2A is archaic


PDA






69Chevy
October 17, 2006, 02:58 PM
I was having a debate with a friend the other day. He leans left on issues, and often without giving a lot of though to the situation (IE: whats wrong with illegal immigrants? let them all in). Yet he likes guns? He said he has no problem with democrats placing restrictions on the types of guns we can own. Such as assualt weapons, he says, you don't need them. I explained that the second amendment was a safe guard against the government and we are entitled to the weapons that the common soldier gets to use, and he said it is archaic. He then says it doesn't matter if the population is armed, that if the government really wanted to use the army to round up civilians for whatever purpose, that they could easily do it and being armed isn't going to make a difference. I pointed out in the revolution and again in vietnam, a determined armed indegenious population can and will put up a fight. He then says that the vietnamese were supplied with arms(like that makes any difference, point is they had them). I think he is an idiot, and I stayed calm, while he got extremely upset, which made me laugh. Then I went to shoot my evil assualt rifle.

Focus: How is the 2A not archaic and still applicable to today?

If you enjoyed reading about "2A is archaic" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
longeyes
October 17, 2006, 03:00 PM
He's right. The 2A is "archaic." So are all the other Amendments. Who needs the Democrats? Sauve qui peut.:evil:

Rev. DeadCorpse
October 17, 2006, 03:01 PM
How is the 2A not archaic and still applicable to today?

Criminals still exist.
Governments still oppress their people.
Still game to hunt.
It's fun.

:banghead:

longeyes
October 17, 2006, 03:03 PM
How old is this genius?

69Chevy
October 17, 2006, 03:07 PM
23 years old. We went to a gun store the other day and he immediately fell in love with the old mil surps and was about to buy one. Still probably does want too. Maybe he can be saved, who knows...

DRMMR02
October 17, 2006, 03:09 PM
The problem is, at least to me, that it's really hard bringing up the "governments oppress their people" argument without sounding like a Bubba. It's true of course, but it's hard to argue, especially online, without immediately sound like some paranoid anarchist.

Thefabulousfink
October 17, 2006, 03:12 PM
Just tell him that that mil-surp is and "Evil Assault Rifle" (which it is) and he doesn't need it. Then show him a H&R single-shot break-action and tell him that is all he needs.:p

I think that might sink in after a few minutes thought.

Steve499
October 17, 2006, 03:14 PM
The right to freedom and to defend yourself is much more archaic than any restriction any government ever has/will place on the means to do it. Governments can pass laws but they can't change a basic human right by legislation. The 2nd amendment was included to recognize a right that pre-existed it by hundreds of thousands of years. Now THATS archaic!

Steve

Zundfolge
October 17, 2006, 03:15 PM
To many (even in our own government) the entire Constitution is "archaic".

They can't mold the world (and the US) into what they want with that pesky Constitution which keeps reaffirming our rights as individuals, property owners and "citizen soldiers".


Free speech is archaic because it allows "hateful" Christians to openly state they believe X is a sin and Y is wrong. And the bloggers to question the "authorities" in the MSM.

Gun rights are archaic because the police are there to protect us and "civilized" people don't do their own fighting.

Property rights are archaic because it allows those who own property to do what they want with it (even if the Sierra Club doesn't like it) and it keeps those who don't own property from able to go anywhere they want at any time or using resources they don't pay for.

States rights are archaic because it keeps the visions of the anointed from trickling down to the local level (those bureaucrats in Washington know whats best for you).

Freedom of association is archaic because it allows people to chose not to accept [insert specially protected subgroup] in their club/business/home/etc.



Gun rights is just the tip of the iceberg.

kfranz
October 17, 2006, 03:16 PM
you don't need them

I've found that this is usually the argument that you can bring them around on most easily. Just start listing the little things that he has but doesn't need, at least as far as you are concerned.

Juna
October 17, 2006, 03:21 PM
The 2nd Amendment is only "archaic" in terms of the date it was written. But the Bill of Rights and all the Constitutional Amendments that we use as the framework of our great nation should never be considered "archaic". That's what makes this the most free nation in the world.

What happens if we let people start telling us that Amendments are "archaic"? Well, then what's next? The first amendment is archaic, the fourth, the fifth, etc. The reason all of these basic rights (notice I said RIGHTS, not priviledges) were explicitly written down by the founding fathers of this country is that they viewed those as inalienable rights (forever--with no expiration date) that were infringed upon by the British government, which is why they revolted. They foresaw what has happened in this country, which is people trying to whittle away our rights until we're "under control". That's what they were trying to guard against.

Many people in this country seem to be on this "we wanna be like Europe" thing. The entire point of our nation's existence is to be free, not be shackled with no rights like the Europeans. The government is supposed to be for, of, and by the people, not vice versa. The government is supposed to serve us, not control us.

The problem lies in the fact that what is broadcast (media, movie stars, Hollywood, etc.) is markedly liberal. It's "cool" to be against guns because guns cause violence and b/c George Clooney and Oprah say so, right? Wrong. Guns are inanimate objects. Knives, fists, and baseball bats are no less capable of being used to inflict violence than guns. It all depends on the user. Hell, cars are more likely to cause violence. What happens is kids grow up idolizing celebrities, and the vast, vast, vast majority of celebrities are non-patriotic liberals who want to be Europeans b/c they think it's "cool". Well, IMO, they can go move there.

So, no, none of the Amendments should be considered "archaic". Remember, the government is supposed to serve and fear the people, not vice versa. Think about that, and you can see how off our society has become. Think about Hurricane Katrina and the video of the cops & military systematically disarming old ladies trying to defend their homes. Ask your friend if it's still archaic.

EddieCoyle
October 17, 2006, 03:22 PM
I have an "anti" friend that asked me, "Why do you need so many guns?"
I replied, "Why do you need so many golf clubs?

When he started to answer, I cut him off and said, "I have guns for the same reason."

ZeSpectre
October 17, 2006, 03:23 PM
The problem is, at least to me, that it's really hard bringing up the "governments oppress their people" argument without sounding like a Bubba. It's true of course, but it's hard to argue, especially online, without immediately sound like some paranoid anarchist.

The truely sad aspect (to me at least) is the idea that the government is more like an overbearing mother than anything else. It would be very nice if you could simply and nicely say "Dear mother, I appreciate that you are trying to look out for me but I am all grown up now and would like to take care of myself".

Unfortunately, many governments (at this point in time) are more like Cathy Bates in "The Water Boy".

69Chevy
October 17, 2006, 03:24 PM
I told him he didn't need his TV. He cited entertainment. I said that shooting an "assualt" rifle was entertainment to me. Yet it doesn't sink.

DRMMR02
October 17, 2006, 03:26 PM
The standard anti response is. "TV's aren't designed to kill people"

Juna
October 17, 2006, 03:27 PM
you don't need them

This is the one I hear all the time from my co-workers. I bring up all sorts of things we don't need. I don't need a Ferrari. I could drive a Yugo. Maybe the government should ban all cars larger or faster than a Yugo. Heck, I don't even need a car, and cars kill more people each year than airplanes or guns. Maybe cars should be banned, altogether.

I don't need a house. I could live in a one bedroom apartment. It would take up less space and cost less.

longeyes
October 17, 2006, 03:28 PM
The problem is, at least to me, that it's really hard bringing up the "governments oppress their people" argument without sounding like a Bubba. It's true of course, but it's hard to argue, especially online, without immediately sound like some paranoid anarchist.

Paranoid anarchist? You got a problem with that?

Archaic? Old is beautiful. Trust me, I know from personal experience. Yes, the Founding Fathers are not new and hip. They can't rap for ****. Their clothes look funny and their sentences are too long. All true. But, damn, we miss their CLARITY, do we ever.

Meanwhile, the Chinese have KillMobiles circulating around. How long before they come to Wal-mart?

orangelo
October 17, 2006, 03:28 PM
Ask him if he thinks the rest of the bill of rights written at the same time by the same authors with the same verbiage is archiac.

If he says "yes" shoot him in the crotch so he won't reproduce and taint the gene pool any more than he already has.

cbsbyte
October 17, 2006, 03:29 PM
Good god, I know the type. It is very hard to argue with people who are gun owners and controdict themselves by not support the RKBA. They are deeply confused people, and much harder to understand than a straight Anti-gunner. I had an argument awhile back with a blue collar hippy type, who is an avid hunter, and gun owner but he supports strict gun control, leftist politics, and the most Liberal anti-gun Democrats. He also had a strong belief that in the long run, it did not matter who he voted for since one day all our gun where going to be taken away, and their was nothing we could do about it. He did believe that the 2nd Ad did gurantee our rights, but that it no longer applied in today's society.

Steve499
October 17, 2006, 03:35 PM
He has a right to his T.V.! It's all he may have to aid him in his pursuit for happiness. You, on the other hand have GUNS, which not only help you chase happiness into a catchable corner, but also help you out in the life and liberty areas as well!

Steve

progunner1957
October 17, 2006, 03:50 PM
Here are some thoughts you may want to throw at your anti gun leaning friend:


- Rights are rights, period.

- "The Government" does not get to decide which rights we can have - the Constitution does that.

- "The Government" does not get to decide what rights - or guns - we "need."

- There are no "Good Rights" and Bad Rights." There are only rights and they ALL are guaranteed to We The People by the Bill of Rights.

Take a look at www.jpfo.org for some really outstanding information on this issue. This website is a goldmine of information about gun control, governments and genocide.

As far as "assault weapons" :barf: are concerned, ask your friend this: So you think the Jews in Nazi Germany did not need them? The defenseless Jews of Germany were shipped off by the millions to the death camps like animals to the slaughter house - by their own government.

OTOH, of all the nations overrun by Nazi Germany in WWII, Switzerland was left alone. Why? Because Hitler knew that every house in Switzerland contained a military rifle, a supply of ammunition and a rifleman who knew how to use them.

I read a story about a German intelligence officer who was dispatched to Switzerland during WWII to access the viability of Nazi troops invading Switzerland. In doing his research and talking with the Swiss people, he asked the question, "The German army outnumbers the Swiss people 2 to 1. How can you hope to repel them if they decide to invade?"

The Swiss man who was asked the question replied, "Then each of us will kill two Nazis."

Government officials - politicians - have murdered more of their own citizens than enemy soldiers, terrorists, murderers, serial killers or any other type of domestic criminal. The count stands at 57 million and is climbing . As you read this, the disarmed people of Darfur are being brutalized and murdered by mercenaries hired by their own government. Ultimately, the most menacing threat to the freedom and the very lives of citizens is politicians.

History proves this - and history cannot be denied.

