images/forum_images/thinker.gif

2nd amendment = right to own arms that existed when it was written, or right to own arms that are necessary for a revolution?

member "op-ed" philosophical opinion & electoral debate

2nd amendment = right to own arms that existed when it was written, or right to own arms that are necessary for a revolution?

Postby taylordbarrett » Tue Dec 25, 2012 6:38 pm

Seems to me that there are two interpretations of the 2nd amendment

either "the right to bear arms" refers to

1) the right to bear the arms that existed when the 2nd amendment was written

or

2) the right to bear the arms that are necessary for a successful revolution against a tyrannical government



the first interpretation would limit one to owning basically just single-shot rifles and hundguns, and cannons.

the second interpretation would mean that people need to possess the same kinds of arms that the government possesses in order to provide a counter balance against government power, and that would mean fully automatics, grenades, shoulder fired rockets, jets with heat seaking missiles, and yes Nukes.



which interpretation do you agree with? and if you instead wish to support some sort of middle-ground between the two, then define for me where you would draw the line and why.

[peace]
User avatar
taylordbarrett
 
Posts: 839
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 1:52 am
Location: California, Milky Way, ?

Re: 2nd amendment = right to own arms that existed when it was written, or right to own arms that are necessary for a revolution

Postby Opinionated » Tue Dec 25, 2012 6:57 pm

Neither of your interpretations is correct. What the 2nd amendment says is that having a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of the state, therefore individuals shall have the right to own weapons. What is implied, but not stated, is that those individuals will form the core of the well regulated militia. A militia can be used two ways, to protect from external aggression or to protect from internal aggression. The 2nd amendment places no emphasis on one over the other. Additionally, while it gives individuals the right to be armed, it does not require that they actually become a member of a well regulated militia.
User avatar
Opinionated
 
Posts: 57492
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:42 pm
Location: Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Re: 2nd amendment = right to own arms that existed when it was written, or right to own arms that are necessary for a revolution

Postby attaburnsinhell » Tue Dec 25, 2012 7:26 pm

Opinionated wrote:Neither of your interpretations is correct. What the 2nd amendment says is that having a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of the state, therefore individuals shall have the right to own weapons. What is implied, but not stated, is that those individuals will form the core of the well regulated militia. A militia can be used two ways, to protect from external aggression or to protect from internal aggression. The 2nd amendment places no emphasis on one over the other. Additionally, while it gives individuals the right to be armed, it does not require that they actually become a member of a well regulated militia.


Actually Ive read that the 2nd amendment got written and rewritten a number of times because no one would agree on the wording. finally they came to a convoluted, contradictory wording that both sides reluctantly agreed to in compromise. The argument stemmed from one group who wanted a national military against the other that wanted no such entity
User avatar
attaburnsinhell
 
Posts: 34458
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: leftwing Republican

Re: 2nd amendment = right to own arms that existed when it was written, or right to own arms that are necessary for a revolution

Postby Opinionated » Tue Dec 25, 2012 7:29 pm

attaburnsinhell wrote:
Opinionated wrote:Neither of your interpretations is correct. What the 2nd amendment says is that having a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of the state, therefore individuals shall have the right to own weapons. What is implied, but not stated, is that those individuals will form the core of the well regulated militia. A militia can be used two ways, to protect from external aggression or to protect from internal aggression. The 2nd amendment places no emphasis on one over the other. Additionally, while it gives individuals the right to be armed, it does not require that they actually become a member of a well regulated militia.


Actually Ive read that the 2nd amendment got written and rewritten a number of times because no one would agree on the wording. finally they came to a convoluted, contradictory wording that both sides reluctantly agreed to in compromise. The argument stemmed from one group who wanted a national military against the other that wanted no such entity


And what we got is an individual right to be armed with no requirement we serve in a national military, but with the importance of there being a national military used as the justification. It's somewhat contradictory, but there it is.
User avatar
Opinionated
 
Posts: 57492
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:42 pm
Location: Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Re: 2nd amendment = right to own arms that existed when it was written, or right to own arms that are necessary for a revolution

Postby calvin-x » Tue Dec 25, 2012 7:35 pm

Opinionated wrote:
attaburnsinhell wrote:
Opinionated wrote:Neither of your interpretations is correct. What the 2nd amendment says is that having a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of the state, therefore individuals shall have the right to own weapons. What is implied, but not stated, is that those individuals will form the core of the well regulated militia. A militia can be used two ways, to protect from external aggression or to protect from internal aggression. The 2nd amendment places no emphasis on one over the other. Additionally, while it gives individuals the right to be armed, it does not require that they actually become a member of a well regulated militia.


