If anyone wants to have a serious discussion on the Second amendment

[Problem Child]

Re: "A well regulated militia"

This is a fascinating discussion. This is one of the few issues on which I agree-- sort of-- with the right-wingers. The Second Amendment is the right which underlies all our other, "cooler" rights, the one which makes them enforceable in practical terms. An unarmed public is much easier for the government to enslave than an armed public. Historical evidence does show that the "well regulated militia" the "Founding Fathers" were referring to was a citizen's militia, capable of resisting an oppressive government.

Of course, as some have pointed out, the federal government is much more heavily armed than it was then, and with highly sophisticated and advanced weaponry, up to and including nuclear weapons. Rifles, shotguns, and handguns alone are hardly sufficient to stand up to the government today. Does that mean the Second Amendment should be extended to include all weapons, up to and including nuclear ones?

I totally agree with your first paragraph.

The second paragraph poses an interesting question that is up to the courts to answer in today's society, i.e what weapons will the citizenry be allowed to own.

It's true that the military is much more heavily armed than the citizenry, but the citizenry far outnumbers government law enforcement and military. They can't be everywhere at once, and many, many members of the citizenry are former military and are quite capable of using military weapons if they can get ahold of them.

If push came to shove, I don't think there's any way the military could last against a determined revolting populace, short of turning the entire nation to glass with nukes.

The Vietnamese defeated the U.S. military in a prolonged guerilla war. I think that's a pretty good model for what would happen if the Second American Revolution were to (God forbid) ever occur.

 

[REDWAVE]

Problem Child

Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty should be watered with blood" every twenty years or so. (I'm not sure of the exact quote, but that's the gist of it.) Whether you think Jefferson was a hero or a hypocrite (for owning slaves), he is a very important figure in American history. An interesting sidenote: he actually was not one of the "Founding Fathers," if by that you mean someone who participated in the Constitutional Convention of 1788. He was not there, and he criticized the convention for deliberating in secret.

Of course, he did write the Declaration of Independence.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Re: Re: "A well regulated militia"

The Vietnamese defeated the U.S. military in a prolonged guerilla war. I think that's a pretty good model for what would happen if the Second American Revolution were to (God forbid) ever occur.

Guerilla warfare is how we beat the British 240 years ago.

 

[The Squid King]

Re: Re: All I have to say is...

You're a card carrying member of the NRA, do you think for one minute that anyone thinks you're discussing this rationally?

Touche'

Actually, I believe the NRA is somewhat of an extremist lobby group, however they are the only powerful lobby that advocates for what I wish to support.

They are the lesser of two evils.

It's chess, it ain't checkers.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Re: Re: Re: All I have to say is...

NRA is somewhat of an extremist lobby group

You call Ted "motor city madman" Nugent extreme? Oh come on... get real. ~smiling~

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Re: "A well regulated militia"

If push came to shove, I don't think there's any way the military could last against a determined revolting populace, short of turning the entire nation to glass with nukes.

The Vietnamese defeated the U.S. military in a prolonged guerilla war. I think that's a pretty good model for what would happen if the Second American Revolution were to (God forbid) ever occur.

And that is the crux of it PC. The military is a blunt instrument. It's quite capable of breaking things, but is not designed for surgical operations. Regardless of the hype you hear.

Military operations within the dometic United States would alienate more citizens than the rebels that it would quell. That is the nature of the military and the primary reason for the "Posse Comitatus" act. It was realized over a hundred years ago that the domestic use of the military was more of a hinderance than a help.

Ishmael

 

[Laurel]

Just because some people may misuse a Freedom does not mean it isn't a Freedom.

The KKK has the right to express their views, no matter how misguided I feel they are.

Sure, there will be people who will use guns irresponsibly, just like there are idiots with malformed opinions. That doesn't mean no one should have guns.

I do think we as citizens have the right to make sure that those of us who do have guns are trained in how to use them properly because an irresponsible person with a gun has the potential to infringe on MY liberty. Well-written and sensible gun safety laws, therefore, are in the interest of expanding liberty, not limiting it.

But I definitely read the Second Amendment as literally as the First.

 

[sexy-girl]

Re: Re: Re: UK, also stands for unarmed Kingdom

And I suppose you aren't a liberal?

Your post are all a broken record......