TallPine
October 17, 2006, 04:10 PM
He then says it doesn't matter if the population is armed, that if the government really wanted to use the army to round up civilians for whatever purpose, that they could easily do it and being armed isn't going to make a difference.
um yeah ... like in Iraq ....? :rolleyes: ;) :p

Rumble
October 17, 2006, 04:19 PM
Progunner, I'd say that not even the Constitution gets to decide which rights we have. As you say, rights are rights; what we have in that regard is decided by something greater than us (choose your deity or higher power as appropriate, of course).

As far as I'm concerned, if you are a human being, you have the enumerated rights, plus all those non-enumerated other ones that the 9th Amendment mentions. The Constitutional language just serves to acknowledge their existence and tell the government to back up off 'em.

dragongoddess
October 17, 2006, 04:23 PM
Yep both the Republican and Democratic party keep tripping over the one stumbling block that prevents them from their ultimate goal of complete control. That stumbling block is the Constitution.

quatin
October 17, 2006, 04:30 PM
I explained that the second amendment was a safe guard against the government and we are entitled to the weapons that the common soldier gets to use,

The 2nd A says bear ARMS, not bear GUNS. The common soldier gets anti-tank weapons. The common soldier gets anti-aircraft weapons. The common soldier gets a tank. How are you going to stack up your rifle against a tank or jet fighter? The government has nuclear arms. We justify the spending of tax dollars to build nuclear arms as a defense to other nations in the theory of "mutual destruction". In the same order, the citizens of this country needs nuclear weapons as a defense against any government domestic or foreign with nuclear capabilities.

Some will say they don't need nuclear weapons and can do without it even in war, but that doesn't mean everyone else should be banned of it. Some people currently say you can do without assault weapons (or anything tacti-cool) for home defense, but do you support that?

There may be no explicit law that says you can't own a SAM site, but there are laws in place that prevents you from REASONABLY getting one. The distributors that funnel the weapons for the government are not allowed to funnel them to you. If you will not tolerate this type of restriction of firearms, why do you tolerate them on missiles, bombs and tanks? How come I don't see any support for this rationale? You can't pitch the "defense" against government suppression without fighting against such policies that prevent the citizens from being a formidable force against a modern army.

I see alot of people defend the 2nd A solely for the idea of self defense against the common "perp". The 2nd A needs to be re-written to clarify solely for this purpose if that is the case. Otherwise, we should all be in support of an open market to the civilian population on anything that the US/Foreign militaries have.

Robert Hairless
October 17, 2006, 04:49 PM
Your friend is a dangerous idiot. By his logic the First Amendment is even more archaic, and so are most other articles in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution himself. Here's how his thinking works.

The First Amendment to the Constitution was written at a time when there was no media except newspapers, leaflets, and posters: all of it was printed, by hand, one sheet of paper at a time. Newspapers were issued weekly or monthly, so the First Amendment guarantee of "freedom of the press" applies only to hand printed materials produced on a printing press and published no more frequently than once a week. Your local penny saver shopper might be protected by the First Amendment because it is issued weekly if it is printed on a hand press. If not, it has no freedom of the press. Daily newspapers like The New-York Times and the Washingon Post can't possibly be protected by freedom of the press because they are not in any way the kind of publication that existed at the time of the Bill of Rights.

The people who wrote and adopted the Bill of Rights could not possibly have predicted radio, television, the Internet, or any other electronic medium, so they couldn't possibly have intended to extend the First Amendment to protect any journalism in those media.

For those same reasons and others, the First Amendment can't possibly protect free speech over the telephone, radio, television, movies, recordings, the Internet, and other modern media. They did not exist and could not have been predicted at the time of the First Amendment, so they just can't be protected by its guaranteed freedom of speech. There were no amplifiers or sound systems then so when a person talks into a microphone and his voice goes through a speaker, what he says is not protected by the First Amendment. The only speech that existed then is the only kind of speech the people who wrote the First Amendment could have intended to protect.

The First Amendment also can't possibly protect any religion that did not exist then. Say goodbye to freedom of religion for the Church of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons), Christian Science, Conservative Judiasm, and Reformed Judiasm, among many other religions that did not exist at the end of the Eighteenth Century.

Follow your friend's logic, apply it to other amendments, and you probably justify reintroducing slavery and revoking the right of women to vote. Your friend, the media, the Brady Campaign, Hillary Clinton, and others are going down a dark road that has potential horrors at its end. The Constitution is essentially a contract. They want to twist its terms as never before. My guess is that they will succeed, but that they won't like the results of the precedent they are establishing.

SoCalShooter
October 17, 2006, 04:52 PM
As long as evil exist the 2A will never be archaic and as long as we have a government and criminals it will never be archaic, if 2A is archaic then the entire Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are archaic.

DogBonz
October 17, 2006, 05:05 PM
"The Government" does not get to decide which rights we can have - the Constitution does that.

The Constitution GUARANTEES the rights that we have as American citizens! It does not GIVE us rights. Maybe this is the fundamental problem. People actually believe that the Constitution (hence, the “government” in most sheeple’s little minds) GIVES us rights. What the h@ll are they teaching in school these days?

carterbeauford
October 17, 2006, 05:13 PM
Focus: How is the 2A not archaic and still applicable to today?

Right to carry, for one, has not exactly been a regressive trend...

http://www.handgunlaw.us/right-to-carry-history.gif

Sistema1927
October 17, 2006, 06:00 PM
The 2A is archaic. So is the 1A. So is the Bible.

Some of us would rather "live in the past" and choose to see the timeless value of these cherished documents.

Do not move the ancient landmark that your fathers have set. - Proverbs 22:28 (ESV)

carterbeauford
October 17, 2006, 08:01 PM
The 2A is archaic. So is the 1A. So is the Bible.

Good point... antis often forget that the Constitution was ratified in 1789 and the Bill of Rights two years later. If one Amendment is archaic and doesn't apply then the same for all of them. That is always left out of their argument.

Logically I do not understand how someone can support one amendment and oppose the others. You cannot pick and choose. You either support the Constitution or you don't.

cavman
October 17, 2006, 08:12 PM
ZeSpectre:
Unfortunately, many governments (at this point in time) are more like Cathy Bates in "The Water Boy".


Maybe more like Cathy Bates in Stephen King's "Misery"

cyco668
October 17, 2006, 11:25 PM
Remember the good o' days? Like about...oh.. 60 years ago or so. Before "liberals". Back when our government put about 65,000 Americans in "re-location centers" against their will. ooops.. I take that back. FDR was the democrat who redefined liberalism. And he fought the Nazi's.
Anyways, back to the topic. During WW2, the US forcibly put 110,000 people in internment camps. Over 60% were US citizens. The Supreme Court upheld it. Did the Constitution or Bill of Rights apply then? The Fifth Amendment was cleary ignored. But on the other-hand, if all of the citizens who were being relocated had automatic rifles, would our country be better off? Who would support them shooting against police officers and American soldiers? Doesn't the Bill of Rights and 2A of the Constitution give them the right and power to fight an oppressive government? Of course, if the government followed the Constitution, it wouldn't be have been a problem.
The Constitution, Bill of Rights, the Amendments, etc, are not archaic because we constintly question it and reinterpret it. The words may be old, but the meanings are fresh. This forum groups proves that 2A is a lively and debatable topic. Far from being archaic. Archaic means old and no longer used. 2A is used daily. Everyday people buy guns because 2A gives us the right to. It's used in courtrooms and by politicians. It's election time. How many politicians are increasing gun rights? How many are politicians are restricting them? How can 2A be archaic? I wouldn't be rambling here if the topic of 2A was dead.

ConstitutionCowboy
October 17, 2006, 11:38 PM
The 2a may be archaic, but the right protected is timeless in that it is relevant in any period, any place, to any people, because the right is inalienable, absolute, and indispensable to the security of man and his freedom.

Woody

You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power for security and the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood

ProguninTN
October 18, 2006, 12:08 AM
So if the Second Amendment is archaic, I guess defending rights and one's life is archaic ? I hope your friend likes the idea of tyranny. Without guns, what's to stop corrupt gov't officials ? (Before anybody says the courts, remember, they depend on Sheriffs/Marshals to enforce their decrees. These folks are generally armed. )

Waitone
October 18, 2006, 01:22 AM
He then says it doesn't matter if the population is armed, that if the government really wanted to use the army to round up civilians for whatever purpose, that they could easily do it and being armed isn't going to make a difference. Tell that to the German army after it had suppressed a ghetto in Warsaw, Poland.

AJAX22
October 18, 2006, 01:33 AM
How are you going to stack up your rifle against a tank or jet fighter?

get in close, bide your time, everyone takes a leak.

xd9fan
October 18, 2006, 02:34 AM
Its about World History, stupid!!

The Constitution GUARANTEES the rights that we have as American citizens! It does not GIVE us rights. Maybe this is the fundamental problem. People actually believe that the Constitution (hence, the “government” in most sheeple’s little minds) GIVES us rights. What the h@ll are they teaching in school these days?
I gotta say both parties play into this crap line of thinking. Which doesnt help.



Protecting your life, thinking your life is worth protecting....its....its so yesterday....its just not progressive you know....

Deanimator
October 18, 2006, 11:36 AM
Focus: How is the 2A not archaic and still applicable to today?
If the 2nd Amendment is "archaic", then how could the 1st possibly NOT be???

If it only protects the right to possess flintlock muskets, why doesn't the 1st only protect town criers and broadsheets printed on lead type?

If it only protects the National Guard, why doesn't the 1st only protect government PR flacks?

gwhall57
October 18, 2006, 05:08 PM
How can the 2A be archaic? The whole document is still a work in progress.

Lemon328i
October 18, 2006, 06:15 PM
The 2nd A says bear ARMS, not bear GUNS. The common soldier gets anti-tank weapons. The common soldier gets anti-aircraft weapons. The common soldier gets a tank. How are you going to stack up your rifle against a tank or jet fighter? The government has nuclear arms. We justify the spending of tax dollars to build nuclear arms as a defense to other nations in the theory of "mutual destruction". In the same order, the citizens of this country needs nuclear weapons as a defense against any government domestic or foreign with nuclear capabilities.

Some will say they don't need nuclear weapons and can do without it even in war, but that doesn't mean everyone else should be banned of it. Some people currently say you can do without assault weapons (or anything tacti-cool) for home defense, but do you support that?

There may be no explicit law that says you can't own a SAM site, but there are laws in place that prevents you from REASONABLY getting one. The distributors that funnel the weapons for the government are not allowed to funnel them to you. If you will not tolerate this type of restriction of firearms, why do you tolerate them on missiles, bombs and tanks? How come I don't see any support for this rationale? You can't pitch the "defense" against government suppression without fighting against such policies that prevent the citizens from being a formidable force against a modern army.

I see alot of people defend the 2nd A solely for the idea of self defense against the common "perp". The 2nd A needs to be re-written to clarify solely for this purpose if that is the case. Otherwise, we should all be in support of an open market to the civilian population on anything that the US/Foreign militaries have.

