I’m not saying that at all (although it is open for debate whether bombs would be considered arms by the founding fathers or not). What I am saying is that, since militias don’t exist anymore, and since the entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to maintian a well-armed militia, that the 2nd Amendment no longer applies to anyone, and Americans no longer have the right to bear arms.
Italics mine.
It clearly says people, also I belive the founder fathers belived any able bodied man of proper age was in the unregulated militia. Since women are now equail to men from the goverment’s stand point (sadly intheory way more then in fact). I would say women are also in the unregulated militia. The point of the unregulated militia is so there will be a force to over through the goverment should it go corrupt (something history has shown happens to every goverment eventially).
as for if bombs fall under second amendment protections well i hesitently say yes, maybe. I have to think about it some.
Yes, but the constitution calls for a “regulated militia”. This means there are rules. The 2nd amendment could actually be referring to the necessity of each individual state to maintain a regulated militia that would prevent any tyrannical encroachment of the federal government.
Perhaps but it points directly at people having the right to bear arms, not militia members. I belive they mean regulated as in in the setence. arms are regulated the for proper functioning of the unregulated militia. If they meant state militia members only have the right to bear arms then why did say the people?
It points directly at the people having the right to bear arms in order to maintain a militia. That means that the right to bear arms is directly tied to maintaining a militia.
The amendment specifically says “well regulated militia”, not regulated arms. You cannot have a regulated militia that is unregulated. It seems obvious from the wording of the amendment that they intended the militia to be regulated.
They qualified it with the reason for allowing the people to bear arms. Specifically, in order to maintain a well regulated militia.
with the exception of children and the disabled, most people are in the unregulated militia.
Wouldn’t arms be neccesary to mantian the proper functioning of the unregulated militia?
the point is they said people, not militia members. If they meant state militia why wouldn’t they have said so?
The amendment makes no mention of an unregulated militia. It specifically says “regulated militia”. If you follow the letter of the amendment, then an unregulated militia does not, and did not, exist.
The amendment says that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.
It seems that the amendment is granting the right to bear arms for the sole purpose of creating well armed, regulated, state militia.
again the point is they said the people if they meant militia members why didn’t they say militia members?
I belive they said the people becouse they hoped should the goverment go bad or an invasion needs repelled the local militia’s ranks would swell with new recruits. a citizen army needs well, arms. People having their own arms would solve that.
They didn’t say “militia members” because the militia is not a standing military group. The militia doesn’t even exist until it is called for.
However, a corrupt government or foreign invasion could not be stopped by a civilian militia these days, so what’s the point?
Extending on that thought, since the militia does not exist most of the time, when it was called for wouldn’t it’s members have to supply their own arms? Therefore the people need to be armed for when/if the mililitia is called for.
are you sure about that? Didn’t Britain think the American Rebels would not stand a chance at the start of the Revolutionary war?
But the concept of the militia is antiquated. In the United States, I can guarantee you that the militia will never, ever be called on by the government to fight. That’s what we have the draft for.
Besides which, your average American would never be able to afford the types of weapons they’d need if they were to fight an actual war.
And the rebels would likely have lost if not for the aid of the French.
Also, keep in mind that, back then, there was very little difference between a normal citizen and a slodier. They both had access to mostly the same weapons. These days, the difference between an armed civilian and the actual armed forces in the US is like the difference between a hunting rifle and a stealth bomber. Citizens going up against the US militiary don’t stand a snowball’s chance.
So your advocating removing a Constitutional right then? Sounds pretty extreme. The precedence of removing a Constitional guaranteed right is dangerous, it weakens the power of the other rights. If the goverment remove one right, what stops the goverment from doing it again? Should freedom of the press become unfahionable what protects it? How about freedom from unwarrent search sezier? Freedom of speech?
It depends on how the rebels would fight the war, what technology is aviable at the time of war, ect. Time and progress have a way of changing curcumstance. curcumstance has changed since then, cercumstance will change again.
