THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS - WHY THEN AND NOW ?

[Morpheal]

You have to remember that the citizens' right to bear arms was put into the constitution in order to
prevent a bad government from tyrannizing the people. It assured that the people had one last
recourse if democratic means failed. It was the fear that a despotic "king" (maybe a Republican, but
one never knows) might rise up and seize power, including control and use of the military against
the people. So if the people have guns they can defend themselves.... at least that is the basic premise.

Trouble is that as the military has grown and grown, there isn't much chance of "we the people"
holding out against Uncle Sam's troop strength. American insurgents wouldn't likely last much better
than Iraqi insurgents tend to do. The body bags get filled relatively quickly.

So is the right to bear arms still a valid option ?

That becomes the question.

Of course some would say that that means each citizen now needs automatic assault rifles, rocket
launchers, and grenades, just in case Uncle Sam goes bad. Of course Uncle Sam does worry about
things like that, because he presumably does have a bit of a conscience as to what he has done.

Robert Morpheal

[Richard Steele]

1. Speaking as someone within 10 feet of an UZI, an AK-47, a '95 Winchester and a '73 Remington....

Just let me say: Enjoy your stay here at DU. :hi:

[tucsonlib]

56. And Yet...

All that firepower didn't prevent the Feds from taking away our 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment rights. Didn't stop 'em from eavesdropping on our phone conversations. Didn't keep them from committing unlawful and treasonous acts.

The government won't be coming for our guns. Why should they, when they've demonstrated how easy it is to stage a coup without having to fire a shot? To believe that the government "fears" an armed populace is folly.

And let's suppose, just for giggles, that the far-right's favorite apocalyptic scenario actually came to pass:

Black copters land on your front lawn. The doorbell rings.
"Hi, I'm Joe Biden. Me and Ms. Brady and Ms. Pelosi here have come for your guns. Hand 'em over, please."

Now, my prediction would be that 98% of the populace would meekly hand them over. The other 2% would also hand them over. Just not so meekly.

My firearms might, MIGHT, offer me some protection from your run-of-the-mill criminal. But from the government? Please!

[Lint Head]

2. I own guns. I'm a Democrat and I own a Bible.

All of the Constitutional rights stand together. One right is not better or more important than the other. If one falls they all fall. The NRA cannot suppress free speech. The NRA is detrimental to gun rights. They protect nothing and do not need to exist.
I will not allow a fascist organization like the NRA speak for me.

:dem:

[nebenaube]

3. hmmm viable option? Have the Iraqis or Afgans been conquered? n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

4. I wasn't born here so I don't quite understand.....

...why Americans have to be so ridiculous that they have to keep such an archaic amendment which has no use today (despite protestations from the manufacturers of guns, who make a killing in the U.S.)

Some might think it's just a silly, archaic thing much like British barristers still wearing that silly horsehair wig used in the 1600s but it isn't. Guns kill. On the other hand, the U.S. is an infrikkincredibly violent society and are into that violence sort of thing.

[bossy22]

6. the constitution is like a foundation of a large building

if you remove a large portion of the foundation...the building will collapse

The document must be perserved and enforced as a whole document....not bits and peices. if you ignore the second amendment because of "changing times" you open up the constitution to all sorts of infringmenets. Its not completely unreasonable to destroy the 4th amendment in that same matter (that times have changed). One can make a convincing arguement with modern technology and with recent terrorist attacks that pro-active searches and seizers must be allowed to prevent such great harm from comming to society.

Its dangerous, the constitution must be perserved a whole, anything less makes the document almost worthless

[Sarah Ibarruri]

8. If that were true, blacks would be enslaved today or their vote worth what? 3/5? nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

11. That's fine, change the Constitution then.

Just don't fund the effort with Democratic money. Since our President Elect is of the opinion that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right, I'm thinking you won't get much support.

David

[Sarah Ibarruri]

12. It has been! It's not that I want it. It's that it has been done already nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

14. When was the 2nd Amendment changed?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

15. You said the Constitution is not to be changed. I said it has. You said it wasn't.

Now you're changing the argument to limit it to the 2nd amendment? The 2nd hasn't but it needs to be. And it can. The Constitution has had to be amended several times because it was WRONG to begin with.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

16. Really where did I say that?

You fail again.

