So I got into a talk about the 2nd with some family members.

You might remind them that when the Constitution was written, civilian and military persons were armed with the same types of weapons having the same capabilities. There were no hand guns or long guns that were designated as "military" use only. In fact, civilian firearms were actually more likely to be better than what the soldiers were armed with. Civilians were likely to have rifles (more useful for hunting due to their accuracy), while soldiers carried muskets (which can't hit the broadside of a barn beyond 100 yds on a good day). When the Constitution was written it was presumed that all civilians would be eligible and ready to be called into military service and to bring their own firearms and related kit to be ready to fight when they were. Therefore it was thought necessary in order to maintain the security and freedom of the new nation that citizens should be armed.

Brutuskend said:

I actually got them to change thier minds!!

Click to expand...

Brutuskend said:

Yeah, that was part of my argument!

Click to expand...

Yeah, if you use actual facts that make actual commonsense instead of the lies that anti-gunners want to push as "commonsense" then a person with an open mind can't help but come to the same conclusion. Unfortunately, too many minds are not open and aren't interested in facts, especially not any facts that don't support their position.

Good for you to be convincing, and good for them to listen!!

Well done. I've also reminded people I know that the 1st was written with quill pens long before radio, television or the internet. The 4th written long before microphones, satellite surveillance or FISA Courts. The 7th was written when $20.00 was a lot of money. It's strange how they foresaw changes in everything but firearms.

Well, we can all discuss our theories about what the 2nd Amendment means, but in the end the only theory that matters is the one that a majority of the Supreme Court accepts. And to get the Supreme Court to speak, there has to be a suitable case. They don't rule in a vacuum.

“We the people.....! WE THE PEOPLE.....! “.....the right of “THE PEOPLE” to “KEEP AND BEAR ARMS” shall not be infringed!” Not the militia, not the police, not the army, not hunters only, not muzzle loaders, only bolt action, not “until we tell you that you don’t need those to hunt”, not “if it looks military”, etc. The document is presented by and representing the self-governed - “We The People” - “the right of The People”. Their arguments are simpleton and reaching - the language is extremely clear - what is in the language that is not to understand?

Golfanaticshooter said:

Well done. I've also reminded people I know that the 1st was written with quill pens long before radio, television or the internet. The 4th written long before microphones, satellite surveillance or FISA Courts. The 7th was written when $20.00 was a lot of money. It's strange how they foresaw changes in everything but firearms.

Click to expand...

And the 13th? Is the prohibition on slavery and involuntary servitude outdated. It was written in 1865. How could it possibly still be valid?

One key to explaining the Second Amendment to those who have only ever heard the arguments against it but are capable of reasoning is to point out that it is not "the right to be in a militia". Opponents of RKBA like to try to tie it to the "militia". So, pointing out that the Supreme Court has determined that it is an individual right is important. And then, that it is effectively the right to self defense. Anyone who is prepared to reason will "get it" when it is pointed out that the Second Amendment essentially prohibits the making of laws that would infringe on the individual right to self defense with firearms. It takes the "militia" out of it. It rids the conversation of the "right to hunt deer". And it may even get you to a civil conversation about why banning semi auto firearms and standard capacity magazines constitute a prohibited infringement.

Did your family know that private citizens back in the founding days of this country owned cannons and vessels with cannons. Just read about “Privateers.”

This would be akin of being able to own an F-18 with full armament in today’s world.

The most important point to try to get them to realize is that all of the politicians in the House and Senate work for "we the people" - NOT the other way around.

Brutuskend said:

And they used the argument that the 2nd was written way back when, and that they weren't talking about assault type weapons etc all.

Click to expand...

Really get their knickers in a twist- tell them the 1st isn't about Facebook and Twitter, either.

And they were talking exactly about "assault weapons" -The Brown Bess and the Charleville Muskets were the M16 and AK of their day. They were what the best armies in the world at the time were issued. The 2nd isn't about hunting.

Brutuskend:
And they realize that even when we had our First and Second Amendments...

.....that the First Amendment was not designed for the early telegraph, radios, telephones, cell phones or larger computers? Or "Will you marry me?", towed behind an airplane?

Brutuskend said:

I actually got them to change thier outlook on the matter!

Click to expand...

Have them approach the matter from a rape victim perspective or surviving family member of a violent home invasion murder, especially by multiple armed gang members or criminals.

Brutuskend said:

And they used the argument that the 2nd was written way back when, and that they weren't talking about assault type weapons etc all.

Click to expand...

So use the argument that the First Amendment protects modern types of speech/communication like email, text, online forum posts, etc. that did not exist during colonial times and in the same way, the Second Amendment protects modern types of semi-auto firearms and ammunition storage devices called magazines that did not exist during colonial times.

