Is a well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state?

[ImGod]

Not to mention the assumption that the US army consists of a group that would oppose citizens standing up to the Government.

You're more likely to find support for the 2nd, as currently interpreted, among current and former army personnel and current and former police officers. Having purchased and sold weapons privately with current/former military and police officers, hunted, and target praticed with them, I get the feeling most of them don't have a problem with people owning and carrying weapons.

 

[arkirk]

I have always wondered how the words "well regulated" seem to get ignored by the folks at NRA and gun nuts I know. Regulations have another name you know...
CONTROLS. The second amendment was to insure the existence of a WELL REGULATED MILITIA, not a collection of people with enough money to buy guns.

 

[ImGod]

No. It was to form a militia of people already owning private arms. Who supplied the weapons with no standing army? The people.

So they said everyone gets arms so we can form a militia from that group of armed individuals.

 

[bilby]

Not to mention the assumption that the US army consists of a group that would oppose citizens standing up to the Government.

You're more likely to find support for the 2nd, as currently interpreted, among current and former army personnel and current and former police officers. Having purchased and sold weapons privately with current/former military and police officers, hunted, and target praticed with them, I get the feeling most of them don't have a problem with people owning and carrying weapons.

Sure. But this renders the argument for the 2nd irrelevant. The argument that civilians need guns to defend against tyranny assumes that the armed forces remain under command and control of the tyrant, and that the armed civilians can defeat them - which is fucking insane.

If the armed forces agree that a rebellion should occur, then whether or not civilians are armed is irrelevant.

The army have plenty of guns, with or without the 2nd amendment.

There are four possible situations:

Army and civilians support the government - no need for civilians to bear arms.

Civilians support the government, army doesn't - army crushes civilian resistance and seizes power in military coup. Arms bourne by civilians are irrelevant because the army has more guns, better training, better weapons systems, etc.

Army supports the government, civilians don't - army crushes civilian resistance and keeps government in power. Arms bourne by civilians are irrelevant because the army has more guns, better training, better weapons systems, etc.

Army and civilians rebel against government - army crushes government resistance and seizes power in military coup. Arms bourne by civilians are irrelevant because the army has more guns, better training, better weapons systems, etc, and civilians add too little to matter either way.

In no case does the right to bear arms (or the absence of that right) change the outcome.

The second amendment is completely irrelevant to the deposing of tyrants; any argument for the 2nd must be based on some other benefits, because deposing of tyranny is a non-sequitur.

Unless you get rid of the US military first. In the absence of a powerful standing army, the argument makes sense. But the US now has such an army, so it no longer makes sense.

There may be good reasons to keep the right to bear arms; but this cannot, logically, be one of them.

 

[fromderinside]

The second amendment means: "All right boys lets Show them what our spears and arrows can do." /prefuneral

 

[untermensche]

Is a well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state?

Seems many mistake the above for "baseless and naive paranoia about freedom from the Federal Government".

The guys who had just created the federal government weren't so much against the federal government.

This clause reflects that they did not want to see a permanent standing army.

They were very distrustful of a central government.

But this is right. Permanent standing armies have removed the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[ImGod]

Once people admit it's a right, and they don't like it, and the want to wish it away with legalese because they know there's no way it can be amended it helps the process of acceptance.

Every assault on the second until recently had to do with fearing armed minorities who were majorities in some areas. Denying blacks rights and defense during Jim Crow or being afraid of groups like the Black Panthers.

The only restrictions in my state are in the city/county where most of the minorities live.

 

[arkirk]

It is my understanding that Jefferson wanted to only have this amendment for twenty years to insure the U.S. would be armed if the British made another try to overturn the revolution. He wanted it reviewed after twenty years. That review is about 215 years overdue. The amendment is the stuff of revolution...citizens with guns....oh boy. Being as the citizenry of a colony could rise up and toss out the King's influence, they probably felt they needed to keep that power with the common man and of course, Jefferson was NOT A COMMON MAN. But once there is no chance we will be taken over from the outside, the concept has become only the province of gun fanatics...and the NRA keeps trying to produce new gun fanatics to keep its lucrative businesses alive.

 

[arkirk]

Once people admit it's a right, and they don't like it, and the want to wish it away with legalese because they know there's no way it can be amended it helps the process of acceptance.

Every assault on the second until recently had to do with fearing armed minorities who were majorities in some areas. Denying blacks rights and defense during Jim Crow or being afraid of groups like the Black Panthers.

The only restrictions in my state are in the city/county where most of the minorities live.

It is not a matter of "legalese." It is a matter of not being so stupid we place our faith in our power to shoot each other with guns. That indeed is not legal, so why practice a faith that promises things we should not be doing...like killing each other.

 

[untermensche]

I say anybody can own whatever small arms they desire.

But.

They have to be a member of a State militia.

