# The right to bear arms **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 17, 2017, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056 "2017-02-17T15:12:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2017, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/61 "2017-02-19T01:51:54Z")
Under U.S. federal law: It’s illegal “to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon” ([U.S. 18 § 229](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/229)) with the penalty being a fine, imprisonment “for any term of years”, or both; and the death penalty or imprisonment for life if the violation results in the death of another person ([18 U.S.C. § 229A](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/229A)). Any person who “knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization to do so, or attempts, threatens, or conspires to do the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both”. Additionally, knowingly possessing “any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system of a type or in a quantity that, under the circumstances, is not reasonably justified by a prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purpose, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both” ([18 U.S. Code § 175](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/175)). It’s illegal to “knowingly participate in the development of, manufacture, produce, transfer, acquire, receive, possess, import, export, or use, or possess and threaten to use, any atomic weapon” ([42 U.S. Code § 2122](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2122)). The penalties for a violation of that section are a fine of “not more than $2,000,000” and “a term of imprisonment not less than 25 years or to imprisonment for life”; and if the violation includes using, attempting or conspiring to use, or possessing and threatening to use an atomic weapon, the imprisonment is bumped up to “not less than 30 years” or life; and if the death of another person results from the violation of 42 U.S. Code § 2122, the penalty is imprisonment for life ([42 U.S. Code § 2272](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2272)). (So…if you kill somebody with nerve gas, you can get the death penalty, but if you kill someone with anthrax or a _nuclear weapon_, then the maximum penalty is life in prison? Now _that_’s odd. Although I’m sure there are other terrorism-related charges that would apply if you set off a nuke on American soil, and some of those would put the death penalty on the table.) I think it’s fairly safe to say that even post-_Heller_ and _McDonald_, SCOTUS won’t likely be striking down any of these laws anytime soon. ---
**Author:** ![Weisshund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ba8739/32.png) [@Weisshund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weisshund)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2017, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/62 "2017-02-19T02:12:49Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > (So…if you kill somebody with nerve gas, you can get the death penalty, but if you kill someone with anthrax or a _nuclear weapon_, then the maximum penalty is life in prison? Now _that_’s odd. Although I’m sure there are other terrorism-related charges that would apply if you set off a nuke on American soil, and some of those would put the death penalty on the table.) I would think, if you actually kill someone, you would get the above charges, then the murder charges, then a bunch of civil and criminal charges, some kind of war charges, perhaps some kind of world criminal charges, charges of terrorism if you are not a recognized government and serve all sentences sequentially in a concrete box 400 feet underground at some undisclosed location someplace where you would rot until you die, which wont be long because i doubt anyone will feed or water you. If they didn’t hang or shoot you first. But yes, i find it kind of amusing that one has death penalty the other does not guess it depended on the time period it came into effect and who wrote it? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2017, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/63 "2017-02-19T02:30:31Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’m not sure what you are disagreeing with, but we can separate that statement to clarify. Let’s see, a gun ban would disarm law abiding people. Do you agree? Not even sure what you are on about. You suggested that a gun ban will only leave criminals with guns and implied the law abiding citizens will be at their mercy which would, in turn, suggest that criminals would run rampant against the unarmed citizens who now have no means to defend themselves. I have provided evidence that this would not be the case. Your turn to prove I’m wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Weisshund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ba8739/32.png) [@Weisshund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weisshund)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2017, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/64 "2017-02-19T02:55:12Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Not even sure what you are on about. > > You suggested that a gun ban will only leave criminals with guns and implied the law abiding citizens will be at their mercy which would, in turn, suggest that criminals would run rampant against the unarmed citizens who now have no means to defend themselves. > > I have provided evidence that this would not be the case. Your turn to prove I’m wrong. In the united states? Where some criminal organizations and gangs are armed better than the police and on par with a military infantry unit? Yes, i can see where that would not fare well, because only the law abiding citizens would turn in the guns, the gangs and criminals surely would not. And they do not buy these things through the same channels law abiding people do. And the law already tries like hell to close down those channels to no