Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?

[nwoods]

So, RPG launchers should be the right of every citizen?

If SWAT has them, and someone decides I need to be taken away with without a trial (and that bill passed not to long ago BTW), then yes. Should I be allowed to use it against my neighbor who's goat eats my roses ? Of course not. Responsible use goes hand in hand with responsible ownership. But if everyone was thusly equipped, would that not be a deterrent from irresponsible behavior? That is the whole point. If you think I'm packing, are you likely to target me as any easy mark to take my wallet?

Maybe not a great example, as I don't think a wallet justifies deadly force, unless the perp does his deed at gunpoint. Anyone who points a gun at another forfeits his rights immediately.

 

[Corey]

One of my favorite concealed carry videos.
If more criminals knew the general public was armed, there might be less crime.

 

[2025 deleted member]

Packy, I agree that the weapons could not have been envisioned, but the key you are overlooking, is that other than canon, the weapons of the civilians were comparable to the weapons carried by solders. That is the basis of the thinking, then, and today. The citizenry should be well equipped if they are to stand against an unjust government. I think it was Ben Franklin that said, "An armed person is a Citizen, and unarmed person is a Subject."

I was going to type the exact same thing, but you already did. We would be so much better off if the government had some fear of the citizens.

 

[cnynrat]

It is so odd I found this topic on the portal, I just had this discussion with my 8th graders (I'm a history teacher). A few asked me about what I thought about the right to bear arms wording was about. I told them, that at that time period, Americans, being freshly liberated from Britian, feared stating armies, and the use of these gov't armies to enforce laws. I also told them to also consider that weapons like the AK-47 didn't exist, and the line between military/civilian small arms was closer than what we have today. The Founding Fathers and Mothers couldn't picture what we have today, in terms of technology, guns, cities, and society. They were enpowering Jefferson's "yeoman" farmers to protect their land and safeguard the republic from itself and other enemies. To be honest, the Founding Fathers and Mothers most likely didn't think about this one that hard, it most likely assumed that the new nation's civilians could have rifles to hunt, protect their lands...it was just the reality of being in the new world that was still "wild".

Packy -

I think you entirely missed a key point in your lesson, especially disturbing given your profession.

What was the proximate cause, the catalyst, for the beginning of armed hostilities between the colonists and the British? We enjoy the telling of the ride of Paul Revere and the lights in the church steeple so much many of us have forgotten the underlying cause for those events. It was that the British were stepping up their efforts to disarm the colonists. General Gage had caused all the powder to be stored in a central facility under British control. They had embargoed shipments of arms to the colonies. The very British soldiers that were either coming by land or by sea were coming to confiscate weapons from the colonists. The colonists had reached a breaking point and would not allow themselves to be disarmed. The result was the shot heard round the world.

With this memory of the British attempts to disarm the citizens fresh in their minds our founders sat down to establish the basis of our Republic. As a direct result of their experiences with the British they clearly and firmly established that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In recent times this right has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in a pair of historical decisions: District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. I would encourage you to read the opinions of the Justices in these two cases. In fact, I think it would be great if your 8th grade students would read these opinions. There is a certain amount of legal mumbo-jumbo, but by and large these opinions are quite readable by the lay person (as they should be). I think contrasting the rationale of the majority in McDonald v. Chicago with the concurring opinion by Thomas would be an excellent assignment for your students that would enlighten them not only about the 2nd ammendment, but also the post-Civil war amendments during reconstruction.

 

[cnynrat]

It is so odd I found this topic on the portal, I just had this discussion with my 8th graders (I'm a history teacher). A few asked me about what I thought about the right to bear arms wording was about. I told them, that at that time period, Americans, being freshly liberated from Britian, feared stating armies, and the use of these gov't armies to enforce laws. I also told them to also consider that weapons like the AK-47 didn't exist, and the line between military/civilian small arms was closer than what we have today. The Founding Fathers and Mothers couldn't picture what we have today, in terms of technology, guns, cities, and society. They were enpowering Jefferson's "yeoman" farmers to protect their land and safeguard the republic from itself and other enemies. To be honest, the Founding Fathers and Mothers most likely didn't think about this one that hard, it most likely assumed that the new nation's civilians could have rifles to hunt, protect their lands...it was just the reality of being in the new world that was still "wild".

Founding Mothers???? I was not aware that any females signed the Declaration of Independence. I didn't really notice this when I first read your post, but my wife was offended by this bit of PC language.

 

[sett]

Packy:

The history teacher label is a joke? Please tell me it is. It is quite apparent that you are not in the right field. It is shocking that as misinformed and mislead as you are you feel competent to have a discussion with anyone on 18th century America.

P.M. me for a reading list. You are in need of an education not another education course.

 

[robert]

So, RPG launchers should be the right of every citizen?

