Let's Discuss the Second Amendment Take 2

[Viper1]

Need to redo this as the moderated checkbox had become unchecked.. So take 2

-------------------------------------------------------

Yes this is self moderated. Keep on topic and don't get into any personal attacks.

This is not about gun control as any laws would have to adhere to the Second Amendment so keep it to the amendment.

Right to Bear Arms
Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791. The first 10 amendments form the Bill of Rights

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.

IMO all the arguments about gun control and the like are simply pointless until the meaning of the second amendment is clearly defined. Frankly, I'd like to see some blatantly bad laws passed that could be used to take it to the supreme court in order to get them to finally rule on it completely once and for all. Until that happens, both sides get to use this issue to divide the voters when it shouldn't be the case.

One of the initial problems with this amendment is how you interpret the main portion of the sentence. For example, is it:

A well regulated Militia and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

or

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms for the purpose of a well regulated Militia, shall not be infringed.

I believe that most people, including myself, believe that the first one is the correct interpretation although I'm sure there are some that will argue for the second as I can't see how one could want "no guns" unless they did.

For myself, I support the rights of people to own arms for defense and I would never support any laws or people regardless of party that would try and do away with that. I'm an independent and while I vote left, I have voted the other way a couple times when I felt the issues were important enough so would have no problem doing so over this. I don't believe in the party system and so don't follow lock step with any one side. Also, regulation is a completely different issue than rights.

The supreme court has only heard a couple cases related to the second amendment and that's what they have basically upheld. They seem to punt on the rest of it though. They have also stipulated that not all weapons are intended for self defense. For example, they mentioned that sawed off shotguns are not and so the people do not have the right to own/use them.

Now, although it's not covered, I would think that hunting weapons could be considered a weapon of self defense as that could be the only weapon a hunter owns. I would think that any attempt to exclude hunting weapons that people use to feed themselves would tend to invoke other parts of the constitution so I don't see the point in discussing them unless you're of the opinion there should be no guns.

So here's where we get into what I view as the primary outstanding issue and where I have a problem. Given sawed off shotguns are not considered a weapon of defense, I doubt an assault weapon would be either. So we're left with the militia portion in order to justify them. There are no militias any more, not as they once were as part of the states themselves. So how can it be argued that individuals that are not part of a militia, have the right to own them? I've looked into the history of the militias and am not convinced it's valid any more.

There was a report or something written years ago that argued for gun ownership related to militias. It was written by Republicans and had a Democratic rebuttal. I didn't save it and have failed to find it again so if someone does please post it. I felt the the Republicans made a very strong argument for their case and the Democratic one was woefully inadequate. But I was still not convinced.

So, what's your take on the second amendment? Is the militia part still valid today and thus things like assault weapons are a right? People argue that they need them to overthrow the government if need be. But the second amendment stipulates that the right is in terms of the states themselves. So how can that argument hold up? Make your case.

[1715380345]

1715380345

[1715380345]

1715380345

[1715380345]

1715380345

[1715380345]

1715380345

[Viper1]

The reason for the 2nd Amendment originally was to keep the government and the standing army from turning on the people.

At the time the US Constitution was written - including the Amendments - everybody owned the latest guns available. The idea of limiting guns from the people had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. In fact, the greater the gun technology, the more the founding fathers wanted the people to have the latest.

Listen to Ben Swann explain:

Reality Check: The True Meaning of the Second Amendment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gqDH_3nWvg

See also, "'2nd Amendment Has Nothing To Do With White Nationalism' -Ben Swann" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VibIlTUMF-A or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-8LaLXKKy4.

More: "The Very Politically Incorrect Truth About The Second Amendment - Benn Swann - REALITY CHECK" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKom5mhdC_8.

Then, look at the sidebar links to all kinds of similar videos. You will see that anybody who looks at what the founders had to say about their reasons for the 2nd Amendment, says roughly the same things as Ben Swann shows.

Right. Except none of that addresses my issue with any real weight or a convincing argument. It's perfectly understandable that citizens have the right to arm for self defense. The issue is when it comes to the militia. It was intended and written that the right was for arming for state militias. But they don't exist any more. More importantly, the states have allowed the federal government to have a standing army which is what the entire concern was at the time. Having failed to protect the country from that, the states have basically said there is no need for their state militias and thus there is no need for people to arm for that. That is my issue. I have yet to see any solid argument that resolves that for me and without that, then I can't see owning things like assault rifles as still being an actionable right. If the states reformed militias then yes, by all means arm but in the absence of that, no. Besides which, history has shown time and again that poorly armed groups are capable of "defeating" well armed groups over time.

[Railai]

I am a quarter from usa, a quarter from marroco, a quarter from israel and a quarter european.

For me the idea of guns; and i really saying just of guns seems worthless. I will take each region I am from and I will explain the feeling I have.

My grandma being from usa, she is still having a gun now living in marroco. It's funny tho, she is at the same time pro and agaisnt having guns; she believes with strong power that anywhere in the world the governments can start to demage people's lives and they have to be ready at any time to protect themselves and the freedom. At the same time she believes that guns should not have any legislation about having them worldwide and the world will be a safer place if everyone would have guns. She has a problem tho with the idea of mexicans having guns.

My grandpa from marroco, he did military service, right now in reserve but he served in the leadership of the marrocan army. He participated to series of attacks and so on. He belives that guns should be permanently banned and people and wars can be very much unnecessary. The freedom is given by talks, not by shootings.

