Not that I think that'll happen, mind you, but I thought I'd muse about that.

[Achilles]

Is it right, for instance, to ban people from carrying assault weapons (as the have in Chicago) or not, under this amendment?

Is the issue "carry" or "own"?

 

I'd hate to live in a community where I have to put everyone in bullet proof vests and make sure I have enough ammo in my AK-47 just to go to the grocery store, but I don't want the police to be the only ones with the guns, either--I think that opens things up for too much abuse of power.

Agreed.

 

Is the military/government over-powered enough that people wouldn't be able to defend themselves appropriately if someone wanted to come in and create a dictatorship? Not that I think that'll happen, mind you, but I thought I'd muse about that.

I'll repeat my argument from the other thread re: native forces being able to overpower technologically superior "invaders" (in this case, our own army). Urban warfare is tough. Urban warfare against people that look like civilians is even tougher. Urban warfare against people that look like civilians and members of your own culture...?

[Bob Lion54]

OK, I've read through the thread and it seems people need a little historical context as to why the Second Amendment was deemed necessary by the Framers of the Constitution. I will not give my own opinions as to the relevancy of the Amendment today, but rather, offer an explanation to people that didn't pay attention in history class or are from countries other than the United States.

 

First off, its important to understand what the Bill of Rights is and what it is not. If you read the Articles with this in mind, you will get a better understanding of that they mean.

 

The Bill of Rights IS the rights of the people and the individual states.

The Bill of Rights IS NOT the rights of the federal government.

 

What The Second Amendment means is not in question. We have the right to own weapons. The government CAN NOT take that away without another Amendment. However, what is not specified is how many and what type of arms we may legally own. That is why the government can outlaw AK-47s. The justification is that they are more powerful than necessary to protect yourself and your family.

 

The arguments today are not what the Second Amendment means, but rather, if it is still necessary or even harmful. Many people want an Amendment that repeals the Second Amendment.

 

Now for the Historical context:

When the Constitution was being written, many of the state delegates feared that the federal government was being given too much power. The fear was that if given too much power, the people would be no better off than under British rule. Thomas Jefferson had a great quote that I wish I could find. Basically, he said "I don't trust one king. Why should I trust a hundred?" This was a sentiment shared by many of the founding fathers. They would not support a federal government without having the rights of the people guaranteed. Hence, the Bill of Rights.

 

Also of note, at the time, very few people considered themselves Americans. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, did not consider himself an American. He was a Virginian. This led to the other important aspect of the Bill of Rights: to protect the rights of the states. Specifically, the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

Again, I am just trying to provide the historical context behind the Second Amendment, but I felt it would be good to reiterate the historical context of the Bill of Rights as a whole.

 

Its also important to understand that the Bill of Rights was partially a reaction to the events leading up to the American Revolution. The times before the war were tense. One of the actions taken by the British was to outlaw guns. They also made it illegal for three or more colonist to meet without special permit. From the British perspective "if they have no guns, they can't fight; if they can't meet, they can't organize to fight against us."

 

When the Bill of Rights was being written, the writers wanted to make sure that could not happen again. Remember, at the time, many people did not believe the new government would respect the rights of Americans any better than the British Government. They felt it was important to make sure the new American Government couldn't march in and overstep its bounds.

 

Also, many people still used a gun in their everyday lives. Remember, this was before refrigeration. A lot of people still relied on hunting to put meat on the table, especially as you moved west, away from the higher populated areas. The gun was an everyday tool at the time.

 

What, in your opinion is " A well regulated militia?"

OK, I keep saying it, but I'll say it again. I'm just here to give the history lesson.

 

First off, I want to point out that "militia" is not "military." The militia was an informal "police force" for a city or town. Basically, if you were an able-bodied man of age, you would say "call me if you need me." For the most part, the members of the militia would just go about their daily lives. If something happened and they were needed, they would organize and do it. Each town would have someone appointed as the head of the militia, but like the rest of the militia, they only acted in that capacity if needed.

 

***This part is my speculation/interpretation***

The closest thing to a militia we have today is the Police. As the country grew and laws became more complicated, a militia wasn't enough. There needed to be a dedicated police force to enforce the law. The Founding Fathers did not anticipate this. The militia system was what they knew. Hence, the wording "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State," which today would read " *A well trained/equipped Police Force is necessary to the protection of a free State."

 

The motto of the Police is "To Protect and to Serve," and thats what the militia did. The Founding Fathers wanted to insure that the militias had the right "To Protect."