-
Regarding the arguement…Kong, I am pro-second amendment. This is clear. What I am not in favor of, is allowing every jim, joe and billy bob access to explosives. There is a safety issue that supersedes the cradle to the grave protection modern day america foists upon its’ sometimes unwilling residents. I’m for choice in seatbelt usage, and choice in the use of helmets on motorcycles, what I’m not in favor of is giving someone who barely knows how to write his own name (let alone knows the kinetic properties of a high order explosive) access to something that will instantly and indiscriminately kill potentially hundreds of people, just by an error in judgement, or lack of technological ability.
-
Regarding 2nd amendment interpretation.
The Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment II
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.
While it is obvious that the framers meant this amendment to insure that what happened to them, would not happen to future generations (persecution, repressive taxation etc.) by way of a “well regulated militia”. IMO however, there arose a greater need with the birth of a new republic to protect ever growing infrastructure from all enemies foreign or domestic. This protection was provided by common men who served in times of danger as a militia. I believe this to be true, even today. Yes, general populace vs. the modern soldier, we’d be out gunned, but I for one will be damned if I will allow my freedoms to be threatened by anyone, especially the government I pay for, and I will fight in the streets if necessary to protect the hard won liberties, whether I’m outgunned or not.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by “normal citizen”. As long as you can pass a background check and can pay the $200 tax (plus whatever the rifle costs), you are free to purchase an assault rifle.
Whether they are considered or not is irrelevant.
US Code TITLE 10 Subtitle A PART I CHAPTER 13
Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
The classes of the militia are -
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia
How much training would that be exactly? Are you at all familiar with what training is required for, say a CCW permit?
Yes. US forces with B-52s armed with smart bombs.
The Founding Fathers realized that the Constitution/Bill of Rights is a living document. How many Amendments have been added since its inception? And none of the rights listed in the BofR are absolute or black and white. Should we have the right to yell “fire” in a theater? Should the press have the right to libel or slander or print military secrets that could get people killed?
Just because something is written down does not mean we should surrender our common sense.
Not counting the Bill of Rights (which was there from the Constitution’s intial implimentation), 17. Although prohibition, and the Amendment to repeal it cancel each other out. So really since the Constitution’s intial implmintation there have been 15 changes. Clearly modifing the Constitution is not something taken lightly.
How many Admendments removed a right from the bill of rights? 0.
Living in a free country? priceless.
Well I am inclined to agree with you about that. How ever keeping and bearing arms hurts no body. Using one on someone, with one does, and that is a crime, murder. I hate to use this tired old saying but, Arms don’t kill people, I do, oh wait I mean people do:D
The Bill of Rights is the most important (nonreligious) document in the US. If we decide to remove one, what protects the others from removel? Freedom of speech, right to a fair trail, ect. are examples of basic human rights. The precedent of removing a right weakens the other rights. One generation decides maybe we should have secret evidence, well there goes right to a fair trial. With each Right the others are weakened. Based on stuff like the the DMCA, and the Patriot act, ect. The goverment seems it would not give them back. It seems then once a Right is gone, it’s gone. The bill of Rgihts is like an arch. Removing one stone weakens the whole thing. While the Constitutional power to edit the Bill or Rights is there for us to use, the safest thing to for freedom and liberty is not to use that power.
Susanann doesn’t do cites. Never has, never will. She does drive-by posting pretty well though.
Major Kong, I guess foreign people then should also be allowed by the US government to keep any weapons they like. Even if their name is Saddam? Do you agree?
During the 18th century, weren’t bombs, mines, cannons, etc, referred to as ordnance, and distinct from arms, which included firearms and melee weapons?
A cite for what?
That dynamite was made illegal in 1970? Dont you believe that dynamite is now (generally) illegal(heavily regulated)? Didnt you ever hear of the federal explosives law? Just what do you think we are discussing here?
Please re-read the name of this topic: “should bombs be legal”, (that kind of implies that they are now illegal, does it not?).
That few criminals used dynamite from 1789 to 1970? What do yo want to see, a 100,000,000 newspapers from 1789 to 1970 with no virtually mention of criminal dynamite bombings?
That my family used to buy dynamite at the hardware store?
What do you want to see, the cash register receipts we got when we bought dynamite to blow up stumps on our ranch?