The Second Amendment

[veganlush]

We all have access to the same text. It's not like some scholars have some special version that includes more insight into the minds of it's author(s). The first part talks of a "well regulated militia". The NRA's interpretation of that is "anybody at all". The second sentence deals with "arms". Now this document was ratified, according to my sources, in 1791.

So what was meant by arms at that time? Does it matter? Did they mean muskets? rifles? Were they saying that "a well regulated militia" (anybody at all) should be able to bear muskets only forever or did they mean something else? Did they mean that they should be able to bear whatever was the "state of the art" of arms at a given time?

If, as many proponents claim, they were trying to make sure "the people" (the government) were ready to fight off any tyrannical types who try to take control, wouldn't they mean that the "militia" (anybody) should have and bear every weapon that is also at the disposal of the tyrants? That argument would favor everyone having a right to possess and carry around with them everything from flame-throwers to suitcase nukes. If that is what they meant, why aren't they insisting on that? or are they?

So they either think that the founders meant everybody (no background checks or any other restrictions) has the right to carry around muskets everywhere they want to, or they meant "arms" to include state-of-art, in which case they would have everyone carrying- "bearing"- everything, including automatic rifles, hand grenades, suitcase nukes, etc..in either case, what gives? Why aren't they carrying muskets, or why aren't they in a total panic because they aren't being allowed to carry everything? You can't have it both ways, which is it?

[RandomThoughts]

1. I have posted that thought about information systems.

Although I am not talking about weapons or anything.


Anything the government has that it can use on citizens, should be available for citizens to use on government, if they were to turn on the people. That's how I see the concept.

Although I am really speaking about transparency and citizen media and information distribution systems, surveillance and education in areas of propaganda and marketing and how it can be used.


The difference between when it was written and now, is that the status quo wants its power toys for reasons of control.


Lets get serious, you cant have a society that has wealth, and many decision making methods controlled by 1% and have freedom. Hence why many things are not on the news, or not done in legislation.

[veganlush]

2. I agree with you about the transparency

and information gathering/systems. It's the only way to keep 'em honest. With regard to the Second Amendment, I'm just frustrated with the hypocrisy we are sitting back and allowing, with the gun lobby being able to just define things as they see fit.

[tburnsten]

17. It isn't pro-civil rights people redefining things as they see fit

That award goes to people desparately trying to put a stop to the madness of non-violent, non-felon citizens being able to own and if they choose to get licensed for it carry ordinary modern firearms.

[SteveM]

26. Please define "gun lobby," providing examples of "things"...

as they see fit. If you would, show the "hypocrisy" that is being "allowed."

You mention, with regards info systems, ways to "keep 'em honest." Who is "'em/they?"

[one-eyed fat man]

59. If what was in use by private citizens

in 1791 is any guide, then it was common for people to own warships. (look up Letters of Marque and discover that the US never signed the treaty in Paris. Congress can STILL commission privateers!) Cassius Clay, the abolitionist, not the boxer, had cannon defending his newspaper office in Lexington, Kentucky. He put them to good use for home defense later in life when the local busy-bodies disapproved of his marriage.

THE RAGE OF THE AGED LION

The first restrictions by the Federal government on arms that could be possessed by a non-government entity came in 1934. At that time, civilians showed up in open competition against the Army and Navy at the Air Races in Cleveland and civilian airplanes were faster and more capable than anything the government possessed.

Flame throwers are not illegal and where they are regulated at all it is as farm equipment.

So unless you firmly believe that "Freedom of the Press" only allows you to a composing stick, and hand-screw press fed a single sheet at a time and that if you want high speed automatic presses you should join the Government Printing Office that only muskets are protected notion fails to convince me that the Founders intended anything but that a free people can arm themselves with individual weapons capable of serving in their defense and when called upon to defend the State as well.

The argument about suitcase nukes is especially dim-witted, as anyone who REALLY, REALLY wants to use one does not give a shit about your views, laws, religion, lack of imagination or anything else. After all, you tell me what moral restraint YOU can impose on someone who would calmly sit down next to you and blow himself up because you haven't submitted to his view of the world?

