The Second Amendment is not being properly used

Originally posted by something wicked
Actually, you are kind of proving my point. "The responsibility on its employment is up to the individual" (your words). I didn't realise the constitution was in place to allow a person to fight a one person war, it was on the assumption a well trained militia was in place, and let's face it there isn't. One person with a gun can cause collateral damage, of course and the results of any bullets fired should be the cause of regret.

Actually each state has a well regulated militia. They are state guard units and their commander in chief is in fact the Governor of the state and their interface with other states / federal government is through the adjutant general of the state.

Aside from the FEderal government declaring a state / city in a state of insurrection or in the case of the state refusing to comply with federal law (civil rights act) there is no grounds for the President to federalize the military.

This is why we had dual chain of command in Louisianna during Katrina. The Governor refused to place her units under federal command and in order for bush to force the issue he would of had to declared the state of louisianna / city of new orleans in a state of rebellion / insurrection to do it.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by something wicked
Actually, you are kind of proving my point. "The responsibility on its employment is up to the individual" (your words). I didn't realise the constitution was in place to allow a person to fight a one person war, it was on the assumption a well trained militia was in place, and let's face it there isn't. One person with a gun can cause collateral damage, of course and the results of any bullets fired should be the cause of regret.

Actually each state has a well regulated militia. They are state guard units and their commander in chief is in fact the Governor of the state and their interface with other states / federal government is through the adjutant general of the state.

Aside from the FEderal government declaring a state / city in a state of insurrection or in the case of the state refusing to comply with federal law (civil rights act) there is no grounds for the President to federalize the military.

This is why we had dual chain of command in Louisianna during Katrina. The Governor refused to place her units under federal command and in order for bush to force the issue he would of had to declared the state of louisianna / city of new orleans in a state of rebellion / insurrection to do it.

Xcathedra, that is a good point, but that is state guard rather than an individual who wants their own bomb, which I thought was the reason 'The Professional' raised this thread.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Respectfully the ability to determine what a firearm is or is not is the responsibility of the states. We know this because of state gun laws. For instance look at Californias laws. They spell out what type of guns are and are not allowed to be sold / how they are sold / who can own what.

The reason that is a state responsibility and not the federal government is because its not something specific granted to the FEderal government.

I respect your continuing participation in the discussion. However, either you’re not reading my posts, or you are choosing to ignore my points. Also, my questions were not rhetorical, and I think if you answered them, it would go a long way towards either showing an understanding of my argument, or changing my understanding of the issue.

I have addressed this issue more than once. The 10th amendment states that the issues not covered in the constitution are reserved to the states. The issue of arms is covered in the constitution and is understood as the weapons of warfare. Therefore the states should not be involved in the matter. Specifics are not an issue because like the other rights, they are all inclusive as long as they do not violate the rights of others. I contested that the federal government’s failure to address the states regulating arms, is explicitly to shift blame and allow the federal government to have superior power so that they can oppress the people.

As I stated before I understand your argument but the problem is you are ignoring some of the baisc undamentals of the Constitution and Suprme Court rulings.

The basic fundamentals you continue to refer to is the 10th amendment. With regard to the Supreme Court, they are the Federal Government. As such, they have chosen to give the people the semblance of protection from tyranny, while in reality they allow the disparity of arms specifically to prohibit protection from tyranny. History has shown that their rulings are at the whim of individuals and any argument, no matter how valid or invalid and give power to laws whether for or against liberty.

There is nothing in the Constitution that states a civilian has a right to won / bear the exact same weaponry as the military uses.

How is it that the 2nd amendment is the only right specified in the Constitution that you think lacks specifics and allows states to regulate? Under your logic, how is it that other rights (when not in violation of rights from person to person) cannot be regulated such as speech, religion, assembly etc.?

You acknowledge that the 2A exists for the people to protect themselves from tyrannical and oppressive government, but at the same time say that the government can and should have superior arms. How do your rectify those seemingly contradictory statements? How do you propose the people can protect themselves if they are not allowed the tools and resources?

Secondly what would your argument be if you went to buy an M1Abrams only to find the company refuses to sell the item to you. Is that a violation of our 2nd amendment?

I recognize that a company can enter into a contract for exclusive sale of a specific item with the military/federal government. I even recognize that such a contract can be based upon technological trade secrets that give our military an advantage over foreign forces. However, I do not think that the government should prevent the people from purchasing or possessing similar items if another company or the same produces a similar product.

