Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, You are right about that... so what type of guns does the the Second Amendment protect? To accurately answer that question, we have to reflect upon why the amendment was drafted in the first place...
To a point, I agree, but only to a point, pretty much the point at which we turn to the SCOTUS to help determine what is Constitutional or not, and so they have ruled -- more than a few times. Let us reflect a bit upon that too, because...
The purpose for the 2A had a bit different meaning in the context of when it was written. Today, for example, the military that our government has to use for our protection far exceeds anything we as a citizen militia can offer, even if there was no gun control whatsoever, and for essentially the same reason, we have no chance against a government that should decide to use that fire power against us. At least we are all more accepting of this fact when it comes to considering what our military can do against our enemies. Today, about the only real protection for our enemies in terms of the overwhelming imbalance of firepower is the innocent civilians amidst the bad guys who we don't want to harm if possible.
As long as we are reflecting, let's also reflect on how the Constitution has had to be "reconsidered" on more than just a few counts, because of how different times, perspective and circumstances were then vs today. The valuation of blacks vs whites when it comes to voting, for example. Women's rights, etc.
There is also no longer the need or likelihood that every house have guns for hunting and protection and such like back in the frontier days when just about everyone had a gun for purpose -- not sport. Today we have much different issues/problems when it comes to gun violence.
None of this means I don't very much respect and honor the Constitution, including the 2A, because I do no matter who wants to throw up the next straw man argument to the contrary. None of my opinion means I am against guns either, because I am not. I am just being objective about the reflection you ask of us, and suggesting that reflection should go a little further and broader than you take it.
To a point, I agree, but only to a point, pretty much the point at which we turn to the SCOTUS to help determine what is Constitutional or not, and so they have ruled -- more than a few times. Let us reflect a bit upon that too, because...
The purpose for the 2A had a bit different meaning in the context of when it was written. Today, for example, the military that our government has to use for our protection far exceeds anything we as a citizen militia can offer, even if there was no gun control whatsoever, and for essentially the same reason, we have no chance against a government that should decide to use that fire power against us. At least we are all more accepting of this fact when it comes to considering what our military can do against our enemies. Today, about the only real protection for our enemies in terms of the overwhelming imbalance of firepower is the innocent civilians amidst the bad guys who we don't want to harm if possible.
As long as we are reflecting, let's also reflect on how the Constitution has had to be "reconsidered" on more than just a few counts, because of how different times, perspective and circumstances were then vs today. The valuation of blacks vs whites when it comes to voting, for example. Women's rights, etc.
There is also no longer the need or likelihood that every house have guns for hunting and protection and such like back in the frontier days when just about everyone had a gun for purpose -- not sport. Today we have much different issues/problems when it comes to gun violence.
None of this means I don't very much respect and honor the Constitution, including the 2A, because I do no matter who wants to throw up the next straw man argument to the contrary. None of my opinion means I am against guns either, because I am not. I am just being objective about the reflection you ask of us, and suggesting that reflection should go a little further and broader than you take it.
If we are reflecting....
The civilian firearm ownership is a serious deterrence to the government.
It is true that the US military has tremendous amount of firepower. However, given US is a democratic republic, I don't see a single chance the government could use that amount of firepower slaughtering tens of thousands of its own citizens without causing a major uproar in itself. You see unless the government is willing to commit genocide, it's not going to win a guerrilla warfare. Maybe you can name a case from the history but keep in mind the historical circumstances involved.
Let's take a look at Vietnam War, Iraq War and Wars in Afghanistan. Did the might military power of US and USSR win? Again, not unless they were willing to commit genocide - a simple picture or video of atrocity can spread all over the globe within seconds - that's not available back 50 years ago.
The civilian firearm ownership is a serious deterrence to the government.
I wonder..., you will be hard pressed to prove this notion, and I tend to think from a more practical standpoint the evidence is not in your favor. Something like trying to suggest it is not stupid to bring a knife to a gun fight.
Also, the examples you site have proven more a problem for government overthrow because the will of the people tends to prevail, not so much whether they all have guns. I can well understand the emotion behind the guy that thinks keeping his weapon handy is somehow part of keeping America safe from tyranny, and I very much admire that part of our history when it was more truth than fantasy, but today..., I think you're just kidding yourself along those lines.