And they have to keep their weapons at militia run armories.

 

[corpsman]

I have always wondered how the words "well regulated" seem to get ignored by the folks at NRA and gun nuts I know. Regulations have another name you know...
CONTROLS. The second amendment was to insure the existence of a WELL REGULATED MILITIA, not a collection of people with enough money to buy guns.

Your interpretation of the term "well regulated" is consistent with the current common usage. At the time the Constitution was written, "well regulated" did not mean "control". See Samuel Johnson's "A Dictionary of the English Language", 1765, Dublin. Well regulated at the time the Constitution was written meant, "in good working order, functioning as designed or intended". It did not mean the government controlled the militias, at least, until and if the militia is called up for duty by the sheriff, the governor or the president. The intent of the authors in using "well regulated" was to urge militias to train, at the community level. I have heard some folks advocate a position to the effect that since times have changed, and language changes, thus the meaning of the Constitution changes. Nonsense. Or rather, consider the implications of such a notion from the perspective of Orwell's "1984", and Newspeak, Newthink.

As for all this chat chat about fighting the forces of the government... am an old soldier, and I know that the military is a great big maybe for the government. You see, we took an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Most career military folks get that. As a spec ops buddy told me, "if the people remained armed, we have someone to support".

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'd imagine in the context of the American constitution that free refers to freedom from colonial rule.

Aha... like Saudi Arabia today... the land of the super free? Or Burma... the land of the super duper super free? Gambia? If the definition also includes those countries then I think I'll give "freedom" a pass. So that context doesn't help. It's a worthless type of freedom, if it doesn't also include political freedoms.

I think they also recognized tyranny from within which is why they didn't want to grant royal titles or to have a (long-)standing army and why they wanted a bill of rights and separation of powers.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Just a general point: The constitution was written in the 1790s and the parts we are talking about have not been amended since. Whether an armed citizen militia could beat a standing army today is entirely irrelevant to what the Constitution says. Feel free and try to amend it if you think it is no longer of relevance.

Worth noting. The armed militias of 1776 were nearly all veterans from the 7 year war with France. They were extremely well trained, disciplined and experienced. No shit they were an effective fighting force.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Aha... like Saudi Arabia today... the land of the super free? Or Burma... the land of the super duper super free? Gambia? If the definition also includes those countries then I think I'll give "freedom" a pass. So that context doesn't help. It's a worthless type of freedom, if it doesn't also include political freedoms.

I think they also recognized tyranny from within which is why they didn't want to grant royal titles or to have a (long-)standing army and why they wanted a bill of rights and separation of powers.

Of course they didn't recognize tyranny from within. That's rose tinted spectacles like a mofo. The reason the American revolution was successful is down to a number of pretty unlikely factors. In hind-sight is was just dumb luck. A combination of factors that could neither be planned nor engineered. Nor any kind of amazing moral qualities of character from it's leadership.

On the unwillingness to grant royal titles. That is actually false. There was a strong sentiment for USA to have it's own royalty. We can speculate all day on why it didn't happen. One theory could be that Washington would have been elected president anyway, his age, and that his family was set anyway. He was a rich mofo. They didn't need titles to survive as a family.

 

[ImGod]

Not to mention the assumption that the US army consists of a group that would oppose citizens standing up to the Government.

You're more likely to find support for the 2nd, as currently interpreted, among current and former army personnel and current and former police officers. Having purchased and sold weapons privately with current/former military and police officers, hunted, and target praticed with them, I get the feeling most of them don't have a problem with people owning and carrying weapons.

Sure. But this renders the argument for the 2nd irrelevant. The argument that civilians need guns to defend against tyranny assumes that the armed forces remain under command and control of the tyrant, and that the armed civilians can defeat them - which is fucking insane.

If the armed forces agree that a rebellion should occur, then whether or not civilians are armed is irrelevant.

The army have plenty of guns, with or without the 2nd amendment.

There are four possible situations:

Army and civilians support the government - no need for civilians to bear arms.

Civilians support the government, army doesn't - army crushes civilian resistance and seizes power in military coup. Arms bourne by civilians are irrelevant because the army has more guns, better training, better weapons systems, etc.

Army supports the government, civilians don't - army crushes civilian resistance and keeps government in power. Arms bourne by civilians are irrelevant because the army has more guns, better training, better weapons systems, etc.

Army and civilians rebel against government - army crushes government resistance and seizes power in military coup. Arms bourne by civilians are irrelevant because the army has more guns, better training, better weapons systems, etc, and civilians add too little to matter either way.

In no case does the right to bear arms (or the absence of that right) change the outcome.

The second amendment is completely irrelevant to the deposing of tyrants; any argument for the 2nd must be based on some other benefits, because deposing of tyranny is a non-sequitur.

