Where does the second amendment end?

[gatordpm]

This question is specifically for the people who believe that the second amendment was put in place to have a strong state militia in order to protect its citizens from tyranny. I think we can all agree that private citizens should not have nuclear weapons. What about grenades? Tanks? Automatic weapons? Where should the second amendment end and why?

I am personally a lifetime member of the NRA and do believe that the second amendment was created in order to protect against tyranny, but I honestly am not sure where I stand on how regulated it should be. So please, I would love to hear some arguments.

Please be specific...I think we should have grenades but not rocket launchers because...etc

[helix139]

This question is specifically for the people who believe that the second amendment was put in place to have a strong state militia in order to protect its citizens from tyranny. I think we can all agree that private citizens should not have nuclear weapons. What about grenades? Tanks? Automatic weapons? Where should the second amendment end and why?

I am personally a lifetime member of the NRA and do believe that the second amendment was created in order to protect against tyranny, but I honestly am not sure where I stand how just how regulated it should be. So please, I would love to hear some arguments.

The second amendment isn't referring to a state militia. The militia is the people. At least those who are able and willing to take up arms in defense of the constitution themselves, and each other. Nothing to do with the state.

As far as what arms the government should not infringe, I say any individual (not crew-served) weapons with a legitimate militia purpose, outside of explosives and destructive devices which pass the strict scrutiny test for restriction. I do think restrictions should be eased on automatic weapons with a militia purpose (those in common use by the military), as the times have changed since the NFA was passed when automatic weapons were largely unaffordable by the general public and only used by gangsters, in addition to being of little military value. I have no problem with some hoops to jump through to acquire them but I do think citizens should be able to buy them newly-manufactured as opposed to paying exorbitant prices for those made before 1986. SBRs and SBS's need to be re-defined also, as they do have a legitimate militia purpose. I don't think hand held guns that are fully automatic and such as tec-9's and uzi's should be legal as their military utility is not high and their size and ease of concealment makes them a threat to the public, thus passing the test for strict scrutiny.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I believe the intent of the Second Amendment is personal defense. On one end of the weapons scale you have handguns, on the other you have WMDs. Nuclear weapons can't be used in a personal defense sense without killing a bunch of other innocent people. They are indiscriminate and imprecise, unlike a handgun or rifle. My neighbor having possession of a nuclear weapon constitutes a threat to me, since he can't defend himself with it without killing me as well.

So, based on that, people need to have a "reasonable discussion" (LOL) on what constitutes personal defense weaponry and what constitutes weaponry beyond that which can be used for personal defense.

[RealGatorFan]

This question is specifically for the people who believe that the second amendment was put in place to have a strong state militia in order to protect its citizens from tyranny. I think we can all agree that private citizens should not have nuclear weapons. What about grenades? Tanks? Automatic weapons? Where should the second amendment end and why?

I am personally a lifetime member of the NRA and do believe that the second amendment was created in order to protect against tyranny, but I honestly am not sure where I stand how just how regulated it should be. So please, I would love to hear some arguments.

Interesting question since when the 2nd amendment was drafted, the colonialists had the exact same weapons as the British incliding cannons. They had everything they could defend themselves. But, I doubt a homeowner used a cannon on an intruder. So we go forward a couple of hundred years, and homeowners still have handguns and rifles. The difference is the military or government has much more. Do I want a grenade? Sure but only if it's not in my house!

BTW, a militia is allowed under the Constitution and is mandated by the Founding Fathers. Even the Greek Philosopher, Aristotle, believed in owning weapons:

The Greek philosopher Aristotle proclaimed 2,300 years ago that the prevalence of privately owned weapons was the best indicator of whether a nation was free. It is still a true measure of freedom today. Free men own guns, slaves do not.

The United States Code (the laws of Congress) states in 10 USC 311(a) that, "The Militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..." The US Supreme Court ruled in US v. Miller that when called into action the militia was to show up "bearing arms supplied by themselves..." Black's Law Dictionary defines militia as, "The body of citizens in a state" and not the "regular troops of a standing army." The militia is distinctly different from the National Guard or the US military forces.

Our Founding Fathers warned that the militia must never be replaced by a standing army. Today, our nation has the world's most powerful military; 57 government agencies carry guns and most have their own SWAT teams; and local police are trained in para-military operations.

As our Founding Fathers warned - the demise of the militia and rise of a standing army would spell the end of freedom and liberty.

[ATLitigator]

The second amendment was created to ensure that private citizens could own and posess all of the weapons available to the military. it was the fear of the founders that the colonies would descend into a tyrannical society like england. the second amendment was put in place to ensure that the new govt did not take the guns from private citizens, so that they may defend themselves from and rebel against, if necessary, the new govt.

any argument that the present govt should substantially limit the ownership of guns, must keep this big picture in mind. if they take all the guns now, its only a matter of time before they take all of our other liberties

[ATLitigator]

I believe the intent of the Second Amendment is personal defense. On one end of the weapons scale you have handguns, on the other you have WMDs. Nuclear weapons can't be used in a personal defense sense without killing a bunch of other innocent people. They are indiscriminate and imprecise, unlike a handgun or rifle. My neighbor having possession of a nuclear weapon constitutes a threat to me, since he can't defend himself with it without killing me as well.

