The Second Amendment

[midnight Target]

So if I had enough money to buy a nuke, it would be OK?

[Elfie]

Originally posted by midnight Target
So if I had enough money to buy a nuke, it would be OK?

Of course not. Even if you did have the money and actually bought one, we would have to invade and take it away since you are to dangerous to be allowed to own WMD's.

[Yeager]

what mt appears to be neglecting for consideration beyond the right of the people to keep and bear arms as being necessary to the security of a free state by providing for a well regulated militia is the universal right to self defense.  Every human being that is so capable has the right to defend oneself.  And all human beings should be understood to be reuired to defend those incapable of self defense.

Now, We can all agree that "arms" are understood to be weapons, that weapons are understood to be long rifles, shotguns, pistols.  All intelligent people should be willing to concede that a reasonable limitation to the definition of "arms" as referred to in the 2nd amendment is that of common firearms.  Not artillery pieces, armored vehicles,  stealth bombers or nuclear weapons.........that argument is the equivalent of absurdity and serves to illustrate the weak ground being stood on by those who ask the question far more than it serves to make a larger point about limitations of rights, which it does not.

imo, of course.

[john9001]

MT,why don't you buy something you could really use, like F15 fighter?

[Hornet33]

I'm sure a nuke would be considered a Class III Destructive Device if available on the open market, there for you could own one but you would have to get the required permits and such.

The question here is why are you comparing a gun to a nuke? That doesn't help your argument at all. Why would anyone want one? You can't use it to defend your family or property can you?

I can see it now, 3AM wake up hearing someone trying to break into the house. Ask myself, "Gee I wonder what would be better in this situation, my Kimber 1911A1 .45 or my 5 kiloton nuclear warhead?"

Again lets try and keep this in perspective if we can since no one is trying to take away our nukes, they're trying to take away our guns.

[indy007]

If you have enough money, and you can get somebody to actually sell you one... go for it.

F-15s, Seawolf attack subs, surplus aircraft carriers, whatever..

Practical example... if Tom Cruise bought himself a bombing range, and was certified in the handling, loading, arming, and deployment of 500 pound bombs from his P-51... more power to him.


I wonder how you'd get certified to own a Nuke.


The catch is, innocent until proven guilty & all that. Under gun control (rather, lets expand that to Arms Control), Tom wouldn't get his bombs, even though he's never hurt anybody. Per the consitution, Tom should be able to get as many bombs as he wants. Who knows, a time could theoretically arise in which he needed to puts bombs on target to defend his home & family. Either way, it's the highest moral goal to ensure the maximum amount of personal freedoms for our fellow citizens, as long as those rights are not used to impinge on other citizens.


btw, I know Tom Cruise is a really bad example, but it's the first name of a P-51 owner I could think of.

[Leslie]

This is a good article concerning the justification clause of the second amendment.  The jist of the article is the second amendment is not at all unusual due to its justification clause...that other state constitutions contained justification clauses and this language was quite normal for the times, written not so much as legal, but rather political text.  If anything, the second amendment's justification clause enhances an individual right to keep and bear arms, as opposed to trumping or limiting any rights.

To objectively look at the writings of the founders and other state constitutions is relevant in reaching honest interpretation of the constitution.  It must be read with the willingness to be wrong if the interpretation does not meet with a specific agenda or sought after goal.  If interpreted honestly, the second amendment clearly and irrevocably states the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  This is an individual right.  To specifically hammer home the idea, militia is mentioned in the spirit of including everyone (this is a political point as was common in those days.)  The reason mentioning militia does not affect the second amendment (other than its inclusion as a political motivator) is because no where in the constitution is there a provision for Congress to maintain a militia or even that a militia be armed, i.e. the justification clause could have been left out completely and has nothing to do with the operative clause, which stands alone just fine.

This could be proved through transformational grammar of English and rules concerning grammar (these resemble algebraic formulas where a sentence is broken down to its constituent parts and then tested to see if the parts have the same meaning when re-assembled different ways [flip-flop test].)   The operative clause is independent of the preamble or justification clause (the mention of militia.)  I could have done this test 29 years ago when I was in college but have long since forgotten how.  What we need here is a linguist who knows how to analyze sentences using transformational grammar.  I'm pretty sure what the result would be, however.  It really would be that simple to determine the meaning.

Militia arms included rifles, pistols, edged and blunt instruments.  Anything a man could easily carry and bring to bear.  Normally ordnance was considered dangerous or unusual and hence, in addition to contemporary weapons of the day such as grenades, modern weapons such as bazookas, nukes etc. were/are limited.  In any event, limiting of this nature does not remove an individual's right to keep and bear arms. This is the understanding I got from reading the article.


http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm



Les

[lazs2]

I will answer mt's question...  

He is correct in that the second.. is a conditional amendment but then... so are all the others.. this does not negate the word "people"  this word means the same in every instance.    

What is conditional in the second is not that apparent unless you are to put it into the context of the times..  "arms"  meant any weapon that could be stored and carried by an individual.    That was mostly defined but not limited to...  rifle and ammo...  it most certainly did not mean the field pieces (cannon) of the time.

In modern day this would mean any shoulder fired or carried weapon..

Modern constitutional limitations would reasonably be things like....  explosive potential and the harm to neighbors...  hazardous waste problems or potential for grave and serious contamination of the area.

So no...  rockets of any real power and especialy nukes could be highly regulated....  most machine guns and automatic weapons could not...  

pretty simple really.

lazs

[midnight Target]

All very good points, but the simple fact that there are web sites devoted to the parsing of the language and historical references to the types of weapons that would qualify as "arms" just prove my point. The 2nd is hardly a slam-dunk when it comes to the law.

Another thing many are now saying is that the intent of the 2nd was to provide a way for a man to "protect his family" (or home etc.). It was much more of a call (historically) to maintain the ability to overthrow a repressive government. If the overthrow or protection from the government is the intent of the amendment, then the classification of "arms" must necessarily go beyond those claimed.

[Toad]

Sorry MT but our position simply isn't supported by the rest of the Constitution, the constitution's of the states that initially ratified or by the other writing of the folks that actually created this republic.

In all those cases, the right for an individual to own and bear arms is clear. To pretend that the founders somehow meant the 2nd to say otherwise is, forgive me, bull****.

I look forward to the SC hearing the DC case.

[Toad]

Oh, as for "arms",

http://www.brainshavings.com/supplements/arms/iii.htm


Let me know what you think.

[john9001]

i predict the SC will not hear the DC case and it will refer back to the last court ruling.

the SC picks the cases/petitions they will hear, the SC only hears about 10% of the petitions that come before it.

the criteria the SC uses to decide which petitions to hear is based on what constitutional import the law has, i think they should hear this case but i suspect they will defer.

[midnight Target]

Very interesting..

the summation at the bottom of the page:

So where does all this historical research bring us? It seems fairly clear that the Founders and their informed contemporaries understood the term "arms" to be synonymous with what we call "weapons." They did not use that overarching meaning at all times, sometimes referring to particular types of weapons like small arms as simply "arms." But the Founders' generation were certainly willing to apply the term to more powerful and traditionally "military-only" weapons. This is evident in the writings that prove they thought it very important to have an armed populace capable of resisting foreign invasion and domestic tyranny alike.

Which kinda flies in the face of those who say that "Arms" can only mean guns.

[Toad]

Yep.

So what did YOU think? Think he's right or wrong?

Not what you wish it was...what do you think of his actual argument?

[Elfie]

Folks still didn't keep cannons and grenades in their closets MT. In those days it was muzzle loading firearms, black powder and ball that were kept and the occasional sword.