Second Amendment

[OldWiseGuy]

You do realize this is circular reasoning, don't you? "We must own guns to guard against those who would deny our right to own guns."

You're getting close. We must defend our right to own guns to guard against those who would deny the right to own guns.

Tyranny takes more subtle forms today than it did back then, but it's the same tyranny.

 

[Washington]

If I don't have a consitutional right to possess a gun for protection and subsistence, then the state can create an arbitrary law to take a gun I may possess away from me, thereby leaving me defenseless and hungry. You are saying I have no constitutional remedy for this confiscation. Is that not what you are saying?

Well, I would think---I don't actually know for a fact--- that the state cannot make arbitrary laws that deprive someone of a right. I'm sure there has to be good justification for any law, and if such a law is found to be unjust it is then nullified.

Want to try to exist under the strictures of a law that make it extremely difficult to do so? Be my guest, but don't come whining to me about it. Want to live off the land where hunting and trapping is prohibited, then don't complain that's it's hard to get meat to eat. Just because you want to live a certain way does not mean the state is obligated to make sure you can.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You do realize this is circular reasoning, don't you? "We must own guns to guard against those who would deny our right to own guns."

What you said is actually true, but would be better phrased as:

"We must defend our right to own guns against those who would try to deny those rights."

owg-Defender of the Rights

(If you tyrants would leave us alone we wouldn't have to give so much money to the NRA. We could feed the hungry, clothe the nekked, etc. )

 

[gengwall]

stinking double post due to freakin' time stamp problem

 

[gengwall]

Well, I would think---I don't actually know for a fact--- that the state cannot make arbitrary laws that deprive someone of a right.

Since you claim it is a right that doesn't exist, the state would be depriving me of nothing. The state would, in fact, be exercising their constitutional perogative to prohibit any personal use of guns. Your position maintains that since the constitution only grants the right to keep and bear arms in a militial context, that any other use can be expressly and universally prohibited by the state, regardless of the consequences to the citizens. I call that arbitrary.

I would like to suggest to you that your position would be horrifying to the founders. I would suggest that you look more into the history behind the second amendment. You will find, in particular, that personal defense and collective defense were inextricably linked in the common law; that the presumption was that arms have this inherent dual use which can not be severed; and that the second amendment was never intended to separate personal and collective defense rights with the former being abolished and the latter being enshrined. Furthermore, I will predict that the SCOTUS will not only see this obvious connection and support it, but that they will do so quite adamantly.

Let me ask you one final question, since I think we are pretty much done. If my prediction is correct and the SCOTUS comes back with an opinion firmly establishing that the second amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for personal as well as collective use, will you change your opinion in line with the court or will you continue to beat the dead "collective right exculsively" horse?

 

[Washington]

Let me ask you one final question, since I think we are pretty much done. If my prediction is correct and the SCOTUS comes back with an opinion firmly establishing that the second amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for personal as well as collective use, will you change your opinion in line with the court or will you continue to beat the dead "collective right exculsively" horse?

As I have said many times, mostly on other web sites, the Constitution says whatever the court says it says. If the Supreme Court interprets the 2nd Amendment to stand without attaching any meaning or significance to the qualifying clause in question, then that's what the Constitution means, which would simpy amount to: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Period!

 

[gengwall]

As I have said many times, mostly on other web sites, the Constitution says whatever the court says it says. If the Supreme Court interprets the 2nd Amendment to stand without attaching any meaning or significance to the qualifying clause in question, then that's what the Constitution means, which would simpy amount to: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Period!

 

[Washington]

 

[HollandScotts]

I'm sorry, but the phrasing of the 2nd does not suggest "can be" but rather a "now be." The militia spoken of is not some future organization cobbled together when the need arises, but an organization that exists now.

Says who? Someone who thinks the founders would have been happy to see the American people disarrmed?

Really! Care to identify that threat? I've seen nothing on the news that says the state of the nation is under threat of tyranny.

If you went by just what you hear in the news, the military would be marching down your street before you heard anything of "tyranny" in the government from the boob tube.

And, as with any good militia, weapons such as hand guns or shot guns would not be considered as qualifying arms---the Army doesn't issue shotguns and hand guns as as ground combat weapons. So the "arms" would be pretty much limited to rifles, and only one such rifle at that. After all, as we all know very few armed service personnel carry more than one weapon. So, even if one did belong to a well regulated militia, anything more than one gun, most likely a rifle, would not be protected by the Amendment.

