What does the 2A really mean?

[cucamelsmd15]

Originally Posted by Delija

I will stand by my remarks that it is ridiculous to believe that the right to bear arms (those we are permitted to have) is, in today's world, a viable way to enable the citizens (organized or not) to hold off a tyrannical government with it's weapons of war. If you think differently, I'd love to know how this would be possible. I have been to war, and that was more than 35 years ago....today's weapons are far more effective. Still, what we had in 1970 would have been completely impervious to any kind of weapon any sane or rational person would (legally) keep for defense (either self defense, or for defense against a tyrannical government's military). Now if you believe that the right to bear arms means that individual citizens should be allowed to keep nuclear weapons, heavy artillery, missiles, tanks, etc....then that is a whole different argument. But even so, would it really be effective at preserving a free democracy against an evil government?


Peace,
D.

This brings up an interesting point. Suppose for a moment that 2A was meant to protect people from an overstepping government. Now suppose that its happening now. When 2A was written, sure, it was a viable option, the playing field was MUCH more level then. Now? Hell no. Personally, Ive got an AR, a hunting rifle, shotgun and a few pistols. No one in their right mind would think that a few angry citizens with that amount of firepower could overthrow the government. Now, with military on our side, things start looking a little more even, but thats neither here nor there for this discussion. IMO, in the times we live in, we are outmanned and outgunned should it ever come to that.

[griz]

IMO, in the times we live in, we are outmanned and outgunned should it ever come to that.

We are many, they are few as it should be.

[Mike G]

Nice to see a subject worth reading in this section for a change. Should be interesting to see how we get to the name calling that always seems to end these political threads.
I heard an interesting argument about the right to keep and bear on another forum. It was suggested that the 2A evolved from natural rights(God given) such as the right to life and liberty. The right to life and liberty grants us the RKBA. Without the RKBA, we cannot gaurantee our other "natural" rights. Essentially making the RKBA a God given right that cannot be taken away by man. Am I making sense? Thoughts on this? Maybe someone a little more intellectual than myself can expand on this.

[one-eyed-fatman]

Originally Posted by sloopy70

whats 2A?

Has to do with high school sports. If your 2A you go to a poor high school, if your 4A you go to a rich high school.

[Delija]

Originally Posted by cucamelsmd15

This brings up an interesting point. Suppose for a moment that 2A was meant to protect people from an overstepping government. Now suppose that its happening now. When 2A was written, sure, it was a viable option, the playing field was MUCH more level then. Now? Hell no. Personally, Ive got an AR, a hunting rifle, shotgun and a few pistols. No one in their right mind would think that a few angry citizens with that amount of firepower could overthrow the government. Now, with military on our side, things start looking a little more even, but thats neither here nor there for this discussion. IMO, in the times we live in, we are outmanned and outgunned should it ever come to that.

Agree with all you say.

I'll add this:

There are two arguments common to the meaning of the Second Amendment. Three if you want to include "God given right", but that's not a legal issue, just an emotional issue.

The two that matter are firstly that the arms of the time of the drawing of the Constitution (as you rightly pointed out) were so vastly different from what weapons of war exist now that there isn't even a reasonable comparison. A revolutionary war era cannonball could knock down walls, and probably kill a bunch of the enemy if they were all perfectly lined up. But same is true of a modern hunting rifle....full metal jacket, 300 grains, 4000 fps, how many people could one round go through? A modern SUV would be more effective than a cannonball at knocking down walls.

The other issue is the wording. And the punctuation. What is the purpose of the three commas in the sentence. Do they separate a "well regulated militia" from the "people" (as a whole)? Or not? People spoke and wrote differently in 1776. The language may not have been ambiguous at the time, but it an anachronism now. This is why we need scholars, not politicians on the Supreme Court (one reason, anyway).

Whatever....few, if any, here really believe the 2A is about defending ourselves from a tyrannical government in today's world. Two hundred and fifty years is a very long time in the technology of weaponry.

None of us would even consider using a computer that's 15 years old. Would we really trust our lives in an armed confrontation using 250 year old weapons? Were the Founding Fathers clairvoyant?

Our government wanted to close the US Patent Office in the late 1800s, since they felt everything that could be invented already had been!

This is a gun owners message board. Gun enthusiasts want to believe in their rights to own guns. Simple as that. Count me among them. But I'll admit it's an emotional response, not one founded on some "God given right". Why do I feel that way? Because it's the law as interpreted by the US Supreme Court. And they BETTER understand the Constitution better than I. (And I even went to law school for a year...BFD...only thing I learned was I did not want to be a lawyer! LOL).