Actually Ive read that the 2nd amendment got written and rewritten a number of times because no one would agree on the wording. finally they came to a convoluted, contradictory wording that both sides reluctantly agreed to in compromise. The argument stemmed from one group who wanted a national military against the other that wanted no such entity


And what we got is an individual right to be armed with no requirement we serve in a national military, but with the importance of there being a national military used as the justification. It's somewhat contradictory, but there it is.


An individual right to be armed with no requirement for military service. I agree completely.

Sooooo, why do you feel a need to confuse the issue?
calvin-x
 
Posts: 15151
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:35 am

Re: 2nd amendment = right to own arms that existed when it was written, or right to own arms that are necessary for a revolution

Postby Opinionated » Tue Dec 25, 2012 7:39 pm

calvin-x wrote:
Opinionated wrote:
attaburnsinhell wrote:
Opinionated wrote:Neither of your interpretations is correct. What the 2nd amendment says is that having a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of the state, therefore individuals shall have the right to own weapons. What is implied, but not stated, is that those individuals will form the core of the well regulated militia. A militia can be used two ways, to protect from external aggression or to protect from internal aggression. The 2nd amendment places no emphasis on one over the other. Additionally, while it gives individuals the right to be armed, it does not require that they actually become a member of a well regulated militia.


Actually Ive read that the 2nd amendment got written and rewritten a number of times because no one would agree on the wording. finally they came to a convoluted, contradictory wording that both sides reluctantly agreed to in compromise. The argument stemmed from one group who wanted a national military against the other that wanted no such entity


And what we got is an individual right to be armed with no requirement we serve in a national military, but with the importance of there being a national military used as the justification. It's somewhat contradictory, but there it is.


An individual right to be armed with no requirement for military service. I agree completely.

Sooooo, why do you feel a need to confuse the issue?


If you have a point, perhaps you could make it?
User avatar
Opinionated
 
Posts: 57492
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:42 pm
Location: Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Re: 2nd amendment = right to own arms that existed when it was written, or right to own arms that are necessary for a revolution

Postby calvin-x » Tue Dec 25, 2012 7:45 pm

Opinionated wrote:
calvin-x wrote:
Opinionated wrote:
attaburnsinhell wrote:
Opinionated wrote:Neither of your interpretations is correct. What the 2nd amendment says is that having a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of the state, therefore individuals shall have the right to own weapons. What is implied, but not stated, is that those individuals will form the core of the well regulated militia. A militia can be used two ways, to protect from external aggression or to protect from internal aggression. The 2nd amendment places no emphasis on one over the other. Additionally, while it gives individuals the right to be armed, it does not require that they actually become a member of a well regulated militia.


Actually Ive read that the 2nd amendment got written and rewritten a number of times because no one would agree on the wording. finally they came to a convoluted, contradictory wording that both sides reluctantly agreed to in compromise. The argument stemmed from one group who wanted a national military against the other that wanted no such entity


And what we got is an individual right to be armed with no requirement we serve in a national military, but with the importance of there being a national military used as the justification. It's somewhat contradictory, but there it is.


An individual right to be armed with no requirement for military service. I agree completely.

Sooooo, why do you feel a need to confuse the issue?


If you have a point, perhaps you could make it?


You state the obvious, then but seem to have trouble accepting your own logic.

I'm asking you why.
calvin-x
 
Posts: 15151
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:35 am

Re: 2nd amendment = right to own arms that existed when it was written, or right to own arms that are necessary for a revolution

Postby Opinionated » Tue Dec 25, 2012 7:47 pm

calvin-x wrote:
Opinionated wrote:
calvin-x wrote:
Opinionated wrote:
attaburnsinhell wrote:
Opinionated wrote:Neither of your interpretations is correct. What the 2nd amendment says is that having a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of the state, therefore individuals shall have the right to own weapons. What is implied, but not stated, is that those individuals will form the core of the well regulated militia. A militia can be used two ways, to protect from external aggression or to protect from internal aggression. The 2nd amendment places no emphasis on one over the other. Additionally, while it gives individuals the right to be armed, it does not require that they actually become a member of a well regulated militia.


