The 2nd Amendment and a Living Constitution.

Salutations and whatnot, this is my first post on the forums. I'm from Texas, but my question isn't directly related to this state; rather I want your opinon on several important questions about the 2nd Admendment and if you're a believer of a Living Constitution. Hopefully, this forum might be able to answer some of my questions. And for this role I wanted to play the Devil's Advocate if you don't mind -- it's just to help me out.

My first question is what do you consider a fire-arm? What is your "cut of." Assault rifles, handguns? Do you favor any gun restrictions? The second amendment makes it clear that my right to bear arms is as clear as day-light, however I'm not allowed to walk into a school with a handgun, or perhaps a plane with one. Do you perhaps think the second amendment is vague and needs "change?"

(I also notice a similair thread below me, but I'd like to say that my questions will be more specific.)

First, a "living" constitution is as desirable as a "living" sales contract. Think about it.

Second, the Second Amendment does not address firearms, it addresses arms, which may or may not be firearms.

What is a firearm? It is a device which propels an object by means of expanding gas formed by an explosion, usually gunpowder or its modern day variants.

There is no cut-off. My wants, desires and needs are not for you to restrict.

The Constitution is not a living document. It means today exactly what the founders meant that it said when they penned it.

The context in which it is applied is living. Therefore, new restrictions on the government can come into being. For example, the government, Congress, may make no law restricting the freedom of the televised press. However, the rights of the individual cannot decrease as a result of the evolving context.

Therefore, it is reasonable that the arms intended by the Second Amendment have expanded. We are not limited to carrying flintlocks.

To understand what arms are intended by the Second Amendment, then and now, we must look at the history of the right. There never has been a natural right to keep and bear arms. The natural right is to defend oneself. In England, hundreds of years before our Bill of Rights was written, they penned a law protecting the right of individuals to own and carry arms in defense of themselves and the realm. Initially, it was swords. Later the right applied to bows and arrows and other more "modern" weapons. In all cases, the weapon was one that an individual could deploy by himself for civilian purposes, but could also use, in a pinch, when called up to serve in the militia to protect his community and the realm.

In the time of the Revolution and shortly thereafter (as evidenced by the militia act) such weapons would include (but not necessarily be limited to) a firearm and a knife. Today's analogs would include knives, handguns, rifles, and shotguns.

That list is not exhaustive, but representative. Clearly NBC weapons would not make the list. Automatic firearms are neither clearly analogous nor clearly not. I believe them to be not analogous, but recognize the reasonable debatability of that question. Any assertion that nukes may be, by enumerated right, kept and borne by everyone is not reasonably debatable. It would be silly. The state has a compelling interest in not allowing individuals to own their own nukes.

I fully expect some to make the irrational assertion that there is no limit to the arms that may be kept and borne. I suspect that others (maybe you?) would assert that the Constitution has evolved to the point where the protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is no longer necessary. Both assertions are radical and silly. The rational answer lies in looking at what the Framers intended, based upon the historical context in which they were acting.

Good responses. I can't beat the analogy that a living Constitution is no more desirable than a living sales contract. Well put!

As for arms, any weapon that would be useful for civilian self-defense purposes AND would be useful for service in a militia is protected. I know that is too expansive for some but it is what it is.

If I were to decide, here is what would be covered:

- Any type of firearm in use by law enforcement or which is standard issue for the common foot soldier.

Here is what would not be covered:

- Disguised weapons (i.e. briefcase guns, pen guns, etc.)
- Non-discriminatory weapons such as poison gas, flamethrowers, landmines, rockets, grenades, etc.

The term "living" has been misused or abused by the liberals wanting to rewrite the entire thing. Our Constitution does have an amendment process, though by design, it's not an easy one.

So, according to that, how exactly should the millita be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government? They simply can't do it with hand guns, shotguns, or mere home-based weapons. They'd be sieged by tanks, explosives and chemical weapons.

Inflow said:

So, according to that, how exactly should the millita be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government? They simply can't do it with hand guns, shotguns, or mere home-based weapons. They'd be sieged by tanks, explosives and chemical weapons.