My grandpa from israel, born there, palestinian; he is totally agaisnt using guns. Being in all the wars against israel and after with israel since the 50's; he got the the moment of hating anything regarding violence. Right now he is doing at his 80's an ngo in West Bank that helps integration of palestinians into the jewish communities and programs. After fighting so much agaisnt the "zionist" movement, he's embracing it right now. Very strange character person, you can't ever find out what is he thinking about.

My european part is very conservative and not used with seeing guns. Since the attacks from Charlie or Marsilia, all the Europe, starting from airports, train stations, I see for the first time people with guns. Living for most of my life in Greece, I am not used with guns at all, living peacefully; even lived in a country like Serbia where guns are allowed I have never seen guns as much as in USA.

The right to bear guns is a good right in a utopia, but in reality we have to consider we are all different and we manifest in certain situations nothing equal.

Most of my elders, that got through wars and fights during their lifetime are right now agaisnt any time of machinery that can kill someone else. Everywhere I travelled and I've seen many in my life unfortunately because of my job, after tasting the demage that war can create, they fear it and run away from it.

Now having guns have nothing to do with a basic war, it's just the right to have it, but the right to have it is the same as the right to use it? I think here is the most important issue that has to be discussed.

I get the part that people want to protect themselves but agaisnt whom?! Agaisnt their own government? I took the subject a bit worldwide but it's only about US here. US army is the biggest and as they say the strongest army in the world. How this can good in case of the government taking the control of the country? How can some riffles help the people when your own government have drones?

I think it's pointless, as now usa can't take out their own guns, can't make legislation because it won't be ratified and so on. nra is sticking to well to their purpose and for real, the sales are better than never. Does it really matter that some kids got killed in a school? Does it really matter that some people more than 50 people die daily in gun atacks?

But US citizens are more afraid of the middle east ..of course, the arabs will come to US for what? They are already killing each other lol. I find it funny, talking with a cousin from LA while visiting, and there was a muslim woman on street with her husband. She looked terrified and she said: "these are the terrorists that we are receiving".

Eh..too much of it, I love the matter of subject but I can't keep track of all the ideas I have in my head and I need to get back to work.

Take care

edit: regarding the last post, do the difference between nationalism and patriotism and you'll see the things in a different view

[BADecker]

The reason for the 2nd Amendment originally was to keep the government and the standing army from turning on the people.

At the time the US Constitution was written - including the Amendments - everybody owned the latest guns available. The idea of limiting guns from the people had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. In fact, the greater the gun technology, the more the founding fathers wanted the people to have the latest.

Listen to Ben Swann explain:

Reality Check: The True Meaning of the Second Amendment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gqDH_3nWvg

See also, "'2nd Amendment Has Nothing To Do With White Nationalism' -Ben Swann" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VibIlTUMF-A or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-8LaLXKKy4.

More: "The Very Politically Incorrect Truth About The Second Amendment - Benn Swann - REALITY CHECK" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKom5mhdC_8.

Then, look at the sidebar links to all kinds of similar videos. You will see that anybody who looks at what the founders had to say about their reasons for the 2nd Amendment, says roughly the same things as Ben Swann shows.

Right. Except none of that addresses my issue with any real weight or a convincing argument. It's perfectly understandable that citizens have the right to arm for self defense. The issue is when it comes to the militia. It was intended and written that the right was for arming for state militias. But they don't exist any more. More importantly, the states have allowed the federal government to have a standing army which is what the entire concern was at the time. Having failed to protect the country from that, the states have basically said there is no need for their state militias and thus there is no need for people to arm for that. That is my issue. I have yet to see any solid argument that resolves that for me and without that, then I can't see owning things like assault rifles as still being an actionable right. If the states reformed militias then yes, by all means arm but in the absence of that, no. Besides which, history has shown time and again that poorly armed groups are capable of "defeating" well armed groups over time.

The issue of the existence of the militias is an opinion. Some people say yes, others no. State officials might say "no." The fact of the arming of the citizens says "yes," although the militia is unorganized and not formally active. Some States say it right in their constitutions, that the militia exists or has the right to exist.

The little phrase in the 2nd Amendment, "being necessary to the security of a free state," shows that the militias absolutely DO exist. It doesn't matter what any court says. It doesn't matter what some people think. All that matters is what happens. If the militias rise up and are strong enough (when necessary), the Government is dead. If the militias die, freedom dies as well. Note the word "necessary." The hidden problem of the State is the tyranny within Government.

The formal State is not the one to form militias. For example. The State has police and their military reserves. These are essentially standing armies. What protects the people against the formal State police and military reserve? It's the people themselves, forming unofficial militias and standing up. A government official who is a statesman, will recognize this, and will toe-the-line regarding freedom for the people.

Right now we have the courts, and the courts are working reasonably well. However, take a look at all the people who are in jail or prison for smoking a little weed. They haven't harmed anyone. Their jail time is an encroachment on freedom. As people realize this, they prepare their unofficial militia by buying assault weapons to combat the assault weapons of the standing armies of the State. The fact that the States are formally legalizing weed, shows us that the State fears the disruption of their profits that will come about through militia action, if people are not allowed to be free.

The things that are happening in Virginia are simply a test run, to see who is stronger... first, the resolve of the people, second, the strength of the people. Formal Government is always about profit and slave-making by the people who run it. After all, why not? I mean, take all you can if you are not opposed... by a militia of the people.



EDIT: The greatest problem for freedom is a standing Government. The thing that we can do today with computerization, communication, and transportation being what they are, is amend the Federal Constitution to put all Federal Government into a standby position. The Gov would be on hold until the States jointly recognized that there was an international emergency that needed the Federal Government to become active. Then, when the States decided, they could put Fed Gov on standby again.