Actually Ive read that the 2nd amendment got written and rewritten a number of times because no one would agree on the wording. finally they came to a convoluted, contradictory wording that both sides reluctantly agreed to in compromise. The argument stemmed from one group who wanted a national military against the other that wanted no such entity


And what we got is an individual right to be armed with no requirement we serve in a national military, but with the importance of there being a national military used as the justification. It's somewhat contradictory, but there it is.


An individual right to be armed with no requirement for military service. I agree completely.

Sooooo, why do you feel a need to confuse the issue?


If you have a point, perhaps you could make it?


You state the obvious, then but seem to have trouble accepting your own logic.

I'm asking you why.


What the hell are you talking about? Be specific. This speaking in generalities is BS.
User avatar
Opinionated
 
Posts: 57492
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:42 pm
Location: Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Re: 2nd amendment = right to own arms that existed when it was written, or right to own arms that are necessary for a revolution

Postby calvin-x » Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:04 pm

Opinionated wrote:
calvin-x wrote:
Opinionated wrote:
calvin-x wrote:
Opinionated wrote:
attaburnsinhell wrote:
Opinionated wrote:Neither of your interpretations is correct. What the 2nd amendment says is that having a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of the state, therefore individuals shall have the right to own weapons. What is implied, but not stated, is that those individuals will form the core of the well regulated militia. A militia can be used two ways, to protect from external aggression or to protect from internal aggression. The 2nd amendment places no emphasis on one over the other. Additionally, while it gives individuals the right to be armed, it does not require that they actually become a member of a well regulated militia.


Actually Ive read that the 2nd amendment got written and rewritten a number of times because no one would agree on the wording. finally they came to a convoluted, contradictory wording that both sides reluctantly agreed to in compromise. The argument stemmed from one group who wanted a national military against the other that wanted no such entity


And what we got is an individual right to be armed with no requirement we serve in a national military, but with the importance of there being a national military used as the justification. It's somewhat contradictory, but there it is.


An individual right to be armed with no requirement for military service. I agree completely.

Sooooo, why do you feel a need to confuse the issue?


If you have a point, perhaps you could make it?


You state the obvious, then but seem to have trouble accepting your own logic.

I'm asking you why.


What the hell are you talking about? Be specific. This speaking in generalities is BS.


"Generalities"? :shock:

You state the obvious, ie THAT THE RIGHT TO BARE ARMS IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT NOT LIMITED BY A REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY SERVICE.

But then you go on seeming to be looking for a reason to confuse the issue, with you talk of military service being a justification. After you have stated that there is no such requirement.
calvin-x
 
Posts: 15151
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:35 am

Re: 2nd amendment = right to own arms that existed when it was written, or right to own arms that are necessary for a revolution

Postby attaburnsinhell » Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:07 pm

Gun-Rights Advocates Should Fear History of Second Amendment
by Saul Cornell Dec 18, 2012 4:45 AM EST

Think it’s one short sentence that gives everyone the right to bear arms? Think again. Saul Cornell unravels the tangled history of one of our most misunderstood Amendments.

On Sunday, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer went on CBS’s Face The Nation and argued that people who support gun control “have to admit that there is a Second Amendment right to bear arms”.

Schumer’s effort to reach out to the gun-rights community may be well-intentioned, but it is also deeply ironic. If the nation truly embraced the Second Amendment as it was originally written and understood, it would be the NRA’s worst nightmare.


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.

It’s time for a history lesson about one of America’s most popular and least understood rights. It’s also long past time to expose the hollow, ignorant fawning over the Second Amendment by gun-rights advocates for what it is.

In contrast to the libertarian fantasies that drive the contemporary debate about firearms in America, the Founders understood that liberty without regulation leads not to freedom, but anarchy. They understood that an armed body of citizens easily becomes a mob. In other words, a bunch of guys grabbing their guns and waving a flag emblazoned with a rattlesnake is not a militia.

A cursory look at the history of the Second Amendment shows that regulation was a central part of its rationale—putting “well regulated” at the very start of the amendment was no accident. For instance, starting in the colonial period, states enacted a variety of “safe-storage” measures to deal with the danger posed by stored gunpowder. A 1786 law went as far as prohibiting the storage of a loaded gun in any building in Boston.

