The Second Amendment is NOT UNLIMITED ... why?

[Silvertongue]

The Second Amendment Isn't Unlimited .... why?

More like, why not?

http://theblogaboutguns.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-second-amendment-is-not-unlimited.html

 

[stealthyeliminator]

What characteristic qualifies a person to have access to weapons of these classes which the average civilian should be barred from having? That the person has sold their soul to a tyrannical government? Good one.

 

[Silvertongue]

100's of thousands for a tank? An old one. Not the super-death machines they see on TV. And... People already own the cheaper tanks.

Not to mention I think that they're forgetting the fact that all of the police officers that are militarizing are humans just like everyone else. I'm sure most people here have known a cop on a personal level at least to some degree. Anything magical about them that makes them trustworthy enough to have direct access to munitions so powerful that no civilian could possibly be trusted with? I think not. They probably wouldn't blink to learn of my local PD's most recent tank purchase, complete with lead-rope-sprayer on top. Why? What's different about them? Do these people think that I couldn't be on that very police force, with access to that very tank, within a matter of a few years if that's what I really wanted to do? I don't get it.

It's the automatic trust of the badge. Automatic and misplaced.

Honestly people could get away with murder if they dressed in police unif -- oh wait.

 

[eye95]

The 2A clearly protects the right to bear arms that can be borne.

This is not to say that you cannot own a cannon or drive a tank. The 2A is silent on those issues.

 

[JustaShooter]

The 2A clearly protects the right to bear arms that can be borne.

This is not to say that you cannot own a cannon or drive a tank. The 2A is silent on those issues.

I don't know, to me the "keep" part of the "right to keep and bear arms" seems like it addresses that.

 

[OC for ME]

The cool thing about the 2A is that government must not have the authority to decide what weapon that I may choose to keep and then bear. This is lost on some folks because they focus on the "tool" and not the concept. We all have the right, arms are not defined, and a definition is not required. Lawful exercise of the right is the concept.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The cool thing about the 2A is that government must not have the authority to decide what weapon that I may choose to keep and then bear. This is lost on some folks because they focus on the "tool" and not the concept. We all have the right, arms are not defined, and a definition is not required. Lawful exercise of the right is the concept.

+1 It is a restriction on government from infringing upon a preexisting fundamental human right to keep and bear arms.

It also mentions that this is necessary for a "free state" - the people in the state where to have the ability and power and weapons to fight a tyrannical government with all its weapons.

 

[eye95]

The RKBA, as protected by the 2A (I am not discussing GGONIYP rights, just the Right as enumerated), is clearly defined if you look at the context and at history. The RKBA as outlined in the 2A grew out of the original English duty to keep and bear arms and referred to personal arms that had civilian uses but that could be used, in a pinch, as one's personal military weapon.

I am not saying that there is or is not a right to own a cannon or a tank, just that the 2A is not about cannons and tanks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[davidmcbeth]

I am not saying that there is or is not a right to own a cannon or a tank, just that the 2A is not about cannons and tanks.

<o>

2A is about ANY type of arms ... including cannons, tanks, battleships, subs, etc....any arm that has military value.

 

[eye95]

I don't discuss on-topic with trolls. If someone else wishes to engage, that's OK.

 

[rushcreek2]

The people's PURPOSE for formally reserving their right to keep and bear arms within the context of the Constitution was in 1791 - and is in 2013 - to serve notice on their government that they intend to maintain the capability to confront, and bring arms against a threat to their security and liberty. If the occasion presents requiring the people to activate their reserved right there will be no confusion as to the meaning of "arms".

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Eye I know that you and I have already discussed this issue fairly thoroughly elsewhere but my brain has shifted in a direction that it had not before...

First off, whether the 2nd amendment is specifically talking about personal arms or not, I agree is pretty debatable, and I don't really want to get into whether or not it is.

I'm just curious, if you were to ponder on the following idea, what you'd conclude...

If the right to bear arms was derived from a duty - we must consider what that duty was... Was it a duty to keep a rifle or was it a duty to be personally prepared to defend your established society. I'd have to say it was a duty to keep a rifle because you have an underlying duty to be prepared to defend yourself and your community. The keeping and bearing of a rifle, at the time, was the most reasonable and sure way to fulfil your actual duty.

And so, if the 2A is akin, and based on that duty, then you could say that you have the right to "bear arms" specifically for (though not necessarily limited to the purpose of) the purpose of defending your self and community. If the right is based upon the duty, then wouldn't the specific ownerships adjust as what's needed to fulfil your duty changes with time? When cartridges were developed you might say that your duty and therefore your right shifted from keeping and bearing a muzzle-loader to a more modern rifle - this I'm sure we'd agree on. If it's so because now the keeping and bearing of a more modern rifle is the most effective and reasonable way to fulfil your duty, then wouldn't the same apply if the most reasonable and effective way to fulfil your duty evolved into the ownership and possession of something other than a rifle or other personal firearm?

I guess what I'm saying is, if the entire right hinges on the duty, then wouldn't the specific tools that we're entitled to own and bear shift as technology advances as to allow us to remain reasonable able to fulfil the duty, even if it means jumping classes to another type of weapon system?

Just popped into my head. Haven't given it that much thought.

 

[davidmcbeth]

I don't discuss on-topic with trolls. If someone else wishes to engage, that's OK.

You just cannot argue with a pro-2nd amendment person & are fishing for antis to join your cause ... you will be disappointed comrade.

