Second Amendment

2010-02-11 20:19:22

#1

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

The following is not indicative of my personal views on gun control.

“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 general populace is not a well regulated militia. To allow individuals to own guns doesn’t ensure “the security of a free State”; not now and arguably not when the Bill of Rights was formed. An armed, semi-civilian contingent could be necessary and effective in the maintenance of the security of relatively small areas of a nation, but there is still quite the logical leap to go from arming a militia and arming individual citizens.

A gun in a household is useful for nothing more than self-defense situations. One gun in households everywhere is not going to win a revolution anymore against a tyrannical government, the technology and logistics of the age would undoubtedly require a hell of a lot more weaponry and infrastructure. Personal weapons spread throughout the population at any reasonable density are just not an effective weapon to aid or quell civil unrest. Even their use in against foreign threats on domestic soil would be limited if not counter-productive.

- Has the Supreme Court taken an even remotely correct interpretation of the Second Amendment as written?

- Wouldn’t weapons depots around the country controlled at the State level or lower be a more accurate interpretation of the Second Amendment?

- Should the Second Amendment be rewritten? Should it be to make guns for self-defense explicitly legal, to make individually owned civilian weapons illegal, or for some other purpose?

2010-02-11 20:26:22

#2

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5644|London, England

Perfectly fine as written.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-02-11 20:32:49

#3

1stSFOD-Delta: Mike "The Spooge Gobbler" Morales; +376|6264|Blue Mountain State

JohnG@lt wrote:
Perfectly fine as written.

I like my guns. I think I'll keep em.

https://www.itwirx.com/other/hksignature.jpg

Baba Booey

2010-02-11 20:34:40

#4

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7002

Well theres the federal army, and the state militia (national guard), which ensures the security of the state. Well back then it was the minutemen who were the militia that defended the people. I'd say because the US is so well armed, that no country would really want to plan a land invasion on the US. The second amendment was so great of a deterrent, a Japanese general warned against invading the US because "Behind every blade of grass in America, there will be a rifle behind it."

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2010-02-11 20:43:26

#5

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

JohnG@lt wrote:
Perfectly fine as written.

In context of what I said I take that to mean individuals shouldn't be allowed to own guns.

Cybargs wrote:
Well theres the federal army, and the state militia (national guard), which ensures the security of the state. Well back then it was the minutemen who were the militia that defended the people. I'd say because the US is so well armed, that no country would really want to plan a land invasion on the US. The second amendment was so great of a deterrent, a Japanese general warned against invading the US because "Behind every blade of grass in America, there will be a rifle behind it."

I have a hard time believing it would be any more difficult to invade California than it would be to invade an arbitrary European country.

2010-02-11 20:47:16

#6

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5545|foggy bottom

luxemborg

Tu Stultus Es

2010-02-11 21:06:57

#7

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5644|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Perfectly fine as written.
In context of what I said I take that to mean individuals shouldn't be allowed to own guns.

Then you're interpreting it wrong. The people are the militia, you're just not using the definition of the word as it was defined at the time.

Besides, the framers of the Bill felt that the populace was the best check on federal power and they fully expected and welcomed the people to rise up and overthrow their government if it became too tyrannical. Unlikely in todays society? Yes. Does that make it obsolete? Hardly. Historically, the best way to establish any tyrannical government is to first disarm the populace.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-02-11 21:49:13

#8

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7002

JohnG@lt wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Perfectly fine as written.
In context of what I said I take that to mean individuals shouldn't be allowed to own guns.
Then you're interpreting it wrong. The people are the militia, you're just not using the definition of the word as it was defined at the time.

Besides, the framers of the Bill felt that the populace was the best check on federal power and they fully expected and welcomed the people to rise up and overthrow their government if it became too tyrannical. Unlikely in todays society? Yes. Does that make it obsolete? Hardly. Historically, the best way to establish any tyrannical government is to first disarm the populace.

Hitler, Stalin, Mousillini, Mao Zhe Dong, Chiang Kai Shek all did it.

