Need some help on 2nd Amendment debate

[CrudeGT]

A friend and I are having a debate about how the 2nd amendment plays into current society. As far as the right to keep and bear arms.


She gave these points to which I could find no info on the net to dispute her, and I'm not the best as debating political stuff.

She says that the 2nd amendment was made only for the militia, not the individual, to stop tyranny, only on a governmental level, not on a personal level, and with the use of only the weapons available to the government in charge. So that last part would mean that because we would defend our rights with guns, and the government would defend with nukes, that it's a mute point.
And that we, the gun owners, should be fighting for the 4th amendment, the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, and not the 2nd amendment.

I have always taken the 2nd amendment as meaning that on a personal level, which includes my personal rights infriged by a government, or another person, I, as well as fellow americans (thus creating a militia) have the right to defend, with weapons (arms), our rights that are being infringed.

We went back and forth for a bit until I was too stubborn to give up and said I needed to do some more research and get mor facts. I'm trying to go through old posts, but there are a lot. Can anyone point in the right direction as far as a thread, or website that would give me some good info to back up our cause?


Thanx

 

[Hkmp5sd]

The Meaning of the Words in the Second Amendment

THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS by John Santee

Guns in Court by Dave Kopel

 

[nhhillbilly]

personal right

The second is a personal right as are all of the bill of rights. As you can tell from the ending of the 2nd The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Also the Justic Department VIA Attorney General Ashcroft that the 2nd is a personal right. Even Alan Dirchwircz ( spelling) has stated it is a personal right.

 

[Standing Wolf]

She says that the 2nd amendment was made only for the militia, not the individual...

That's a tired old leftist extremist lie that's been discredited again and again.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Don't forget http://www.guncite.com/ they have about half their in-depth website devoted to addressing the very argument you mention

 

[Glacius_the_Invincible]

Well, as for the militia you might try the United States Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Sec. 311 the definition of the militia:

"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. "

It pretty much says that if you're male, over 17, and can walk and shoot you are part of the militia. So you're probably good to go.

 

[Jim March]

Here's my best writing on the subject:

http://www.americanminutemen.org/reinhardt.htm

It's also necessary to understand how the 14th Amendment changed the 2nd:

http://www.equalccw.com/practicalrace.html

 

[CrudeGT]

Damn, that's a lot of info. Thanx guys. I'm sure to kick her ??? in the debate now.


A little about her, she was born an raised in New Zealand, so she's been taught about our country from an outside perspective. So, she was taught a different veiw of the constitution and our society. That's why it's so hard to get her to see it our way. But this stuff will help. Thank you.

 

[Drjones]

Ask her what rights groups have that individuals don't.

Ask her to name other "collective" rights.

She won't be able to because the communists don't try to label any other right as "collective," and also the term "collective" (or group) right is nonsensical.

 

[Waitone]

That Every Man Be Armed by Steven Halbrook

Mind numbing analysis as befitting a constitutional lawyer. He nukes the collective right argumentation in impressive fashion.

Also download a copy of GunFacts.

 

[OF]

Also, don't get caught trying to defend the false premise that the 2nd Amendment 'grants' you any rights at all. It does not. The Bill of Rights secures certain rights 'of the people' from tyranny in a form that can be referred to and read by an everyday citizen. It is sort of a laundry list of the last things a free people will need to preserve or regain their freedom when all else has been stripped from them. But remember, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The BoR is not a list of your rights. It is a list of some of your more important rights as they relate to your government.

- Gabe

 

[Airedale1]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

CrudeGT tell her, at the time the framers wrote this that the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" was not meant to protect the keeping of arms for hunting or even self-defense, to them that was a given, you needed arms to hunt and to protect yourself.

Former Rep. Bob Dornan said it as forcefully as any politician in modern times has ever said it, on the floor of the House in 1995, "the 2nd amendment is not for killing little ducks and leaving Huey, Dewey and Louie without an aunt and uncle. It is for hunting politicians."

In other words, the 2nd amendment was added so that "we the people" could overthrow a tyrannical government.

Then buy her copies of "The Bias Against Guns" and "More Guns, Less Crime" both written by John Lott and both of which should be required reading for any RKBA advocate. If she won't read them, show her this quote:

"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance--that principle is contempt prior to investigation." - Herbert Spencer and good luck!

 

[Dex Sinister]

A little about her, she was born an raised in New Zealand, so she's been taught about our country from an outside perspective. So, she was taught a different veiw of the constitution and our society. That's why it's so hard to get her to see it our way. But this stuff will help. Thank you.

Given where she’s from, you might also explain that, unlike the English system of law and unwritten constitution, in America the people created the government from scratch, delegating to it (as one would to a servant or to an agent) certain powers and authority in a written document (the Constitution.) This, of course, means that they kept all powers and authorities that they did not delegate.

To this document, the people attached a list of powers and authorities that they wanted the government to be absolutely clear that it did not possess, (The Bill of Rights) even though there was no mention of giving them to the government in the first place, because these were the sorts of things that other governments had attempted to control in the past, and the people wanted to make quite sure that the government knew it was not getting them.

Part of your problem is that she is used to thinking in terms of “Everything not expressly allowed by the government is forbidden,†instead of the American version which is the complete opposite: “Everything the people did not expressly authorize the government to control, it has no control over.â€

In America, the government is (or, at least, was a one time) a hired servant, not a master. If you can get her to see this, then you can use the following analogy:

Suppose you hire a maid, and give them the authority to enter your home when you aren’t there, clean, pay the newspaper boy, pay the gardener, and shop for food. Suppose further that you give her a list of things she can’t do: Can’t sleep in your bed, can’t drink the wine in the cellar, can’t fire the gardener, can’t play baseball in the house.

Does the mere fact that you gave her a list of things that she did not have your permission to do mean that she can: A) Do anything not on the list (say sleep in your children’s beds, and play football in the house? B) Tell you what you can do in your own house? No, of course not.

Dex }:>=-

 

[Oleg Volk]

As far as defending with nukes goes...that would require the target to be distant from the defender, and also not mixed in with loyalists...not likely in case of a civil war.

 

[bfieldburt]

CrudeGT, really, she needs to back to a basic course in informal logic, maybe clear back to a review of basic Socrates and Aristotle. Let's think about what she is saying at a real basic level.

Her premise: the 2nd Amendment grants a "group" right, not an "individual" right.

So, we need to identify the "group" she is referring to. That group, according to most leftists, is the government, or more specifically, the "national guard" or the military.

So, what is her conclusion (whether she realizes it or not) : the government, through an amendment to the constitution, is granting itself the right to "keep and bear arms".

Q: Since when has any government in the history of the world needed "the right" to keep and bear arms to protect itself against itself? Of course this is absolutely ridiculous. Also, it shows that she hasn't read a darn thing that the founding fathers said.

NOTE: people who believe in "groups rights" have generally had a number done on them by some controlling entity...i.e....indoctrinated away from their individual God given freedoms, indoctrinated to hand those rights over without even realizing it. This is generally done by emotionalizing a population. SEE, "The End of Gun Control" that I just posted.

Bfieldburt