[happyslug]

66. But the the 1907 Hague Treaty which REQUIRES DIRECT MILITARY COMMAND.

The actual 1907 Hague Treaty (Called Hague VII to differentiate it from the other parts of the 1907 Hague Convention):
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague07.asp

While the Hague VII is NOT listed in Treaties in force maintained by the Department of State, it is now considered part of International law and as such applicable to the US even if the US had never signed it. This concept was upheld by the US Supreme Court when it refused to review the execution of Japanese War Criminals even through the Japanese had NEVER signed the Treaty in regards to the War Crimes the Japanese officials did. The Court ruled that the international Treaty was international norm and as such the law EVEN IF THE COUNTRY OF PEOPLE BEING TRIED NEVER SIGNED THE TREATY. Thus, today, it is unimportant that the US never signed Hague VII or the Treaty of Paris of 1856 that outlawed Letters of Marque, given that the vast majority of the States of the World signed both.

List of Treaties in Force:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/123747.pdf

The treaty of Paris that the US did not ratify (But Lincoln did "signed" at the start of the US Civil War in an attempt to make it illegal for the South to permit Privateering.

[Callisto32]

19. I think it would be pretty awesome to have one of those "active denial systems."

Keeping the big, predatory critters around here out of the yard without denting their population would be a big improvement over things like rubber bullets and loud noises, or just outright killing them.

[safeinOhio]

3. Here we go again

:popcorn:

[veganlush]

4. I'm sorry, I couldn't help it!..n/t

[pipoman]

5. Yawn

Asked and answered every day in the guns forum (where this will be in 10, 9, 8, ...). With a minimal amount of effort you would know the answers to your completely simplistic epiphanies of 'logic', and the redundancy of the topic..

[veganlush]

38. so what's the answer?

[pipoman]

48. You are repeating common canards

the musket canard, the nuke canard, the militia canard, and the no regulation canard. All are routinely demonstrated nonsense right here in the guns forum. If you are really interested in understanding this issue, it would be good to spend some time here in the proper forum. If you are simply trolling, as so many do, you don't really care what the truth is, you will continue believing these rather elementary gun control advocate sound bites designed for the uninformed.

[veganlush]

49. so if I just keep on reading in this forum

..I'll find out why the "nuke" reference is a demonstrated nonsense canard?

[pipoman]

50. Yep, you could search nuke in the guns forum

and find a plethora of reading. In fact I just did that search for 2 years prior to today, 179 results...it's been discussed...

edit..surely you didn't think you were the first to dream up this silly gun control argument?

[veganlush]

51. you can't call it silly until and unless you can provide an answer

..and you can't.

[pipoman]

52. I can call it anything I wish...

it's a porcupine...there, it's settled..what were we talking about?

[Euromutt]

53. Would it help if I pointed out suitcase nukes don't actually exist?

Oh, yeah, some ex-Sovs claimed they made some, and even had a few go missing, but their existence has never been verified, and if you're willing to believe that the guys who had to put vacuum tubes in the MiG-25 FOXBAT because they were incapable of building transistors could manufacture a nuclear warhead (including the detonator) that would fit in something the size of a suitcase and be portable by a single person, I some beachfront property in in Wyoming I'd like to sell you.

[GreenStormCloud]

55. The U.S. did make them.

They weighed 55 pounds, so it would have been a rather heavy suitcase. They were backpack nukes. W-54. They were implosion nukes. The delay timer could be set from 5 minutes up to 12 hours. Can you imagine setting the timer for 5 minutes on a nuke and then flipping the "Arm" switch? Long enough for a cigarette.

A suitcase nuke doesn't need high-end electronics. They can be made as shotgun nukes, of the type used on Hiroshima.

[TheWraith]

65. 5 minutes would have been enough, if you had a vehicle.

The W54s were VERY small nukes. The blast radius was only about a mile or so across.