If there is a market for a technology that the military uses, a person should be able to purchase or produce for themselves the same or similar devices. It is a fundamental violation of the purpose of the 2A to say the people should not have the arms to resist or combat tyranny. You cannot resist a tank with a pistol or a musket; for that you need an RPG, missiles or another tank. You cannot resist a F-16 or Apache with a rifle or a knife; for that you need surface to air missiles or similar combat air platforms. If the people are barred from the ability to resist, how is that in accordance with the 2A and the founder’s intent?

Originally posted by something wicked
Actually, you are kind of proving my point. "The responsibility on its employment is up to the individual" (your words). I didn't realise the constitution was in place to allow a person to fight a one person war, it was on the assumption a well trained militia was in place, and let's face it there isn't.

The 2A is not about a one man army. It’s about individuals having the resources, to pool when necessary, to resist oppression or combat tyranny.

Something wicked, I have asked and received some reply from Xcathdra to establish somewhat of a base for argument, and I would like to ask the same of you.

Why do you think the founders, who had been through the revolution, included the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights?

My contention is it exists to give the people, individually and collectively, the right to protect themselves as well as defend themselves from tyranny and oppression. If we agree on that, the question remains, how can a people do so if they are restricted to the point they cannot resist or defend themselves?

Additionally, Xcathdra has made the case that the 2A is vague and as such allows for the states to make restrictions and regulations. If this is true, can this be done with other rights and freedoms? Is the lack of ‘specifics’ in 2A different than the lack of specifics in the 1st?

One person with a gun can cause collateral damage, of course and the results of any bullets fired should be the cause of regret. One person with a bomb up to the level of ordenance available to the armed forces could take out at least city when the aim was to remove an 'enemy' base.

When did the potential for crime become a reason to criminalize someone? The potential for people to misuse or abuse resources or rights has and always will exist. If we area allowed to restrict resources and rights based upon that, then we are not a free nation or people. We would be presuming people guilty without even the chance to prove their innocence.

Who is the tyrant in that example, and whos rights are being protected and from whom?

So because individuals could abuse their right, their rights should be restricted and the government be given free reign to oppress and become tyrannical?

Originally posted by Wolf321
I respect your continuing participation in the discussion. However, either you’re not reading my posts, or you are choosing to ignore my points. Also, my questions were not rhetorical, and I think if you answered them, it would go a long way towards either showing an understanding of my argument, or changing my understanding of the issue.

I thought I was...

Originally posted by Wolf321
I have addressed this issue more than once. The 10th amendment states that the issues not covered in the constitution are reserved to the states.

Agreed

Originally posted by Wolf321
The issue of arms is covered in the constitution and is understood as the weapons of warfare.

Respectfully no its not. The Constitution does not define what an arm is. If we view it at the time the constitution ws written it deals with projectile weapons, specifically guns.

We arrive at that position by noting that while people owned guns, they did not own cannons at the time. If cannons or any weapon other than a gun were covered it would have been noted at the time. Nothing specifically uses the term warfare in the constitution. Nothing in the 2nd amendment deals with warfare. It states well regulated militia and the right to own and bear arms.

Originally posted by Wolf321
Therefore the states should not be involved in the matter. Specifics are not an issue because like the other rights, they are all inclusive as long as they do not violate the rights of others. I contested that the federal government’s failure to address the states regulating arms, is explicitly to shift blame and allow the federal government to have superior power so that they can oppress the people.

You ignore the fact that State guard units are armed with the same systems the Federal full time armed forces are armed with. We cannot assume the constitution means one thing on one issue and something else on another issue. Its pretty clear on that point as ell as where authority is depedning on topic.

A bomb / explosive device is not a gun - its a bomb / explosive device.
An Amram is not a gun, its an advanced medium range air to air missile.
An aircraft / submarine / aircraft carrier are not guns.

Originally posted by Wolf321
The basic fundamentals you continue to refer to is the 10th amendment. With regard to the Supreme Court, they are the Federal Government. As such, they have chosen to give the people the semblance of protection from tyranny, while in reality they allow the disparity of arms specifically to prohibit protection from tyranny. History has shown that their rulings are at the whim of individuals and any argument, no matter how valid or invalid and give power to laws whether for or against liberty.

I disagree.. No where in the Constitutiondoes it state the population is to have equal access to weapons the government does.