Goodness where to begin.. In the common terminology in use at the time the Constitution was written, ARMS meant pistols and rifles. Therefore it still means the same thing. Common soldiers do not get anti-tank or anti-aircraft armaments, nor do they get tanks. These are all specialized equipment for troops who have been trained in a particular MOS. As for the ability of small arms to stop aircraft or tanks, pilots and tank drivers have to eventually get out of their vehicles to rest, eat, perform maintenance, re-arm, re-fuel, etc. Would you like to be under small arms fire while trying to do any of those things? The defense against tyranny argument still works because all the tanks and planes in the world can't stop the infantry (or the militia!)

MechAg94
October 18, 2006, 07:17 PM
Tell that to the German army after it had suppressed a ghetto in Warsaw, Poland.
Just in case people don't know, this was the original Ghetto where Jews were forced to live. If I remember right, the Germans were using it as a central point to ship Jews off to camps. The Jews there had nothing to lose and started an uprising with whatever weapons they could get hold of. The Germans had to bring in a crack combat group and expend a great deal of artillery and ammunition to take it back. As a side note, those Jews appealed to the Polish underground for help but were ignored. Later on, that same Polish underground did their own uprising as the Russians came in and were wiped out without getting Russian support. That is 2nd hand history so my details may be off a bit.

MechAg94
October 18, 2006, 07:18 PM
I think Americans are spoiled that they live in a country that has a tradition of law and order and respecting the rule of law. They just can't grasp the reality of an opressive govt. Hell, I am not sure I can, but I know enough that I don't want to see it up close at all.

ConstitutionCowboy
October 18, 2006, 08:53 PM
I think Americans are spoiled that they live in a country that has a tradition of law and order and respecting the rule of law. They just can't grasp the reality of an opressive govt. Hell, I am not sure I can, but I know enough that I don't want to see it up close at all.

Don't look now, my friend, but you are seeing that oppressive government in the fetal stage every time you gaze toward Washington DC. It began to grow when the Commerce Clause was turned upon its head, and it gets fertilized each and every time a new law infringing upon our right to ward that beast off is passed and allowed to stay on the books by the Supreme unConscious(Supreme Court).

Our current crop of representatives is as much to blame as those who enacted that law, for they have failed to remove it. Make some wise choices this November. It's our only hope of winning back our freedoms and uninfringing our rights without shedding blood.

Woody

"I swear to protect the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but I am not trigger-happy. I am merely prepared and determined in its defense. It's a comfortable place to be. I don't suffer doubt." B.E.Wood

Pilgrim
October 18, 2006, 09:41 PM
He said he has no problem with democrats placing restrictions on the types of guns we can own. Such as assualt weapons, he says, you don't need them.
I guess if his position is the government is justified in all instances of using armed might to control its citizens, he is probably right.

Pilgrim

knuckles
October 18, 2006, 09:44 PM
and cars kill more people each year than airplanes or guns.

Now, now Juna remember, cars don't kill people, sh*tty drivers do.... ;)

ksnecktieman
October 19, 2006, 12:14 AM
So many things to complain about, and so little time, so I will start with

Quatin? If the government wants to destroy us (citizens), and the country they can, no problem, but they do not want to destroy, they want to rule, and they want what they rule to be worth something. nukes, and napalm, and massive bombardment are not in line with their needs. IF the citizens resist to oppresive law to the point that any soldier or policeman that ventures out of doors, gets shot at, how long can it go on without a victor? We are talking about the time when you pick your side, and live or die with it.

Mech? I like your comparison. I am not a historian, but if memory serves me right the fighters in the Warsaw ghetto numbered less than two hundred out of thousands of sheep, basically unarmed, stole their weapons from the enemy, and kept 20,000 of Germany's finest soldiers occupied for months before they were finaly burned out.

cyco668?? ( is that a play on words hidining phsycho 666?) Our government is not perfect. At that time their arrest and detention would have been supported by the general public. I agree it was not right. But I understand why it happened. So if any had resisted, with or without force they would have been demonized. Do you understand? Maybe if they had machine guns it would have been different, maybe not.

Carter? Thanx for the map, but kansas should not turn blue until january one, at present we are still a criminal protection zone. ( I hope you do not mind that I am snatching it, and saving it for future debate:))

I am not going to respond to the first page, this may already be to long to get read.

AND for a side note? When the main stream media announces that electronic media, and electronic presses, and telephones, and faxes are not protected under the first amendment, I will accept their condemnation of "assault weapons" protection under the second amendment...

TY, I feel better now

ConstitutionCowboy
October 19, 2006, 12:50 AM
Goodness where to begin.. In the common terminology in use at the time the Constitution was written, ARMS meant pistols and rifles. Therefore it still means the same thing. Common soldiers do not get anti-tank or anti-aircraft armaments, nor do they get tanks. These are all specialized equipment for troops who have been trained in a particular MOS. As for the ability of small arms to stop aircraft or tanks, pilots and tank drivers have to eventually get out of their vehicles to rest, eat, perform maintenance, re-arm, re-fuel, etc. Would you like to be under small arms fire while trying to do any of those things? The defense against tyranny argument still works because all the tanks and planes in the world can't stop the infantry (or the militia!)

Look up the definition of arms and it is weapons. Look up the definition of weapon and it is any instrument used in fighting. Neither have changed since the invention of those words. As for what common soldiers get, who do you think operates those specialized pieces of equipment?

That is a great suggestion about waiting to hit the tank drivers and pilots when they exit their "equipment" to gas them up, rearm, eat, sleep, etc. BUT, the problem is the havoc they exact before they stop to gas them up, rearm, eat, sleep, etc, that is the problem! Wouldn't it be nice to be able to stop these people IN THE ACT of killing before they run out of ammo? Wouldn't it be nice not to be mere cannon fodder to make the attacker run out of ammo so someone else can bag him during a pit stop? Sorry, my life is quite valuable - just as valuable as anyone else's! What makes these minions of some despotic government so special that they can have tanks, planes, and all the other goodies and not me? I've actually got the right! All the minion has is the usurped power of his despotic government.

Sorry, our Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, knew to ensure we would always be ready, equipped, and able to fend off ANY enemy, foreign - and yes - or DOMESTIC! That means we get whatever arms we can afford as we desire, feel the need for, want, covet, cherish, can devise, or that might come along as a consequence of invention. That would include SAMs, RPGs, tanks, aircraft, privateers, ICBMs, and even - dare I say it? - nukes.

Look at it this way: If those in our government up and decided to disarm us and force us into servitude for the sake of the "government", then that "government" is no longer our government(of, by, and for the people). It is "theirs". That makes them our enemy and master, and a dastardly despotic one at that, having taken all the weapons we amassed for our defense when the "government" was ours and turned them against us!

Never allow an infringement to the right, and work as hard as you can to remove those that are on the right as we speak. It is not so we may topple the government, it is so we may protect ourselves from it if it gets out of line.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. If that doesn't convince you to take a stand and protect your inalienable rights and freedoms, nothing will. If that doesn't convince you to maintain your personal sovereignty, you are already someone else's subject. If you don't secure your rights and freedoms to maintain your personal sovereignty now, it'll be too late to come to me for help when they come for you. I will already be dead because I had to stand alone. B.E.Wood

ksnecktieman
October 19, 2006, 01:39 AM
Woody? I am not sure that I know your opinion, but,,,, I have no interest in being "cannon fodder" in any war, against foreign or domestic attack. The jews in The Warsaw Ghetto did not want to be there either. When they looked around and analysed their situation, they had passed the point of no return. They had to fight with nothing, or die.

WE have not passed that point. We still have our votes, and we still have our assault weapons,,,, And our squirrel rifles, and deer rifles, and shotguns for shooting fowl. We still have our cheap "saturday night specials", we still have our military caliber weapons,,,,,,,, AND our brains.

My wishes for the future, consider, that I am 57 now, and my oldest grand daughter is now seven, is that all of my grandkids are allowed to own, and purchase, and carry firearms, in any manner that they want to,,,,,,, And I DO understand that the permission for my granddaughters absolutely HAS to include permission for the predators that may want to do them harm..... Grampa will do his best to make them aware. and competent :), and be pleased that he tried.

ConstitutionCowboy
October 19, 2006, 10:52 AM
Please know that it isn't a "permission" thing. It is a right. You do not need permission to exercise a right - especially one that government is expressly forbidden to infringe upon.

Woody

"We the People are the government of this land, we decide who writes our laws, we decide who leads us, and we decide who will judge us - for as long as We the People have the arms to keep it that way." B.E.Wood

Lemon328i
October 19, 2006, 12:00 PM
Woody,
Fortunately most soldiers would not obey orders to fire upon US Citizens, whether they be tank drivers or pilots.

Definitions in dictionaries and definitions as codified in law are often different beasts. Arms as defined by the 2nd amendment are typified from this paragraph in US v Miller (derived from Virginia common law):

Also that "Every officer and soldier shall appear at his respective muster-field on the day appointed, by eleven o'clock in the forenoon, armed, equipped, and accoutred, as follows: ... every non-commissioned officer and private with a good, clean musket carrying an ounce ball, and three feet eight inches long in the barrel, with a good bayonet and iron ramrod well fitted thereto, a cartridge box properly made, to contain and secure twenty cartridges fitted to his musket, a good knapsack and canteen, and moreover, each non-commissioned officer and Private shall have at every muster one pound of good (p.182)powder, and four pounds of lead, including twenty blind cartridges; and each serjeant shall have a pair of moulds fit to cast balls for their respective companies, to be purchased by the commanding officer out of the monies arising on delinquencies. Provided, That the militia of the counties westward of the Blue Ridge, and the counties below adjoining thereto, shall not be obliged to be armed with muskets, but may have good rifles with proper accoutrements, in lieu thereof. And every of the said officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates, shall constantly keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, ready to be produced whenever called for by his commanding officer. If any private shall make it appear to the satisfaction of the court hereafter to be appointed for trying delinquencies under this act that he is so poor that he cannot purchase the arms herein required, such court shall cause them to be purchased out of the money arising from delinquents."

Note that the muster order does not state bring your cannon, cannonballs, enough powder for cannons, or any other crew based weapons. These would be the equivalents to artillery, tanks and planes of today.

Arms is pretty clearly defined for US civilians as well, it is anything under 1/2 inch (.50Caliber). Anything larger is classed as a destructive device, not arms.

The founding fathers recognized that the ultimate strength of any country is individually armed citizens working together for the common good and if necessary to overthrow a tyrannical gov't, but even back then cannons (and other crew served weapons) were not items that civilians owned.