So, based on that, people need to have a "reasonable discussion" (LOL) on what constitutes personal defense weaponry and what constitutes weaponry beyond that which can be used for personal defense.

you need to consider the context of weaponry avaiolable at time of drafting constitution

[helix139]

Interesting question since when the 2nd amendment was drafted, the colonialists had the exact same weapons as the British incliding cannons.

Technically it is still perfectly legal to own and use a muzzle-loaded cannon. muzzle-loaded firearms are exempt from all BATFE regulations regardless of bore size.

[ChartsandGrafs]

you need to consider the context of weaponry avaiolable at time of drafting constitution

I have, thanks.

[AmericaFirst]

This question is specifically for the people who believe that the second amendment was put in place to have a strong state militia in order to protect its citizens from tyranny. I think we can all agree that private citizens should not have nuclear weapons. What about grenades? Tanks? Automatic weapons? Where should the second amendment end and why?

I am personally a lifetime member of the NRA and do believe that the second amendment was created in order to protect against tyranny, but I honestly am not sure where I stand how just how regulated it should be. So please, I would love to hear some arguments.



As far as I'm concerned, the 2nd Amendment doesn't end. Citizens should be allowed to own any type of gun owned by the US Military. If someone wants to buy a damn mini gun that fires off about 2,000 bullets in 30 seconds? Let them. What I thought was hilarious was that piece of garbage known as Piers Morgan calling the Constitution/Bill of Rights "your little book" when debating with that NRA Rep. Despicable. He then tried to make the NRA Rep sound loony for stating that the Right to Bear Arms is to keep us from being overrun by a tyrannical government, as if it can't happen in the USA when it has just about everywhere else in the world.



Crazy people like Piers Morgan are how citizens end up under a dictatorship.

[108]

So the next question is, can your guns protect you from what you say is the stated purpose?

[Minister_of_Information]

So the next question is, can your guns protect you from what you say is the stated purpose?

Ask Fidel, or the Vietcong, or the Taliban. What the Second Amendment really is, is a trip wire that can be used to indicate an increased risk of impending tyranny. Its attempted abrogation serves notice that the government can no longer be trusted with the power it is attempting to assert.

[ChartsandGrafs]

So the next question is, can your guns protect you from what you say is the stated purpose?

Of course they can. Human beings are very vulnerable to gun fire. This should be evident in Afghanistan, where the world's most advanced military has been unsuccessful in pacifying the people who live there and don't want them there.

[MichiGator2002]

Well, it helps to remember that the 2nd Amendment doesn't have limits; by its own terms it, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, places limits, namely on the federal government (and, per the incorporation doctrine, on the states as well). So the question is, where does the government's power end with respect to the individual's fundamental right to keep and bear arms?

And the answer is, roughly the same place it ends with our speech, press, assembly, privacy, due process, and other fundamental rights. The government is under scrutiny, and per the Supreme Court we know it is some higher form of scrutiny than merely having a rational basis for wanting to exercise its power. Google "heightened"/"intermediate" scrutiny as well as "strict scrutiny" for examples of the range of limits that apply to the government's ability to impair our 2nd Amendment rights, and enjoy the minutiae of what "compelling" means, ll as opposed to "important", for instance.

Now, as for specific standards, I kind of like what is proposed above -- setting a constitutional distinction between individual and crew-serviced weapons. Our constitutional rights are, after all, individual by nature, so it seems tenable to say that you have a right to anything you wield and maintain in use yourself, but not that tank, not that mortar, not that crew operated heavy machine gun. Nor do I think we even need to look at explosives under the 2nd Amendment since we have pretty well settled legal frameworks around explosives because of their other important uses.

As for individual firearms, that comes down to standard. If we went all the up to the proverbial constitutional mountaintop and applied strict scrutiny, the highest burden on the government, the only individual use firearms I think you could knock out would be fully automatic, probably at the lower standard as well. The state's interest would be police safety, bystander safety, even user safety, for weapons manifestly more difficult to control. Whereas, the three basic prongs of individual interest in gun ownership are in no order, sport, self-defense, and the citizen militia role. A bar from fully automatic weapons only interferes with the third, and at that point I think even strict scrutiny would be satisfied. Not so for semiautomatic weapons.

[Minister_of_Information]

I tend to concur with MichiGator here.

[OaktownGator]

Good discussion and thanks to the OP.

I also concur with MichiGator on this.