Flaming: Try Texas instead. It's harder to invade a state where everyone has a fucking rifle than one without. Hell just having a gun culture allows more able men to use a firearm due to experience.

2010-02-11 21:55:43

#9

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5545|foggy bottom

everybody in iraq owned ak's

Tu Stultus Es

2010-02-11 22:03:51

#10

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7002

eleven bravo wrote:
everybody in iraq owned ak's

Blame shitty security of the armory lel.

2010-02-11 22:12:12

#11

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

JohnG@lt wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Perfectly fine as written.
In context of what I said I take that to mean individuals shouldn't be allowed to own guns.
Then you're interpreting it wrong. The people are the militia, you're just not using the definition of the word as it was defined at the time.

Besides, the framers of the Bill felt that the populace was the best check on federal power and they fully expected and welcomed the people to rise up and overthrow their government if it became too tyrannical. Unlikely in todays society? Yes. Does that make it obsolete? Hardly. Historically, the best way to establish any tyrannical government is to first disarm the populace.

The word hasn't changed. The difference is before they didn't have the numbers to create a a volunteer militia - it had to be local draft style out of necessity. Now the idea of pulling all the able-bodied men armed with small arms out of a city for defense is preposterous.

It's completely obsolete because the idea of a French Revolution is not only unlikely, it's impossible considering the modern technology and massive scale. Maybe disarming the populace was the first step to tyranny in the age of kings and peasants, now it's clearly limiting free speech. Communication is vastly more important on the political and tactical battlefield in our day in age.

Cybarg wrote:
Flaming: Try Texas instead. It's harder to invade a state where everyone has a fucking rifle than one without. Hell just having a gun culture allows more able men to use a firearm due to experience.

You realize I live in Texas? Leave your idiotic stereotypes at the door.

2010-02-11 22:19:08

#12

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5644|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The word hasn't changed. The difference is before they didn't have the numbers to create a a volunteer militia - it had to be local draft style out of necessity. Now the idea of pulling all the able-bodied men armed with small arms out of a city for defense is preposterous.

It's completely obsolete because the idea of a French Revolution is not only unlikely, it's impossible considering the modern technology and massive scale. Maybe disarming the populace was the first step to tyranny in the age of kings and peasants, now it's clearly limiting free speech. Communication is vastly more important on the political and tactical battlefield in our day in age.

How exactly is it limiting free speech?

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-02-11 22:19:59

#13

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7002

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Cybarg wrote:
Flaming: Try Texas instead. It's harder to invade a state where everyone has a fucking rifle than one without. Hell just having a gun culture allows more able men to use a firearm due to experience.
You realize I live in Texas? Leave your idiotic stereotypes at the door.

http://www.swivel.com/workbooks/19291-G … s-by-state

Ok obviously I was exaggerating the number of people with guns, still 35% is quite a considerable number. Pretty much every third person on the street would own a gun.

Beats having no one at all like most countries.

Sure an Army could defeat a bunch of unorganized armed citizens, it just makes it easier to resist if you have guns in the first place.

2010-02-11 22:30:58

#14

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

JohnG@lt wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The word hasn't changed. The difference is before they didn't have the numbers to create a a volunteer militia - it had to be local draft style out of necessity. Now the idea of pulling all the able-bodied men armed with small arms out of a city for defense is preposterous.

It's completely obsolete because the idea of a French Revolution is not only unlikely, it's impossible considering the modern technology and massive scale. Maybe disarming the populace was the first step to tyranny in the age of kings and peasants, now it's clearly limiting free speech. Communication is vastly more important on the political and tactical battlefield in our day in age.
How exactly is it limiting free speech?

What is "it"?

Cybargs wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Cybarg wrote:
Flaming: Try Texas instead. It's harder to invade a state where everyone has a fucking rifle than one without. Hell just having a gun culture allows more able men to use a firearm due to experience.
You realize I live in Texas? Leave your idiotic stereotypes at the door.
http://www.swivel.com/workbooks/19291-G … s-by-state

Ok obviously I was exaggerating the number of people with guns, still 35% is quite a considerable number. Pretty much every third person on the street would own a gun.