But many people who defend gun rights today are more than happy to skim over the first part of the amendment in their zeal to embrace the second. (The NRA itself literally chopped off that pesky first half when it chiseled the words on the face of its old headquarters.) As a result, our modern gun-rights ideology is often unmoored from any sense of corresponding civic obligation.


This ideology claims to rely heavily on the Second Amendment, and yet it is rooted not in the Founders’ vision, but in the insurrectionary ideas of Daniel Shays and those who rose up against the government of Massachusetts in 1786 and 1787. Indeed, there are gun-rights advocates today who think the Second Amendment actually gives them the right to take up arms against the government—but if that were true the Second Amendment would have repealed the Constitution’s treason clause, which defines treason as taking up arms against the government!

This is all so deeply twisted: after all, the Founders framed the Constitution in part as a response to the danger posed by Shays’ Rebellion.

As a result, our modern debate over gun rights has virtually nothing to with the Founders’ Second Amendment; that debate actually started about 30 years after the Amendment was adopted. What emerged was the notion that reasonable regulation was not inconsistent with the right to bear arms. In fact it was the only option in a heavily armed society.

Up until the 1980s, there was no “individual-rights” theory of the Second Amendment. Many states had adopted provisions protecting an individual right to own guns, but this tradition was distinct from the Amendment. All that changed when right-wing think tanks undertook a conscious effort to fund new scholarship to rewrite the amendment’s history. At first that effort was not well received, even in conservative circles. As late as 1991, former Supreme Court chief justice Warren Burger famously called the idea of an individual right to bear arms “one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

It’s long past time to expose the hollow, ignorant praise of the Second Amendment by gun-rights advocates for what it is.
But the revisionism ultimately won over most of the legal establishment, reaching its zenith in 2008, when the Supreme Court broke with 70 years of established jurisprudence and affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have guns in the home for reasons of self-defense.

In order to do this, the majority followed the lead of gun-rights advocates and essentially excised the first clause of the amendment—the “well-regulated militia” part—from the text.

(Let us pause briefly to note the irony that the opinion, District of Columbia v. Heller, was written by none other than Justice Antonin Scalia—America’s staunchest defender of originalism, or reading the Constitution according to its supposed original meaning.)

If the Heller court had simply said, “Look, most Americans think the Amendment is about an individual right, and no one really cares what James Madison or the average man on the street in 1791 thought”—then the case would be pretty uncontroversial. Instead, Scalia produced a pompous, error-filled opinion that has done more to discredit his beloved originalism than a generation of liberal academics ever could.

Even leading conservative legal scholars have harshly criticized the ruling: federal judge Richard Posner said most professional historians reject Scalia’s historical analysis in the case, and described Scalia’s jurisprudence as “incoherent”. Perhaps even more damning, J. Harvie Wilkinson, a federal judge appointed by Ronald Reagan, compared Heller to Roe v. Wade.

Of course, the fact that the Second Amendment is now treated as an individual right has almost no bearing on gun regulation, because no right is absolute. You can’t shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, nor can you fire a gun in one.

And most Americans—including those who own guns—are open to reasonable gun regulation. The only people who oppose such policies are the NRA, extreme gun-rights advocates, and the craven politicians who do their bidding.

But what would such regulation look like?

For one thing, we could have a comprehensive system of firearm licensing and registration. At the moment we have none (even though it is hard to fathom how one might ever muster a militia without such a system). To avoid the irrational fears of gun confiscation, such a system ought to be instituted by the states, which maintained militias long before the Second Amendment existed. Could anyone with even a minimal understanding of the history of the Second Amendment seriously maintain that a state-based system violated the Amendment’s text or spirit?

The bottom line is that although we hear the Second Amendment invoked all the time, few of those who trumpet it the most vehemently realize that restoring the Founders’ vision of the Second Amendment would be a call for more gun regulation, not less.
User avatar
attaburnsinhell
 
Posts: 34458
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: leftwing Republican

Re: 2nd amendment = right to own arms that existed when it was written, or right to own arms that are necessary for a revolution

Postby Opinionated » Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:13 pm

calvin-x wrote:
Opinionated wrote:
calvin-x wrote:
Opinionated wrote:
calvin-x wrote:
Opinionated wrote:
attaburnsinhell wrote:
Opinionated wrote:Neither of your interpretations is correct. What the 2nd amendment says is that having a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of the state, therefore individuals shall have the right to own weapons. What is implied, but not stated, is that those individuals will form the core of the well regulated militia. A militia can be used two ways, to protect from external aggression or to protect from internal aggression. The 2nd amendment places no emphasis on one over the other. Additionally, while it gives individuals the right to be armed, it does not require that they actually become a member of a well regulated militia.