You've never heard of a combat shotgun? You've never seen a SWAT officer with a shotty? How about sidearms, most everyone in the military have em. How about the "bear arms", bit? You have no clue what you're talking about and that is about as stupid an arguement as I've seen yet. Find me a soldier that owns only one gun for themselves and plans to keep it that way. I know some soldiers, and they own more guns than I cound on my hands and toes.

You do realize this is circular reasoning, don't you? "We must own guns to guard against those who would deny our right to own guns."

That's not what he said at all. He said we have to own guns to gaurd against tyranny. Which is 100% true.

They went to the trouble to single out a specific reason under which one has a right to own a gun.

Given the fact that they used weapons for several other reasons, It's stupid to think that the only reason the founders believed people should have weapons is so they could band together in some paramilitary group in an emergency. It's just stupid.

The Constitution only says that under a specific circumstance gun ownership may NOT be infringed.

Lies! Complete Lies! It's explaining why the right to own weapons should never be infringed. It's so important, it's right after freedom and religion and speech.

However, I seriously doubt the Constitution says the state must accommodate each and every bad choice its constituents make.

So, being self sufficent is a bad choice, now? Not suprised you'ld hold such a rediculous opinion.

If I can only get by by robbing grocery stores, and the state interferes with my ability to do so, I have no right to blame the state for making it difficult for me to get by.

Self reliant people are now bank robbers? Sure. And liberal anti-gunners are freedom-hating facists.

Know what? I do realize that "back then, the militia were everyday citizens with guns. " Know something else? My entire argument doesn't break down. If you actually care what I think, you might want to try making an argument rather than relying on a conclusion to do your work for you. Believe it or not, I don't buy what people conclude simply because it happens to be their conclusion.

Alright, I'll draw you a picture. If "everyone" is the militia, then everyone has the right to own weapons should the need for the militia arise. There, very simple.

Gee, I can. How about perverting one of the Constitution's Amendments so to insure one's machismo is not put in jeopardy. Now, to me, THAT'S anti-American.

So, fighting to keep a right that the founders wouldn't have dreamed would have come under attack like it has is anti-America. This could only come from someone who thinks #2 of the Bill of Rights should just be put though the shredder. Just a "GD peice of paper", huh

 

[Phred]

You really should think about what the amendment means, not just what it says literally. Here's what it means:

"The citizenry at large must have the individual right to ownership and possession of weaponry so that if and when needed they can be assembled as the general militia and formed, or regulated, into an effective defense force."

You're right. However... please picture a company of men holding .38 specials. This is not an effective defense force. The concept of a militia has changed. We need men trained who can fly planes... men who can sail ships... men who can fire missiles. It is these men who are today's militia. They are called up and take their place with the regular forces during a time of war. We have also advanced to a point unthinkable 200 years ago but the homeland will not be invaded. Wars are conducted elsewhere. Defense has an entirely new meaning.

Pertinant facts:

The free State is always under threat of tyranny, even today. Those who say it isn't live in a world of delusion.

Yes, it is. Just ask George Bush who has taken us to the brink of tyranny. This, however, is not related to your commentary above about a militia nor is it related to the 2nd amendment.

Therefore the citizen militia is always necessary.

You do know what a gun is don't you? It's a target. When and if an uprising against a government occurs those with guns opposing it will be the first ones shot. Legally. It's a pretty dream to think of taking your little guns and changing the government but those men who are running the government have big guns and young men willing to use them. They've been trained to shoot people who are threats. A threat is defined as a man with a gun. YOU.

The keeping and bearing of weapons freely in their possession is therefore always necessary. No personally held weapons: no militia.

No militia no dreams of grandeur. You lost all right to do anything with your gun the day you allowed your politicians to pass the patriot act.

The founding fathers knew that there was the possibility of armed insurrection within the States themselves. They trusted that most would defend their freedoms against such an insurrection. With everyone armed the majority would certainly prevail, and freedom would be preserved. This is reason enough for the amendment. Remember it doesn't specify who or where the threat to freedom would come from. All the other amendments deal with tyranny from within. Therefore the second amendment should be viewed primarily the same.

Guns are tools. We as citizens have a right to the tools necessary to form a militia. We do not have a right to guns that kill kids on the street, or in high schools. There's a difference between a right and a privilege. I think many of us have gotten the two confused.

