7
7
0
First off, I support our 2nd Amendment rights to own weapons. I do want regulations in place just like our regulations on other licensed property such as cars, but at the core, I support our Bill of Rights and am a liberal member of the ACLU.<div><br></div><div>How do you interpret the 2nd Amendment?</div><div><br></div><div>Please don't quote anything from the NRA or your favorite gun rights advocate. I want to hear your opinions on the subject. Here is the text of the Amendment:</div><div><br></div><div>"<span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.</span>"</div><div><br></div><div>Some people quibble about the comma, some link the right to keep and bear arms to the well regulated militia. Some say it means we can keep weapons to deter tyrants. There are a lot of interpretations, I want to hear yours. Do you feel it means weapon ownership should be absent any regulations? Why or why not? Do you think we can/should be able to own fully automatic weapons? Explosive weapons? Speak your mind and let's discuss!</div>
2nd Amendment
Weapons
Firearms and Guns
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 41
4
4
0
I'm a gun owner and supporter of the right to carry, but the problem with being a constitutional originalist when it comes to the 2nd amendment is that the founders had no way of predicting technology. These are people who held duels because the pistols were so inaccurate that rarely was anyone even hit. Hamilton was most likely killed on accident because Burr was trying to miss. There's a huge difference between a flint lock/unrifled musket with accuracy for a few hundred yards if you're lucky, and a 5.56 locked into a 30 rnd magazine. The "Boston Massacre" was called a "massacre" and only resulted in 5 deaths. There are nearly 2 dozen people killed by guns daily in the US.
Again - I'm a supporter of concealed carry laws, but I'm also not naive enough to be an originalist on something that is so dramatically different now than 200 years ago.
Again - I'm a supporter of concealed carry laws, but I'm also not naive enough to be an originalist on something that is so dramatically different now than 200 years ago.
(4)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
MAJ Dews:
I disagree that the Article I section 8 enumerated powers of Congress encompasses defining language of the term militia as it is used in the second amendment for two reasons. One is that Article I was written first, and grants authority to Congress to fund and raise a National Military to be utilized with respect to maintaining Sovereignty and protecting our borders/interests. The Second Amendment was written with the intent of providing the opportunity for the People to secure themselves from threat of the exterior AND of Congress and their Armies. I would like to note that Congress is limited from even maintaining a standing Army or Navy, and no such limitation is made for the "People's militia." Rather than a limitation, the People are given "shall not be infringed." The second reason is that they are two completely different “militias.” The powers to levy an Army granted to Congress is for the provision of defense of our borders. This is historically a natural duty of all forms of Government. The Bill of Rights then allows for the people to be capable of forming militia in order to provide for the common defense of the People themselves, especially from the Government's Militia. Noting that there is no appropriation of power in Article II to protect the People, the purpose of the Congress' land and naval forces are to execute law, suppress insurrection, and repel invasion. Of course, title 10 u.s.c. doesn't allow the Governments land and naval forces to execute domestic law (with the exception of Coast Guard), but if the Government's forces are busy suppressing insurrection who is defending the People? It is clear to me that this is the purpose of the Second Amendment, following the Checks and Balances foundation on which the rest of our Government limiting Constitution rests. This is also a historically natural necessity, which at the time had a very recent precedent (i.e. Minutemen, Redcoats, Revolutionary War, etc.). It is without question that the People were intended to be able to protect themselves from (again) a tyrannical Government. The founders knew that no model of Government could be perfect, morally sound, and ever-lasting. Considering this, the Government ability to suppress insurrection cannot be absolute if it is without the will of the People to whom the Government ultimately answers. The only provision within the Constitution that limits the absolution of that power, is the right of the People (the ultimate authority) to keep and bear arms. Otherwise the Government would maintain all the arms and would be without obstacle to act arbitrarily in every way. It is also based on this concept that I do firmly believe in the People’s right to maintain small arms similar in size and capability to that of Government troops. Within reason that is…the People clearly don’t need Tanks, Jets, Javelins and Submarines. And truthfully they don’t need them. If Afghanistan has shown us anything, a successful insurgency can take place without equal equipment/technology. Now I am not someone who in any way believes some kind of Government take-over should be staged, nor do I agree with anyone advocating violent acts towards the Government so don’t get me wrong. But I swore an oath to the Constitution and believe whole-heartedly that the People can and should be ABLE to do what is necessary to stay a FREE people, and the Constitution as I have explained protects that right.
