| To which Level of Modern-day Weapons does the 2nd Amendment Apply? |
| Swords, knives, and other hand-to-hand wepons. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Muskets, and other single-shot hand-held firearms. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Shotguns, rifles, and other two-shot hand-held firearms. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Handguns, revolvers, both automatic and semi-automatic. |
|
40% |
[ 2 ] |
| Machine guns, automatic and semi-automatic. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Grenades, small bombs, and other ‘close-combat’ explosives. |
|
20% |
[ 1 ] |
| Long range missiles. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Nuclear. |
|
40% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 5 |
|
| Author |
Message
|
| Jon |
 Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 2:51 am Post subject: Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment |
 |
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Posts: 160
Location: Minnesota, U.S.
|
The 2nd Amendment:
| Quote: |
| 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. |
The topic then, is thus: how should one interpret the 2nd Amendment? Weapons capable of destroying the entire Earth might one day be possible, but clearly the Founding Fathers did not intend for each citizen to have firepower that great. In other words, where do we draw the line?
I think there are three main points that need to be discussed:
1) The meaning of the word "militia" and its modifiers, particularly in their context above and in the context of how they would've been understood at the time the Constitution was approved.
2) The meaning of "arms" to discuss which weapons are necessary for the people to bear for "the security of a free state."
3) The meaning of "to bear" in its context, whether it means right to posses or right to carry on the body, etc.
As a meaning to the word ‘militia’ for point (1), I offer the following definition:
| Quote: |
Dictionary.com
mi·li·tia /mɪˈlɪʃə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mi-lish-uh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
...
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
... |
My opinion on this is that the government at that timed realized that a militia:
a. could be gathered almost immediately. Remember, in the days that law was written, the only way to send messages was on horse, so that invaders would otherwise be able to destroy homes and kill citizens in the time it took the horse to run to wherever the trained soldiers were stationed, wait for the generals there to formulate a plan, send the trained soldiers along with all the supplies needed to sustain them away from the base, etc.
b. greatly increases the number of 'fighters' available to the country. Imagine how powerful the country's defence would be against the Canadians if all the able-bodied people grabbed their guns and started plucking off Canadians one-by-one... a lot more powerful than just the military on its own.
c. allows people the basic and fundamental 'God-given', as it were, right to defend their own land against invading Canadians, Mexicans, Russians, etc. At this time in the country's history, I do not think many people held the military in very high regard, and I would imagine those hesitant about the revolution were probably concerned with whether or not the military could effectively protect all its citizenry, especially those living far from the main government centres.
Based on my three reasons for a militia given above, I feel that for point (2) the citizenry should be allowed to own weapons that would make them effective as a militia. Allowing citizens to own only muskets and firecrackers would defeat completely the purpose of the militia. To be effective, the militia has to actually have a chance against possible invading forces.
As for point (3), I am unsure.
The topic then, is thus: how should one interpret the 2nd Amendment?
Regards,
Rv. Jon
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| icewendigo |
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 379
|
Strange that a militia appears to be deemed necessary for security, if there is a permanent standing army I would not expect that to be the case. On the otherhand, a country without a standing army or a minimal one, would indeed be more secure with peoples militias. Did the united states have a large permenent professional army when the 2nd amendment was drafted?
In anycase in post WW2 modern industrial states, armed citizens is more or less irrelevant for security. Propaganda and the threat of Nuclear and bioweapons make an armed citizenry as futile as Road Runner's coyote's umbrella is to protect him against a 40 ton rockslide. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jon |
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Posts: 160
Location: Minnesota, U.S.
|
No, the U.S. military was not large enough to protect its borders, and it is still insufficient. The United States is a very large country, with very large borders. Local police even have difficulties arriving to the seen of a crime in action quick enough to make a difference.
Let us go back to 1700's when there was no such thing as a telephone, and the only way to send a message was by hand delivery. When a force invaded, the messenger would have to ride to the nearest base, give word, the commander would have to form a plan, ready his troops, and by then the opposing army could very well be right there, having already wiped out everything in its path. The people couldn't much count on the military to protect them; not because the military was useless, but simply because it was physically impossible to keep guard over so much land. The people had to fend for themselves.
| Quote: |
| In anycase in post WW2 modern industrial states, armed citizens is more or less irrelevant for security. Propaganda and the threat of Nuclear and bioweapons make an armed citizenry as futile as Road Runner's coyote's umbrella is to protect him against a 40 ton rockslide. |
Yet, in post WW2 times nuclear weapons haven't seen much use, have they? Wars are still fought mostly on the ground, gun to gun, man to man. What are we using in Iraq? Nukes? Bioweapons? Nah, we're using people fighting people. And the armed citizenry of that country is using its manpower and firepower rather effectively in fighting us off.