As I have stated, travel within and across state lines is protected - the method of travel is not.
The 2nd amendment protects the persons right to own and bear arms - classification and type is not.

If we want to go one step further and get technical, the government could pass a law that restricts all weapons to hold only one bullet at a time. They are not prohibiting a person from owning and bearing arms.

Originally posted by Wolf321
How is it that the 2nd amendment is the only right specified in the Constitution that you think lacks specifics and allows states to regulate? Under your logic, how is it that other rights (when not in violation of rights from person to person) cannot be regulated such as speech, religion, assembly etc.?

We have been over these points in our other posts. I refer you back to those posts for the answer.

Originally posted by Wolf321
You acknowledge that the 2A exists for the people to protect themselves from tyrannical and oppressive government, but at the same time say that the government can and should have superior arms. How do your rectify those seemingly contradictory statements? How do you propose the people can protect themselves if they are not allowed the tools and resources?

For starters they are not contrdictory. Secondly the 2A does not specify what an "arm" is. Third there is nothing in the constitution that states the people have a right to have the same weapons as the government.

If you want to get technical the 2A doesnt say anything about tyrrany or oppression either. Inserting your own ethics / moral viewpoint doesnt change the fact its not included in the consitution.

Originally posted by Wolf321
I recognize that a company can enter into a contract for exclusive sale of a specific item with the military/federal government. I even recognize that such a contract can be based upon technological trade secrets that give our military an advantage over foreign forces. However, I do not think that the government should prevent the people from purchasing or possessing similar items if another company or the same produces a similar product.

The Commerce clause says otherwise.
The 2A says otherwise.

Originally posted by Wolf321
If there is a market for a technology that the military uses, a person should be able to purchase or produce for themselves the same or similar devices. It is a fundamental violation of the purpose of the 2A to say the people should not have the arms to resist or combat tyranny. You cannot resist a tank with a pistol or a musket; for that you need an RPG, missiles or another tank. You cannot resist a F-16 or Apache with a rifle or a knife; for that you need surface to air missiles or similar combat air platforms. If the people are barred from the ability to resist, how is that in accordance with the 2A and the founder’s intent?

A "rocket propelled grenade" is not a gun.
A tank is not a gun.
An F-16 is not a gun.
An apache is not a gun.
A knife is not a gun.

The 2nd amednment says nothing about oppression or tyranny. While that was a driving factor behind it, it is not the sole factor for it.

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.

Please show me where it states tyranny and oppression. As I stated I understand your argument however its made on principles that are not contained in the amednments.

If we want to go one step further individuals can purchase military items, like tanks, helicopters and fighter aircraft. They come with a hefty price tag and wont come with the advanced features, like radar or missiles / guidnace systems.

Items which are not guns and are not covered by the 2nd amendment.
The constitution says nothing about airplanes...
The constitutiotan says nothing about tanks...
Nothing about helicopters....
nothing about bombs...
nothing about nuclear weapons....

While you can apply what you think ius correct to this argument, if we are to respect he constitution then we must look at the courts, includiung the US supreme court, and their rulings on these subjects.

We cant ignore one part of the constitution in order to create justification for another.

Originally posted by Wolf321
Additionally, Xcathdra has made the case that the 2A is vague and as such allows for the states to make restrictions and regulations. If this is true, can this be done with other rights and freedoms? Is the lack of ‘specifics’ in 2A different than the lack of specifics in the 1st?

Yes -

1st amendment -
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

freedom of speech - A person cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre when one does not exist.
freedom of religion - human sacrifices are not permitted.
freedom of press
- can be charged with a crime for printing classified information.
- can be jailed for refusing to identify a source during court procedures.
- while its ok for 500 people to protest its not ok for those protestors to break private / public property.
- Redres of greivance - allows the people to challenge the government and waht they do in court, who is the final say according to the constitution.

3rd amendment -
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

- Cant quarter troops unless prescribed by law.

4th amendment -
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

- Consent
- Plain view exception
- Open fields / curtlidge exception
- Search incident to arrest
- Exigent circumstances
** Automobiles and curtlidge have lesser protections than a persons house.

5th amendment -
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

* - Federal and States are separate sovereigns.
* - No where does this contain Miranda warnings yet we are required to read them to people who are in custody and being asked guilt seeking questions.
* -Husband and wife share whats called spousel privilege. Allows a husband or wife the right to refuse to testify against each other. Not contained in the 5th.


