Will the Second Amendment survive?
 

The Supreme Court will finally hear a case regarding the Second Amendment and it's applications. Mainly, does it enumerate a collective right or an individual right?

Linky

Please paste the text. Those of us who don't subscribe to the WSJ only get a paragraph and a 1/2.

A couple of points should be raised for those who haven't studied the matter. One, it is difficult to imagine how to exercise the collective right without also exercising the individual right, especially since the militia sections of the USC, USC Title 10 Secs. 310-311, and the texts of the precedent Militia Acts, presume the militia would do any shooting with arms privately owned by the citizens; and two, scholars acknowledge the Amendment acknowledges an individual, not a collective, right and the language admits of no other accurate interpretation. Some might misread the opening dependent clause, but it in no way modifies or restricts "the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." [Comma as in original phrasing, the overpunctuation has excited comment for some time.]

classicman, I apologise. I know better than that.

Try here or here or here

So what, we're just supposed to ignore the first half of the amendment? Why would they have even brought up the militia if that wasn't to imply the reason behind the right to bear arms?

Here are a few questions for you...
Do you honestly believe that an unfunded, untrained people's militia could stand against any organized modern military? Times have changed and our militaries have gotten fantastic at killing.
Do you honestly believe that the reason people want to keep their guns is to form a militia? Chances are, they just like hunting or shooting people who are different colors than they are.
Do you really believe that the penmen of the constitution would throw in the first half of that amendment if they didn't mean to imply that weapons should be allowed for use in a well regulated militia?

I am not for abolishing firearms, but I am for regulating their use. I don't believe carry or concealed permits should be allowed unless you're a cop(because let's face it, if you're fighting some kind of geurilla war, you're not going to follow the laws at that point... so carry away!). I most definitely don't believe there's any reason someone needs a freaking arsenal in their basement.

http://www.demopolislive.com/gallery..._bear_arms.jpg

And I don't believe I should pay for you to go to college in Hawaii.
But, you say, that was the deal... you can't change the rules.

You want to change the rules on me though.

Resorting to hyperbole blows your arguments for me. Plural because you've done it before, on the same topic.

[quote=queequeger;412552]
Do you honestly believe that an unfunded, untrained people's militia could stand against any organized modern military?

Not toe to toe, I got to tell ya though...an unfunded, untrained people's militia is doing a pretty good job of harassing an organized modern military in a few countries around the world.

That is the point of the second amendment. It stems from a group of people who harassed, and eventually overcame the best military power of the day.

So, no I don't think the penmen would throw that in unless they really meant that it was necessary to the security of a free State. I think they knew exactly what they were doing, and why.

Not recommended for the security of a free state, but necessary.

No matter how you slice the second amendment up and look at it, I think it will stand.

I think the arguments about the second amendment are a distraction from more important issues.

As I read it the second amendment is intended to create a balance of power between the government and the general population. As Queequeger points out, lightly armed militia could not realistically fight the US military in anything except guerrilla warfare. If the US government were to slide into a dictatorship, a guerrilla campaign would merely give them the excuse to be even more tyrannical.

Looking back at US history, it seems to me that the citizens are more able to struggle against the government through non-violent political protests and activism (eg civil rights, anti-war movements). These are based on freedom of expression, freedom of association, access to information, and a certain amount of privacy from the government. These rights are more important than guns. They should be protected. It seems to me that they are being whittled down, especially the right to access information about government, and privacy for the citizens.

Keep your guns if you like, but they won't do you much good if the government knows more about you than you know about it. But while you're busy arguing about the guns, what else is the government quietly doing behind the scenes?

Well, you could start with title 36 of the United States Code. That doesn't get much air time if any.

Could you be more specific, Rjoe?

Nope. :headshake :D I'm really just being a smart ass. The "government" is doing lots of things behind the scenes.

