Is there a line on the 2nd Amendment?

imported post

Let's face it, Eye, as you said, if you can't "bear" it, does it count? You can't bear a cannon, but you can carry a LAW or RPG. Not that it would be an appropriate weapon for self-defense...sort of overkill and you have to beware of "fallout" or residual effects. The main weapons for the average soldier are still the handgun, rifle and knife (bayonet). You can't carry a nuke, an F-15, or ICBM. Even the average soldier didn't carry an M-60 as it was considered more of a "squad weapon". Someone had to carry the M-60, the tri-pod and the belt-fed ammo boxes. But, everything except knives, handguns, rifles and shotguns falls outside the range of self-defense. Even cops don't carry these weapons on a daily basis and military squads are not issued them unless they are going into an area where they may be needed. So, in the real world where we live and work...anything outside handguns, knives, rifles, or shotguns would fall outside an "individual" right. But, that's just my opinion, of course.

Of course, private contractors can still get more weapons legally. They can afford the prices and storage for large automatic weapons, explosives (grenades, claymores, etc.) and LAW's or RPG's. To quote a popular movie: With great power comes great responsibility. If you're gonna own them, you're gonna be responsible for them. I'm all for having what you can be responsible for. Less government and more responsibility. I'm sure the trial lawyers will agree with that one!

imported post

The standard I applied was not the ability to carry the weapon. These days, if one has the wherewithal to acquire a suitcase nuke, one can easily bear it. (Arguments that the 2A includes nukes are just plain silly. So, clearly there is a line.)

My point was that the line should be drawn in the logical place according to the weapons that the Founders would have expected folks to bring with them when the militia met, the typical arms that one would have for personal reasons, such as hunting and self-defense. Today's analog would be a handgun, a shotgun, or a rifle, to name just three reasonable arms along the lines of what the Framers must have envisioned.

imported post

My personal thoughts on the founders intentions was absolutely zero limits or restrictions, cite the fact of privately owned ships armed with cannons, and that being the "ultimate weapon" of the day. Imagine collateral damage of an angry citizen using the ship against a coastal town, yet, how much did that really happen? Also cite that back then, and for many years after, you could own, craft, keep your own explosives, such as ketchum grenades, and later dynamite (developed in the 1860's), and no one really ran around blowing stuff up when they were angry. Eventually powers that be started creating laws on ownership (vs. usage) and thus dawned the age of regulations. Through that evolved laws and legislation that we have today.

- My personal thoughts (or comfort lines) would be: Anything that can be carried and fired by a single person, and that does not have a projectilewhich is explosive in natureafter it leaves the weapon is completely unregulated as per ownership and carrying. Anything past that point should have some measure of regulation, mostly in regards to general safety of storage and maintenance to avoid collateral damage due to miss use or improper handling.discharge of weapons should have some reasonable regulations. I dont want my neighbor storing a rocket that he cant maintain, ka-boom and blows out the side of my house, or shooting his AK in his backyard when he is drunk or has a folly. Other than some common sense precautionary stuff, i dont care what he owns or keeps. I'd love to have bigger badder toys than i currently have, but safety is important too.

- Whats your point Bat? Well - lets consider a minute, if the signing fathers had the capacity to envision machine guns, modern guided rockets, armed airplanes, nukes etc. and if so, would the 2-A read the same? or would they have further clarified? - Personally, i think the concept of modern arms would have created considerable contention, however i believe they would have still strived to write a 2-A that ensured the citizenship retainedan upper hand. I believe there may have been alot more emphasis on privatized heavy weapons, and more than likely alot more definition on what they expected from the militia in regards to it being controlled by "we the People" instead ofa government army. In other words, you likely could own a nuke, if you had the capacity to maintain it, store it, and your militia commander had an amount of control on it's employment. - Just a wild guess there, but that may have been the case. Imagine for a minute, if the federal gov collapsed, States went through a few years of utter chaos, and from the ashes, you me, and a handful of others, regained stability across the nation, then redrafted a constitution, based on the original founders intent... How would we word or draft our 2-A. Would we give unlimited weapons reserve to everyone and anyone? What restrictions (if any) would we set. -- Interesting to fathom eh? - Well, some of the the crew already talks of breakdown and revolution, so what if it did happen, what will we do when we restore ournation and create a new government (theoretical here guys), will we simply recycle the original constitution? or draft a new one, will it be based off of the original regards to a modern times? or mirror the old? - interesting to contemplate.