avail, it’s kind of like trying to stop drugs from appearing. So, i would have to agree that what you create is a situation that i now know that i could break into anyone’s home with no fears of being shot in the process. You can not stop me, the police will not stop me because you wont get them there in time if at all, and it is not actually their job to stop me, it would be impossible for them to. Maybe if i did not already have an established underground base of arms rivaling that of a small country, it might work up to the point the unarmed citizens need to defend themselves against legal agencies gone rogue anyways. But not in a situation where i have 6 new AK’s 2 cases of frags, and 2 RPG’s fresh off the van from Tijuana and you got nothing. It is easier for me to buy already banned, already illegal weapons that have entered the country illegally and are being sold illegally, than it is for me to go to walmart and buy a 410 shotgun to shoot skeet. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2017, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/65 "2017-02-19T03:37:45Z")
> [@Weisshund](#): > > In the united states? > Where some criminal organizations and gangs are armed better than the police and on par with a military infantry unit? > > Yes, i can see where that would not fare well, because only the law abiding citizens would turn in the guns, the gangs and criminals surely would not. > And they do not buy these things through the same channels law abiding people do. > And the law already tries like hell to close down those channels to no avail, it’s kind of like trying to stop drugs from appearing. Hysteria. See post #46. It is amazing how often this mantra repeats. If you are puzzled how Trumpians can believe, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that 3 million illegal immigrants voted for Clinton in the last election look in a mirror. That’s you. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2017, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/66 "2017-02-19T04:05:27Z")
> [@Weisshund](#): > > In the united states? > Where some criminal organizations and gangs are armed better than the police and on par with a military infantry unit? How many people have been killed or injured in crimes committed with light mortars, grenade launchers, recoilless rifles and heavy machineguns? > [@Weisshund](#): > > So, i would have to agree that what you create is a situation that i now know that i could break into anyone’s home with no fears of being shot in the process. But…you do realize there are still law enforcement agencies, right? > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > If you are puzzled how Trumpians can believe, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that 3 million illegal immigrants voted for Clinton in the last election look in a mirror. That’s you. And yet for all their talk of using their guns to “rise up against tyranny”, they have no idea what a tyrant looks like. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2017, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/67 "2017-02-19T16:15:53Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Not even sure what you are on about. Ok, I thought it was pretty clear but I’ll try again. You seem to be contesting my statement so I’m trying to explore which part or parts you are contesting. My statement was comprised two elements. The part you quoted with my question was the first element so it was a question to determine if that was among the things you were contesting. This is the first element: \*\*[a national gun ban] \*‘would disarm law abiding people’ \*\*\*.So, what I am asking is if you agree with the first element. Do you? If there were a national gun ban, do you think that law abiding people would then be disarmed [of guns]? The second element was: \*\*_‘and leave [law abiding people] at the mercy of criminals.’_ \*\* Do you agree with that element? I stated two elements, and this is how you’ve interpreted it: > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > You suggested that a gun ban will only leave criminals with guns and implied the law abiding citizens will be at their mercy which would, in turn, \*\*suggest that criminals would run rampant against the unarmed citizens \*\*who now have no means to defend themselves. In your interpretation, you’ve added a third element which I’ve bolded. Not sure why you constructed the strawman, but it’s not my assertion. I did not say that violent crime would increase or decrease, or make any statement about the rate of these things. I did say that in the event of violent crime, those that are disarmed would not have firearms as a means to defend themselves. > [@](#): > > I have provided evidence that this would not be the case. Your turn to prove I’m wrong. For the sake of argument, no you haven’t. First, your own cite describes the difficulty of applying the results if any that were achieved in Australia to the US since the two countries are very different in ways related to firearms and crime. Second, you haven’t established a causal link between the Australian NFA and the results that you are claiming. So I’m not saying you are proven wrong, but you haven’t established that you are right and the evidence you’ve provided in your attempt to do so has been weak for reasons already mentioned. And just so I’m clear on your position, you didn’t address this part: > [@Bone](#): > > So your assertion is that as a result of the NFA in Australia, fewer people died as a result of crime than they would have without the NFA - is that a fair interpretation? ---