Click to expand...

All sailors, soldiers, marines, and airmen take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.

Were there to be any sort of social uprising then of course there would be a split right down the middle of the forces. Killing Americans is not a job our military does. Do not let Kent State fool you, as those were reservists. Yes some soldiers will stay and commit atrocities, but a large portion will simply refuse to on the basis of unlawful orders.

A complete reinstatement of posse commitatus would be appreciated.



By the way, simply because something is hard or difficult does not mean one should let the violation of what is right, and true, and just carry on unimpeded. I would think that 200 million angry Americans, or even 1% of that population, if necessary, could successfully defend our unique nation.

Thanks for the quick response!

So pertaining back to the Living Constituion, say what if some of those invidiually freedoms would be reference in the future to be absurd ideas? That couldn't necessarily be merely interpreted in another fashion. For example, the DMCA. Or if we listened to former laws, years in the past, like owning slaves being acceptable. What if we were to ever make artificial intelligent forms of ourselves, that would have the same genetics or thoughts as I? Wouldn't a Consuititon in a sense need to be dynamic then?

Although, I'm sure you wont be a fan of this response, slowfiveoh, wouldn't the Bible viewed as an absolute law be considered something that eventually needs change?

Inflow said:

Thanks for the quick response!

So pertaining back to the Living Constituion, say what if some of those invidiually freedoms would be reference in the future to be absurd ideas? That couldn't necessarily be merely interpreted in another fashion. For example, the DMCA. Or if we listened to former laws, years in the past, like owning slaves being acceptable. What if we were to ever make artificial intelligent forms of ourselves, that would have the same genetics or thoughts as I? Wouldn't a Consuititon in a sense need to be dynamic then?

Although, I'm sure you wont be a fan of this response, slowfiveoh, wouldn't the Bible viewed as an absolute law be considered something that eventually needs change?

Click to expand...

I am not a Christian, so the example of the Bible does not offend me.


What you are missing in the attempt to subvert a foundational understanding, is that there is a core meaning that will forever be appropriately applied. It is the moral slab for all other arguments. The Constitution literally lists foundational truths, meant to be easily understood by all.

For instance, let's take one of the ten commandments: "Thou shalt not murder"

Humanity in general can understand the simplicity of this order, and it will forever be eternally applicable. There are no semantic games that can change the validity of the arguments base, nor its universal applicability. You can attempt to subvert the baseline meaning by adding stipulations, but any that violate the precept, are invalid on their face. If there were laws that contradicted this fundamental truth, then regardless of the applicability or perceived validity of the law, it would violate the truth directly. Therefore, the law itself isn't really valid. At least, in a country or locale with an enumerated right to life. Such is our country.

I know precisely what you are likely to say. That "killing another human being at any time is murder", but that is not the case whatsoever. Hence the term defense.


To understand the concept of individuality and the right to defend ones self and belongings, you must thoroughly understand the concept of self. Any individual who does not understand the concept of self, may violate their own sanctity without even knowing, and because of a true lack of knowledge, might find themselves voting for things that sound good on their face, but are really subversions of the right to individual freedom.

The Constitution of the United States is really amazing. Read it. Learn it. Study the Federal papers and the Anti-Federal papers. Also read the Virginia Ratification Convention documents. Study Jefferson, Adams, etc. Learn.

It is an old document that is likely to never "not apply", because the rights it enumerates are universal truths. Any alteration, subversion, tweaking, or modification results in nothing short of complete dismissal of the fundamental truth.

Yes, there were entries into the Constitution specifically dealing with slave value etc., but these were actually in direct confrontation with the passages in the Constitution, and if you recall, these were Constitutionally amended, and the foundation for a war that cost hundreds of thousands of American lives.

You are a human being. You have a right to life.
You are a human being. You have a right to equitable defense of said life.
You are a human being. Your belongings are the sum of your wasted days and hours. You have a right to protect them.

Every human being is born with equality. It is only once added or forced via physical or mental oppression that one loses their freedom. The battlefield in modern day America is the battle of the minds. Weak education yields pliable, placated minds.

