# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2017, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/121 "2017-03-06T08:01:57Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The second element was: \*\*_‘and leave [law abiding people] at the mercy of criminals.’_ \*\* Do you agree with that element? You want your debating partner to concede the tautology that if law-abiding citizens relinquish their self-defense weapons then those law-abiding citizens will no longer possess those weapons. Your debating partner seemed more concern about the practical results of disarmament that can be discerned from real-world evidence. > [@sear](#): > > How can an unalienable right possibly be declined / rejected? (I assume you mean ‘inalienable.’) Supporters of the Second Amendment impress me more when they have _reasons_ for their support. “Something is an inalienable right because some dead white guys said it is an inalienable right” does not appeal to my sense of logic. Is that “syllogism” really fundamentally different from “2+2 is 5 because George Carlin once said 2+2 is 5.” > [@sear](#): > > The right of self-defense. > Were it otherwise there’d be an unalienable right of assault and plunder… And I hope that this “syllogism” was intended just as parody. If I don’t have an inalienable right to drop bombs on the Coca Cola bottling plant, do they have an inalienable right to poison their soft drinks? > [@Weisshund](#): > > You do know you are kind of being silly now right? I don’t want a nuke, but if I’m going to stand my ground against a strong assault team sent by a repressive government I think I’ll want rocket launchers and howitzers just to start. > [@sear](#): > > It’s called “force multiplication”… > > - Guns can also empower the few over the many. Suppose when the civil war comes, a gang of 10,000 fights a gang of 2000. Is it your contention that the gang of 2000 should be the gang that prevails if they’re the ones who can afford better guns? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2017, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/122 "2017-03-06T14:11:21Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Supporters of the Second Amendment impress me more when they have _reasons_ for their support. “Something is an inalienable right because some dead white guys said it is an inalienable right” does not appeal to my sense of logic. Is that “syllogism” really fundamentally different from “2+2 is 5 because George Carlin once said 2+2 is 5.” Yes, it’s quite different. You need to check your sense of logic. The syllogism runs like this. [ul] [li]The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States.[/li][li]The right to keep and bear arms is defined as a right in the Constitution.[/li][li]When the Constitution was ratified, the right to keep and bear arms was brought under the protection of the federal government.[/li][li]If you think it is not, or should no longer be, a right under the protection of the federal government, you have to convince enough other people that they will go thru the process of amending the Constitution.[/li][/ul]Whether or not it existed before the Constitution was ratified is irrelevant. Regards, Shodan ---
**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:** [March 6, 2017, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/123 "2017-03-06T15:00:09Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Whether or not it existed before the Constitution was ratified is irrelevant. So it is not an “inalienable” right then. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2017, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/124 "2017-03-06T15:00:09Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > If it comes down to the citizens versus the US military the citizens are well and truly fucked. It wouldn’t even be close. About like the Afghans or Iraqis were well and truly fucked? Same thing for the Viet Cong, the Boers, the IRA, etc… It would be rather insane to try and square up against a modern army in a force-on-force fight; hell, no other country could stand toe to toe with the US Army and win. But in a guerrilla style war, civilian arms would be extremely effective, and the sheer numbers of civilian weapons would make this even more so in some sort of rebellion against totalitarianism. ---
**Author:** ![sear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sear)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2017, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/125 "2017-03-06T15:15:26Z")
> [@](#): > > “(I assume you mean ‘inalienable.’)” s #121 Jefferson’s spelling in the DOI is commonly listed as “unalienable”\* > [@](#): > > “Supporters of the Second Amendment impress me more when they have reasons for their support. “Something is an inalienable right because some dead white guys said it is an inalienable right” does not appeal to my sense of logic.” - dandy - It’s not a logical argument. It’s a recounting of why it is “THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND” (art.6 sect.2). My thanks to S #122. > [@](#): > > “Suppose when the civil war comes, a gang of 10,000 fights a gang of 2000. Is it your contention that the gang of 2000 should be the gang that prevails if they’re the ones who can afford better guns?” s #121 That would be a good question for the Founders. How do you think they would reply? - Verified today in _Citizens Rule Book_ / Whitten Printers, Phoenix, AZ ---
**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:** [March 6, 2017, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/126 "2017-03-06T15:23:35Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > So it is not an “inalienable” right then. The argument is not one or the other - not inalienable or protected because it is in the constitution. These are parallel ideas that are simultaneously operative. In our current system of government the right to arms and self defense are protected. That is so because it is in the constitution and has been upheld over the hundreds of years since it’s adoption. Parallel to that, we enjoy the inalienable right to self defense. Granted this derives from first principles that there are natural rights. Lots of folks don’t believe in natural rights I know. It is a belief that predated the founding of the U.S., and influenced that founding and continued to do so through much constitutional jurisprudence. So in my view there is a legal argument, and a philosophical one. So when \*\*septimus \*\*expresses dismay about reliance on ‘some dead white guys’, this is speaking to the philosophical argument. When \*\*Shodan \*\*reiterates how the constitution operates, this is speaking to the legal argument. Fortunately, both the legal and the philosophical arguments support the right to self defense and the right to arms. The legal argument in this country has consistently recognized the philosophical argument as valid and the truism of the pre-existing right of self defense in arms. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2017, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/127 "2017-03-06T15:27:40Z")
> [@sear](#): > > How do you think they would reply? I don’t know-how do _you_ think they would reply? ---
