Assuming that the framers of the Bill of Rights intended the Second Amendment to apply in the manner that gun ownership advocates believe (individual vs. some kind of “collective” right), what sort of weapons would they likely believe citizens should possess today?
My impression is that the amendment, in encouraging a “well-regulated militia” is not implying that said militia should necessarily be prepared to take on elements from the regular army, but I’m not sure.
In any case, what would individuals who keep and bear arms be expected to do? What is their function outside of the roles already filled by the regular armed forces, the national guard, and law enforcement?
Can’t look up a cite right now, but I believe the intention was that the citizen-soldiers were expected to bring a firearm suitable for military use. Note: Firearm, not ordnance. In modern terms I would expect an AR-15. Should it be an assault rifle? Or is semi-auto OK? Depends on the hypothetical use of the militia. AR-15s use the same magazines and accessories as M-16s. They can even swap parts except for the automatic sear. (At least for the full-auto vs. semi-auto ones. I don’t know about the three-shot burst ones.)
Said millitia’s job is to defend the country from insurrection and invasion. It’s supposed to serve the functions “already filled by the regular armed forces, the national guard, and law enforcement”, because when the Constitution was founded, the regular armed forces were almost non existant, and the national guard wouldn’t exist for another 110 years (it was created by the Millitia Act of 1903, which standardized the requirements for the existing state millitias).
That’s what I figured, but I’m trying to get some kind of feel for the argument for personal firearm ownership being intentionally guaranteed by the Second Amendment. I don’t want to just run around telling my pro-gun-ownership acquaintances that their argument is ridiculous (despite my strong feeling that it is). I want to know whether there’s really some kind of rational argument for this in terms of modern weapons.
I had always assumed that the reasoning behind the “everybody has a right to a gun” position was that the Second Amendment was intended to prevent some kind of military coup from happening, unchallenged. But the military, as such, barely existed at the time, so that’s not it. That’s not really even something you could infer from the wording of the amendment.
Defense functions are performed by the Armed Forces, National Guard, and law enforcement, so what’s left?
You don’t think the Founding Fathers might have been able to forsee a time when the military might be sufficiently large as to pose a threat to the people if it were turned against them by an oppressive government?
What’s left? Defense of the individual person against crime, for one. Another is collective defense against tyrannical abuse of the government-controlled armed bodies.
They were the posse comitatus, the self-policing citizenry, etc. This was during a period where the English-speaking world lacked professional police forces. So, arm the citizenry as you would arm beat cops.
(But frankly, now we have professional police, they are a better-regulated & more trustworthy militia than the mass of the citizenry, as has been proven by unpleasant history. So I take the position that the 2nd Amendment in its broad individualistic form is antiquated, & it should be construed, or if necessary reconstituted as protecting the right of localities to form police forces or militia for protection, rather than the right of Billy Joe to empty his handgun into flocks of birds.)
Yeah because the cops who shot Amadou Diallo are more trustworthy than the average Billy Joe. And this cop is more qualified to handle a pistol than the average Billy Joe.
“I’m the only person in this room who’s qualified to—BAANNGGGGGG!!!”
I think there are separate issues here. I don’t begrudge someone owning a small-caliber weapon for self-defense, & I think that right can be protected for reasons of individual safety, while restricting things like the formation of SWAT teams to those sanctioned by a governmental body.
But that’s a matter of writing law rather than interpreting it.
. . .
No, I don’t trust private citizens with guns. Read up on the post-Reconstruction period in this country, the age of the lynch mob. There’s a very good reason for police forces.
The flip side is that minority groups can’t always count on the law, & then it makes sense for them to be armed in self-defense.
Until the law decides they’re dangerous revolutionaries & massacres them.
Yeah, there’s no perfect answer. Can we at least agree that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting? That really sticks in my craw.
Of course they would, & they can now in places in this country, even places with private gun ownership. An armed citizenry gives a policing agency cause to arm itself better, & use different tactics.
The real difference is that a uniformed service has visibility, has accountability, & can be purged of criminals in its midst if necessary. If you let everyone own a high-powered rifle as a civil right, you don’t have the option to take away that high-powered rifle.
(By the way, claiming an unconditional individual right to bear arms seems strange to me. Don’t most states at least forbid felons on probation to carry arms?)
And they would be quite wrong, since it is a long-held fact of American jurisprudence that police agencies have no responsibility to protect individual citizens. See Warren v. District of Columbia (D.C. Court of Appeals, 1981), Riss v. New York (New York Court of Appeals, 1968), DeShaney v. Winnebago County (US Supreme Court, 1989), and others.
In any case, you’re a lucky man if the police are three minutes away. Typical response times are generally much longer, especially in rural areas, or areas where high rates of crime tend to keep the police busy.
Bottom line, you’re the only one responsible for your safety. And frankly, I wouldn’t want to live in a world where the government was responsible for me: any government powerful enough to monitor and “protect” me and every other Joe Citizen at all times must by necessity be frighteningly authoritarian and oppressive.
Why? What do you mean by “things like” SWAT teams? What reason would you give for restricting individual firearms possession to “small calibers?”
Nothing. But people have a right to defend their lives, too.
I have always assumed that is exactly what they were thinking of. Problem is, to defend ourselves against the military today, we’d need RPGs at the very least, and a lot of them. I don’t think the Founding Fathers imagined the great escalation in the destructiveness of handheld weapons that has occurred since 1789. I don’t know about you, but I’m not comfortable with the thought of every adult in say, New York City owning a grenade launcher.
On the other hand, I also think that however out-of-date the purpose of the Second Amendment, it is the law and we must abide by a reasonable interpretation of its letter. I can’t avoid agreeing with Johnny L.A. that by “arms” the Amendment probably means “a firearm suitable for military use”. That doesn’t have to include rocket launchers, but surely it must encompass some form of rifle.
Technically, it shouldn’t be based on caliber, but on penetrating power, & in urban areas, probable flight range of stray shots. Or do you think that an apartment dweller has a “right” to accidentally shoot his neighbor dead, through two layers of drywall, while attempting to protect himself?
Not everyone who uses a gun is going to have proper training. Not everyone who has that training will remember it when they go to buy a new gun.
I’m looking for a practical answer to gun deaths here. If that means ignoring the 2nd, well, that’s nothing new.
No, you aren’t; because if you were, you’d probably be dead and not posting. The police and the courts protect you simply by being there, and being willing and able to track down and punish those that would harm you. And if they vanished, you’d need to hook up with whatever warlord or gang leader replaced them, or go into hiding; not protect yourself with a gun.
You do live in a world were the government is responsible for protecting you. It’s the only thing that has the power to do so. The only reason you have any freedom, any safety is the government; without it, you are just a victim.
I’m guessing that you don’t understand that an average hunting rifle (a rifle that someone in the city may use to go out and hunt with), has way more ‘penetration’ power than the so called ‘Assault Weapon’.
And ummm…. pretty much anything that can be used for defense, hunting or target shooting will penetrate 2 sheets of drywall.
Admittedly, some could do it better than others. BUT the physics and ballistics involved between different calibers, muzzle energy and damn near every other thing is HIGHLY contested about people that know a LOT about it.
It’s just not as simple as you think.
:side note: I’ve been shooting for 35 years, and I won’t even begin to debate the ‘best’ round for any single or multiple purpose.