For instance as of 3 Jan 2005:

CHAPTER 307--BOARD FOR FUNDAMENTAL EDUCATION

Sec. 30702. Purpose

The purpose of the corporation is to foster the development of
fundamental education through programs and projects such as--
(1) giving citizens (children, youth, and adults) an opportunity
to acquire the understandings and skills necessary to relate the
resources of the community to the needs and interests of the
community;
(2) demonstrating programs of fundamental education and
measuring results; and
(3) training men and women as leaders in fundamental education
by providing internships and other experiences.

which has nothing to do with the second amendment.

But then there is:

SUBCHAPTER II--CIVILIAN MARKSMANSHIP PROGRAM

Sec. 40722. Functions

The functions of the Civilian Marksmanship Program are--
(1) to instruct citizens of the United States in marksmanship;
(2) to promote practice and safety in the use of firearms;
(3) to conduct competitions in the use of firearms and to award
trophies, prizes, badges, and other insignia to competitors;
(4) to secure and account for firearms, ammunition, and other
equipment for which the corporation is responsible;
(5) to issue, loan, or sell firearms, ammunition, repair parts,
and other supplies under sections 40731 and 40732 of this title; and
(6) to procure necessary supplies and services to carry out the
Program.

...which might have something to do with the second amendment.

A program which was mandated by Congress in 1903 called The National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice, and is now called the Civilian Marksmanship Program.

We have a very long history, tradition and culture which begins with the second amendment and is carried along by Congress throughout our national history. There are enough people who identify with this tradition and culture to keep the second amendment right where it is.

I don't get your point. Do you mean you don't think I should get the GI bill or... Could you elaborate?

And Jinx, I know! I've been slipping into those kinds of things, and it shouldn't have played any part in my post there. My apologies. Care to ignore it?

And all said and done, regardless of what I or others believe, there's no chance of a constitutional amendment nixing the 2nd amendment (at least not in our lifetime).

Agreed, there is no chance this will be overturnned, not by this court anyway. But it does not mean that Congress will not do it's dammdest to legislate changes to gun control that will attempt to ban guns anyway. And then we will be right back to the SCJ to overturn it again.

I think we should actually expand the second amendment, because I believe the new "arms" is actually technologically based advances, and everything they get we should be allowed to have.

Just a thought.

And a rather interestingly subversive thought.

Personally I'd draw the line at private nuclear weapons. It's so very difficult to use nuclear weapons as designed and intended in a moral way. It's a lot easier with something a little less comprehensive. Like a B-25. :D

Now Queequeger, your opinions about arms in society are opinions I do not share -- because I have studied the matter. I used to agree with many of them, but then I actually started getting informed, and enlightenment followed. I'm pro-gun, and I'm really, genuinely, effectually antigenocide. If you're not pro-gun, you're not really antigenocide in any measurable way.

I recommend Stephen Halbrook's That Every Man Be Armed: the Evolution of a Constitutional Right for an education in the fundamentals. It's not only knowledgeable and comprehensive, it's very readable -- a classic in the field. It is also quite true, and never been refuted, that a society full of arms is a society that does not suffer genocide, whilst those societies that disarmed do. To make genocide possible, you prohibit armed self-defense by law. Such law may take many forms, but the most effective one is to forbid private guns. So you can see what the reverse situation results in: crime both retail and industrial-scale can be effectually resisted, and in the opposing, ended, to paraphrase Hamlet. This is too important to be left solely to officialdom, and it doesn't work very well if it is. Generalized, armed resistance to crime and oppression cleans up whole towns, and fast. Clean virtuous communities do more for mankind than all the hoplophobia in the world ever did. Ask Spexxvet what happened to him when he tried to convert the freedom-people on this board to his brand of hoplophobia, that the poor schmoe thought was so virtuous. It makes... instructive reading. It was a bit before your time. Search up the thread If You Own A Gun, or Do You Own etc., IIRC.

Thus saith the JPFO, and their argument has not been refuted, despite plenty of time to research since 1991, when the theory was propounded.