I can keep going if you wish but the fact remains the constitution is a living, fluid document that changes with time. The constitution origionally prhibited women and certain person from voting / being counted as a whole person(3/5).. The amendments changed that however other laws were put into plce to further define (civil rights act / 42 usc 1983).

Doctrine of unenumerated powers...
Necessary and proper clause...

etc etc etc....

Finally we have the courts who are the final say on constitutional matters. Rejecting their rulings means what?

reply to post by Xcathdra

What do you think is going to happen when the states get defacto federalized under martial law (10 fema districts)?

reply to post by Xcathdra

The "security of a free state" is open ended. It could include tyranny at home or an attack on our shores that overwhelms our military. The frame of reference for the founders; however, from their own writings was the tyranny that they suffered at the hands of british colonial rule under King George. Basically it means having the means and ability to protect the state "against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC." (emphasis mine)

reply to post by Xcathdra

A bomb / explosive device is not a gun - its a bomb / explosive device. An Amram is not a gun, its an advanced medium range air to air missile. An aircraft / submarine / aircraft carrier are not guns.

For starters they are not contrdictory. Secondly the 2A does not specify what an "arm" is. Third there is nothing in the constitution that states the people have a right to have the same weapons as the government.

A "rocket propelled grenade" is not a gun. A tank is not a gun. An F-16 is not a gun. An apache is not a gun. A knife is not a gun.

From your statements it seems to me that you are equating arms as meaning only guns, which is inaccurate. Arms mean just what the definition of arms means, look it up; all weapons and ammunition.

Furthermore the reason the founding fathers used arms instead of muskets or guns in the amendment is because they understood that cannons are part of that and they may not have known about tanks, aircraft and rocket launchers but they knew about cannons. In fact a great deal of the military strategy and arms/ armaments they used during the revolutionary war were cannons.

In fact lets go back to history and look at the revolutionary war; in particular how about to the raid of Fort William and Mary, in 1774.

source

On December 14, 1774, local Patriots from the Portsmouth area, led by John Langdon, stormed the post and seized the garrison's powder, which was distributed through several New Hampshire towns for potential use in the looming struggle against Great Britain. On December 15, 1774, patriots led by John Sullivan again raided the fort, this time seizing numerous cannon.

Interesting they didn't just take the muskets and gun powder but the cannons too. And why did they raid the fort and seize the "Arms and munitions"? Because the king issued a decree forbidding the export of Arms and Ammunition to America.

On October 19, 1774, King George III issued a confidential Order in Council forbidding the export of arms and powder to America. Word of the order reached operatives in New England's patriot movement.

And finally why didn't the founding fathers clarify exactly what arms meant in the constitution? Because, they didn't think future generations could be possibly be ignorant enough to not know what the term arms meant.

Just to clarify

Though, all those things you may mention may not be "guns", they are armaments; arms, just like the founding fathers considered cannons to be arms as well.

arms plural of arms (Noun) Noun:
1.Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms".
2.Distinctive emblems or devices, forming the heraldic insignia of families, corporations, or countries.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Respectfully no its not. The Constitution does not define what an arm is. If we view it at the time the constitution ws written it deals with projectile weapons, specifically guns.

You realize that you just contradicted yourself there. You said it doesn’t define arms, but somehow specifies guns. The view at the time the constitution was written, is that arms were the weapons of warfare. Muskets, tomahawks, spears, arrows, cannons, swords… all the weapons of warfare.

We arrive at that position by noting that while people owned guns, they did not own cannons at the time. If cannons or any weapon other than a gun were covered it would have been noted at the time.

You are wrong again. People did own cannons at the time. They also owned tomahawks, knives, swords, bows and arrows. There was no law or regulation prohibiting the sale, manufacturing or ownership of any of these.

You ignore the fact that State guard units are armed with the same systems the Federal full time armed forces are armed with.

This has nothing to do with the individual right of the 2nd amendment. Outside of the State guard, how are the people supposed to come together as the militia without the tools if needed to stand up to tyranny?

A bomb / explosive device is not a gun - its a bomb / explosive device.
An Amram is not a gun, its an advanced medium range air to air missile.
An aircraft / submarine / aircraft carrier are not guns.

It doesn’t have to be a gun. They are all arms, of which the people are not supposed to be barred from possessing.

I disagree.. No where in the Constitutiondoes it state the population is to have equal access to weapons the government does.

Nor does the first amendment, but you only require specifics on the 2nd for some reason.