Yes actually. An individual who has not proven themselves to be irresponsible or unfit should be allowed to own whatever they want- that's the basis of liberty. To paraphrase Uncle Ben (Spiderman's uncle)- with liberty comes great responsibility. If you read the writings of the founding fathers you'll see that most of them, certainly not all, did not want to place restrictions on individuals but rather believed that they should be allowed to do as they pleased as long as they didn't tread on the rights of others.* That's personal responsibility and unfortunately it's not taught as it used to be and that's a shame. In other words, as long as I'm a responsible person I won't use my RPG in a manner which would infringe on my neighbors but if I do then I forfeit my right to own the RPG and must make compensation in whatever manner the court sees fit. They understood that the potential was there for abuse and they accepted that laws were needed to punish those who infringed on others rights; they also noted that some were "feeble minded" and shouldn't be allowed to engage in certain activities. Our definition of feeble mindedness has changed over the years but we would all agree that giving a retarded person who can't distinguish between right and wrong a hand grenade is a bad idea. You'll also note that they understood that occasionally bad things would happen but that was the price you pay for believing in individual liberty.

* There are some contradictions in their writings which have to be tempered with the prevailing ideas of the time but also note that many of them reflected on those contradictions and questioned how to reconcile them both in their own minds as well as as a nation.

 

[Packy]

I am a 6-12 grade history teacher with a BA in history, and have won awards for my research papers. My paper on how the AK-47 changed the world was published. Founding Mothers is standard now in history circles, it is not PC trash, John Adams' wife was key in helping her husband, just because they didn't sign does not make them any less important to the process of creating an Republic that has lasted 235 year. The women that would be married to the FF were smart, educated women that could hold their own in topics of the day, because they were trained to by the higher education system of the day for women.

The American Revolution was a fight over economics, the lack of rights of the colonies in the British Gov't, and the personal liberties of colonists, not firearms. As I've said, rifles were an not issue in the colonies, they were used as tools of sport, food gathering, and defense, I would wonder what the FFs and FMs would have thought about the AK-47...if my TARDIS was out of the shop, I would ask them.
I still think my point is valid, the small-arms of the average civilian and the average soldier were very similar if not the same gun. During the Revoutuion and Civil War, the personal weapon of some of the soldiers, was their "hunting rifle", which is one of the reasons the South lost the war, another subject of one of my history papers.
Yes, the FFs and FMs wanted the ability for the citzens to overthrow a oppressive gov't, but that doesn't translate to the right to have M-60s in every home and back of your Tacos. The FFs and FMs were hoping that if it was a given law to the public to overthrow their gov't than it would encourge the political system to listen and adapt to the needs/wants of the citizens... and that could be used instead of the gun. The FFs and FMs tried the political process with the British Gov't before taking up arms. As my wife says: "guns make a bad situation worse."

I personally like guns, grew up with them and owned a few and write on them on my blog and history papers, but I still don't believe that the 2nd Amendment gives anyone the right to bear RPGs, Galting guns, or .50 cal sniper weapons. There is no reason why those should be in the hands of the common people, even if you can afford it or the past the background check, or get a Class-III, somethings simply should not be in the hands of the civilian.

 

[cnynrat]

I agree with your point that at the time of the American Revolution there was little if any difference between the firearms owned by the average citizen and those carried by soldiers. However, it is also very clear that one of the reasons why the Founding Fathers ensured we would have the right to keep and bear arms is to provide the ultimate protection against the actions of a tyrannical government. To be sure, their intention was that this would serve only as a last resort when other measures have been exhausted. But having acknowledged that this was one of the reasons for the 2nd amendment, I think it's difficult to argue that citizens should not have the right to keep and bear small arms that are identical to those carried by our military today. To suggest anything else would render the right inoperative for it's originally intended purpose.

Regarding the reasons for the American Revolution I think your description is off the mark. The fundamental issue was that the colonists were not given the same rights and liberties as those of a British citizen across a wide range of issues. It is true that abridgement of economic rights was as issue. But, so too was the abridgement of the most fundamental civil right, namely the right keep and bear arms in order to provide for the self defense of one's self and one's family. The British had engaged in efforts to disarm the colonists for some time, and it is certainly the case that the catalyst for hostilities in the Boston area was orders by General Gage to disarm colonists.

My issue is that we seem to take a very narrow view in terms of what we teach our children about the American Revolution today. In your original post it seemed as though you thought you needed to make excuses for the Founding Fathers having written the 2nd amendment. The subtext was "Yes, yes, it's quite crazy to think that people should have the right to keep and bear arms knowing what we know today, but if you could just imagine the perspective of our Founding Fathers all those years ago you can see why they might have been so mistaken." Frankly, I'd expect a much more robust defense of this right.

