2nd Amendment Question

[jclalor 12]

If the 2nd amendment was written with one of it's ideas being that a country could revolt against an undesirable government, doing this at a time when muskets put the average man on equal footing with professional soldiers. Now fast forward 200+ years, the average weapons owned by the private citizen, including semi auto assault weapons, are totally inadequate to fend off a modern army.

As weapons and ammo become more advanced, shouldn't the average citizen be able to arm him self with the latest in light weapons; fully auto guns, grenades, mortars, rockets and so forth to be able to put up a fight with a well equipped army?

And how do you define "A well regulated militia"?

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

If the 2nd amendment was written with one of it's ideas being that a country could revolt against an undesirable government, doing this at a time when muskets put the average man on equal footing with professional soldiers. Now fast forward 200+ years, the average weapons owned by the private citizen, including semi auto assault weapons, are totally inadequate to fend off a modern army.

As weapons and ammo become more advanced, shouldn't the average citizen be able to arm him self with the latest in light weapons; fully auto guns, grenades, mortars, rockets and so forth to be able to put up a fight with a well equipped army?

And how do you define "A well regulated militia"?

a bunch of arabs in libya, afganistan and syria seem to have done pretty well with average weapons, understanding of course that within a few days of civil war or unrest breaking out, more effective weapons would undoubtedly start appearing on the civilian rebels' side.

As for what is a well regulated militia

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- Patrick Henry

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

how do you define "A well regulated militia"?

FWIW, the body of scholarly treatises, legal briefs and court opinions on that question is quite large. Shockingly, there's no one overriding consensus.

[killler 2]

And don.t forget the army and air force units that take up arms against the government... They almost always take their weapon systems with them...

[toolbox 0]

Using small arms to battle a superior force using tanks,jets,ect,puts people at a huge disadvantage,but people are doing it as we speak.
They use IED's and hit and run gorilla tactics and anything else they have to fight back.
The vietnamese used booby traps and hit and run against the US and they won.
They also had the support of other countries,but so did the colonist against the british.
If a large population is well armed and enraged enough to fight back,they can inflict alot of damage on a military force that is using superior weapons.
It has occurred many times prior to the introduction of the gun and since.
This is why the first thing governments and rulers want to do is pacify and disarm the population.

[Boomerdog 0]

You have some compelling points. Here are a few of mine. Just before and during the American Revolution, the technical advantage of weaponry was in the possession of private civilians i.e. frontiersman who had rifled barrels and not smooth bore muskets. The rifled barrel as many of us know impart the necessary lateral spin on the ball to keep the ball's track accurate to the line of the target. The smooth bore musket worked best in massed formation where the "spray and pray" principle prevailed. Focus enough firepower and you're bound to hit something. The frontiersman were not rich and so to put food on the table one shot one kill was an economy needed. "The average weapons owned by the private citizen including semi auto weapons are totally inadequate to fend off a modern army? My friend, a well coordinated insurgency as we saw in the Warsaw Ghetto, Viet-Nam, Afghanistan and Iraq is very capable of fending off a modern army. It's a numbers game of 300 million guns in the hands of 80 million people against...? The argument about having fighters, tanks, nuclear weapons as posed by gun grabbers is a bit of a stretch. Any government using such weapons against its own people has already lost its legitimacy to govern. Finally, we are a governed people, not a ruled people. We are not serfs. Private ownership of guns per the Second Amendment is to ensure that our elected leaders know they are public servants temporarily entrusted with power and the limits of that power are defined in the Constitution and that they need to behave themselves...an armed citizenry ensures that good behavior.

[Skyrad 0]

Oh goodie, a gun thread. Poor old JR, all these years and now he misses out on a gun fest SC.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[blueblur 0]

Quote

You have some compelling points. Here are a few of mine. Just before and during the American Revolution, the technical advantage of weaponry was in the possession of private civilians i.e. frontiersman who had rifled barrels and not smooth bore muskets. The rifled barrel as many of us know impart the necessary lateral spin on the ball to keep the ball's track accurate to the line of the target. The smooth bore musket worked best in massed formation where the "spray and pray" principle prevailed. Focus enough firepower and you're bound to hit something. The frontiersman were not rich and so to put food on the table one shot one kill was an economy needed. "The average weapons owned by the private citizen including semi auto weapons are totally inadequate to fend off a modern army? My friend, a well coordinated insurgency as we saw in the Warsaw Ghetto, Viet-Nam, Afghanistan and Iraq is very capable of fending off a modern army. It's a numbers game of 300 million guns in the hands of 80 million people against...? The argument about having fighters, tanks, nuclear weapons as posed by gun grabbers is a bit of a stretch. Any government using such weapons against its own people has already lost its legitimacy to govern. Finally, we are a governed people, not a ruled people. We are not serfs. Private ownership of guns per the Second Amendment is to ensure that our elected leaders know they are public servants temporarily entrusted with power and the limits of that power are defined in the Constitution and that they need to behave themselves...an armed citizenry ensures that good behavior.

