Just to be clear, is your argument that military personnel should have rights that others do not, i.e. possessing automatic weapons? If so, what other rights should they be allowed to exercise that other individuals are forbidden to exercise?
I’m just wondering because I’ve recently seen that view expressed here by someone else. To me it sounds rather illiberal.
They are allowed to go over to other countries and shoot people there.
That isn’t a right…more like a perk of the job. 
Seriously, what is your point with this wrt the over all discussion? And specifically in response to what Will is asking there? I don’t always agree with Will, but that seems a perceptive question, because it seems a lot of you in this thread ARE saying that only someone in the militia has a right to keep and bear arms, i.e. that they are linked or tied together.
Per the constitution, everyone has the right to keep and bear arms. What they don’t have (constitutionally speaking) is the right to use them. The amendment is fairly clear about that - the whole reason that people are allowed to have guns is so that when a militia is called up and authorized in a well-regulated way to take the safeties off and blast some slaves or whatever, that when that happens the civilians will be able to bring their own guns so the government won’t have to supply them.
Self-defense, hunting, and target shooting are not protected by the second amendment. By later from-the-bench judicial legislation, yes. From the founding fathers and the constitution, no.
The *personnel *do not “possess” them. We the People do, via the military we established. Its sworn and trained members are allowed, and required, to use our collective property in the course of their military duties. Is that somehow outrageous to you?
Anything that a military force is required to do by nature of its responsibilities, but which would be against the principles of “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”. Is that somehow outrageous to you?
Your view is shaped by your unwillingness to accept what our military is and why we established it. Odd, but not my problem.
If that were true, there was no reason even to mention well-regulated militias or the security of the free state (note the “of”, not “from”, btw). That didn’t add or subtract anything from the right, as you see it.
But it’s in there anyway. Why so? Just to mess with us? Or was there perhaps a thought-out reason? :dubious:
NM…not worth the electrons.
To give a rationale for the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment has two clauses
[ol][li]To establish that a well-regulated militia is necessary, and [*]therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms may not be infringed.[/ol]As mentioned above, neither can be ignored.[/li]
Again, if you disagree that a militia is necessary, or that the right to keep and bear arms should be infringed, fine, but you need to amend the Constitution.
Regards,
Shodan
Rigid things tend to break. I think we get so hung up on language that we forget this is 2018, not 1791. No matter what the amendment says, it is a question of whether or not it is relevant to the kind of society we live in today. The originators understood this principle, which is why they created a process for amending the Constitution.
I think it is becoming ever more apparent that something is going to have to be done in this regard because the present “Wild West” totally unregulated approach to anybody and everybody being able to own powerful firearms is becoming increasingly intolerable.
Yet, being as how they are part of the same sentence, one being in a subordinate clause modifying the other, neither can they be considered in isolation from each other, yes?
We absolutely need to repeal the Second, agreed. Still wondering what your arguments would become if that were to happen …
Odd how there are already laws on the books in most states doing just that.
NRA boilerplate and nothing more.
That’s kind of a fine distinction, but as long as we remember that the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed, the uses of those arms can be controlled by the common law. As is already the case - you can’t shoot your neighbors for playing their music too loud, but you can shoot them if they attack you. And that is perfectly Constitutional. Saying “you can’t keep or bear arms” is not Constitutional.
Yes, certainly correct.
I guess we will have to wait and see.
Regards,
Shodan
It is a perceptive question to ask why the military has access to (and not possession of, as he asked )military hardware that is not available to civilians?
No, I am saying that if you exercise your right to keep and bear arms, then you are part of the militia. They are linked together, as the right to arms is justified by the need for a well regulated militia, as it says in the second amendment.
Are you a part of a well regulated militia? Why are you claiming that it is not necessary?
If we don’t need a “militia” then does the second amendment fail? So why do we need a militia?
Are civilian guns used in our services? If they cannot then this is a violation of the second amendment, no?
