Replies

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Your points and my answers follow:

With regards to the specific assertion at issue: "Guns were sufficient for that purpose in the 18th century, but they clearly are not today. And thus we have a reason--a need even--to 'regulate'.", there are actually two logic errors in this statement.
First, the premise that "Guns were sufficient for that purpose in the 18th century, but they clearly are not today" is false. They may or may not be 'sufficient', but that has not been established as fact. In logic terms, it has not been proven.

What you are saying is that the truth of one of my premises is undetermined. I don't agree. We could only know the truth inductively, by observation, and I think history, empirical evidence, bears it out.

But we can also go back to the logic of the Founders. Why would they have bothered with the 2nd Amendment if the method to defend against despots was not sufficient to do the job?

Secondly, even if we were to grant, for purposes of illustration, that the premise is true (been proven), the stated conclusion that "And thus we have a reason--a need even--to 'regulate'." simply does not follow from the premise. You could just as easily argue that "Since guns aren't sufficient or effective today, they're not a threat and there's no need to regulate them." Both arguments represent a logical fallacy called a "non sequitur" (the conclusion does not follow from the premise).

You miss my point. (No non sequitur here, but I could have been more explicit.)

You are assuming that by 'regulation' I am talking about limitation. My point is just the opposite, namely that if technical obsolescence has made guns ineffectual and has thereby rendered the 2nd Amendment equally ineffectual, then regulation to strengthen what is meant by 'arms' is necessary to preserve the 2nd Amendment.

The argument that time and technology negate the 2nd Amendment is no more sound than the argument that they negate the First, e.g. "the Founding Fathers could have never envisioned radio, TV or the internet, so the First Amendment applies only to printed media". In fact, none of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights provide for any so-called "regulation" by government. They are ALL prohibitions and limitations on the powers of government. A person either understands and accepts this, or they don't. It's primarily a question of philosophy and principle, not logic.

Again, you are missing the point. If the arms don't do the job, the 2nd Amendment is worthless. It has nothing to do with philosophy and principle... or logic, for that matter.... It has to do with being able to nail the despot with the 'arms.'

At the time of the Founders, "arms" included the basic infantry weapons (rifle, pistol, sword and bayonet) as well as cannon (artillery) and armed vessels (cannon, again, on merchant shipping). Today this would essentially translate into private ownership of ANY militarily useful weapon (with the exception of biological and chemical "weapons" which, IMO, have NO serious MILITARY use. They are useful as terror weapons, but that's all and that's not good enough.) Nukes, IMO, should be removed from the category of weapons and used solely in MAJOR earthmoving and/or demolition projects... if someone could afford not only the nuke, but the attendant safety measures required.