[veganlush]

61. it's beside the point. The technology will come for smaller and

more devastating weapons. Lasers, for example, will exist in a portable way eventually. Will they be "arms" and if not, why not? Should everyone have the right to take one to a political rally or college campus or wherever if not why not? where does it say in the second amendment that the right to "bear" should be infringed, even a little bit?

[aikoaiko]

6. I think you've presented a false choice of extremes.

muskets or nukes.

The way I see it, the founders wanted the people to be armed like an ordinary soldier in order to keep the "state free". Back in the day it meant musket, bayonet, belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack, etc (as per the 2nd Militia Act). The 2nd Amendment protected the people from Federal infringement of that right. Now the issue of incorporation is being addressed.

Today the ordinary soldier would have a modern M16 and grenades, but not nukes as the ordinary soldier is not issued these. Today, a person can own an automatic weapon and hand grenades but they are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act which is enforced by the BATFE. Plus, congress attached an amendment to FOPA which banned the sale of automatic firearms to civilians made after 1986.

I think the regulation of the arms is arguably constitutional, but the moratorium on selling new automatic weapons to civilians is not.

Sometimes there is a third way.

[Euromutt]

14. We could draw the line at stuff covered by international arms limitation treaties

Materiel like combat aircraft, naval vessels, tanks, artillery, missiles and NBC weapons are covered by such treaties (SALT, CFE, CWC, and the like). Small arms for the most part (barring items like anti-personnel mines) are not.

The Constitution states that international treaties (if ratified by Congress) shall form "the supreme law of the land" together with the Constitution itself, so there are strong grounds to accept that imposing such limitations on the people as also bind the government is acceptable. Moreover, having large weapon systems in private ownership could give governments a loophole to evade arms limitations treaties ("Three aircraft carriers over the number permitted by the treaty, you say? Oh no, those are privately owned.").

[X_Digger]

29. Well, treaties can't go against the constitution..

For one important reason- treaties are passed by congress, and congress alone doesn't have the power to supersede the constitution.

"I do not conceive that power is given to the President and the Senate to dismember the empire, or alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority have this power. The exercise of the power must be consistent with the object of the delegation."
- James Madison

"By the general power to make treaties, the Constitution must have intended to comprehend only those objects which are usually regulated by treaty, and cannot be otherwise regulated.... It must have meant to except out of those the rights reserved to the states; for surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The only constitutional exception to the power of making treaties is, that it shall not change the Constitution.... On natural principles, a treaty, which should manifestly betray or sacrifice primary interests of the state, would be null."
- Alexander Hamilton

[aikoaiko]

7. Ahh, this thread found its way home to the proper forum.....

welcome home. :hi:

[paulsby]

8. as for the RKBA it DOES NOT MATTER who is the "well regulated militia"

because the RIGHT does not belong to ANY militia.

as the 2nd amendment states, it belongs to the PEOPLE

see: prefatory clause

hth

[ChicagoSuz219]

9. Sarah said 'arms' meant 'votes'... n/t

[sharesunited]

10. It is as moot, obsolete and silly as three-fifths of a person.

No applicability whatsoever to modern day America.

[baldguy]

11. +1000

It's about national defense, not personal defense. And we spend upwards of $600 billion for our national defense.

If you want to make the 2nd Amendment relevant again, get rid of the military.

[Callisto32]

20. No, national defense is covered in the clause that allows the raising of a regular army and navy.

A basic rule of statutory interpretation is that all words have meaning, and none are redundant.

Argument fail.

[baldguy]

36. If no words are redundant, then "...being necessary to the security of a free State.." aren't either

Double fail.

[pipoman]

40. I'm thinking you would fall in line

about the time 2/3 of US National Guard, and standing military are half way around the world and the Mexican drug war spills across the border. Well, maybe you wouldn't want anyone in effected areas to be able to defend themselves and their communities...but they will do so without your approval.

It must feel nice sleeping at night believing that all of the empire overthrowing, bloodletting war can only happen on other contenients...every other contenent to be exact, except for the North American continent, and now we have war breaking out in Mexico. Head in the sand much? "No applicability whatsoever to modern day America.".......holy shit...:crazy:

[baldguy]

42. The Second Amendment is outmoded & has been superceded by newer laws.

It's continued existence only serves to harm & kill people, offering no reasonable benefit in return. Harboring RW fantasies about shooting the darkies swarming over the border doesn't change these facts.

