Guns Guns Guns! What arms do we have the "right" to bear?

OK, you all know the current events which have the internet chatting.

A UK friend of mine asked what "arms" we have the "right" to bear.
He also questioned the "militia" part of the 2nd amendment.

I also compared gun homicides, just to see what gun control may be able to do, and if illegal guns are really that rife.

Gun deaths in UK (WHO stats)
Total HOMICIDE 2009: 18
Per 100k 2009: 0.03

Gun deaths in US
Total HOMICIDE 2009: 15,241
Per 100k 2009: 4.96



So I'd like to gather some thoughts from all sides, if you please!


A quick google on the subject brings:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/flora-nicholas/what-does-that-right-to-b_b_1701070.html (yes, Huffy) which certainly asks a few perhaps rhetorical questions. All quotes below taken from there (or dictionary).

Certainly, if we take the the sentence of the 2nd as one statement, it seems fair that you need to be "Militia". However a lot of us don't agree and think it applies to all.

So even in court, we don't really agree that all, only marginally getting it through that all people should have it... to me, this suggests there is still room to debate it (perhaps not change it since judges have ruled, but at least allow reasonable and rational debate).

So, where does the term "arms" end?

There is obviously some common sense involved in any "gun laws". I'm sure we can all agree that the "right" we have does not include nukes, but who exactly decides where the line is drawn and more importantly WHY the line is drawn at one specific set of points, and not another?

I would agree with this statement. The Founding Fathers could not foresee the use of portable rapid fire weapons, or likely the horrific use of such weapons at schools, but are we indeed taking a few liberties by interpreting a 221 year old document with today's technology?

 

I already made this thread...

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...0-supporters-gun-control-simple-question.html

...But your OP is considerably better, so whatever.

 

You are entitled to "bear" whatever arms are permitted by law and regulation.

The "right" has been "regulated" since the early 19th century and the SCOTUS has almost always upheld reasonable regulation.

That I may want to shout "fire" in a crowded theater or make false calls to 911 does not mean those "wants" are protected by the 1st amendment.

That you may want a dozen semi-automatic weapons and magazines capable of firing 50 rounds without reloading does not mean those "wants" are protected by the second amendment.

Reasonable regulation protects all of us.

Even the gun owner is not protected by lack of regulation. The first victim in last weeks event was the gun owner.

 

Things are fine as they are. What we're allowed to have, and not have, is reasonable. But we still need to do much more in keeping what we're allowed to have, out of the wrong hands.

 

Well to answer you questions Supaskip I must first give my two cents on the 2nd Ammendment. The 2nd Ammendment has nothing to do with hunting or collecting guns but to ensure that the civilian populace (militia) is as equally as armed as the military. The reason for this is to keep them (the military) in check so they can be forcibly removed if they go rogue. When the constitution was written the musket was the "assault weapon" of it's day. As time has progressed our technology has progressed as well as the arms we have. To those who claim the founding fathers only meant muskets and didn't envision rapid fire guns also must have thought they were mindless drones who never invisioned progress.
Now to answer your question on what "arms" we should be allowed. I would say any type of long gun up to and including fully automatic weapons. Fully automatic weapons have been highly regulated since the GCA of 1934 was passed and new ones have been forbidden for sale to the public since May of 1986. FWIW, only one legally possessed fully auto weapon has ever been used in a crime and that was one legally owned by a law enforcement officer. I'm not saying unregulate fully autos but the ban of new ones for sale in 86 should be repealed and available for sale to individauls who can make it thru all the BATFE red tape. Obviously civilians shouldn't have access to nukes and bio weapons but whatever the police and military have..................we should have. FWIW..........I'm a 20 year vet of law enforcement and still working.

 

Arms generally means small arms such as pistols and rifles.

If the tact is to say that modern technology does not apply to the second amendment then the first does not apply to radio, television, and the internet.

 

I always have fun having a NRA member/gun 'enthusiast" try to "explain" to me....

why they would oppose me owning a "suitcase nuke"?

 

Seriously?

 

You credit the founders with godlike foresight. Present day weaponry is far beyond their wildest imaginings. The Second Amendment was created in the immediate post-revolutionary years, is more than 200 years old and was designed to protect the right of local communities to raise and maintain a militia for use against external threats (including the newly formed national government!). It bears no relationship at all to the circumstances of everyday life in America today. Yet there is a near religious fervour for protecting the right of Americans to have their guns – and plenty of them. It's bizarre.

 

You really think they didnt have foresight? Look at the advancement in weaponry just in their lifetime. You really think they believed that would stop? Either way, arguing about the types of weapons is irrelevant. The point of the 2nd amendment is to protect the other ones, and to do that you need a civilian population that is capable of defending itself with the arms of the day. The government is no less capable of tyrannical action than it was 200 years ago, I would argue it is more capable of it today. The principle of the 2nd amendment is the defense of liberty against anyone who would seek to take it and that means protecting the right to be armed on par with whomever would seek to take it.

 

You really think they didnt have foresight? Look at the advancement in weaponry just in their lifetime. You really think they believed that would stop? Either way, arguing about the types of weapons is irrelevant. The point of the 2nd amendment is to protect the other ones, and to do that you need a civilian population that is capable of defending itself with the arms of the day. The government is no less capable of tyrannical action than it was 200 years ago, I would argue it is more capable of it today. The principle of the 2nd amendment is the defense of liberty against anyone who would seek to take it and that means protecting the right to be armed on par with whomever would seek to take it.

 

As much fun as it is, I'm sure, to laugh at one's own lunacy, I gotta know;

Is it really that much fun to point to a basket of apples and demand someone explain the non-existent orange?

.

 

^^ this

.. is how good posts are supposed to work!

