10 ms·

Not american here so this is just a supposition. I think the main issue with it is related to the constitution. While the idea as far as I understand, was for

by BSousa 14y ago

Not american here so this is just a supposition. I think the main issue with it is related to the constitution. While the idea as far as I understand, was for citizens to bear arms and form a militia to protect against a foreign power, many of the people that defend the right to bear arms do so based on a limited knowledge of it (i.e.: 'The right to bear arms is in the constitution' but have no idea what comes next). So you have the lobbies, and supporting those lobbies you have 'ignorant' people defending their 'rights' on this issue. I can only imagine how hard it must be to try and do something about it.

embwbam 14y ago
I'm American. I grew up in a conservative household so I think I understand where they are coming from. My understanding is that many consider the 2nd amendment to allow them to bear arms to protect themselves from their own oppressive government. The idea is that no government can become completely totalitarian without first disarming the population. And if they try, the people can revolt. That may be an incorrect understanding, but I'm pretty sure that's what a lot of people are thinking when their guns get "taken away". You can see why new gun control laws might be alarming if you have this attitude.
- BSousa 14y ago
  As I said, it was a supposition ;) I can understand having a license to own a gun (My dad owns a hunting rifle, and a handgun that was an inheritance from my grandpa which will possible pass down to me) but I was watching some news a couple weeks ago where they were showing a hearing on the senate (I think) and the people that went to talk there were defending that changing the laws to allow some guns but not others (automatic rifles I think) was wrong. In exactly what case does a civilian need an automatic rifle? I sorta understand the afraid of the government thing, but let's be honest, if the government wants to be even more/fully totalitarian, an untrained militia carrying rifles won't stop them.
  - rooshdi 14y ago
    I'm American and the truth is we don't need automatic rifles, but there is a very strong history of firearms in this country and thus a very strong supportive lobbying group behind it fighting to strike down anything which has potential to weaken it financially. The protecting ourselves from 'the government' argument is pure nonsensical bullshit, as 'the government' already has more nefarious means of controlling the masses. Simply put, there are a lot of ignorant people in America supporting ignorant lobbying groups who care more about their money than morality.
  - mseebach 14y ago
    > In exactly what case does a civilian need an automatic rifle? Generally, suppression of negative freedoms are argued in terms of "what is the need of the collective to forcibly deny this freedom to citizens" rather than what need the citizen has to use the freedom. What is your exact need for freedom of the press extended to even obscene material? What is your exact need to be allowed to worship even satan? And my favourite: if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. > but let's be honest, if the government wants to be even more/fully totalitarian, an untrained militia carrying rifles won't stop them. It's probably not going to help much against a slow slide, but it will make revolutions look a lot different.
  - sigzero 14y ago
    The government really has no jurisdiction to determine how I exercise my RIGHT to keep and bear arms. I don't need to explain to you or anyone else for that matter why I want or think I need an AR-15.
    - khuey 14y ago
      Would you apply that same logic to a strategic nuclear weapon? If not, where is the dividing line between a nuke and an AR-15, and who and what determines it?
      - damoncali 14y ago
        At a minimum, you want to have available weapons which provide a significant deterrent to government abuse of power. You want such abuses to be at the risk of a protracted deadly fight that threatens the stability of the power of the abusive government. Anything beyond that is unnecessary, and too much beyond that threatens the security of the people as a whole. Practically speaking, I would allow everything up to .50 caliber machine guns with minimal regulation.
- lolcraft 14y ago
  But the problem with this is that a government can become completely totalitarian without disarming its subjects. Imagine the Soviet Union, but this time you're allowed to bear arms. Or even better, imagine the USA. Sure, you can bear arms, so in the letter you still can fight for your rights. But in practice, the second you try to pull that shit, a F117 Nighthawk is going to blow your terrorist ass to pieces. Practice is everything. Damn, the (letter of the) constitution of the Soviet Union actually gave their citizens the right to form political parties and run from office. You were provided by the government a party newspaper, headquarters... of course, if you tried to, you were hanged for treason.
