Will the Second Amendment survive?

[Cicero]

I think we should actually expand the second amendment, because I believe the new "arms" is actually technologically based advances, and everything they get we should be allowed to have.

Just a thought.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

And a rather interestingly subversive thought.

Personally I'd draw the line at private nuclear weapons. It's so very difficult to use nuclear weapons as designed and intended in a moral way. It's a lot easier with something a little less comprehensive. Like a B-25.

Now Queequeger, your opinions about arms in society are opinions I do not share -- because I have studied the matter. I used to agree with many of them, but then I actually started getting informed, and enlightenment followed. I'm pro-gun, and I'm really, genuinely, effectually antigenocide. If you're not pro-gun, you're not really antigenocide in any measurable way.

I recommend Stephen Halbrook's That Every Man Be Armed: the Evolution of a Constitutional Right for an education in the fundamentals. It's not only knowledgeable and comprehensive, it's very readable -- a classic in the field. It is also quite true, and never been refuted, that a society full of arms is a society that does not suffer genocide, whilst those societies that disarmed do. To make genocide possible, you prohibit armed self-defense by law. Such law may take many forms, but the most effective one is to forbid private guns. So you can see what the reverse situation results in: crime both retail and industrial-scale can be effectually resisted, and in the opposing, ended, to paraphrase Hamlet. This is too important to be left solely to officialdom, and it doesn't work very well if it is. Generalized, armed resistance to crime and oppression cleans up whole towns, and fast. Clean virtuous communities do more for mankind than all the hoplophobia in the world ever did. Ask Spexxvet what happened to him when he tried to convert the freedom-people on this board to his brand of hoplophobia, that the poor schmoe thought was so virtuous. It makes... instructive reading. It was a bit before your time. Search up the thread If You Own A Gun, or Do You Own etc., IIRC.

Thus saith the JPFO, and their argument has not been refuted, despite plenty of time to research since 1991, when the theory was propounded.

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 being an example of misreading -- now mostly adhered to by non-gun people on the Left with no education in arms. That clause in the sentence does not and cannot restrict the rest of the Amendment. The Framers brought up the Militia as a national reason and a national security interest for not infringing on the right of the People to keep and bear arms. By no means was this the sole reason, merely the one they thought might be of greatest national interest. Subsequent Militia Acts -- say, the Militia Act of 1792 -- for some time specified in their texts what sort of armament the militia should bear to be at least minimally equipped sufficient for fighting.

A citizen's militia powers are nowadays primarily exerted in police matters, and depriving the citizen of these powers only empowers crime -- and that's at the best.

[Cicero]

Thanks Urbane!
But I was thinking more along the lines of software and hardware. The new "arms".
Yea...I'm a kook.

[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...

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Cicero

Thanks Urbane!
But I was thinking more along the lines of software and hardware. The new "arms".

Hmm. Yes. Might you expand on this some more? Got some notions of what shape it might take?

Yea...I'm a kook.

[Little-Man-from-the-Draft-Board voice]"We-ell -- I wouldn't say that." [/voice]

You have more of an idea than some around here do of what it takes to keep and sustain liberty, and secure the economy from depradations. Criminal assaults and disrespect of property rights amount to leaks in the pipeline of economics.

[Kingswood]

The first part of the Second Amendment suggests to me that some form of obligation to the State exists for people who own firearms. I am not sure what that obligation might be. Maybe the owners of those firearms can be required to join a well-regulated militia on request. Maybe they are required to surrender them on demand to the police (who are themselves a well-regulated militia) when needed to assist with the apprehension of criminals.

Whatever the exact obligations are, in my opinion too much emphasis has been placed on the second part of the amendment (the rights conferred by the amendment) and too little has been paid to the first part (the obligations that go with the rights).

[Radar]

Originally Posted by BrianR

The Supreme Court will finally hear a case regarding the Second Amendment and it's applications. Mainly, does it enumerate a collective right or an individual right?

Linky

There are no "collective" rights and our rights don't come from the Constitution. We are BORN with an individual right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Having the right to life, means we have the right to defend that life by any means necessary as long as it does not infringe on the equal rights or property of others.

We are BORN with the right to own any number of any type of weapon and ammunition we choose without limits. The 2nd amendment was created just to protect that individual right.

If the supreme court rules against this private right, it is also our right to alter or abolish this illegitimate government...aka OVERTHROW.

[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.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Kingswood

The first part of the Second Amendment suggests to me that some form of obligation to the State exists for people who own firearms. I am not sure what that obligation might be. Maybe the owners of those firearms can be required to join a well-regulated militia on request. Maybe they are required to surrender them on demand to the police (who are themselves a well-regulated militia) when needed to assist with the apprehension of criminals.

Whatever the exact obligations are, in my opinion too much emphasis has been placed on the second part of the amendment (the rights conferred by the amendment) and too little has been paid to the first part (the obligations that go with the rights).

The obligation (or duty) in question is to defend Americans even against the American government if necessary.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Well said, Radar.

And anyone familiar with the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership will recognize their logo on the Hitler pic there.

Those people can and will convince you that selective-fire rifles ought to be over every fireplace. Or in suitable home firearms safes. They are... impressive. That's the word.

[deadbeater]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

A citizen's militia powers are nowadays primarily exerted in police matters, and depriving the citizen of these powers only empowers crime -- and that's at the best.

Just like what is happening in Iraq. The whole lot of guns they got over there is really preventing genocide, isn't it?

Also, to really have self-defense, every person should have a pocket nuke. And I mean every person.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Sure is. Ask the genocide victims, such as, oh, the Kurds... quite well armed, and not getting problems of late.

Deadbeater, nobody can beat me on the antigenocide argument. It's been tried, but the arguments-against simply aren't good enough.

[deadbeater]

And I suppose the Sunni and the Shia were unarmed?

You may be an 'expert', but you are not an expert in manipulating me. We'll see how can their arms protect the Kurds from a Turkish onslaught. The Turks will deny what they will do in the name of the fighting the PKK is genocide.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

That's good; I'm not manipulating. I am simply knowledgeable. What I am not here to do is steer you off the path of virtue.

If you're really, measurably, palpably antigenocide, you are pro-gun. Lots of them and ergonomically shaped and efficient, too. Until you are firmly pro-gun, no antigenocide philosopher would take you seriously as being yourself antigenocide.

[Radar]

In Iraq, American soldiers went door-to-door kicking them in and took all weapons they could find. Now the Iraqi people are all easy victims of insurgents. The same thing happened in Nazi Germany but the Nazis had gun registration to help them out so they'd know which homes had guns.

If they had weapons, things would most likely be a lot more stable and peaceful in Iraq.

You know the old saying, "If everyone's got a gun, people are more polite".

The indisputable fact remains that individuals have a right to keep and bear arms and this right didn't come from government. We were born with this right. No person or group of people, regardless of their number or what they call themselves (including government) has any legitimate right or authority to infringe upon this or any of our other individual rights.