David

[Sarah Ibarruri]

19. You said, "Fine. Change the Constitution then."

And I said, "It has already been done." (The Constitution changed).

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

21. So again for those with reading problems, where did I say it hadn't been changed?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

23. The Constitution has been amended throughout history because it has been found WRONG....

You claim that the Constitution cannot be changed. You obviously are (still) unaware of all the changes made to the Constitution.

And on that note, this conversation ends.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

25. Again where did I say that? Just post the thread # so everyone can see.

You know just because you keep on saying it, that doesn't make it true. Hard to believe you would post falsehoods about another DUer.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

27. I'll take that as a concession of defeat. Thanks for playing.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bossy22]

amended

yes....the way of changing the constitution is through an amendment...if you can get enough support to get rid of the 2nd....then you can....but you cant change the constitution using the "times have changed" means.

there is a right way to do things and a wrong way

[Sarah Ibarruri]

30. It changes the Constitution. An amendment is something you do to fix a document which is incorrect

or outdated, or does not reflect accurately. Either way, the 2nd needs to be amended to do away with what is a portion that is invalid for the current times. The 2nd amendment, is like slavery. Used in its time, no longer required.

[jmg257]

41. Right. The last amendment concerning "arms" secured the right to keep and bear them for the people,

irregardless of a "militia". It fixed the main body where some confusion might be found over whether the congress has the power to control the arms of the people (it doesn't), or that it only had the power to come up with guidelines as to what arms the people MUST have for militia duty (it does).

Dave's point was, if you want to change the constitution, go for it - get an amendment ratified modifying the current document.

Simple.

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress"

[bossy22]

42. but the overwhelimg majority of amerians

dont agree with you....and we live in a representitive republic....so its not going to get done....and as long as the amendment sits in the bill of rights, it must be enforced.

and i have yet to also understand why you think the amendments purpose for self-defense is out to date today....i would say it still holds the same water in that matter today than 200 years ago...

[bossy22]

43. and no...not either way

only one way...a constitutional amendment....thats the only way to stop enforcement of the 2nd amendment....and you will not even get one congress person to sponsor a bill that says so...so you are out of luck

and you still fail to see the dangers of using "the times have changed" method...you dont see that someone could use that same logic to destroy other parts of the constitution. If one part can be destroyed using non legal means...then dont believe for a second that the rest of the document can't be.

Someone could make an extremely strong case for limiting free speech since modern techniques all speech to be heard by millions at once...the bush administration is trying...because you know "times of have changed" we live in the "era of terror". So why cant he do this is it can be done to the 2nd. Last time i checked the 2nd is still written on the same peice of paper with the same ink that the 1st is

a saying from Alan Dershowitz embodies this best
"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."

so think of the unintended consequences of what you incourage

[bossy22]

29. amended

yes....the way of changing the constitution is through an amendment...if you can get enough support to get rid of the 2nd....then you can....but you cant change the constitution using the "times have changed" means.

there is a right way to do things and a wrong way

[appal_jack]

32. blacks' situations were improved by AMENDMENTS

Look Sarah, I'm thrilled that the 14th and 15th Amendments were passed in order to bring the American reality that much closer to the American ideal. Blacks are no longer considered a fraction of a person, and that was an excellent step forward, circa 1865. Clearly, racial equality (or an attempt at such) makes us a more perfect union than we were prior to the Reconstruction of the 19th Century and the Civil Rights movement of the 20th Century.

However, you speak as if the 2nd Amendment should be just tossed onto some dung-heap of history. I am sorry, but that is not how we (should) do things here in America. The Second Amendment is Part of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

If you don't support the individual right to keep and bear such small arms as are appropriate for militia / homeland defense purposes, you are free to agitate and organize for the 2nd Amendment's repeal. If I recall correctly, you will have to convince 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 2/3 of the states to get your way on this. Until then, please don't try to dismiss this (or any) part of the Constitution.