[pipoman]

44. Again, how comfy you must be

believing that your safe little sphere is impenetrable. Not a historian huh?

[baldguy]

45. Better to have faith in We The People as a real American then fear them

You can either honor the Founders' legacy and work to make this a better & more just society (the liberal & democratic way)

or you undermine that legacy and cast it aside to cling to your ineffectual guns. You can't do both.

[pipoman]

47. Well, most of the people on this

site...Dems, liberals, progressives, apparently disagree that your idea is any of those things. Apparently most believe that liberal includes interpretation of ALL civil rights, especially those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Only on this right can someone swing through and advocate abolition of a right and not be labeled the closet conservative that they have to be to advocate such a position.



"You can either honor the Founders' legacy and work to make this a better & more just society (the liberal & democratic way"

You must be joking? Have you been drinking? Honor the Founder's by abolishing a civil right that they thought important enough to place second on the list. This is truly delusional.

The history of man's inhumanity to man is long and well documented and demonstrable with alarming predictability throughout the history of the world...now you are proclaiming a vast change in human nature over the course of...how long has it been since an unarmed population was overcome by another power?? Yep, that's right, no time has passed.

[PavePusher]

57. Unfortunately for you...

the world is not replete with binary solutions.

Thank Ghu.

[SteveM]

63. The "darkies," as you put it, were the very objects of gun-prohibition...

Please. Read the history of gun-control laws and you will see they all originated in the South to keep blacks from owning arms. Jim Crow merely upped and moved north to give us the "yankee" version of his legal droppings.

Frankly, the average black in the South has far less problem exercising the Second Amendment than his brethren in NYC, Chicago, D.C. and San Francisco.

You really don't see the irony in this, do you?

You should also read what Alan Dershowitz has to say about "foolish liberals...trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution..."

[Euromutt]

54. Correct, but not in the way you think

Yes, the prefatory clause is not redundant, because it spells out precisely why it is against the interest of the state to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. To wit, that it is beneficial to the state, in the event that it has to call upon its citizens to perform armed duty, that those citizens already be familiar with the handling and operation of weapons. That is not the raison d'être of the RKBA, but it is the stipulated reason why the state should not even be tempted to prohibit the private ownership of personal weapons.

So, to spell it out, the Second Amendment could be formulated as "private citizens have the right to own and carry weapons, and the reason government should not infringe on that pre-existing right is because, if the shit hits the fan, there will be a recruiting pool of citizens who already know how to shoot."

[pipoman]

12. Then begin lobbying for repeal for krist steak

oh wait....you don't even have support for that plan from GD right here on DU....oh well, squalling is all you have I guess, have at it...

[sharesunited]

13. Repeal is not the answer. An enlightened judiciary is.

[pipoman]

16. So you are a fan of

activist, legislate from the bench judges huh? Yea, if the public opposes buy off the judges..why would I expect anything else?

[Callisto32]

21. Once again, shares comes in to bait. So cometh my standard reply.

Contribute something useful, or at least fun; or go find a bridge to hang out under.

[SteveM]

27. Do you support subterfuge, the darling of Jim Crow? nt

[GreenStormCloud]

24. It is in the constitution, therefore it is relevant, by definition. N/T

[Glassunion]

30. Spoken like a good G. W. Bush...

"It's just a God damned piece of paper."

Right?

[rrneck]

31. Sooooo,

how do you propose people defend themselves from others who are larger, stronger, and more aggressive in this futuristic utopia of genteel manners and equal opportunity?

[tburnsten]

15. They meant individual arms of whatever technology was available

They just didn't think anyone would go to such lengths to purposely not understand their plain language.

And you left out "the right of the people", that is how the sentence that ends with "shall not be infringed" starts out.