Pistols, rifles and shotguns in the right hands can stop any army, regardless of whether they possess crew-served weaponry. No one needs to serve as cannon fodder to stop such devices. They all run out of fuel eventually whether they fire a shot or not.

xd9fan
October 19, 2006, 02:08 PM
The founding fathers recognized that the ultimate strength of any country is individually armed citizens working together for the common good and if necessary to overthrow a tyrannical gov't, but even back then cannons (and other crew served weapons) were not items that civilians owned.

Pistols, rifles and shotguns in the right hands can stop any army, regardless of whether they possess crew-served weaponry. No one needs to serve as cannon fodder to stop such devices. They all run out of fuel eventually whether they fire a shot or not.

Is this happening in Iraq?? I wonder about this very thing.....

ksnecktieman
October 19, 2006, 02:17 PM
woodcdi, I hope you do not mind me shortening that to woody? I agree with you that it is a right, and it should be respected by our law makers, and law enforcers. But it is not. I am pleased that Kansas has finaly managed to override our governors veto, and get us a CCW law passed. I will apply for and get a "permit to carry". That is a permission slip to excersise my 2nd amendment right, and I feel it is an infringment on my rights.

On the bright side? I will be able to converse with a policeman without worry about if my jacket is hanging crooked, or if my pocket is too lumpy. I will probably step up from deep concealment with a Keltec P32, also.

mljdeckard
October 19, 2006, 02:26 PM
As a soldier, I swore to uphold The Constitution of the United States.

Governments disarmed and killed more of their own people in the last hundred years than died in both world wars.

People who think an armed population is not a deterrence to tyranny are willfully ignoring a couple of things. The reason that people can take the Second Amendment for granted is that it has been so effective for the last two hundred years. The reason governmental tyranny is so far from their minds is that the government has known that it would be too costly, so they stay away from it. The people being armed has less to do with an active armed uprising than it does with the fact that the people having a viable means of force makes it less likely that the government would threaten them in the first place.

There are at least 270 million guns in America, spread between 300 million people. The process of banning and confiscating them effectively would compromise the entire bill of rights, including the Third Amendment. It would require martial law, and more police and soldiers than currently exist. The president would have to invoke the War Powers Act, and they STILL wouldn't be able to effectively prevent people like me from stripping our weapons, packing the parts in grease, sealing them in a PVC capsule with 1000 rounds and some dessicant, and burying them somewhere safe.

And by the way, I know how to disable an Abrams tank while dismounted.

quatin
October 19, 2006, 02:31 PM
Goodness where to begin.. In the common terminology in use at the time the Constitution was written, ARMS meant pistols and rifles. Therefore it still means the same thing.

I'm not sure where you defined ARMS to be pistols and rifles. In all technical definitions I can find ARMS mean any form of weaponry from knives to nukes. If you mean specific to the time period, are you saying we are only allowed muskets?

Pistols, rifles and shotguns in the right hands can stop any army, regardless of whether they possess crew-served weaponry. No one needs to serve as cannon fodder to stop such devices. They all run out of fuel eventually whether they fire a shot or not.

Are you suggesting we can fight off a modern army with rifles and shotguns? Who are the right hands and how many of those do we have in the civilian population? I would be interested to know how you rationalize this. If this is true, why does the US military need artillery or an air force?
I will jump ahead and say you mean we can "technically" resist an army with just pistols/rifles/shotguns, but not EFFECTIVELY (undoubtedly the civilian population will suffer much heavier loses). This becomes a fuzzy border, because now if you define the 2nd A to mean armed enough to "technically" resist an army, how far down does that go? We can "technically" resist with just shotguns, so let's ban everything else. We can "technically" resist a home invader with knives and sticks. Correct me if that's not what you're implying here.

Note that the muster order does not state bring your cannon, cannonballs, enough powder for cannons, or any other crew based weapons.

Disecting the 2nd A to bring pieces of it at a time to interpret what it means had it been written in modern times is going to open up a bigger can of worms. You say the 2nd A brought to modern times will mean ANY form of rifles. Someone else will say the 2nd A brought to modern times STILL means MUSKETS. Perhaps then you argue that MUSKETS aren't effective enough. Then someone will say neither are RIFLES, we need artillery and etc.
I notice you said "typified" so it really rules out any precedence over the constitution. The constitution still says ARMS, I think it's a deliberate word choice by the authors to not restrict to just GUNS.

Also, I noticed you were talking to woody, sorry to butt in. :)

*Note, this only applies if you interpret the 2nd A to mean defense against domestic/foreign armies. If not, the 2nd A needs to be re-written to rule that out.

G36-UK
October 19, 2006, 02:32 PM
Such as assualt weapons, he says, you don't need them.

Assault weapons (and every other thing used in that kind of argument) may not be needed, but neither is the irresponsible type of legislation people like the Bradys and the VPC push.

hugh damright
October 19, 2006, 03:06 PM
It concerns me that people think that they have an individual right to nuclear weapons. Would such a weapon represent you and your personal will, or would it represent the people and their collective will i.e. a free State? I think that individuals with nuclear weapons would be a great danger to a free State, more of a danger than a standing army. I almost get the impression that some people think that a free State is whatever they say it is, and they need a nuke to enforce their will on the majority and their government. It sounds to me like a vision of jihad and terrorism, having nothing to do with the Second Amendment or free States or anything of that nature.

IMO there is something archaic about the idea that the best defense of a free State is the people trained to arms and organized into militia, and I think we need to be more concerned about the danger of military rule. Some of y'all say the US would never attack us, but they have already attacked my State and put it under miltary rule, so I reckon they'd do it again.

But if armed individuals are not the best defense, they are at least the last defense. Larry Pratt (GOA) has a radio show called "LiveFire" which had a recent episode about the threat of an Islamic uprising where our police are overwhelmed and the military has no target and it is up to the armed people to defend their Country. I think it sounds a little farfetched, but not archaic. http://soundwaves2000.com/livefire/

quatin
October 19, 2006, 03:54 PM
It concerns me that people think that they have an individual right to nuclear weapons. Would such a weapon represent you and your personal will, or would it represent the people and their collective will i.e. a free State?

It may be an ironic concept that the only way to defend against a nuclear attack is to possess a nuclear weapon, but it's the truth. How else do we justify spending tax dollars on a nuclear arsenal if not otherwise? Does the nukes in the current US arsenal represent government power or the collective will of a free country? I see few arguments pitched for pro-gun that shouldn't also be applied to nuclear weapons. Unless the sole purpose of the 2nd A is to defend against the common "perp" who breaks into your house, then it should cover nukes. A nuclear weapon is a viable defense method against another nuclear weapon.

vynx
October 19, 2006, 04:13 PM
History repeats itself thats why the 2A is still and always important.

And civilizations rise and fall they seem to have a cycle like so many other things in life and when they fall you want to be able to protect and defend.

The people who thing/say oh that can't happen here in America are idiots if they can predict the future take them to Vegas and get rich! Many countries in history have thought that can't happen here we are so enlightened and civilized and safe but things change all the time!

mdao
October 19, 2006, 04:39 PM
Are you suggesting we can fight off a modern army with rifles and shotguns? Who are the right hands and how many of those do we have in the civilian population? I would be interested to know how you rationalize this. If this is true, why does the US military need artillery or an air force?
I will jump ahead and say you mean we can "technically" resist an army with just pistols/rifles/shotguns, but not EFFECTIVELY (undoubtedly the civilian population will suffer much heavier loses). This becomes a fuzzy border, because now if you define the 2nd A to mean armed enough to "technically" resist an army, how far down does that go? We can "technically" resist with just shotguns, so let's ban everything else. We can "technically" resist a home invader with knives and sticks. Correct me if that's not what you're implying here.

Yes! You can beat a modern army with a population armed with only semi-automatic small arms.

Strategy? Hint, you don't attack the army head on. You attack the infrastructure and take targets of opportunity. Tanks, planes, and all that wonderful technology become useless without a constant supply of fuel and spare parts. Politicians and generals can't stay secluded forever. Soldiers have leave, and more importantly, families. Same goes for base workers, political support staff, etc.

It'd be slow and bloody, but there is no way any military can win against its own armed population without destroying the country in the process.

Lemon328i
October 19, 2006, 04:55 PM
I'm not sure where you defined ARMS to be pistols and rifles. In all technical definitions I can find ARMS mean any form of weaponry from knives to nukes. If you mean specific to the time period, are you saying we are only allowed muskets?
Supreme Court interpretations typically do not make huge leaps and bounds. At the time the Bill of Rights was approved, there were no computers, blogs or E-mail. The Supreme Court has ruled that these types of items are also protected under the 1st Amendment for freedom of press. So you can use those and parchment equally. By similar logic, modern rifles, pistols, knives and other personal items would be covered by the 2A, but crew served items or destructive devices would not be. So you can use modern firearms and muskets too.

Are you suggesting we can fight off a modern army with rifles and shotguns? Who are the right hands and how many of those do we have in the civilian population? I would be interested to know how you rationalize this. If this is true, why does the US military need artillery or an air force?
I will jump ahead and say you mean we can "technically" resist an army with just pistols/rifles/shotguns, but not EFFECTIVELY (undoubtedly the civilian population will suffer much heavier loses). This becomes a fuzzy border, because now if you define the 2nd A to mean armed enough to "technically" resist an army, how far down does that go? We can "technically" resist with just shotguns, so let's ban everything else. We can "technically" resist a home invader with knives and sticks. Correct me if that's not what you're implying here.
The Vietcong very successfully stopped us with just small arms. Sure they took casualties, but the only way we could have won that war was to carpet bomb the entire country. The US military needs missiles and an air force to counteract other air forces and to destroy infrastructure / supply lines. When they need to take a town, it is still done the old-fashioned way, with infantry troops. That would be were any military would be vulnerable to an armed population.


Disecting the 2nd A to bring pieces of it at a time to interpret what it means had it been written in modern times is going to open up a bigger can of worms. You say the 2nd A brought to modern times will mean ANY form of rifles. Someone else will say the 2nd A brought to modern times STILL means MUSKETS. Perhaps then you argue that MUSKETS aren't effective enough. Then someone will say neither are RIFLES, we need artillery and etc.
I notice you said "typified" so it really rules out any precedence over the constitution. The constitution still says ARMS, I think it's a deliberate word choice by the authors to not restrict to just GUNS.
See the first part. The Supreme Court does update definitions when cases come before them; they don't make crazy leaps and bounds. "ARMS" back then were personal items, so they would still be personal items today i.e. rifles, pistols, axes, knives, but not tanks, artillery, etc.

Sistema1927
October 19, 2006, 05:11 PM
I am not sure that just because the Virginia Muster Act does not mention artillery and other forms of crew served weapons that this means that private ownership of such is prohibited to private citizens under the Second Amendment.