Actually Ive read that the 2nd amendment got written and rewritten a number of times because no one would agree on the wording. finally they came to a convoluted, contradictory wording that both sides reluctantly agreed to in compromise. The argument stemmed from one group who wanted a national military against the other that wanted no such entity


And what we got is an individual right to be armed with no requirement we serve in a national military, but with the importance of there being a national military used as the justification. It's somewhat contradictory, but there it is.


An individual right to be armed with no requirement for military service. I agree completely.

Sooooo, why do you feel a need to confuse the issue?


If you have a point, perhaps you could make it?


You state the obvious, then but seem to have trouble accepting your own logic.

I'm asking you why.


What the hell are you talking about? Be specific. This speaking in generalities is BS.


"Generalities"? :shock:

You state the obvious, ie THAT THE RIGHT TO BARE ARMS IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT NOT LIMITED BY A REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY SERVICE.

But then you go on seeming to be looking for a reason to confuse the issue, with you talk of military service being a justification. After you have stated that there is no such requirement.


Really, what are you blabbering about? I said straight out that there is an individual right to bear arms. I admit that the justification for it is a strange one, given there is no requirement for military service. But there it is, none the less.

How much more effing clear could I be?
User avatar
Opinionated
 
Posts: 57492
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:42 pm
Location: Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Re: 2nd amendment = right to own arms that existed when it was written, or right to own arms that are necessary for a revolution

Postby calvin-x » Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:16 pm

Opinionated wrote:
calvin-x wrote:
Opinionated wrote:
calvin-x wrote:
Opinionated wrote:
calvin-x wrote:
Opinionated wrote:
attaburnsinhell wrote:
Opinionated wrote:Neither of your interpretations is correct. What the 2nd amendment says is that having a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of the state, therefore individuals shall have the right to own weapons. What is implied, but not stated, is that those individuals will form the core of the well regulated militia. A militia can be used two ways, to protect from external aggression or to protect from internal aggression. The 2nd amendment places no emphasis on one over the other. Additionally, while it gives individuals the right to be armed, it does not require that they actually become a member of a well regulated militia.


Actually Ive read that the 2nd amendment got written and rewritten a number of times because no one would agree on the wording. finally they came to a convoluted, contradictory wording that both sides reluctantly agreed to in compromise. The argument stemmed from one group who wanted a national military against the other that wanted no such entity


And what we got is an individual right to be armed with no requirement we serve in a national military, but with the importance of there being a national military used as the justification. It's somewhat contradictory, but there it is.


An individual right to be armed with no requirement for military service. I agree completely.

Sooooo, why do you feel a need to confuse the issue?


If you have a point, perhaps you could make it?


You state the obvious, then but seem to have trouble accepting your own logic.

I'm asking you why.


What the hell are you talking about? Be specific. This speaking in generalities is BS.


"Generalities"? :shock:

You state the obvious, ie THAT THE RIGHT TO BARE ARMS IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT NOT LIMITED BY A REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY SERVICE.

But then you go on seeming to be looking for a reason to confuse the issue, with you talk of military service being a justification. After you have stated that there is no such requirement.


Really, what are you blabbering about? I said straight out that there is an individual right to bear arms. I admit that the justification for it is a strange one, given there is no requirement for military service. But there it is, none the less.

How much more effing clear could I be?


But you do want these individuals to form the core of a well regulated milita, don't you?
calvin-x
 
Posts: 15151
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:35 am

Re: 2nd amendment = right to own arms that existed when it was written, or right to own arms that are necessary for a revolution

Postby Opinionated » Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:17 pm

calvin-x wrote:
Opinionated wrote:
calvin-x wrote:
Opinionated wrote:
calvin-x wrote:
Opinionated wrote:
calvin-x wrote:
Opinionated wrote:
attaburnsinhell wrote:
Opinionated wrote:Neither of your interpretations is correct. What the 2nd amendment says is that having a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of the state, therefore individuals shall have the right to own weapons. What is implied, but not stated, is that those individuals will form the core of the well regulated militia. A militia can be used two ways, to protect from external aggression or to protect from internal aggression. The 2nd amendment places no emphasis on one over the other. Additionally, while it gives individuals the right to be armed, it does not require that they actually become a member of a well regulated militia.