[Callisto32]

18. Well, state of the art at the time was magazine fed repeating arms, powered by expanding gas.

Firearms technology is surprisingly simple. The principals under which they function have been the same for a VERY long time. It is an efficient technology, so why change it unless you are going to move to straight energy weapons, rather than kinetic energy. What has changed in the meantime is the means, powder is better, manufacturing is more precise and repeatable, metallurgy is orders of magnitude beyond the founding era. But, it is still the same stuff.

So, as far as what arms means, personal arms are essentially the same. Saying the founders could not envision modern personal arms seems disingenuous. Nukes, though, I will buy as probably not considered.

[Euromutt]

22. Key phrase: "the right of the people"

The right to keep and bear arms does not belong to a militia, it belongs to individual citizens, members of "the people."

Back in ancient Athens, free citizens--those with the right to vote--were required to keep a full hoplite's panoply ("panoply" literally translates to "all arms/armor," i.e. a full set of personal weapons and equipment: cuirass, helmet, greaves, shield, spear and sword) and to serve in the city-state's heavy infantry in the event of war. Similarly, under the Saxon tradition of fyrd, all freemen were expected to keep a full set of armor and weapons, and take them up if the kingdom went to war. Given that both the Athenian and Anglo-Saxon ideas of citizenship and law heavily influenced the Framers, it is hardly surprising they would adopt those systems' notions concerning ownership of weapons.

The framers' idea of "the people" meant free citizens; broadly speaking, if you had the right to vote, you had the right to own weapons. Convicted felons were not considered to be part of "the people" (not least because most felonious offenses were punishable by death or banishment, making the convict cease to be part of the "the people" in a very literal sense). The Militia Act of 1792 required anyone mustered into the militia to provide his own weapons and equipment, which meant such a person had to be able to own those items in the first place.

As I'm sure other posters will explain in greater detail, the Second Amendment does not establish a right on the part of the people to keep and bear arms, but rather, it acknowledges it. The "prefatory clause"--the bit about the "well regulated militia"--has no bearing on the right, but instead, explains why it is in fact against the government's interest to infringe upon the pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms. In more modern language, it might be reformulated as "in the event of a threat to public order, the government may need to call upon its citizens to perform armed duty in the service of the state, in which case it will be desirable that those citizens already be thoroughly familiar with the handling and operation of firearms, and well versed in marksmanship."

The right to keep and bear arms exists independently of this, but the prefatory clause spells out why this of benefit to the government.

[GreenStormCloud]

23. It is an individual right.

The militia clause explains one reason why they thought that people needed to have guns. They wanted the people to have guns so that the armaments would be dispersed among millions of homes, instead of being in a few armories that could be captured by an enemy or a rebellion, or seized by the government itself.

The phrase, "the people" does NOT mean "the government", it means individual citizens. If "the people" means the government, then what does it mean in the first amendment, "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble".

If you want to try to restrict arms to muskets, then you must aslo restrict the first amendment to manual printing presses of the time. Turn in your computer as it isn't covered by the first amendment under your reasoning.

No right is absolute. Ever since 1934 the line has been drawn at individual discreet fire weapons. Individual means commonly carried, serviced, and fired by one person. Discreet means that it is aimed at one target when used. Machineguns are at the boundry of the line and can be argued about. Artillery and nukes are definately not discreet.

Actually, Thomas Jefferson did advise that a person should routinely carry a rifle or other gun. The Founding Fathers left lots of writings about what they thought of individuals being armed. They were completely in favor of it. Here is one example of the way they thought: "To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them..."
-George Mason


By trying to set up a muskets or nukes choice you are being false. The 1934 Gun Control Act has served the nation well. That is the line that all of the gun-rights organizations hold to. BTW - There are many gun-rights organizations, not just the NRA. Google "gun rights organizations" and you will find a long list.