**Author:** ![Daylate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9dc877/32.png) [@Daylate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daylate)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2017, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/68 "2017-02-19T18:13:30Z")
> [@](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by Weisshund > So, i would have to agree that what you create is a situation that i now know that i could break into anyone’s home with no fears of being shot in the process. > But…you do realize there are still law enforcement agencies, right? You’re right, we still would have law enforcement agencies. And just remember, “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away”. ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2017, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/69 "2017-02-19T23:41:00Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > If we are going with your notion that they could foresee improvements in weapons and understand what that meant I doubt they would have gladly written a protection for arms that would lead to rampant gun violence in US cities. So they didn’t, they wrote the amendment to protect ownership when connected with a well regulated militia. > > They did not guess everyone would simply ignore what was written though. But your fanciful theory evaporates when one understands that the 2nd Amendment does not grant / give / create or otherwise establish the right to arms. To argue that words upon which the right in no manner depend, were composed to only sanction limited, approved uses of arms, is absurd and anti-constitutional (irreconcilable with the principle of _retained_ rights). The fact is, the right has been recognized to exist without reference to the 2nd Amendment (and the Constitution). That SCOTUS has said time and time again (going on 140 years) that the right to arms is not granted by the 2nd thus is not in any manner dependent upon the Constitution, means your “it’s for the militia” fantasy, is bullocks. Accept what SCOTUS has been boringly consistent on, the right to arms is not – “in any manner dependent upon [the Constitution] for its existence” – means the right can not be said to be conditioned upon or qualified by or dependent upon a structure (the militia) that is itself, entirely dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. Please, just give it up. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2017, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/70 "2017-02-20T02:00:11Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Good thing I didn’t do that then. Chefguy may have brought up the argument but you seemed to be advancing it a bit at least. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2017, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/71 "2017-02-20T02:14:30Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > So…banning guns did NOT increase crime which suggests private ownership of guns plays NO role in preventing or lessening crime. > > Gun deaths decreased dramatically after the ban…not just on a slow trend down but [plummeted](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/world/australia/australia-gun-ban-shooting.html?_r=0). > > So, private gun ownership has no effect on overall crime rates and a ban dramatically lowers deaths by guns. > > I fail to see the benefit of having guns be a part of society here. There is almost no upside. It is all downside. So how much did the overall murder rate drop from this plummeting gun death rate? What’s that you say? It remained about the same? The robbery rate increased but because there was already a trend of dropping robbery rates, the robbery rate eventually dropped to below its pre-ban level? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2017, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/72 "2017-02-20T18:09:33Z")
> [@Abatis](#): > > But your fanciful theory evaporates when one understands that the 2nd Amendment does not grant / give / create or otherwise establish the right to arms. To argue that words upon which the right in no manner depend, were composed to only sanction limited, approved uses of arms, is absurd and anti-constitutional (irreconcilable with the principle of _retained_ rights). I think there’s two arguments here. The point that the text of the 2nd Amendment relies upon the reasoning of the “well regulated militia being necessary” but not _contingent_ upon it seems reasonable to me. It’s “this is why”, but not, “so long as this is so then this”. It’s a statement, not a requirement. The other argument, of course, is that judging by that statement, it’s also reasonable to say that the why which existed at the time of the writing and which the writers would be thinking of doesn’t exist any more, or, at least, isn’t taken advantage of. So, to my mind, it’s fair to say “The well regulated militia being necessary makes no difference at all as to whether there is a right to bear arms; but the basis for that right as originally conceived does not seem to exist any more.” Which, of course, doesn’t mean there is no _other_ basis or need. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2017, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/73 "2017-02-20T18:11:04Z")
> [@Daylate](#): > > You’re right, we still would have law enforcement agencies. And just remember, “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away”. “When seconds count, your assailant already has a gun because they obtained it legally” seems less catchy but as potentially accurate. ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2017, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/74 "2017-02-20T23:44:16Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > The point that the text of the 2nd Amendment relies upon the reasoning of the “well regulated militia being necessary” but not _contingent_ upon it seems reasonable to me. I see the declaratory clause as a statement of principle that aligns with the statements commonly found in state RKBA provisions. "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_"is inextricably meshed (philosophically) with, “_as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up_.” To the framers each represented the same sentiment . . . The declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment only re-affirms what once was a universally understood and accepted maxim of a republic, that the armed citizenry dispenses with the need for a standing army (in times of peace) and those armed citizens stand as a barrier to foreign invasion and domestic tyranny (thus ensuring the free state). > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > It’s “this is why”, but not, “so long as this is so then this”. It’s a statement, not a requirement. Well for me the declaratory clause can only be said to be a statement of why the **AMENDMENT** exists and as such it can not qualify, condition, modify or constrain the pre-existing right; it only states one reason (a political one) why the never surrendered / fully retained right is being forever shielded from federal government interference. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > The other argument, of course, is that judging by that statement, it’s also reasonable to say that the why which existed at the time of the writing and which the writers would be thinking of doesn’t exist any more, or, at least, isn’t taken advantage of. To me it does exist and it is being kept up. The 2nd Amendment’s prohibition on the government disarming the citizenry forever preserves the numerical superiority of armed citizens to standing army soldiers . . . Which ensures that the people can enforce any rescinding of their consent to be governed. Back in 1788, Madison said that if the nation could maintain an army that comprised 1% of the population, those troops would be opposed by armed citizens 17 to 1. Today, with active duty and reserve armed forces numbering about 2.8 million, our 75 million armed citizens outnumber the “standing army” by 27 to 1. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > So, to my mind, it’s fair to say “The well regulated militia being necessary makes no difference at all as to whether there is a right to bear arms; but the basis for that right as originally conceived does not seem to exist any more.” Which, of course, doesn’t mean there is no _other_ basis or need. But again, the right wasn’t “conceived”, the right to arms doesn’t exist because the 2nd Amendment is there or what i says, the right exists and is possessed by the citizen because no power was ever granted by “We the People” to the federal government to allow it to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of he private citizen. . ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2017, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/75 "2017-02-21T17:02:57Z")
> [@Abatis](#): > > I see the declaratory clause as a statement of principle that aligns with the statements commonly found in state RKBA provisions. "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_"is inextricably meshed (philosophically) with, “_as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up_.” To the framers each represented the same sentiment . . . > > The declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment only re-affirms what once was a universally understood and accepted maxim of a republic, that the armed citizenry dispenses with the need for a standing army (in times of peace) and those armed citizens stand as a barrier to foreign invasion and domestic tyranny (thus ensuring the free state). I’m not sure I’d say that this was a “universally understood and acepted maxim of a republic”, given that my understanding is that historically speaking the US had a large role in defining those republican maxims, along with France. My republican history knowledge isn’t great, however. Do you have some cites for this point? > [@](#): > > Well for me the declaratory clause can only be said to be a statement of why the **AMENDMENT** exists and as such it can not qualify, condition, modify or constrain the pre-existing right; it only states one reason (a political one) why the never surrendered / fully retained right is being forever shielded from federal government interference. That seems illogical to me. If there’s a pre-existing reason, then point out the pre-existing reason - or point to the Ninth Amendment. You don’t need a new reason if there already is one. No, it makes more sense to me to say that this was the, or at least the prime, reason for the 2nd Amendment’s existence. Beyond that point we’d have to assume poor writing on the part of the writers, which, besides likely not being too popular, brings the whole question of trying to identify motives from the text into question. > [@](#): > > To me it does exist and it is being kept up. The 2nd Amendment’s prohibition on the government disarming the citizenry forever preserves the numerical superiority of armed citizens to standing army soldiers . . . Which ensures that the people can enforce any rescinding of their consent to be governed. No, it doesn’t; the legality of conscription would seem to put paid to that notion. > [@](#): > > Back in 1788, Madison said that if the nation could maintain an army that comprised 1% of the population, those troops would be opposed by armed citizens 17 to 1. Today, with active duty and reserve armed forces numbering about 2.8 million, our 75 million armed citizens outnumber the “standing army” by 27 to 1. …if they were allayed against each other. There’s zero guarantee so far as I can tell that “the people” would not arrange themselves alongside the soldiery so as to abrogate even their own rights, let alone the rights of some minority. History is replete with examples of dictactors and tyrants taking over a nation with the backing of the military… and the willing populace. > [@](#): > > But again, the right wasn’t “conceived”, the right to arms doesn’t exist because the 2nd Amendment is there or what i says, the right exists and is possessed by the citizen because no power was ever granted by “We the People” to the federal government to allow it to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of he private citizen. The right as defined in the 2nd was conceived. Otherwise there would be no need to _have_ the 2nd Amendment. You can of course talk about individual rights pre-government, but absent the 2nd those rights are significantly more constrainable; a big difference. And personally I don’t believe in any rights that don’t come from some agreement between parties. As a concept it doesn’t really make sense to me. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2017, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/76 "2017-02-21T18:55:04Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > And personally I don’t believe in any rights that don’t come from some agreement between parties. As a concept it doesn’t really make sense to me. The constitution of the United States and the Supreme Court disagrees with you. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2017, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/77 "2017-02-21T19:07:58Z")