This argument was voiced by justice Scalia in DC v Heller that modern semi-auto magazine fed firearms that did not exist during colonial times were also protected by the Second Amendment and ruled the Second Amendment applied to individual self defense with Caetano v. Massachusetts confirming that argument and judge Benitez in Duncan v Becerra, ruled that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are "arms" and in "common use" and referenced Fyock v Sunnyvale - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...an-reversal-14-aug-2020.873302/#post-11604024

As to US Constitution being outdated, "Originalist" justice Gorsuch disagrees and stated the US Constitution has been "improved" with 27 amendments to keep up with modern times - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...with-question-on-the-second-amendment.856201/

As to "assault type or military type" weapons, well just about every weapon from rocks to sharp pointed sticks/spears to knives to axes to swords to eventually single shot musket, revolvers and lever action rifles have been used in battle so a stick or knife could be called "assault or military" grade weapon. Besides, average colonial gun owner kept firearm with enough lead balls and powder for several hundred reloads which was common practice. For decades, many gun owners kept modern semi-auto firearms like AR15 with multiple 30+ round capacity magazines which was common and legal. Restriction of semi-auto firearms and common capacity magazines is fairly new event and judge Benitez stated in Duncan v Becerra that gun owners having limited 10 round capacity magazines can experience "lethal pause" while changing or attempting to change magazines - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...lated-information.849620/page-7#post-11271902

And if you live in metropolitan cities with violent gangs/criminals, home owners can experience home invasion robberies/rape/murder by multiple armed intruders and handgun may not be enough to properly protect home owners. Defensive situations like this is where Pistol Caliber Carbines (PCC) or semi-auto rifles with larger 30+ capacity magazines are needed (Instead of 10-15+ capacity for pistols) to better protect the home owners. Reason why we don't ride horses for transportation because we have more modern forms of transportation.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." - Thomas Jefferson

Allow me to counterpoint for a moment.

Heller is a double-edged sword and not the all-encompassing shield on gun rights we might wish for certainly. It also ENTIRELY misses the point of the 2nd Amendment as written, which was both an individual AND collective right.

The 2nd Amendment was the "nuclear deterrent" of its day. It assured that any attempt by an insufferably opressive domestic government or foriegn invader would be met with sufficient civilian resistance to require massive amounts of military force to quell such resistance- and that the resulting destruction would leave the aggressor with little worth conquering save the land itself.

To that end, the populace had to be adequately well-armed to represent a credible deterrent-.but even in 1776 it was accepted that the militia alone would be unable to defeat a professional standing army. During the Revolution, despite the praise we rightly heap upon the local militias of the day for doing useful harressement and reconnaissance work, it was Washingtons regulars who defeated the British, not the militia. Washington himself wrote of how poorly the militia units performed on the battlefied and for the most part represented a drain on his meager logistical resources.

If the militia was expected to fight AND WIN against professional foriegn and domestic professional armies, they would have needed privately held ordnance equivalent with the armies of the day, and the training and support to maintain such. Clearly, even in the 18th Century, it was frowned upon if not outright illegal, to own your own cannon, for example. The founders never meant for the 2nd Amendment to give the populace carte blanche with respect to military weaponry, only that the body of the people, as they were already armed anyway, would give aggressors pause before attempting invasion or enacting massively invasive laws.

Isoroku Yamamoto's famous comment about "a gun behind every blade of grass" being the reason Japan never seriously considered an invasion of the US mainland is a good example of the 2nd Amendment in practice. Defeat the US military, and sure, the Japanese could very well have successfully conquered a sizeable chunk of the West Coast- they had, afterall, already occupied a large swathe of China. However, they would have faced such resistance from the armed populace that it would have meant suppressing a huge insurgencey for years and required massive investments in men and material to make it stick. Not worth it, move along.

If we look at the Viet Cong as a relatively successful example of a popular armed resistance to foriegn occupiers, and despite being equipped with some heavy weapons, they were never able to outright defeat the US military. Even Tet was a Pyrrhic victory at best for the Cong as they were largely spent as a fighting force afterwards. Their best and most effective weapons were not AKs and RPGs, but rather assassination, propoganda, and intimidation. Ultimately, it was the regular forces of the NVA that overthrew the South, not the Cong.

So how does all this relate to Heller, the modern US citizenry, and their AR15s? By removing the Militia clause from consideration, the supreme court has effectively voided the deterrence aspect of the 2nd Amendment. No longer are you expected, or even permitted, to maintain arms for the purposes of defending the security of a free state as the Founders intended. No- you are only allowed sufficient arms as to defend your individual person and home. Some would argue that this is a good thing, as it makes it harder for local governments to totally ban private ownership outside the purview of a militia or National Guard. However, the bar can be raised or lowered very easily as to what types of weaponry may be privately held for such purposes. Does anyone really need an AR15 for home defense? For the vast majority of situations, the answer is no.

Do I believe we should have the right to own military-grade small arms? YES! This would be the bare minimum necessary to provide a credible deterrence to a foriegn or domestic threat from attempting an overt invasion or power-grab, as the Founders intended. Would I expect a modern civilian militia to defeat such a threat single-handedly, without the support of a large proportion of the professional military? Nope.

But thats not the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Its purpose is to ensure that any such attempted takeover would require an aggressor to utilize massive and devastating fireower to cement their control, leaving them nothing more to rule over than a charred wasteland after a long and costly campaign.