Peace,
D.

[Blackwater]

Originally Posted by Delija

The other issue is the wording. And the punctuation. What is the purpose of the three commas in the sentence. Do they separate a "well regulated militia" from the "people" (as a whole)? Or not? People spoke and wrote differently in 1776. The language may not have been ambiguous at the time, but it an anachronism now. This is why we need scholars, not politicians on the Supreme Court (one reason, anyway).

Peace,
D.

The operative phrase is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

A militia as defined, is "a military force that is raised from the civilian population" (ie people). So while some believed firearms possession was a deterent to a tyrannical govt. many knew the militia would be needed to defend the country and were opposed to standing armies.

"If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions." "A citizen's militia appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it..."
Alexander Hamilton

Therefore US Constitution made no provisions for a standing military, many of the state constitutions specifically prohibit one during peace time, and many of the framers were against it and as you'll see made a distinct difference between the militia and a standing military.

"I do not like... the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land and not by the law of nations." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . .Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, VP of the United States 1813-1814, August 17, 1789

While many did speak differently than today, there is no doubt what some of them were saying.

The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.
- Samuel Adams

[movezig]

Originally Posted by Delija

I will stand by my remarks that it is ridiculous to believe that the right to bear arms (those we are permitted to have) is, in today's world, a viable way to enable the citizens (organized or not) to hold off a tyrannical government with it's weapons of war. If you think differently, I'd love to know how this would be possible. I have been to war, and that was more than 35 years ago....today's weapons are far more effective. Still, what we had in 1970 would have been completely impervious to any kind of weapon any sane or rational person would (legally) keep for defense (either self defense, or for defense against a tyrannical government's military).

So you are saying that it is impossible-using small arms and improvised explosives-to fight a successful campaign against a modern army?

Let me tell you a little story that, for brevity's sake, begins in a place named Dien Bien Phu...

[Blackwater]

Originally Posted by movezig

So you are saying that it is impossible-using small arms and improvised explosives-to fight a successful campaign against a modern army?

Let me tell you a little story that, for brevity's sake, begins in a place named Dien Bien Phu...

Kabul for the Ruskies comes to mind.

[Delija]

Originally Posted by movezig

So you are saying that it is impossible-using small arms and improvised explosives-to fight a successful campaign against a modern army?

Let me tell you a little story that, for brevity's sake, begins in a place named Dien Bien Phu...

I've actually been there.....just last year in fact.

I don't argue that small arms and IEDs can't be effective. Look at Iraq...don't need to go back 50+ years to Dien Bien Phu.

However, when the French were defeated in Vietnam, it was by an organized army that was well entrenched and extremely well organized, not a bunch of 9-5 working guys that happened to "bear arms" just in case. Same is true of the so called "insurgents" today in Iraq. Maybe not as organized as the Viet Minh, but they are fighting a different kind of war in a very different kind of battlefield.

What all this has to do with an American civil armed uprising in today's world is beyond me. We have a military that is underpaid and over-worked. Not the kind of military likely to follow some coup d'etat.

If a bunch of generals decided to take control of the US, and have their soldiers fire on American citizens, it would never happen. They ARE US! Not some highly paid highly motivated anti-American group of mercenaries.

We had one Civil War here. It was a clash of cultures we no longer have anything remotely similar to (at least I'd like to think not).

Of course all this is only my opinion. But it just seems beyond ludicrous that Americans would ever need, let alone be able to effectively use small arms against a real military. With modern weapons of war.

If it makes you feel better to believe that an AR15 and a ton of ammo will help protect you from an American military run amok...then stock up. Do whatever it is that will make you sleep better at night.

Me, I'd send an email to my son and tell him to do whatever he has to to make sure the missiles on his fast attack sub miss my house. I'm sure he'd find a way to convince his crew to go along with that.

"BLACKWATER"....with due respect; quoting the opinions of long dead guys does not make a case for today.

Peace,
D.

[Blackwater]

Let me take it on home.

Knowing these facts:

1) Founding fathers created the Constitution including the Bill of Rights.
2) Militia is a "military force that is raised from the civilian population.
3) Those very Framers considered a militia as a protection against a standing military and provided protections in the Constitution and Bill of Rights for a militia -2nd Amendment.
4) Every representative is required to take an oath of office, pledging to protect and defend the constitution.

”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

Therefore any representative who promotes gun control, gun confiscation or infringes on the right of the people (whom comprise the militia) to keep and bear arms, are unjustly exercising an authority that they do not possess and have failed in their pledge to uphold the Constitution. The should be impeached immediately.

We hold these truths to be self evident.