I disagree that the Article I section 8 enumerated powers of Congress encompasses defining language of the term militia as it is used in the second amendment for two reasons. One is that Article I was written first, and grants authority to Congress to fund and raise a National Military to be utilized with respect to maintaining Sovereignty and protecting our borders/interests. The Second Amendment was written with the intent of providing the opportunity for the People to secure themselves from threat of the exterior AND of Congress and their Armies. I would like to note that Congress is limited from even maintaining a standing Army or Navy, and no such limitation is made for the "People's militia." Rather than a limitation, the People are given "shall not be infringed." The second reason is that they are two completely different “militias.” The powers to levy an Army granted to Congress is for the provision of defense of our borders. This is historically a natural duty of all forms of Government. The Bill of Rights then allows for the people to be capable of forming militia in order to provide for the common defense of the People themselves, especially from the Government's Militia. Noting that there is no appropriation of power in Article II to protect the People, the purpose of the Congress' land and naval forces are to execute law, suppress insurrection, and repel invasion. Of course, title 10 u.s.c. doesn't allow the Governments land and naval forces to execute domestic law (with the exception of Coast Guard), but if the Government's forces are busy suppressing insurrection who is defending the People? It is clear to me that this is the purpose of the Second Amendment, following the Checks and Balances foundation on which the rest of our Government limiting Constitution rests. This is also a historically natural necessity, which at the time had a very recent precedent (i.e. Minutemen, Redcoats, Revolutionary War, etc.). It is without question that the People were intended to be able to protect themselves from (again) a tyrannical Government. The founders knew that no model of Government could be perfect, morally sound, and ever-lasting. Considering this, the Government ability to suppress insurrection cannot be absolute if it is without the will of the People to whom the Government ultimately answers. The only provision within the Constitution that limits the absolution of that power, is the right of the People (the ultimate authority) to keep and bear arms. Otherwise the Government would maintain all the arms and would be without obstacle to act arbitrarily in every way. It is also based on this concept that I do firmly believe in the People’s right to maintain small arms similar in size and capability to that of Government troops. Within reason that is…the People clearly don’t need Tanks, Jets, Javelins and Submarines. And truthfully they don’t need them. If Afghanistan has shown us anything, a successful insurgency can take place without equal equipment/technology. Now I am not someone who in any way believes some kind of Government take-over should be staged, nor do I agree with anyone advocating violent acts towards the Government so don’t get me wrong. But I swore an oath to the Constitution and believe whole-heartedly that the People can and should be ABLE to do what is necessary to stay a FREE people, and the Constitution as I have explained protects that right.
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
CPT Maurelli, awesome picture.
MAJ Ballinger, well said. There's that emotionality again. Somehow logic, reasoning and science isn't in their vocabulary. The bizarre thing is their standard for the 2A, somehow miraculously doesn't apply to the 1A or any other parts of the Constitution. If the 2A doesn't apply to modern firearms, then how can the 1A apply to modern methods of communication??? Strange.
SSG Allen, very very well said. In fact, the critical part many miss are the very first three words of the Constitution, which clearly establishes who has the supreme power: "We the PEOPLE". It's not "We the government".
MAJ Ballinger, well said. There's that emotionality again. Somehow logic, reasoning and science isn't in their vocabulary. The bizarre thing is their standard for the 2A, somehow miraculously doesn't apply to the 1A or any other parts of the Constitution. If the 2A doesn't apply to modern firearms, then how can the 1A apply to modern methods of communication??? Strange.
SSG Allen, very very well said. In fact, the critical part many miss are the very first three words of the Constitution, which clearly establishes who has the supreme power: "We the PEOPLE". It's not "We the government".
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Roger that, sir. As I like to say, logic, reasoning and science is irrationally discarded.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
The 2nd bears the right to own and carry arms to all Americans, not limited to the protection of self and property. This is from both crime and attack from both foreign and within. All the good quotes have been stated in other posts and forums, but there are many states and cities that still regulate who, when and what may be carried. The founding fathers didn't say you can only carry when a police force says you can (Hawaii) or that you must keep the ammo in one area and gun with lock in another (Illinois). But I do believe that there are instances where a level of common sense should be utilized, in court, religious buildings. But to limit who can legally carry to me does violate our rights to protect ourselves.