For instance, there are well documented instances of private citizens purchasing, possessing, and offering their use to volunteer and other militia type units these types of weapons during the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, the Indian Wars, and even as late as the Spanish-American War. In other words, the exclusion of mention of these types of arms in the Virgina Muster Act does not mean that militias and even private citizens didn't have these weapons, it only means that they weren't required to have and produce them at muster.

mdao
October 19, 2006, 05:19 PM
The Vietcong very successfully stopped us with just small arms. Sure they took casualties, but the only way we could have won that war was to carpet bomb the entire country. The US military needs missiles and an air force to counteract other air forces and to destroy infrastructure / supply lines. When they need to take a town, it is still done the old-fashioned way, with infantry troops. That would be were any military would be vulnerable to an armed population.

To be historically correct, the Vietcong was destroyed as a military force in 1968 after the spectacular failure of the Tet offensive. The rest of the war was fought by the NVA, which had artillery, armor, land mines, SAMs, crew served weapons, and the rest of the tools of a modern (for the time) light infantry based army. So no, the Vietcong did not stop the US army with just small arms.

Iraq is a much better parallel.

Art Eatman
October 19, 2006, 05:26 PM
69chevy, I'm not saying the NRA would "rise up", but your friend's notion of the Army "rounding up" people is a pipe dream. Find the numbers of active gun-toting soldiers. Even with the fraudulent assumption that they would all respond to a rounding-up order, they are outnumbered by the four million of the NRA. Then add up the non-NRA type even as you guess at the percentage of NRA types who'd stay home.

IOW, why do you think there are so many who believe in a very-powerful central government who propose anti-gun legislation? They do indeed know that the citizenry could get fed up and say, No!" and have the firepower to enforce the "No!".

Mao Tse Tung was absolutely correct in his, "All political power comes from the muzzle of a gun." You can find this out by ignoring IRS rules, or by spouting off at any city council meeting beyond the allotted time. At some point a guy with a gun is gonna come after you.

Art

Lemon328i
October 19, 2006, 05:34 PM
I am not sure that just because the Virginia Muster Act does not mention artillery and other forms of crew served weapons that this means that private ownership of such is prohibited to private citizens under the Second Amendment.

For instance, there are well documented instances of private citizens purchasing, possessing, and offering their use to volunteer and other militia type units these types of weapons during the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, the Indian Wars, and even as late as the Spanish-American War. In other words, the exclusion of mention of these types of arms in the Virgina Muster Act does not mean that militias and even private citizens didn't have these weapons, it only means that they weren't required to have and produce them at muster.

This is where the way the Constitution works comes into play. Until Congress passed laws regulating such items (i.e. destructive devices (anything over 1/2inch or .50 Caliber) they were legal to own and possess. Until that law is challenged up to and overturned by the Supreme Court, it would remain legal to ban such items. Personal firearms however were clearly defined in many historical/legal writings such as that Muster Act and have had many cases heard before the High Court. There probably aren't too many cases where personal "completely functional artillery" ownership has come into play.

wqbang
October 19, 2006, 05:41 PM
The chance of having to overthrow the an oppressive US government with an armed militia is remote one. The chance of having a fire in your home is remote too... do you throw away your fire extinguisher?

Government oppression is not archaic. It is very much in modern practice all over Africa were MILLIONS are killed directly and/or indirectly due to opressive government.

kengrubb
October 19, 2006, 05:46 PM
He then says it doesn't matter if the population is armed, that if the government really wanted to use the army to round up civilians for whatever purpose, that they could easily do it and being armed isn't going to make a difference.
A bunch of untrained folks in the Warsaw Ghetto resisted the Nazis for 4 weeks--about as long as the French Army held out. This proves that civilians CAN stand up to a modern army, if they are willing, but will likely get crushed if they stand their ground in one spot. One can only wonder what might have happened if the French Army had more of the mindset to resist which those who perished in Warsaw clearly had.

Resistance fighters face a far greater risk because they often get shot as spies, or worse, if captured. The risks are already much, much higher. Doesn't mean every resistance fighter should have a suicidal mission.

Hitting and running is a better formula for success on the battlefield. One person with a rifle, sniping at military installations, taking just a single shot, could do a lot to demoralize and tie up a large number of enemy troops. Ten or twenty such people would multiply that damage. How many resources were tied up by the D.C. sniper? Note: I'm not praising Muhammad and Malvo--only pointing out such tactics work.

At Dora, a group of lightly armed, skilled shooters, who lacked military training and experience, held off German militia, or Volkssturm, for several days--long enough for a U.S. patrol to arrive. Know HOW to shoot is the essential skill.
http://www.jpfo.org/Shoot.htm

David Kopel penned a good piece that addresses the issue of armed resistance.
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/Armed-resistance-to-the-holocaust.htm

Some continue to critique the issue claiming there's no evidence of a group of irregulars standing up to a modern army. However, I think that completely misses the point.

Here are a few quotes from Kopel's piece that summarize the matter, IMHO.

... a key impediment to even more effective resistance was the lack of firearms, as well as Jewish unfamiliarity with arms during the pre-war years.

To resist, one must both own guns and know how to use them.

Armed Jews (or armed Cambodians, or Chinese, or other genocide victims) would not necessarily be able to fight open-field battles against standing armies. But to deter genocide, an armed population does not have to fight such battles.

If most people owned guns, then no one would ever worry about having to fight an army.

The kind of people who specialize in perpetrating genocide are bullies. How many bullies are willing to take a chance of getting shot by the intended victim? If potential massacre victims can plausibly threaten to harm at least a few of their attackers, then the calculus of the attackers may change dramatically.

LFI and FAS graduates aren't regular participants in gunbattles because bullies find better targets. Many of us who undergo advanced firearms training do so that we might avoid conflict.

If every family in the world owned a good-quality rifle and an ample supply of ammunition, genocide would be greatly reduced, and perhaps eliminated. Not all countries with severe gun controls perpetrate genocide; but no genocidal governments allow any but the most politically reliable segments of the population to own guns. Because every government which in the last hundred years which has engaged in genocide has first disarmed its victim population, there is reason to believe that those governments see a relationship between gun control and the maintenance of the government's murderous power.

Genocides are preceded by the confiscation of weapons. If everyone had guns, any attempt to disarm people would be viewed with suspicion. It would act as an alarm bell.

Lemon328i
October 19, 2006, 05:51 PM
To be historically correct, the Vietcong was destroyed as a military force in 1968 after the spectacular failure of the Tet offensive. The rest of the war was fought by the NVA, which had artillery, armor, land mines, SAMs, crew served weapons, and the rest of the tools of a modern (for the time) light infantry based army. So no, the Vietcong did not stop the US army with just small arms.

Iraq is a much better parallel.

True, I did not differentiate between the PLAF, PAVN and the eventual NVA, I just lumped them all into VC. I'm not sure you can call Tet a spectacular military failure though. Sure they lost 50,000 troops to our 6,000 (mostly when they massed battalion and division level forces), their guerilla tactics such as taking the US Embassy in Saigon showed how vulnerable a standing Army can be. Had they simply continued those kinds of attacks, performing more hit and run rather than open engagement, they would have lost fewer troops and still managed to force us to withdraw.

Getting a little off topic, so I won't post about Vietnam anymore, but I do appreciate your point of view!

quatin
October 19, 2006, 05:51 PM
Supreme Court interpretations typically do not make huge leaps and bounds. At the time the Bill of Rights was approved, there were no computers, blogs or E-mail. The Supreme Court has ruled that these types of items are also protected under the 1st Amendment for freedom of press. So you can use those and parchment equally. By similar logic, modern rifles, pistols, knives and other personal items would be covered by the 2A, but crew served items or destructive devices would not be. So you can use modern firearms and muskets too.

You're telling me a woman's right to abortion is a small bound of logic to free speech. However an artillery piece (in existence when the constitution was written and covered by the 2nd A then) is too large a bound from the term "arms"?

Back on topic, if the 2nd A meant that the civilian population should be able to resist domestic/foreign organized armies. The term "arms" should mean that we the people should be PROPERLY armed to handle those circumstances. This concept should not be a difficult buy, that if we were to arm the population, we should arm them WELL to handle whatever situation they are preparing for.

The Vietcong very successfully stopped us with just small arms. Sure they took casualties, but the only way we could have won that war was to carpet bomb the entire country. The US military needs missiles and an air force to counteract other air forces and to destroy infrastructure / supply lines. When they need to take a town, it is still done the old-fashioned way, with infantry troops. That would be were any military would be vulnerable to an armed population.

I have to disagree, the Vietcong had light armor, SAMs and light anti-vehicle weapons. Still, just because it can be done doesn't mean it should be. Are you trying to argue that it is just fine for the US to BAN everything, but pistols since you could logically use those to "resist" an invasion? I am uncertain as to why there is a need to prove such a circumstance in relation to this discussion.

kengrubb
October 19, 2006, 05:53 PM
your friend's notion of the Army "rounding up" people is a pipe dream.
I would respectfully disagree and draw conspicuous attention to the disarmament and round up of people in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina. Several such incidents were captured on video. I will forever remember cops (locals and CHP I believe) fighting an old woman with an old revolver to the ground to "rescue her".

Is it the same as sending everyone of Japanese descent to an internment camp? No. Just a first step.

I suspect some of those who hate guns and long to see the day when America is disarmed look to Katrina with a bit of glee thinking, "Seems that the cops and National Guard will comply with an order to disarm."

Lemon328i
October 19, 2006, 05:56 PM
Ken, that was one hell of a good post. That summed up how I feel about an armed populace. The point about Malvo was a good one. I knew dozens of otherwise rational people who were afraid to step outside their homes.

Another good example might be the Battle of Thermopylae in 480BC when the Spartans and other Greeks held off and completely demoralized the invading Persian horde of Xerxes. It wasn't a guerilla battle, but it showed that a small group of well armed individuals using the right time and tactics could stop an overwhelming force. They might even have won that engagement outright if it weren't for a traitor.

kengrubb
October 19, 2006, 05:57 PM
You're telling me ... an artillery piece (in existence when the constitution was written and covered by the 2nd A then) is too large a bound from the term "arms"?
I think we've crossed the boundary of the INDIVIDUAL R2KBA and gone into the COLLECTIVE R2KBA. Both exist and both are protected by the 2A.

Lemon328i
October 19, 2006, 06:06 PM
Back on topic, if the 2nd A meant that the civilian population should be able to resist domestic/foreign organized armies. The term "arms" should mean that we the people should be PROPERLY armed to handle those circumstances.

It is possible, but not likely for individuals to own such items, but rather organized militias. It has been argued that that is the logical ends of the "collective" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, namely that States would have to have parity with the standing central government military and therefore should possess missiles, nukes, chemical weapons, etc.