 

[eye95]

The people's PURPOSE for formally reserving their right to keep and bear arms within the context of the Constitution was in 1791 - and is in 2013 - to serve notice on their government that they intend to maintain the capability to confront, and bring arms against a threat to their security and liberty. If the occasion presents requiring the people to activate their reserved right there will be no confusion as to the meaning of "arms".

When and if that time arrives, the Constitution will be dead. All bets are off. We will be exercising not the 2A Right, but the GGONIYP Right to throw off the shackles of tyranny and to defend ourselves from all threats, even those that come from those who would rule over us.

 

[eye95]

Eye I know that you and I have already discussed this issue fairly thoroughly elsewhere but my brain has shifted in a direction that it had not before...

First off, whether the 2nd amendment is specifically talking about personal arms or not, I agree is pretty debatable, and I don't really want to get into whether or not it is.

I'm just curious, if you were to ponder on the following idea, what you'd conclude...

If the right to bear arms was derived from a duty - we must consider what that duty was... Was it a duty to keep a rifle or was it a duty to be personally prepared to defend your established society. I'd have to say it was a duty to keep a rifle because you have an underlying duty to be prepared to defend yourself and your community. The keeping and bearing of a rifle, at the time, was the most reasonable and sure way to fulfil your actual duty.

And so, if the 2A is akin, and based on that duty, then you could say that you have the right to "bear arms" specifically for (though not necessarily limited to the purpose of) the purpose of defending your self and community. If the right is based upon the duty, then wouldn't the specific ownerships adjust as what's needed to fulfil your duty changes with time? When cartridges were developed you might say that your duty and therefore your right shifted from keeping and bearing a muzzle-loader to a more modern rifle - this I'm sure we'd agree on. If it's so because now the keeping and bearing of a more modern rifle is the most effective and reasonable way to fulfil your duty, then wouldn't the same apply if the most reasonable and effective way to fulfil your duty evolved into the ownership and possession of something other than a rifle or other personal firearm?

I guess what I'm saying is, if the entire right hinges on the duty, then wouldn't the specific tools that we're entitled to own and bear shift as technology advances as to allow us to remain reasonable able to fulfil the duty, even if it means jumping classes to another type of weapon system?

Just popped into my head. Haven't given it that much thought.

The Right does not depend on the duty. It evolved from it. And that gives us insight as to what "arms" means.

I make this point, not because you don't have a right to a cannon, but because that is simply not what the Framers meant. They meant what they understood to be the arms mentioned in the 2A, which did not include cannons. The original duty to keep and bear arms specified swords. As technology advanced, it became bows and arrows and crossbows, and later firearms. However, the common thread has always been personal weapons.

There may well be a right to own a cannon. I am not discussing that. I am only discussing what the Framers understood the word "arms" in the 2A to mean and what today's analog would be. Today's analog clearly would include shotguns, pistols, revolvers, rifles (including what some pols choose to call "assault rifles"), knives, clubs, and the like.

Should we ever have to turn our arms on a rogue government (I still hold out fervent hope that it never comes to that), we will simply do what all other revolutionaries have: Use our personal arms to secure the bigger stuff.

I only raise this point because reasonable rhetoric has the best shot at winning over others. Hyperbolic statements turn them off.

On edit: I just wanted to add, great post! I am really coming to appreciate convos with you.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Jefferson, Madison and others were well educated and studied the works of ancients like Aristotle. It wasn't from a duty it is a fundamental human right to resist and keep in check your liberty.

 

[eye95]

Jefferson, Madison and others were well educated and studied the works of ancients like Aristotle. It wasn't from a duty it is a fundamental human right to resist and keep in check your liberty.

True, but the 2A does not speak to resist and keep Liberty. It speaks to a very specific enumerated Right.

Like I said, I am not discussing whether it is a right to own a tank. I am speaking to what was meant by the word "arms" in the 2A. Based on history and context, it meant personal arms, not cannons and tanks. If such a right exists, it is not guaranteed by the 2A.

The fact that the 2A does not guarantee a right does not mean it does not exist. The purpose of the 2A and other enumerations is to provide specific protections to specific rights, not to define the rights we have.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[sudden valley gunner]

True, but the 2A does not speak to resist and keep Liberty. It speaks to a very specific enumerated Right.

Like I said, I am not discussing whether it is a right to own a tank. I am speaking to what was meant by the word "arms" in the 2A. Based on history and context, it meant personal arms, not cannons and tanks. If such a right exists, it is not guaranteed by the 2A.

The fact that the 2A does not guarantee a right does not mean it does not exist. The purpose of the 2A and other enumerations is to provide specific protections to specific rights, not to define the rights we have.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

By the wording of the 2A it is defining the right as the ancient one of the right to resist. Rights are not from duties.

The English RKBA was written to allow protestants to protect themselves from Catholic rulers.

English common law right of bearing arms was/is the law of the land , there was no need to enumerate that right any more than to eat your food with a fork.

 

[eye95]

By the wording of the 2A it is defining the right as the ancient one of the right to resist. Rights are not from duties.

The English RKBA was written to allow protestants to protect themselves from Catholic rulers.

English common law right of bearing arms was/is the law of the land , there was no need to enumerate that right any more than to eat your food with a fork.

The wording of the 2A does no such thing. It does one thing and one thing only: It tells the state that it may not stop you from keeping and bearing your own personal weaponry. That Right supports a GGONIYP right to self-defense and to resist tyranny. However, it is not a specific protection of that Right.

We should resist the temptation to make the 2A more than the simple thing that it is.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[OC for ME]

I am not permitted to own a cannon or a tank, it is against my neighborhood covenants.....I could get a ticket.

Rifles, pistols, and shotguns is what the 2A is all about as far as I am concerned.

YMMV.