A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
One possible interpretation is what I refer to the literal interpretation, that being that the US/Federal government has no right or power what so ever in regards to limiting or regulating the ability of US citizens to keep and bear arms (others would say this applies only to state militias).
My question regards individuals who allege to hold with this interpretation, that constitutionally speaking there should be no limits on individual’s rights to bear arms. If this was true, it seems to me you would have to agree that individuals should be allowed to own tanks, heavy artillery, atomic bombs, ground to air missiles, etc., etc. Do you agree with this? What am I missing?
The Supreme Court ruled a while ago that a sawed-off shotgun wasn’t protected by the 2nd because it wasn’t useful in arming a state militia. Using that rationale you could argue that heavy military arms are useful and should be in the hands of private citizens, but I don’t think it would get too far. Heavy arms require a lot more training and upkeep than small arms, and could be less useful to a private militia than are rifles and pistols. Even the 5th Circuit ruling that’s to date the broadest reading of the 2nd held that the fact that the 2nd protects individual’s rights to bear arms “does not mean that those rights may never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored…exceptions or restrictions.”
Actually, you spelled it correctly the first time …
This probably belongs in great debates. You’ve struck to the heart of the matter by refering to the “literal interpretation.” If the amendment began with the words “The right of …” then your description of the literal interpretation would be the only possible one. Right or wrong, though, the fact that the framers bothered not only to include that language about a well regulated militia, but also felt it was salient enough to preface the right being granted, probably means they were not offering a free-for-all. I say probably, because no matter what they meant, all we have is what they wrote down. Both sides of this issue portray their interpretation as the “literal” one. Advocates of gun control cite the first half of the wording, opponents the second. Obviously, the framers could never have forseen the kinds of weapons you list. That doesn’t mean they would have forbidden them, but common sense would suggest that they would have at least been more explicit about where to draw the line, if anywhere.
This has always seemed to me to be a perfect condidate for revision (notice please that I am not making any suggestions about which direction to take it). The 25th Amendment is a perfect example of vague language corrected. Before that Amendment, it was, strictly speaking, not clear if a Vice President would actually become President (in the event of the death or other removal of the President), or simply assume the duties. Every such Vice President until Ford became President either by a) declaring that it was so, or b) precident. The 25th is worded in very clear language, describing when a VP does and does not automatically become President.
The Second Amendment is ambiguous. So why hasn’t congress gotten their act together and tightened up the language? I think people like that it’s ambiguous. That wording lets Joe America support either side of the argument, and if the ambuguity were removed, we’d find ourselves on one extreme or the other. I think the average American would like to be allowed to own a handgun, but would like it if everyone else were prohibited from buying a hydrogen bomb. The wording of the 2nd gives us some wiggle room, somewhere between those two. The argument will always be about where to draw the line. I think very, very few people would openly argue that no line exists.
I really don’t want a debate. As a matter of fact, I guess I would rather gun control advocates not contribute to this discussion. It is a questions you cannot answer since it is ask of gun rights people.
No, I am asking people who believe the second ammendment prohibits arms control, if this means it prevents any form of arms control, or allows some type of arms control. For those who believe it prohibits any form of arms control, I am asking if they would be comfortable with their neigbor owning a MBT, SSM or atomic bomb. Sorry for the lack of clarity in my question.
For the first 150 years or so of the US’s existance, that’s exactly how it was. Might not have had atomic bombs and SAMs, but private citizens could own any weapon in existance. Cannons, even battleships (There were some times that the government would even call on such people to help them out. Privateers, for example). I don’t remember exactly when this changed, but I think it was in the late 20s or early 30s (If anyone knows, please say so!).
On the other hand, it’s pretty likely that NBC weapons are on a scale vastly different than anyone could imagine at the time.