I have to once again recommend that you read the opinion by Justice Alito in District of Columbia v. Heller, and the opinions of Justices Scalia and Thomas in McDonald v. Chicago. All of these opinions offer a great deal of background on the historical context for this right, and Thomas's opinion also provides a very interesting discussion on the 9th amendment and how it should be understood to apply in this instance.

I think I will continue to simply refer to the Founding Fathers. I mean no disrespect to their wives, and am fully aware that they provided great support to their husbands, and in some notable cases were deeply engaged in the arguments of the day. It's also true that the Continental Congress was composed entirely of males, and the same is true of the group that later wrote and ratified our Constitution. Sadly, our society is often so awash in political correctness that we fail to recognize it for what it is.

 

[TangoBlue]

We do have the right to "keep and bear small arms that are identical to those carried by our military today."

There is existing Federal policy, administered by the BATF, that allows any of us (albeit dependent upon ones local residence), after LE review, submitting specific documents for BATF review, and paying an additional tax to own fully automatic weapons, "any other weapons," and destructive devices.

Sad part is we still can't own our own Tomahawk Cruise Missle, though.

 

[cnynrat]

We do have the right to "keep and bear small arms that are identical to those carried by our military today."

There is existing Federal policy, administered by the BATF, that allows any of us (albeit dependent upon ones local residence), after LE review, submitting specific documents for BATF review, and paying an additional tax to own fully automatic weapons, "any other weapons," and destructive devices.

Sad part is we still can't own our own Tomahawk Cruise Missle, though.

My point would be that the process for owning such weapons should be no different than buying a bolt action hunting rifle. It should not be subject to arbitrary LE review, and there should be no special taxes required. It is generally accepted that there should be no taxes required to exercise fundamental rights, and I consider this to be a fundamental right.

Regarding the cruise missile I suspect the more significant barrier is acquiring the launch platform.

 

[TangoBlue]

Regarding the cruise missile I suspect the more significant barrier is acquiring the launch platform.

Well, I do have a Tacoma...

 

[Packy]

The comment about the Tomahawk missile, got me to thinking about gun control of the future. If and when we develop direct-energy weapons, or Gauss-based weaponry, do you think that the gov't of the future would ban them from citizen ownership? Can you imagine a plasma rifle's destructive power during a drive-by....my gods!

I recently learned that someone i know legally owns a sound suppressor...my question is why?

The Taco would make a nice launching plaform! The resistance movement in the Terminators uses pickup trucks!:ylsmoke:

BTW-I have yet to undercover any documents on General Gage disarming Boston prior to the outbreak of hostiles. Where did you read that?

 

[cnynrat]

BTW-I have yet to undercover any documents on General Gage disarming Boston prior to the outbreak of hostiles. Where did you read that?

The black powder used at the time was more volatile that the smokeless powders used today. People would buy powder, and then for reasons of safety store it in common powder houses that were away from houses and other occupied buildings. General Gage seized the contents of some powder houses and ordered it removed to houses under the control of the British army, and ordered it not be disbursed to the owners without orders from him.

There were also a number of instances of British soldiers seizing weapons owned by colonists. The arms seized included some canons that were owned by private citizens, which is interesting given the previous discussion about ownership of military weapons today.

One source I'd recommend is The Founder's Second Amendment: The Origins of the Right to Bear Arms by Stephen Halbrook. The book provides a good overview of the relevant events leading up to the start of hostilities.

 

[TangoBlue]

The comment about the Tomahawk missile, got me to thinking about gun control of the future. If and when we develop direct-energy weapons, or Gauss-based weaponry, do you think that the gov't of the future would ban them from citizen ownership? Can you imagine a plasma rifle's destructive power during a drive-by....my gods!

No worries, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Directed Energy will have specific guidelines and restrictions placed upon citizens possession and use at that time in the future.

I recently learned that someone i know legally owns a sound suppressor...my question is why?

There are many good reasons. Hunting - requires less (if any) hearing protection. You can be more alert of your surroundings and less conspicuous to near-by hunters, dwellings, and other wildlife. Protects the hearing of your faithful companion (human or dog). Target practice - Particularly on your own property where zoning laws allow; not disturbing neighbors or raising concerns. Accuracy - Emerging bullet receives less “buffering” from turbulent gases and reduces the report, causing the shooter to be more relaxed and not "flinch." Also reduces recoil and muzzle rise, thus allowing for more accurate follow-through shots. Muzzle blast and flash is also reduced.

Many European countries don't even regulate the sales of suppressors for the reasons cited above. Remember - Hollywood has "silencers" on their stealthy pistols and rifles for the sake of the story and the drama it introduces. The rest of the planet is governed by physics where suppressed weapons still make noise, albeit reduced, their actions still cycling and making sharp metal noises.