Topic: Let's Discuss the Second Amendment (Read 145 times)

I checked the damn box.. I think it refreshed though and I assumed it was still checked. Well now. I'll have to think about that. Thanks for pointing that out.

No it's not.  You forgot to check the box. (happened to me before)

Might want to lock it up and start again or this will be a shit show real fast.

Right. Except none of that addresses my issue with any real weight or a convincing argument. It's perfectly understandable that citizens have the right to arm for self defense. The issue is when it comes to the militia. It was intended and written that the right was for arming for state militias. But they don't exist any more. More importantly, the states have allowed the federal government to have a standing army which is what the entire concern was at the time. Having failed to protect the country from that, the states have basically said there is no need for their state militias and thus there is no need for people to arm for that. That is my issue. I have yet to see any solid argument that resolves that for me and without that, then I can't see owning things like assault rifles as still being an actionable right. If the states reformed militias then yes, by all means arm but in the absence of that, no. Besides which, history has shown time and again that poorly armed groups are capable of "defeating" well armed groups over time.

The reason for the 2nd Amendment originally was to keep the government and the standing army from turning on the people.

At the time the US Constitution was written - including the Amendments - everybody owned the latest guns available. The idea of limiting guns from the people had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. In fact, the greater the gun technology, the more the founding fathers wanted the people to have the latest.

Listen to Ben Swann explain:

Reality Check: The True Meaning of the Second Amendment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gqDH_3nWvg

See also, "'2nd Amendment Has Nothing To Do With White Nationalism' -Ben Swann" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VibIlTUMF-A or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-8LaLXKKy4.

More: "The Very Politically Incorrect Truth About The Second Amendment - Benn Swann - REALITY CHECK" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKom5mhdC_8.

Then, look at the sidebar links to all kinds of similar videos. You will see that anybody who looks at what the founders had to say about their reasons for the 2nd Amendment, says roughly the same things as Ben Swann shows.

Yes this is self moderated. Keep on topic and don't get into any personal attacks.

This is not about gun control as any laws would have to adhere to the Second Amendment so keep it to the amendment.


IMO all the arguments about gun control and the like are simply pointless until the meaning of the second amendment is clearly defined. Frankly, I'd like to see some blatantly bad laws passed that could be used to take it to the supreme court in order to get them to finally rule on it completely once and for all. Until that happens, both sides get to use this issue to divide the voters when it shouldn't be the case.

One of the initial problems with this amendment is how you interpret the main portion of the sentence. For example, is it:

A well regulated Militia and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

or

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms for the purpose of a well regulated Militia, shall not be infringed.

I believe that most people, including myself, believe that the first one is the correct interpretation although I'm sure there are some that will argue for the second as I can't see how one could want "no guns" unless they did.

For myself, I support the rights of people to own arms for defense and I would never support any laws or people regardless of party that would try and do away with that. I'm an independent and while I vote left, I have voted the other way a couple times when I felt the issues were important enough so would have no problem doing so over this. I don't believe in the party system and so don't follow lock step with any one side. Also, regulation is a completely different issue than rights.

The supreme court has only heard a couple cases related to the second amendment and that's what they have basically upheld. They seem to punt on the rest of it though. They have also stipulated that not all weapons are intended for self defense. For example, they mentioned that sawed off shotguns are not and so the people do not have the right to own/use them.

Now, although it's not covered, I would think that hunting weapons could be considered a weapon of self defense as that could be the only weapon a hunter owns. I would think that any attempt to exclude hunting weapons that people use to feed themselves would tend to invoke other parts of the constitution so I don't see the point in discussing them unless you're of the opinion there should be no guns.

So here's where we get into what I view as the primary outstanding issue and where I have a problem. Given sawed off shotguns are not considered a weapon of defense, I doubt an assault weapon would be either. So we're left with the militia portion in order to justify them. There are no militias any more, not as they once were as part of the states themselves. So how can it be argued that individuals that are not part of a militia, have the right to own them? I've looked into the history of the militias and am not convinced it's valid any more.

There was a report or something written years ago that argued for gun ownership related to militias. It was written by Republicans and had a Democratic rebuttal. I didn't save it and have failed to find it again so if someone does please post it. I felt the the Republicans made a very strong argument for their case and the Democratic one was woefully inadequate. But I was still not convinced.

So, what's your take on the second amendment? Is the militia part still valid today and thus things like assault weapons are a right? People argue that they need them to overthrow the government if need be. But the second amendment stipulates that the right is in terms of the states themselves. So how can that argument hold up? Make your case.