Beats having no one at all like most countries.

Sure an Army could defeat a bunch of unorganized armed citizens, it just makes it easier to resist if you have guns in the first place.

Disregarding the quality of the poll, to think even a State like Texas could put up significant resistance against a foreign power without the help of the National Guard and the regular army is laughable. Of course, it's equally laughable to try to come up with a situation where one State/geographic region would be defending itself without the help of the National Guard and regular army.

It's a poor argument for individual gun ownership.

2010-02-11 22:34:32

#15

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5644|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The word hasn't changed. The difference is before they didn't have the numbers to create a a volunteer militia - it had to be local draft style out of necessity. Now the idea of pulling all the able-bodied men armed with small arms out of a city for defense is preposterous.

It's completely obsolete because the idea of a French Revolution is not only unlikely, it's impossible considering the modern technology and massive scale. Maybe disarming the populace was the first step to tyranny in the age of kings and peasants, now it's clearly limiting free speech. Communication is vastly more important on the political and tactical battlefield in our day in age.
How exactly is it limiting free speech?
What is "it"?

Ahh, I read it wrong. Either way, there is no practical reason for repealing the amendment anyway. It doesn't make anyone safer but criminals and it would be impossible to enforce.

The right to defend ones property is as sacred as property rights themselves.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-02-11 22:38:59

#16

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

JohnG@lt wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:

How exactly is it limiting free speech?
What is "it"?
Ahh, I read it wrong. Either way, there is no practical reason for repealing the amendment anyway. It doesn't make anyone safer but criminals and it would be impossible to enforce.

The right to defend ones property is as sacred as property rights themselves.

You still aren't answering the original questions. The 2nd Amendment as written holds little regard for defense of property and self. It seems to me it doesn't even justify individual gun ownership for any reason. The questions I posed were should it be reworded to reflect the de facto ideals it stands for now - right to life and right to property.

2010-02-11 22:43:25

#17

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5644|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Disregarding the quality of the poll, to think even a State like Texas could put up significant resistance against a foreign power without the help of the National Guard and the regular army is laughable. Of course, it's equally laughable to try to come up with a situation where one State/geographic region would be defending itself without the help of the National Guard and regular army.

It's a poor argument for individual gun ownership.

No, it's actually a fantastic argument. The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam have been fought largely against minimally trained troops defending their homelands. The partisans in Soviet Russia during WWII caused nearly as many casualties to the German invaders as the Red Army. The same happened to Napoleon when he invaded Russia. The Russians got their asses handed to them in Afghanistan and Chechnya largely by minimally trained forces as well. They also got their asses handed to them in the Winter War vs Finland. Or Napoleon in Spain where he was forced to station a battalion of troops per mile along his supply lines to protect from the Spanish guerrillas just so he could get enough supplies through that his army wouldn't starve.

You may look at a ragtag group of men with rifles as a laughable defense against a modern military but you're making the inaccurate assumption that they would attempt to meet the invading force in pitched battle. Of course they'd fail against tanks and aircraft but they wouldn't be fighting tanks and aircraft. Irregular forces act as guerrillas and wear down their enemy, they don't meet him head on. I'll take a handful of citizen soldiers who know the land like the back of their hand over a similar group of foreign soldiers armed to the teeth any day of the week.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-02-11 22:46:42)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-02-11 22:47:19

#18

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

The difference being that the "ragtag group of men with rifles" in America is basically a bunch of patriots taking potshots until the MBTs and Apaches roll in, not the last line of defense.

If we were put into a position in which said patriots were America's last line of defense, then it wouldn't matter very much what the Second Amendment said now would it?

2010-02-11 22:49:26

#19

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5644|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The difference being that the "ragtag group of men with rifles" in America is basically a bunch of patriots taking potshots until the MBTs and Apaches roll in, not the last line of defense.

