3 ms·

With the AI soldier/killer drones the second amendment becomes fairly useless. The government cannot bleed.

jahewson 8y ago
Unfortunately the Supreme Court already ruled that the second amendment applies to self defence irrespective of the “militia” part (DC vs Heller, 2008).
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  The ruling specifically focused on the militia aspect militia. Quoting that ruling: The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. People conflate militia now a days with military, but they are not the same. The "militia" are the armed citizens of a state. And similarly the security of a free state is talking explicitly about security against government itself - not foreign invaders, which was the domain of the federal government. An armed population can prevent the imposition of tyrannical rule, an unarmed population cannot. In verbose modern text the amendment might read something like, "A well regulated and armed population being necessary for the protection of a state against tyranny, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
- arminiusreturns 8y ago
  Unfortunately people tend to forget or were never taught that the people have natural rights they still retain even if they aren't referenced in the bill of rights, and that indeed that was one of the main arguments against the bill of rights in the first place (that the government would see the incomplete list and think those were all we had, which is a repudiation of the foundations of the American system). Only one of such rights is the right of self defense, being independent from the right of a militia to keep and bear arms in defense against tyranny. In other words, you could remove the second amendment and the people would still have the right to bear arms.
- mmirate 8y ago
  What's "unfortunate" about DC v Heller?

Unfortunately the Supreme Court already ruled that the second amendment applies to self defence irrespective of the “militia” part (DC vs Heller, 2008).

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
The ruling specifically focused on the militia aspect militia. Quoting that ruling: The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. People conflate militia now a days with military, but they are not the same. The "militia" are the armed citizens of a state. And similarly the security of a free state is talking explicitly about security against government itself - not foreign invaders, which was the domain of the federal government. An armed population can prevent the imposition of tyrannical rule, an unarmed population cannot. In verbose modern text the amendment might read something like, "A well regulated and armed population being necessary for the protection of a state against tyranny, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
arminiusreturns 8y ago
Unfortunately people tend to forget or were never taught that the people have natural rights they still retain even if they aren't referenced in the bill of rights, and that indeed that was one of the main arguments against the bill of rights in the first place (that the government would see the incomplete list and think those were all we had, which is a repudiation of the foundations of the American system). Only one of such rights is the right of self defense, being independent from the right of a militia to keep and bear arms in defense against tyranny. In other words, you could remove the second amendment and the people would still have the right to bear arms.
mmirate 8y ago
What's "unfortunate" about DC v Heller?