I know this may sound quaint after 8 years of B*sh pissing on a whole lot of the Constitution, but the change I voted for when being part of the election of Obama and our new Democratic Senator (Hagan here in NC) is a change toward politicians who respect and serve under the Constitution.

-app

edit for typo.

[RedLetterRev]

45. More than the supreme law of the land

The Constitution is a two-way contract between the governance and the governed. The Bill of Rights was designed to be sacrosanct, the most precious and fundamental of all rights conferred and enumerated by the Constitution. I'm not sure that our fellow poster Sarah understands that there is a great distinction given to the first ten Amendments, and that is why they are named separately and held sacrosanct. To monkey with these Amendments is to monkey with the very spirit of what is American law, procedure, thought, and society. It's also exactly why we're so pissed with *, for stomping on every phrase in every Amendment in the Bill except for the 2nd and 3rd (at least not overtly).

I do suspect that the 2nd is in place as a reminder to the governance not to take our rights lightly. The amount of firepower on either side isn't the issue. The fact remains when they finally go too far, they will have to fight.

Indeed, there are different views than mine (particularly, the Federalists who would happily strip the Bill of Rights from the Constitution today as they would have in 1787). I'm a true-blue Appalachian Tarheel, descended from NC Regulators: I would object equally strenuously to the repeal or infringement of any enumerated or implied right in the Bill.

I also heartily agree with you: after 8 years of * saying that the Constitution is "just a goddam piece of paper" :mad: I'm looking forward to keeping toes to the fire to make sure our new Congress (and our new Senator Kay Hagan) doesn't make the same mistakes bald infringements as the last four-or-so Congresses.

[appal_jack]

49. nicely said, RedLetter

:fistbump:

and howdy neighbor too!
:hi:

-app

[iverglas]

60. yeah, charming

Funny how that sacrosanct Bill of Rights apparently didn't give any rights to speak of to women and people of colour. It was just perfect though. Mustn't tamper with it.

Amendments, aren't they great? You gotta love them all. What number was that one making it illegal to deal in booze? Came, went, amazing.

[iverglas]

61. you people really don't know your Constitution, do you?

That hoary old "3/5 of a person" thing.

Article 1.

... Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Nobody was 3/5 of a person. Three fifths of the total number of all "other Persons" was used as part of the basis for determining how the number of representatives and direct taxes would be allocated to the various states.

Yeesh.

[iverglas]

62. and I gotta say, this whole thing just slays me

However, you speak as if the 2nd Amendment should be just tossed onto some dung-heap of history. I am sorry, but that is not how we (should) do things here in America.

Forgive me ... but that is not the very way you started out by doing things, and the very foundation of your whole mythology?

Wot a bunch of armchair post-game revolutionaries you all are.

News flash. The game isn't actually over.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

9. It may have no use to you.

The women who use firearms to defend themselves from violent rapists every year seem to have found a use for it.

David

[Sarah Ibarruri]

10. I am a woman. I have plenty of friends. I am interested in female subjects as they pertain to me

And firearms have never yet prevented a rape. Maybe a metal encasing (a car) might prevent rape, but a gun? Don't make me laugh. Unless you superglue it to your hand and walk around in a state of red alert, please. Surely you've got to be kidding me making a statement like that. Been watching too much TV maybe.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

13. You Fail. Cape Girardeau woman kills man who returned to rape her second time

An intended rape victim shot and killed her attacker this morning in Cape Girardeau when he broke into her home to rape her a second time, police said.

The 57-year-old woman shot Ronnie W. Preyer, 47, a registered sex offender, in the chest with a shotgun when he broke through her locked basement door.
The woman told police he was the same man who raped her several days earlier. Officials do not intend to seek charges against her.

Link Here:http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/laworder/story/9C58494B45470714862574F3006D0CA6?OpenDocument


Thanks for playing.

David

[Sarah Ibarruri]

17. oooooooooooeeeeeeeeee! 1? I'm going to run right out and get me a gun and superglue it to my

hand. Then I'm going to sew my eyes open.

Please stop watching all those cop shows and playing those video games. Tx!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. Thanks for admitting you were wrong and again thanks for playing, you tried your best.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

20. You've got good data there, m'boy. A whole solid 1 person. lol nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

22. And you said, "And firearms have never yet prevented a rape." That statement is clearly false.

Again thanks for playing.

