Second Amendment

[Washington]

Are you including accidental shootings and suicides?

My source didn't break them down, but I would guess those are included.

 

[gengwall]

no, I did mean globally not just in DC.... but I was just saying DC is an infringement. That's all.

Well, I would agree. But let me bring it back to "current interpretation". DC's law certainly relies on a predominantly collective right interpretation (although even it doesn't outlaw all non-militial use guns). It is quite exceptional, as the argument in the case and the SCOTUS acceptance of the case itself would indicate. Most other gun law is based on interpretation that I would say is actually individual right tilted. I think that is what the Gov lawyer was trying to protect - that current laws that recognize an individual right with reasonable regulation still remain in tact. Most (but not all) federal appealate court jurisprudence since Miller has tilted toward a collective right interpretation.

Bottom line is that neither interpretation can claim total victory to date (nor, do I believe, they will after Heller). So, I would say that current interpretation nationally is completely up in the air.

 

[Washington]

This has moral implications galore. Is it moral to defend oneself, especially through force? Is it moral to resist government through arms? Is it moral for government to deprive people of their means of defense? Is it moral for states to require collective defense from the population?

All of these issues are in play with the 2nd amendment.

Sorry I didn't notice your post first time through.

I fail to see where the morality of defending oneself is addressed in the second amendment; although, anything can probably be couched in terms of morality or ethics. But now that the thread is well on its way the issue is pretty moot.

 

[gengwall]

Back to morality. BTW - the wikipedia article, while disputed in some spots, is a wonderful resource for understanding the history that went into the 2nd amendment.

I think it is unquestionable that the founders considered gun ownership to be a moral issue. More to the point, they considered any attempt to disarm the citizenry as quite immoral. The revolution itself would have had no hope of succeeding if the citizenry had been disarmed. The founders knew the British history, especially involving the Scottish Highlanders, and knew that the confiscation of personal arms was a pretense to tyranny. It seems impossible to me that they would have not believed that gun ownership was an inalienable individual right with moral authority behind it.

 

[gengwall]

Sorry I didn't notice your post first time through.

I fail to see where the morality of defending oneself is addressed in the second amendment; although, anything can probably be couched in terms of morality or ethics. But now that the thread is well on its way the issue is pretty moot.

One of the great discussions in the argument before the court was if the 2nd amendment encompasses self defense.

 

[Washington]

One of the great discussions in the argument before the court was if the 2nd amendment encompasses self defense.

I don't doubt it a bit; however, as it now stands, if by "self defense" one means an isolated act of personal defense, then it fails to meet the requirement of the Amendment.

 

[gengwall]

I don't doubt it a bit; however, as it now stands, if by "self defense" one means an isolated act of personal defense, then it fails to meet the requirement of the Amendment.

Only if you view the amendment in strictly collective terms. I can assure you the court won't view it that way. If there are individual rights inherent in the amendment, then certainly "an isolated act of personal defense" is encompassed in those rights. In fact, Heller's attorney argued that an individual right to self defense was the predominant focus of the 2nd amendment.

 

[Meshavrischika]

Only if you view the amendment in strictly collective terms. I can assure you the court won't view it that way. If there are individual rights inherent in the amendment, then certainly "an isolated act of personal defense" is encompassed in those rights. In fact, Heller's attorney argued that an individual right to self defense was the predominant focus of the 2nd amendment.

ONE good thing Bush did...

 

[Washington]

Only if you view the amendment in strictly collective terms. I can assure you the court won't view it that way.

Sadly enough, I think you're right.

If there are individual rights inherent in the amendment, then certainly "an isolated act of personal defense" is encompassed in those rights.

Not when one considers the qualification the amendment sets forth: A "well regulated militia being necessary."

In fact, Heller's attorney argued that an individual right to self defense was the predominant focus of the 2nd amendment.

And O. J. Simpson's attorney argued he was innocent. What attornies argue pretty much amounts to squat.

 

[gengwall]

Not when one considers the qualification the amendment sets forth: A "well regulated militia being necessary."

If you view that as an exclusive qualification, which again, I believe the court is adverse to doing. Only Justice Stevens seemed to be keen on the militia being the exclusive purpose for the amendment.

And O. J. Simpson's attorney argued he was innocent. What attornies argue pretty much amounts to squat.

LOL - unless the court accepts your argument. Then it could amount to a great deal.

 

[Washington]

LOL - unless the court accepts your argument. Then it could amount to a great deal.

And acceptance is the big difference.

 

[Phred]

Amendment II
​

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.

