[Mrjinglesusa]

This thread has gotten a bit off track with the discussion on the 2nd Amendment. At the suggestion of CreepDog, I've started this thread to facilitate the discussion and allow the other thread to get back on track.

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:

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.

The original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:

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.

So, what say you? Does the 2nd Amendment preclude any form of gun control? If it doesn't, how do we draw the line? Does the 2nd Amendment give me the right to bear nuclear arms? ICBMs? Fully automatic weapons?

I propose that the founding fathers did not envision the types of "arms" that we have today. They lived in a day of muskets that had ONE shot and had to be reloaded.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

If it doesn't, how do we draw the line?

That one's easy.

We draw it on a state by state basis, as was intended.

Even the most extreme reading of the Constitution only forbids the Federal government from infringing upon that right.

This is a non-issue.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by subego 

That one's easy.

We draw it on a state by state basis, as was intended.

So in some states, I could conceivably only be allowed to own a musket, but in others I could own nuclear weapons?

You think the 2nd Amendment was intended to allow the populace to own any form of armament, even arms that couldn't even be conceived of when it was written?

[ort888]

It's an outdated law. Our forefathers had no way of anticipating the modern weapons of today. The intent of the law was to allow the populace to be able to stand up to an oppressive government. It's no long applicable to modern society.

That said, I'm not in favor of banning guns or anything like that. Guns have a place in a civilized modern society... they just need heavy regulation. More heavy then what we have now. In my opinion.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

You think the 2nd Amendment was intended to allow the populace to own any form of armament, even arms that couldn't even be conceived of when it was written?

Intended to allow any form of armament that state and local government would allow.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

So in some states, I could conceivably only be allowed to own a musket, but in others I could own nuclear weapons?

Back in the day, your state could decide not to be a state.

If this was to be allowed, one would have to imagine the ability for said state to not follow our laws (like WRT weapons) once they departed.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

My interpretation of the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to allow the People access to the weapons required to over throw the government by force if it ever becomes necessary. See Declaration of Independence.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Our forefathers had no way of anticipating the modern weapons of today.

"This weapon [the crossbow] is so terrible, surely it will end all war"

They didn't need to actually design future weapons systems to have an idea of which way the wind was blowing.

In case you're indoors at the moment, the wind is blowing towards killing more people, in faster and cheaper ways.

That's the way it was, is, and always will be. Trust me, the Founding Fathers got the briefing.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

The level of technology available when the framers wrote the Constitution isn't really a valid argument. Most every technology we use for everything in the modern world didn't exist at the time.

My interpretation of the 2nd amendment is merely that Congress can't pass any law that completely outlaws citizens owning arms. It's silent on exactly what type (which is a good thing- someday we may be talking about laser guns) therefore, as subego said, is something reserved for the states to decide.

So I have no problem with laws passed by states saying which types of firearms people can own, and reasonable requirements placed on their use.

Common sense ( I know,often missing from politics and certainly from political hacks) dictates that there is no legitimate or practical reason for a private citizen to own a nuclear weapons system. Clearly, anything anywhere near that level becomes a threat to national security, and isn't even considered a personal 'arm', but a WMD.

It's reasonable and practical that a citizen can own shotguns, pistols, hunting rifles, etc. it's not reasonable or practical for a citizen to point a cannon out of their window.

I have no problem with a ban on actual assault weapons (not weapons that are wrongly classified as such) or allowing only people with a certain type of training and license to own a certain level of military grade weapon beyond all practical use for a common citizen.

But the fed simply shouldn't be able to say "all firearms are banned."

[ort888]

Originally Posted by subego 

"This weapon [the crossbow] is so terrible, surely it will end all war"

They didn't need to actually design future weapons systems to have an idea of which way the wind was blowing.

In case you're indoors at the moment, the wind is blowing towards killing more people, in faster and cheaper ways.

That's the way it was, is, and always will be. Trust me, the Founding Fathers got the briefing.

Do you think they had an Aircraft carrier in mind when he wrote the second amendment? If we were to take it literally, the super rich and mega corporations would be able to create militias. I personally don't want to see the USS Wal•Mart launching satellite guided cruise missiles anytime soon.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Do you think they had an Aircraft carrier in mind when he wrote the second amendment? If we were to take it literally, the super rich and mega corporations would be able to create militias. I personally don't want to see the USS Wal•Mart launching satellite guided cruise missiles anytime soon.

Give an example of a state where that would be allowed.