I suppose we could play a war game where you pretend to be the armed civilian militia, and I pretend to be the big bad government with the U.S. military at my command, and we could see how long that game lasts, but suffice to say..., you would lose in my opinion. What would remain is the will of the people to either go along with tyrannical rule or not, much like the Germans went along with Hitler, but lots of countries have not and revolted instead, with or without guns.
Hard to prove with absolute certainty in any case, especially if a civil war were involved where some agreed with the big bad government and some don't. Then what good does it do for both sides of that divide to be heavily armed, one side along with the big bad government?
Why does the latest Star Wars movie suddenly come to mind I wonder...
To a point, I agree, but only to a point, pretty much the point at which we turn to the SCOTUS to help determine what is Constitutional or not, and so they have ruled -- more than a few times. Let us reflect a bit upon that too, because...
The purpose for the 2A had a bit different meaning in the context of when it was written. Today, for example, the military that our government has to use for our protection far exceeds anything we as a citizen militia can offer, even if there was no gun control whatsoever, and for essentially the same reason, we have no chance against a government that should decide to use that fire power against us.
Look, I'm not about to go down the rabbit hole leading to nowhere arguing about whether or not citizens even could stand up to the might of our modern military if they were so inclined. I will not do that, because frankly it's irrelevant. You may be right, that citizens would have no chance at all, but it doesn't matter because the Second Amendment was adopted to at least guarantee us the opportunity, and the Second Amendment still remains the law.
Quote:
As long as we are reflecting, let's also reflect on how the Constitution has had to be "reconsidered" on more than just a few counts, because of how different times, perspective and circumstances were then vs today. The valuation of blacks vs whites when it comes to voting, for example. Women's rights, etc.
This is a reiteration of the "living Constitution" argument. I am a strict originalist. Every word of the Constitution means exactly the same thing today as it did the day it was ratified. If we live in a system where parts of the Constitution can be effectively re-written by interpretation, then we have no Constitutional guarantees at all. The examples you've given about blacks and woman being able to vote were not accomplished through "reinterpretation", they were accomplished by amending the Constitution itself, through Article V. We didn't just decide one day to give all citizens equal voting rights, and we can't just decide that the 2A should mean something other than it did when it was written just because the times have changed. We didn't just decide that blacks were no longer 3/5's of a citizen, as the original Constitution said, we passed an Amendment giving them citizenship.
Quote:
There is also no longer the need or likelihood that every house have guns for hunting and protection and such like back in the frontier days when just about everyone had a gun for purpose -- not sport. Today we have much different issues/problems when it comes to gun violence.
Doesn't matter. The times, issues, and circumstances have indeed changed, but the Second Amendment has not.
Quote:
None of this means I don't very much respect and honor the Constitution, including the 2A, because I do no matter who wants to throw up the next straw man argument to the contrary. None of my opinion means I am against guns either, because I am not. I am just being objective about the reflection you ask of us, and suggesting that reflection should go a little further and broader than you take it.
I disagree, and Thomas Jefferson explains why better than I ever could in my own words...
"""On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.""" —Thomas Jefferson
"""Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. … If it is, then we have no Constitution.""" — Thomas Jefferson
"""To take a single step beyond the text would be to take possession of a boundless field of power.""" — Thomas Jefferson
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 01-15-2016 at 12:01 PM..
Look, I'm not about to go down the rabbit hole leading to nowhere arguing about whether or not citizens even could stand up to the might of our modern military if they were so inclined. I will not do that, because frankly it's irrelevant. You may be right, that citizens would have no chance at all, but it doesn't matter because the Second Amendment was adopted to at least guarantee us the opportunity, and the Second Amendment still remains the law.
I am also not so inclined to get into hypotheticals, but I was asked to share in the reflection, so I did, and since so many gun enthusiasts argue the need for us to bear arms for purposes of protection of tyranny, I gave it some more attention. For the most part I think it is irrelevant as well.
Problem we have after that is not that the 2A remains the law (unlike how the GOP feels about the ACA).