Very well said. That last half pretty much sums up the 2nd in my opinion.

In every man's life he will be allotted one good woman and one good dog. That's all you get, so appreciate them while the time you have with them lasts.

- RiggerLee

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

You have some compelling points. Here are a few of mine. Just before and during the American Revolution, the technical advantage of weaponry was in the possession of private civilians i.e. frontiersman who had rifled barrels and not smooth bore muskets. The rifled barrel as many of us know impart the necessary lateral spin on the ball to keep the ball's track accurate to the line of the target. The smooth bore musket worked best in massed formation where the "spray and pray" principle prevailed. Focus enough firepower and you're bound to hit something. The frontiersman were not rich and so to put food on the table one shot one kill was an economy needed. "The average weapons owned by the private citizen including semi auto weapons are totally inadequate to fend off a modern army? My friend, a well coordinated insurgency as we saw in the Warsaw Ghetto, Viet-Nam, Afghanistan and Iraq is very capable of fending off a modern army. It's a numbers game of 300 million guns in the hands of 80 million people against...? The argument about having fighters, tanks, nuclear weapons as posed by gun grabbers is a bit of a stretch. Any government using such weapons against its own people has already lost its legitimacy to govern. Finally, we are a governed people, not a ruled people. We are not serfs. Private ownership of guns per the Second Amendment is to ensure that our elected leaders know they are public servants temporarily entrusted with power and the limits of that power are defined in the Constitution and that they need to behave themselves...an armed citizenry ensures that good behavior.

Very well said. That last half pretty much sums up the 2nd in my opinion.

It's kind of strange how the most ardent defenders of the need for armed civilians to keep the government in check are the exact same people who argue for an ever larger military having bigger and better weapons.

I'm inclined to think the argument is just BS.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

You have some compelling points. Here are a few of mine. Just before and during the American Revolution, the technical advantage of weaponry was in the possession of private civilians i.e. frontiersman who had rifled barrels and not smooth bore muskets. The rifled barrel as many of us know impart the necessary lateral spin on the ball to keep the ball's track accurate to the line of the target. The smooth bore musket worked best in massed formation where the "spray and pray" principle prevailed. Focus enough firepower and you're bound to hit something. The frontiersman were not rich and so to put food on the table one shot one kill was an economy needed. "The average weapons owned by the private citizen including semi auto weapons are totally inadequate to fend off a modern army? My friend, a well coordinated insurgency as we saw in the Warsaw Ghetto, Viet-Nam, Afghanistan and Iraq is very capable of fending off a modern army. It's a numbers game of 300 million guns in the hands of 80 million people against...? The argument about having fighters, tanks, nuclear weapons as posed by gun grabbers is a bit of a stretch. Any government using such weapons against its own people has already lost its legitimacy to govern. Finally, we are a governed people, not a ruled people. We are not serfs. Private ownership of guns per the Second Amendment is to ensure that our elected leaders know they are public servants temporarily entrusted with power and the limits of that power are defined in the Constitution and that they need to behave themselves...an armed citizenry ensures that good behavior.

Very well said. That last half pretty much sums up the 2nd in my opinion.

I agree, it's a well-done write-up.

My only criticism is on one small point: presuming that the arguments about the government's greatly superior firepower come principally from "the gun-grabbers". The main thing wrong with that is that there are many, many people, and I'm one of them, who are moderate on the issue of guns in America, and see value of harmonizing the interests, while remaining true to the Second Amendment.

The other problem I have wiht it is the term "gun-grabbers": enough invective and name-calling already, from both sides - it cheapens, and often renders impossible, constructive discussion.

[quade 4]

Quote

Private ownership of guns per the Second Amendment is to ensure that our elected leaders know they are public servants temporarily entrusted with power and the limits of that power are defined in the Constitution and that they need to behave themselves...an armed citizenry ensures that good behavior.

Regardless of various interpretations of pre-US Constitution documents, I simply have never been able to understand this logic.

If that was the reason, then why didn't it say so in the Second Amendment? It certainly doesn't. Folks can say it does until they're blue in the face, but it simply doesn't say it.