*** End of speculation/interpretation***

 

Well, I think that about does it... I don't know if that will help the thread or not, but hopefully it does. I believe that is the longest post I have ever made, by the way... seemed longer as I was writing it...

 

Thank you for this contribution, BL54 ~tk

[Web Rider]

Keep in mind that at the time of it's writing, warfare was pretty much a "my gunpowder rifle vs. your gunpowder rifle" scenario. Bullets, as we know them today, didn't even exist.

 

Of course, but the same basic rules apply, but this is also why I say "guns within reason". Just as today there is no need for a civilian to own an RPG, there was no need for a civilian to own a cannon back then.

 

I'm not quite sure I take your meaning. They didn't devise a system of gov't that necessitated them "holding our hands". They are generally referred to as "Framers" because they built the framework for our democracy, not every nuance. The three branches, working in conjunction with the will of the people and within the rules of the constitution, are free to make changes whenever they see fit (via Amendments). They themselves saw the need to make amendments not long after the constitution was ratified (there were 10 of them and that first collection of amendments is commonly known as The Bill of Rights).

 

Admittedly my sentence structure was off, but I essentially tried to say: They'd have done it the same way.

 

So they did leave it "vague" for us. We (the people) just stopped paying attention at some point.

 

Again, my 2 cents.

 

more precisely, IMO, we stopped taking responsibility for our actions, and thus now require everything to be laid out without any sort of holes or vagueness in it. If such wasn't the case, I'm pretty sure everyone would be quite satisfied with the 2nd amendment containing only it's original words.

[Nancy Allen``]

Or perhaps more accurately people used that vagueness to find loopholes that allowed them to own weapons that were overkill.

[Web Rider]

Or perhaps more accurately people used that vagueness to find loopholes that allowed them to own weapons that were overkill.

 

that is equally as entirely possible. People do generally desire power, and bigger weapons give them that.

[John Galt]

Or perhaps more accurately people used that vagueness to find loopholes that allowed them to own weapons that were overkill.

 

But what, exactly, constitutes overkill?

 

I don't think current gun laws, with their protectionist regulations and stupid loopholes (I'm specifically referring to the ones on semi-automatic rifles), provide a good, solid definition. Personally, I have nothing against people buying fully automatic rifles, albeit with a stringent background check and training. However only some of the current rules make sense, like not being able to be converted to fully-automatic, but others, like requiring 10 US-made "compliance parts" do not.

[Nancy Allen``]

Why might someone want such a weapon though? For what purpose?

[Web Rider]

But what, exactly, constitutes overkill?

 

I don't think current gun laws, with their protectionist regulations and stupid loopholes (I'm specifically referring to the ones on semi-automatic rifles), provide a good, solid definition. Personally, I have nothing against people buying fully automatic rifles, albeit with a stringent background check and training. However only some of the current rules make sense, like not being able to be converted to fully-automatic, but others, like requiring 10 US-made "compliance parts" do not.

 

 

It's all really personal opinion as to what is or isn't overkill. Personally, I just ask a short set of questions on the gun. Lets take a fully automatic assault rifle(what is it, like 30 shots a second or something?) and a high-powered sniper rifle(which is perfectly legal to buy fully functional.

 

What are they gonna use it for? Home defense? Whoever is attacking them better be the army, navy or marines, because if an assault rifle is somehow the idea home defense against a common burglar, we must have some crazyily powered burglar. And you can't defend your home with a sniper rifle. Are they gonna hunt with it? A sniper rifle? maybe, won't be much left of your kill, but it'd sure as hell be effective. An assault rifle? you'd miss your prey more oftehn then not, so it's not worth it.

 

Generally such weapons, even if a person is trained in them(which is why military personnel are allowed to have them) are going to be used for killing other people. Or possibly to look cool in your den, but you don't need a working gun for that now do you?

 

So I ask, if hunting with said gun would be a waste, and home defense with such guns are going to be ineffective or entirely excessive, WHY do you need to own an operational one?

[John Galt]

So I ask, if hunting with said gun would be a waste, and home defense with such guns are going to be ineffective or entirely excessive, WHY do you need to own an operational one?

 

That's why I specified "with license and training." I don't think someone would need to justify owning one, as long as they can afford it, get screened, and take some safety courses.

 

By the way, sniper rifles are really, really good for hunting. All a "sniper rifle" is is just an accurized normal rifle with a scope and maybe some other features. I think part of the problem is with nomenclature, such as the similarity of the technical military term "assault rifle" with the political misnomer "assault weapon."