I guess it's necessary to try and understand what that means in order to relate it to us today. When it was written the people of the United States had just fought and won a revolution against the greatest fighting force the world had ever known, the British Empire. The U.S. had fought against British regular troops and German mercenaries who would, as custom demanded, march up to the enemy lines, make ready... aim... and fire. The enemy was expected to stand there and either return fire at the same time, stand there and be good little targets or work feverishly to reload their own muskets or rifles.

The American forces were composed of a few regular troops but mostly of militia, what we today call "national guard". Troops who, for the most part, are not regular soldiers but men who were in the army because their country needed them. Militia was looked down upon because these men, no having been tested in battle, tended to take one volley from the enemy and run. They weren't very disciplined and were far from ideal when it came to compiling an army.

So what the amendment means is that since the United States didn't plan to keep a standing army large enough to defend its massive borders a militia was going to be "necessary to the security" of this country moving forward. And since the government wasn't going to keep armories full of muskets around they were going to make sure that individual men were able to keep muskets themselves.

This means that, since the government might have the need to sound the alarm and call up the militia at any time, it's necessary to our security for individuals to be able to keep and bear arms as are necessary to that militia. That "well-regulated militia".

So if you weren't going to grab it and come running when called it's really not your right to have it. You don't have a right to a .44 magnum or an Uzi. You have a right to the arms that the militia says you can have as part of its armament. And, if you aren't going to be a part of the militia, such as a criminal or a youth then you have no right to any arms whatsoever.

How the need for a self-armed militia turned into this belief in a "God-given" right to own any gun you want is beyond me. It says it right here:

Amendment II
​

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.​

​

 

[Washington]

Amendment II​

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.​

I guess it's necessary to try and understand what that means in order to relate it to us today. When it was written the people of the United States had just fought and won a revolution against the greatest fighting force the world had ever known, the British Empire. The U.S. had fought against British regular troops and German mercenaries who would, as custom demanded, march up to the enemy lines, make ready... aim... and fire. The enemy was expected to stand there and either return fire at the same time, stand there and be good little targets or work feverishly to reload their own muskets or rifles.​

The American forces were composed of a few regular troops but mostly of militia, what we today call "national guard". Troops who, for the most part, are not regular soldiers but men who were in the army because their country needed them. Militia was looked down upon because these men, no having been tested in battle, tended to take one volley from the enemy and run. They weren't very disciplined and were far from ideal when it came to compiling an army.​

So what the amendment means is that since the United States didn't plan to keep a standing army large enough to defend its massive borders a militia was going to be "necessary to the security" of this country moving forward. And since the government wasn't going to keep armories full of muskets around they were going to make sure that individual men were able to keep muskets themselves.​

This means that, since the government might have the need to sound the alarm and call up the militia at any time, it's necessary to our security for individuals to be able to keep and bear arms as are necessary to that militia. That "well-regulated militia".

So if you weren't going to grab it and come running when called it's really not your right to have it. You don't have a right to a .44 magnum or an Uzi. You have a right to the arms that the militia says you can have as part of its armament. And, if you aren't going to be a part of the militia, such as a criminal or a youth then you have no right to any arms whatsoever.​

How the need for a self-armed militia turned into this belief in a "God-given" right to own any gun you want is beyond me. It says it right here:​

Amendment II​

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.​

I agree. The only reason for establishing the 2nd Amendment was to insure the construction of needed militias. Now that such a need no longer exists neither does the need for the second amendment. As far as I'm concerned it could be repealed.

 

[gengwall]

Amendment II
​

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.

I guess it's necessary to try and understand what that means in order to relate it to us today. When it was written the people of the United States had just fought and won a revolution against the greatest fighting force the world had ever known, the British Empire. The U.S. had fought against British regular troops and German mercenaries who would, as custom demanded, march up to the enemy lines, make ready... aim... and fire. The enemy was expected to stand there and either return fire at the same time, stand there and be good little targets or work feverishly to reload their own muskets or rifles.

The American forces were composed of a few regular troops but mostly of militia, what we today call "national guard". Troops who, for the most part, are not regular soldiers but men who were in the army because their country needed them. Militia was looked down upon because these men, no having been tested in battle, tended to take one volley from the enemy and run. They weren't very disciplined and were far from ideal when it came to compiling an army.

So what the amendment means is that since the United States didn't plan to keep a standing army large enough to defend its massive borders a militia was going to be "necessary to the security" of this country moving forward. And since the government wasn't going to keep armories full of muskets around they were going to make sure that individual men were able to keep muskets themselves.

This means that, since the government might have the need to sound the alarm and call up the militia at any time, it's necessary to our security for individuals to be able to keep and bear arms as are necessary to that militia. That "well-regulated militia".

So if you weren't going to grab it and come running when called it's really not your right to have it. You don't have a right to a .44 magnum or an Uzi. You have a right to the arms that the militia says you can have as part of its armament. And, if you aren't going to be a part of the militia, such as a criminal or a youth then you have no right to any arms whatsoever.