It talks about a well regulated militia and we could debate what that means for quite awhile, but it makes no sense whatsoever that it means it is promoting an armed insurrection against itself. If it did, it would say so just like it details every other course of action for the non-violent changes in government.

So, no. You do NOT have a Second Amendment Right to violently overthrow the US government.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

Private ownership of guns per the Second Amendment is to ensure that our elected leaders know they are public servants temporarily entrusted with power and the limits of that power are defined in the Constitution and that they need to behave themselves...an armed citizenry ensures that good behavior.

Regardless of various interpretations of pre-US Constitution documents, I simply have never been able to understand this logic.

If that was the reason, then why didn't it say so in the Second Amendment? It certainly doesn't. Folks can say it does until they're blue in the face, but it simply doesn't say it.

It talks about a well regulated militia and we could debate what that means for quite awhile, but it makes no sense whatsoever that it means it is promoting an armed insurrection against itself. If it did, it would say so just like it details every other course of action for the non-violent changes in government.

So, no. You do NOT have a Second Amendment Right to violently overthrow the US government.

".......being necessary to the security of a free state,......"

This may imply just that. Otherwise, why would the framers think that a "free state" could not secure itself with its armed forces? Why would they assume that the "state" also needs a well regulated, armed militia made up of "the people" that are "necessary" to that security? Would an oppressive, tyrannical state not also find a well regulated militia necessary to its security?

[OHCHUTE 0]

The gun will go the way of anything over a few ounces of your favorite tooth paste.
Much like rights against warrentless searches and seizures without probable cause at the airport

Reason: the need to fly was greater than the willingness to sit home in protest.

Second Amendment was good when you could hear the horses and foot steps of British coming to town where armed protests were effective, but not when you can't hear dozens of black boots knocking at your door while neigbors are so burried watching TV and surfing the internet. Here is my gun. Now let me get back to watching Buck Wild.

Believe me.

[SStewart 13]

Quote

And how do you define "A well regulated militia"?

The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard. They are well armed and regulated. I suppose you could throw in Federal, State, County, and City law enforcement.

This notion that Joe Sixpack with a basement full of guns and ammo is going to overthrow the US govt is absurd. If you start shooting your neighbors and fellow citizens to protect your "rights" you will still end up dead or in jail.

Isn't that what Ted Nugent predicted?

Onward and Upward!

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Quote

And how do you define "A well regulated militia"?

The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard. They are well armed and regulated. I suppose you could throw in Federal, State, County, and City law enforceme***nt.

This notion that Joe Sixpack with a basement full of guns and ammo is going to overthrow the US govt is absurd. If you start shooting your neighbors and fellow citizens to protect your "rights" you will still end up dead or in jail.

Isn't that what Ted Nugent predicted?

***


Its a fact we already accept certain limitations on gun ownership, background checks and smaller clips are not going to stop anyone who is not a criminal from having as many guns as they like.

It's not the message that the Right is going bat shit crazy over, it's the messenger.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

The gun will go the way of anything over a few ounces of your favorite tooth paste.
Much like rights against warrentless searches and seizures without probable cause at the airport

Reason: the need to fly was greater than the willingness to sit home in protest.

Second Amendment was good when you could hear the horses and foot steps of British coming to town where armed protests were effective, but not when you can't hear dozens of black boots knocking at your door while neigbors are so burried watching TV and surfing the internet. Here is my gun. Now let me get back to watching Buck Wild.

Believe me.

Oh, I do. I do!
You can't beat 'Merican apathy. We are following in the footsteps of the Jews of the early 1900s...without a care.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[muff528 3]

Quote

The gun will go the way of anything over a few ounces of your favorite tooth paste.
Much like rights against warrentless searches and seizures without probable cause at the airport

Reason: the need to fly was greater than the willingness to sit home in protest.

Second Amendment was good when you could hear the horses and foot steps of British coming to town where armed protests were effective, but not when you can't hear dozens of black boots knocking at your door while neigbors are so burried watching TV and surfing the internet. Here is my gun. Now let me get back to watching Buck Wild.

Believe me.

Not quite sure what your point is but I think it's something like: We have already relinquished our rights and freedoms to the point that giving up 2nd Amendment rights will not be any more or less damaging to our freedom. ??

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

And how do you define "A well regulated militia"?

The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard. They are well armed and regulated. I suppose you could throw in Federal, State, County, and City law enforcement.

Disagree with that interpretation.