[helix139]

As for individual firearms, that comes down to standard. If we went all the up to the proverbial constitutional mountaintop and applied strict scrutiny, the highest burden on the government, the only individual use firearms I think you could knock out would be fully automatic, probably at the lower standard as well. The state's interest would be police safety, bystander safety, even user safety, for weapons manifestly more difficult to control. Whereas, the three basic prongs of individual interest in gun ownership are in no order, sport, self-defense, and the citizen militia role. A bar from fully automatic weapons only interferes with the third, and at that point I think even strict scrutiny would be satisfied. Not so for semiautomatic weapons.

To further this point, restricting rights via strict scrutiny would require the government to use the least restrictive means to accomplish their compelling interest. To me, even the current restrictions on automatic weapons are overly restrictive. IMO, responsible and mentally stable citizens should have access to them in support of their militia purpose. Currently automatic weapons are priced out of the reach of most citizens due to government supply restrictions. IMO, these restrictions should be lifted and automatic weapons should be obtainable for those who are qualified to own and operate them with some restrictions on storage. There is far too much red tape around acquiring them today even if a person can afford one.

[The_Graygator]

This question is specifically for the people who believe that the second amendment was put in place to have a strong state militia in order to protect its citizens from tyranny. I think we can all agree that private citizens should not have nuclear weapons. What about grenades? Tanks? Automatic weapons? Where should the second amendment end and why?

I am personally a lifetime member of the NRA and do believe that the second amendment was created in order to protect against tyranny, but I honestly am not sure where I stand how just how regulated it should be. So please, I would love to hear some arguments.


The school where Obama's daughters attend have around 15 armed security guards... but the schools where our children attend don't rate that kind of attention.

Thomas Jefferson said "Those who melt down their guns to make plows will plow for those who do not".

I think that answers your question.

[Spurffelbow833]

Infringed.

[g8orbill]

informative

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F584p5kJL-U&feature=youtu.be

[northgagator]

I am not sure if this point was ever discussed but the Gov't may end up undoing the the 4th and the 14th Amendments by keeping weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

We all know the second amendment so I will not go over it.

Here are some interesting points of the two amendments that I just referred to.

4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

We have the right to be secured in our persons, houses, papers, and effects. I am sure the Libs will say that this amendment is to protect us from the gov't and not law breakers.
First of all the gov't banning guns inferences on our right to protect our selves from unreasonable search and seizures from both the gov't and the law breakers. The second the gov't attempts a search and or seizure without a warrant and a probable cause they are law breakers. Not having a firing arm puts us at the mercy of the gov't and the other unlawful citizens.

I believe this is what our founding fathers and other ancestors were thinking of the right to revolution http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution

14th Amendment
The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[1] The Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause applies only to state governments, but the requirement of equal protection has been read to apply to the federal government as a component of Fifth Amendment due process.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

There is not any equal protection when the gov't bans guns from citizens but allows guns for private security companies and it own military and agencies. Basically the citizens do not have any protection.

[Gatorpika]

Canons were crew serviced weapons at the time of the revolution and individuals funding units to fight the revolution bought/owned them. Few people owned them because they were very expensive, but I believe the understanding was that there was no ban on private individuals owning military hardware. After the ratification around the time of the war of 1812, several rich individuals embarked on business ventures in privateering. This required them to personally acquire ships, cannon and small arms. The government was more than happy to have these armed seamen harassing the British. I am not advocating for individuals owning heavy arms, but historically speaking there wasn't an intent to keep these out of the hands of private citizens.

As far as the old retort that individuals couldn't stop tyrrany with handguns, you have to think about what might happen. It's not a given that the full force of the U.S. military might back a dictator. They are sworn to uphold the constitution as well, so many might refuse to take illegal orders and might even use their military hardware against a tyrannical government. And as someone pointed out, eradicating an armed population is very very difficult. There are far more armed individuals than police and soldiers and guerrilla tactics have proved effective time and time again. We don't know what's coming, so thinking that the situation today will apply indefinitely is lacking forethought. We see our economy deteriorating around us and maybe in a couple decades things will be bad enough that the government step over the line. I am not trying to sound like a conspiracy guy here, but if you asked someone in Germany in the 20s if something like the Nazi regime could happen there, you would have got a resounding "no".

[mdgator05]

Now, as for specific standards, I kind of like what is proposed above -- setting a constitutional distinction between individual and crew-serviced weapons. Our constitutional rights are, after all, individual by nature, so it seems tenable to say that you have a right to anything you wield and maintain in use yourself, but not that tank, not that mortar, not that crew operated heavy machine gun. Nor do I think we even need to look at explosives under the 2nd Amendment since we have pretty well settled legal frameworks around explosives because of their other important uses.



This argument seems flimsy considering the fact that we have the freedom of association. If you argue that individuals should be able to possess any weapons that they can safely operate individually, why shouldn't a group of people be able to come together to safely operate a tank?

[Minister_of_Information]

Crew served weapons, even if individually owned, were generally kept in arsenals rather than individual homes. I think the distinction is a good one.

[ChartsandGrafs]

This argument seems flimsy considering the fact that we have the freedom of association.

We do? Since when? There are all kinds of anti-discrimination laws in place that prevent people from associating freely.

Where have you been?