As some of the gun controllers say, just don't go where it is dangerous, it is dangerous everywhere and criminals, politicians and governments will prey on those that are unable to defend themselves.
As some of the gun controllers say, just don't go where it is dangerous, it is dangerous everywhere and criminals, politicians and governments will prey on those that are unable to defend themselves.
(2)
(0)
SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA
CW3 (Join to see), you have some great thoughts. I beg to differ on your idea of "common sense" in court and religious buildings -- it sounds like you think that private citizens should not be permitted to carry in those places. There may be some room for argument about the courtroom, since there could be an intimidation factor with swaying of witnesses or the jury, and at least there there is some kind of armed security. Still, even with armed guards and metal detectors at the entrances, shootings happen in court buildings. They happen in churches, too. Anywhere that someone says should be a 'gun-free' zone, what they are really saying is that criminals should be given a safe work environment there. Look up Jeanne Assam and Charl von Wyck.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I believe that to properly understand the 2nd Amendment, one must first understand the context of the Natural Rights philosophy on which this nation was established and which is concisely stated in the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. Our Natural Rights precede government whose role it is to protect them. Amongst those rights MUST be self-defense or all other rights are rendered nothing more than polite suggestions to be ignored by anybody who feels strong enough to violate them.
When viewed in this context, the 2nd Amendment serves to protect the pre-existing right to self-defense by barring the government from interfering in its exercise. To wit, I believe that there is an absolute individual right to keep and bear arms used for defensive purposes such as handguns, shotguns and rifles. Weapons that don't have such a purpose or are so indiscriminate as to pose a severe risk to innocent bystanders, such as grenades, artillery etc. should be more strictly regulated and are.
When viewed in this context, the 2nd Amendment serves to protect the pre-existing right to self-defense by barring the government from interfering in its exercise. To wit, I believe that there is an absolute individual right to keep and bear arms used for defensive purposes such as handguns, shotguns and rifles. Weapons that don't have such a purpose or are so indiscriminate as to pose a severe risk to innocent bystanders, such as grenades, artillery etc. should be more strictly regulated and are.
(1)
(0)
CW2 Jonathan Kantor, here is an accurate diagram of the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment is one of five places in the Constitution that mention the Constitutional Militia. It is also mentioned briefly in the Fifth Amendment, as well as Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, and Article II, Section 2, Clause 1.
The Militia is by far the most neglected and misunderstood institution of our Republic, even though it is the only thing said in the Constitution to be necessary for anything.
Words in laws always mean what they meant when the law was made law, and when the Constitution was written and ratified, Militia had been understood under State and Colonial statutes to mean an institution involving a *duty* of the people to keep and bear arms. Typically, each male between the ages of 16 and 60 was required to keep a good rifle, a certain amount of ammunition and other accoutrements of warfare in good condition, and to muster for Militia training periodically. This is what was being described with the phrase "well-regulated."
However, the right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on Militia service or enrollment, or even the fulfillment of Constitutional duties regarding the Militia on the part of Congress and State officials.
The Second Amendment is one of five places in the Constitution that mention the Constitutional Militia. It is also mentioned briefly in the Fifth Amendment, as well as Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, and Article II, Section 2, Clause 1.
The Militia is by far the most neglected and misunderstood institution of our Republic, even though it is the only thing said in the Constitution to be necessary for anything.
Words in laws always mean what they meant when the law was made law, and when the Constitution was written and ratified, Militia had been understood under State and Colonial statutes to mean an institution involving a *duty* of the people to keep and bear arms. Typically, each male between the ages of 16 and 60 was required to keep a good rifle, a certain amount of ammunition and other accoutrements of warfare in good condition, and to muster for Militia training periodically. This is what was being described with the phrase "well-regulated."
However, the right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on Militia service or enrollment, or even the fulfillment of Constitutional duties regarding the Militia on the part of Congress and State officials.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
CWO2....A lot of people abusing the 2nd Amendment for their own personal gain, as you can see in our country gun violence is at a all time high. I tell non-veterans all the time that one thing for sure the military teaches the importance of handling, maintain, using a weapon. I'm thankful today for my training especially spending time in the Infantry, real weapons isn't no toy to play around with once the trigger is squeeze you can't retract that round, many people fail to think about these things.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
MSG Floyd Williams rights come with responsibilities. Exercising the right to bear arms means accepting the responsibility to do so safely. It means keeping them secure. It means keeping them away from those who should not handle them. It means accepting that I am responsible for any harm caused to the innocent by that firearm. That being said, the same responsibility applies to a wood chipper, hammer, saw, or spoon.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I see it as a reaffirmation that the people have the right to have weapons to defend themselves indiviudally, and to defend the community/nation collectively (and unbeknownst to most folks, Title X states that all able bodied males who are not currently in uniform belong to the unorganized milita).
