| These |
 |
|
|
Somehow, I think that the right to own machine guns does not rate highly in my interpretation of 2nd amendment rights. I mean, aren't blowtorches a firearm, too?
OMG, now you've done it.
Before attempting to think again, go read the text of the Second Amendment ten times.
Then try a re-interpretation.
If your thinking parts are working correctly, you will come to the same conclusion as many constitutional scholars, including the notoriously liberal Lawrence Tribe, namely that the Second Amendment absolutely bans the government from limiting the right of the citizen to posses any weapon that has a military use.
A strict interpretation of the Second Amendment would protect the right to own fully-automatic weapons and grenade launchers, but not a target pistol, long barrel shotgun or lever-action carbine.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that citizens have access to, and the absolute right to own, carry and use, such weapons as would be necessary to overthrow a government gone out of control.
| These |
|
|
|
"Somehow, I think that the right to own machine guns does not rate highly in my interpretation of 2nd amendment rights."
The Founders created a government of limited powers, and then divided those powers into 3 competing branches of government, so as to reduce to an absolute minimum the ability of 1 person or a small group becoming the de facto dictator(s) over this nation. However, the Founders were an extraordinarily bright, experienced and wise group of men, and they understood that despite the safeguards instituted in the Constitution, it was still only a piece of paper. They understood that people wouldn't always have the spirit of Freedom and Liberty in them the way their generation did, and that the allure of power would bring corrupt and evil people into power. So they instituted a final bulwark of our liberty, a backstop or safety net, by proposing and ratifying in the 2nd Amendment a nearly unchangeable law that forbade the government from outlawing the ownership or carrying of arms - arms that would be used, if necessary, to do EXACTLY what they had done themselves only a few years earlier...namely, overthrow the formerly legitimate government which had illegally usurped the freedoms of the people.
Read the case of U.S. v. Miller, the only pure 2nd Amendment case in the 20th century. It is located at http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blusvmiller.htm In this case you will notice that the Supreme Court stated:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
Note that Miller was unrepresented at the Supreme Court level, and that no evidence had been presented that short-barreled shotguns were "part of the ordinary military equipment" or that their use "could contribute to the common defense." This was despite the fact that short-barreled shotguns were used by the US military to great effect only 21 years before in WW1 (they were called "Trench Brooms," since they swept trenches clean of living enemy troops). These weapons were also used with great effect in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, both Gulf Wars (including currently), and any number of "police actions" and special forces operations. Clearly the case would have had a different result if ANY evidence of the use of these weapons in WW1 had been presented.
NOW, apply the same reasoning and legal logic to full auto guns...if they are utilized as "any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense" then they would be protected under the 2nd Amendment, according to "U.S. v. Miller." This result is obvious (which is also why we haven't seen another such case arise before the Court, since the government and the Court know that it would effectively repeal almost every federal gun law - either that, or a tortured and twisted ruling that the 2nd meant nothing to individuals would trigger incredible violence and a possible revolution).
More to your point, if machine guns can be outlawed, then the US population will be at a great and growing disadvantage in power vs. the government. We all know that the pace of technology not only never relents, it is accelerating over time. Future weapons will be more and more effective, and the denial of the right to a machine gun to Joe or Jane Average will also work to deprive them of access to those far more effective/deadly future weapons. Further, even if the law is unchanged and the '86 machine gun ban remains in place, eventually all of the machine guns held by civilians will cease to function properly from one cause or another. Then all that would be necessary for someone to impose a dictatorship would be the dictator him- (or her-, let's not forget the likes of Shrillary) self, and government employees willing to act on orders to jail and/or kill "subversive elements" in the population.
The right to own machine guns, even if you don't choose to exercise that right, SHOULD rank highly in your interpretation of 2nd Amendment rights. There is an interesting book called "The Weapons Shop of Isher" by A.E. Van Vogt (review at http://members.aol.com/sfandfbookclub/weapon_shops_of_isher.htm ). In it, the weapons shop has a sign at its entrance which speaks directly in opposition to your point:
"The Right to Buy Weapons is the Right to Be Free"