Here is one short list of links: http://www.kc3.com/Links/national_organizations.htm

Links to:
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus
Gun Owners of America
Second Amendment Foundation
Armed Females of America
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
Firearms Coalition
Liberty Belles
Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership
Second Amendment Sisters
National Rifle Association
Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
National Shooting Sports Foundation
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws (Different organization than the above Doctor's one.)
CATO Institute - CCW Laws and the Crime Rate
Mothers In Arms
The National Association of Firearms Retailers
Women Against Gun Control
The Paul Revere Network

and here are some other gun-rights organizations

National Association for Gun Rights.
Pink Pistols
Second Amendment Democrats

[veganlush]

39. so do you think the authors of the second amendment would

..approve of the 1934 gun control act?

[tburnsten]

41. Nope. It was racist and designed

specifically to prevent those of us who are not filthy rich from having the same rights as those who are. Can't picture any of our founders supporting a law that was written expressly to guarantee that ordinary individual arms are out of the reach of ordinary citizens.

And the full automatic restrictions aren't even the worst part of it, the restrictions on configurations of rifles, handguns, and shotguns is. A shotgun with an 18 1/2" barrel is fine for over teh counter purchase after NICS check. A shotgun with a 17 1/2" barrel requires a $200 tax stamp, permission granted from an individual who may or may not have an axe to grind, or may not approve of some specific feature of the applicant, such as ethnicity or hair color, or lifestyle, while the firearm in question is not more dangerous in any way than the same gun with an unrestricted barrel length.

Same for a rifle, only it is 16" instead of 18. Pistols cannot have shoulder stocks, which makes little sense as far as a safety restriction.

Like the old internet saying goes, gun control isn't about safety or guns, it's about control.

[GreenStormCloud]

46. Probably not, but it is a compromise that I am willing to make.

But gun-controllers always want to increase the restrictions on guns.

[SteveM]

25. The never-ending story...

What was meant by "arms at the time" was any weapon which could be held with one or both hands and firing a projectile. That definition, garnered from the context of debate at the time, still holds. There is no mention of "muskets" or ANY specific firearm (already, there were rifles as well as muskets, and considerable experimentation was transpiring with multi-firing weapons, breech-loading, and cartridge development). Militia members were expected to bring a weapon suitable for service at that time; many weapons were rifles (quite suitable for hunting, but not quite so much for standard ARMY doctrine), others were muskets. Militia were often used as guerrilla forces or detachments due to the superior range and accuracy these weapons had. Certainly, if they were "state of the art so much the better: the armies being developed for the Revolution had few resources which which to purchase the most modern weapons, even the ever-cheap short-range muskets prevalent in most armies.

Of flame-throwers, nukes and tyrants: See above definition of "arms."

It should be noted that some 2A-supporters think the current restrictions on automatic arms (sub-machine guns, assault rifles) should be no greater than those on other arms, but most 2A-supporters are "content" with the very strong restrictions on full-auto established in 1935. The arguments of the former, however, are more intellectually consistent.

NOTE: ownership of non-"arms" weapons (your tanks, flame-throwers, grenades and such) CAN indeed be owned by the general public, but are subject to much more restriction than firearms (again, see definition above). Michael Dorn (who played Lt. Worf on the "new" Star Trek series) owns and flies a Korean-era Saber jet fighter. All these weapons systems are not protected by 2A.

[tburnsten]

32. Flamethrowers are agricultural tools

Not controlled at all.

Great post though.

[SteveM]

33. You're always hot to find an exception! nt

[tburnsten]

34. Sure am!

But I didn't say that tanks are also not controlled, just the armaments on them. People can buy disarmed tanks anytime, they are just in short supply, extremely expensive, and not very practical. Or comfortable.

They are really, really cool however.

[SteveM]

35. Used to be an old Sherman in a park in Palatka, FL. Gone now.

[SteveM]

28. I look forward to continued engagement on this subject. Thanks. nt

[veganlush]

43. I have posted mostly on political issues,

..and this post was a lark, not something I know much about, but I have seen a lot of thoughtful, insightful, thought-provoking posts here, and not so much of the sniping back-and-forth. I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but I have enjoyed reading the responses on this subject so far.

[shedevil69taz]

56. Mostly we here in this guns forum try to discourage

anything other than well thought out arguments on both sides. Amazingly enough ever since I registered for DU and started looking at other posts in other forums this one actually seems to have the most rational regular posters out of any of them.