  - mseebach 14y ago
    And the problem with that is that it's not that simple as Iraq and Afghanistan has taught us. Guns, of course, are only part of the equation, but I'm pretty sure both wars would have looked a lot different had the population been generally unarmed. Also, the evacuation of the jews of nazi Germany would have looked a lot different had the jews been armed.
    - tome 14y ago
      The Nazis overran nation states with mobilized armies. A small segment of the populace with guns would have been irrelevant.
      - Tangaroa 14y ago
        The French Resistance and Warsaw Uprising were not entirely irrelevant, even if they were defeated.
      - mseebach 14y ago
        It's one sentence, please read it. I'm talking about the evacuation of jews from Germany, not the general war effort, which was gainst countries with armies.
        tome 14y ago
- zanny 14y ago
  This is my take away too, and I think it is valuable, especially in an era of every politician going out of their way to fuck everyone else over for their own gain like we have right now. I'm very unnerved by the prospect of the military being allowed to wield so much technology for the purposes of murder that citizens can't have already. It kind of stacks the cards against the people. We are not in a perfect utopia, there will be conflict, and strife, and almost certainly (be it short or long term) there will be the turning of governments and rule. There has always been, and if you don't think it can happen in the modern era... the soviet union collapsed just over 20 years ago. I would never own a gun, but I value my right to possess one in the eyes of the constitution in the event my government goes too far into the totalitarian deep end of the pond. It is a right few other nations can claim to have - if their governments turn on them, they really have no defense because they are never armed. But I'm also not trying to say having guns would keep the US military from rolling over whoever they wanted in the country if the fed just decided to conquer their own nation. They still do have all the military hardware citizens aren't allowed to have, which wasn't kept in line with the purpose of the second amendment. Though I also don't think private ownership of nuclear arms would be the best thing ever, but that is the kind of thing nobody should have. I'd rather see nobody use weapons of war they wouldn't trust their citizens with.
- tomkin 14y ago
  That's all well and good, except no gun you have is going to make a difference. If you're worried about a tyrannical government, you better start investing in drones, nukes, tanks, etc. Otherwise, you're just fooling yourself thinking you stand a chance. All you have to do is look around at other countries where they don't love their guns. In Canada, a gun is like a hammer, or any tool for that matter. If you start worshipping a tool, polishing it, in hopes of being the lone ranger, you have some problems. Give teachers/everyone guns! – by far the most ridiculous notion, as if the already burdened education system would be able to deal with another cost. "Lock up the guns for safety" seems to be another point that makes no sense when you start to analyze real life scenarios. How exactly do you get to a gun in time when someone is firing off rounds in seconds? And the idea that a teacher or even police officer is immune to mental illness is an abhorrent disconnection with reality. The 2nd amendment is just that – an amendment. Crafted in a time where AK-47s and AR-15s didn't exist. Under the interpretation of the 2nd amendment, people have convinced themselves they are entitled to fit their family with military weapons. Something other gun-free societies just can't understand.
  - Turing_Machine 14y ago
    "hat's all well and good, except no gun you have is going to make a difference. If you're worried about a tyrannical government, you better start investing in drones, nukes, tanks" Nukes and tanks are useless in a guerrilla war.
lolcraft 14y ago
It was also used, as I understand, as sort of legal allowance to form paramilitary parties with sort of like police powers. So you, as a citizen, could enforce laws when there was no police or army able to do so for you. For instance, in the days of slavery, the 2nd amendment was used to justify groups of armed thugs [1] that hunted black slaves on the run. I've never understood the logic behind Republicans of the 20th century [2]. AFAICT, they think the 2nd gives them "the right to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government". That's clearly bullshit. First, because what constitutes tyranny changes a lot from person to person, and only legislation can define it clearly and "democratically". Second, because the former means you're legitimizing political violence in a democracy, precisely the system where that kind of shit should not be allowed. So in fact you're just making terrorism, or at least the kinds of terrorism you like, legal, with all the contradictions that would bring. Timothy-McVeigh-like bullshit ensues. [1] Of course, back then they were considered to be respectable persons that followed the law. [2] They're not the only ones, of course (cf. Black Panthers, which I personally am more sympathetic to, since IMO there was clearly oppression there), but they're the loudest.
