Some Replies
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