Guns are bad.

ok so first off my arguments weren't valid because "you're english" now its because "you're a liberal" ... um i suggest after that doesn't work try saying because "you're a girl" im afraid you won't be able to use the "because you're black" one because im actually white

my views are my own and me alone make them valid or not ... not any stereotype group that i can be categorized into


yes its every persons devine right to own a gun and anyone that try's to suggest its not is as evil as someone trying to ban free speech

well why is it a devine right to own a gun ... you can't drive a unsafe car ... you can't own child porn ... there are many things you can't do if it infringes on someone else's devine right to be safe and free


now im not saying that people owning guns infringes on other citizens safety (although in my opinion it does) but people that automatically say because its in the bill of rights its impossible to have any kind of debate on it are as bad as the people that problem child said ... say that anyone who owns a gun is automatically a moron


i think organizations like the NRA are infringing on peoples rights of free speech to have a fair and open discussion on gun control

 

[Problem Child]

Re: Re: Re: "A well regulated militia"

Guerilla warfare is how we beat the British 240 years ago.

This is true. I chose Viet Nam as a model because the incredible imbalance of military power in the VN war would more closely resemble what a possible future war of domestic resistance would be like.

 

[lobito]

well said again s-g

 

[Guest]

 

[sexy-girl]

Over the centuries, the Supreme Court has always ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects the states' militia's rights to bear arms, and that this protection does not extend to individuals. In fact, legal scholars consider the issue "settled law." For this reason, the gun lobby does not fight for its perceived constitutional right to keep and bear arms before the Supreme Court, but in Congress. Interestingly, even interpreting an individual right in the 2nd Amendment presents the gun lobby with some thorny problems, like the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons.

is this true ?

 

[A Desert Rose]

Re: Re: Re: Re: UK, also stands for unarmed Kingdom

i think organizations like the NRA are infringing on peoples rights of free speech to have a fair and open discussion on gun control

Pardon me but, HUH?

 

[Problem Child]

is this true ?

I seem to remember that some legal decisions lately have affirmed the second amendment as an individual right. Again, it depends on how a particular court is going to interpret the law, just as with every law.

Do you have a link to where you got that quote?

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: "A well regulated militia"

This is true. I chose Viet Nam as a model because the incredible imbalance of military power in the VN war would more closely resemble what a possible future war of domestic resistance would be like.

Hmmm.

With all due respect I disagree.

1) The American Revolutionary War was not won by guerillas, it was won by a regular army. The pivotal battles were all regular set piece battles. Not guerilla campaigns. Plue, the Americans would have lost had it not been for French Intervention.

2) Vietnam is a poor choice at best for an example of a future "guerilla" war in the United States as it operates under the assumption that the same world political factors in operation then would operate in an american conflict.

3) With few notable exceptions, for example the Cuban revolution under Castro,without a direct, closely-placed base of support the guerillas lose. In Vietnam, the Viet Cong were supported directly by the North Vietnamese Govt. China, and the Soviet Union.

4) Assuming the kind of totalitarian govt that is assumed to be present in this hypothetical conflict, what makes anybody think that they would not be totally, ruthlessly oppressive ala Nazi Germany?

 

[sexy-girl]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: UK, also stands for unarmed Kingdom

Pardon me but, HUH?

that part of my comment was slightly overboard i admit

but what i meant is the way the NRA and such organizations won't allow any kind of debate on gun control and their policy of not giving an inch because of the 2nd amendment

that just seems to be against the spirit of free speech and free debate ... although they aren't breaking any laws of course so i should'nt of said what i did ... but they seem to embrace the second amendment and dismiss the first

I seem to remember that some legal decisions lately have affirmed the second amendment as an individual right. Again, it depends on how a particular court is going to interpret the law, just as with every law.

Do you have a link to where you got that quote?

well the supreme court is the court i would say ... and yes heres the link

Myth: The Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to own a gun

 

[SadnonMage]

Re: Re: Re: Re: UK, also stands for unarmed Kingdom

ok so first off my arguments weren't valid because "you're english" now its because "you're a liberal" ... um i suggest after that doesn't work try saying because "you're a girl" im afraid you won't be able to use the "because you're black" one because im actually white

my views are my own and me alone make them valid or not ... not any stereotype group that i can be categorized into


yes its every persons devine right to own a gun and anyone that try's to suggest its not is as evil as someone trying to ban free speech

well why is it a devine right to own a gun ... you can't drive a unsafe car ... you can't own child porn ... there are many things you can't do if it infringes on someone else's devine right to be safe and free


now im not saying that people owning guns infringes on other citizens safety (although in my opinion it does) but people that automatically say because its in the bill of rights its impossible to have any kind of debate on it are as bad as the people that problem child said ... say that anyone who owns a gun is automatically a moron


i think organizations like the NRA are infringing on peoples rights of free speech to have a fair and open discussion on gun control

I apologize if I offended you at all, but you did seem to jump the "liberal" anti-gun bandwagon of statements right off the bat.