- bmelton 14y ago
  To everyone who assumes that "tyrannical government" is always read to mean "our" government, here's a primer. 1) Everybody should (and probably already does) know that the United States was essentially formed out of that exact type of rebellion. The arms that won us the war of Independence were all provided by private citizens, just as the cannons were, the ships that formed our navy, etc. If we hadn't had private weapons, we wouldn't have had anywhere remotely enough arms to have won the war. 2) The provision allows us to defend against government tyranny, foreign and domestic. This means that we are allowed the right to bear arms to aid in the nation's defense, just as our framers did, in the event that we are attacked on our own soil. To those that would claim "like anybody's going to target the world's largest military" - who is to say that we'll always have a large military? In 100 years, who is to say that someone isn't elected that dramatically repurposes military spending. Arguments that may not be true now are not necessarily always going to be true. 3) Historically, disarming a populace has in many cases resulted in the unfair abuse of those citizens. History is replete with stories where a population, or a segment of a population was disarmed, and those people were subsequently subject to tyranny, or abuse, or genocide. Having a right to keep and bear arms isn't our only defense against tyranny -- in reality, a reasonable people should exhaust all civic means of defending against it first. When a persons rights are trampled, we have civic and legal recourses for those. As in DC v Heller and Chicago v McDonald, we learned that despite the state's belief that the 2nd amendment may be restricted in certain ways, there are legal recourses against those restrictions. Nobody in DC (to my knowledge at least) was launching an armed protest of handgun laws there, as they should not have. That said, in the event that the system does not work, or if in 200 years time, it has been perverted to the effect that it does not respect the rights of its people, the 2nd amendment may be the last defense against tyranny.
dpiers 14y ago
America was founded by revolutionaries; people who understood that tyranny and threats to liberty do not necessarily come from foreign powers. The right to bear arms and form a militia was established to protect citizens from their own government as much as any foreign power. The idea of a bunch of gun toting lunatics becoming fed up with the government and revolting is terrifying, but it's also how this country came to exist.
damoncali 14y ago
Almost. The constitution enumerates certain rights that are specifically off limits to the government to give them extra emphasis - the Bill of Rights , which are the first 10 amendments to the constitution. The 2nd, of course is the right to bear arms. An interesting side note is that there was a debate as to whether or not to even include the bill of rights lest future leaders attempt to nitpick their language and twist them into restrictions of the people. Or still worse, that they would be perceived as the only rights protected by the constitution. Never were they intended to be justification for restriction of the people. But back to the 2nd Amendment. The purpose of the Amendment is steeped in American and Anglo culture and history. This is the best summary I know of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_... The purpose of the amendment is quite certainly military in nature, and comes from a distrust of centralized government and a dangerous world in general. The authors wanted to make it totally crystal clear that the government could not subvert the people's obvious right to arm themselves and form military units, aka "militias". The nature of the threat to which those militias could respond was pretty much anything - the security of the state. The federalist papers offer context here. So yes, there is a constitutional basis for all this. But more than that it is a deeply ingrained part of American history and culture. People like to throw around the power of lobbyists, but that's not really it. The American people largely believe at a fundamental level that access to weapons is a strong and necessary counter to the existence of armed units within the government and elsewhere. The power of the gun lobby flows from that, not the other way around.
curiousdannii 14y ago
So a silly question: does the constitution protect the right to own ammunition as well as weapons?
- MrMember 14y ago