Actually Ive read that the 2nd amendment got written and rewritten a number of times because no one would agree on the wording. finally they came to a convoluted, contradictory wording that both sides reluctantly agreed to in compromise. The argument stemmed from one group who wanted a national military against the other that wanted no such entity


And what we got is an individual right to be armed with no requirement we serve in a national military, but with the importance of there being a national military used as the justification. It's somewhat contradictory, but there it is.


An individual right to be armed with no requirement for military service. I agree completely.

Sooooo, why do you feel a need to confuse the issue?


If you have a point, perhaps you could make it?


You state the obvious, then but seem to have trouble accepting your own logic.

I'm asking you why.


What the hell are you talking about? Be specific. This speaking in generalities is BS.


"Generalities"? :shock:

You state the obvious, ie THAT THE RIGHT TO BARE ARMS IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT NOT LIMITED BY A REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY SERVICE.

But then you go on seeming to be looking for a reason to confuse the issue, with you talk of military service being a justification. After you have stated that there is no such requirement.


Really, what are you blabbering about? I said straight out that there is an individual right to bear arms. I admit that the justification for it is a strange one, given there is no requirement for military service. But there it is, none the less.

How much more effing clear could I be?


But you do want these individuals to form the core of a well regulated milita, don't you?


The Constitution doesn't require it. Logically, it seems to follow that it should, but there is no Constitutional requirement for it.
User avatar
Opinionated
 
Posts: 57492
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:42 pm
Location: Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Re: 2nd amendment = right to own arms that existed when it was written, or right to own arms that are necessary for a revolution

Postby calvin-x » Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:19 pm

attaburnsinhell wrote:Gun-Rights Advocates Should Fear History of Second Amendment
by Saul Cornell Dec 18, 2012 4:45 AM EST

..
In contrast to the libertarian fantasies that drive the contemporary debate about firearms in America, the Founders understood that liberty without regulation leads not to freedom, but anarchy. They understood that an armed body of citizens easily becomes a mob. In other words, a bunch of guys grabbing their guns and waving a flag emblazoned with a rattlesnake is not a militia.....



Does a armed body of citizens easily become a mob? Has that really been a common occurrence in US history?
calvin-x
 
Posts: 15151
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:35 am

Re: 2nd amendment = right to own arms that existed when it was written, or right to own arms that are necessary for a revolution

Postby calvin-x » Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:22 pm

Opinionated wrote:
calvin-x wrote:
Opinionated wrote:
calvin-x wrote:
Opinionated wrote:
calvin-x wrote:
Opinionated wrote:
calvin-x wrote:
Opinionated wrote:
attaburnsinhell wrote:
Opinionated wrote:Neither of your interpretations is correct. What the 2nd amendment says is that having a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of the state, therefore individuals shall have the right to own weapons. What is implied, but not stated, is that those individuals will form the core of the well regulated militia. A militia can be used two ways, to protect from external aggression or to protect from internal aggression. The 2nd amendment places no emphasis on one over the other. Additionally, while it gives individuals the right to be armed, it does not require that they actually become a member of a well regulated militia.


Actually Ive read that the 2nd amendment got written and rewritten a number of times because no one would agree on the wording. finally they came to a convoluted, contradictory wording that both sides reluctantly agreed to in compromise. The argument stemmed from one group who wanted a national military against the other that wanted no such entity


And what we got is an individual right to be armed with no requirement we serve in a national military, but with the importance of there being a national military used as the justification. It's somewhat contradictory, but there it is.


An individual right to be armed with no requirement for military service. I agree completely.

Sooooo, why do you feel a need to confuse the issue?


If you have a point, perhaps you could make it?


You state the obvious, then but seem to have trouble accepting your own logic.

I'm asking you why.


What the hell are you talking about? Be specific. This speaking in generalities is BS.


"Generalities"? :shock:

You state the obvious, ie THAT THE RIGHT TO BARE ARMS IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT NOT LIMITED BY A REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY SERVICE.

But then you go on seeming to be looking for a reason to confuse the issue, with you talk of military service being a justification. After you have stated that there is no such requirement.


Really, what are you blabbering about? I said straight out that there is an individual right to bear arms. I admit that the justification for it is a strange one, given there is no requirement for military service. But there it is, none the less.

