Good post and I agree with you. Life>>possessions.
Since the intent of the Second Amendment was to provide the government with a capable military force for national defense I would say it allows ordinary citizens the right to handguns, assault rifles, drones, tanks, Stingers.
What’s that? Most of those are illegal? Why?
Bizarre, the same person can have both Texturalist AND Contexturalist perspectives when it comes to this Amendment. It means exactly what it says in all manner of allowing unrestricted gun ownership, and yet also, means what it does not say in that the ownership is meant to keep the government in check.
Since this crap is considered sound rational, why not the Second Amendment is originally intended only for well formed militias under the command of The Commander-in-chief and they are also to protect the government from other gun-toting lunatics?
Convince the Supreme Court, convince the armed populace and their supporters which includes a decent amount of the military, and convince others that have real power that your interpretation is the correct one and you might have something there.
I don’t get what’s so difficult about the concept of natural rights and writing and adopting a charter for a limited government.
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia Is a link to some light background reading.
You misunderstand me. People like guns, and as it turns out they’ve gone to great lengths to keep and justify having them. My point is your argument isn’t sound. And I have no idea whatsoever what gun ownership has to do with natural rights and adopting a charter for a limited government.
If the Second Amendment does indeed exist to protect American citizens from tyranny and the Supreme Court believes that, as well as a decent amount of the military then why can’t a civilian buy a FGM-148 Javelin? I hate to tell you, but sweatpants-wearing Cheeto-finger Cletus isn’t going to last long with his AR-15 when the government instituted tyranny goes down.
You assume the government is a monolithic entity.
What? Care to lay out your accepted rules of civilian engagement for tyranny?
Thank you.
The topic of violence is big and more complicated than I let on of course. Firearms can be useful tools. It’s just that I don’t like the implication that a small person is helpless without a gun unless they are a ninja. The parallel to police officers isn’t a very good one: cops use guns so they can arrest the potentially violent. Deescalating situations and if necessary fleeing or reporting the violent are a different category of self defense challenge. Which is not to say a responsible private citizen would never find a gun helpful. But I am dubious about those who think that firearms are the central and critical self defense mechanism. I would stress a layered defense approach including deescalation, voice, stance and flight. Then physical technique including weaponry. But also knees and elbows.
That will depend on each person’s perception of the political and social situation. I feel that legally owning people was tyrannical and I think a slave revolt would have been moral. At the moment BLM has a point with how the police and justice system treat minorities and other marginalized people. I can’t say I blame them for clashing with the fuzz. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on point of view, the man doesn’t have his boot down on the majority or those who compose the powerful class.
Each person has to weigh the costs of martyrdom for himself.
We’re arguing from past practices now?
Wow, you are both wrong. There is no “disorganized militia” anymore. There are just a bunch of private actors. And the National Guard is a military asset, barely a militia in a conventional sense.
So you agree that they were only passed for political purposes, and shouldn’t be taken seriously? I mean, if the Tenth Amendment is all you need, then why even have the other nine?
You’re thinking of the Articles of Confederation. The “whole point” of the present constitution was a stronger central government.
The problem is, the one time that was put into practice was the Redemption. Apparently democracy and equality were “tyranny,” while disenfranchisement, terrorism, and de facto re-enslavement were “liberty.” It’s Orwellian. Not for nothing do I give the “hedge against tyranny” argument rolled eyes.
But that line of reasoning runs counter to the foundational principle that fundamental rights are not granted or given or created or otherwise established by their mention in the Bill of Rights.
If it is legally true that the right to arms is a pre-existing right and is not granted by the 2nd Amendment, it follows that the right is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence . . .
The right can not be said to be dependent upon, qualified by or conditioned upon, the words of the 2nd (e.g., “well regulated”) or a structure that is itself, ENTIRELY dependent upon the Constitution for its existence (e.g., the organized militia and/or a citizens enrollment status in the militia).
SCOTUS has been boringly consistent in affirming and re-affirming this ‘pre-existing right’ principle and the “[not] in any manner dependent on [the Constitution]” condition for the RKBA, for going on 140 years:
[INDENT]Supreme Court, 1876: “The right there specified is that of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.”(1) This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . .”
Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms (2) is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . "
Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . .”[/INDENT]
(1) SCOTUS is quoting the original indictment’s description of the right to arms, as exercised by the Freedmen, (the indictment of the KKK members who disarmed, kidnapped and lynched the Freedmen), that being armed self defense, in public, by ex-slave citizens in 1873 Louisiana, a state without any official militia (it having been disbanded by Congress).
(2) SCOTUS is citing and quoting the earlier case but dropping the case specific language, substituting the words from the indictment for the text of the 2nd Amendment.
If your theory is correct, how is it that the SCOTUS recognized the RKBA of two ex-slaves in a state where even if there was a militia they would have been barred from serving?
How could any right to arms exist for them if your theory is correct?
.
You haven’t lived until you’ve fired off a weapon with a blast radius longer than its ballistic trajectory.
…Um, sorry, I mean to say, you haven’t lived *after *you’ve fired off a weapon with a blast radius longer than its ballistic trajectory.
I guess it depends. At some point its just hard to overcome the physics. Grappling techniques allow you to use leverage to your advantage, using your large muscles against your opponent’s small muscles but with enough strength you can muscle your way into better positions. There is a reason there are weight classes in MMA (and most martial arts) and even very athletic women don’t have the arm and upper body strength that a healthy athletic young man twice her weight will have and I suspect that a male amateur with a couple of years of training will be able to beat a top female that is half his weight most of the time.
nuclear hand grenades?
That’s all well and good, but let’s look at the fact pattern that spawned this thread.
So Caetano was assaulted, hospitalized, and homeless. She had restraining orders against her abuser to no avail. He was waiting for her and threatening her when she displayed a stun gun. That alone was sufficient to avoid further confrontation.
So do you, Measure for Measure, believe that Caetano should be a convicted felon, that stun guns should be outside the scope of the 2nd amendment, and that Caetano who is nearly a foot shorter and close to 100 pounds lighter than her abuser should not have used a weapon to defend herself and instead relied on… a layered defense approach including deescalation, voice, stance and flight?
As to the thread topic, anything that facilitates effective self defense should be covered by the 2nd amendment. A good rule of thumb, though not inclusive, is what police avail themselves of. Anything they have at their disposal I should be able to have.
Not me. I want better stuff than they usually get. Glocks and such are serviceable weapons, but I prefer the finer things in life.
Elitist 
It’s not the limit - just a starting point.
The strengthening of a central government with the Constitution doesn’t mean it was still not limited. Roll your eyes all you wish a piece of paper guarantees nothing.
Wait you mean a piece of paper did nothing to ensure her security but a physical weapon did?
Which “presses” should be protected by the First Amendment?
The history of English-descended people owning guns, going as far back as the English Civil War and subsequent history, laws and commentary makes the point of the Second Amendment pretty clear: the People en masse should have the weapons necessary to be unconquerable by a despotic government. And to protect that, the government should not have the authority to forbid the people weapons.
And yes, “the People” in this context means the People, not any government structure that purports to represent them. Second only to 'troops"- regular army soldiers who were regarded as little more than mercenaries or slaves of the state- English commentators on citizen armies disparaged “select” militias: persons vetted for loyalty to the regime and allowed guns in order to help suppress the rest of the populace. (<COUGH> National Guard <COUGH>).
Don’t take my word for it, read any of the writers on the subject of citizen militias from the middle of the 17th century onward.