Yes, indeed! You’ll note I put “personally” in there to indicate this was a “personal” opinion. And that I referred to the Ninth Amendment in that same post in a discussion of rights not enumerated by the government still existing. So; yes. Obviously. My post relies upon that. What was your point? That my opinion doesn’t matter? Sure, I’d be the first to say so. In fact, I was. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2017, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/78 "2017-02-21T19:32:12Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > So; yes. Obviously. My post relies upon that. What was your point? That my opinion doesn’t matter? Sure, I’d be the first to say so. In fact, I was. I should have fleshed that out further. In your previous post #75, you make several statements that imply this understanding isn’t the correct one. I started to mentally construct a response to each, but it grew convoluted because it’s like interjecting into the middle of an ongoing conversation. For example, you question the universal understood maxim of the republic as it relates to an armed citizenry. But since this is discussed in Federalist 46, and was known in the English Bill of Rights in 1689, and it’s how the Constitution was drafted and its Bill of Rights were constructed, understanding that this is the case would seem to rebut your earlier notion that it wasn’t an understood maxim. I also clipped the earlier statement: > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > The right as defined in the 2nd was conceived. Otherwise there would be no need to _have_ the 2nd Amendment. You can of course talk about individual rights pre-government, but absent the 2nd those rights are significantly more constrainable; a big difference. This section is not prefaced as your personal opinion and this the Constitution and the Supreme Court also disagrees with. The right as defined in the 2nd was and is pre-existing. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2017, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/79 "2017-02-21T20:40:26Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I should have fleshed that out further. In your previous post #75, you make several statements that imply this understanding isn’t the correct one. I started to mentally construct a response to each, but it grew convoluted because it’s like interjecting into the middle of an ongoing conversation. > > For example, you question the universal understood maxim of the republic as it relates to an armed citizenry. But since this is discussed in Federalist 46, and was known in the English Bill of Rights in 1689, and it’s how the Constitution was drafted and its Bill of Rights were constructed, understanding that this is the case would seem to rebut your earlier notion that it wasn’t an understood maxim. Shortening it to simply “understood maxim” isn’t quite fair. The original wording, per **Abatis** , was “universally understood and accepted maxim of a republic”. An example from a country that wasn’t a republic, and an example of the nation and times currently under discussion, don’t seem to back up the statement I was curious about. > [@](#): > > I also clipped the earlier statement: > > This section is not prefaced as your personal opinion and this the Constitution and the Supreme Court also disagrees with. The right as defined in the 2nd was and is pre-existing. Not so far as I can tell; the 2nd forbids the state from infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The right to protection from the government from stopping people owning or using arms isn’t pre-established, at least so far as I know; \*\*Abatis \*\*seems to be saying that the right to own or use arms exists because the government has made no law against it, which is quite a different right. Essentially, it’s the difference between “We haven’t said anything, so you can do as you please.” and “We’ve affirmatively said we cannot change this thing to make it so you can’t do as you please.” Liberty because we haven’t said no, vs. liberty because we’re guaranteeing you’re safe from us saying no in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2017, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/80 "2017-02-21T20:52:24Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > The right to protection from the government from stopping people owning or using arms isn’t pre-established, at least so far as I know; \*\*Abatis \*\*seems to be saying that the right to own or use arms exists because the government has made no law against it, which is quite a different right. Essentially, it’s the difference between “We haven’t said anything, so you can do as you please.” and “We’ve affirmatively said we cannot change this thing to make it so you can’t do as you please.” Liberty because we haven’t said no, vs. liberty because we’re guaranteeing you’re safe from us saying no in the future. Abatis is not saying that this right exists because the government has made no law against it - that’s not the correct way to interpret the 2nd. The 2nd amendment recognizes a pre-existing right. It does say something, one of those things is that the right already existed. That’s what the constitution says. That’s what SCOTUS has said. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056.md?page=5)