How futile an armed citizenry is indeed 
Besides, this thread isn't about whether an armed citizenry is futile or not; it's about what you think the meaning is of the 2nd Amendment. All you did was essentially say that you didn't think a militia was necessary because (a) the military should be able to protect the people and (b) the weaponry of the people would be useless against an invading force anyway.
I would still like to hear what your interpretation is of the 2nd Amendment, without your input on the justifications of it. Think of it as me asking you for your interpretation of the book of Genesis. I'm simply asking you to read the book and tell me what you think it means, not to read it and tell me whether you think the world was really created in six days or not.
Thank you for your input and interest in the topic, by the way. I much appreciate it
Regards,
Rv. Jon
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| icewendigo |
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 379
|
I'm not refering to 3rd world countries like Iraq. Since were talking about the 2nd, lets take the US as example for the following satire...
Let me get this straight, you think that a state somewhere is thinking, "hey, lets invade the US even if theyre a superpower with nukes to blow the earth 3x over, oh wait now that I think of it we really should not invade because the school kids and the shopkeepers have pistols." 
Or, look at it the other way, the US did NOT invade North Korea in part because they had a few nukes, but DID invade Iraq precisely because they did not have nukes. Thats why every regime in the world (including Iran) is understandably racing to have nukes because its the only thing that can keep another gung-ho invasion at bay. 
Or, imagine that the small Island of Grenada had 3 nukes, hidden in radiation proof suitcases imbeded in the concrete of unknown buildings in DC, NewYork and LA, would the US have invaded Greneda, answer no. 3 nukes can be enough to offer deterent.
The biggest threat to the US is not some other country, baring a manhatan sized asteroid extinction level event for which armed citizens are useless, the biggest threat to the security of the US is probably the US itself, theres been more than one close call where the world was almost leveled by a false alarm between the US and USSR who dont just have enough for deterence but enough to destroy human civilization. Wweaponization of Space that US endorses makes it even more difficult to prevent an acciental nuke war. If the US had 20 subs each with 1 ICBM nuke and 23 decoys it would be more than enough to deter any invasion imo without playing russian roulette with the lives of every man women and child of the world every 12 years. 
All of this is why, in my personal opinion, the 'security of an armed citizenry' an opium dream pipe propagated for the sake of the gun manufacturing industry. 
My very brief approximate interpretation of th 2nd A is that it applies to the ability to form militias, and that the National Guard serves that purpose while allowing that milita to weild more potent weapons and that the US permanent and massive military makes it all unnessecary because the Army (if it was based in the US instead of around the world in 130+ countries) would be more then enough to defend the US even if the citizens were armed with plastic spoons.
cheers (and sorry for the long post) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marnixR |
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Isotope
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 2590
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
imo armies become less and less useful considering that a handful of terrorists with support from the local population can have any army running around lie blue-arsed flies without achieving much at all
a hammer may be useful to kill a person, but it's not much good as a fly swatter - armies are only designed to carry out traditional wars against opponent armies, not to police a whole population, any of whom could be the suicide bomber that'll do you in
_________________
if you find this place too crowded or too confrontational, how about trying Philosophorum,
the amicable forum where small is beautiful and even the trolls are intelligent
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Harold14370 |
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 1676
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| icewendigo wrote: |
My very brief approximate interpretation of th 2nd A is that it applies to the ability to form militias, and that the National Guard serves that purpose |
The purpose of a bill of rights is to place limitations on the power of the central government. The National Guard is under the control of the federal government. Your interpretation places no restriction on the government nor does it guarantee any "right of the people" as do Amendments 1 and 3 through 10. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| icewendigo |
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 379
|
| Harold14370 wrote: |
| icewendigo wrote: |
My very brief approximate interpretation of th 2nd A is that it applies to the ability to form militias, and that the National Guard serves that purpose |
The purpose of a bill of rights is to place limitations on the power of the central government. The National Guard is under the control of the federal government. Your interpretation places no restriction on the government nor does it guarantee any "right of the people" as do Amendments 1 and 3 through 10. |
Thanks, it goes to show I should shut my clapper when it comes to laws from another country  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