Currently, there is a distinction between arms (Typical firearms), and ordinance (Explosives, artillery, etc), though there has not always been one.
shrugs Though it might be a moot point. I don’t think anyone out there has a few million spare to buy up an Abrams, so I don’t think it’d make much of a big deal. Even if they could, there’s no way that’s street-legal
The “Constitutional Right to own a gun” advocates that I have talked to admit that they don’t want convicted felons to own guns. However the Second Ammendment does not list exceptions. Either the Second Ammendment means “everybody” and we need to change the Second Ammendment, or it means “well regulated”, which means that the States can protect their citizens from AK-47s, etc. Contrary to John Ashcroft and the NRA, The Supreme Court has ruled that the States do have the right to regulate arms )Second Ammendment Supreme Court Cases).
The bottom line is that there must be a compromise between protecting the public and who can own which kind of “Arms”. Maybe Cecil is right and we do need to revise the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has ruled that it is up to the States to regulate arms.
I think it was The Master who said that the first half of the amendment is kinda vague, but the second half is not.
What I’d like to see is what debate went on at the time… what the people back then had to say about this. Also, whether or not private citizens were able to own heavy military arms… cannons, warships, or … uh…
You are not missing anything. Any american citizen COULD(and did) own such things until 1968.
Up thru 1968, any American could buy a bazooka, thru the mail, for just $49.99, a mortar for $19.99, etc. (rockets and shells were $5.00 each)
From 1789 until 1934, an American could own any weapon in the world. After 1934, nearly every weapon in the world except machine guns and sawed off shotguns were available and not even regulated. Dynamite was commonly sold in hardware stores until 1970.
Nobody, from George Washington thru John Kennedy(an NRA member) had a problem with this.
It is only in very recent times that some people think that americans should not be able to own all types of weapons.
Actually, these weapons are still ownable, but they are now regulated/taxed. You can still buy such weapons, even a machine gun if you submit an application with a $200.00 tax(in most states). There are only a few states(e.g California and New Jersey) which have “state” laws against their citizens owning machine guns for example(not my state though, I can own them if I wanted, but I see no need or desire to have one)
Machine guns, pen guns, and sawed off shotguns were the very first weapons to be federally taxed beginning in 1934.
Military explosive weapons such as artillary, mortars, cannon, bazookas, were added to the tax lists in 1968.
Dynamite regulated in 1970.
If you are not a felon, and you dont live in one of the very few states which prohibit such weapons, then you will have no problem getting them by applying for a license. For example, there are hundreds of thousands of legally owned machine guns by citizens of the United States. There are machine gun “meets”, where citizens who own machine guns, get together and have target shoots, the most famous one being in Kentucky.
I personally have shot 17 different types of privately owned machine guns, and I could one one if I wanted to , but I cant think of why I would want one. They are generally a waste of ammunition. The larger exposive weapons, require a lot of private land that you dont mind blowing up(cant do that on state land). If you own a few thosand acres in Nebraska and dont have any cattle, then you might want to buy a grenade launcher and have some fun.
On the other hand, atomic bombs, germ warfare, poison gas, other weapons of “mass destruction” which cannot be “targeted” soley on its intended, may be a different story, and can be argued.
The Libertarian party, for example, is against private ownership of weapons of mass destruction, since the firing of such weapons, would inevitably lead to innocent people being killed, as they are uncontrolable in their results and effects.
That seems to be a reasonable party platform on their part, since I dont see how anyone can shoot off a germ bomb or an atomic bomb and NOT kill an innocent.
Furthermore, one can even argue, that not even “governments”, not even the United States, should be allowed to own, posses, or fire, atomic bombs, or other weapons of mass destruction (let alone civilians) which necessarily kill noncombatant innocent civilians.
Many people feel it is wrong for innocent civilians to be killed, even in wartime, even by bombs fired by the United States, e.g, the bombing of Berlin, Tokyo, Hiroshima, etc .
The First Amendment is written in similarly absolutist terms, but everyone recognizes that it does not protect libel, slander, false advertising or falsely crying fire in a crowded theatre. The Second Amendment can easily be read as similarly protecting individual rights, but still allowing the government an obvious exception for convicted felons.
