Ok, I have thinking about this for a long time now. And I cannot see a reason to allow guns to be legal based on the 2nd amendment and not allow bombs. They are both dangerous. They both can kill bystanders. They both require training to use properly. But to outlaw bombs is clearly against the framers’ intent.
The United States Constitution
The framers’ intent was to put off the decision of slavery until a great deal later. The framers’ intent was that the Representatives of a state would choose the Senators, and that the President would be chosen by electors who were not required to agree with the choice of the people at large. The framers’ intent did not include the President having relatively unchecked foreign policy powers. A great many things that were the framers’ intent are no longer true. The genius of the Constitution is not that it is iron-clad and rigid for all eternity, but that when necessary it can be changed to fit the needs of the people, but is resistant to the people’s fickle day-to-day whims.
As has been pointed out, in the framers’ time there was not much difference between the weaponry available to a civilian and a soldier, excepting cannons which were big and expensive. Furthermore, bombs of the day had a tiny yield compared to modern high explosives. If you think you can use, say, a shoulder-fired rocket and damage only your target, no more, no less, you’re fooling yourself, especially if you are in an urban setting, which is where a hypothetical fight for freedom is likely to be. That’s even more true for mortars and artillery, which are indirect fire weapons you use on distant or entrenched targets. I don’t see any problem in restricting those kind of weapons.
You are correct that the framers intent can be changed by Constitutional ammendment.
Until and unless we get a constitutional ammendment to outlaw bombs, then there is no question that bombs are legal today(regardless of what some current day judge may say or fantacize about in his dreams).
As of today, there still has been very little support for changing our constitution to make guns or bombs illegal for american citizens.
Licensing and permits, can make it difficult for some citizens to get guns, machine guns, and dynamite, but they still can be had since they are all still Constitutional. Federal weapon laws are a hastle and make things difficult(as well as being in violation of the spirit, intent, and purpose of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) , but still they do not prevent ownership of such weapons until and unless the Constitution is changed.
If you want bombs to be illegal, then do it the proper and legal way: change the Constitution.
However, even if you change the Constitution, some will argue that none of the Bill of Rights can be taken away, if they were endowed(given to us) by our Creator. Since the Constitution does not “give us” the Right to Bear Arms, even changing it can not take away the right. But that argument can be postponed, does not need to even be discussed, until after the Constitution is changed( if ever).
Bombs are generally classified as ordnance, not arms, and therefore do not fall under the protection of the Second Amendment.
You know, I looked up the same thing at dictionary.com and found the following:
(bolding mine)
Annnnd under “arms”:
(italics theirs, to show examples)
So I suppose under strict technical definitions “bombs” could be classified as “arms”.
that being said, I, as a person who does believe that I have the right to own and bear arms-being-guns, I don’t believe that the second amendment does extend to bombs of any sort.
The “Arms Race” between the US and the USSR was about guns, then?
SALT too?
The thing about being in the middle on this gun thing is that you can easily see the silliness at both extremes.
Oh, what a burden!
No. Please, no bombs. I’m kinda shaky on semi-auto as it is.
Pointy sticks are ok, but must be kept in safes.
Peace,
mangeorge
Posted by Major Kong:
Major Kong, you are assuming that purpose of the Second Amendment is to facilitate armed rebellion against the state. Can you back that up with any cite, something from the time when the Bill of Rights was adopted?
I agree with netscape 6 on this one. If guns get constitutional protection, so should bombs. If bombs don’t (which they don’t), neither should guns.
This conundrum has a simple solution. Time to get rid of constitutional protection for guns.
no guns should not be banned gex gex. to use free speech as an example. one act of goverment censorship does not mean we all should be censored.
netscape 6, I didn’t say that guns should be banned. I said guns should not have constitutional protection. There is a difference.
well if you don’t want to ban them, why do you care about removing their Constitutional protection?
anyway my anology still stands. just becouse one thing is unConstitutionaly denied protection is not excuse to ban something else.
anyway i have been thinking about it. plans for making bombs out of commonly available items are easily avilable on the internet. if someone wants to blow something up the ban on bombs does nothing.
the fact that Revolutionary soldiers mostly supplied their own weapons comes to mind.
If anyone reads the debates of the second amendment, armed rebellion was the primary purpose of the right to bear arms, (personal defense, assisting against foreign invaders, fighting indians, were all secondary reasons in their unanimous agreement that all citizens be allowed to keep and bear all types of weapons).
“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?” James Madison, Federalist Papers # 62.
“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.” Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers # 28.
"…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens… who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.’’ Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers # 29.
“Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that axists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
Noah Webster, “An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution” (1787) in Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888)
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyrany in government. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed… what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms… The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith on Nov. 13, 1787. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd, vol. 12, p. 356 (1955).
“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occassionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their powers to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article [the Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (from article in the Philadelphia Federal by Tench Cox ten days after the introduction of the Bill of Rights) Tench Coxe in “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution.” Under the pseudonym “A Pennsylvanian” in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1. Coxe sent a copy of his essay to James Madison along with a letter of the same date. Madison wrote back and the quote follows.
“The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them”
Tench Cox - An American Citizen IV, October 21, 1787
“The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law.” Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819. “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,” edited by Andrew A. Lipscomb, vol. 15, p. 213 (1904).
“The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people;…” Saint George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries (1803), Volume 1, Appendix, Note D [Section 13: Restraints on Powers of Congress con’t].
“To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them …” George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380 (June 14, 1788).
“The honorable gentleman who presides told us that, to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. Oh, sir! we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors can not assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America.” Patrick Henry, Shall Liberty or Empire be Sought?, from a June 5, 1788 speech in the Virginia Convention, called to ratify the Constitution of the United States.
“The importance of this article [Second Amendment] will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers.” Joseph Story, Dane Professor of Law in Harvard University, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833), Book III at 746, § 1858.
“An instance within the memory of some of this house will show us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man [Sir William Keith], who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, or real and natural strength, destroyed.” George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426, June 16, 1788.
Congress may give us a select militia which will, in fact, be a standing army–or Congress, afraid of a general militia, may say there shall be no militia at all. When a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed." John Smilie in the Pennsylvania convention. The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution, Vol. 2, Pages 508-509 (December 6, 1787).
“When we consider the great powers of Congress, there is great cause of alarm. They can disarm the militia. If they were armed, they would be a resource against great oppressions. The laws of a great empire are difficult to be executed. If the laws of the Union were oppressive, they could not carry them into effect, if the people were possessed of proper means of defence.” Rep. William Lenoir, 4 Elliot, Debates at 203 (July 30, 1788).
Thanks, Susanann. I know that was a bit of work.
BTW; Did anyone else notice the odd, but familiar use of commas in the above writings?
I didn’t state a position on whether I wanted to ban them or not. Just because I think the right of the people to own lampshades shouldn’t be enshrined in the constitution doesn’t mean I wish to see lampshades banned.
Concerning their place in the constitution, it seems to me that their protection has become irrelevent. This is not analogous to protecting freedom of speech yet having laws against defamation. This is a constitutional amendment that in practice does not grant protection to an entire subset (bombs) of that which it seeks to protect (arms). Arms are no longer properly protected by the constitution; the second amendment seems to apply only to guns or lesser weapons. If an amendment isn’t protecting what it’s meant to, then it’s use-by date is past - either change the amendment or get rid of it.