[cowman]

58. I know what you mean

I've seen some really nutty things said on other forums here that are just as crazy as some of the RW sites. I enjoy the guns forum for the reasons you have stated

[SteveM]

64. Thanks again for your posts...

No sarcasm meant at all. One of the great values of the "gungeon" is the theater it presents, where antagonists can go at each other and the audience can see who has the best arguments. Some posters are trolls and punksters; but others post sound arguments and good data. IMO, and the record here indicates such, pro-2A folks have the big edge in good argument. So, I have no problem with the "tenor" of most debate because I am confident folks who drop in will see the better part of argument.

If DU's Guns forum has a purpose beyond a forum for debate, it is in destroying the myth that the Second Amendment is NOT a liberal or progressive issue, and to remove the self-destructive gun-control language which is still retained in the Democratic Party's Platform.

[jody]

37. No need for you to worry about such things, read DC v. Heller & discover what SCOTUS said, that's

the law of the land and your views don't matter yea or nay.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

[gorfle]

60. Some corrections.

We all have access to the same text. It's not like some scholars have some special version that includes more insight into the minds of it's author(s). The first part talks of a "well regulated militia". The NRA's interpretation of that is "anybody at all". The second sentence deals with "arms". Now this document was ratified, according to my sources, in 1791.

First correction. The NRA's interpretation is NOT "anybody at all". The NRA specifically is against people with criminal or mentally disqualifying background from owning firearms.

So what was meant by arms at that time? Does it matter? Did they mean muskets? rifles?

Arms were weapons carried by an infantryman.

Were they saying that "a well regulated militia" (anybody at all) should be able to bear muskets only forever or did they mean something else?

They meant something else. The second amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Not the militia. The second amendment speaks to the militias as being necessary to a free state, but it is the right of the people that is enumerated and so protected.

Did they mean that they should be able to bear whatever was the "state of the art" of arms at a given time?

Since the intent of the second amendment was to eliminate, or at least be able to counter, federal infantry power, then it is logical to assume that the weapons that the people have the right to bear must be able to eliminate, or at at least counter, those arms used by federal infantrymen.

If, as many proponents claim, they were trying to make sure "the people" (the government) were ready to fight off any tyrannical types who try to take control, wouldn't they mean that the "militia" (anybody) should have and bear every weapon that is also at the disposal of the tyrants?

Except that is is the people that have the right to bear those arms, you are correct.

That argument would favor everyone having a right to possess and carry around with them everything from flame-throwers to suitcase nukes. If that is what they meant, why aren't they insisting on that? or are they?

As I noted above, the "arms" under discussion are those suitable for use by an infantryman. They do not include crew-served arms, nor indiscriminate weapons, nor weapons of mass destruction.

Flame-throwers, by the way, are generally unregulated and legal for anyone to own.

So they either think that the founders meant everybody (no background checks or any other restrictions) has the right to carry around muskets everywhere they want to, or they meant "arms" to include state-of-art, in which case they would have everyone carrying- "bearing"- everything, including automatic rifles, hand grenades, suitcase nukes, etc..in either case, what gives? Why aren't they carrying muskets, or why aren't they in a total panic because they aren't being allowed to carry everything? You can't have it both ways, which is it?

I am of the opinion that The People have the right to keep and bear such arms as would be necessary to eliminate or counter federal infantry power. This means small arms of similar ability.

I do not have a problem with restricting explosives or fully-automatic weapons. Explosives, for obvious reasons, and fully-automatic weapons because, being suppression weapons, they are of little use in an insurgency against forces that can call in artillery and/or air strikes.

[DissedByBush]

62. The average personal arms for the average foot soldier to fight

That is what is necessary to fight a war against invaders or to fight a war to topple an oppressive government.

That means whatever the armies of the day are using.

That means that, yes, assault rifles should be legal for private ownership.

Crew-served weapons are a different matter. Those weren't in the hands of individuals, but of militias or companies.