Quote

This notion that Joe Sixpack with a basement full of guns and ammo is going to overthrow the US govt is absurd. If you start shooting your neighbors and fellow citizens to protect your "rights" you will still end up dead or in jail.

Isn't that what Ted Nugent predicted?

I think the point is not to "overthrow" the government as much as it is to defend ourselves against oppression by a government that goes "extra-constitutional" and governs outside the law. The problem is that there are probably 300,000,000 different ideas about when and how that line would be crossed.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

So, no. You do NOT have a Second Amendment Right to violently overthrow the US government.

I agree.

"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."


Here's my take on it and I'll use South Carolina as an example for grins.

South Carolina needs and wants a militia (well-regulated or otherwise) and the federal goobermint cannot screw them out of having one.

OTOH, the feds and all those who would betray the BoR (New York, for example?) are saying, "We'll, OK NY, because we are scared shitless and fearful of our safety, you can have your militia but it has to jump through so many hoops that it makes its existence virtually impossible."

...and that sucks.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You have some compelling points. Here are a few of mine. Just before and during the American Revolution, the technical advantage of weaponry was in the possession of private civilians i.e. frontiersman who had rifled barrels and not smooth bore muskets. The rifled barrel as many of us know impart the necessary lateral spin on the ball to keep the ball's track accurate to the line of the target. The smooth bore musket worked best in massed formation where the "spray and pray" principle prevailed. Focus enough firepower and you're bound to hit something. The frontiersman were not rich and so to put food on the table one shot one kill was an economy needed. "The average weapons owned by the private citizen including semi auto weapons are totally inadequate to fend off a modern army? My friend, a well coordinated insurgency as we saw in the Warsaw Ghetto, Viet-Nam, Afghanistan and Iraq is very capable of fending off a modern army. It's a numbers game of 300 million guns in the hands of 80 million people against...? The argument about having fighters, tanks, nuclear weapons as posed by gun grabbers is a bit of a stretch. Any government using such weapons against its own people has already lost its legitimacy to govern. Finally, we are a governed people, not a ruled people. We are not serfs. Private ownership of guns per the Second Amendment is to ensure that our elected leaders know they are public servants temporarily entrusted with power and the limits of that power are defined in the Constitution and that they need to behave themselves...an armed citizenry ensures that good behavior.

Very well said. That last half pretty much sums up the 2nd in my opinion.

It's kind of strange how the most ardent defenders of the need for armed civilians to keep the government in check are the exact same people who argue for an ever larger military having bigger and better weapons.

I'm inclined to think the argument is just BS.

Actually that is a very good point.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[OHCHUTE 0]

Its about human behavior and group dynamics. We've seen citizens get things done using voice and singing their way against the state. Can't remember the country that did this but it's hard to ignor hundreds of thousands of people who are protesting. I'm much more convinced in power of the purse. Lets suppose people were sick and tired of getting scanned at the airport. We'll then suppose millions of people say: Remove the scans or we are not flying until you do. And don't fly until they do. Believe me, those scans would be gone in a few days. But the problem is: We're so damn independent that you couldn't get everyone to follow along to get that done. And we know everyone is sick of being scanned at the airport. So sick they try to walk through naked to make a point.

People have all the power but its not until they get organized power is realized.

Stop buying wall street stocks as protests, and you'll get what you want in 9 seconds.

[muff528 3]

Quote

....

It's kind of strange how the most ardent defenders of the need for armed civilians to keep the government in check are the exact same people who argue for an ever larger military having bigger and better weapons.

I'm inclined to think the argument is just BS.

Actually that is a very good point.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Oh, I do. I do!
You can't beat 'Merican apathy. We are following in the footsteps of the Jews of the early 1900s...without a care.

Careful you don't bite that tongue clean off there.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

....

It's kind of strange how the most ardent defenders of the need for armed civilians to keep the government in check are the exact same people who argue for an ever larger military having bigger and better weapons.

I'm inclined to think the argument is just BS.

Actually that is a very good point.

This completely (and maybe intentionally) misses the point. The "militia" is not intended to fight against the US Armed Forces for the purpose of revolution against the United States (We the People)..

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

Quote

....

It's kind of strange how the most ardent defenders of the need for armed civilians to keep the government in check are the exact same people who argue for an ever larger military having bigger and better weapons.

I'm inclined to think the argument is just BS.

Actually that is a very good point.

This completely (and maybe intentionally) misses the point. The "militia" is not intended to fight against the US Armed Forces for the purpose of revolution against the United States (We the People)..

So where does all this defense against a tyrranical government rhetoric come from, then, enquiring minds want to know?