 

As far as military rifles is concerned, I hunt with a WW2 issue Lee-Enfield, a bolt-action battle rifle, although that isn't its primary purpose.

[Web Rider]

That's why I specified "with license and training." I don't think someone would need to justify owning one, as long as they can afford it, get screened, and take some safety courses.

 

which is why I made note of the military exception to gun ownership. But such training, to the point where it's effective, is essentially running a person through boot camp. Theres no 2 week course that can adequately cover it.

 

By the way, sniper rifles are really, really good for hunting. All a "sniper rifle" is is just an accurized normal rifle with a scope and maybe some other features. I think part of the problem is with nomenclature, such as the similarity of the technical military term "assault rifle" with the political misnomer "assault weapon."

 

In regards to the sniper rifle, I know that, we have a few hunting rifles in our home, but specifically I was referring to a weapon I saw for sale at a local gun show. It was not advertised as the next best thing in hunting, it was advertised as an sniper rifle, and was really big, black, and shot bullets that could go through concrete. it was huge and excessively powerful. You had to sit down and put it on it's stand to effectively use it. You couldn't easily cart it around from hunt to hunt. My descriptions may be clunky at best, but sum it up to say: it wasn't a powerful hunting rifle with a scope.

 

I'm not sure what the official definitions for either are, but my general opinion and what I've learned of guns gives me the idea an "assault rifle" is any particularly high-powered gun that you don't have to sit down or mount on something(ie: can be hand-held, fired and carried) to shoot.

 

While an assault weapon, is anything(including the above, but going far beyond), used in any sort of primarily military battle function. From an assault rifle, to an RPG. Something you'd use for a battle, and not usually home defense, hunting, or other civilian purposes.

 

As far as military rifles is concerned, I hunt with a WW2 issue Lee-Enfield, a bolt-action battle rifle, although that isn't its primary purpose.

 

Of course, which is why I ask "is it good for hunting". Obviously some military weapons are good for that, but many of the bigger assault weapons are useless for hunting due to accuracy issues and rate of fire. You don't need 30 shots per second to hit your prey.

[Samuel Dravis]

which is why I made note of the military exception to gun ownership. But such training, to the point where it's effective, is essentially running a person through boot camp. Theres no 2 week course that can adequately cover it.

I don't think it's quite as bad as that. And even if it was, what if they're willing to go through (and pay for) the training?

 

Of course, which is why I ask "is it good for hunting". Obviously some military weapons are good for that, but many of the bigger assault weapons are useless for hunting due to accuracy issues and rate of fire. You don't need 30 shots per second to hit your prey.

You don't technically 'need' a lot of things that are fun to have (yes, bigger/more capable guns are fun to use). Single-shot rifles can be used instead of guns with small magazines. Why do I need to be able to fire 15 shots in a row without reloading? After all, I don't use it to hunt with (I can acquire food from the grocery store, killing without reason is wrong), I simply target shoot occasionally.

 

I think a better way to look at gun restriction is "at what point does it actually become dangerous for other people", not "what do you need to do X". Having a sniper rifle (like Web Rider describes) at a rifle range would be no more dangerous to others than a .22 bolt-action. Neither would a full-auto.

 

It seems to me that the issues people really have with guns is that they're dangerous - but only in the wrong hands. Few problems arise when someone is trained in the gun's use and is of non-homicidal inclinations. If someone wanted to have a full-auto for target shooting, why not? As long as the owner is careful - and we make sure that he is through training - no one else need be worried.

 

If you notice, most of the guns criminals use are not registered, so even training requirements wouldn't have much an effect on them. In fact, the only people getting the training would be the people who would least benefit from it... the non-insane variety of citizen. Of course, that's what happens already, so it's not much different from now.

 

recap:

 

I think people should be allowed to own guns

I do think there should be restrictions on gun ownership

I don't think those restrictions should be put in place on the basis of what someone thinks people 'need', but rather of actual danger presented.

[Web Rider]

I think a better way to look at gun restriction is "at what point does it actually become dangerous for other people", not "what do you need to do X". Having a sniper rifle (like Web Rider describes) at a rifle range would be no more dangerous to others than a .22 bolt-action. Neither would a full-auto.

 

 

Thats kind of a silly way to look at it. All guns are dangerous, even under the safest of conditions. If you guns are locked in a gunsafe, but fire burns through it, you better get the heck out of dodge.