  I highly doubt any ultra-restrictive form of 'ammunition control' would pass Constitutional scrutiny. Saying the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect ownership of ammunition is like saying the 1st Amendment only protects free speech in a literal sense (words coming out of your mouth) and not speech on the Internet.
- damoncali 14y ago
  yes.
- bmelton 14y ago
  The second amendment protects firearms, not bludgeoning instruments that are shaped like firearms -- so yes.
  - suresk 14y ago
    I have a question about the 2nd amendment: Is the right to bear arms absolute, or is it subject to reasonable regulation? Example: There are a lot of weapons I cannot legally acquire, for example: I can't buy an M249 machine gun, most automatic M-16s, a functioning fighter jet with all its armament, or a nuclear warhead. In your view, is this acceptable, or is it a clear violation of the 2nd amendment?
    - bmelton 14y ago
      So, regarding the fighter jet and nuclear warhead, it is not considered a man-portable arm, which the supreme court has narrowed the definition of firearm down to. There are arguments for and against whether or not it ought to be absolute, but clearly it is not, at least as presently governed. Thus far, the only known challenge on the National Firearms Act (which is what prohibits us from buying fully automatic machine guns) was US v Miller, in 1939. That was, as I mentioned in another thread, a very curious peace of legislation because Miller, a known gangster caught in possession of a sawed off shotgun, was being tried for possession of something he shouldn't have. He argued that per the second amendment, he should have the right to carry it, as it would be useful in the aid of a militia. There were some challenges in transportation, and portions of the trial were run with Miller in absentia, during which time the US Government testified that sawed off shotguns had never been useful to the army, and should not be considered useful to a militia -- despite the fact they had been in use somewhat regularly only 20 years prior, by the US military. Further, Miller was killed before the decision was rendered, but the trial went on. So, that said, if one believes that what the Supreme Court deems is Constitutional is, in fact what is Constitutional, then we are subject to 'reasonable regulation'. Looking more recently however, at DC v. Heller. At the time, DC's laws had an outright ban on handguns, and as such, prevented him from doing so. Heller was a security guard at a Federal building during the day (where he was armed), but went home at night to a very bad neighborhood with no means to defend himself. He petitioned for the right to bear arms, and ultimately, the decision was found that DC's outright ban on handguns was unconstitutional, and was struck down. In the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia claimed that weapons "in common use at the time" were exempt from outright bans. More recent cases since Heller have pretty much affirmed this, with bans in Chicago (Chicago v McDonald), Illinois (Moore v Madigan) and others being outright struck down as unconstitutional. Similarly, I believe that attempts to ban the AR15 (and similar popular weapons) will, if successful, be ultimately struck down as unconstitutional per the precedent in Heller. The AR15 is the most popular rifle sold in America today, and has been for a number of years, and is clearly "in common use at the time". Regarding fully automatic machine guns, the NFA provisions have not been challenged since Miller, which wasn't even a full challenge in and of itself, and certainly went far above 'unusual'. I suspect that within the next 10 years we'll see someone challenge the National Firearms Act restrictions, and quite possibly win. The reason I believe this is because the second amendment is provided "for militia" purposes and for "defense against tyranny, foreign or domestic." As it stands, we are far outgunned by our own military. Historically, the arms used in the Revolutionary War were almost entirely provided by the citizenry and militia men. Militia members were expected to show up ready to fight and armed with weapons "in common use at the time." That's where we got our rifles, but it's also where we got our cannons, mortars, ships and navy from -- all were provided by the citizenry at large. That said, since I think you were asking my personal view, I can't say whether or not it is or is not unconstitutional, because it has not yet been challenged on Constitutionality. I know that might seem like a copout, and I suppose it is, but as there isn't particularly clear evidence either way, I would say that I dunno. The biggest argument for it, right now, is that there are legally ownable fully automatic machine guns (interestingly enough, the densest ownership of them per capita exists in New Hampshire, which consistently ranks between the 1st and 3rd safest states to live in) by paying a $200 tax stamp. I don't honestly feel that automatic weaponry has advanced in technology all that much, so if it makes sense that people can own old ones, why shouldn't those same people be allowed to own new ones?