The problem we have is with regard to what that law actually guarantees, as written verbatim.
Again, the general agreement by the majority of reasonable people (not to mention rulings by our SCOTUS), is that we are guaranteed a right to bear arms. We CAN bear arms.
The 2A does NOT say or guarantee as a result of this omission the right to bear ANY arm ever manufactured, past, present or future. Nor is it reasonable to interpret the law to suggest that any gun control measure, say like a background check to prevent that gun from being purchased by someone mentally deranged, is in conflict with the "spirit manifested" when the 2A was drafted.
This is a reiteration of the "living Constitution" argument. I am a strict originalist.
I will leave it to you and Jefferson to work this out then...
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors..."
You still wearing the clothes you wore when you were a boy too?
If we live in a system where parts of the Constitution can be effectively re-written by interpretation, then we have no Constitutional guarantees at all. The examples you've given about blacks and woman being able to vote were not accomplished through "reinterpretation", they were accomplished by amending the Constitution itself, through Article V. We didn't just decide one day to give all citizens equal voting rights, and we can't just decide that the 2A should mean something other than it did when it was written just because the times have changed. We didn't just decide that blacks were no longer 3/5's of a citizen, as the original Constitution said, we passed an Amendment giving them citizenship.
I have pointed at the precise wording of the 2A, not interpretation. Why is it not "interpretation" to argue the 2A somehow provides our right to bear ANY arm when it does not specifically use the word "any?" Again, it reads we have the right to bear arms, and that right has been protected to date such that all us law-abiding citizens, past and present, have been allowed -- able -- to bear arms. That's strictly speaking, not interpretation.
Further more, if we look at the changes and improvements to the Constitution that were more absolutely necessary, like the changes with regard to who "we the people" actually are, including blacks and women, there was a great deal of debate and "interpretation" that went on well before it became clear an amendment was absolutely necessary. In the case of the Civil Rights Act, there were even many who felt just as strongly that no such amendment was appropriate or necessary because of how they wanted to interpret the Constitution without another amendment.
All to say, as Jefferson also well recognized, changes to the Constitution were inevitable.
I don't think that's the case with the 2A, because also as Jefferson said, "moderate imperfections had better be borne with..."
We can probably argue whether the precise choice of words contained in the 2A represent "moderate imperfection," but I for one can accept we need not change the Constitution or 2A any, just so we can better grapple with today's modern day gun problem that our Founding Fathers could have never foreseen.
Fortunately, I think, that's exactly what the rulings by the SCOTUS have allowed us to do so far, by allowing gun-control measures to be considered in light of our gun problems today rather than auto-dismissed as unconstitutional by all too many misguided lay folks.
I wonder..., you will be hard pressed to prove this notion, and I tend to think from a more practical standpoint the evidence is not in your favor. Something like trying to suggest it is not stupid to bring a knife to a gun fight.
Also, the examples you site have proven more a problem for government overthrow because the will of the people tends to prevail, not so much whether they all have guns. I can well understand the emotion behind the guy that thinks keeping his weapon handy is somehow part of keeping America safe from tyranny, and I very much admire that part of our history when it was more truth than fantasy, but today..., I think you're just kidding yourself along those lines.
I suppose we could play a war game where you pretend to be the armed civilian militia, and I pretend to be the big bad government with the U.S. military at my command, and we could see how long that game lasts, but suffice to say..., you would lose in my opinion. What would remain is the will of the people to either go along with tyrannical rule or not, much like the Germans went along with Hitler, but lots of countries have not and revolted instead, with or without guns.
Hard to prove with absolute certainty in any case, especially if a civil war were involved where some agreed with the big bad government and some don't. Then what good does it do for both sides of that divide to be heavily armed, one side along with the big bad government?
Why does the latest Star Wars movie suddenly come to mind I wonder...
Just wait until we have light-sabers too!
Again, wars were never won by comparing firepower. If that were the case, The American War of Independence and most other wars would never be fought and won. So your little war game is irrelevant.
Yes, keeping and bearing arms do keep America safe from tyranny as the government must think about slaughtering a large percentage of its citizens if they want to impose their tyranny.