Sadly, though Heller may be great for defending your individual life and property, it guts the 2nd Amendment and its deterrence value. The Militia clause was not prefactory language- it was the core sentiment, and one totally lost on a clueless SCOTUS.

Brutuskend said:

In my opinion we lost the capability to fulfill the intent of what the FF's were tring to leave us when automatic weapons were banned. If we ever do need to protect our country from enemy's from within or without we will always be hopelessly out gunned. If our own government were to ever go rogue, we would be facing our own armed forces in which case no amount of privately owned firearms could ever hope to prevail. It would be ideal I guess if we could all be like that guy in Col. with the immense arsenal. Oh if dreams could come true...

We can only hope that if that ever happend that the majority or service members do the right thing and resist.

Click to expand...

The key is making such a conflict so costly that it NEVER happens- this is the key tenant of deterrence, and the reason nations maintain nuclear weapons. The 2nd Amendment is the nuclear arsenal of the populace, or at least it was meant as such.

If the 2nd Amendment is gutted, and the people are no longer a credible deterrent to aggression, then the odds of another civil war or invasion increase drastically. This is not to say that a US populace armed with AR15s would deter China from engaging in outright conflict between our nation-states, but in the event of a US loss, it may give them pause before considering an actual occupation. Not that they would need to- they could simply buy the loyalty of a large percentage of the population who currently feel disenfranchised, oppressed, or are outright sympathetic to their communal/ socialist world view. They would be welcomed with open arms in many places after a few years of economic hardship and hunger.
Indeed, they are already waging propaganda and disinformation warfare on a massive scale.

In the event of civil war, even if the standing military largely sided with the populace over the orders of a totalitarian central government, the resulting exchange of firepower would destroy any chance that the "victors" would regain anything that resembles the America we know today- and foreign actors such as China and Russia would be only too happy to pick a side and claim their spoils under this scenario as well, or at the very least use the opportunity to cement their own positions as hegemons of the future.

Only through deterrence can we maintain peace and liberty- peace through credible firepower, if not superior. Of course, if the people hand over their liberty willingly in exchange for false promises of security, well thats a whole ' nother barrel of worms........

I like to point out why the Bill Of Rights was adopted.

It is contained in its Preamble, which is rarely read.

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights:

"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

Ten of the Amendments were subesequently afopted and incorporated into the Constitution, including, of course, the Second.

For myself, I have long been of the opinion that since the final form of the Second Amendment was as short and concise as it was, they must have really, really meant to prevent its "misconstruction."

I often add the idea that just about every creature under the sun has its own individual means of self defense, from the tiny sharp claws of the fuzziest widdle kitten to the enormous seven-ton bulk of the elephant.

Why, by dad-gum it, it's almost as if it were some kind of natural principle.

Terry, 230RN

REF:
http://img-aws.ehowcdn.com/600x600p/photos.demandstudios.com/getty/article/17/106/dv413046.jpg

Tell them to wake up and smell the coffee. If there was ever a time in history that the US Citizen needed protection for himself, family, business etc. it is NOWl Ask them, who do you think are trying to take away these rights? The same people destroying this country. Why do you think firearm sales are going through the roof? It should be common sense why the second Amendment is of the most importance. The citizens right to protect themselves and Country from Tyranny.

People passively speak against the Second, not realizing most times those figure heads they end up ...supporting are openly AGAINST it, for certain groups...

I always point to The Hypocrisy which event in all policies and generically called, ''good for thee, but not for me.'' A few examples, gas guzzling SuVs are bbbaad (don't look at my up armored SUV) ; global warming, AL Gore's house carbon huuuge footprint is somewhere around the density of the sun's core; and.....here it is...all those uppity ups who spew anti-2A stuff usually / generally have armed security. And by dag-gummit p) ABSOLUTELY those Lords & Nobles, er, excuse me, federal Reps & Senators.

And even some heavily voiced anti-MSR types gettn' BusTEd shooting or owning same



But NOT U LITTLE PeepLes.

NIGHTLORD40K said:

Allow me to counterpoint for a moment.

Heller is a double-edged sword and not the all-encompassing shield on gun rights we might wish for certainly. It also ENTIRELY misses the point of the 2nd Amendment as written, which was both an individual AND collective right......

<snip>

Sadly, though Heller may be great for defending your individual life and property, it guts the 2nd Amendment and its deterrence value. The Militia clause was not prefactory language- it was the core sentiment, and one totally lost on a clueless SCOTUS.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are entirely correct. We desperately need a clearly defining case to go before the Supremes and get a strict scrutiny interpretation and definitive ruling. Unfortunately, they punted on every single case to come before them so far this year. I was hoping that at least one would be seen as THE case to accomplish that.

If the people of the U.S. decide they don't need or want a Second Amendment anymore there is a process for doing that. Then so be it. But it cannot be done by a Congress passing legislation that piecemeal infringes the inherent right originally recognized by the original document, and not even by a Supreme Court that refuses to strike down such laws.