How much more effing clear could I be?


But you do want these individuals to form the core of a well regulated milita, don't you?


The Constitution doesn't require it. Logically, it seems to follow that it should, but there is no Constitutional requirement for it.


Don't see it, especially when you consider the importance of game in much of American rural life in that time period. It seems logical that you could have vast numbers of the population that could hunt without being physically fit for militia duty.
calvin-x
 
Posts: 15151
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:35 am

Re: 2nd amendment = right to own arms that existed when it was written, or right to own arms that are necessary for a revolution

Postby attaburnsinhell » Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:30 pm

calvin-x wrote:
attaburnsinhell wrote:Gun-Rights Advocates Should Fear History of Second Amendment
by Saul Cornell Dec 18, 2012 4:45 AM EST

..
In contrast to the libertarian fantasies that drive the contemporary debate about firearms in America, the Founders understood that liberty without regulation leads not to freedom, but anarchy. They understood that an armed body of citizens easily becomes a mob. In other words, a bunch of guys grabbing their guns and waving a flag emblazoned with a rattlesnake is not a militia.....



Does a armed body of citizens easily become a mob? Has that really been a common occurrence in US history?



Yes, they are called "riots"
User avatar
attaburnsinhell
 
Posts: 34458
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: leftwing Republican

Re: 2nd amendment = right to own arms that existed when it was written, or right to own arms that are necessary for a revolution

Postby attaburnsinhell » Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:34 pm

Also, according to constitutional scholars, the 2nd amendment is not a right of individuals, but of 'the people' as a whole, hence why they preamble it with the words "A well regulated militia".
User avatar
attaburnsinhell
 
Posts: 34458
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: leftwing Republican

Re: 2nd amendment = right to own arms that existed when it was written, or right to own arms that are necessary for a revolution

Postby calvin-x » Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:35 pm

attaburnsinhell wrote:
calvin-x wrote:
attaburnsinhell wrote:Gun-Rights Advocates Should Fear History of Second Amendment
by Saul Cornell Dec 18, 2012 4:45 AM EST

..
In contrast to the libertarian fantasies that drive the contemporary debate about firearms in America, the Founders understood that liberty without regulation leads not to freedom, but anarchy. They understood that an armed body of citizens easily becomes a mob. In other words, a bunch of guys grabbing their guns and waving a flag emblazoned with a rattlesnake is not a militia.....



Does a armed body of citizens easily become a mob? Has that really been a common occurrence in US history?



Yes, they are called "riots"



RIots don't require guns. In fact two of my friends were attacked during the Rodney King riots, by gunless thugs, and used guns to protect themselves.
calvin-x
 
Posts: 15151
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:35 am

Re: 2nd amendment = right to own arms that existed when it was written, or right to own arms that are necessary for a revolution

Postby calvin-x » Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:37 pm

attaburnsinhell wrote:Also, according to constitutional scholars, the 2nd amendment is not a right of individuals, but of 'the people' as a whole, hence why they preamble it with the words "A well regulated militia".


So you want me to accept the word of unnamed "scholars" over my own ability to read English?

Mmmm, let me think about this for a moment...


No.
calvin-x
 
Posts: 15151
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:35 am

Re: 2nd amendment = right to own arms that existed when it was written, or right to own arms that are necessary for a revolution

Postby Opinionated » Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:42 pm

attaburnsinhell wrote:Also, according to constitutional scholars, the 2nd amendment is not a right of individuals, but of 'the people' as a whole, hence why they preamble it with the words "A well regulated militia".


Not so. It's a two part sentence which more properly written would be, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State". The right is given to "the people" meaning we as individuals, not to the state. Ostensibly in order to form militias, as implied by "well regulated militia", but the amendment doesn't make that a requirement for the granting of the right, which is done without condition.
User avatar
Opinionated
 
Posts: 57492
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:42 pm
Location: Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Re: 2nd amendment = right to own arms that existed when it was written, or right to own arms that are necessary for a revolution

Postby calvin-x » Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:47 pm

Opinionated wrote:
attaburnsinhell wrote:Also, according to constitutional scholars, the 2nd amendment is not a right of individuals, but of 'the people' as a whole, hence why they preamble it with the words "A well regulated militia".


Not so. It's a two part sentence which more properly written would be, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State". The right is given to "the people" meaning we as individuals, not to the state. Ostensibly in order to form militias, as implied by "well regulated militia", but the amendment doesn't make that a requirement for the granting of the right, which is done without condition.