[Doofy]

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.

Not

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 by much.

Or

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 except by a local government authority.

No wonder the US is so fsked - none of you (including the idiots you vote into office) can read your own constitution properly.

[ort888]

Walmartistan

[subego]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Do you think they had an Aircraft carrier in mind when he wrote the second amendment?

Third time now...

They didn't have anything in mind because they declared it to be not up to them.

It is up to the individual states to decide.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Walmartistan

...was once Walmartinople!

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

But the fed simply shouldn't be able to say "all firearms are banned."

I don't think anyone is saying that. However, if the "right to keep and bear arms" is taken at face value, this includes ANY arm, WMD or not. Nowhere in the Consitution does it say that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, "except if such right becomes a threat to national security".

My argument is that you can't have it both ways. If we take the 2nd Amendment to mean that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (i.e., the Fed. Government cannot outlaw guns), then where does the Consitution give the Federal Government the right to regulate what guns people can and cannot have?

Gun proponents argue that gun control violates the 2nd Amendment. If so, I ask said gun proponents: does the 2nd amendment allow you to have a nuclear weapon? A tank in your backyard? Laser-guided missiles? If the answer is "no" then there is also nothing preventing gun control. If the answer is "yes", we have bigger problems. LOL

[osiris]

I'm not sure if our forefathers understood or fully appreciated how future generations would completely abandon their common sense on the interpretation of this amendment. I somehow believe that ICBMs and SCUDS would not be counted as something a citizen would or should have.

Contrary to many of my neighbors, I believe in the right to bear arms - including fully automatic weapons, so-called assault weapons, etc, but also believe that FREE training, FREE licensing and FREE psychological tests be conducted before having such weapons. Enjoying my freedom and constitutional right shouldn't cost me thousands in fees.

But I support this, and all amendments.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by subego 

Third time now...

They didn't have anything in mind because they declared it to be not up to them.

It is up to the individual states to decide.

So conceivably, "individual states" could outlaw guns completely or allow every type of armament known to man?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

That one's easy.

We draw it on a state by state basis, as was intended.

Even the most extreme reading of the Constitution only forbids the Federal government from infringing upon that right.

This is a non-issue.

This is a fact.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

So conceivably, "individual states" could outlaw guns completely or allow every type of armament known to man?

Yes, states can do this (cities, counties, and the Feds can't).

Edit: Makes state government seem more important, doesn't it? In many ways it's more powerful than Federal.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

A tank in your backyard?

Pah, can't even have a tank? What a bunch of pansies.

Here's a main battle tank, for sale in the UK to the general public:



Nice, ain't it? I could buy that and go down to the mall in it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

So conceivably, "individual states" could outlaw guns completely or allow every type of armament known to man?

Bingo!

[Shaddim]

I'd buy one of those. They'd probably plug the barrel with lead and remove the nav systems, but would still be cool.

[OreoCookie]

Crash is right on: this also coincides with the interpretation of this linguistics prof. Also ort888's point is valid: in many ways, the US Constitution is old and newer constitutions are less vague.*

* They also usually enumerate rights rather than implicitly assuming that all rights which are not explicitly taken away are given. (This has the advantage that there is less potential for abuse.)

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by osiris 

I'm not sure if our forefathers understood or fully appeciated how future generations would completely abandon their common sense on the interpretation of this amendment. I somehow believe that ICBMs and SCUDS would not be counted as something a citizen would or should have.

Show me where in the Constitution it says that things written therein are to be interpreted using "commonsense".

Commonsense would dictate that "arms" be interpreted to mean only those arms known to the writers of the Constitution.

I look at the Constitution like this: how would the founding fathers, if they were here today, interpret the words they wrote over 200 years ago? I guarantee they didn't intend people to be in possession of the types of weapons available in this day and age.

I think they would look at America today (economics, foreign policy, political structure, taxes, etc.) and say, "WTF did we do?"

[Andrew Stephens]

What about the first bit? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" If we posit that well regulated milita is NOT necessary (any longer), does this negate the second bit about the right to bear arms?

[Shaddim]

They'd look at our tax system and overly nosy gov't and start a rebellion. Period.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Andrew Stephens 

What about the first bit? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" If we posit that well regulated milita is NOT necessary (any longer), does this negate the second bit about the right to bear arms?

No, not by the Feds. It's the individual state's choice.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Third time now...

They didn't have anything in mind because they declared it to be not up to them.

It is up to the individual states to decide.

