The Second Amendment and control of weapons that aren't firearms

Great Debates
101

I’d say they are primarily restricted by the possibility of impeachment. If they started ignoring laws written in a extremely clear manner (usually requiring many pages), that could happen. But the brief parchment principles (Madison’s phrase) of the Bill of Rights and 14th amendment are too vague to restrict.

If you believe that the 2nd amendment provides an individual gun right (I think it’s vague), then how do four justices get away with denying that? Answer: There’s no political will to impeach them.

Precedent is sort of a restriction. But all it would take is one conservative justice to retire in the next couple years and they’ll start finding a way to uphold gun restrictions. There will still be an individual right, by precedent, but somehow it will never apply.

102

I agree with you re: judges. But, how is the 2nd Amendment vague, beyond the obvious fact that it suits the anti-gun crowd to repeatedly call it so? The amendment clearly says, “the right of the people …”. It doesn’t say, " … the right of the Military … “; it doesn’t say, " … the right of the Coast Guard …”; it doesn’t say, " … the right of the Reserves …"; it doesn’t even say, " …the right of the Militia … ".

It says, " … the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." We’re the people. We’re the same “people” in the phrase: " … the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

103

Its vague because none of the other amendments have a prefatory clause like the second amendment so people think that the prefatory clause might actually mean something. The question is what does it mean. Does it mean that there is a state right in addition to an individual right or is there only a state right or only an individual right?

104

That definitely is part of the problem for some, because(unlike SirGalahad and some others) I’m not seeing any “…” at the beginning of the 2nd Amendment. I would prefer that the part he skipped, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” be removed for clarity’s sake.

105

I agree with this, but would go a little farther.

The original second amendment was a restriction on the federal government only. While the fourteenth amendment can be interpreted as changing it to a restriction on all levels of government, that’s vague as well.

Also, any single sentence law is pretty much guaranteed to be vague. Clear laws are long because their framers try to imagine how they might be misunderstood, and put in wording to cover that. Where is the discussion of what happens if the second amendment is violated? Where are terms like “arms” and “the people” defined?

My guess is that if would have been hard to get consensus on the meaning of the phrase “the people.” Virginia would have said it meant free white people. Massachusetts might have secretly agreed, but wouldn’t have liked seeing that in print. And Connecticut would likely have wanted the right limited to Christian people. So they kept it vague. Then as now, it was probably the only way you could get broad agreement.

Now, I’m not saying the second amendment is unusally vague as such grand statements of principle go. The tenth is even more platitudinous.

106

This isn’t hard because it’s vague, it’s hard because some very well educated, powerful, important people who know far more about Constitutional law than I (and probably you, too) have clouded the issue by having an agenda that is not served by endorsing the 2nd Amendment.

“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.”

One more time.

Well regulated … ready to fight: equipped and prepared. What constitutes prepared? Back then, if you had good boots, a warm cape and a canteen, you were ready to march. Equipped? A musket and maybe a bayonet.

Security of a free State … hey they just had a war. What would be in your mind when you just fought and lost thousands of Loyalists in battle to establish a new nation with a Government based on Rights intrinsic to the Free People, that the Government couldn’t abrogate?

Sure, the clause is unique to to this Amendment, but the Amendment itself is unique, because it involves arms. The other Amendments don’t hinge on mechanical tools that permit man to protect his life, and the life and liberty of his family and country. Without arms, there would be no new United States. Arms were the most important component of the Loyalists rebellion, because nothing else would substitute for them. Talking wasn’t working, diplomacy wasn’t working. It was at the point of a rifle, at the sound of cannon, that the U.S. was born.

Consider this, the Colonists had weapons, to hunt, fight Indians, protect themselves from all the threats of a new continent. These weren’t just military weapons in the hands of professional soldiers … these were the tools of frontiersmen directed at their previous Emperor.

The rest I’ve already explained … it won’t go away. We’re the people. We have the right. It’s already being infringed. No verbal contortions of politicians and activists will change the substance of the Amendment. You may pretend it means something it doesn’t, as it suits your agenda, but it means what it means.

107

I think the word arms and people are relatively clear.

And States were also jealous of their own rights. There had been a recent failed experent with the articles of confederation because people were so concerned about tyranny from the center. The word state probably means the several states.

The printing press is a mechanical tool.

All rights are infringed. The question is whether the infringement is constitutional. Im not sure that theean I ng is quite so clear to legal sch9lars as it is to you. I have my own Interpretation but my opinion is no better than anyone else’s informed opinion.

108

As to the printing press, You can certainly write without one, to any degree necessary … the Constitution was written by hand. You can’t fight effectively without arms. Simple as that. The right to self preservation, individually or to protect a nation, is the right to go armed.

Some scholars agree with me, some have other agendas.

109

It’s statements like this that make it hard to take you seriously. “Some have other agendas” sounds so much more ominous than “Some don’t” or “Some have other ideas”.

110

I didn’t have any trouble following it. A bit of a ramble, but hitting the topics discussed.

111

I can’t see how anyone can dismiss the 2nd amendment as being anything less than a license for citizens to have weapons when they wanted them. (Or choose not to. a discussion of the right of the government to coerce people to take up arms, the draft, might be instructive)

Since the basic right simply and clearly exists, the real argument is to what degree legislation might be warranted to prevent unqualified or dangerous people from having such weapons.

I think it should be clear to everyone that the government has a responsibility to prevent those who have previously abused the right to bear arms from doing so…and to set standards relating to the ability of any given individual to safely bear arms, such as preventing people with mental instability from obtaining or using them.

Can’t we all get behind that concept, while, at the same time, reaffirming the basic right for qualified people to have as many defensive and hunting weapons as they please?

112

You’re right, of course. It’s preposterous that any notable scholar or member of liberal academia would even consider furthering a political or social agenda through their work. It’s just utterly preposterous.

113

And that agenda would be…?
Bonus points if you can show them actually saying what you think their agenda might be.

114

It’s not an agenda if you admit to it, silly. If you admit to it, it’s an opinion. Or a principle. Don’t you know anything? Agendas … gotta love 'em.

115

What you are talking about isn’t called an “agenda”, silly. The words you are looking for are “Evil Plans” or “Secret Plot” or something along those melodramatic lines.

116

And, on the subject of Non-firearms (which this thread is supposedly about), I read recently on the internet that it’s become difficult for Australian collectors to import expensive knives because of changes in the weapons laws. Apparently, a politician vowed to come down hard on “knife crime”. First they take your guns, then they come after your Bowie Knife in it’s display case. Won’t someone please think of the children?

My question: are there any dopey Australians … oops, I mean Australian Dopers … who know the details of this sad state of affairs and can identify the blackguard who is depriving Aussie knife enthusiasts of their right to say: “That’s not a knoighf … THIS is a knoighf!”

Also, apparently, it costs 400AD to contest the import law as it applies to your particular case.

117

You’re misspelling “agenda”. Do you spell “propaganda” like this: N-E-W-S?

118

I try to mean what I say:

119

No, he means agenda (like the ones that have said this is a first step on this very board) Where “this” means any kind of gun regulation they can get passed, go on deny it.

120

Your position is a common one, but it’s contradictory.

You cannot say that we should take the amendment exactly on face value, and not try to reinterpret it in light of a changed world, then in the same breath say we should restrict certain people from having weapons, and arbitrarily define “arms” so that we exclude things like RPGs.