Be strong, be individual, be equal.

Inflow said:

So, according to that, how exactly should the millita be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government? They simply can't do it with hand guns, shotguns, or mere home-based weapons. They'd be sieged by tanks, explosives and chemical weapons.

Click to expand...

Sheer numbers! For those doubting naysayers too lazy to do the math:

1% of 300,000,000 = 3,000,000 able-bodied armed Citizens who would defend the Constitution

The actual number of armed citizens willing to fight for their freedom would be far higher, I'm just being conservative. Remember that there are 90 million gun-owners and 290 million firearms in civilian hands.

The most common firearm available would be a scoped deer or big game rifle, which would be deadly enough in the hands of the average hunter. Just because the U.S. military has night-vision, spy drones, and optical instruments that can spot a turd on Mars doesn't mean that they can detect a civilian firing from cover.

Still think a free Citizenry would need tanks and other heavy weapons? As the other posters eluded too, there would be plenty of our boys in the regular active service jumping sides and bringing along their equipment, experience and organization.

As alluded to in a earlier post.... some would change the Constitution by changing the meaning and intent of what was written much like the seller in a sales contract (I like this analogy) changing the interest rate, length of term, number of payments just because he didn't like the original for some reason. This is WRONG.

The Constitution does have a method to CHANGE the contract if or when needed and it has been used several times over the years--- by amendment! A process that is not easy and it was not meant to be easy, BUT it can be done by a 2/3rds majority of the various states. In this context and ONLY this context is our constituion maybe considered a living document, by changing the document (Contract with US the governed ) NOT CHANGING THE MEANING OR DEFINITIONS OF THE WORDS USED!

Inflow said:

So, according to that, how exactly should the millita be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government? They simply can't do it with hand guns, shotguns, or mere home-based weapons. They'd be sieged by tanks, explosives and chemical weapons.

Click to expand...

The tyrannical government would try to use the organized militia against the people. The real militia is the people who would join together against the tyranny--with whatever weapons they have on hand. As such, they would definitely be at a disadvantage compared to the government's army. However, in which revolution in the history of the world have the revolutionaries been better armed than the government??

The revolutionaries have one thing that the government army will never have: An ideal. The government is in it to maintain its power. The revolutionaries are in it for restoration of Liberty (even though many revolutions ironically result in the institution of a different oppressive government; that is not what is in the heart of the rank-and-file). Government soldiers of a truly tyrannical government won't really have their heart in it. They are doing a job, not fighting for a cause.

These rag-tag armies of revolutionaries, armed with powerful ideals and personal weaponry, have, time after time, taken down tyrant after tyrant. Tactically, they use those personal weapons to take more powerful weapons from the government. But that is not the point. The point is that revolutionary armies, who had much less access to weapons than we have here, have somehow managed to succeed. By Americans being armed to the extent that they are, tyranny is proactively preempted, resulting in our long-lasting Republic.

eye95 said:

There never has been a natural right to keep and bear arms. The natural right is to defend oneself.

Click to expand...

Wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. Not so long ago I posted a thread about a profound statement I heard discussing the Right to Keep and Bear arms. His statement was that before man invented language they were carrying weapons. It is a natural right. Whether it was a stick or a rock thousands upon thousands of years ago or a modern day fire arm we have the the natural right to arm ourselves.

slowfiveoh said:

All sailors, soldiers, marines, and airmen take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.

Were there to be any sort of social uprising then of course there would be a split right down the middle of the forces. Killing Americans is not a job our military does. Do not let Kent State fool you, as those were reservists. Yes some soldiers will stay and commit atrocities, but a large portion will simply refuse to on the basis of unlawful orders.

A complete reinstatement of posse commitatus would be appreciated.



By the way, simply because something is hard or difficult does not mean one should let the violation of what is right, and true, and just carry on unimpeded. I would think that 200 million angry Americans, or even 1% of that population, if necessary, could successfully defend our unique nation.

Click to expand...