Originally posted by Wolf321
How is it that the 2nd amendment is the only right specified in the Constitution that you think lacks specifics and allows states to regulate? Under your logic, how is it that other rights (when not in violation of rights from person to person) cannot be regulated such as speech, religion, assembly etc.?

We have been over these points in our other posts. I refer you back to those posts for the answer.

You have yet to address this in any of your post. The closes you came was in your first post in which you pointed out the instances wherein the freedoms of speech, religion, assembly etc can be restricted. At that time I pointed out that all your examples were cases where doing so was a violation of another’s rights, but in the case of weapons, no persons rights are violated. I take it you are choosing to dodge the question for lack of a logical answer.

For starters they are not contrdictory. Secondly the 2A does not specify what an "arm" is. Third there is nothing in the constitution that states the people have a right to have the same weapons as the government.

The first amendment does not specify what speech is, what assembly is, what a religion is, what the press is, but everyone knows what it is. Everyone does then and now. Arms has and always will be the weapons of warfare.

continued...

continued...reply to Xcathdra

If you want to get technical the 2A doesnt say anything about tyrrany or oppression either. Inserting your own ethics / moral viewpoint doesnt change the fact its not included in the consitution.

Are you kidding me?! Inserting my own ethics and moral view point? You have said that the 2nd amendment was included to give the people the ability to protect themselves from the government. It is not MY viewpoint. It is the factual reason and beliefs of the founders, the people of that time and since. Everyone has recognized the 2nd amendment exists to prevent tyranny, and that the people should be armed with the same arms used by a standing army.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
--Thomas Jefferson

A people armed and free forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition and is a bulwark for the nation against foreign invasion and domestic oppression.
--James Madison

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.[
--Alexander Hamilton

The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers.
-- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1891

Since the Second Amendment explicitly declares that its purpose is to preserve a well-regulated militia, the right to bear arms was universal in scope. The vision animating the amendment was nothing less than popular sovereignty applied in the military realm. The Framers recognized that self-government requires the People's access to bullets as well as ballots. The armed citizenry (militia) was expected to protect against not only foreign enemies, but also a potentially tyrannical federal government.
-- Prof. Akil Reed Amar of the Yale School of Law

The Commerce clause says otherwise. The 2A says otherwise.

The Commerce clause has already been misused, and its misuse upheld by the Supreme Court. Again, a case of the federal government empowering itself. As for the 2A, it does not say the government can regulate the sale or possession of arms.

A "rocket propelled grenade" is not a gun.
A tank is not a gun.
An F-16 is not a gun.
An apache is not a gun.
A knife is not a gun.

Again, for the umpteenth time, the 2A is not restricted to guns, as it states arms which are universally understood then and now to mean the weapons of warfare.

The 2nd amednment says nothing about oppression or tyranny. While that was a driving factor behind it, it is not the sole factor for it.

Yes, exactly. IT WAS THE DRIVING FACTOR, but is not the sole one.

As I stated I understand your argument however its made on principles that are not contained in the amednments.

My argument is made on both the text and background of the bill of rights and the constitution as a whole. You seem to only be concerned with the printed word (or lack of in the case of specifics) and an absence of definitions. If I were to ignore the entire context of the writing of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Revolutionary War and the writings and beliefs of the founders, then I might come to the same conclusion as you have. However, as in your case, that conclusion would be wrong as it is a conclusion drawn in absence of the facts of the matter, either by ignorance or by choice.

continued...

continued...reply to Xcathdra

If we want to go one step further individuals can purchase military items, like tanks, helicopters and fighter aircraft. They come with a hefty price tag and wont come with the advanced features, like radar or missiles / guidnace systems.

We don’t know what the price of such items would be, and we cannot say they would lack basic modern features. If there is a market for something, people will fill the need and desires of the consumers. I don’t doubt the prices would be high. Car prices are high, home prices are high, but people want and need them and as such buy them.

Items which are not guns and are not covered by the 2nd amendment.

That is a conclusion you draw from you lack of acknowledging the comments of the founders, the “driving force” behind the 2A and the particular need to have this sole right be better defined than all others.

if we are to respect he constitution then we must look at the courts, includiung the US supreme court, and their rulings on these subjects.