Kudos to you OP for your intellectual honesty here.

I might point out that a culture of gun ownership and use would provide higher quality recruits for the militia, even if not every member of said culture was to join.
calvin-x
 
Posts: 15151
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:35 am

Re: 2nd amendment = right to own arms that existed when it was written, or right to own arms that are necessary for a revolution

Postby tsalagi1 » Tue Dec 25, 2012 9:28 pm

The 2nd in my opinion was written with the unintended actions of later legal scholars with the conflict we currently have. It should have been written in two parts, one, basically giving the States the right to form militias and a requirement authorizing those who constituted the militia to be armed, and second a section detailing the individual's right to be armed for the purpose of self-protection. There would also need to be a caveat with the framework of "Capital Crimes and High Misdeameanors", or Treason to allow for the possibility of the use of individuals resisting the actions of an oppressive government.
User avatar
tsalagi1
 
Posts: 42525
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 2:42 pm
Location: A sandbag emplacement somewhere on P.com, USA

Re: 2nd amendment = right to own arms that existed when it was written, or right to own arms that are necessary for a revolution

Postby forknight » Wed Dec 26, 2012 12:58 am

There is absolutely no need to amass enough weapons and ammunition to start a small war. When people do this and the ATF and the FBI find out, it is a very red flag of someone who is intending to do harm to the People of the United States and their property, which is the government. In 1999, a man from the Middle East attempted to cross the border between British Columbia, Canada into the Port Townsend, Washington on a ferry.....Ahmed Ressam, the man arrested at the Canadian-U.S. border in mid-December 1999 with a car full of nitroglycerin and bomb-making materials. What's the difference between this man with a trunk full of nitroglycerin and some paranoid whack job with a basement full of assault rifles and high capacity magazines and thousands of rounds of armor piercing bullets? Both weapons are designed for one purpose, to kill as many people as possible, there is no other purpose for it. And I hope that the authorities when they find this kind of weapons hording act quickly and with out hesitation, because the potential is far too serious.

These shooters are the new terrorists and maybe it is time that Homeland Security took a long hard look at the activity of gun hoarders and the people who supply them with mass quantities of guns and ammunition. :|
GOP sparing the fetus, starving the child
User avatar
forknight
 
Posts: 28747
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:17 am
Location: Leaning Forward

Re: 2nd amendment = right to own arms that existed when it was written, or right to own arms that are necessary for a revolution

Postby Opinionated » Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:39 am

forknight wrote:There is absolutely no need to amass enough weapons and ammunition to start a small war. When people do this and the ATF and the FBI find out, it is a very red flag of someone who is intending to do harm to the People of the United States and their property, which is the government. In 1999, a man from the Middle East attempted to cross the border between British Columbia, Canada into the Port Townsend, Washington on a ferry.....Ahmed Ressam, the man arrested at the Canadian-U.S. border in mid-December 1999 with a car full of nitroglycerin and bomb-making materials. What's the difference between this man with a trunk full of nitroglycerin and some paranoid whack job with a basement full of assault rifles and high capacity magazines and thousands of rounds of armor piercing bullets? Both weapons are designed for one purpose, to kill as many people as possible, there is no other purpose for it. And I hope that the authorities when they find this kind of weapons hording act quickly and with out hesitation, because the potential is far too serious.

These shooters are the new terrorists and maybe it is time that Homeland Security took a long hard look at the activity of gun hoarders and the people who supply them with mass quantities of guns and ammunition. :|


Where is the line between paranoid whack job who is likely to go on a killing spree and a gun lover who just enjoys spending time shooting? And is it really against the law to be a paranoid whack job just so long as you don't actually go on a killing spree? If so, we had better lock Edtudo up soonest...
User avatar
Opinionated
 
Posts: 57492
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:42 pm
Location: Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Re: 2nd amendment = right to own arms that existed when it was written, or right to own arms that are necessary for a revolution

Postby robert stout » Wed Dec 26, 2012 2:59 am

The right to overthrow a tyrannical government has more credence when the citizens own heavy weapons... :mrgreen:
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
robert stout
 
Posts: 41240
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 6:41 am
Location: Phoenix, USA

Next

Return to Op EDITORIALS: personal & political governance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: buckfan, estonianman, EuropeanLad, Grassroots and 11 guests