Again, wars were never won by comparing firepower. If that were the case, The American War of Independence and most other wars would never be fought and won. So your little war game is irrelevant.
Yes, keeping and bearing arms do keep America safe from tyranny as the government must think about slaughtering a large percentage of its citizens if they want to impose their tyranny.
I wish I could be quick to agree on all counts, but I just can't, because...
Firepower has had quite a profound effect on how wars have played out, won or lost, but I can agree at least to a point that firepower is not always what prevails.
I also tend to agree as I did before that the "little war game is irrelevant," but on the other hand this issue or question about our ability to fight off tyranny with our guns is a popular one. Many would call it a "romantic" one, but here is why I think it is truly irrelevant.
In today's urban society that we live in (the vast majority of us anyway), as with most advanced societies, the real control comes from distribution of food and water. The problem we have with our guns, no matter how powerful or how many rounds we can get off per minute, once the supply of our food and water is taken over as surely it is by the power with that ability, our guns becomes useless. We can't eat them.
Not like the good old days when we could just go out back and hunt us some grub, hold out. That's just no longer possible, so like it or not, we are at the mercy of what has become our lifeline to food and water supply, and this would be quickly controlled by any evil tyrannical government we might like to think we can defend against. In fact, I would guarandamn tee you, that first thing required while you are in the food line is a thorough search for any firearm you might be hiding.
So, again I don't agree with you at all. Government doesn't at all need to think about slaughtering a large percentage of its citizens to impose tyranny. They just need to control the distribution of food and water. Just to play this little war game to the end, if it were to come to that, I suspect their wouldn't be much thought at all about slaughtering those who resisted, but you keep that gun of yours clean and polished, because who knows..., maybe after the next big one, we're back to hunting our dinner and cooking it over a fire pit.
PS: the argument for personal protection from criminals is the more relevant one in terms of our reality today, not fighting tyranny.
I wish I could be quick to agree on all counts, but I just can't, because...
Firepower has had quite a profound effect on how wars have played out, won or lost, but I can agree at least to a point that firepower is not always what prevails.
I also tend to agree as I did before that the "little war game is irrelevant," but on the other hand this issue or question about our ability to fight off tyranny with our guns is a popular one. Many would call it a "romantic" one, but here is why I think it is truly irrelevant.
In today's urban society that we live in (the vast majority of us anyway), as with most advanced societies, the real control comes from distribution of food and water. The problem we have with our guns, no matter how powerful or how many rounds we can get off per minute, once the supply of our food and water is taken over as surely it is by the power with that ability, our guns becomes useless. We can't eat them.
Not like the good old days when we could just go out back and hunt us some grub, hold out. That's just no longer possible, so like it or not, we are at the mercy of what has become our lifeline to food and water supply, and this would be quickly controlled by any evil tyrannical government we might like to think we can defend against. In fact, I would guarandamn tee you, that first thing required while you are in the food line is a thorough search for any firearm you might be hiding.
So, again I don't agree with you at all. Government doesn't at all need to think about slaughtering a large percentage of its citizens to impose tyranny. They just need to control the distribution of food and water. Just to play this little war game to the end, if it were to come to that, I suspect their wouldn't be much thought at all about slaughtering those who resisted, but you keep that gun of yours clean and polished, because who knows..., maybe after the next big one, we're back to hunting our dinner and cooking it over a fire pit.
PS: the argument for personal protection from criminals is the more relevant one in terms of our reality today, not fighting tyranny.
I have a month's worth of food in the pantry and about a dozen ponds within walking distance according to the satellite view on Google Maps. I also have 12 days of dehydrated food in our bug-out bags in case we have to leave on foot.
Within a days walk, I have lake south of here that supports 2M visitors a year. If that doesn't work out, the MS river is about 30 miles west. If that doesn't work out, I have a family member with his bug-out location on the MS river about 60 miles south of here. Finally, my wife's family farm is about 150 miles down the MS river.
When the SHTF, I will not interact with government therefore I will not depend on their food. My wife and I have discussed this bug-out plan based on scenarios ranging from civil unrest to natural disaster.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Reflecting...