Unless you get rid of the US military first. In the absence of a powerful standing army, the argument makes sense. But the US now has such an army, so it no longer makes sense.

There may be good reasons to keep the right to bear arms; but this cannot, logically, be one of them.

There is "no argument for the 2nd". Everything you're arguing is as if they are still discussing the merits and language of a vote for adding the 2nd. But the 2nd already exists. Just admit you don't like it and want to explain it away since you can't get the votes to repeal it.

Given the way the sides are lining up, the way the laws have expanded carry and ownership rights at the state levels, and the way court cases have been going lately, bans falling away, while homicide and violent crime numbers continue to drop, it's more likely gun rights will be set back closer to where they were prior to the NFA than gun laws becoming stricter.

If people step out of their echo chamber for a moment, they'll realize that the big push from the Democrats on the issue will probably cost them the presidency and could easily cost them the Senate. They've probably lost the one House seat here they spent years to gain, after only 2 years. Mentioning Australia style mandatory buybacks was political suicide and will likely guarantee losses in every swing state in the upcoming election. Serious overstep considering its estimated that 30% of Democrats are gun owners, let alone the percentages go up for Independents and Repbulicans.

Once they loose the Whitehouse in the next election, not only does this issue become moot, but they will loose out on all the other important issues as well. I could see this move as the direct cause of gaining enough of a majority to dismantle healthcare.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I have always failed to understand the gun nuts and their absurd call to arms in case of government tyranny. Great, you have a 9mm, a Colt .45, a .50 cal pistol, a shotgun, an AR-15, a hunting rifle, and 10 thousand rounds of ammuntion. This all goes up in a fireball, including yourself, when a predator drone-fired, hellfire missile hits your redneck cabin from 12 km away. You won't even have an opportunity to see your enemy.

 

[dystopian]

I have always failed to understand the gun nuts and their absurd call to arms in case of government tyranny. Great, you have a 9mm, a Colt .45, a .50 cal pistol, a shotgun, an AR-15, a hunting rifle, and 10 thousand rounds of ammuntion. This all goes up in a fireball, including yourself, when a predator drone-fired, hellfire missile hits your redneck cabin from 12 km away. You won't even have an opportunity to see your enemy.

Don't listen to him! It'll be just like in the original Red Dawn! Only instead of it being ineffectual Russian paratroopers whose first order of business is to attack the high value target of a small middle-of-nowhere highschool (and inexplicably missing most of the students)... it'll be ineffectual federal US troops who've been brainwashed by the UN to take away your guns so they can finally fight climate change unopposed by red blooded Americans!

 

[ImGod]

So the argument against the 2nd is that now that we've allowed a large powerful standing army to come about, under control of an expanding executive branch, we should dismantle the one right specifically identified in the constitution to stand against it? The exact reason for the 2nd, somehow becomes the driving reason to get rid of it?

How about instead we keep the 2nd, dispand the standing army to the national guard level, and scale back the executive for growing too big and powerful. It would solve way more of our problems as a country here and abroad.

The US military isn't going to attack US citizens for standing up for their right to own guns. Statistically speaking the majority of them will stand beside the citizens first. Most "gun nuts" as everyone keeps refering to them as are military, former military, police, former police, and regular citizens. So some strange argument against the 2nd is people don't need to own guns because you think they're going to get in a shooting war amongst themselves and one side with more firepower might win. It's way more likely one day a group of armed citizens will do something and the military will stand down and/or join them. Because they'll probably be related through blood and/or service.

At that time, the large areas of the country that aren't armed will be irrelevant to what's going on and powerless to do anything; out of their own choosing. They will, however, probably use their first ammendment rights to write a sternly worded letter to the editor.

 

[bilby]

Sure. But this renders the argument for the 2nd irrelevant. The argument that civilians need guns to defend against tyranny assumes that the armed forces remain under command and control of the tyrant, and that the armed civilians can defeat them - which is fucking insane.

If the armed forces agree that a rebellion should occur, then whether or not civilians are armed is irrelevant.

The army have plenty of guns, with or without the 2nd amendment.

There are four possible situations:

Army and civilians support the government - no need for civilians to bear arms.

Civilians support the government, army doesn't - army crushes civilian resistance and seizes power in military coup. Arms bourne by civilians are irrelevant because the army has more guns, better training, better weapons systems, etc.

Army supports the government, civilians don't - army crushes civilian resistance and keeps government in power. Arms bourne by civilians are irrelevant because the army has more guns, better training, better weapons systems, etc.

Army and civilians rebel against government - army crushes government resistance and seizes power in military coup. Arms bourne by civilians are irrelevant because the army has more guns, better training, better weapons systems, etc, and civilians add too little to matter either way.

In no case does the right to bear arms (or the absence of that right) change the outcome.

The second amendment is completely irrelevant to the deposing of tyrants; any argument for the 2nd must be based on some other benefits, because deposing of tyranny is a non-sequitur.