The states aren't mentioned at all, so I don't think you can conclude that `well-regulated' refers to a right only states have. Laws (on the federal and state level) can be put in place to regulate certain aspects of arms control: the sale of certain weapons is prohibited, other weapons can be sold under certain conditions (e. g. age, no criminal record) … 

Plus, the second misunderstanding is that the right cannot be taken away even by the states (well, technically, DC is not a state … but you get my point). This is binding to the states, because they have ratified the constitution.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Edit: Makes state government seem more important, doesn't it? In many ways it's more powerful than Federal.

Same idea I think, WRT secession.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

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 except by a local government authority.

Ironic maybe, but actually that is pretty much what it means, given that powers not expressly outlined in the Constitution for the federal government, are reserved for the states, and therefore local authorities.

I don't know of any Constitutional challenge even for an entire state to ban guns, the way D.C. and local municipalities have. Now granted, I think that would be, stupid, and it hasn't ever proven to reduce crime or raise public safety -pretty much the opposite- but I'd love to see how it could be deemed unconstitutional.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

They'd look at our tax system and overly nosy gov't and start a rebellion. Period.

Amen.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

They'd look at our tax system and overly nosy gov't and start a rebellion. Period.

And they would be crushed by the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, local and state police, etc. like little gnats. The fact is, in this day and age in America, there would be no way for the population to rebel against the Government like was possible in the 1700s.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Plus, the second misunderstanding is that the right cannot be taken away even by the states (well, technically, DC is not a state … but you get my point). This is binding to the states, because they have ratified the constitution.

While I agree with the principle you've expressed, the notion that the Bill of Rights is binding on the states was not traditionally recognized by the law. Previous to the 14th Amendment, the states held that the Bill of Rights as part of the federal Constitution was a federal document that did not apply to the states unless the states were specifically mentioned (as in the 10th Amendment). With the 14th Amendment the courts began "incorporating" rights from the Bill of Rights so that they would apply to the states.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Ironic maybe, but actually that is pretty much what it means, given that powers not expressly outlined in the Constitution for the federal government, are reserved for the states- IE, a local authority.

So, the individual states can suppress free speech then? I didn't know that.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Show me where in the Constitution it says that things written therein are to be interpreted using "commonsense".

I never said that. I said: "I'm not sure if our forefathers understood or fully appeciated how future generations would completely abandon their common sense on the interpretation of this amendment."

As in, they never imagined the varying level of opinion and/or stupidity in the interpretation of a few simple words. Perhaps their failure, or ours. Not sure yet.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The states aren't mentioned at all.

I was thinking of the 10th.
 

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

This is binding to the states, because they have ratified the constitution.

That's what I thought, but was mistaken. Many amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been determined by the SC to be "incorporated" into state constitutions. The 2nd amendment is not one of them.

I don't think any amendment started out that way. Note that you used to have state churches (IIRC, even into the 20th century).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_doctrine

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

And they would be crushed by the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, local and state police, etc. like little gnats. The fact is, in this day and age in America, there would be no way for the population to rebel against the Government like was possible in the 1700s.

It's really difficult for members of a military to kill their own fellow citizens during a general insurrection. And as we've seen with our recent military excursions, guerrilla warfare can still exact a heavy toll on even cutting edge regular fighting forces.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

And they would be crushed by the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, local and state police, etc. like little gnats. The fact is, in this day and age in America, there would be no way for the population to rebel against the Government like was possible in the 1700s.

...because you've stopped the militias from having assault rifles, anti-tank rockets, F15s.

This is the entire point of the amendment - to allow the people to rebel against a corrupt government system and claim it back as their own without being crushed like gnats by that government's forces. This is why there's a right to bear arms. And why that right shall not be infringed.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

The fact is, in this day and age in America, there would be no way for the population to rebel against the Government like was possible in the 1700s.

Sure there is, but it would require a large percentage of the people, perhaps even a majority. The military isn't going to butcher huge numbers of the population.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by osiris 

As in, they never imagined the varying level of opinion and/or stupidity in the interpretation of a few simple words. Perhaps their failure, or ours. Not sure yet.

Right, to an extent I think we agree on this point.

What I am saying is that they didn't imagine the varying level of opinion and/or stupidity in the interpretation of a few simple words because they could only envision what they knew. With regard to the 2nd Amendment, all they knew for "personal" use were muskets. They simply could NOT have envisioned what the word "arms" would eventually encompass over 200 years later.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I was thinking of the 10th.

