Will the Second Amendment survive?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

A couple of points should be raised for those who haven't studied the matter. One, it is difficult to imagine how to exercise the collective right without also exercising the individual right, especially since the militia sections of the USC, USC Title 10 Secs. 310-311, and the texts of the precedent Militia Acts, presume the militia would do any shooting with arms privately owned by the citizens; and two, scholars acknowledge the Amendment acknowledges an individual, not a collective, right and the language admits of no other accurate interpretation. Some might misread the opening dependent clause, but it in no way modifies or restricts "the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." [Comma as in original phrasing, the overpunctuation has excited comment for some time.]

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Some might misread the opening dependent clause, but it in no way modifies or restricts "the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." [Comma as in original phrasing, the overpunctuation has excited comment for some time.]

So what, we're just supposed to ignore the first half of the amendment? Why would they have even brought up the militia if that wasn't to imply the reason behind the right to bear arms?

Here are a few questions for you...
Do you honestly believe that an unfunded, untrained people's militia could stand against any organized modern military? Times have changed and our militaries have gotten fantastic at killing.
Do you honestly believe that the reason people want to keep their guns is to form a militia? Chances are, they just like hunting or shooting people who are different colors than they are.
Do you really believe that the penmen of the constitution would throw in the first half of that amendment if they didn't mean to imply that weapons should be allowed for use in a well regulated militia?

I am not for abolishing firearms, but I am for regulating their use. I don't believe carry or concealed permits should be allowed unless you're a cop(because let's face it, if you're fighting some kind of geurilla war, you're not going to follow the laws at that point... so carry away!). I most definitely don't believe there's any reason someone needs a freaking arsenal in their basement.

[xoxoxoBruce]

And I don't believe I should pay for you to go to college in Hawaii.
But, you say, that was the deal... you can't change the rules.

You want to change the rules on me though.

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

And I don't believe I should pay for you to go to college in Hawaii.
But, you say, that was the deal... you can't change the rules.

You want to change the rules on me though.

I don't get your point. Do you mean you don't think I should get the GI bill or... Could you elaborate?

And Jinx, I know! I've been slipping into those kinds of things, and it shouldn't have played any part in my post there. My apologies. Care to ignore it?

[jinx]

Originally Posted by queequeger

And Jinx, I know! I've been slipping into those kinds of things, and it shouldn't have played any part in my post there. My apologies. Care to ignore it?

Thank you. I'm sure I'll get over it...

[jinx]

Originally Posted by queequeger

Chances are, they just like hunting or shooting people who are different colors than they are.

Resorting to hyperbole blows your arguments for me. Plural because you've done it before, on the same topic.

[regular.joe]

[quote=queequeger;412552]
Do you honestly believe that an unfunded, untrained people's militia could stand against any organized modern military?

Not toe to toe, I got to tell ya though...an unfunded, untrained people's militia is doing a pretty good job of harassing an organized modern military in a few countries around the world.

That is the point of the second amendment. It stems from a group of people who harassed, and eventually overcame the best military power of the day.

So, no I don't think the penmen would throw that in unless they really meant that it was necessary to the security of a free State. I think they knew exactly what they were doing, and why.

Not recommended for the security of a free state, but necessary.

No matter how you slice the second amendment up and look at it, I think it will stand.

[ZenGum]

I think the arguments about the second amendment are a distraction from more important issues.

As I read it the second amendment is intended to create a balance of power between the government and the general population. As Queequeger points out, lightly armed militia could not realistically fight the US military in anything except guerrilla warfare. If the US government were to slide into a dictatorship, a guerrilla campaign would merely give them the excuse to be even more tyrannical.

Looking back at US history, it seems to me that the citizens are more able to struggle against the government through non-violent political protests and activism (eg civil rights, anti-war movements). These are based on freedom of expression, freedom of association, access to information, and a certain amount of privacy from the government. These rights are more important than guns. They should be protected. It seems to me that they are being whittled down, especially the right to access information about government, and privacy for the citizens.

Keep your guns if you like, but they won't do you much good if the government knows more about you than you know about it. But while you're busy arguing about the guns, what else is the government quietly doing behind the scenes?

[Radar]

Originally Posted by queequeger

So what, we're just supposed to ignore the first half of the amendment? Why would they have even brought up the militia if that wasn't to imply the reason behind the right to bear arms?

The 2nd amendment mentions militias as one of the reasons that THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Originally Posted by queequeger

Here are a few questions for you...
Do you honestly believe that an unfunded, untrained people's militia could stand against any organized modern military?

The question is irrelevant. Our rights don't come from government and whether or not we'd stand a chance against the military is irrelevant when our rights are concerned. Also, yes millions of armed Americans can defeat a couple of hundred thousands military members.

Originally Posted by queequeger

Times have changed and our militaries have gotten fantastic at killing.

Where do you think military technology is developed? The private sector. Anything they have, we can have too.

Originally Posted by queequeger

Do you honestly believe that the reason people want to keep their guns is to form a militia? Chances are, they just like hunting or shooting people who are different colors than they are.

It doesn't matter WHY someone wants to keep and bear arms as long as they don't use them to violate the rights of others. Merely owning guns doesn't endanger anyone or infringe upon their rights; nor does using them to defend your person, property, or rights. If someone wants to buy a gun to prop up a wobbly leg on his table, no other person or group of people have any say in the matter regardless of their number.

Originally Posted by queequeger

Do you really believe that the penmen of the constitution would throw in the first half of that amendment if they didn't mean to imply that weapons should be allowed for use in a well regulated militia?

The founders mentioned militias as one of the reasons that the individual people of America will have their right to keep and bear arms from being infringed. The mention of militias in that amendment means no more and no less than that. Militias are the reason we have a country in the first place. Without them we'd still be under British rule.

Originally Posted by queequeger

I am not for abolishing firearms, but I am for regulating their use.

In other words, you think YOU know better than someone else, how they should protect themselves, their loved ones, and their property, and you think you have some magical power to tell them how they will or won't exercise that right for themselves.

Originally Posted by queequeger

I don't believe carry or concealed permits should be allowed unless you're a cop(because let's face it, if you're fighting some kind of geurilla war, you're not going to follow the laws at that point... so carry away!). I most definitely don't believe there's any reason someone needs a freaking arsenal in their basement.

You don't believe in carry permits because you don't know the meaning of rights, and clearly don't know that in 100% of the states that have made carry permits easy to obtain, crime has dropped dramatically.