**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:** [March 6, 2017, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/128 "2017-03-06T15:29:30Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I don’t know-how do _you_ think they would reply? We should ask \*\*Crane \*\*- he seems to have a direct line to the founders. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2017, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/129 "2017-03-06T15:31:18Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > We should ask \*\*Crane \*\*- he seems to have a direct line to the founders. I’d rather ask the poster that gave us the question in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![sear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sear)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2017, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/130 "2017-03-06T15:44:15Z")
#129 The original scenario lacks detail. > [@](#): > > “Suppose when the civil war comes, a gang of 10,000 fights a gang of 2000. Is it your contention that the gang of 2000 should be the gang that prevails if they’re the ones who can afford better guns?” s #121 A conflict is implied, but a reason is not stated. Even a very well provisioned homestead would be picked clean by a 10,000 strong horde. A charitable homestead might easily feed one hungry hobo, one meal, and send him on his way. What is the intent of the 10K? Criminality? Plunder? Rape? Murder? > [@](#): > > “God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. What country can preserve its Liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Thomas Jefferson > > Citizenship & Law > “A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation.” Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), U.S. president. Letter, 20 Sept. 1810 ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2017, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/131 "2017-03-06T15:48:49Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > So it is not an “inalienable” right then. That doesn’t follow. And it is directly contradicted by the Ninth Amendment. The Constitution talks about enumerated rights, not the inalienable ones. Presumably the FF would agree that all the enumerated rights are inalienable, but it doesn’t make any difference. The Ninth Amendment makes it clear that there can be - not “there are”, there can be - other rights, inalienable or otherwise, that exist apart from their enumeration in the Constitution. And the Tenth Amendment goes on to define who has the power to determine what those rights are or are not, and whether or not they should be brought under the protection of the federal government. Whether or not the right to keep and bear arms was a right before the Constitution existed is missing the point. The Founding Fathers decided that it was, they brought that right under the protection of the federal government by enumerating it, the Constitution was ratified, and thereupon became binding on the United States. If we, and by “we” the Constitution means “the states or the people” decide that the Founding Fathers were wrong, and the right to keep and bear arms isn’t a right, inalienable or otherwise, then the states or the people are provided with a mechanism to change the Constitution. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2017, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/132 "2017-03-06T16:45:08Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > If the Constitution is designed to be immune to time, why does it have a mechanism for amendments? If the human body is designed to be immune to germs, then why does it have white blood cells? ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2017, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/133 "2017-03-06T18:57:32Z")
Sear #125 et al, The OP poses the question of ‘are there limits to weapons ownership?’. That raises the issue of interpretation of the second amendment. The founders created the second amendment to answer the need of a frontier society with no standing army. They would not use the same wording today. The significance being that the second amendment has outlived it’s usefulness and needs to be replaced. Crane ---
**Author:** ![sear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sear)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2017, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/134 "2017-03-06T19:01:32Z")
> [@](#): > > “If the human body is designed to be immune to germs, then why does it have white blood cells?” DC #132 To be immune to germs. ---
**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:** [March 6, 2017, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/135 "2017-03-06T19:05:47Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > They would not use the same wording today. Cite? You’ve made at least 3 posts in this thread claiming to know what the founders would do if they were alive today. These are bold claims with no evidence presented. Do you have any? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2017, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/136 "2017-03-06T19:13:55Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Cite? You’ve made at least 3 posts in this thread claiming to know what the founders would do if they were alive today. These are bold claims with no evidence presented. Do you have any? Short of ressurcting the dead or time travel, what would you accept as evidence? He is obviously stating an opinion, not a fact. ---
**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:** [March 6, 2017, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/137 "2017-03-06T19:25:05Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Short of ressurcting the dead or time travel, what would you accept as evidence? He is obviously stating an opinion, not a fact. I’m open to necromancy or a visit from a Time Lord if it would provide evidence. Short of that, there’s a bit of asymmetry with these types of claims. I am not comfortable making the opposite claim, e.g._that the founders would do such and such_, however they can be made without challenge because as you say, they are simply opinions with no basis. The only viable way to combat the asymmetry of these unsupported opinions is to question their underlying genesis, and to point out the flaw of channeling the founders as debate support because these claims are unfalsifiable and making them are a matter of faith. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2017, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/138 "2017-03-06T20:04:12Z")
Bone#137, So, what is the nature of the Constitution: 1. The Founders codified rights that were granted by a Deity and are therefore immutable. 2. The Founders codified solutions to problems of their day and provided a process for amendment to meet changing needs. Crane ---
**Author:** ![sear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sear)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2017, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/139 "2017-03-06T20:30:25Z")
> [@](#): > > Crane Crane is online now > Guest > Join Date: Jan 2011 > Bone#137, > > So, what is the nature of the Constitution: > > “1. The Founders codified rights that were granted by a Deity and are therefore immutable.” #138 “Deity” is your word. Jefferson’s word was “creator”. Creator includes the big bang & evolution. Further: > [@](#): > > Thomas Jefferson wrote the rough draft of the DOI; John Adams and Ben Franklin were the editors. > Jefferson originally wrote: > > **“We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable …” Jefferson** > > Franklin expresses his reservation about that phrasing to Jefferson. Franklin explained; > we’re founding a new country. It’s not based on assertions of religion. It’s based on assertions of reason. We should reflect that religious tolerance in this writing. > > source: Walter Isaacson: author of: Benjamin Franklin: An American Life I therefore think your “Deity” verbiage is a mischaracterization. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2017, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/140 "2017-03-06T20:44:24Z")
Sear, OK - so religion (1) or reason (2) - take your pick. Crane [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056.md?page=8)