 

Yes, good point. Weapon technology has evolved by leaps and bounds since then. But surely you're not saying a modern militia would be expected to fight a foreign or domestic enemy with 200 year old weapons...

The supreme court has ruled that individuals do not need to actively serve in a militia in order to posses firearms.

 

Yeah, you made it 5 mins before me... took me about 15 mins to write this as I copied citations! good to see people are on the same wavelength

 

Most people have missed the point of this thread.
We all know that it IS regulated already, that's not disputed.
This thread isn't an argument against (or for) more/less gun regulation.


> How do you define the line drawn on "what is acceptable"? Why does it stop at the current line, rather than before or after it?
> Does militia mean anyone, including individuals who have no interest in stopping governments?
> What is the difference between militia and an individual owner?
> Sure, it has been ruled that it's OK for individuals, but why was it ruled as such over the preferred term "militia"?
> Why is the musket an equivalent of an assault rifle rather than some other weapon?


It's easy to state a suitcase nuke is "not defined" under the 2nd, but why? It is also classed as an armament. Whilst the extreme end of the stick, it's a valid question. Common sense says it's not OK, but why is the water muddied when we start going down the list?

Foresight is easy to cite when hindsight is on your side.
There are hundreds of quotes throughout history to suggest that people couldn't see new technology.

 

Yep. yes

 

So raise and maintain a militia. The 2nd says nothing about personal armouries that would delight a small nation. It was written when the big bad British might come back to kick your collective arses, and being ready for them. It's not about having an arms race with the people next door, or shooting a lost Japanese kid who knocks to ask the way.

 

I think the whole business has a great deal more to American anxieties about masculinity (to which it is entirely irrelevant) than to anything in the minds of these long-dead tax-dodgers.

 

I see you've learned to do the selective statistics thing too.

The murder rate for the UK and the US isn't that much different. Screw how they are committed.
According to the UNDOC the us is 4.2 and the UK is 1.2. Now if you take a high gun control area like eastern Europe it soars to 20.
The former socialist and soviet nations must be proud.

As for what I should be "allowed" to keep. The founders kept cannons in their front yards. What does that tell you about their intent?
As nations obtain better firepower so should the general populace to keep them in check. As I said in the other gun grabber thread, I should be able to park a squadron of fighter jets in my field if I want to.

 

I think your need to grab peoples defenses away from them is so you can exterminate whole sections of the populace that you in your arrogance deem unfit.

 

I am going to take your question seriously so here goes a serious response:

To know what the founders had in mind one has to see both what they said and what they did...I could quote the founders all day on the intent of the second amendment. I'll limit myself to a few of the better known examples...


Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790):
[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense." -John Adams

Noah Webster wrote

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of the people are armed” (Pamphlets on the Constitution of the Unites States)

The Founders wrote in detail what they thought about the general idea of an armed citizenry...the real question is what arms did they mean? I belive the anser can be found in the legislation they passed in that first Congress concerning that Militia...

They wrote in the Militia Act three things that apply..

The militia was the body of all men capable of carrying arms...today it would be all adults

Citizens were expected to arrive at muster with their own arms....which gets to the point. Exactly what weapons were citizens expected to own...

Here is what the Militia Act of 1792 said...

So, it is pretty clear that arms for the militia, provided by themselves, were rifles, shotguns, handguns and edged weapons...

It is also clear from their actions, that the founders expected the states to establish armories in which weapons NOT expected to be provided by citizens like cannon and mortors were stored.

That does not mean that it was illegal for a citizen to own artillery, just that the ownership was not specifically protected by the Constititon as was the other arms...

If the first amendment speach and the 4th amendment privacy rights change with the times, so does the 2nd making todays equivalent arms, modern rifles, shotguns and handguns, protected.

Which I hope answers the question

 

I personally, don't feel there should be a line and people should have the option to purchase whatever they can afford or have sold to them.

A militia cannot have a right to anything. Militia's do not have rights, just as a group of people does not have rights. You cannot bestow a right upon a plural. A person has a right, and each individual exercising their rights has the option to come together and each as part of a group use that right. So yes, militia is speaking to the individuals rights to bear arms.

You cannot have a militia without individual owners.

Because militia's cannot have rights. Only individuals can have rights.

The 2nd does not specify muskets...not sure what this question means.

I would say it is ok, so long as the person can afford it and the people who possess the technology wish to sell it.

Lets hear some.

I am already part of the militia being a citizen of the United States. I think the common misconception is that "well regulated" meant back then what it means now. Well regulated in the vernacular of the time simply meant something that was working well. The phrase has been perverted to mean oversight, or control over something. That is not how it was intended during the writing of the constitution.

To translate the 2nd if written in today's language would read. "A working Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Do you have any form of argument to forward?

 

Projecting again I see.

 

I personally, don't feel there should be a line and people should have the option to purchase whatever they can afford or have sold to them.

A militia cannot have a right to anything. Militia's do not have rights, just as a group of people does not have rights. You cannot bestow a right upon a plural. A person has a right, and each individual exercising their rights has the option to come together and each as part of a group use that right. So yes, militia is speaking to the individuals rights to bear arms.

You cannot have a militia without individual owners.

Because militia's cannot have rights. Only individuals can have rights.

The 2nd does not specify muskets...not sure what this question means.

I would say it is ok, so long as the person can afford it and the people who possess the technology wish to sell it.

Lets hear some.

I am already part of the militia being a citizen of the United States. I think the common misconception is that "well regulated" meant back then what it means now. Well regulated in the vernacular of the time simply meant something that was working well. The phrase has been perverted to mean oversight, or control over something. That is not how it was intended during the writing of the constitution.

To translate the 2nd if written in today's language would read. "A working Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Do you have any form of argument to forward?