Under the individual interpretation though, such items would likely not be considered arms that give parity. "Properly armed" is relative, even if you have the exact same arms as a soldier, you still aren't properly armed as they have had tactics and training that give them an advantage one on one. However since civilians far outnumber soldiers, that advantage disappears even if civilians were armed with outdated technology.

quatin
October 19, 2006, 06:34 PM
It is possible, but not likely for individuals to own such items, but rather organized militias. It has been argued that that is the logical ends of the "collective" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, namely that States would have to have parity with the standing central government military and therefore should possess missiles, nukes, chemical weapons, etc.

Under the individual interpretation though, such items would likely not be considered arms that give parity. "Properly armed" is relative, even if you have the exact same arms as a soldier, you still aren't properly armed as they have had tactics and training that give them an advantage one on one. However since civilians far outnumber soldiers, that advantage disappears even if civilians were armed with outdated technology.

Tactics/training can be acquired somewhere else. One can find para-military servants who are willing to instruct or study texts. That can be evened out. Not being ALLOWED to be equally armed is something that cannot be counter balanced. By this I mean military training is commonly available to the public, but military weapons are not. That difference of what you didn't want to do and what you are not allowed to do is the controversy.
The 2nd A should not differentiate from a collective to an individual basis. Otherwise, only collective militias such as the national guard or groups of that nature are allowed ANY arms. I can't possibly see how one can draw a fine line as to how the 2nd A should apply differently under different circumstances.

grampster
October 19, 2006, 07:11 PM
If the 2A is archaic, tell that to the manager of a grocery store in Grand Rapids, Michigan. 3 armed men walked into the store at closing time a few days ago. All three of them were armed. They took the 3 employees and bound them and took them into the back room with orders to get on the floor. The manager, employees, the police and the prosecutor believe they were going to be executed.

The manger of the store managed to free his hands and remove the .45 cal. handgun he had in his belt. (He became a legal CCW holder after the store was robbed a year ago, ) He double tapped one robber com, and killed him. The other two robbers fled. There is a belief that one of them was also hit. The whole neighborhood as well as the authorities believe the manager is a hero.

As for the military and LE not being willing to go against their neighbors and fellow citizens, remember New Orleans! Thankfully most National Guard and LE refused to follow orders regarding disarming citizens, but some did follow orders.

Also, consider the size of our country. If the military was 1,000,000 strong and they were all in the field, that would mean probably one Styker vehicle and a squad of soldiers,(assuming the all did not mutiny) per county. They would not have a chance against an armed populace. They might hold a couple of population centers, but they would have an unholy time trying to keep that hold.

The 2A is the linchpin that holds the whole Constitution together. The Statists will never, ever understand this because they don't want to understand it. It's not that they are incapable of understanding the meaning of the 2A, they do! They understand it too well! That is why the Statists want to destroy it. The average citizen has been lulled into complacity by 100 years of being somewhat civilized and being inculcated with the notion that the government is our friend. A nation of laws and not men is a fine system. But the men must make sure the laws follow the handbook; The Constitution. There are many instances where this is not the case. The government is a tool not a friend. If it is maintained and used properly things will function well. If not, it will become tyrannical. Witness the eminant domain ruling by the SCOTUS or the McCain-Fingold campaign finance law or any number of other rulings or laws that contradict the spirit of The Constitution.

Any discussion with an anti or a fence sitter has to take place in a quiet, rational and reasoned way. They must be reasoned into why firearms are tools that have multiple purposes. One of the ways to do this is to become active in your community and most importantly on school boards so that the truth is taught in the government schools.

kengrubb
October 19, 2006, 07:28 PM
http://constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
...
Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

hugh damright
October 19, 2006, 08:33 PM
I see few arguments pitched for pro-gun that shouldn't also be applied to nuclear weapons.
I think there is one overwhelming argument which is that an individual with a rifle is not a threat to free government, but an individual with a nuclear weapon would be a tremendous threat. One of the biggest threats to free government is that too much power will end up in the hands of too few people ... and an individual with a nuke seems to be such a threat. In contrast, with rifles, it would take many people, theoretically a majority, to use force to take over.

xd9fan
October 19, 2006, 08:49 PM
My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that one of the points of the 2A is not that I can have a nuke but that I can have the same exact rifle (whatever that may be) that the military does. So the miltary could be controled and outnumbered by the vast number of armed citizens (worst case situation).

ConstitutionCowboy
October 19, 2006, 10:20 PM
Lemon328i

Fortunately most soldiers would not obey orders to fire upon US Citizens, whether they be tank drivers or pilots. This is most likely true, thank God!


Definitions in dictionaries and definitions as codified in law are often different beasts. Arms as defined by the 2nd amendment are typified from this paragraph in US v Miller (derived from Virginia common law):
Also that "Every officer and soldier shall appear at his respective muster-field on the day appointed, by eleven o'clock in the forenoon, armed, equipped, and accoutred, as follows: ... every non-commissioned officer and private with a good, clean musket carrying an ounce ball, and three feet eight inches long in the barrel, with a good bayonet and iron ramrod well fitted thereto, a cartridge box properly made, to contain and secure twenty cartridges fitted to his musket, a good knapsack and canteen, and moreover, each non-commissioned officer and Private shall have at every muster one pound of good (p.182)powder, and four pounds of lead, including twenty blind cartridges; and each serjeant shall have a pair of moulds fit to cast balls for their respective companies, to be purchased by the commanding officer out of the monies arising on delinquencies. Provided, That the militia of the counties westward of the Blue Ridge, and the counties below adjoining thereto, shall not be obliged to be armed with muskets, but may have good rifles with proper accoutrements, in lieu thereof. And every of the said officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates, shall constantly keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, ready to be produced whenever called for by his commanding officer. If any private shall make it appear to the satisfaction of the court hereafter to be appointed for trying delinquencies under this act that he is so poor that he cannot purchase the arms herein required, such court shall cause them to be purchased out of the money arising from delinquents."

This piece from US v. Miller was used to show the efficacy of armed civilians, and was not included in US v. Miller as a list or reference to define what weapons might be applicable to a militia. Just a little further on in US v. Miller, the Court said, "...when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." There is a whole lot of stuff in common use today that we are either forbidden or made difficult for us to keep and bear - because the 2A is infringed.

Earlier in US v. Miller, the Court said, "In the absence of any evidence ..., we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." They couldn't say it didn't, either. Further, they said it wasn't within judicial notice that such a weapon might be a useful piece of military equipment, or that using one would contribute to the common defense. But, it doesn't matter anyway. The Court unconstitutionally amended the Constitution by saying that such a list might even exist or that any such test of usefulness to a militia might exist. There is no provision in the Second Amendment - or anywhere else in the Constitution - to grant power to Congress, the Executive, or Judiciary to make any such distinction(s).


Note that the muster order does not state bring your cannon, cannonballs, enough powder for cannons, or any other crew based weapons. These would be the equivalents to artillery, tanks and planes of today.
If this were relevant to the "interpretation" that there was some list of arms efficacious to a militia, this would have been the "judicial notice" the Court was looking for.


Arms is pretty clearly defined for US civilians as well, it is anything under 1/2 inch (.50Caliber). Anything larger is classed as a destructive device, not arms.
Funny, I can't find this in the Constitution anywhere, nor can I find power granted to Congress to conjure up any such definition. This would just be more unconstitutional infringement upon the right.


The founding fathers recognized that the ultimate strength of any country is individually armed citizens working together for the common good and if necessary to overthrow a tyrannical gov't, but even back then cannons (and other crew served weapons) were not items that civilians owned I beg to differ with that one. Most of the ships(privateers) used back then were privately owned(hence the term PRIVATEer). They had cannon.


Pistols, rifles and shotguns in the right hands can stop any army, regardless of whether they possess crew-served weaponry. No one needs to serve as cannon fodder to stop such devices. They all run out of fuel eventually whether they fire a shot or not. 'Till they run out of ammo they are useful, it isn't a matter of fuel. These devices can be refueled and rearmed pretty much with impunity as long as they have ammo. These weapons are designed to wipe out foot soldiers. That's why they were invented. Without the necessary arms to destroy such weapons, the foot soldier is nothing more than cannon fodder. I'll die to protect the Constitution, my family, brethren, city, town state, and country. But, I'm not going to sacrifice myself in hopes of causing a tank or machine gun nest to run out of ammo. And, I'm not going to abide some dumb-ass law and not McGiver up a bomb of some sort to take out that tank or nest. It would be much better for me and everyone else to survive any such encounter. Having a ready stock of the arms necessary to the task is what the protections in the Second Amendment are all about.

Back on topic, if the 2nd A meant that the civilian population should be able to resist domestic/foreign organized armies. The term "arms" should mean that we the people should be PROPERLY armed to handle those circumstances.
It is possible, but not likely for individuals to own such items, but rather organized militias. It has been argued that that is the logical ends of the "collective" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, namely that States would have to have parity with the standing central government military and therefore should possess missiles, nukes, chemical weapons, etc.This represents a misconception. First, states cannot have a standing army(Article I, Section 10, Clause (3). I assume you are referring to the National Guard when you mention the "organized militia". The National Guard is a portion of the militia in the employ of the United States(Article I, Section 8, Clause (16)), not a state. Any "parity " comes from the people being individually armed. That effectively torpedoes the "collective" interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment does not need to be interpreted. It needs to be obeyed. Period.

Under the individual interpretation though, such items would likely not be considered arms that give parity. "Properly armed" is relative, even if you have the exact same arms as a soldier, you still aren't properly armed as they have had tactics and training that give them an advantage one on one. However since civilians far outnumber soldiers, that advantage disappears even if civilians were armed with outdated technology. You are confusing training(well regulated) for being armed. We are supposed to have arms so that we might train on our own. We can train(as I do, even at 60) like any soldier might. As quatin points out in Comment #75, ...Not being ALLOWED to be equally armed is something that cannot be counter balanced. ...

ksnectieman
woodcdi, I hope you do not mind me shortening that to woody?Please do!

As for the "permission slip", I've got one too. What is even more unconstitutional than having to get a permit to carry a gun is the law that makes carrying a gun illegal in the first place. The permit process does nothing more than provide an exception to the original unconstitutional law. Without that unconstitutional law, there would be no need or opportunity to "require" you to get a permit. Look at Alaska and Vermont: There is no law forbidding carrying arms, hence no possibility to require a permit.

quatin
Butt in any time you like. This is an open forum. And, AMEN on our Founding Father's choice of the word "arms".

hugh damright
Still on the "collective rights" thing, eh? Well, owning a nuke for a law abiding citizen is not about forcing their will upon everyone else. That is for despots, tyrants, terrorists, dictators, theocracies, oligarchies, monarchies, and the like. For the law abiding citizen, it is for defense when called out for militia duty or when the state turns against the law abiding citizen. Quatin summed it up well in comment #59.

vynx your quote...History repeats itself thats why!

