Originally posted by RealSpoke
Then according to that line of thought we should be able to have nukes and other weapons of mass destruction.
This is always the first question I get when I explain the 2nd Amendment to people.
First, let me explain the uniqueness of the USA. We were established to ensure self government with the purpose of living as free people. As such,
every issue with respect to law and government should be to keep its people free. In a perfect world, there would be no need for government as
humanity would be completely moral, ethical, benevolent, altruistic, etc. Basically a utopia. That would be a state of anarchy. (Not to be confused
with chaos.) In such a perfect world, although there would be not need for such things, nuclear weapons could be possessed by anyone. Since humanity
has not progressed to that level of responsibility and morality, we require laws and such to prohibit and punish behavior or actions that are
destructive towards freedom.
So, back to the question about allowing WMDs by the people if the US government posses them. As the 2nd Amendment is to prevent or deter tyranny, we
assume that the nature of government is always to try to assume more power (as the founders have noted.) For the government to utilize WMDs on itself
is not in its self interest of growing or maintaining power. Therefore, it can be assumed that an attack on a revolting US would not utilize WMDs in
any form. This is because the use of such a weapon cannot be contained in the area of attack alone. The nature of WMDs as a weapon used by governments
is towards or to prevent the use of the same by foreign forces. As such, WMDs are not a weapon that could be used against its own people. If a weapon
cannot be used against its own people, there would be no need for the people to have a weapon to counter or retaliate with the same.
Any weapon that the US can and would use against its own people, should be legal for the people to posses. Guns, tanks, jets, non-lethal sound rays,
We can't overthrow this government with guns. They have a trained military, drones, heat seeking missiles, and everything else. Plus some gun control
just makes sense, like gun age limits and felons...you would consider those against the 2nd amendment would you not?
You can't overthrow the government with guns alone. That realization should make it clear that the government regulation or prohibition of arms is not
in accordance with the letter or spirit of the 2nd Amendment.
So lets consider the control you bring up. Age. Everything should be legal for an adult. There should be no differing the freedom an 18 year old has
over a 21 year old. If your old enough to be considered an adult and vote, then your old enough to have all the same rights and freedoms as any other
adult. Parents should not be prohibited from allowing their kids to use guns under their supervision.
Felons. There are two types of felons. Violent and Non-violent. However, I don't even need to make a distinction for my argument. The way
work, is that a person is punished for a given time related to the crime they have committed. If a person completes their
incarceration, and society has deemed their debt to society paid, then a person should be completely a free. If a persons crime is something they
should be punished for for life, then they should not be released and the issue of gun ownership is moot. If a person commits a felony, serves their
time and is released. Should they not be able to protect their life as a freed citizen? Should we limit or prohibit other rights for felons such as
voting, speech, religion etc?
ETA: As for the individual weapons, such as a gun, they serve a barrier to tyranny and less as a tool against it. Essentially, it keeps tyrannical
forces from just coming to get you. The ability for a armed civilian population or militia, even with tanks, jets etc, to wage an offensive war
against a tyrannical government is extremely small in scale and chance of success. The best action is to hold your position (using the same tools at
the discretion of the tyrannical force) until they run out of resources or their forces turn on themselves. But to have a people who cannot even stand
their ground only allows tyranny to gain a foothold and grow.
edit on 12-8-2012 by Wolf321 because: (no reason given)