How the need for a self-armed militia turned into this belief in a "God-given" right to own any gun you want is beyond me. It says it right here:

Amendment II
​

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.​

​

So, then, do you propose that the founders saw no other purpose for the keeping of arms other than to fight in the militia and therefore "the people" have no right to arms for any personal use?

 

[Darkhorse]

Keep in mind that the National Guard didn't even exist until 1903, and then it was created to replace the citizen-militias which had largely become disorganized and were fading away.

Then, in the late 1950s the confrontation in Little Rock between state militiamen and federal troops resulted in the National Guard becoming subserviant to the President, and therefore useless as a "counter-military" to balance the federal army. It could maintain order during riots and disasters, but its ability to function as the type of "militia" intended by the founding fathers was gone.

So we (the citizens), with our individual guns, remain the only civilian deterrant to both tyranny and invasion, as well as the best-qualified guardians of our own safety.

 

[FadingWhispers3]

Whether or not it was intended to do so, the Second Amendment provides a very important role. It is true that because of the change in times, we have the military to deal with foreign threats. However, the chief benefit I see to the Second Amendment is that it is a safeguard for the Constitution and the other Rights.

It also serves as a warning sign. Despotic rulers use many tools and among them is the control of arms. They must ensure that their arms are always more plentiful and superior than that of citizens who value their freedom. Arms keeps government honest when all else fails.

There are legitimate reasons for someone to give up guns, such as pacifism, or some possibly reasonable reasons to restrict other people from obtaining types of guns, such as to make inner city violence more difficult...but it must be noted that guns provide a measure of autonomy.

Secondary benefits are for personal protection. The police cannot be everywhere (and there are some who shudder if that were possible) and so it is sometimes of use to even the odds. A gun doesn't even have to be loaded. The threat of it is often enough to protect a physically weaker or discriminated minority.

Also we must note that banning certain arms or banning certain arms from certain areas does not seem to be all that effective. There are lots of things with which bans are of little use. The prohibition on alcohol only served to enrich bootleggers. If honest citizens were prevented from obtaining arms, yet dishonest or irrational citizens have no qualms against doing so, then we have put honest citizens at the mercy of malicious ones. And any government that has enough power to ensure that no one ever obtains arms illegally also has too much power. For who shall guard the guards?

If we believe there are not enough honest citizens that a revoking of the Second Amendment is necessary, then by extension, neither are there enough honest politicians or authorities who might enforce such. Or do we believe politicians or other people of power are more honest than citizens on average?

There are many powers which influence. Arms, money, and information among them. With the Second Amendment, we have equality of arms. With capitalism we have equality of money. And with freedom of press and transparent government, we have equality of information.

If ever we find that the balance of power shifts away from all individuals in arms, money, or information to selected groups, then it can be said that the end is near. For a fox always tells chickens that he is keeping them for their benefit.

 

[Washington]

So, then, do you propose that the founders saw no other purpose for the keeping of arms other than to fight in the militia and therefore "the people" have no right to arms for any personal use?

It appears Phred has left the building, so in his stead allow me to retort (love that Samuel S. Jackson phrase).

Of course there were other purposes for firearms at the time, hunting and protection from possibly hostile Indians to name two. But while these purposes were well grounded there existed a universal need that exceeded that of mere individual concerns: the very survival of the state and Nation itself. And it was to meet such an objective that the 2nd Amendment was drafted. And for no other reason. And we know it was for no other reason because once reason(s) are enumerated they define the scope of their subject---particularly where laws are concerned. If three reasons are given then those and only those reasons validate the subject. Same with a single reason. The scope of the right to bear arms is limited to single reason: to form a "regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state."

 

[Autumnleaf]

With every branch of the military, and Federal and local police at the whim of the government, the militia which has the capacity to defend against tyranny imposed from the government is individually armed citizens. To take away or infringe upon their right to bear arms goes against the second amendmet. The gun ban in Washington DC, heart of the US government, is exactly what the second amendment was written to prevent. We'll see what happens...

 

[Foolish_Fool]

So we (the citizens), with our individual guns, remain the only civilian deterrant to both tyranny and invasion, as well as the best-qualified guardians of our own safety.

Which ultimately amounts to jack squat. It's like using swords to repel the British fleet. Unless you have some explosives and high powered weapons you'll never put up any meaningful resistance. A perfect example is the Iraq insurgency. Our army isn't worried so much about their guns as their explosives. If we ever are invaded or have to fight the government using a gun now will do little more than get you killed.

 

[HollandScotts]

Arms is short for armaments, which is virtually any kind of weapon used in war. Everything from cannons to explosives to guns to tanks and beyond.

