Weapons don't kill people. A few bad apples (people) kill people.
/john
Probably to try to prevent the kind of confusion (deception) that we are dealing with today. Therefore, the amendment specifically states that private weapon ownership is NECESSARY to preserve freedom. They understood that in time, the U.S. government could become as oppressive as Britain was then.
Should there be an unlimited right to bear arms or are some restrictions ok? And where to you draw the line?
It should certainly include all the weapons a single individual could make use of in carrying out a military operation. Do I think the Amendment protects the ownership of something like nuclear weapons? No, because the nature of such a weapon means that in the hands of a private individual it is more likely to be used against the cause of freedom than to protect it.
If you believe that some reasonable regulation is ok, do you think it's a mistake for the NRA to take a Zero-regulation stance instead of working for a compromise?
I wish they would take a hardcore zero-regulation stance. Compromise is always bad when we're talking about Constitutional rights.
I look at Federalist 46. According to James Madison, the 'militia' is the common people. I don't use the term 'militia' much because of what people nowadays think of with the militia, but that's what the militia was intended to be. US CODE seconds what Madison said.
Should there be an unlimited right to bear arms or are some restrictions ok? And where to you draw the line?
My opinion - All but felons. Felons shouldn't be able to vote either.
How do you even define "arms"? Certainly, weapons exist now that the framers couldn't even imagine.
That can be applied to the 1st amendment as well. TV? Internet? Radio? Can you own a cannon.... a tank? Only handheld? How about hand-held rocket launchers, machine guns, grenade launchers?
They had cannons back then. I look at what could be "beared". I can't bear a tank. I have no problem with machine guns, or even grenade launchers. Rocket launchers I'm a little nervous on, but still, if the person hasn't committed a violent felon, what threat does a law abiding citizen with even a rocket launcher poses to society? I wouldn't kill people with one.
If you believe that some reasonable regulation is ok, do you think it's a mistake for the NRA to take a Zero-regulation stance instead of working for a compromise?
The NRA has compromised. Many times. Sometimes too much so(I still like them anyway though as they are the best we got). The other side doesn't compromise. I look at it as a matter of trust more than anything else. If you don't trust me with a firearm, why should I trust you?
Why does the ammendment bring up the militia? If the framers wanted an unlimited individual right to bear arms why did they include that at all?
This simply a justification preceding the operative clause. It merely gives the reason for the right, it does not condition it. Such clauses are common in many states' constitutions. See Eugene Volokh's The Commonplace Second Amendment.
Should there be an unlimited right to bear arms or are some restrictions ok? And where to you draw the line?How do you even define "arms"? Certainly, weapons exist now that the framers couldn't even imagine. Can you own a cannon.... a tank? Only handheld? How about hand-held rocket launchers, machine guns, grenade launchers?
The framer's imagined free people owning everything up to an including private ships of war and all the weapons that would entail. Further, restrictive laws on weapons of all kinds serve only to leave people defenseless at the hands of prior restraint. A free society should punish misuse, not posession and ownership. Further, manufacture of weapons of all sorts, up to and including the most powerful things in our arsenal, is conducted by private companies. They certainly are allowed to posess these weapons, and on some level each is posessed at some time by non-governmental individuals.
If you believe that some reasonable regulation is ok, do you think it's a mistake for the NRA to take a Zero-regulation stance instead of working for a compromise?
Sadly the NRA does not now, nor have they for years taken a Zero-regulation stance. The NRA deals in "political realities" and "the lesser of two evils" and "expediency and safety."
In order to enable a militia. You can have armed citizens and no militia, but you can't have a militia (comprised of all the people) without armed citizens.
To make clear what is meant by the term "arms".
My reading of the Second Amendment is that the term "arms" menas, essentially, "any artifacts which would be useful as weapons in the context of a well-functioning militia". Miller seems to agree with this view.
There are two reasons I can see why it is necessary to make such a clarification:
Almost all deal with cosmetics versus capability. For example, if your shotgun barrel is under 18 inches your a criminal, if your barrel is 18 inches or more your a good citizen and not a threat to society.
If you have a bayonet lug on your rifle your a criminal, if you don't your not a suspect in the next drive by bayoneting in your neighborhood.
If you have a magazine extension on your shotgun you can't have a pistol grip on the stock. But if you have no pistol grip you "can " have a extended magazine tube :o) See where all this insanity goes ? No where but revenue base BS to make all who have simple rifles or shotguns in their homes subject to fines and or penalities per BS laws as defined by some bean counter that believes a "criminal" will indeed follow HIS/HER law.
