# Which "arms" should be protected by the Second Amendment? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 21, 2016, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795 "2016-03-21T20:42:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![ziper1221](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a183cd/32.png) [@ziper1221](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ziper1221)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2016, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/101 "2016-03-25T17:24:31Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > When it was written muskets were the most dangerous arms a citizen would typically own. If it was acknowledged in the Second that individual citizens being necessary to protect the United States from foreign invaders was vital the the nations interests why restrict civilian arms at all? Ever? > > The Founding Fathers knew they were fallible and that their ideas must change with the times. It’s silly as shit to point to a 250 year old document and say things should not change because we’ve done it this way for so long. > > So ok, as Cecil points out the second part of the Second is absolutely crystal clear. Is it? Did James Madison envision Davy Crockett nuclear bazookas? Cause I don’t see anywhere in the Amendemnt where there are limits on arms civilians can own. If gun right activists where honestly fighting for principle they’d fight for the whole hog. You somehow managed to say all that while avoiding anything that had anything to do with what I said. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2016, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/102 "2016-03-25T18:09:37Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > It’s quite silly indeed to assert that militias are “the people” and standing armies are “potentially tyrannical”. Who composes each one and who commands them? Because standing armed forces, and those who serve them, can develop institutional interests contrary to the rest of the population. Look at all the countries today where the military is not just a servant of the nation but a political force, which the civilian leadership bucks at its own peril. You have only to look at Pakistan or Burma to see the kind of standing armies the Founders were afraid of. > [@](#): > > But it’s even more silly to assert that the Constitution provides means for its own violent overthrow, No, the Constitution provides the means for the violent overthrow of any government that violates the Constitution. The Constitution is a covenant, the terms under which the people agreed to submit to the government’s authority. The presumption is that a Constitution “of the people, by the people and for the people” will satisfy all but a tiny minority of terrorist cranks, who would be outvoted (and outgunned) by the rest of the population. If that covenant ever gets broken so badly that only martial law, secret police and death squads can maintain the regime, then the people ought to resist by force- and to have the means to do so. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2016, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/103 "2016-03-25T18:21:23Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > You have only to look at Pakistan or Burma to see the kind of standing armies the Founders were afraid of. Odd, then, that they’d go on to create one almost immediately, huh? > [@](#): > > No, the Constitution provides the means for the violent overthrow of any government that violates the Constitution. I did gently suggest that you stop being silly. Maybe it was _too_ gently? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2016, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/104 "2016-03-25T18:30:31Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Militias are no longer needed to stop invasions. That’s what the Army is for. Militias are no longer needed to catch criminals after the crime has been committed. That’s why we have cops. But nobody has (or will any time soon) replaced the need for self-defense (or defense of other innocents when their lives are threatened). That’s why the courts decided self defense was the main reason behind the 2nd Amendment. That’s what’s left of the “militia” concept. Except for the text of the amendment itself, which contradicts you. The framers went out of their way to make sure they wouldn’t be misinterpreted as to their intent. Yet willful misinterpretation continues today, as you demonstrate. You’re right about that intent having become moot with the establishment of a standing army and law enforcement organizations, though. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2016, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/105 "2016-03-25T18:41:02Z")
The amendment doesn’t contradict me, you and I disagree on its interpretation. That’s different. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2016, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/106 "2016-03-25T18:42:52Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You’re right about that intent having become moot with the establishment of a standing army and law enforcement organizations, though. Pretty sure you won’t give an answer, as you never do…you’ll almost certainly weasel about what words mean and play your usual tired games, but what the hell. Today might be a first. Why should the army and law enforcement be trusted with weapons and the general citizenry not? Military and LE are drawn from the general population. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2016, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/107 "2016-03-25T18:46:04Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Why should the army and law enforcement be trusted with weapons and the general citisenry not? See that part about “well-regulated” in there? I know you do. That includes training, discipline, giving and obeying orders, and even oaths. > [@](#): > > Military and LE are drawn from the general population. Originally, but it doesn’t stay that way past the induction ceremony. I do hope you understand that, and if not, the failure is entirely yours. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2016, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/108 "2016-03-25T18:47:08Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > The amendment doesn’t contradict me, you and I disagree on its interpretation. That’s different. Yes. You pretend half of it never meant anything. I do disagree. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2016, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/109 "2016-03-25T19:04:10Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Heller was 5-4. Doesn’t get much nearer than that. So, is it your assertation that if Heller had been 4-5, then there would be no legal civilian ownership of guns in the US, and that all private firearms would now be confiscated? Or was the “nearly legislated out of existence” extreme hyperbole and projecting a slippery slope fear out to it’s furthest possible theoretical extrapolation? ---
**Author:** ![GulfTiger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e79b87/32.png) [@GulfTiger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GulfTiger)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2016, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/110 "2016-03-25T19:11:14Z")
> [@](#): > > See that part about “well-regulated” That clause is the ‘why’ or ‘reason’ clause and it does not contain any obligation on anyone’s part. It is merely an example, or explanation. The command clause (“shall not be infringed”) is a clear directive and it is the ONLY obligation in the 2A. ---