That you and others oppose this right reveals that the threat of tyranny from within still exists, and must be defended against. At this time we are fighting this battle in the courts, legislatures, and with our votes. I believe freedom, and good sense, will prevail.

owg-Freedom lovin' gun-toter.

Tyrranny? Look around you. Look to this president. You can be taken in the dead of night from your home, tortured and held without a warrant, without due process. Your assets can be seized and sold and all that has to take place for you to be called a terrorist. But you say, "it can't happen to me." You should be enraged yet all it takes for you to give up your rights is for you to be a little scared.

You talk big. You act small. Having a handgun is useless against a government eager to take away your rights. In fact, they want you to have that gun. It means you'll help them.

 

[Darkhorse]

The fact that guns are "small arms" does not make them insignificant in repelling an invasion:

when the Japanese were considering invading the U. S. mainland in WW II, one of the planners said "it would never work - there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass!"

Obviously he knew the importance of the Second Amendment!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You're right. However... please picture a company of men holding .38 specials. This is not an effective defense force. The concept of a militia has changed. We need men trained who can fly planes... men who can sail ships... men who can fire missiles. It is these men who are today's militia. They are called up and take their place with the regular forces during a time of war. We have also advanced to a point unthinkable 200 years ago but the homeland will not be invaded. Wars are conducted elsewhere. Defense has an entirely new meaning.


Yes, it is. Just ask George Bush who has taken us to the brink of tyranny. This, however, is not related to your commentary above about a militia nor is it related to the 2nd amendment.


You do know what a gun is don't you? It's a target. When and if an uprising against a government occurs those with guns opposing it will be the first ones shot. Legally. It's a pretty dream to think of taking your little guns and changing the government but those men who are running the government have big guns and young men willing to use them. They've been trained to shoot people who are threats. A threat is defined as a man with a gun. YOU.


No militia no dreams of grandeur. You lost all right to do anything with your gun the day you allowed your politicians to pass the patriot act.


Guns are tools. We as citizens have a right to the tools necessary to form a militia. We do not have a right to guns that kill kids on the street, or in high schools. There's a difference between a right and a privilege. I think many of us have gotten the two confused.


Tyrranny? Look around you. Look to this president. You can be taken in the dead of night from your home, tortured and held without a warrant, without due process. Your assets can be seized and sold and all that has to take place for you to be called a terrorist. But you say, "it can't happen to me." You should be enraged yet all it takes for you to give up your rights is for you to be a little scared.

You talk big. You act small. Having a handgun is useless against a government eager to take away your rights. In fact, they want you to have that gun. It means you'll help them.

Phred,

With all due respect, I think you are allowing your opposition to the Iraq war to affect your opinion on the 2nd Amendment. You are very angry.


We are engaged in the battle right now. Enemies of freedom are not going to confront an armed militia of any kind. Because they are cowards they will try to first disarm the citizenry through legislation and court decisions. After this is done they will then rob the honest, working people (the ones they've disarmed) of their hard-earned wealth through exorbitant taxation, distributing it to themselves and their lazy, good-for-nothng socialist friends.

The true 'militia' gathers at the polls regularly to defend the freedoms of this country while others seek to destroy it by the same means (often called the tyranny of the majority).

We (Wisconsin) are having a special election next week to elect a State Supreme Court Justice. I don't know anything about either candidate, but will vote for the one recommended as a supporter of the Second Amendment by the NRA (of which I am a member). Other
qualifications means little to me.

So, symbolically I will fall in with my rifle in hand to fight/vote for our freedom and the ability to defend all the other freedoms that we enjoy.

owg-Rifle toting, voting, patriot.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The fact that guns are "small arms" does not make them insignificant in repelling an invasion:

when the Japanese were considering invading the U. S. mainland in WW II, one of the planners said "it would never work - there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass!"

Obviously he knew the importance of the Second Amendment!

You got it. And there's more as well.

The really effective militia today could fall in with:

High quality firearms equipped with telescopic sights, and a good ammunition supply. Cold weather clothing, much of it in camoflage patterns. Long and short distance communication systems as well as GPS systems. Four wheel drive vehicles of all sorts as well as snowmobiles.

The militia is also thousands of military veterans with all ranks of experience. These 'prior service' personall would be invaluable in organizing and directing military/militia operations.

To think the militia would be a disorganized bunch of hooligans with guns is nonsense. It would immediately be an effective fighting force, fully equipped as rifleman/infantry, highly motivated, experienced, and willing to be 'regulated' by experienced personel.

owg