Something I've never quite understood about the Second Amendment

[OceanEcosystem]

The language of the Second Amendment seems so vague ("the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed&quot that it could be taken to extremes either way.


Since "arms" are not explicitly defined as firearms, what prevents a government from banning all firearms and saying, "We still allow you to keep knives, axes, pepper spray, etc., therefore you're still being allowed to 'keep and bear arms?'"


And at the other extreme, what if people said, "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, period, therefore we should have a right to keep submarines, guided missiles, tanks, fighter jets, and so forth?" Granted, the extreme high cost of such weaponry systems would make them too expensive for nearly all citizens, but you get my point.

[JaneyVee]

1. Yeah, I've always wondered where the outrage is for ownership of surface to air missile launchers.

[DirkGently]

2. It's been co-opted by a weird cult of guns that was never intended.

And it's just not well drafted. A little militia here, a little "well-regulated" there. It's been dishonestly transmuted into a paranoid religion promising personal autonomy via the power to kill anyone, anywhere, anytime, with a little anti-government crazy for spice.

The Second Amendment ranks with leaving slavery in place as one of the greatest fuckups of the Founding Fathers.

[Robb]

3. Don't beat around the bush, man! Tell us what you really think!

[Paladin]

4. Well Said. (nt)

[davidn3600]

5. You are really screwing the words there

It's quite obvious when you read the writings of the founding fathers....the "arms" in the 2nd amendment is referring to guns. I know you can play with the language here...but the courts tend to go with intent over literal definitions when it comes to interpreting law.

[jmg257]

6. 'bearing arms' usually carried a martial connontation.

'Keeping arms' often did too. Since the primary intent of the 2nd was to secure the Militias from being destroyed, it makes great sense.

[Recursion]

7. Even as a "gun" person, i think the 9th has more bearing than the 2nd

Even if the founders didn't consider the 2nd about individual ownership (and I think the issue is murkier than many DUers like to think it is), that they did believe such a right existed, and protected it along with many others under the 9th amendment.

[DirkGently]

8. No one envisioned what the NRA argues for.

The gun lobby hops from foot to foot as it suits its purpose. One minute it's "strict construction." But then it's "Well, obviously 'arms' means "guns," and the militia clause doesn't matter.

Colonials were concerned about being able to fight the British without a standing army. They weren't articulating a basic human right to carry a weapon enabling mass murder into crowded public areas like shopping malls.

So they need to decide. If the words are holy and immutable, the term "firearms" must have been left out for a reason, and the word "militia" must refer to some kind of "regulated" organization.

If we're interpreting intent, we have to compare our reality to theirs, and that implies that the ideology presented by gun groups -- that everyone is supposed to be prepared to be their own law at all times, or to threaten or overthrow the government -- is a new construct invented to perpetuate a paranoid, violent culture that was never intended by anyone.

[Recursion]

9. There is no greater threat to gun owners' rights today than the NRA

I wish more people on my side of the issue would see that.

[dkf]

10. Considering they asserted they had the right to get rid of their current government

And form their own, their intent was probably closer to the so called nutcases worried about black helicopters and government overreach.

Funny how that works.

[Gorp]

11. I have a different take on it. The use of armories is ancient.

Armories date back to before recorded history and have been used by archiologists and anthropologists to determine that various tribes were well organized and proficient in the art of war. They were quite common in civilizations from recorded history and the word was in common use in the 18th century to mean "a place to manufacture, repair, and store weaponry and armor".

In the US, now, they're generally used only for the storage of weapons for the National Guard or Reserves, although some have function halls like a fire station might (not sure about BINGO night - could lead to an explosive game).

The words "well-regulated militia" certainly apply to the National Guard and Reserves, but you can't separate that from "the right to keep and bear arms". That amendment is one single sentence. It didn't start out that way, but because of the objections of Virginia it got pared down to what it became.

My personal view is that the intent was to allow those who are "well-regulated" in a militia to access the weapons at the armory in times of need for national defense and keep them on their person in such situations. Somehow I doubt it was intended to mean stockpiling ammunition for a semi-automatic assault rifle with a 100-round magazine and keeping it in your house in times of peace. Even "Rambo" Stalone agrees that there's no valid use for such weapons unless you are engaged in combat.

And if anyone seriously thinks their wimpy little assault rifle is going to do any good against the US military's artillary and air power, I've got a lovely bridge and some nice "dry" property in Florida to sell them. Heck, I might even throw in a "lightly used" retired H1 with the deal. It's got GREAT gas mileage!

[jmg257]

12. If they wanted the people to get arms from an armory, Congress

would have included that clause in the first Militia Acts...and likely even agree to have the govt supply them. Instead they decided the people would provide their own arms and accoutrements - including ammo, for militia service. They knew that if the govt armed the militias, they could just as easy disarm them, and so lay the pretext for a standing army.

[Gorp]

14. Interesting take. But in the time they needed the armories for militia weapons.

Almost every household had a shotgun, and most a side arm as well, but both types were single shot and slow to reload, as were the rifles in the armory. But Jefferson and Madison both warned against a standing army and there's a stipulation (sorry, can't cite it at the moment) that Congressional funding for a regimented army could not exceed two years - I don't think the shrub read that part. Nevermind - I don't think he can read anyway.

There was never a question about a standing Navy. That was a given for the times. But individuals with the sorts of weapons that are common today could not have been anticipated anymore than lasers, nuclear weapons, cell phones, or space telescopes. There are rational and reasonable restrictions on RPGs, tanks, mortars, and other highly destructive weapons in the hands of civilians currently in place. I just think we can use some common sense with respect to semi-automatics and magazines.

For the record, I own guns. My shotgun has a two-cartridge clip. That's plenty for me, AND I keep the clip out of the gun. It's bolt-action, not semi-auto. If we're attacked by zombies, a rabbid skunk, or the whacky wingnut neighbor down the street, I think two 20 guage cartridges will handle it rather well, and I can reload the clip in about 30 seconds. I'm not so worried about the zombies, but the skunk and neighbor might pose a serious threat.

The two semi-auto pistols and the revolver I own are in a fire safe and I don't have ammo for any of them or even know where the two clips are - box somewhere. They're family heirlooms, not "weapons" for me.

But again, the words "well regulated militia" seem to have been redacted from the NRA's version of the 2nd Amendment. Random fucks shooting up toilet seats in the woods aren't part of a militia, much less a well regulated one. That's really the main point. I'm not part of a militia at all, much less a well regulated one, but I've got guns that should probably be banned. The shotgun is a different matter. I don't think I know anyone who would oppose owning one of those. They aren't military weapons.

[hack89]

13. Read Heller and Miller

you will find out very clearly that the Supreme Court have defined "arms" in relation to the 2A.