We can hope that the courts uphold rights and freedoms, but history has shown that that is not always the case. With regards to the 2A, that is exactly what has happened. If one examines the Constitution, the historical context and the writings of the founders, it is abundantly clear that “arms” are the weapons of warfare, ownership and possession of such should not be infringed/restricted, and the whole purpose of the 2A is for individual protection and to prevent and combat a tyrannical government. Thomas Paine would have called this recognition of facts, Common Sense.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

What do you think is going to happen when the states get defacto federalized under martial law (10 fema districts)?

Hopefully we won't ever find out however...

People seem to be of the mindset that the Government can just declare martial law and nothing bad will happen to them. In order to pull it off to the requirement they would need Federal police / military units to comply completely and not question any order.

They would need the full support of the entire federal government.
They would need the full support of the State / local governments.
They would need the full cooperations of all law enforcement at the state / city / county / local levels.

The notion that people would blindly follow orders in that situation is frankly insulting to everyone. That doesn't include the citizens who would be tapping a few kegs of whoop ass. The current mindset of the people towards the government is bad enough. Add in a stunt like this and it would make WWII look like a water balloon fight.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

The "security of a free state" is open ended. It could include tyranny at home or an attack on our shores that overwhelms our military. The frame of reference for the founders; however, from their own writings was the tyranny that they suffered at the hands of british colonial rule under King George. Basically it means having the means and ability to protect the state "against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC." (emphasis mine)

Right I agree however it does not do what people are claiming it does. It does not say anywhere that a person can have access to the same items the military does.

Originally posted by prisoneronashipoffools
From your statements it seems to me that you are equating arms as meaning only guns, which is inaccurate. Arms mean just what the definition of arms means, look it up; all weapons and ammunition.

So in other words you are using a modern / current definition of arms even though it did not mean the same thing when the consitution was created?

Originally posted by prisoneronashipoffools
Furthermore the reason the founding fathers used arms instead of muskets or guns in the amendment is because they understood that cannons are part of that and they may not have known about tanks, aircraft and rocket launchers but they knew about cannons. In fact a great deal of the military strategy and arms/ armaments they used during the revolutionary war were cannons.

Which again, being they called them cannons, is intentional and does not fall under the 2nd amendment

Originally posted by prisoneronashipoffools
In fact lets go back to history and look at the revolutionary war; in particular how about to the raid of Fort William and Mary, in 1774.

source

On December 14, 1774, local Patriots from the Portsmouth area, led by John Langdon, stormed the post and seized the garrison's powder, which was distributed through several New Hampshire towns for potential use in the looming struggle against Great Britain. On December 15, 1774, patriots led by John Sullivan again raided the fort, this time seizing numerous cannon.

The Constitution was not adopted until 1787 and was not effective until the following year.

Originally posted by prisoneronashipoffools
Interesting they didn't just take the muskets and gun powder but the cannons too. And why did they raid the fort and seize the "Arms and munitions"? Because the king issued a decree forbidding the export of Arms and Ammunition to America.

Being it was a time of war it makes sense. If it was the intention of the founders to have the 2nd amendment be broad it would in its language. The founders would have gone into depth to ensure the people had access to the same weapons the government does.

Since they didnt go that far, and since they had plenty of time between the conflict and the ratification of the Constitution, they had the time to make changes to clarify / specify, which they chose not to do.

Originally posted by prisoneronashipoffools
And finally why didn't the founding fathers clarify exactly what arms meant in the constitution? Because, they didn't think future generations could be possibly be ignorant enough to not know what the term arms meant.

Are you sure it wasn't because at that time period cannons were called cannons?

Originally posted by prisoneronashipoffools

Just to clarify

Though, all those things you may mention may not be "guns", they are armaments; arms, just like the founding fathers considered cannons to be arms as well.

arms plural of arms (Noun) Noun:
1.Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms".
2.Distinctive emblems or devices, forming the heraldic insignia of families, corporations, or countries.

edit on 16-8-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typos

The US Supreme Court disagrees with that interpretation.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Every case you presented on the other rights guaranteed by (not granted by) the Bill of Rights, are not restrictions on those rights, they are prohibitions on the violation of one right by another, OR the voluntary choice to relinquish that right.

Neither of these situations are part of this 2A argument. Purchasing or possession of all arms I have described, does not violate the rights of others. That is a clear fact. Nor is the choice to relinquish that right given. As such, your correlation between the violation of rights being prohibited for the other amendments, has no equivalent and is unrelated to your 2A argument.