The little SOB's that killed the kids at Columbine broke some 30 plus laws and yet polidiots responded with more laws that disarm the responsible men and women we trust our kids safety with every day who could NOT defend them because laws they follow but others don't...........
Do you have a fire extinguisher in your home ? WHY ?
Do you have Insurance on your car ? WHY ?
Do you have a spare tire in the trunk ? WHY ?
My choice to protect me and mine if I can not evade a threat at all costs (except our lives of course) is hampered by someone charging me for the constitutional right to self protection. They use my choice as a law abidding citizen to not rely on Law Enforcement, 20 minutes after I'm attacked, for protection, as a source of revenue and income. That is in and of itself criminal, more so than any criminal on the street as it is subverting the original intent of those who know what an unarmed individual is........... easy pickings for any criminal act. Be sheep if you so desire, but don't demand that I do so just because you have 24 and 7 security detail or live in a better neighborhood or city and have never been attacked or in fear of your life at Oh dark Thirty .
As the national guard was created by congress some 125 years after the signing of the constitution I'll just guess that the framers weren't so visionary that they proposed an amendment for something that wasn't even invented yet.
My 2 cents..........sorry for the rant
Okay, probably already replied to, but:
1. Militia is the body of able bodied men. This body is not only the militia but the posse comitatus ( power of the county) able to effect any number of causes at law and justice in and of themselves- not a lynch mob, mind you, but the citizenry whose duty it is to rule themselves. The militia is an extension of that just as the legislature, the executive and the courts are. In federal terms, the military ( formal organization) is subject to civil power, in local terms, they are the civil power. This is where the extension of personal rights equates to collective powers.
2. The 2A does not state “limited” it states “shall not be infringed” so yes, there is an unlimited right to arms- remember that we are not talking about organized/crew served weapon systems in specific, although in general they too are in the clause as “arms”. Of course there are restrictions- the people being referred to does not include incarcerated or incompetents, but that status is only determined by courts- adjudicated as disenfranchised ( argument for restoration of rights of convicts is of course a hot button issue) but not one left orphan by the founders- until the later 19th and 20th century permanent restrictions, convicts certainly were re-enfranchised, some by nature of release from custody, others by petition.
3. Ah, what is an “arm”? Well, what is “press” or speech”? Is there a difference? I do not think so. Of course, thermonuclear weapons were not envisioned by the Framers, nor were electronic communications nor high speed printers etc. So, arms must mean anything that one can use for self or state defense- some would argue the M1 Abrams is included, others just small arms suited for dismounted infantry use.... Hard question for many on both sides of the question. Personally, I think small arms suited ofr personal use to include crew served weapons- like what we have in the nominal light infantry of today- Rifles, pistols, machine guns up to 50 cal and perhaps, even explosive weapons like the Mk 19 AGL and other sorts of explosive devices for defense or offense uses.... ( Kevlar and asbestos underwear on now) all of these types of systems and items were in use at the founding- mines, torpedoes grenades etc.
4. No, the NRA is a useful tool of course, but they are a self-perpetuating entity as well. As long as gun rights organizations adhere to the basics of a) restrictions of arms are dangerous and unconstitutional for anyone other than those in custody or incompetent and b) that restoration of rights ought to be the standard, I think they serve a purpose. As it is, most gun groups accept and even write stuff like the GCA, NFA and FOPA etc, as compromises to retain soft gun rights types.... ( but that is just my opinion-which you are paying nothing for but since you asked).
Finally, no gun rights group is standing firm on the 2A- everyone has compromised all the way to where we are- some 20k gun control laws and proof positive that they do not work- what has been shown over and over again to work is liberal gun laws that empower the citizen to be armed almost anywhere they have a right to be ( with some exceptions). The crime rates have plummeted since the 1970s highs to rates lower than the those of the 1950s/60s, so something is working ( with the obvious contrasts in restrictive /cities to those less or least restrictive, for the most part. The compromise is the art of the businessman, not the free citizen of a free nation under laws. Statist (left or right) forces always want individual rights privileges and immunities to be compromised “ for the good of society” they say, but evidence usually if not always proves the opposite case, but the spiral continues.
Hope this helps or at least doesn’t harm.
I note that this article was published in 2001, before the 2008 Heller decision.
The Heller decision cleared most of this up. :) Not ALL of it, but most of it.