- I am sure i opened up a can of worms for a debate - my bad.

If so, lets have fun with this one, my views are not meant to incite, upset, or challenge anyone position.Some of it is pure devils advocate or speculation to create though. I bade we debate in a friendly and considerate manner.


- This is one of my favorite topics, though i admit to not having made my mind up 100% on where "the line" is for me... yet, I can say, compaired to most, it is pretty far out there, pretty close to 100% unrestricted, at least with small arms.

:dude:Bat

imported post

I would NOT want the folks on here writing a 2A.

Stick with the old one, it's perfect.

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

Trip report - Wisc. Town Lawyers Conference, "Constitutional Issues Arising From Guns, Religion

Landmark Decision in Heller v. District of Columbia, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008):... guarantee the individual right ...
Commented that the Justice examined and defined each word and clause of the 2A resolving years of questions and foreclosing debate.

1. Well regulated militia: ... implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training...
​

Admits the possibility of "municipal required training".

2. Security of a Free State: ... terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, ...

3. People: ... not an unspecified subset.

4. Bear: ... armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in case of conflict with another person."

5. Keep:

6. Arms: "The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today." ... Another 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defense, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another."

Click to expand...

You may find this interesting - a deconstruction of the Second Amendment as done by an English Professor:

http://www.gunthorp.com/Second%20amendment%20explained.htm

imported post

Overtaxed wrote:

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

Trip report - Wisc. Town Lawyers Conference, "Constitutional Issues Arising From Guns, Religion

Landmark Decision in Heller v. District of Columbia, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008):... guarantee the individual right ...
Commented that the Justice examined and defined each word and clause of the 2A resolving years of questions and foreclosing debate.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Admits the possibility of "municipal required training".

2. Security of a Free State: ... terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, ...

3. People: ... not an unspecified subset.

4. Bear: ... armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in case of conflict with another person."

5. Keep:

6. Arms: "The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today." ... Another 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defense, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another."

Click to expand...

You may find this interesting - a deconstruction of the Second Amendment as done by an English Professor:

http://www.gunthorp.com/Second%20amendment%20explained.htm

Click to expand...

I have long understood the meaning of the Second Amendment in terms of its use of the English language as I am familiar and quite comfortable with the language in both the written and spoken word. As interesting as this autopsy is to read, it is really not necessary because the single sentence which makes up this amendment is very clear in its meaning. For those who would turn it around to hopefully present some other meaning, well their intent is quite clear as this sentence is perfect the way it was originally written.

The real problem arises with interpretation and we see this not only in the other nine articles of the Bill of Rights, but also in the Constitution as well. There are those who somehow have found things not in there while twisting or completely ignoring some which are present. It's a matter of what fits an agenda and all three branches of our government are subject to this flawed movement.

The Founders knew what they wrote, wrote what they meant, and expected what they wrote to be the supreme law of the land. One must wonder where do we get off second guessing them when they didn't use parables in their grand design.

It is good to see a leaned person's analysis of this one sentence. But supposing his outcome had been more in line with "modern contemporary" opinion? The Second Amendment is easily read by anyone who has a common understanding of English. Good thing Nostradamus didn't write it.

imported post

Southernboy:



I just thought it'd be interesting, and possibly helpful to include. I actually found it reassuring that a technical analysis of the Second Amendment comes out in our favor. Perhaps you didn't need reassurance, but since the other side thinks looks down on us in so many ways, including intellectually, this sort of dissection can only be helpful.

imported post

Overtaxed wrote:

Southernboy:



I just thought it'd be interesting, and possibly helpful to include. I actually found it reassuring that a technical analysis of the Second Amendment comes out in our favor. Perhaps you didn't need reassurance, but since the other side thinks looks down on us in so many ways, including intellectually, this sort of dissection can only be helpful.

Click to expand...

Oh I completely agree with you with your take on this. I was just making a comment about those who would have people believe our documents say or mean things not written while ignoring the perfect English of the Founders; what they wrote and what they meant for their grand design.

I enjoyed your link.