As I have said before this wasn't meant as a "gun control" thread" I meant it as a 'why' the Second Amendment exists discussion, and all I seem to have gotten at the offset were a lot of anit-gun, anti-Second Amendment statements.

Yes, I believe your view of gun ownership is jaded because of where you are in the world. Having the "guns are the cause of all bad things propoganda literally shovved down your throat from birth has a definite effect on your particular "belief system" in my opinion.
I do not believe it is a Divine right to own a gun, and if you have followed any of my writing here on Lit, (see my thread on the Am pics board, To all unregistered critics, if Irecall correctly) I do not believe that the Bill of Rights was properly titled to begin with, It should be the Bill of Priveleged Rights, as to the fact that for the 226 years or so that the United States has been an independant nation, those "Rights" have been defended and guaranteed by the death of several million men and women from 1776 to 2002.

At age eighteen all American Citizens are guaranteed the privelege of voting in elections to make the changes or affect change that they feel or believe we need.
They are also guaranteed that they must register for the Selective Service, so that in the event that it is needed, the Government can 'draft' them into military service.
There are serious repurcussions to those who don;t register( and as far as I can recall, it is just males between 18 and 26 whom must do so).
IF you aren't registered you can not receive financial aid for post secondary education.
But I'm off the point.

 

[Problem Child]

Sexy-girl,

Here is a court decision from last year that specifically states that gun ownership is an individual right.

****
BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON -– In a stunning decision, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has crushed over 60 years of judicial misinterpretation and anti-gun rhetoric by finding that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects an individual right.

While the court’s decision in U.S. v Emerson was to reverse and remand a lower court ruling that cleared Dr. Timothy Joe Emerson of a federal violation of the 1994 Domestic Violence Act, the 5th Circuit clearly ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of an individual citizen to keep and bear private arms, “regardless of whether the particular individual is then actually a member of the militia.”





the article

 

[LordLucan74]

Feel free to add your comments here.

There are very good reasons that our Forefathers made the right to keep and bear arms the second most important thing in the bill of rights.

If you know your history, you would know that the British government prior to the Revolutionary War was disarming the populace of the Colonies. So that those whom they felt were a danger to the peaceful continuation of British rule would not be able to revolt with deadly force.

If accounts are correct, as there should always be a little healthy skepticism, the Colonists stockpiled spare rifles in various locations around the Colonies in the event that the British Colonial Government should resort to military oppression of the citizenry.

The infamous "Shot Heard Round the World" occured near one of these supposed 'stockpiles'.

Some of your facts are no exactly right. The "British Government" never set about disarming the population. However, in a few colonies, there was an increase in lawlessness, mostly in the northern colonies, and the Colonial Assemblies (elected by colonists) enacted gun laws. There was never an order from London to carry this out.

And in my own state, The Royal Government of SC never enacted anti-gun laws. Gun ownership was encouraged so that a well trained supply of militamen could be at hand.

In fact, it is for a "well regulated militia" that the Constitution of the US allows for gun ownership.

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.

 

[Anne Waters]

Re: Re: If anyone wants to have a serious discussion on the Second amendment

Yes, it did indeed make a good deal of sense 200+ years ago.

But so did a lot of stupid things. Leeches in medicine, the oppression of Women, taking as much land as you could from the natives.

And yet, as the mystery of time rolls on, civilized nations realize that things that worked hundreds of years ago don't always work today.

That all may be the case, but it is part of our constitution and as such is the law of the land. The constitution has an ammendment process to keep it current. If you really believe the 2nd ammendment is out of date, the way to deal with it is to repeal it by passing a new ammendment. Until that is done, it is the law of the land and any law passed by Congress or the states that infringes upon the rights of the populace to bear arms is unconstitutional.