Originally posted by Wolf321
You realize that you just contradicted yourself there. You said it doesn’t define arms, but somehow specifies guns. The view at the time the constitution was written, is that arms were the weapons of warfare. Muskets, tomahawks, spears, arrows, cannons, swords… all the weapons of warfare.

Its not contradictory at all.
As I pointed out to the other poster the Supreme Court is saying the same thing as I am saying.

Originally posted by Wolf321
You are wrong again. People did own cannons at the time. They also owned tomahawks, knives, swords, bows and arrows. There was no law or regulation prohibiting the sale, manufacturing or ownership of any of these.

Until the war was over sure.. After the war and the inception of the constitution times had already changed. Based on your own logic we just got done telling the crown where they can go. Dont you think the founders would have been specific when it came to the people and weapons?

Originally posted by Wolf321
This has nothing to do with the individual right of the 2nd amendment. Outside of the State guard, how are the people supposed to come together as the militia without the tools if needed to stand up to tyranny?

Armed revolt / resistance is an absolute last resort. Its easy to replace one tyranny with another form of it when its done through warfare. The primary defense the founders gave the people is the vote.

Originally posted by Wolf321
It doesn’t have to be a gun. They are all arms, of which the people are not supposed to be barred from possessing.

I disagree, and so does the Supreme Court.

Originally posted by Wolf321
Nor does the first amendment, but you only require specifics on the 2nd for some reason.

Freedom of speech with exceptions.
Freedom of religion with exceptions.
Freedom of press with exceptions.

Those exceptions were established by the Supreme Court over the years. Just as they have done with the 2nd amendment.

Originally posted by Wolf321
We have been over these points in our other posts. I refer you back to those posts for the answer.

I have taken the time to answer your questions / comments 10 times over as well.

Originally posted by Wolf321
You have yet to address this in any of your post. The closes you came was in your first post in which you pointed out the instances wherein the freedoms of speech, religion, assembly etc can be restricted. At that time I pointed out that all your examples were cases where doing so was a violation of another’s rights, but in the case of weapons, no persons rights are violated. I take it you are choosing to dodge the question for lack of a logical answer.

Not at all.. I have answered your question and addressed your concerns. You dont agree with it so you ignored it. I am telling you your interpretation is incorrect and as a matter of fact so is the US Supreme Court.

So its ok to accept their rulings when you are in agreement and ignore them when you arent?

Originally posted by Wolf321
The first amendment does not specify what speech is, what assembly is, what a religion is, what the press is, but everyone knows what it is. Everyone does then and now. Arms has and always will be the weapons of warfare.

continued...

Correct it doesnt specify, which resulted in court cases over the years to define the amendment. Just as has been done with the 2nd amendment.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Being it was a time of war it makes sense. If it was the intention of the founders to have the 2nd amendment be broad it would in its language. The founders would have gone into depth to ensure the people had access to the same weapons the government does.

That entire concept is entirely backwards. When you want something to be broad, you keep it simple and open.

Think of it like this. If someone says to you, "Don't say a word." Do you require them to run through a list of every conceivable word they don't want you to say? Any normal, sane, logical person would understand that to be ALL and ANY words.

They didn't need to specify each and every weapon of warfare because ARMS is ALL ENCOMPASSING.

Originally posted by Wolf321
Are you kidding me?! Inserting my own ethics and moral view point? You have said that the ..snipped for room.

You have stated numerous times now that the 2nd is based on oppression and tyranny. I am telling you it was more than just that. Your argument for the 2nd is solely based on defending agsint the government, when in fact it says nothing of the sort.

Originally posted by Wolf321

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
--Thomas Jefferson

A people armed and free forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition and is a bulwark for the nation against foreign invasion and domestic oppression.
--James Madison

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.
--Alexander Hamilton

"Eliminate the impossible and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
- Sherlock Holmes

“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
- Ben Franklin

The second quote is key... The way to keep a Republic is by peoples participation in it. The use of weapons against the government is an extreme last resort. It was an extreme last resort against the British as well. You can supply all the quotes you wish however it does not change the fact the 2A has been defined by the Supreme Court. The 2A does not guarantee equal access to weapons the government has.

Originally posted by Wolf321
The Commerce clause has already been misused, and its misuse upheld by the Supreme Court. Again, a case of the federal government empowering itself. As for the 2A, it does not say the government can regulate the sale or possession of arms.