David

[Sarah Ibarruri]

24. I'm off to discuss things with someone who understands the English language. Ciao nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

26. I love the smell of napalm in the morning, it smells like VICTORY.

[slackmaster]

37. Wow Dave, you smoked her good

:rofl:

[Codename46]

47. PWNED

[bossy22]

44. hmm english lession required for you

you said "never"

so lets define never

according to dictionary.com

1. not ever; at no time: Such an idea never occurred to me.
2. not at all; absolutely not: never mind; This will never do.
3. to no extent or degree: He was never the wiser for his experience.

what firemedicdave did was give you just one example, which makes the use of the word never incorrect in that situation because it HAS happened. You could use the word rare...or "almost never" but not never. Never implies that it has not happened even once...and what he did was show you it has happened atleast once

maybe you meant it more in the term "almost never" but im not in your head so i cant make that determination

[iverglas]

67. maybe you can help Dave out with number and nouns

Like how plural plurals are not proved by a single single.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

69. Sorry you got here so late, Sarah really needed the help.

[iverglas]

63. and you said

The women who use firearms to defend themselves from violent rapists every year seem to have found a use for it.

Did you think that producing one instance in one year proved YOUR statement?

Maybe you think that producing two instances in every year would actually give you a point.

One that would somehow render the hundreds and thousands of women killed, injured and terrorized by men with easy access to firearms just kinda, well, insignificant.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

70. Never said they were insignificant. Nice try though.

[DrCory]

34. Which Is All That Is Required...

To refute your claim that "...firearms have never yet prevented a rape." The definition of never is: Not ever; on no occasion; at no time,. You are apparently the party experiencing difficulty with English.

[iverglas]

64. but isn't it unfortunate

that it was said in response to the statement:

The women who use firearms to defend themselves from violent rapists every year seem to have found a use for it.

which actually still stands unsubstantiated ...

[DrCory]

73. Laughable Diversion...

Even for you. Do you deny women use firearms to defend against rape?

[HiDemGunOwner]

50. Wrong....

When a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of rape attacks are completed,
compared to 32% when unarmed. - U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities, 1979

The probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the benefits are smaller at 1.4 times more likely to receive a serious injury. - Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey

Rape Rates 1995–2003 (per 100,000 pop.)
1995 2003 % Change
Australia 72.5 91.7 +26.5
United Kingdom 43.3 69.2 +59.8
United States 37.1 32.1 -13.5

Firearm availability appears to be particularly useful in avoiding rape. Australia and the United Kingdom virtually banned handgun ownership. During the same period handgun ownership in the United States steadily rose. Yet the rate of rape decreased in the United States, and skyrocketed in the other countries.

Sorry the table didn't come out well, but you can still see the data....

[iverglas]

65. jeezus

The probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the benefits are smaller at 1.4 times more likely to receive a serious injury. - Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey

-- sez you.

You got a primary source you might cite for all that, by any chance? The words aren't actually yours. You cite the DJS Crime Survey, but do those words actually appear there? I kinda think not. I kinda think they come from ... John Lott!! Yes, Mary Rosh himself

http://timlambert.org/guns/lott/Lotts_of_Errors.html

That's a great resource for checking up on the bullshit you read on all those gunhead sites.

My emphasis:

Lott claims that Lawrence Southwick

found that the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. In contrast, the probability of women being seriously injured was almost 4 times greater when resisting without a gun than with resisting with a gun. ...

What Southwick noted and Lott failed to report to his readers is that none of the numbers Lott reported are statistically significant.

... All of the confidence intervals include the number 1. This means that resisting with a gun is not associated with a statistically significant lower injury rate for women or men. Nor are the differences between the ratios for men and women statistically significant.

Even if the ratios were statistically significant they would not prove that resisting a criminal attack with gun is a safer choice than not offering resistance. Correlation is not the same as causation. The correlation in the NCVS data could equally well come about if serious injury made with-gun resistance less likely or if there were other differences between with-gun resistors and others. The BJS warns against drawing the conclusions that Lott does.