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I believe strongly that whatever the government has with maybe exception of say missiles/ warheads there should be no NFA class of weapons. Before 1935 you could mail order a machine gun. Now we are taxed so much and here in Virgina the ranges in general suck with only allowing paper not reusable targets. I shot in Competition for years and Steel can do well. We have allowed are rights to be trampled all over and infringed to the point where we could not deter tyranny or have a fighting chance if we had to with such strict laws for the law abiding. My biggest thing is if a criminal can smuggle it illegally then why should I only be handicapped? The criminals are winning with every infringement and people that work and are honest are being kill off because ATF only hurts the goods guys. Take the raid in San Diego, on Ares Armor, some people like myself enjoy making are own stuff and not have to do paperwork. But legislation is coming where it may soon be a felony. At what point has the right ceased to exist? When is it ever going to be enough or gone to far? I think we should be able to own armor piercing rounds, no restrictions on small arms ammo, body armor or whatever else this is the real world and these days a bad guy may not just have a 9mm he may have an ak 47 on fully automatic, do you want to try it with a cap and ball revolver? In some states you can no legally carry pistols except black powder in the city? Have you ever shot a cap and ball? It may go off 5 out of six times in a six shot on a good day. caps fail, nipples break etc. More laws like this causes more deaths. Tell me when a cop is ever going to be next to you to safe your life? We are responsible alone for our safety. An Uzi may not be best but it could give you fire power to level the playing field against criminals. Tyranny s ever more real every day as legislators vote to take away every right we have. Hitler did the same thing all legally. Just because something is legal does not make it right. Cops can legally carry and most i have met can not hit the broadside of a barn and hate guns. By the way I am the sole bread winner in my family and struggle to find work, part time is all i have found in over a year. Jobs fold and cut back, i can not afford tax stamps when the price alone is all i may have to afford for my own security.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
Could someone explain to me how a background check is an infringement on your right to bear arms? If you're not adjudicated mentally unstable, and if you're not a felon, the background check comes back positive, and you get your gun purchase.
Proper reform of the mental health system, and proper reform of the laws regarding mental health, would allow for reporting to the NICS for those that are a danger to themselves or others.
If you get your gun, then you're not suffering from an infringement on your rights.
The right to life is worth more than any other right, in my not so humble opinion, and I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. There's got to be balance, though. We have to be able to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of the mentally unstable and violent felons, while not taking them away from law-abiding citizens. Both are equally important.
Proper reform of the mental health system, and proper reform of the laws regarding mental health, would allow for reporting to the NICS for those that are a danger to themselves or others.
If you get your gun, then you're not suffering from an infringement on your rights.
The right to life is worth more than any other right, in my not so humble opinion, and I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. There's got to be balance, though. We have to be able to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of the mentally unstable and violent felons, while not taking them away from law-abiding citizens. Both are equally important.
(1)
(0)
1LT (Join to see)
Mr. Walker,
I would argue that any individual trusted to be outside of confinement should have the ability to possess a firearm.
You state the right to life is worth more than any other right. Would not the right to be able to defend yourself with the most effective tool fall under that right to life? Should that change if you were convicted, served your time, and then released?
I would agree that those who are dangerous should be prohibited from having access to *anything* that can be used to harm others - however, those are the people that should be incarcerated permanently, if not already taken down by someone defending themselves.
As someone who works in the web hosting industry, I could turn around the argument that specific demographics should be prohibited from owning firearms due to a concern for them being possibly violent into an argument that we should also have background checks and require licensure to have access to a computer. Couldn't a violent individual, who was released from incarceration (or someone who is mentally unstable), and has the technical know how severely harm others (and possibly en mass) via the internet - identity theft, for example.
I would argue that any individual trusted to be outside of confinement should have the ability to possess a firearm.
You state the right to life is worth more than any other right. Would not the right to be able to defend yourself with the most effective tool fall under that right to life? Should that change if you were convicted, served your time, and then released?