History repeats itself thats why the 2A is still and always important.

And civilizations rise and fall they seem to have a cycle like so many other things in life and when they fall you want to be able to protect and defend.

The people who thing/say oh that can't happen here in America are idiots if they can predict the future take them to Vegas and get rich! Many countries in history have thought that can't happen here we are so enlightened and civilized and safe but things change all the time!... points out an undeniable truth: Governments with their powers come and go, but people with their rights live on.

grampster
The 2A is the linchpin that holds the whole Constitution together. The Statists will never, ever understand this because they don't want to understand it. It's not that they are incapable of understanding the meaning of the 2A, they do! They understand it too well! That is why the Statists want to destroy it. The average citizen has been lulled into complacity by 100 years of being somewhat civilized and being inculcated with the notion that the government is our friend. A nation of laws and not men is a fine system. But the men must make sure the laws follow the handbook; The Constitution. There are many instances where this is not the case. The government is a tool not a friend. If it is maintained and used properly things will function well. If not, it will become tyrannical. Witness the eminant domain ruling by the SCOTUS or the McCain-Fingold campaign finance law or any number of other rulings or laws that contradict the spirit of The Constitution.Well said, and a wake-up call everyone should heed!

hugh damright
I think there is one overwhelming argument which is that an individual with a rifle is not a threat to free government, but an individual with a nuclear weapon would be a tremendous threat. One of the biggest threats to free government is that too much power will end up in the hands of too few people ... and an individual with a nuke seems to be such a threat. In contrast, with rifles, it would take many people, theoretically a majority, to use force to take over. That's very statist of you to put the concerns of government above the people. Too much power in the hands of too few people is when the power in the hands of those running government outweighs the power in the hands of the people. And, can you explain what a "free government" is? Since it's not a term everyone uses, you could be talking about a free dictator to the likes of Kim Jong Il, or Sodamn Hinsane, or our old nemesis Adolph Hitler. Some clarity would be appreciated.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. If that doesn't convince you to take a stand and protect your inalienable rights and freedoms, nothing will. If that doesn't convince you to maintain your personal sovereignty, you are already someone else's subject. If you don't secure your rights and freedoms to maintain your personal sovereignty now, it'll be too late to come to me for help when they come for you. I will already be dead because I had to stand alone. B.E.Wood

dillonuser
October 19, 2006, 10:29 PM
He's right. The 2A is "archaic." So are all the other Amendments.

So,69chevy,tell him you don't have to listen to him because of the archaic 1st amendment which is allowing him "his" freedom of speech.

xd9fan
October 20, 2006, 02:46 PM
:D :D


Its all for one and one for all........or all the Amendments should fall.

quatin
October 20, 2006, 05:29 PM
I think there is one overwhelming argument which is that an individual with a rifle is not a threat to free government, but an individual with a nuclear weapon would be a tremendous threat. One of the biggest threats to free government is that too much power will end up in the hands of too few people ... and an individual with a nuke seems to be such a threat. In contrast, with rifles, it would take many people, theoretically a majority, to use force to take over.

I disagree on that argument being "overwhelming". An individual with a rifle could easily overpower a group of unarmed citizens. It would take much less than a majority of gun owners to overpower and take over the rest of the country had they been unarmed. (Relating this to one man with a nuclear weapon and the rest of the country without.) This is quite similar to the anti-gun approach, that allowing rifles to the common citizen gives one person/group too much power to take the freedom of another.
What I think you are actually implying is the degree of power. A nuclear weapon will give you a LARGER degree of power than a gun. However, a gun will give you a LARGER degree of power than a knife. Nowhere in the 2nd A does it state a boundary of power. If you try to apply a limit to the term "ARMS" from the 2nd A I don't see how you could justify a gun being within bounds, but not a nuclear device/artillery piece/etc.

So again, I say if you do not truly believe the 2nd A is to allow the people to combat domestic/foreign armies, then it has become archaic such that few people support it's TRUE meaning.

ksnecktieman
October 21, 2006, 02:57 AM
I do not think quatin is listening to me. if you want a nuke, and you have the money to purchase it (multiple millions)? buy it. The federal government should have no control there.

This is a government, (of, by, and for the people),,,,, we should be in charge, You, Me , and Bill Gates. IF Bill thinks his purchase of a nuke will make us bow, that is his choice. Every one makes choices to live or die with. SO TELL ME,,, Quatin???? How long before someone puts a .308 slug into dear sweet Bill,,,, if he abuses his power? ( assuming of course, that the second amendmet is honored as fact?

hugh damright
October 22, 2006, 12:49 PM
If you try to apply a limit to the term "ARMS" from the 2nd A I don't see how you could justify a gun being within bounds, but not a nuclear device/artillery piece/etc.

So again, I say if you do not truly believe the 2nd A is to allow the people to combat domestic/foreign armies, then it has become archaic such that few people support it's TRUE meaning.
The original intent was not that individuals must have military powers sufficient to check the US. Quite the contrary, the original intent was that any military power be subordinate to the civil power. And I reckon a nuclear weapon is a military power. And as such, the Second Amendment requires that any such weapon be controlled, not by an individual, but by the civil power. So please don't tell me that individuals need nukes and that if I don't agree then I don't believe in the true meaning Second Amendment.

ConstitutionCowboy
October 22, 2006, 02:28 PM
The original intent was not that individuals must have military powers sufficient to check the US.

Where you getting this from? Must be something like; "The Bill of Rights as Annotated by Diane Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Shumer, and Sarah Brady: Edited by George Soros".

Woody


There is perspective and there is pretense. No amount of bombast or emotion can truthfully equate the two. One does not add validity to the other. Bombast and emotion added to pretense does not equal perspective. Reason, fact, and logic? That's a different matter. That will net you perspective every time. B.E.Wood

ksnecktieman
October 22, 2006, 07:32 PM
I consider this statement false

"The original intent was not that individuals must have military powers sufficient to check the US."

I consider this one to be true
"Quite the contrary, the original intent was that any military power be subordinate to the civil power."

And the second amendment is not limited by what you "reckon" belongs only to the military.

"And I reckon a nuclear weapon is a military power."

And the second amendment says nothing about limiting what weapons are allowed.


"And as such, the Second Amendment requires that any such weapon be controlled, not by an individual, but by the civil power."

How you choose to distort your opinion of the second amendment is unimportant to me.

So please don't tell me that individuals need nukes and that if I don't agree then I don't believe in the true meaning Second Amendment.

G36-UK
October 22, 2006, 07:41 PM
I think that the main problem is that each person has a differing view on what is meant by "Arms".

Some pro-gun people think that "arms" refers to every weapon on Earth, from pistols to ICBMs.

All of the Antis, however, think that "arms" refers to the connection between hand and torso (except for their "militia", the National Guard).

Personally, I define it as any weapon that can be carried and operated by a single person. This may include weapons such as the M-388 "Davy Crockett", so it could be used as an argument for nukes.

quatin
October 22, 2006, 09:12 PM
I do not think quatin is listening to me. if you want a nuke, and you have the money to purchase it (multiple millions)? buy it. The federal government should have no control there.

This is a government, (of, by, and for the people),,,,, we should be in charge, You, Me , and Bill Gates. IF Bill thinks his purchase of a nuke will make us bow, that is his choice. Every one makes choices to live or die with. SO TELL ME,,, Quatin???? How long before someone puts a .308 slug into dear sweet Bill,,,, if he abuses his power? ( assuming of course, that the second amendmet is honored as fact?



I think I stated this earlier. There is NO LAW preventing you from POSSESSING such weapons (except biological/chemical weapons). HOWEVER, there are many restrictions in place that makes acquiring such weapons impossible. Try going to Lock-heed to buy a F-22 raptor. The US military contracts many private companies for their equipment. Companies like Colt are allowed to sell "civilianized" rifles back into the public, but Lock-heed is not allowed to sell any form of their missile systems back into the public. Could you tolerate Colt or any firearms contractor not being allowed to sell any form of their firearms to the public? It would be the same such that you are not BANNED from owning firearms, but all contractors are not ALLOWED to sell them to you. Is this infringement different for firearms than nukes/missiles?


The original intent was not that individuals must have military powers sufficient to check the US. Quite the contrary, the original intent was that any military power be subordinate to the civil power. And I reckon a nuclear weapon is a military power. And as such, the Second Amendment requires that any such weapon be controlled, not by an individual, but by the civil power. So please don't tell me that individuals need nukes and that if I don't agree then I don't believe in the true meaning Second Amendment.

Why not? The Anti-gunner says you don't need guns, yet you say they don't believe in the Second Amendment. The Anti-gunner says that guns are acceptable when in a civil, but not individual context. What differentiates a nuke to be military power and a gun to be civil power? Also, if a nuke was military power, how does the civilian control it? Unless you give control to every civilian (basically handing them nukes anyways) you would have to allow them to own a nuke. That's the irony of the mutual destruction theory. You defend a nuke by having a nuke. Also, what about foreign governments (IE the British Empire of the time). How do you subject foreign militaries to the civil power of the US without proper armaments?

ConstitutionCowboy
October 22, 2006, 09:16 PM
The definition of "arms" is in the dictionary. These people who would place a different meaning to the word are simply too chicken to say they want to limit arms to citizens, or are too lazy to go through the process of amending the Constitution to limit arms, or truthfully know such an amendment would never be accepted(ratified) and are trying to reach their goal dishonestly.

Please note that one man can fly a B-52 and drop its load all by himself. Still, that is immaterial. The protection of the right is unambiguous. The right itself is absolute and unlimited. "Bear" also means "to bear up", meaning to bring forth - deliver - such as towing it behind your vehicle, or flying it over a target, or launching it with a missile, or driving it around on its link belted treads, or stuffing it in your pocket.

Woody

"Gun Control" seeks to put bounds upon, and possibly effect the elimination of the protection of our inalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Don't be led astray with the inference that it is "gun" control. It's an attempt to hide the discussion from the strict scrutiny of the Constitution. What is under attack are rights of the people. Guns are inanimate objects; tools of freedom and self defense, primarily. Dehumanizing the discourse by calling it "gun control" or "gun rights" lessens the concern from what the significance is when the discussion is directed at the HUMAN right being infringed. B.E.Wood

dragongoddess
October 22, 2006, 09:40 PM
If you really wish to understand the meaning of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States you need look no further than the Declaration of Independence. When you read it you are left with the profound realization that it is your Civic Duty as a Citizen of the United States to overthrow your own government by whatever means possible if it reaches such a state. Some passages from that great document.

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."