Keeping up with the crap you people try to get away with could be a full-time job.

[iverglas]

68. I forgot

Rape Rates 1995–2003 (per 100,000 pop.)
1995 2003 % Change
Australia 72.5 91.7 +26.5
United Kingdom 43.3 69.2 +59.8
United States 37.1 32.1 -13.5

-- sez you. Well, actually, sez this odd specimen:

http://www.dvc.org.uk

http://www.dvc.org.uk/dunblane/dbrape.pdf

Again: do you have some actual sources you can cite for this stuff? That seems to be a high school paper.

We'll probably need to enter into a little in-depth discussion about factors affecting reporting rates and the like ... and get your thoughts on the peak in reported rape incidents in the US in the early 1990s and what might have caused that ...

If you want to take a degree or two before answering, I'll understand.

[Citizen Number 9]

31. Useless statement

Hammers kill, too.

Actually, a very common murder weapon, but we're not trying to ban them, are we?

[slackmaster]

36. I am not at all convinced that the idea of an armed general population is obsolete

To assume that individual citizens, families, small communities, etc. will never have any need to be armed for self-defense requires that you ignore both the long history of nations and civilizations failing, and obvious present threats from violent criminals.

This country is far larger and more diverse than the UK or European nations in general will ever be.

[Codename46]

48. You have a huge conflict of interest.

I found this little gem w/ a quick Google search:

http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2005_10_30.PHP

"Sarah Ibarruri: Excuse me? If your country goes fascist, move? What about fighting the fascists till they all have to move? I like that much better."

What do you suppose we should fight the fascists with? Foul Language? Voting? Yeah, like a Fascist state will allow it's oppressed inhabitants to vote.

I find your blatant ignorance rather amusing.

[JonQ]

54. Sit-ins perhaps?

[iverglas]

66. talk about yer blatant ignorance ...

You have a huge conflict of interest.

You might want to consult a dictionary or something. Wiki may even have something along the lines of /conflict_of_interest that would help.


What do you suppose we should fight the fascists with? Foul Language? Voting? Yeah, like a Fascist state will allow it's oppressed inhabitants to vote.

Interesting source you cite for that passage of Sarah's. Did you fail to grasp that it was actually from a post on DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND?? Why would you choose to cite it to a right-wing cesspool?

"Excuse me? If your country goes fascist, move?"

It was said in response to this:

wake.up.america
Sun Oct-30-05 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. How about: "I am glad I don't live in America" ?
Edited on Sun Oct-30-05 12:23 PM by wake.up.america
Everyone has a choice.
If you don't like it there - move!

Nothing was actually said about a "fascist state".

And you're one of the ones who really does need to investigate the concepts of figures of speech and hyperbole, aren't you?

Those Iraqis with their AK-47s and 5 years of trying, they still haven't ousted the yanks from their country. Fine example they make.

I wonder that no one ever talks about the events in France in 1968. Probably because you've never heard of them, I suppose. Not a gun brandished, not a shot fired, but a government collapsed. Here, Wiki can tell you about that one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1968

Had there been a little more solidarity among the groups that should have joined, a fair bit more would likely have been accomplished. Without a pistol brandished or a semi-automatic rifle fired.

History does have lessons to teach. Learning some that didn't happen within your own four walls can be useful.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

71. Practice what you preach and we might listen.

[iverglas]

72. uh ...

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

[lowclass]

74. Times like Now

One needs only to understand that all civil rights stem from the second amendment, without the right to bear and keep arms we would in fact invite total fascism into our daily lives. Deterrence is the word government’s use, not knowing who has them or how many there are allows us to still have some choice in how we live our lives and to speak freely. People kill people.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. A Nuclear Bomb Is An Arm. I Have The Right To Bear One.

n'kay?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

7. Why do you insist on posting things you know to be false?

[WWFZD]

33. Why is this so difficult for some to comprehend?

Chem/Nuke/Bio weapons are of NO USE in defending a redoubt or advancing on a hostile enemy position. They are strictly offensive weapons and not covered by the spirit, if not the strict reading, of the 2A. One cannot defend their own home, block, neighborhood or city against a totalitarian government, or an invading army, by nuking their own home, block or city.

