Will the Second Amendment survive?

[BrianR]

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

[classicman]

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

[Urbane Guerrilla]

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.]

[BrianR]

classicman, I apologise. I know better than that.

Try here or here or here

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

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.]

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by queequeger

Chances are, they just like hunting or shooting people who are different colors than they are.

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

[regular.joe]

[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.

[ZenGum]

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?

[regular.joe]

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

[xoxoxoBruce]

Could you be more specific, Rjoe?

[regular.joe]

Nope. 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.

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.

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?

[queequeger]

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).

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by queequeger

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.