Here being an example of misreading -- now mostly adhered to by non-gun people on the Left with no education in arms. That clause in the sentence does not and cannot restrict the rest of the Amendment. The Framers brought up the Militia as a national reason and a national security interest for not infringing on the right of the People to keep and bear arms. By no means was this the sole reason, merely the one they thought might be of greatest national interest. Subsequent Militia Acts -- say, the Militia Act of 1792 -- for some time specified in their texts what sort of armament the militia should bear to be at least minimally equipped sufficient for fighting.

A citizen's militia powers are nowadays primarily exerted in police matters, and depriving the citizen of these powers only empowers crime -- and that's at the best.

Thanks Urbane!
But I was thinking more along the lines of software and hardware. The new "arms".
Yea...I'm a kook.
:)

Thank you. I'm sure I'll get over it...

Hmm. Yes. Might you expand on this some more? Got some notions of what shape it might take?

[Little-Man-from-the-Draft-Board voice]"We-ell -- I wouldn't say that." [/voice]

You have more of an idea than some around here do of what it takes to keep and sustain liberty, and secure the economy from depradations. Criminal assaults and disrespect of property rights amount to leaks in the pipeline of economics.

The first part of the Second Amendment suggests to me that some form of obligation to the State exists for people who own firearms. I am not sure what that obligation might be. Maybe the owners of those firearms can be required to join a well-regulated militia on request. Maybe they are required to surrender them on demand to the police (who are themselves a well-regulated militia) when needed to assist with the apprehension of criminals.

Whatever the exact obligations are, in my opinion too much emphasis has been placed on the second part of the amendment (the rights conferred by the amendment) and too little has been paid to the first part (the obligations that go with the rights).

There are no "collective" rights and our rights don't come from the Constitution. We are BORN with an individual right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Having the right to life, means we have the right to defend that life by any means necessary as long as it does not infringe on the equal rights or property of others.

We are BORN with the right to own any number of any type of weapon and ammunition we choose without limits. The 2nd amendment was created just to protect that individual right.

If the supreme court rules against this private right, it is also our right to alter or abolish this illegitimate government...aka OVERTHROW.

The 2nd amendment mentions militias as one of the reasons that THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

The question is irrelevant. Our rights don't come from government and whether or not we'd stand a chance against the military is irrelevant when our rights are concerned. Also, yes millions of armed Americans can defeat a couple of hundred thousands military members.

Where do you think military technology is developed? The private sector. Anything they have, we can have too.


It doesn't matter WHY someone wants to keep and bear arms as long as they don't use them to violate the rights of others. Merely owning guns doesn't endanger anyone or infringe upon their rights; nor does using them to defend your person, property, or rights. If someone wants to buy a gun to prop up a wobbly leg on his table, no other person or group of people have any say in the matter regardless of their number.

The founders mentioned militias as one of the reasons that the individual people of America will have their right to keep and bear arms from being infringed. The mention of militias in that amendment means no more and no less than that. Militias are the reason we have a country in the first place. Without them we'd still be under British rule.

In other words, you think YOU know better than someone else, how they should protect themselves, their loved ones, and their property, and you think you have some magical power to tell them how they will or won't exercise that right for themselves.

You don't believe in carry permits because you don't know the meaning of rights, and clearly don't know that in 100% of the states that have made carry permits easy to obtain, crime has dropped dramatically.

http://rexcurry.net/gunhitler.bmp

The obligation (or duty) in question is to defend Americans even against the American government if necessary.

Well said, Radar.

And anyone familiar with the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership will recognize their logo on the Hitler pic there.

Those people can and will convince you that selective-fire rifles ought to be over every fireplace. Or in suitable home firearms safes. They are... impressive. That's the word.

Just like what is happening in Iraq. The whole lot of guns they got over there is really preventing genocide, isn't it?

Also, to really have self-defense, every person should have a pocket nuke. And I mean every person.

Sure is. Ask the genocide victims, such as, oh, the Kurds... quite well armed, and not getting problems of late.

Deadbeater, nobody can beat me on the antigenocide argument. It's been tried, but the arguments-against simply aren't good enough.

And I suppose the Sunni and the Shia were unarmed?

You may be an 'expert', but you are not an expert in manipulating me. We'll see how can their arms protect the Kurds from a Turkish onslaught. The Turks will deny what they will do in the name of the fighting the PKK is genocide.