by BSousa 14y ago

embwbam 14y ago

I'm American. I grew up in a conservative household so I think I understand where they are coming from. My understanding is that many consider the 2nd amendment to allow them to bear arms to protect themselves from their own oppressive government. The idea is that no government can become completely totalitarian without first disarming the population. And if they try, the people can revolt. That may be an incorrect understanding, but I'm pretty sure that's what a lot of people are thinking when their guns get "taken away". You can see why new gun control laws might be alarming if you have this attitude.

BSousa 14y ago
As I said, it was a supposition ;) I can understand having a license to own a gun (My dad owns a hunting rifle, and a handgun that was an inheritance from my grandpa which will possible pass down to me) but I was watching some news a couple weeks ago where they were showing a hearing on the senate (I think) and the people that went to talk there were defending that changing the laws to allow some guns but not others (automatic rifles I think) was wrong. In exactly what case does a civilian need an automatic rifle? I sorta understand the afraid of the government thing, but let's be honest, if the government wants to be even more/fully totalitarian, an untrained militia carrying rifles won't stop them.
- rooshdi 14y ago
  I'm American and the truth is we don't need automatic rifles, but there is a very strong history of firearms in this country and thus a very strong supportive lobbying group behind it fighting to strike down anything which has potential to weaken it financially. The protecting ourselves from 'the government' argument is pure nonsensical bullshit, as 'the government' already has more nefarious means of controlling the masses. Simply put, there are a lot of ignorant people in America supporting ignorant lobbying groups who care more about their money than morality.
- mseebach 14y ago
  > In exactly what case does a civilian need an automatic rifle? Generally, suppression of negative freedoms are argued in terms of "what is the need of the collective to forcibly deny this freedom to citizens" rather than what need the citizen has to use the freedom. What is your exact need for freedom of the press extended to even obscene material? What is your exact need to be allowed to worship even satan? And my favourite: if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. > but let's be honest, if the government wants to be even more/fully totalitarian, an untrained militia carrying rifles won't stop them. It's probably not going to help much against a slow slide, but it will make revolutions look a lot different.
- sigzero 14y ago
  The government really has no jurisdiction to determine how I exercise my RIGHT to keep and bear arms. I don't need to explain to you or anyone else for that matter why I want or think I need an AR-15.
  - khuey 14y ago
    Would you apply that same logic to a strategic nuclear weapon? If not, where is the dividing line between a nuke and an AR-15, and who and what determines it?
    - damoncali 14y ago
      At a minimum, you want to have available weapons which provide a significant deterrent to government abuse of power. You want such abuses to be at the risk of a protracted deadly fight that threatens the stability of the power of the abusive government. Anything beyond that is unnecessary, and too much beyond that threatens the security of the people as a whole. Practically speaking, I would allow everything up to .50 caliber machine guns with minimal regulation.
lolcraft 14y ago
But the problem with this is that a government can become completely totalitarian without disarming its subjects. Imagine the Soviet Union, but this time you're allowed to bear arms. Or even better, imagine the USA. Sure, you can bear arms, so in the letter you still can fight for your rights. But in practice, the second you try to pull that shit, a F117 Nighthawk is going to blow your terrorist ass to pieces. Practice is everything. Damn, the (letter of the) constitution of the Soviet Union actually gave their citizens the right to form political parties and run from office. You were provided by the government a party newspaper, headquarters... of course, if you tried to, you were hanged for treason.
- mseebach 14y ago
  And the problem with that is that it's not that simple as Iraq and Afghanistan has taught us. Guns, of course, are only part of the equation, but I'm pretty sure both wars would have looked a lot different had the population been generally unarmed. Also, the evacuation of the jews of nazi Germany would have looked a lot different had the jews been armed.
  - tome 14y ago
    The Nazis overran nation states with mobilized armies. A small segment of the populace with guns would have been irrelevant.
    - Tangaroa 14y ago
      The French Resistance and Warsaw Uprising were not entirely irrelevant, even if they were defeated.
    - mseebach 14y ago
      It's one sentence, please read it. I'm talking about the evacuation of jews from Germany, not the general war effort, which was gainst countries with armies.
      - tome 14y ago
zanny 14y ago
This is my take away too, and I think it is valuable, especially in an era of every politician going out of their way to fuck everyone else over for their own gain like we have right now. I'm very unnerved by the prospect of the military being allowed to wield so much technology for the purposes of murder that citizens can't have already. It kind of stacks the cards against the people. We are not in a perfect utopia, there will be conflict, and strife, and almost certainly (be it short or long term) there will be the turning of governments and rule. There has always been, and if you don't think it can happen in the modern era... the soviet union collapsed just over 20 years ago. I would never own a gun, but I value my right to possess one in the eyes of the constitution in the event my government goes too far into the totalitarian deep end of the pond. It is a right few other nations can claim to have - if their governments turn on them, they really have no defense because they are never armed. But I'm also not trying to say having guns would keep the US military from rolling over whoever they wanted in the country if the fed just decided to conquer their own nation. They still do have all the military hardware citizens aren't allowed to have, which wasn't kept in line with the purpose of the second amendment. Though I also don't think private ownership of nuclear arms would be the best thing ever, but that is the kind of thing nobody should have. I'd rather see nobody use weapons of war they wouldn't trust their citizens with.
tomkin 14y ago
That's all well and good, except no gun you have is going to make a difference. If you're worried about a tyrannical government, you better start investing in drones, nukes, tanks, etc. Otherwise, you're just fooling yourself thinking you stand a chance. All you have to do is look around at other countries where they don't love their guns. In Canada, a gun is like a hammer, or any tool for that matter. If you start worshipping a tool, polishing it, in hopes of being the lone ranger, you have some problems. Give teachers/everyone guns! – by far the most ridiculous notion, as if the already burdened education system would be able to deal with another cost. "Lock up the guns for safety" seems to be another point that makes no sense when you start to analyze real life scenarios. How exactly do you get to a gun in time when someone is firing off rounds in seconds? And the idea that a teacher or even police officer is immune to mental illness is an abhorrent disconnection with reality. The 2nd amendment is just that – an amendment. Crafted in a time where AK-47s and AR-15s didn't exist. Under the interpretation of the 2nd amendment, people have convinced themselves they are entitled to fit their family with military weapons. Something other gun-free societies just can't understand.
- Turing_Machine 14y ago
  "hat's all well and good, except no gun you have is going to make a difference. If you're worried about a tyrannical government, you better start investing in drones, nukes, tanks" Nukes and tanks are useless in a guerrilla war.