I've edited the post and added one sentence: the states aren't mentioned in the context of `well-regulated', so I don't think that you can conclude the regulation of arms is a prerogative of the states.

In fact, many arms-related laws are federal laws. Just take the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) as an example.

Originally Posted by subego 

That's what I thought, but was mistaken. Many amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been determined by the SC to be "incorporated" into state constitutions. The 2nd amendment is not one of them.

Can you explain that a little?
I'd be surprised if state law supersedes the US Constitution. Also, what about the recent case where the SCOTUS overthrew the gun ban in DC (which is technically not a state …).

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

They simply could NOT have envisioned what the word "arms" would eventually encompass over 200 years later.

The standard is arms that an individual citizen can reasonably keep and bear - i.e. those weapons that individual members of the military keep and bear in the course of their service. Canons, aircraft carriers, nukes, etc. would not fit in that category.

[ort888]

So what happens if some oddball state... say Alaska, decides to legalize all forms of weaponry. Could Wal•Mart start their own nuclear program and have missile bases in Alaska?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

What I am saying is that they didn't imagine the varying level of opinion and/or stupidity in the interpretation of a few simple words because they could only envision what they knew. With regard to the 2nd Amendment, all they knew for "personal" use were muskets. They simply could NOT have envisioned what the word "arms" would eventually encompass over 200 years later.

They didn't write "personal use arms".
And they knew about trebuchets, ballistas, cannons, etc..

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Sure there is, but it would require a large percentage of the people, perhaps even a majority. The military isn't going to butcher huge numbers of the population.

And in this day and age, with a population of over 200 million people, this simply will never happen. You might have small pockets of people trying to hold a rebellion, but I don't think "a large percentage of the people", no matter how bad things are, would get on board. Besides, it goes both ways, the "people" aren't going to butcher huge numbers of the military either.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Right, to an extent I think we agree on this point.

What I am saying is that they didn't imagine the varying level of opinion and/or stupidity in the interpretation of a few simple words because they could only envision what they knew. With regard to the 2nd Amendment, all they knew for "personal" use were muskets. They simply could NOT have envisioned what the word "arms" would eventually encompass over 200 years later.

Agreed. They had no way of knowing the horrors of some of the weaponry available today. I do not support the right to own nuclear arms.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Commonsense would dictate that "arms" be interpreted to mean only those arms known to the writers of the Constitution.

That's really a silly assertion. Weapons technology advanced even during the lifetimes of the framers- as it ALWAYS has, and ALWAYS will.

I look at the Constitution like this: how would the founding fathers, if they were here today, interpret the words they wrote over 200 years ago? I guarantee they didn't intend people to be in possession of the types of weapons available in this day and age.

It really doesn't matter.

Any law written today may not intend for someone to own a plasma ray in 2108. But if a citizen having a plasma ray in 2108 keeps their home safer from crooks armed with plasma rays, then so be it. It won't be for any future crop of anti-raygun nuts to dictate, "no, you can only have 21th century technology to defend yourself against 22nd century threats."

And the WMD argument really isn't much of one. Yes, national security pretty much does trump a 'right to bear arms'. There's probably no practical example you can even find of any citizen trying to possess a nuke, or any case where that's even a legitimate fear.

Just the materials involved are illegal to possess or distribute. A WMD class weapon is not a personal 'arm' but part of a weapons system, of which every single component can be (and in most cases probably is) illegal to own. It's for all intents, a complete non-issue in the real world, so until it ever becomes one, I won't really lose sleep over it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I've edited the post and added one sentence: the states aren't mentioned in the context of `well-regulated', so I don't think that you can conclude the regulation of arms is a prerogative of the states.

I'm really sorry if I'm coming off as Mr. Obtuse today, but the Amendment doesn't mention the states, because it's not prohibiting the states from doing anything.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

In fact, many arms-related laws are federal laws. Just take the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) as an example.

I see them... and they are WRONG!

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Can you explain that a little?
I'd be surprised if state law supersedes the US Constitution.

Seriously, you could have knocked me over with a feather once I learned this was the case.

Did you check out the link?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So, the individual states can suppress free speech then? I didn't know that.

Good question.

For a start, you can try falsely yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater and see if calling it free speech protects you.

The Constitution makes a point of singling out Congress with regards to not making laws prohibiting freedom of speech.

I have no idea how much leeway individual states have in limiting freedom of speech. I mean, can someone point to a clause in the Constitution or otherwise that spells it out?