If we were put into a position in which said patriots were America's last line of defense, then it wouldn't matter very much what the Second Amendment said now would it?

Not at all. Irregular forces may be scoffed at by career military men but they would certainly have their place and role if America were ever invaded.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-02-11 22:49:51)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-02-11 22:52:48

#20

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

I didn't say they wouldn't have their place. I said "it wouldn't matter very much what the Second Amendment said now would it?" Who exactly do you think it going to be saying "you can't have that gun" when he/she is going to defend the homeland?

Besides, you're still missing the points. Why you want to stick by your witty little comment and not directly answer I don't know

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
- Wouldn’t weapons depots around the country controlled at the state level or lower be a more accurate interpretation of the Second Amendment?

That means distributed to the "ragtag group of men" in a time of need.

2010-02-11 22:56:21

#21

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5644|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I didn't say they wouldn't have their place. I said "it wouldn't matter very much what the Second Amendment said now would it?" Who exactly do you think it going to be saying "you can't have that gun" when he/she is going to defend the homeland?

Besides, you're still missing the points. Why you want to stick by your witty little comment and not directly answer I don't know
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
- Wouldn’t weapons depots around the country controlled at the state level or lower be a more accurate interpretation of the Second Amendment?
That means distributed to the "ragtag group of men" in a time of need.

No, because all of the power is still in the hands of the government. It would be no different than disarming the populace.

Outside of that, if you had centrally located depots, they would be the first targets hit by any invader.

Why do all of your proposals take weapons out of the hands of the individual and grant a monopoly of power to the state?

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-02-11 22:56:56)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-02-11 23:00:30

#22

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5644|London, England

How about this answer: You don't fuck with the Constitution or the Bill of Rights because the end result will more than likely be worse than where you started. The way our Congress writes laws we'd more than likely end up with an amendment stating that Remington is the official arms manufacturer of the United States (after they spend millions lobbying members of Congress of course with future positions on Remingtons board).

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-02-11 23:00:57)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-02-11 23:05:38

#23

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

edited OP

Not in the hands of the federal government. Not necessarily even in the hands of the State government. The Supreme Court is pretty good about making the distinction too - particularly if it was deemed a necessary part of a well-regulated militia.

Who said anything about centrally located? It would take a stupid small fraction of the DoD budget to make thousands of small caches and tens of larger ones in all the states.

I haven't personally made any proposals. I am trying to accurately state what the Second Amendment actually says, and I don't see anyone arguing against my interpretation. How exactly does the Second Amendment put firearms into the hands of individuals?

JohnG@lt wrote:
How about this answer: You don't fuck with the Constitution or the Bill of Rights because the end result will more than likely be worse than where you started. The way our Congress writes laws we'd more than likely end up with an amendment stating that Remington is the official arms manufacturer of the United States (after they spend millions lobbying members of Congress of course with future positions on Remingtons board).

If that's the best reason against making apt changes then abandon all hope. The starting point wasn't splendiferously amazing, and if all we have done is moved backwards since then we're fucked.

2010-02-11 23:13:46

#24

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5644|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
If that's the best reason against making apt changes then abandon all hope. The starting point wasn't splendiferously amazing, and if all we have done is moved backwards since then we're fucked.

I pretty much have abandoned all hope. They can't even balance a budget, let alone pass bills that have the best interest of the populace at heart. They're unable to make the tough long term decisions required of their position because they are held at gunpoint by the populist and fickle nature of the uneducated mob that makes up our nation. It's a figurative gun, but our politicians have shown that they care more about reelection and the aura of power that their office grants them than they do about making rational decisions.

With this in mind, and with the floodgates opened, you'd have the Constitution rewritten every time a new political party was voted into power.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-02-11 23:16:17

#25

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

Fine, so academically what would you say to the three questions?

BF2S Forums Second Amendment

JohnG@lt wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Cybarg wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Cybarg wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Cybarg wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Board footer