lolcraft 14y ago

It was also used, as I understand, as sort of legal allowance to form paramilitary parties with sort of like police powers. So you, as a citizen, could enforce laws when there was no police or army able to do so for you. For instance, in the days of slavery, the 2nd amendment was used to justify groups of armed thugs [1] that hunted black slaves on the run. I've never understood the logic behind Republicans of the 20th century [2]. AFAICT, they think the 2nd gives them "the right to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government". That's clearly bullshit. First, because what constitutes tyranny changes a lot from person to person, and only legislation can define it clearly and "democratically". Second, because the former means you're legitimizing political violence in a democracy, precisely the system where that kind of shit should not be allowed. So in fact you're just making terrorism, or at least the kinds of terrorism you like, legal, with all the contradictions that would bring. Timothy-McVeigh-like bullshit ensues. [1] Of course, back then they were considered to be respectable persons that followed the law. [2] They're not the only ones, of course (cf. Black Panthers, which I personally am more sympathetic to, since IMO there was clearly oppression there), but they're the loudest.

bmelton 14y ago
To everyone who assumes that "tyrannical government" is always read to mean "our" government, here's a primer. 1) Everybody should (and probably already does) know that the United States was essentially formed out of that exact type of rebellion. The arms that won us the war of Independence were all provided by private citizens, just as the cannons were, the ships that formed our navy, etc. If we hadn't had private weapons, we wouldn't have had anywhere remotely enough arms to have won the war. 2) The provision allows us to defend against government tyranny, foreign and domestic. This means that we are allowed the right to bear arms to aid in the nation's defense, just as our framers did, in the event that we are attacked on our own soil. To those that would claim "like anybody's going to target the world's largest military" - who is to say that we'll always have a large military? In 100 years, who is to say that someone isn't elected that dramatically repurposes military spending. Arguments that may not be true now are not necessarily always going to be true. 3) Historically, disarming a populace has in many cases resulted in the unfair abuse of those citizens. History is replete with stories where a population, or a segment of a population was disarmed, and those people were subsequently subject to tyranny, or abuse, or genocide. Having a right to keep and bear arms isn't our only defense against tyranny -- in reality, a reasonable people should exhaust all civic means of defending against it first. When a persons rights are trampled, we have civic and legal recourses for those. As in DC v Heller and Chicago v McDonald, we learned that despite the state's belief that the 2nd amendment may be restricted in certain ways, there are legal recourses against those restrictions. Nobody in DC (to my knowledge at least) was launching an armed protest of handgun laws there, as they should not have. That said, in the event that the system does not work, or if in 200 years time, it has been perverted to the effect that it does not respect the rights of its people, the 2nd amendment may be the last defense against tyranny.

dpiers 14y ago

America was founded by revolutionaries; people who understood that tyranny and threats to liberty do not necessarily come from foreign powers. The right to bear arms and form a militia was established to protect citizens from their own government as much as any foreign power. The idea of a bunch of gun toting lunatics becoming fed up with the government and revolting is terrifying, but it's also how this country came to exist.

damoncali 14y ago

Almost. The constitution enumerates certain rights that are specifically off limits to the government to give them extra emphasis - the Bill of Rights , which are the first 10 amendments to the constitution. The 2nd, of course is the right to bear arms. An interesting side note is that there was a debate as to whether or not to even include the bill of rights lest future leaders attempt to nitpick their language and twist them into restrictions of the people. Or still worse, that they would be perceived as the only rights protected by the constitution. Never were they intended to be justification for restriction of the people. But back to the 2nd Amendment. The purpose of the Amendment is steeped in American and Anglo culture and history. This is the best summary I know of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_... The purpose of the amendment is quite certainly military in nature, and comes from a distrust of centralized government and a dangerous world in general. The authors wanted to make it totally crystal clear that the government could not subvert the people's obvious right to arm themselves and form military units, aka "militias". The nature of the threat to which those militias could respond was pretty much anything - the security of the state. The federalist papers offer context here. So yes, there is a constitutional basis for all this. But more than that it is a deeply ingrained part of American history and culture. People like to throw around the power of lobbyists, but that's not really it. The American people largely believe at a fundamental level that access to weapons is a strong and necessary counter to the existence of armed units within the government and elsewhere. The power of the gun lobby flows from that, not the other way around.

curiousdannii 14y ago

So a silly question: does the constitution protect the right to own ammunition as well as weapons?