That's good; I'm not manipulating. I am simply knowledgeable. What I am not here to do is steer you off the path of virtue.

If you're really, measurably, palpably antigenocide, you are pro-gun. Lots of them and ergonomically shaped and efficient, too. Until you are firmly pro-gun, no antigenocide philosopher would take you seriously as being yourself antigenocide.

In Iraq, American soldiers went door-to-door kicking them in and took all weapons they could find. Now the Iraqi people are all easy victims of insurgents. The same thing happened in Nazi Germany but the Nazis had gun registration to help them out so they'd know which homes had guns.

If they had weapons, things would most likely be a lot more stable and peaceful in Iraq.

You know the old saying, "If everyone's got a gun, people are more polite".

The indisputable fact remains that individuals have a right to keep and bear arms and this right didn't come from government. We were born with this right. No person or group of people, regardless of their number or what they call themselves (including government) has any legitimate right or authority to infringe upon this or any of our other individual rights.

Were people born with that "right" before the gun was invented too? just askin.

Yes, they were. People were born with the right to use any weapon that they can honestly acquire for DEFENSE. This is true whether the weapons of the time are bows & arrows, guns, or death ray guns in the future.

excellent answer, thanks.

"Gun -- sword -- we all die the same way." --Red Sun

it's such a shame people have to have a gun to feel free.

it's such a shame people have to have a gun to feel safe.

it's such a shame UG thinks he's a great philosopher on the virtues of guns and it's a shame that he thinks people have to be pro gun to be anti genocide. That is just the most stupid thing I've seen on this place all day.

It's a shame when some people think that the freedom of others is a shame.

It's a shame when some people think they know better than others how they should exercise freedom.

It's a shame when people are so naive they think bad people will suddenly stop having guns if good people are prevented from exercising their right to own them.

It's a shame when anti-gun/anti-rights people don't realize that they are safer because of pro-gun/pro-freedom people.

It's a shame when anti-gun people give people a death sentence by infringing on their right to keep and carry guns. For instance Sean Taylor of the Washington Redskins was told he could not have a gun for his own protection after using a gun to defend his property earlier. When criminals broke into his house, he had only a machete to defend himself and was killed by guns. If he had a gun, he would have probably scared them away and would still be alive. Several women have died because they were sentenced to death by a 3 day waiting period so they couldn't get a gun to protect them from stalkers and didn't have enough evidence to be put in protective custody.

Sadly, Aliantha doesn't live in a free country so she doesn't understand such concepts. The people of Australia and the nations who didn't break away from the British Empire on their own like America, are used to being "subjects" rather than citizens.

A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject because he is subject to whatever control the people with the guns (government) tell him to do. These subjects can have their earnings, property, and even their lives taken from them and have no recourse or way to prevent it.

When fighting the government, the only difference between a man with a gun and a man without one, is that the man with a gun goes down shooting.

Australia is a member of the Commonwealth. We are a nation in our own right and we legislate ourselves.

We are a free country. We just define freedom in terms other than whether or not we can walk down the street carrying a gun.

I see nothing wrong with our ties to the UK. More than half of the citizens of Australia have family still living there or are less than one generation removed. Rather I am proud of the fact that my country could evolve without the need to go to war to prove we had earned it.

Just kiss the Queens ass until she cuts you loose. Slackers.

No, Aliantha; there is no shame in this, and I am a philosopher if I am nothing else. Human history proves beyond any reasonable doubt that mine is the correct view, and the correct view would be the one taken by intelligent people. We cannot see eye to eye on this until you undergo some sort of epiphany. For your sake I pray it will not be traumatic. After all, I did not have to be traumatized to get it. The same road is open to you.

Correct does not necessarily mean "nice" or "pleasant." There is sorrow in this correctness. But it's the people who don't expect the genocide that get devoured by it. Genocides ambush populations; always they begin in deception, in concealment.