Again the Supreme Court does not agree with you. The 2nd amendment does say anything about have access to the same items the government does, nor does it state the reason for it was tyranny / oppression. Items made in one state and transported to another can be regulated by the government. Its one of their powers granted in the Constitution.

Originally posted by Wolf321
Again, for the umpteenth time, the 2A is not restricted to guns, as it states arms which are universally understood then and now to mean the weapons of warfare.

and for the umpteeth time the Supreme Court doesnt agree with you.

Originally posted by Wolf321
Yes, exactly. IT WAS THE DRIVING FACTOR, but is not the sole one.

At least you finally got to this point. Your argument is based on that one issue - protection from the government. You are using the 2A to try and justify something that is not a right. As I pointed out numerous times now travel within and across state lines is protected - The method of travel is not.

The 2A is the same.

Originally posted by Wolf321
My argument is made on both the text and background of the bill of rights and the constitution as a whole. You seem to only be concerned with the printed word (or lack of in the case of specifics) and an absence of definitions. If I were to ignore the entire context of the writing of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Revolutionary War and the writings and beliefs of the founders, then I might come to the same conclusion as you have. However, as in your case, that conclusion would be wrong as it is a conclusion drawn in absence of the facts of the matter, either by ignorance or by choice.

Not me.. The Supreme Court.

Your argument is based one one aspect that you are fixated on - protection against the government via weapons / guns / missiles / arms / whatever you wish to call it and conflict. You are ignoring the fact the vote was the bigest defense the founders built into the constitution.

Why?

Because if it ever came to the point of armed revolt it means the citizens failed to uphold their duty - A Government of the people, by the people and for the people.

As far as my conclusion go and you thinking they are wrong all we need to do is look at the laws in place and the Supreme Court rulings on the issue and we will see im not wrong.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Until the war was over sure.. After the war and the inception of the constitution times had already changed. Based on your own logic we just got done telling the crown where they can go. Dont you think the founders would have been specific when it came to the people and weapons?

No. People were still in possession of cannons long after the revolutionary war.

Armed revolt / resistance is an absolute last resort. Its easy to replace one tyranny with another form of it when its done through warfare. The primary defense the founders gave the people is the vote.

We agree on this, but consider if that time were to come, the people have no means to resist. With the restrictions on arms now, the best people can hope for is individual self-defense from another individual only; most certainly NOT to resist tyranny.

I disagree, and so does the Supreme Court.

Yes, the same supreme court that is part of the federal government. Here I am making an argument that the federal government can erode, restrict and abuse rights, namely the 2A, and you say that federal government says they aren't doing that.

That reminds me of something my big brother would play on me when I was a kid. He would take my hand and slap my face with it proclaiming "stop hitting yourself."

Correct it doesnt specify, which resulted in court cases over the years to define the amendment. Just as has been done with the 2nd amendment.

And in all those cases they have only restricted the rights when in violation of another rights. With the 2A, they restrict it despite the lack of another's rights being violated.

Originally posted by Wolf321
We don’t know what the price of such items would be, and we cannot say they would lack basic modern features. If there is a market for something, people will fill the need and desires of the consumers. I don’t doubt the prices would be high. Car prices are high, home prices are high, but people want and need them and as such buy them.

Actually we can see how much they would be and we know for a fact military grae items are stripped out. Private citizens do own military jetfighters / tanks etc. They do not come with the military hardware. why?

I refer you to Supreme Court decisions on the 2A.

Originally posted by Wolf321
That is a conclusion you draw from you lack of acknowledging the comments of the founders, the “driving force” behind the 2A and the particular need to have this sole right be better defined than all others.

Not at all.. The knowledge comes from the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings, which supports what I have been telling you.

Originally posted by Wolf321
We can hope that the courts uphold rights and freedoms, but history has shown that that is not always the case

Is it they have not always done that or is it because some of those rulings go against what you think they should be?

Originally posted by Wolf321. With regards to the 2A, that is exactly what has happened. If one examines the Constitution, the historical context and the writings of the founders, it is abundantly clear that “arms” are the weapons of warfare, ownership and possession of such should not be infringed/restricted, and the whole purpose of the 2A is for individual protection and to prevent and combat a tyrannical government. Thomas Paine would have called this recognition of facts, Common Sense.

Its not abundantly clear.. If it were it would be specific which it is not. If it were we wouldnt have Supreme Court rulings on the matter either.

You can repeat that amendment as many times as you wish but it does not change the fact the Supreme Court does not agree wth your position.