MrMember 14y ago
I highly doubt any ultra-restrictive form of 'ammunition control' would pass Constitutional scrutiny. Saying the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect ownership of ammunition is like saying the 1st Amendment only protects free speech in a literal sense (words coming out of your mouth) and not speech on the Internet.
damoncali 14y ago
yes.
bmelton 14y ago
The second amendment protects firearms, not bludgeoning instruments that are shaped like firearms -- so yes.
- suresk 14y ago
  I have a question about the 2nd amendment: Is the right to bear arms absolute, or is it subject to reasonable regulation? Example: There are a lot of weapons I cannot legally acquire, for example: I can't buy an M249 machine gun, most automatic M-16s, a functioning fighter jet with all its armament, or a nuclear warhead. In your view, is this acceptable, or is it a clear violation of the 2nd amendment?
  - bmelton 14y ago
    So, regarding the fighter jet and nuclear warhead, it is not considered a man-portable arm, which the supreme court has narrowed the definition of firearm down to. There are arguments for and against whether or not it ought to be absolute, but clearly it is not, at least as presently governed. Thus far, the only known challenge on the National Firearms Act (which is what prohibits us from buying fully automatic machine guns) was US v Miller, in 1939. That was, as I mentioned in another thread, a very curious peace of legislation because Miller, a known gangster caught in possession of a sawed off shotgun, was being tried for possession of something he shouldn't have. He argued that per the second amendment, he should have the right to carry it, as it would be useful in the aid of a militia. There were some challenges in transportation, and portions of the trial were run with Miller in absentia, during which time the US Government testified that sawed off shotguns had never been useful to the army, and should not be considered useful to a militia -- despite the fact they had been in use somewhat regularly only 20 years prior, by the US military. Further, Miller was killed before the decision was rendered, but the trial went on. So, that said, if one believes that what the Supreme Court deems is Constitutional is, in fact what is Constitutional, then we are subject to 'reasonable regulation'. Looking more recently however, at DC v. Heller. At the time, DC's laws had an outright ban on handguns, and as such, prevented him from doing so. Heller was a security guard at a Federal building during the day (where he was armed), but went home at night to a very bad neighborhood with no means to defend himself. He petitioned for the right to bear arms, and ultimately, the decision was found that DC's outright ban on handguns was unconstitutional, and was struck down. In the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia claimed that weapons "in common use at the time" were exempt from outright bans. More recent cases since Heller have pretty much affirmed this, with bans in Chicago (Chicago v McDonald), Illinois (Moore v Madigan) and others being outright struck down as unconstitutional. Similarly, I believe that attempts to ban the AR15 (and similar popular weapons) will, if successful, be ultimately struck down as unconstitutional per the precedent in Heller. The AR15 is the most popular rifle sold in America today, and has been for a number of years, and is clearly "in common use at the time". Regarding fully automatic machine guns, the NFA provisions have not been challenged since Miller, which wasn't even a full challenge in and of itself, and certainly went far above 'unusual'. I suspect that within the next 10 years we'll see someone challenge the National Firearms Act restrictions, and quite possibly win. The reason I believe this is because the second amendment is provided "for militia" purposes and for "defense against tyranny, foreign or domestic." As it stands, we are far outgunned by our own military. Historically, the arms used in the Revolutionary War were almost entirely provided by the citizenry and militia men. Militia members were expected to show up ready to fight and armed with weapons "in common use at the time." That's where we got our rifles, but it's also where we got our cannons, mortars, ships and navy from -- all were provided by the citizenry at large. That said, since I think you were asking my personal view, I can't say whether or not it is or is not unconstitutional, because it has not yet been challenged on Constitutionality. I know that might seem like a copout, and I suppose it is, but as there isn't particularly clear evidence either way, I would say that I dunno. The biggest argument for it, right now, is that there are legally ownable fully automatic machine guns (interestingly enough, the densest ownership of them per capita exists in New Hampshire, which consistently ranks between the 1st and 3rd safest states to live in) by paying a $200 tax stamp. I don't honestly feel that automatic weaponry has advanced in technology all that much, so if it makes sense that people can own old ones, why shouldn't those same people be allowed to own new ones?