Which "arms" should be protected by the Second Amendment?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@foolsguinea

You’re both wrong. It was written to protect the ability of local authorities to raise posse to run down criminals and runaway slaves. There’s an actual history here.

http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2013/01/second_amendment_slave_control_not_the_aim.html

Yeah if you rewrite history because it conforms to your political agenda.

[ElvisL1ves]

FTR, here’s what the actual constitution that was in effect at the time the new one was written (the Articles) says, in much greater detail than the later version:

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

That’s where the Second came from. Not any fanciful notions about the Constitution establishing a right to overthrow the “free State” violently, or about a personal right to self-defense. It was only about establishing a military force and some procedures to operate, er “regulate” it.

[ElvisL1ves]

@HurricaneDitka

Cite?

Cite.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Measure_for_Measure

It’s a common misconception among firearm enthusiasts that their hobby provides a superior method of self-defense. We’re here to fight ignorance.

The best way to learn about defending yourself is to -wait for it- take a class in self defense. Model mugging frameworks are particularly helpful. Sure, you can read NRA propaganda instead, but that’s like taking health classes from the tobacco lobby.

I say stick with the professionals. I go to an auto mechanic when I want my car repaired. I see a physician when I’m sick. My dentist evaluates my teeth: I don’t ask him repair my air conditioner.

Given the same amount of training, firearms plus other training is probably preferable to other training without the firearms.

[DrCube]

@ElvisL1ves

The absolutists insist on reading the Constitution in the language and context that applied at the time. Okay, fine: The clear intent of the amendment was to make sure the country would have an effective military force on short notice when it needed one. Since the decision was made shortly afterward to have a standing army, and since the state militias were transformed into the National Guard (which takes care of its own equipment), it has been meaningless ever since.

No, the “militia” at the time was also the police force and security guards of the 1780s, in addition to regular dudes just trying to protect their families and property. The fact that the constitution doesn’t guarantee a personal security detail for every home or bodyguard for each citizen, and the fact that police have no duty to protect anyone from anything, illustrates that the second amendment is not meaningless and won’t be for a long time.

[XT]

Words mean something…but pictures are better for showing which should be protected. Since we are being so literal, as usual, on this silly question.

[thelurkinghorror]

@BobLibDem

No longer applicable. If you think rifle-toting citizens would have a chance against the black helicopters, you’re delusional. The anti-tyranny argument might have made sense 200 years ago when the government and the citizenry were on more equal terms of firepower, but the balance is so far tipped in the government’s favor that thought of an armed uprising will never be more than a right-wing fantasy.

Which is why the US invaded rifle-toting Iraq with black helicopters and forever brought peace to the region?

[octopus]

@foolsguinea

You’re both wrong. It was written to protect the ability of local authorities to raise posse to run down criminals and runaway slaves. There’s an actual history here.

You are misremembering history. The Constitution grants the government limited powers. The bill of rights are redundant.

[octopus]

@Measure_for_Measure

It’s a common misconception among firearm enthusiasts that their hobby provides a superior method of self-defense. We’re here to fight ignorance.

The best way to learn about defending yourself is to -wait for it- take a class in self defense. Model mugging frameworks are particularly helpful. Sure, you can read NRA propaganda instead, but that’s like taking health classes from the tobacco lobby.

I say stick with the professionals. I go to an auto mechanic when I want my car repaired. I see a physician when I’m sick. My dentist evaluates my teeth: I don’t ask him repair my air conditioner.

Absolutely ridiculous. Even a top 10 MMA female fighter would have a hard time vs a large male.

@ElvisL1ves

Yes - a literal reading of the words as they were written is that there is no infringement on the right to carry a flintlock musket as long as you’re wearing a tricorn hat.

Only five, one of whom is gone and about to be replaced.

Nothing else in the Constitution is consistent with that view. The several mentions of *suppressing *rebellion are contrary to it. The Red Dawn view is entirely fanciful.

The whole point of the Constitution was to form a limited government with most rights reserved for the states and the people.

@BobLibDem

No longer applicable. If you think rifle-toting citizens would have a chance against the black helicopters, you’re delusional. The anti-tyranny argument might have made sense 200 years ago when the government and the citizenry were on more equal terms of firepower, but the balance is so far tipped in the government’s favor that thought of an armed uprising will never be more than a right-wing fantasy.

Check the Middle East to see who the delusional one is. Furthermore, look up the word “hedge.”

@BrotherCadfael

Late 18th century printing presses.

Don’t expect intellectual consistency.

[ElvisL1ves]

@octopus

The whole point of the Constitution was to form a limited government with most rights reserved for the states and the people.

But not to the point of enshrining a right to its own violent overthrow.

[RickJay]

@octopus

Absolutely ridiculous. Even a top 10 MMA female fighter would have a hard time vs a large male.

I’m sorry, but that’s nuts. A top ten MMA woman is going to absolutely kick the living shit out of a “large male” unless the large male is also a very, very skilled fighter.

I’m a big guy, over six feet and about 200 pounds. middle aged, athletically active and correspondingly strong, and I assure you a top female MMA competitor weighing 125 pounds will drop me like a mic in less than thirty seconds, unless of course I just try running away, in which case it might take her 45. A weight advantage is not going to save you against someone who can punch that fast and that effectively.

[octopus]

@RickJay

I’m sorry, but that’s nuts. A top ten MMA woman is going to absolutely kick the living shit out of a “large male” unless the large male is also a very, very skilled fighter.