History tells us, well, what can be summed up in very few words: People Ruin Everything. There are times when mankind is not kind at all, but behaves like a monster. If you do not wish nor deserve to be devoured by monsters, just what do you do? It seems your choices would be essentially three: die, flee, or prevail over them regardless of anything.

I like option three.

Freedom is never a thing of shame, therefore killing tools used as instruments of freedom are not things of shame either, but are instead ennobled.

It is rather a pity that you got so worked up by your misunderstanding of what is good and moral that you forgot to capitalize, if you're looking around for things of shame.

[Edit] I would go so far as to add, Aliantha, that there is no argument you could make that would carry the day for your point of view -- not against those who understand crime and genocide, how genocides begin, on what groundwork, and how vulnerable the genocidal groundwork is to being undone by eliminating one of its three preconditions: that of disarmament by law or in fact. Discountenance that, and genocide stops, or at the very least becomes so immensely difficult that it may instead consume the ones who start it. And where's the big loss in that, I ask you?

UG, if my country is ever in a state where genocide is likely, then yeah I'd arm myself just like the kurds did, and the people of Rwanda...and and and... Guns did them no good, although I'm sure they were glad they went down fighting.

I'm not entering into the gun debate. I was interested in your new path about genocide UG. I think the statement you made is stupid and there's no argument you could possibly put forth which would change my view on it. To suggest that simply because someone doesn't believe one needs to carry a gun when they go to pick up their kids from school means they're pro genocide is pure lunacy. You've lost the plot mate.

When you have to create an outrageous and bizarre narrative to support your point of view, that's not critical thinking.

I haven't read all the threads on this subject but another shooting in another mall doesn't seem to bother too many Americans who seem to think it acceptable as long as they maintain the right to bear arms.

Now, it's strange to me that not one of the eight people who unfortunately died in Omaha, Nebraska returned fire. They had the right to bear arms but obviously weren't carrying. Or does it mean one has the right to bear arms as long as they are confined to the house. In which case, as soon as arms are taken from a house, is a crime being committed?

Sorry, but my conception of the 2nd amendment is the thought by Americans that they act in a more responsible manner and can bear arns whereas people in any other democratic country cannot and that obviously isn't so. Every American knows that next week it will be repeated somewhere else.

Now I know this happens in Canada too and lifestyles are similiar. But Canadians do not have such sweeping powers to bear arms and consequently the pro rata murder rate is much lower. Doesn't that say something?

Furthermore the media encourages the use of arms by not questioning the rights and wrongs of the 2nd amendment. Why? Could it be that the owners of these media and news outlets are all in favour of it as they see themselves as prime targets because of their perceived wealth?

I don't have any answers but conversely I don't believe sufficient Americans ask the right questions.

I'm not sure what you would call me in this debate. I personally own a 7MM Magnum hunting rifle. I have stored in my house almost 1000 rounds of 5.56 match ammunition. I do not advocate a ban on all guns. I do think it is imperative that there is a large pool of well trained, educated marksman within the US population. Hell, every houshold in Iraq is allowed to own an AK-47. Trust me, that is not the problem in Iraq. The presence of US troops in Iraq exacerbates the problem, they being there are not the real problem. The problem in Iraq is selfishness and self seeking. On many levels.

There are letters written as a historical record from The Congress directly following the ratification of the Constitution. The gist of one of these letters is that the ratification process was long and difficult. That every state had to give something up to become a part of the whole. It had to become an unselfish project. The questions had to be what would be best for the greater, and long term good.

In the debate on guns, the real question is what is best for the greater good? I obviously don't have all the answers on this question. I'm not sure if any one person does. I do appreciate well reasoned, even passionate debate.

Aliantha, Australia is a fine place, if I were a single man....lol. I digress, our histories are different.

I have one question to Regular Joe.

Why do you need 1000 rounds of ammo? Wouldn't 100 be sufficient? Or do you believe there are at least 1000 animals in the vacinity for you to kill?

Target shooting maybe?

I guess it's a good thing I didn't create an outrageous and bizarre narrative and merely made a statement of fact.

The rate of violent crimes in general is higher in nations that prohibit gun ownership, including Canada, Australia, and the UK.