If the American Citizen is not allowed to bear Arms as provided in the 2nd Amendment then we cannot fulfill our Solemn Civic Duty as laid down in our Declaration of Independence .


Stop and think.
Had our Forefathers not had Arms where would we be today.

ksnecktieman
October 22, 2006, 11:28 PM
I feel I need to clarify something. I do not think bill gates should buy a nuke. I do not think anyone should. BUT I think it is their choice under the second amendment in our bill of rights, as it is written.
My fear is that if we let someone decide that a nuke is not permitted, the next thing they will do is decide that hand grenades are not permitted (OOPS we restricted that already). Next they would want to ban machine guns (OOPS They did). Then they might decide that anything over fifty caliber needs to be regulated (OOPS). Then they might decide that SOME people should not own anything (!!!yes, we did that, and it is not only accepted, but praised by many people, even here on a firearm forum.)
I think the second amendment means just exactly what it says, and I will accept it for me,,,, and for YOU, and for the ex con down the street. including even hand grenades, and machine guns, and small concealable pistols.
If we allow any limitations they will be expanded a little at a time, until everyone, and everything is controlled. I would not trust a politician to have that much power. Honor the second amendment as much as we do the first, that is what the writers of it meant.

G36-UK
October 23, 2006, 12:54 PM
The definition of "arms" is in the dictionary. These people who would place a different meaning to the word are simply too chicken to say they want to limit arms to citizens, or are too lazy to go through the process of amending the Constitution to limit arms, or truthfully know such an amendment would never be accepted(ratified) and are trying to reach their goal dishonestly.


Good point, I can see what you mean by the dishonesty of the antis, we've had that problem for years.

Please note that one man can fly a B-52 and drop its load all by himself. Still, that is immaterial. The protection of the right is unambiguous. The right itself is absolute and unlimited. "Bear" also means "to bear up", meaning to bring forth - deliver - such as towing it behind your vehicle, or flying it over a target, or launching it with a missile, or driving it around on its link belted treads, or stuffing it in your pocket.


So noted. Thanks for clarifying.

Bill St. Clair
October 24, 2006, 07:34 AM
Of course the 2A is archaic. It somehow has left room for misinterpretation of "shall not be infringed" and it has no penalty clause. It should be something more like this, with thanks to L. Neil Smith for the first paragraph.
,
Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

Any sworn government official -- legislative, executive, or judicial -- who infringes on this right in any way, or even proposes an infringement, shall be tried for treason, and, if convicted, by a jury of his peers, shall be immediately executed, on the same day as the guilty verdict.

crunker
October 24, 2006, 04:52 PM
The Second Amendment is clearly not archaic and quite applicable today, perhaps more so than it was in 1776.

Today we have nukes, chemical weapons, and biological weapons in the hands of all kinds of people. Governments world-wide are as corrupt as ever. We currently have a genocide going on. Therefore, I find it not only my right but my duty as a human to own the best weapons that are available so that I may help the oppressed, as well as defend myself.

kengrubb
October 25, 2006, 09:05 PM
The Miller decision leaves us with a perhaps disquieting conclusion that weapons shown to be part of ordinary military equipment, and which could contribute to the common defense, ARE protected by the Second Amendment and thus cannot be subjected to NFA restrictions.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174

A CRITICAL GUIDE TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT by Glenn Harlan Reynolds is pretty good on helping define what weapons are protected.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html#h2.3.2

Reynolds refers to large crew-served weapons as not protected under the 2A, and then generally cites machine guns. MP5s, M16s, and even M240 SAWs are all machine guns in regular military usage, man portable, and are both designed and intended to be employed by a single individual. Twould seem that buzzguns one could reasonably put forth can be used by one person are protected arms under the 2A.

vmfrantz
October 25, 2006, 09:25 PM
If people say the 2a is bad, I would like to see a study of how many people the 1st a killed. With holly wood hiding behind it and making movies that glorafy violence and showing the only way to get ahead in life is with weapon.

ConstitutionCowboy
October 26, 2006, 01:22 AM
I copied this comment of mine from another recent thread. It might shed some new light on US v Miller for you:

US v Miller

Here is the main line of reasoning that shows what the Court actually said in U.S. v. Miller(1939)... and how it doesn't mean diddly.

Misdirection

Look at what the Court said here: "IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TENDING TO SHOW THAT POSSESSION OR USE OF A "SHOTGUN HAVING A BARREL OF LESS THAN EIGHTEEN INCHES IN LENGTH" AT THIS TIME HAS SOME REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP TO THE PRESERVATION OR EFFICIENCY OF A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEES THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR SUCH AN INSTRUMENT." Referring to the text I put in bold, the Court said that they could not come to a conclusion without any evidence. The Court did not say that the "SHOTGUN HAVING A BARREL OF LESS THAN EIGHTEEN INCHES IN LENGTH" did not have "...SOME REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP TO THE PRESERVATION OR EFFICIENCY OF A WELL REGULATED MILITIA,..." If the Court had come to the conclusion that the sawed-off shotgun WASN'T a viable weapon for use in the militia, it would have said so. It didn't say so. It would have needed the same evidence to show it was as it would have needed to show it wasn't!

Further in that same paragraph the Court said, "CERTAINLY IT IS NOT WITHIN JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT THIS WEAPON IS ANY PART OF THE ORDINARY MILITARY EQUIPMENT OR THAT ITS USE COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE COMMON DEFENSE." Judicial notice is "n. the authority of a judge to accept as facts certain matters which are of common knowledge from sources which guarantee accuracy or are a matter of official record, without the need for evidence establishing the fact. Examples of matters given judicial notice are public and court records, tides, times of sunset and sunrise, government rainfall and temperature records, known historic events or the fact that ice melts in the sun." Here again, the Court is saying they don't know as a matter of record, don't have reference to any common knowledge, don't have a guaranteed source to refer to the fact in question, and can't say off the top of their head whether or not the sawed-off shotgun fit in the militia and, therefore, would require evidence to make the call.


Pretense and Amending the Constitution by Rote

The Court, without proper amendment, amended the the Constitution on its own by interjecting a requirement not present in the Constitution, nor has power been granted to Congress to legislate any such requirement - "CERTAINLY IT IS NOT WITHIN JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT THIS WEAPON IS ANY PART OF THE ORDINARY MILITARY EQUIPMENT OR THAT ITS USE COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE COMMON DEFENSE." - and any such infringement is expressly forbidden by Second Amendment that a weapon must be shown to have a viable place in the militia. The Court simply wrote their decision as if such a requirement existed. The Court even admitted to interpreting the Constitution. The Court cited Article I, Section 8, Clause (16): THE CONSTITUTION AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED GRANTED TO THE CONGRESS POWER "TO PROVIDE FOR CALLING FORTH THE MILITIA TO EXECUTE THE LAWS OF THE UNION, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS AND REPEL INVASIONS; TO PROVIDE FOR ORGANIZING, ARMING, AND DISCIPLINING, THE MILITIA, AND FOR GOVERNING SUCH PART OF THEM AS MAY BE EMPLOYED IN THE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS." Then the Court said: "WITH OBVIOUS PURPOSE TO ASSURE THE CONTINUATION AND RENDER POSSIBLE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SUCH FORCES THE DECLARATION AND GUARANTEE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT WERE MADE. IT MUST BE INTERPRETED AND APPLIED WITH THAT END IN VIEW." How they pulled any arms qualification requirements out of that, I cannot fathom. Even if that requirement was in Article I, Section 8, Clause (16), it would have been vacated by the later dated(and therefore superseded by) the Second Amendment!!

Wordsmithing

The Court was quite sneaky and devious in its wording with this non-ruling. Look at this: The Court said, "WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT BELOW AND THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED. THE CAUSE WILL BE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS." So, let's look at "WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT BELOW ..." What does that tell you? It tells you that the Court didn't say that the conclusion of the court below was wrong, the Court said because there was no evidence presented, it cannot accept the conclusion. They said in the beginning that "In the absence of any evidence....we cannot say...". Then the Court continued with, "..AND THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED. When ever the Court reverses a lower court ruling, it does not include anything like "...must be...". The Court did not reverse or vacate the judgment of the lower court. The Court didn't say the judgement IS reversed of vacated. "THE CAUSE WILL BE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS." The Court instructed the lower court to proceed further on the case, presumably, to have the needed evidence presented to support the lower court's conclusion that the NFA is unconstitutional by showing that the sawed-off shotgun is a viable weapon for the militia. Sadly, Miller had been murdered before the case even hit the Supreme Court, and Layton(Miller's co-defendant) accepted a plea. There was no one left to continue the case. Don't forget, however, that this, for all intents and purposes, is moot in the light of the Second Amendment.



Misdirection

The Court's ducking of one aspect of "judicial notice" is also despicable. That "judicial notice" is the obvious capability of a sawed-off shotgun to deliver a lethal dose of shot. I would equate what a member of the militia can do with a sawed-off shotgun to a similar level of common knowledge with the common knowledge that if you place a chunk of ice in the sun, it will melt. Again, this is moot in the light of the prohibition placed upon all government to infringe upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the Second Amendment.

More "misdirection"

It is not within the purview of the Court to up and say, "HEY! You are misinterpreting/misunderstanding what was said in this case!" Not until some other case is brought back up to the Court on appeal can the Court address this again. The Court did not uphold the NFA, but it didn't shoot it down, either. This case, US v. Miller is undecided to this very day. All the citing of US v. Miller as sealing the notion that Congress may infringe the RKBA if it has to do with interstate commerce is just as bogus. As I pointed out for the "militia" clause, the Second Amendment was ratified after the Commerce Clause, and the prohibition on Congress to infringe upon the RKBA in the Second Amendment would supersede any supposed power of Congress to infringe the right that might be misconstrued from the Commerce Clause.

This from the Court in US v Miller TAKES THE CAKE! "MOST IF NOT ALL OF THE STATES HAVE ADOPTED PROVISIONS TOUCHING THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. DIFFERENCES IN THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED IN THESE HAVE NATURALLY LED TO SOMEWHAT VARIANT CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING THE SCOPE OF THE RIGHT GUARANTEED. BUT NONE OF THEM SEEM TO AFFORD ANY MATERIAL SUPPORT FOR THE CHALLENGED RULING OF THE COURT BELOW." Seems they conveniently "forgot" that the Second Amendment is a part of the Constitution and that the Second Amendment is, therefore, part of the Supreme Law of the Land, and "...anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary (is) notwithstanding." It doesn't matter WHAT any state law or constitution has to say about the RKBA. THE COURT HAD(HAS) ALL IT NEEDED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT! What the Court said here is no different than what some are doing now - looking to foreign law to make their rulings!

Hope this helps.

Woody

If you enjoyed reading about "2A is archaic" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!