Originally posted by AdamLaw
For American citizens to have the right to keep and bear arms could have been relevant 200 years ago.
It is even more relevant today, IMO.
Question 1: In 2012, does the most militarized country in the world, with a budget of 700 billion dollars a year requires a well regulated
militia with citizens armed and ready to protect the security of the State?
You are missing the elephant in the room with that question. The US was never intended to have a standing army like you describe. The ability to have
a modern and trained people capable of defending the nation is quite feasible without the massive standing army we have.
Question 2: Is the 2nd amendment an individual’s right or a collective right?
It’s both. The right to defend yourself, ie. right to life, is a basic human right(individual.) The Bill of Rights represents the limits of
government over a persons and human rights. The 2nd Amendment was written to ensure the people (collective) were never out-gunned by the government.
If it upholds the constitutionality of the federal law of 1934, it is for a reason that is not likely to set a law: the Second Amendment does
not guarantee the right to possess the type of weapon involved in the case considered (a sawed-off shotgun), because it is not part of the usual
weapons of a militia.
The government is the three branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Each one, more than one or all three can be wrong at any given time over
any given issue. It has happened in the past, is happening and will always happen.
Realize, the 2nd Amendment is the ultimate right in keeping the government in check. Is it surprising to think that they would manipulate it to their
advantage? They have manipulated every other right and guarantee of the Constitution to increase their collective power and control over the people
Question 3: Should we conclude that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to possess rocket launchers, bazookas or tanks if the
times we live in makes it militia relevant weaponry?
Absolutely. Aside from the fact that the government should not have a standing military, the people should have the ability to have the same arms the
government has access to on the presumption that government decides to become oppressive and/or tyrannical.
Twentieth-century Americans have rejected the principles of freedom of their ancestors. Believing that the socialist welfare state would
provide them with a “safety net” of governmental security, they traded the liberty bequeathed to them by their ancestors for the paternalistic
state. Thus, they adopted all the things to which their ancestors had said No: income taxation, welfare, regulation, Social Security, Medicare,
Medicaid, public schooling, and gun control.
I have never seen this quote but it is quite telling.
First, let’s make the distinction that the people have not decided to adopt these things, but the representatives of the people. On that fact, we
can argue that the representatives, for some time now, have not represented the people, but manipulated them for their own individual and corporate
powers. With the exception of the prohibition act, very few laws that have been passed by congress or executive order or ever repealed, despite how
contrary to freedom and the constitution they may be. Remember, from its inception, it is the nature of government to try and grow and become more
powerful, despite any benevolent origins such as our own.
All the issues in the quote are directly responsible or related to the problems we have encountered as a nation and the issues we are now dealing
Question 4: Should the United States Of America take an active role in preventing criminal crimes by revoking the right to bear arms to
It is not the government’s role to prevent crime. In fact, they cannot. They can only punish for crimes committed. A prohibition on something
doesn’t deter involvement in that something; it only makes that something itself a crime. In that way, government isn’t deterring crime, but
instead creating it. As such it only empowers itself and not the people.
To want to ban firearms one is making the following statements/assumptions:
- The government is benevolent and would never use authoritarian force against its people.
- Law enforcement is always going to be there to protect the citizenry from criminals.
- People are responsible to drive thousand pound heaps of metal 70 mph and elect people who declare and wage war but are not responsible enough to own
or use a tool for their own defense.
- The 2nd Amendment is the only right that is out-dated.
At the core of all the debates on restriction or elimination of rights, and the problems we encounter these days, is the collapse of a moral, ethical
and just society.
edit on 1-10-2012 by Wolf321 because: (no reason given)