I can easily shoot 80 to 100 rounds in about 1/2 a day on the range, practicing for a rifle match. 10 days worth of shooting is not much really. Don't worry, I only use one target.

Radar, have you been to Iraq?

Another shooting in another mall, is why we should ban guns?

There was another death on the highway somewhere in the U.S. up to 40,000 a year...every year. We are not banning cars anytime soon.

Guns serve a purpose, cars serve a purpose. Right now, those purposes outweigh the need to ban either one.

One does not need to go to Iraq to know what is happening there and what has happened in the past. That is the beauty of modern technology and communication methods.

Luckily I finished my time in the military before the first gulf war and were I still in and ordered to go to Iraq now, I'd refuse that unlawful order because I took my oath seriously.

Radar, can you provide some evidence for this claim?

Wikipedia offers the following list of murder rates per 100,000 people (most recent data):

USA: 5.9
UK: 2.03
Canada: 2.01
Australia: 1.28

You're MUCH more likely to be murdered if you live in the US than one of the other countries you claim have higher levels of violent crime.

Meanwhile this site (NationMaster, they say their figures come from the CIA world factbook) gives figures for assaults per 1,000:
US: 7.569
UK: 7.459
Canada: 7.118
Australia: 7.024

Which are more pretty much the same. What this says to me is that these cultures are about equally violent, but in the US the violence is more likely to lead to death.

This site also gives the figures for robberies per 1,000 (which combine violence with property crime)

UK: 1.574
USA: 1.385
Australia: 1.160
Canada: 0.823

Ok, second out of four, but first for assaults and clear first in murders. I suspect that this is simply because it is so much easier for an assault to become a murder when one or both parties have guns.
Maybe this is the price the USA chooses to pay in exchange for the benefits of an armed populace, and that is the decision of those who live there, that is, you and not me.
But you will be more persuasive if you can keep your facts correct and refrain from disparaging other countries.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/192016.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle568214.ece

Wait, I'm not an American but I thought the 2nd Ammendment says right to bear arms and militia meant: ( and here's my gap in understanding) At that time the said Amendt. was written the American militia defeated the Brits. To me the militia in the 2nd Amendt actually refers to the Armed forces as it was then - The USA Army as it is known today? N'est pas?

I'm not impressed.
All these articles still agree that the US leads the list for murders and rapes.
You haven't got anything about Canada or Australia.

On the contrary, you do need to go to Iraq to really know what is going on. To different Areas as well, as a broad example Diyala is different then Anbar. Both are different then Baghdad.

The only weapons that are confiscated in Iraq are the RPK heavy machine guns, RPG launchers with or without warheads, and like items. Oh yea, large ordinance like 155 Artilary rounds, Det cord and bomb/IED making materials. The Ak-47's that are confiscated are the ones that are hot to the touch, having been recently fired at U.S. or Iraqi troops or police.

Every household in Iraq is allowed to have one AK-47. It's Iraqi law.
It is unlawful for an Iraqi citizen to posses an RPG launcher, much as it is unlawful for an American citizen to posses an AT-4 rocket launcher.
U.S. troops support Iraqi law.

So, you would advocate all military personnel to refuse service or deployment to Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, The Pacific Rim, Europe, and South America? Under the grounds that they have received unlawful orders to do so?

Also the article on Britain's crime figures is from 1998 and was from a US Department of Justice report which suggested the UK was in some ways a more dangerous place to live than America.

Hey SD when I grew up in England guns were so rare I had to read comics to see them but today in the U.K they are common. Whatever happend to boys comics? What does your Welsh signature mean?

I'll pm ya!
:D

Double post.

Where do you get your information that guns in the U.K. are common?

I'm an ex-brit. I lived in London and on the outskirts for 62 years. I have, truthfully, never seen a real gun other than in a museum, in my life and I never walked in fear of one. I was however fearful of being mugged after dark and never ventured out at night.

I accept there is a high crime rate in the U.K. What I don't accept is that the use of guns is anything more than a minimum inside of those figures.