[jeepnstein]

35. Here's an interesting link....

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1985/2/1985_2_72.shtml

I'd say these fellows stuck their necks out pretty far, but it worked.

You can also look at this one...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

Never say never.

[WWFZD]

52. Absolutely, I'm familiar with the Battle of Athens, Blair Mountain,

Ludlow, Matewan...
I was referring to the posters' statement about nuclear weapons as "arms". Strictly offensive weapons of mass destruction are not covered under the 2A, nor should the amendment be construed as covering them.
I have a lot of problems with the gun control acts of '34, '68, '86. My opinion is that any law-abiding citizen (anyone who has not been deprived of constitutional rights under due process of law) should be able to own any weapon used by the military, outside of the above mentioned WMD's, but that's not a battle against the antis that I choose to fight.
Compromise is always useful and full-auto weapons, grenades... are not items that I possess. I don't anticipate doing so, and I don't feel that they're necessary in the preservation of our constitutional republic. If anyone goes through the procedures required to possess them, well, have at it, fine by me.

[jeepnstein]

53. I've heard it this way...

Any arm that is indiscriminate in nature, whether by means of explosion, suppressing fire, or a huge blast of radiation and debris, is not something a soldier is typically issued in basic training. What does a raw recruit get? A rifle. If you're called up to arms that's really all the state can reasonably expect you to produce. One of our local founders had his own artillery battery he used to take to war with him but he was loaded, quite literally much of the time. I don't have a huge problem with the NFA as long as the tax is reasonable but the '86 ban on new production is a slap in the face of honest and lawful citizens.

My point is that small arms do have a place in a democracy. Athens was an extreme example and I'm surprised cooler heads prevailed. Blair Mountain was similar. It was rooted in a state-sanctioned systemic corruption that was finally challenged by lawful citizens whose other avenues of action had been foreclosed. Yeah, it could very easily happen again.

I won't even get started on my rant about Jim Crow laws and the Klan.

[jmg257]

39. We discussed this bullshit already. Please educate yourself. Mm'Kay? nt

[benEzra]

40. No, it is ordnance. Look it up.

And note also that the Second Amendment refers specifically to arms that can be kept and borne by an individual, NOT crew-served weapons.

The 2ndA has always been understood as referring to small arms, not crew-served weapons or heavy ordnance.

[spin]

46. Hell, it even looks like Iran will not have the right to bear a ...

nuclear weapon. Why should you.

[slackmaster]

51. It's OK with me

Good luck with the paperwork on that.

[jmg257]

38. 1st off - you have to be convinced that many of Uncle Sam's troops will fire on U.S. civilians.

Plus we have the National Guard, with a mix between state and federal control - which way would they go?

And against whatever troops do join in, there are about 150 MILLION Americans bewteen the ages 20-50. That is a LOT of possible insurgents! Will they all fight? Of course not - someone always agrees with the King.

The right to arms re:the Militia was not in case we had to re-fight Lexington & Concord, it was so some tyrant would not have a large (enough) armed entity in the 1st place, making such a battle unnecessary. Now, maybe more then ever, the right is vital - we have to count on the fear of a HUGE armed populace being enough to convince that would-be tyrant not to try it. 75 MILLION or so armed people is A LOT!

We also have the possibility that while our military and guardsman are "over there", a situation *could* arise that an armed entity be needed here - terrorism, economic/society collapse, who knows what the future holds?


Of course the 2nd isn't just about the Militia. There is still the right to arms for self-defense, sporting uses, and all lawful purposes. So very much YES!..The right to arms is still a very valid option.

Lastly, no where in the constitution does the government have the power to restrict the arms of the people. So "the right to arms" SHOULD not even be a concern.

[spin]

57. Also many police will be hesitant to fire on gun owners...

The police in the area of Northern Florida where I live are staunch supporters of the Second Amendment. Most own extensive firearm collections including "assault weapons".

[JonQ]

55. I will grant you that an armed populace is not an

absolute guarantee against despotism.

However, you must grant me the fact that it is a better guarantee than a disarmed populace.