Do NOT lump "Kent state reservists" into a conflation of "reservists." IIRC, those were military members not well-briefed on the ROE. The current reserve contingents ARE well-briefed on the ROE.

JoeSparky said:

As alluded to in a earlier post.... some would change the Constitution by changing the meaning and intent of what was written much like the seller in a sales contract (I like this analogy) changing the interest rate, length of term, number of payments just because he didn't like the original for some reason. This is WRONG.

The Constitution does have a method to CHANGE the contract if or when needed and it has been used several times over the years--- by amendment! A process that is not easy and it was not meant to be easy, BUT it can be done by a 2/3rds majority of the various states. In this context and ONLY this context is our constituion maybe considered a living document, by changing the document (Contract with US the governed ) NOT CHANGING THE MEANING OR DEFINITIONS OF THE WORDS USED!

Click to expand...

Yep. If the meaning or definitions could be changed, then the 14th amendment might never have been introduced.

wrightme said:

Do NOT lump "Kent state reservists" into a conflation of "reservists." IIRC, those were military members not well-briefed on the ROE. The current reserve contingents ARE well-briefed on the ROE.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the inclusion of "Reservists of the period" should have been specified. I mean no disrespect to fellow veterans. Many modern reservists are, after all, former active duty.

At any rate I do not believe the point was lost on anybody.

sudden valley gunner said:

Wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. Not so long ago I posted a thread about a profound statement I heard discussing the Right to Keep and Bear arms. His statement was that before man invented language they were carrying weapons. It is a natural right. Whether it was a stick or a rock thousands upon thousands of years ago or a modern day fire arm we have the the natural right to arm ourselves.

Click to expand...

+1
The indisputable natural right to defend oneself presupposes the use of weapons. When the earliest human picked up a stick to defend himself against a Saber Toothed Cat, he created that natural right. Nothing has changed it, despite civil corruption of natural rights.

So, if our Amendments should never be changed or be alternated, how is it that a Constitutional Amendment can repeal previous amendment.

Such as the 18th and the 21st Amendment?

Inflow said:

So, if our Amendments should never be changed or be alternated, how is it that a Constitutional Amendment can repeal previous amendment.

Such as the 18th and the 21st Amendment?

Click to expand...

A perfect example of CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION THROUGH THE AMENDMENT PROCESS as it was designed to happen. It is only part of what makes our Constitution and our Country great.

They, the progressives (now known as liberals) at the beginning of the nanny state (early 20th century) passed an amendment to the constitution that prohibited alcohol, after a few years realized that IT WASN'T working and Repealed the 18th amendment by PASSING the 21st amendment. And now, almost 100 years later we can see exactly what happened, and how it was done.

Both of these amendments were ratified by 2/3rds of the various states. It was NOT a change in the definitions of the various words. The 18th amendment is still PART of the US Constitution. You can read it, see it! And then 21st amendment repeals the 18th amendment.

JoeSparky said:

A perfect example of CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION THROUGH THE AMENDMENT PROCESS as it was designed to happen. It is only part of what makes our Constitution and our Country great.

They, the progressives (now known as liberals) at the beginning of the nanny state (early 20th century) passed an amendment to the constitution that prohibited alcohol, after a few years realized that IT WASN'T working and Repealed the 18th amendment by PASSING the 21st amendment. And now, almost 100 years later we can see exactly what happened, and how it was done.

Both of these amendments were ratified by 2/3rds of the various states. It was NOT a change in the definitions of the various words. The 18th amendment is still PART of the US Constitution. You can read it, see it! And then 21st amendment repeals the 18th amendment.

Click to expand...

Yes, I understand it's orgins are still writtin the US Constitution, but they are meaningless, are they not? Obviously the laws that govern the 18th mean nothing now. Exactly if I was to make the 2nd Amendment meaningless, with say, repealing it within the 28th amendment in the future.

So I got to the thought of... What in the future we have financial rights of any sort. The right to education, healthcare, etc. Then progressively we begin to realize we can't support those rights and repeal them instead.

I'm just wondering, exactly, if there is a possibility of false rights to eventually come.