I would agree that those who are dangerous should be prohibited from having access to *anything* that can be used to harm others - however, those are the people that should be incarcerated permanently, if not already taken down by someone defending themselves.
As someone who works in the web hosting industry, I could turn around the argument that specific demographics should be prohibited from owning firearms due to a concern for them being possibly violent into an argument that we should also have background checks and require licensure to have access to a computer. Couldn't a violent individual, who was released from incarceration (or someone who is mentally unstable), and has the technical know how severely harm others (and possibly en mass) via the internet - identity theft, for example.
(1)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
Then we disagree on the meaning of infringement, and there's really nothing left for me to talk about in this discussion.
I am weighing the amount of time you or I would have to wait while the background check is conducted against the possibility that a violent felon or mentally unstable person could obtain a firearm sans background check and kill someone's loved one.
Waiting time vs. life.....I know which side of the fence I'm on.
I am weighing the amount of time you or I would have to wait while the background check is conducted against the possibility that a violent felon or mentally unstable person could obtain a firearm sans background check and kill someone's loved one.
Waiting time vs. life.....I know which side of the fence I'm on.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
CW2 Walker, I think it's fairly safe to say NO ONE wants violent felons or the mentally unstable to acquire a firearm. Before I continue on though, I'd like to ask you a question. Why do we want that?
(0)
(0)
CPL Charles Gale
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
It means to me that we are entitled to own the current infantry small arms of the day in order to protect our life, our liberty, and to ensure our ability to pursue happiness.
(1)
(0)
SFC Cornelius Walsh
Well played, Sir, though mine was simply an opinion. I think, however, that while certainly there were private merchant ships that had cannon, and individuals may have owned a few, I would take more issue with the fact that then, like now, it would be inadvisable for a private citizen to be capable of owning an entire battery. Great discussion, though.
(0)
(0)
SFC Cornelius Walsh
Well, Sir, I'd say the fear of ownership was misstated - more accurately, the USE of an entire artillery battery by a private citizen could be problematic. Realistically though, I really believe that gun laws don't really affect criminals, and are instead, just a way to hamper law-abiding citizens from obtaining weapons. As a Baltimore resident, I'm constantly reminded that felons, drug dealers, and habitual criminals all have guns - I'm not sure many if any of them obtained those firearms legally. My opinion remains, though, that we should have the right to bear small arms in order to protect ourselves, our families, and our belongings from those who which to do us harm.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SFC Walsh, I would say the MISUSE of ANY tool is problematic. it all boils down to responsibility and accountability. Gun laws definitely don't affect criminals because they are just that: criminals. they DON'T obey laws. Ultimately, it's about control of the populace. One thing that is really funny, for example, is how does restricting the number of cartridges in a magazine help society? Take NY's latest law, the SAFE Act. How is it that a magazine with 10 cartridges is safe but put one more then it's all of a sudden dangerous??? No logic there. The danger lies in the INTENT of the person operating the mechanism, not the mechanism itself. By the same token, having ONE cannon is no different than having 10 cannons, except in quantity. Yes, the more cannons the more destruction but again the problem isn't the mechanisms, it's the willful choice of the person to cause harm.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I take the 2nd amendment at face value.
At the time, there was no large, standing Army. The ability to quickly call up a militia for defense was therefore crucial. Logistically it would be very difficult to call up that many people, get them trained, outfitted and armed, and utilize them in time to deter whatever threat justified the call up in the first place. So the amendment makes perfect sense to me. It's an efficient way to expedite the process of banding your militias.
Having said that, I believe the creation of the modern military has rendered it irrelevant. We have state Armies (the National Guards) and a fully formed federal Army (and Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard) ready at all times for our defense. The days of quickly having to assemble a militia are over.
Bear in mind, I am looking at this solely through a national defense stand point. I don't care about conspiracy theories, or Red Dawn masturbatory fantasies. I leave those to... better men.
At the time, there was no large, standing Army. The ability to quickly call up a militia for defense was therefore crucial. Logistically it would be very difficult to call up that many people, get them trained, outfitted and armed, and utilize them in time to deter whatever threat justified the call up in the first place. So the amendment makes perfect sense to me. It's an efficient way to expedite the process of banding your militias.
Having said that, I believe the creation of the modern military has rendered it irrelevant. We have state Armies (the National Guards) and a fully formed federal Army (and Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard) ready at all times for our defense. The days of quickly having to assemble a militia are over.
