[–] capicua 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I agree the founders probably didn't envision assault weapons. However, the whole point of the law is that the common people can defend themselves against a tyrannical government. I don't mind banning assault weapons, but that should mean the government and military doesn't have assault weapons either. How would we defend ourselves against a tyrannical government if they have us outgunned?
[–] PaddyMcInfidel ago
the founders probably didn't envision assault weapons.
Assault is a verb, not an adjective. I assume that you mean a weapon that can fire several rounds quickly. Look up the pepper box revolvers that existed during the period the constitution was written.
I don't mind banning assault weapons, but that should mean the government and military doesn't have assault weapons either.
The government is not indifferent about retaining their power or limiting their arsenal. You should not be indifferent about your shrinking freedoms.
How would we defend ourselves against a tyrannical government if they have us outgunned?
Vietnam did it. And Afghanistan has survived 2 decades of US military advances. American citizens are outgunned by govt but we also own more private firearms than the rest of the world combined. Don't underestimate the abilities of a group that is willing to fight and defend themselves.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
[–] jstressman 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago (edited ago)
If all you see is the one on the right, you're an idiot. The one on the left is far more correct.
If the rest of the words were "You SHALL NOT own any firearms" then obviously the other words would be of vital importance. AND THAT IS THE CASE HERE AS WELL.
If you can't see past "shall not" or a few other select cherry picked words, then you're an idiot. And if you try to convince other people that that's all it says, then you're a liar.
The fact is that the 2nd was based on the same material from the Articles of Confederation, which made it clear what the intent was. And this was backed up by other parts of the Constitution which place those militias under the authority of the President, to be used to put down insurrections and rebellions of precisely the type that "patriots" fantasize about, like Shay's Rebellion. The founders also talked about how useless militias were and how this necessitated the mandatory training as laid out in the Militia Acts, which spelled out what the Militia actually meant, and further, despite Thomas Jefferson wanting the ability for the people to rebel against the government, HE LOST THE ARGUMENT and the opposing position WON and became part of the Constitution, and this favored a strong federal government with the militias being used to put down such rebellions and insurrections, as well as foreign invasions etc.
ALL able bodied males between 18 and 45 HAD to own the requisite firearm, camping gear, clothing, etc... and report on a regular basis for military style training under officers appointed by the state, under the control of congress, and ultimately under the authority of the President should he need them. You didn't have a choice, unless you were one of a select few professions exempted from service. Failure to comply was punishable by court martial etc. The 2nd was specifically a restriction on the ability of the federal government to disarm a well regulated militia operating within that framework, as the well regulated militia was seen as necessary for preserving the security of the state itself.
So while you could argue that some more vague sense of self defense is implied to exist as part of that argument, the 2nd Amendment does not discuss that. It only refers to federal government not disarming the well regulated militia at the state level SO LONG AS IT OPERATES WITHIN THE LAW.
That doesn't even mean that the state level governments couldn't ban guns, or that guns couldn't be completely banned from private use OUTSIDE of the well regulated militias, etc.
Because it had nothing to do with a personal right to bear arms, or personal self defense, or the right to own any gun you wanted.
Again, it was only about restricting the federal government's ability to disarm a state level well regulated militia operating within the framework of officers appointed by the state, under the control of congress, and under the ultimate control of the President, to be used for purposes such as putting down rebellions and insurrections etc.
Not for individuals to own whatever gun they wanted, and absolutely not for them to rebel against the government, a position WHICH THEY REJECTED, even though Jefferson supported it, as everyone loves to quote. HE LOST. HIS POSITION DID NOT MAKE IT INTO THE CONSTITUTION.
It's always depressing to me how intellectually dishonest and/or historically illiterate so many folks are who push 2nd Amendment issues.
Your right to personal self defense falls under the UNENUMERATED RIGHTS of the 9TH AMENDMENT. Not the 2nd, which was only to restrict the federal government from disarming a state level militia operating specifically within the confines of the law as laid out in legislation like the Militia Acts. To fail to do so means it is no longer a well regulated militia, and becomes something that could or would be put down by actual well regulated militias under the Constitutional authority of the President as was the clear historical wording and intent as clearly evidenced by the Constitution, Articles of Confederation, contemporaneous letters by the founders, and the records of the debates surrounding the creation and ratification of the Constitution itself etc.
So it's not that you don't have the right to bear arms in self defense. It's that it was never part of the 2nd. It was always an unenumerated right that fell under the 9th. A so-called NATURAL RIGHT, that you retained EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T EXPLICITLY MENTIONED.
EDIT:
In fact, I'll quote from a comment I wrote about 11 months ago that goes into a bit more detail to illustrate the point further.
We can certainly keep expanding on that with the actual constitutional debates, the votes, who won and who lost, the evolution of the law surrounding it, the work of the NRA starting in the 1970s to change the legal interpretations in order to finally win some case precedents in recent years, after around 200 years of there being a clear understanding of what it actually meant, etc. But hopefully that helps people understand what the 2nd was actually talking about. And how any personal right was not the topic of discussion or the intent of the Amendment, and such an interpretation would have to be interpreted out of it as secondary to its actual intent and focus.
It's actually shocking to see how successful this lobbying effort actually was, culminating in the past 12 or so years of legal judgements that overturned the previous 200+ years of precedent and understanding.