There is a reason the first thing most tyrants do after taking power (or immediately before) is to disarm the people. I'll assume they know their business (oppression) and if they find a disarmed nation is better than an armed one then I'm going to have to favor arming the people.

[gorfle]

58. On insurgency.

You have to remember that the citizens' right to bear arms was put into the constitution in order to
prevent a bad government from tyrannizing the people. It assured that the people had one last
recourse if democratic means failed. It was the fear that a despotic "king" (maybe a Republican, but
one never knows) might rise up and seize power, including control and use of the military against
the people. So if the people have guns they can defend themselves.... at least that is the basic premise.

Your premise is correct.

Trouble is that as the military has grown and grown, there isn't much chance of "we the people"
holding out against Uncle Sam's troop strength. American insurgents wouldn't likely last much better
than Iraqi insurgents tend to do. The body bags get filled relatively quickly.

So is the right to bear arms still a valid option ?

That becomes the question.

This is an argument that comes up frequently. That the right to keep and bear civilian arms is of little value against a modern military. I continue to reject this notion.

Firstly, we have seen in recent history some examples of hugely technologically inferior forces successfully repelling technologically superior forces. America vs. Vietnam. USSR vs. Afghanistan. And America vs. Iraq.

In all cases the "insurgents" absolutely took brutal losses. But in the end, the aggressors withdrew, resulting in a victory for the oppressed. Probably within a couple of years we will withdraw from our occupation of Iraq as well.

Some have countered that the only reason such conflicts went in the insurgents' favor was because of aid from an outside 3rd party. I would counter that there is nothing to say that there would not be intrusion in an American insurrection from outside 3rd parties. Who is to say what Mexico might do in such a situation?

Finally, one hugely significant fact in any home-turf rebellion is the fact that it is a conflict on the home turf. This would have some serious repercussions. Firstly, it cannot be said with certainty that the whole of regular armed forces would participate in actions against their own citizens. Now I do not put a lot of faith in this. The Milgram experiment shows the danger of people following orders and how prevalent the problem is ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment ). But it is at least a possibility.

But more importantly, rebellions are devastating to the economy where they take place. Remember the DC snipers effectively shut down a large area economically as people were afraid to go outside. And this was two guys shooting out of the keyhole of the trunk of a car. Imagine two hundred such people. Economic devastation may well prove to be a more influential determinator than military devastation.

In any case, all these arguments boil down to this: No matter how ineffective an armed populace might be at engaging in rebellion, or which allies might come to our aid or not, an unarmed populace is definitely going to be in a harder spot. If things should ever come to the point of rebellion, it is better to start such an undertaking from a position of at least some strength than from a position of none.

Moreover, having recognized the inherent weakness of our armed citizenry against our military, it is thus imperative that we strive to keep the balance between civilian and military infantry small arms as even as possible as our founders intended by not undermining such balance with infringements.

Of course some would say that that means each citizen now needs automatic assault rifles, rocket
launchers, and grenades, just in case Uncle Sam goes bad. Of course Uncle Sam does worry about
things like that, because he presumably does have a bit of a conscience as to what he has done.

It has been long held, and Heller affirms, what constitutes "arms" as spoken of in the Constitution. Explosives, including rockets and grenades, do not fall in this category. I personally to not begrudge their regulation for two reasons: 1) common ownership of such items can lead to casualties beyond "one bullet, one target". Explosives are indiscriminate and can cause massive casualties far beyond even a deranged gunman. Further, such devices can be acquired easily enough once hostilities begin. The same goes with fully automatic weapons. Fully automatic weapons are not a necessity for a rebellion. They are primarily a suppression weapon designed to pin down enemy forces while support teams overtake a position. But when deployed against superior forces it will simply result in the superior forces staying put under cover and calling in air or artillery support. And again, automatic weapons can be acquired or easily converted should hostilities actually begin.

[Capt. America]

59. I am of the opinion that the more individual rights we have the better.

I would not want to give up my 2nd amendment right any more than I would want to give up my 4th or 5th amendment right (however, some Dems in Congress seem to have no problem handing the latter two over to Shrub to do with as he pleases). I also believe that the right to bear arms is the ultimate bulwark against a State trying to oppress its citizens.