No. That argument is NOT valid.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/index.html
Search under ‘militia’
You’ve just stated one of the Gun Control Movement’s more common fantasies: That only the standing military (Armed Forces, Reserves, and National Guard) constitute the militia. The fact is, if you’re male, citizen, and between 17 and 45, you’re a member of the militia, and as such, are liable for the national defense, excepting for certain narrow conditions. Deal with it.
Actually, didn’t later law expand that to “any adult”?
<ahem>
Rights are just a figment of the collective imagination.
If they really were rights, we wouldn’t need to talk about them, because we could not violate them, and you could never have them taken away.
Therefore, gun ownership is a privilege.
I understand that “arms” as used in the 2d Amendment means “firearms”, but in a more general sense it can mean any sort of weapon: swords, nunchuks, throwing stars, switchblades, etc. How is it that most of these weapons are outright illegal in many places, while guns are not? Guns are far deadlier than most other weapons, and are often easily concealed. Before any of you respond, let me make it clear where I stand on this issue: I am in favor of gun control. I don’t think that guns cause violence, but they certainly make it easier to commit violence. Those of you who read this thread and own guns are probably responsible owners, but you certainly cannot argue that the same is true for the many criminals who use guns to commit crimes. While the Framers probably did intend that your average citizen should be able to own a gun, they probably did not forsee inner city gang wars. If gun control is counter to the 2d Amendment, then I say it’s time for a new Amendment. And there’s nothing unconstitutional about that.
the only way you could argue that the 2nd amendment is obsolete is if you contend that it doesn’t provide individuals the right to own arms that would give them a reasonable fighting chance against the us military. are you saying that private citizens shouldn’t be allowed to own fully armed f-16’s? don’t forget, sidewinder missiles don’t kill people, people kill people.
Nope, that’s current law. Exclusions to duty are listed in section 312, and proper use of the militia is discussed in section 332. Women whom are members of the National Guard are specifically included, but women are otherwise not addressed.
Are you suggesting that because some small fraction of the population are *ssholes, the law-abiding majority should lose their rights? If so, you and I have a major difference of opinion.
There are something like 35,000 gun control laws on the books in these here United States. We don’t need more laws, we don’t need another Amendment. We need effective enforcement of the existing law, simplification/consolodation of existing law (to make it easier to enforce), and social solutions to the root causes of crime (such as lack of education, lack of opportunity, social injustice). I DON’T mean lock 'em up and throw away the key, I mean rehabilitate: Help the criminals find meaningfull places in society, require restitution, eliminate destructive punishment, expect responsibility for people’s actions, treat the addictions/conditions that contribute to violent behavior, follow-up on restraining orders and parolees, enforce reasonable laws, stop throwing away people.
This doesn’t mean do away with prison: Some people are too dangerous to let loose, but let’s stop filling them with recoverable citizens.
And stop picking on my firearms: They didn’t create the crime, and their absence won’t stop the crime.
[/rant]
Do you know of a legitimate channel by which a private citizen can purchase F-16s and Sidewinder missiles, or most modern military hardware for that matter? I certainly never heard of one. What about homemade explosives? You don’t hear much about the right to own pipe bombs. And there’s still my other question of why guns are legal but martial arts type weapons often aren’t.
Actually I agree with you for the most part, especially the part about rehabilitation of criminals. And the gun control laws we do have do need better enforcement. However, on the basic point of right vs. priviledge I say priviledge, and this is why I say we should make a new Amendment. Society is not the same now as it was in 1789.
It’s called The Bill of Rights for a reason.
You can amend it if you like (if you can get the agreement of the vast majority of the rest of the nation), but until then, it’s still a right.
Actually:
Even in Colonial days, the Gov’t was expected to provide the heavy stuff, such as ships, cannon, and grenades (although private citizens were welcome to provide warships {privateers}). The average joe was only expected to provide their own small arms.
Even today, machine guns, including M-16s, are available for legal sale to private citizens. You just have to be willing to pay for the background check and the license (not cheap!).
Hi, Opal!
Damn: Missed my chance to brag about post 100. :rolleyes:
no, i don’t. gun control opponents use the second amendment to defend their right to own guns without government regulation. according to the nra, the second amendment provides a way for citizens to protect themselves against a potentially corrupt national military. so either the nra supports private ownership of f16’s and b2 bombers or they’re full of shit. i’ll assume they don’t support private ownership f16’s and b2 bombers. draw your own conclusions.
i don’t know. do you think guns should be illegal or martial arts weapons should be legal? one reason the nra would give is that chinese stars are not legitimate militia weapons. that’s why they support making sawed off shotguns illegal.
you’re not familiar with anti-gun control rhetoric, are you? you may want to check out some of the past gun threads for details.
Zwaldd, you’re opening yourself up for a Pit thread. Drop this “or they’re full of shit” crap.
The 2nd Amendment is designed to ensure that a private citizen can protect himself, whether from other private citizens or from larger entities. An F-16 or a B-2 would be an item that is too much for a private citizen to handle.
There comes a point where the benefits of a weapon system outweighs the advantages. You, sir, are assuming that the NRA supports an environment of ZERO CONTROL, which, as has been explained to you in the past, is NOT TRUE. The NRA supports REASONABLE CONTROLS. Providing individual citizens with the power to obliterate entire city blocks is not covered by the 2nd Amendment simply because it WILL NOT help secure a Free State.
See, a gun is designed for one-on-one conflicts. A fighter plane/missile/nuclear weapon is designed for one-on-many conflicts… also known as “mass destruction” (relative to a handgun, anyway). By trying to compare handguns to heavy explosives, you show yourself to be more insane and irrational than those that you’re trying to insult.
Forgot this…
Barbarian…
Bullshit. Because something can be taken away, it doesn’t exist? Please.
If I can kill somebody, does that mean their life never existed in the first place? If I can take your car, does that mean you never had it in the first place?
Just because rights can be violated it doesn’t mean they don’t exist… it just means that they require constant vigilance to uphold.
Tranquilis wrote:
Just FTR, that law (10 USC 331 et seq.) wasn’t passed until 1906, and the “unregulated militia” (the members of the militia who are not members of the regular armed forces or national guard) has never been called into actual service.
Yet.
Replace “unregulated militia” with “unorganized militia” in my message above.
The Onion apologizes for this error.
don’t threaten me. i post what i post. open a pit thread if you want.
well then, may i direct you to this page from the nra website: http://www.nraila.org/show.cgi?page=/research/20000504-SecondAmendment-001.shtml
it offers this explanation as to why a short barreled shotgun is not protected by the 2nd amendment:
Thus, in order for a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the court held, the firearm should be a militia type arm.
clearly, spoofe, a short barreled shotgun would be an excellent weapon for personal defense, would it not? if one purpose of the 2nd amendment is to guarantee the right to bear arms for protection against private citizens, on what grounds does the nra support the notion that a short barreled shotgun is not constitutionally protected?
Before that, there were The Articles of War. One certainly hopes it’s never called to force.
zwaldd
A concealable, low detectabilty, ranged weapon (ie shuriken, weapons with silencers) are bad things, only one purpose, hurting people without being spotted. Someone who is in legitimate need of lethal force has no need to conceal their actions.
As far as swords and such I’m not sure how the actual laws work.