**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 25, 2016, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/111 "2016-03-25T19:25:08Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > So, is it your assertation that if Heller had been 4-5, then there would be no legal civilian ownership of guns in the US, and that all private firearms would now be confiscated? Or was the “nearly legislated out of existence” extreme hyperbole and projecting a slippery slope fear out to it’s furthest possible theoretical extrapolation? You’re setting up a pretty obvious strawman. The original statement was in post #81: > [@Lumpy](#): > > The reason gun rights advocates are so absolutist is because over a decades-long slippery slope, the Second Amendment was nearly interpreted out of existence. Like in the novel _Animal Farm_, where the shining ideals of the revolution were “clarified” into a mockery of their original intent. Governments will always want more control; Second Amendment supporters simply insist that the Second be guarded against compromise as militantly as the First is. Notice there is nothing that talks about legal civilian gun ownership, confiscation, or even legislation. Those are things you’ve added. And you did it in the very next post #82. You did it again in post #91, but there you escalated the strawman including enslavement of the general population as well. Not sure why you thought that was necessary. So to answer your question, no, even if Heller was 4-5, there are many state analogues to the 2nd amendment that would remain unchanged. In addition, even if the ban were upheld in Heller, that does not make new law, and in places were there are no state analogues to the 2nd amendment, like in CA, the status quo would be that some firearms would continue to be legal in some circumstances. Your phrasing, “Nearly legislated out of existence” is your own creation. “Nearly interpreted out of existence” is true and was the original statement. The hyperbole you identify is of your own creation. I would guess that if Heller and McDonald went the other way, then the Mass. Supreme Court would have still ruled that the stun gun bans were allowable, and that Caetano would have not gotten any, albeit slight, relief from SCOTUS. That’s conjecture on my part. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2016, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/112 "2016-03-25T19:51:55Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Yes. **You pretend half of it never meant anything.** I do disagree. I made it pretty clear what I think the prefatory clause means. You disagree, and that’s okay, but don’t accuse me of things I never said, and which contradicts what I _did_ say. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2016, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/113 "2016-03-25T19:55:25Z")
You want it to mean something it does not say and never did say, while dismissing what it does say. I get that. But there is no way to call it an \*honest \*disagreement. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2016, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/114 "2016-03-25T19:59:34Z")
If you want to pretend militias were not expected to defend themselves, their families and their fellow villagers against violent criminals, against the evidence, go for it. If you want to pretend that “well-regulated” doesn’t mean, in 18th century writing “well-practiced”, go for it. But don’t call it _honest_. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2016, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/115 "2016-03-25T21:03:32Z")
Yes, you want “well-regulated militia” to mean “self defense”, and you want “self defense” to mean “own any firearm at all in any quantity”. That’s already established and acknowledged. What other words would you like to redefine to suit your desires? ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2016, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/116 "2016-03-25T21:31:38Z")
You think focusing on the word “militia”, with blinders on to the rest of the text, and then interpreting that to mean, exclusively, “The National Guard” isn’t a transparently convenient redefinition to suit your own purposes? It says “security” right in the amendment. How else are people in a free state supposed to be secure without the means to protect themselves? Or will you redefine that word at your leisure, too? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2016, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/117 "2016-03-25T21:55:39Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Yes, you want “well-regulated militia” to mean “self defense”, and you want “self defense” to mean “own any firearm at all in any quantity”. That’s already established and acknowledged. > > What other words would you like to redefine to suit your desires? Why not? You are redefining the words to mean what you want them to mean without regard to what the folks who wrote them THOUGHT they mean. Hell, you and those on your side have been trying to do this for decades now, and most likely with the change in the SCOTUS the anti-personal rights folks will try again to essentially redefine the right out of existence, since your side know you can’t do it the way our system was intended, which is to get rid of the Amendment through the process we have to do that. Instead it will be the same old back door, slimy dog under the table stuff to erode the right and twist the words until, hey PRESTO! There never was such a right and it was only ever a right for militias and people in the militia!! I mean, it says ‘militia’ right in there, so it must true (because you want it to be true, and screw any writings by the guys who drafted the thing to the contrary!). If you can successfully change the narrative and reinterpret it the way you want, well, there you go…it means what you say it means and always did. I simply hate this tact that many of the anti-personal right folks take on this. It’s SO freaking slimy and scummy, IMHO…especially for those who have taken the time to do more than simply read the Amendment and think that’s all they need (or are listening to their sides talking points). It would be more honest to just admit that you don’t think we SHOULD have a personal right, that changing times have rendered the right obsolete and out dated, etc etc, and then use the system the founders put in to remove Amendments instead of trying to reinterpret the right out of existence by parsing the fucked up 5th committee draft that finally got passed, with it’s garbled concatenated multi-sentence mashup and words that have changed meaning (like ‘well regulated’) and mean something completely different today than in the 18th century. Sadly it looks like that’s not going to happen, so I expect another round of people yammering on about militias and well-regulated, yadda yadda yadda. ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2016, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/118 "2016-03-25T22:01:54Z")
For the most advanced nation on the planet, the US does seem to spend a lot of time arguing about the exact interpretation of dusty old scriptures. Sorry, Constitutional Amendments. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2016, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/119 "2016-03-25T22:07:12Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > For the most advanced nation on the planet, the US does seem to spend a lot of time arguing about the exact interpretation of dusty old scriptures. Sorry, Constitutional Amendments. 😉 It’s pretty stupid, I agree. But it’s a wedge that is being and has been (for decades) used to backdoor the erosion of the right because the folks who are doing it know that they can’t do it through the means that exist to vacate an Amendment through the process we have to do so. I’d be fine with getting rid of the 2nd using the process we have for doing so, since it would mean that the majority of my fellow citizens want this change. It bugs me when this other method is tried though, since it flies in the face of our very system…and if you could do it here, why not in other, IMHO, more important areas like the 1st? ---
**Author:** ![GulfTiger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e79b87/32.png) [@GulfTiger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GulfTiger)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2016, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/120 "2016-03-25T22:28:04Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > For the most advanced nation on the planet, the US does seem to spend a lot of time arguing about the exact interpretation of dusty old scriptures. Sorry, Constitutional Amendments. 😉 It’s kind of like the income tax and Social Security, we are all slaves to it but you can’t find anyone alive who voted for or consented to it. All laws should have sunset provisions so that generations of the dead are not ruling the living without their consent. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795.md?page=7)