Unless you get rid of the US military first. In the absence of a powerful standing army, the argument makes sense. But the US now has such an army, so it no longer makes sense.

There may be good reasons to keep the right to bear arms; but this cannot, logically, be one of them.

There is "no argument for the 2nd". Everything you're arguing is as if they are still discussing the merits and language of a vote for adding the 2nd. But the 2nd already exists. Just admit you don't like it and want to explain it away since you can't get the votes to repeal it.

Don't be silly; it's a debate, and there are arguments for, and arguments against.

All changes to the law start out with insufficient support to vote the change; then there is debate, and people slowly change their minds, and then maybe one day there is enough support, and a change occurs.

I don't like the 2nd Amendment. It is an example of insanity enshrined not only in law, but in the national constitution of a large and powerful country. It is outdated, it is stupid, and it is harmful.

I don't particularly care whether or not it is changed on a personal level, as it has no direct effect on me. But that doesn't mean I don't care at all - in the same way that when a mate is killing himself through alcoholism, I care even though his boozing doesn't injure my liver.

Given the way the sides are lining up, the way the laws have expanded carry and ownership rights at the state levels, and the way court cases have been going lately, bans falling away, while homicide and violent crime numbers continue to drop, it's more likely gun rights will be set back closer to where they were prior to the NFA than gun laws becoming stricter.

If people step out of their echo chamber for a moment, they'll realize that the big push from the Democrats on the issue will probably cost them the presidency and could easily cost them the Senate. They've probably lost the one House seat here they spent years to gain, after only 2 years. Mentioning Australia style mandatory buybacks was political suicide and will likely guarantee losses in every swing state in the upcoming election. Serious overstep considering its estimated that 30% of Democrats are gun owners, let alone the percentages go up for Independents and Repbulicans.

Once they loose the Whitehouse in the next election, not only does this issue become moot, but they will loose out on all the other important issues as well. I could see this move as the direct cause of gaining enough of a majority to dismantle healthcare.

Yes, that's quite possible; and proves the well known adage "These Americans are crazy".

The big flaw in democracy is that there is no direct link between the popularity of an idea, and how good an idea actually is.

Americans love the second amendment, and it is killing them. It's sad to watch.

 

[bilby]

So the argument against the 2nd is that now that we've allowed a large powerful standing army to come about, under control of an expanding executive branch, we should dismantle the one right specifically identified in the constitution to stand against it? The exact reason for the 2nd, somehow becomes the driving reason to get rid of it?

Almost.

I would rephrase that as 'The demonstrated failure of the 2nd to prevent establishment of a large standing army is a good argument that it is no longer useful'.

How about instead we keep the 2nd, dispand the standing army to the national guard level, and scale back the executive for growing too big and powerful. It would solve way more of our problems as a country here and abroad.

That's a great idea.

Far less likely to ever happen, and far harder to achieve than the repeal of a constitutional amendment; but a good idea nonetheless.

The US military isn't going to attack US citizens for standing up for their right to own guns.

Nobody is suggesting that they would. But they might well attack US citizens for other reasons - indeed, to a very limited degree they already have attacked US citizens for other reasons.

Statistically speaking the majority of them will stand beside the citizens first. Most "gun nuts" as everyone keeps refering to them as are military, former military, police, former police, and regular citizens. So some strange argument against the 2nd is people don't need to own guns because you think they're going to get in a shooting war amongst themselves and one side with more firepower might win. It's way more likely one day a group of armed citizens will do something and the military will stand down and/or join them. Because they'll probably be related through blood and/or service.

Nobody's going to war over the right to bear arms. The point is that one might imagine a Stalin or Hitler like figure becoming POTUS. He starts to round up the hated outgroup - let's say Muslims, for the sake of argument.

As with Hitler's attacks on the Jews, this is not a universally unpopular action - many, perhaps even most, citizens applaud this action by the US military.

Do you imagine that in such a scenario, the ownership of guns by American Muslims will enable them to overthrow the President and win their country back?

At that time, the large areas of the country that aren't armed will be irrelevant to what's going on and powerless to do anything; out of their own choosing. They will, however, probably use their first ammendment rights to write a sternly worded letter to the editor.

The fight will not be over guns. And if it comes, the owning of guns by the people will be irrelevant; unless the government's first step in its attack is to disband the armed forces. Does that seem like a plausible first step to you?

If not, then the 2nd is irrelevant to the ability of citizens to resist their government.

The government won't be coming to take your guns. They will be coming to take your neighbor. Are you going to stop them? Particularly given that your neighbor isn't a 'real American' anyway? He's probably a terrorist, or an 'illegal'. Are you going to use your guns to save him from the lawful authority of the government?

If you decide that you will, do you stand any chance of winning the fight?