And if you read The Federalist Papers, you will see that the 2nd ammendment IS an escape clause. It is in there to allow the people the means of overthrowing the governmant if it becomes tyrannical. There was such a big fear of a strong central government so soon after our revolution it was included in the Bill of Rights. If we no longer feel it is needed, then we, as a people, should pass a new ammendment repealing it. The problem with that is I think you would have a very hard time finding the 2/3's majority to do so.

 

[Guest]

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: UK, also stands for unarmed Kingdom

I apologize if I offended you at all, but you did seem to jump the "liberal" anti-gun bandwagon of statements right off the bat.

As I have said before this wasn't meant as a "gun control" thread" I meant it as a 'why' the Second Amendment exists discussion, and all I seem to have gotten at the offset were a lot of anit-gun, anti-Second Amendment statements.

Yes, I believe your view of gun ownership is jaded because of where you are in the world. Having the "guns are the cause of all bad things propoganda literally shovved down your throat from birth has a definite effect on your particular "belief system" in my opinion.
I do not believe it is a Divine right to own a gun, and if you have followed any of my writing here on Lit, (see my thread on the Am pics board, To all unregistered critics, if Irecall correctly) I do not believe that the Bill of Rights was properly titled to begin with, It should be the Bill of Priveleged Rights, as to the fact that for the 226 years or so that the United States has been an independant nation, those "Rights" have been defended and guaranteed by the death of several million men and women from 1776 to 2002.

At age eighteen all American Citizens are guaranteed the privelege of voting in elections to make the changes or affect change that they feel or believe we need.

With that clariifcation, the original reason the second amendment was put into the constitution was two fold.

1) The "wilderness" character of frontier America required that firearms be household items for defensive and food gathering purposes.

2) A lot of the constitution was a direct result of things that the British had done or tried to do that pissed us off. Ergo guns cant be taken away. Its the same with the constitutional prohibition against quartering military personell in private homes.

 

[lobito]

At age 18, you are also required by law to register at the post office or other agency for the military, SHOULD there ever again be a draft. Kind of outdated don't you think? If 18 year olds wanted anything to do with the military, I'd think they'd want to join either the Air Force, Army, Marines or Navy. Joining or not, the military is supposed to be a "right", not a requirement, "IF your country needs you".

It's already been established this "debate" is going no where but around in circles. You're opinions are right becasue they are YOURS. People in North America have the right to own them, because of the way the 2nd amendment is written, how ever outdated it is. People everywhere, even on the "olde island" are entitled to argue against the use or ownership of them. It's all in how you interpret the amendment. literally or figuratively.

 

[Problem Child]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "A well regulated militia"

Hmmm.

With all due respect I disagree.

1) The American Revolutionary War was not won by guerillas, it was won by a regular army. The pivotal battles were all regular set piece battles. Not guerilla campaigns. Plue, the Americans would have lost had it not been for French Intervention.

2) Vietnam is a poor choice at best for an example of a future "guerilla" war in the United States as it operates under the assumption that the same world political factors in operation then would operate in an american conflict.

3) With few notable exceptions, for example the Cuban revolution under Castro,without a direct, closely-placed base of support the guerillas lose. In Vietnam, the Viet Cong were supported directly by the North Vietnamese Govt. China, and the Soviet Union.

4) Assuming the kind of totalitarian govt that is assumed to be present in this hypothetical conflict, what makes anybody think that they would not be totally, ruthlessly oppressive ala Nazi Germany?

You're taking my very quick and loose example just a tad too seriously, I think. All I was referring to was relative military power, and it was a good analogy.

Thanks anyway though.

 

[LordLucan74]

Re: Re: All I have to say is...

what difference will you having a gun make if the american government proved untrustworthy enough to need to be overthrown ?

do you really think there is much chance of that happening in the current age of american democracy anyway


isn't the real reason why people want to carry guns because they want to protect their homes and selves against other human beings with weapons that are solely designed to kill ... its not some just cause to defend america's holy values like the NRA would have people believe in my opinion



edited to say thank you lobito ... im really am quite anti gun

If the people of the USA actually had a right to rebell at will or withdraw from the Fedral Union, then all President Abraham Lincoln did to preserve it by force were against the spirit of the constitution he claimed to be preserving. The Civil War is the ultimate debunking of the idea that Americans have the right to rebell or overthrow their government.

I would also point this out: under the Articles of Confederation (the first US Constitution) did not mention a right to have arms. If that was so important a right or the reason we left the Empire, then surely that might have merited at least a footnote.