I’m a big guy, over six feet and about 200 pounds. middle aged, athletically active and correspondingly strong, and I assure you a top female MMA competitor weighing 125 pounds will drop me like a mic in less than thirty seconds, unless of course I just try running away, in which case it might take her 45. A weight advantage is not going to save you against someone who can punch that fast and that effectively.

Pure ignorance. Even Ronda Rousey would be smashed by most athletic 200lb males. She has a hard time knocking out small females. It’s like comparing men and women in most sports. Talented male high schoolers can often beat pro women.

[octopus]

@ElvisL1ves

But not to the point of enshrining a right to its own violent overthrow.

I agree with that. But the presence of an armed citizenry is a hedge against tyranny which won’t be constrained by a piece of paper.

[Common_Tater]

@ElvisL1ves

But not to the point of enshrining a right to its own violent overthrow.

Pretty sure that’s exactly what they meant, and would not have been ratified otherwise.

This is not widely understood and certainly not well received by the chattering classes today, but the framers are not popular with the usual suspects these days, naturally. The framers knew their history, that’s for certain. For my part, I’m not too keen on the idea.

As has been pointed out, the language construct of the 2nd simply recognizes a pre-existing right, that is, one existing even prior to the formation of the United States, to keep and bear arms - the constitution is not about “granting” rights, it’s chiefly concerned with limiting the power of government - “congress shall make no law…” “the right of the people … shall not be infringed.”

The right to self defense is the most basic civil right there is, and predates any existing government entity. At times in our history it has been de facto illegal at least to defend one’s life with a firearm against an attacker in one’s home, but he could be drafted into the military and be forced to kill for the state. Hm.

[ElvisL1ves]

Except they went out of their way to explain the reason - ensuring we have a well-regulated militia. Nothing about self-defense - that’s an attempt to read something into it that simply isn’t there.

[octopus]

@ElvisL1ves

Except they went out of their way to explain the reason - ensuring we have a well-regulated militia. Nothing about self-defense - that’s an attempt to read something into it that simply isn’t there.

That’s a willful misinterpretation. Re read the 9th and 10th amendments. Language and the document do not exist in a historical vacuum. Again, as every 9th grader should learn in civics the US constitution grants the federal government limited powers delegated from the people and states. The constitution is not a grant of rights to the people from an omnipotent central government. I know this vexes the left.

[ElvisL1ves]

To repeat: It doesn’t say what you want it to say. The reason is right there in the text. The background of that reason is right there in the previous constitution.

I know how much that vexes you, but hey, deal with it.

[UltraVires]

@ElvisL1ves

To repeat: It doesn’t say what you want it to say. The reason is right there in the text. The background of that reason is right there in the previous constitution.

I know how much that vexes you, but hey, deal with it.

If someone says that it is important to look into alternative sources of energy because global warming is a real threat, would you take that to mean that the speaker is disavowing any and all other reasons for alternative energy use?

[Measure_for_Measure]

@HurricaneDitka

Cite?

I thought I was on pretty firm ground considering that self defense training encompasses weapons training. Unless you don’t think firearms are used for self-defense?

It’s true that in the first 6 or 20 hours, firearms won’t be emphasized. There are more fundamental issues at hand. Weapons courses are sometimes relegated to a second class.

@Shodan

Good, then I will join in the fight.

I am a professional, or at least I was for some years, and as a professional teacher of self-defense, I will correct this. A weapon is better than self-defense training in most situations, especially for women.

Firearms are a superior method of self-defense to any form of hand-to-hand combat training.

There - now stick to what the professionals say, and you won’t go far wrong.

IIRC, Shodan expressed the opinion in another thread that it requires years of practice before you can effectively apply unarmed self defense techniques. From his perspective he is correct: Judo training is like that. (Same for Akido, IMHO). Both are terrific sports, but require practice to apply. There are quicker approaches, insofar as the basics are concerned.

That said, I agree that firearms can be useful tools. They also carry risks: households with a firearm are more likely to kill a household member than an intruder. But those risks will vary by household - that’s just an average I quoted. A sober approach to self defense would provide the student with the necessary knowledge to weigh and assess the risks appropriately. You won’t get that from anti-science organizations like the NRA.

@octopus

Absolutely ridiculous. Even a top 10 MMA female fighter would have a hard time vs a large male.

1. This topic has been debated vigorously and inconclusively on this board. Both sides think seem to think their conclusions are obvious. I recommend those threads. Good times.

2. I myself utterly defeated an armed gunman a head taller than myself. So it can be done. Well, ok we were on a staircase: since he was up a step it gave him that height advantage. He did have a gun. But I had my hands. No contest.

I applied the ancient technique I call hand-over-my-wallet-jutsu. Then we parted company. And I lived to tell the tale. Total and complete victory for myself.

The point: you are assuming that most violent interactions have to involve a knock-down battle. That’s piss-poor risk assessment. The basics of self defense involve flight and voice. They can also involve knees and elbows. If somebody has spent hours in the shooting range but has never practiced any sort of model mugging or confrontation, then he is a shooting hobbyist, but not a person I’d want packing heat near me in a potentially violent situation. No thanks. Go play somewhere else.
Those who believe that every potentially violent encounter is a necessarily violent encounter lack the intelligence and character to be responsible firearm owners, IM-not-so-HO.

[octopus]

@ElvisL1ves

To repeat: It doesn’t say what you want it to say. The reason is right there in the text. The background of that reason is right there in the previous constitution.

I know how much that vexes you, but hey, deal with it.

You ignoring the 9th and 10th for what reason? And why would I be vexed? If I choose I can drive to Wal-Mart and buy an arsenal.