Then kindly proceed as if you agreed, unlike your previous posts.
I don’t doubt your capacity for independent thought. Give it a try and see what other justifications you can come up with for private possession of weapons not useful for self defense, hunting, livestock protection, or target shooting, but only military use. But please none of that tyranny bullshit.
drad dog, there is considerable other wording in the Constitution describing the military and its purposes. We’ve gone past that since, by making the army and navy standing and by creating an air force, and by putting the former state militias under federal regulation under the name National Guard, but the purposes and functions remain the same.
Another thing to keep in mind is that some of our founding fathers (Jefferson, for one - who was very intelligent, and about as pragmatic as a solid gold toilet) did not want a standing army. They felt (many of them who didn’t themselves pick up a gun in battle during the war (cough, Jefferson, Adams)), that the way the country would work is that if we ever needed to raise an army, the men would grab their guns and get called up. When running this sort of “army” - its very important that your population has arms and regularly trains with them - or you have the early Revolution - not enough supplies, untrained men, and we should have gotten our asses handed to us. Therefore “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” - by which men like Jefferson and Adams meant “you poor suckers will provide a gun and show up to get shot at so we can keep our land and economic enterprises (including slaves) - oh, and we might not bother to pay you, you are doing this for FREEDOM and COUNTRY” - its amazing with such assholes as our Founders we managed to get this far.
Of course, back then, you could have a major battle with a 3% mortality rate. The rate of fire was low, bullets seldom hit their target, didn’t usually kill, and if you could stave off infection (the hard part), you’d probably live. You’d still be doing more damage with a bayonet than a rifle. Look at the casualty numbers for Revolutionary War battles - then look at Civil War numbers (the first really post industrialization mechanized war). So when Jefferson says that “the tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants” - he isn’t talking about very much blood at all - and likely would have been shocked at the carnage of the Civil War.
No.
I haven’t made any such claim.
All of my previous posts have pointed out that both the clauses of the Second Amendment exist, both should be considered, and they don’t contradict each other.
I am not sure what you are asking. Do you mean you want a justification for keeping and bearing arms apart from the Second Amendment, or is this one of those “why can’t I own nuclear weapons” arguments?
I don’t need any justification apart from the Second Amendment. First revoke it, and we can talk.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s perceptive to ask why some of you think that being in the military (or militia) grants a right that you feel didn’t extend to everyone, when clearly that’s not how other rights work. The fact that you are trying to twist it only works if one can’t scroll up and look at the discussion where Will says ‘right’ not ‘access to’.
No. Even in their day this wasn’t true. You COULD be part of the militia, and having the populace armed enabled the use of militias which many of the founders thought was preferable to regular military forces (and why they put that part into the amendment), but you didn’t have to be. If you look at early drafts of the amendment you’ll see that they also said that if you had a religious convictions you couldn’t be forced to serve in a militia, for instance. Do you really, actually think that folks who decided not to serve because of religious conviction would not have a right to keep and bear arms?? One of the primary justifications that the authors of the 2nd had for a general (well, all white citizens in good standing) right to keep and bear arms was the militia…but you didn’t have to be in the militia for the general right (just a white citizen in good standing and wealthy enough to have the means to own and maintain a firearm or other arms).
A lot of you seem to just read the Amendment and attempt to parse it out purely based on your opinions of the words without any sort of context or history…and without regard to even the other Amendments or the Constitution.
The religious conviction part was for Quakers - and its relatively likely that they did not expect anyone who had a religious issue with killing someone would bother to own a gun if they lived in the city. Quakers didn’t tend to be city/town folk in the era - they wouldn’t have needed a gun, nor would they have wanted a gun - they simply had very little use for one.
What they wanted to do was make sure that Quakers wouldn’t be conscripted into the military against their beliefs. You were EXPECTED to stand in defense of your town in case the French/Indians/British invaded (or the slaved revolted) with your own gun - unless you had religious objections.