They only had cannons. And they called them cannons. "Arms" in the 2nd Amendment is talking of guns capable of being carried by a person.

They do both; however, I believe the number of lives they save is far exceed by the number of deaths they produce. In 2005 there were about 8,000 handgun homicides in the US. Homicides by other types of guns accounted for about 3,000 more. So, all together in 2005 about 11,000 people died in the USA because of guns. And, of course there are the many who were shot but managed to survive.

And how many crimes were stopped just by the presence of a gun? I live in rural Texas, it assumed you own several guns around here. Can't remmber the last break-in, murder or rape we had. It's assumed that the other guy is just as well armed as you are, and the crime you're probably going to die commiting, isn't a crime worth commiting.

No, because I don't believe any of the gun owners met the requirements for that right.

The DC ban was effectively a complete ban on functioning weapons. If that's not an infringement, nothing is.

And it is, as long as a person is part of a "A well regulated Militia, formed because it is necessary to the security of a free State." Meet those qualifications and a Happy Gun Ownership, to you.

That clause isn't meant to be a qualifier for owning guns, it's meant to explain why the right for people to own weapons is a conerstone of our society and why it should never be deprived.

There was no standing army, and the militia was anyone with a gun, just as it had been in the revolution. The "well regulated" coming into play only when the militia was called up into service. The defence of yourself, and of the nation, rested with the average citizen, just as victory in the revolution rested with every citizen.

It is stupid to think that the only reason they allowed people the right to bear arms was for a state run militia that in no way even fits the definition of the word as it was known when the 2nd Amendment was written. Just is it is stupid to think that the right to bear arms wasn't as important a freedom as it gets, right after they just got finished fighting the revolution.

I don't doubt it a bit; however, as it now stands, if by "self defense" one means an isolated act of personal defense, then it fails to meet the requirement of the Amendment.

There are no "requirements" for the 2nd Amendment, just as there aren't any for the 1st, or any of the others. You're sick if you think the founders didn't intend for self defence to be an natural right. Perhaps they didn't think people would so dumb as to actually suggest one does not have the right to defend themselves from aggression, maybe that's why they didn't spell it out.

ONE good thing Bush did...

What? Um, they government laywer is working under Bush, trying to undermine the 2nd Amendment. Bush is a villian in this case.

Not when one considers the qualification the amendment sets forth: A "well regulated militia being necessary."

Explaination, not qualification.

So if you weren't going to grab it and come running when called it's really not your right to have it. You don't have a right to a .44 magnum or an Uzi. You have a right to the arms that the militia says you can have as part of its armament. And, if you aren't going to be a part of the militia, such as a criminal or a youth then you have no right to any arms whatsoever.

The "militia", in it's original sense, is the people. The NG is the modern equivilent to the militia, but I guarantee you the founders would not have seen an assembled army under the control of the state, that can be controled by the fed under the right circumstances as sufficient justification to deny people their God-given right to self defence, or limiting that defence to a freaking musket, or whatever our corrupt government would like to see us have.

The 2nd grants the people a broad right to own weapons, own modern weapons, and own weapons on par with the stuff our standing army carries to this day. Your view of the 2nd is about as Constitutional as "free speech zones". That's what you get when you allow the fed to regulate the bounderies of the rights they don't have any business messing with. You get no bounderies. You get whatever the government wants you to have. And that's tyranny.

I said before, say it again. You have to be sick if you think the people who just got done overthrowing one government would have completely neutered their ability to overthrow the next one. They said as much themselves. And the only way you allow for the people to overthrow the government is to allow them to own weapons. DUH!

I agree. The only reason for establishing the 2nd Amendment was to insure the construction of needed militias. Now that such a need no longer exists neither does the need for the second amendment. As far as I'm concerned it could be repealed.

Not without a civil war.

If three reasons are given then those and only those reasons validate the subject. Same with a single reason. The scope of the right to bear arms is limited to single reason: to form a "regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state."

It they wanted to limited the scope of owning firearms, they would have said as much. Notice the free state part. Do you really think the founders would consider a state that deprives it's citizens the right to life and liberty to be free?

As I've said, it's a concise, simple explaination of why the right to bear arms should never be infringed. But then again, back then, people had this thing called "reading comprehension".

Which ultimately amounts to jack squat. It's like using swords to repel the British fleet. Unless you have some explosives and high powered weapons you'll never put up any meaningful resistance. A perfect example is the Iraq insurgency. Our army isn't worried so much about their guns as their explosives. If we ever are invaded or have to fight the government using a gun now will do little more than get you killed.

Maybe if it's just you fighting the government. Our population is about 150 times that of the military and NG. And what about Vietnam. Sure, they never won a battle, but that didn't stop them from winning.