Bear in mind, I am looking at this solely through a national defense stand point. I don't care about conspiracy theories, or Red Dawn masturbatory fantasies. I leave those to... better men.
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
SSG H. Your contention is out of line with the thoughts and considerations of those who framed our Constitution, and it's principles... Here are a few quotes to put things into perspective for you regarding WHO are the militia, and their purpose for being, as argued by those who argued, framed, and ratified the Document which defines our governmental system and explicitly limits the powers granted to the General government.
Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)
Tenche Coxe: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Alexander Hamilton: “…that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms.” (Federalist Paper #29)
Patrick Henry: “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
Lastly, a not on what the word "regulated" meant with regards to military action in the days when the Constitution was written.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a “regular” army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a “well regulated” army was simply one that was “well equipped” and organized. It does not refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term “standing army” or “regulars” to describe a professional army. Therefore, “a well regulated militia” only means a well equipped militia that was organized and maintained internal discipline. It does not imply the modern meaning of “regulated,” which means controlled or administered by some superior entity.
Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)
Tenche Coxe: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Alexander Hamilton: “…that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms.” (Federalist Paper #29)
Patrick Henry: “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
Lastly, a not on what the word "regulated" meant with regards to military action in the days when the Constitution was written.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a “regular” army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a “well regulated” army was simply one that was “well equipped” and organized. It does not refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term “standing army” or “regulars” to describe a professional army. Therefore, “a well regulated militia” only means a well equipped militia that was organized and maintained internal discipline. It does not imply the modern meaning of “regulated,” which means controlled or administered by some superior entity.
(2)
(0)
COL Randall C.
SSG Hasburn - one correction (nothing to do with the 2A discussions). The "State Armies" are not the National Guard, but rather the State Defense Forces (all are authorized, but less than half the states actually have a SDF).
The National Guard of today (the full name is the National Guard of the United States, but hardly anyone ever uses that) traces its roots back to the militias, but has evolved through various laws (notably the National Defense Act of 1916 and later with the National Guard Mobilization Act) to what it is today.
The National Guard of today (the full name is the National Guard of the United States, but hardly anyone ever uses that) traces its roots back to the militias, but has evolved through various laws (notably the National Defense Act of 1916 and later with the National Guard Mobilization Act) to what it is today.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Also, I suggest that you read the Military Laws of your State. The Militias of the various States do include but are not limited to the National Guard. Title 44 Code of Virginia - the Military Law of Virginia lists four elements to the Virginia Militia: (1) the Army and Air National Guard; (2) The Virginia State Defense Force; (3) The Naval Militia and (4) The Unorganized Militia. The last being essentially all able bodied citizens and residents intending to become citizens between 16 and 55 years of age (see Title 44, Ch 1, Art 1 Codenof Virginia). That being said, if Ammendment 2 U.S. Constitution was referring to the "right" of the States rather than the Right of individuals, I believe the Founders would have said so.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I interpret that second amendment in a literal sense... It says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.... We can reasonably understand that "Arm" is short for armament(Merriam Webster, 2014) Thus, a right to bear arms would preclude that we also have the right to bear armaments. As well as "a : a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm
b : a combat branch (as of an army)
c : an organized branch of national defense (as the navy)
2
plural
a : the hereditary heraldic devices of a family
b : heraldic devices adopted by a government
3
plural
a : active hostilities : warfare <a call to arms>
b : military service" (Merriam Webster, 2014)
As you can see the right to bear arms would be the right to bear any weapon for offense and defense in accordance with accepted definitions.
b : a combat branch (as of an army)
c : an organized branch of national defense (as the navy)
2
plural
a : the hereditary heraldic devices of a family
b : heraldic devices adopted by a government
3
plural
a : active hostilities : warfare <a call to arms>
b : military service" (Merriam Webster, 2014)
As you can see the right to bear arms would be the right to bear any weapon for offense and defense in accordance with accepted definitions.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Benjamin Long
It just makes a revelation, ban firearms and people start hucking molatovs and piped bombs at each other... or just toss make a hydrazine fogger in public area.... I would rather have them shooting at each other...
(1)
(0)
MSG Mitch Dowler
The militia is defined in Title 10 of the United States Code. The portion of the militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment is those male Citizens not otherwise a part of the active military, reserves, or national guard. Those militia are male Citizens and are the final check and balance to keep our government properly in servitude to the People. This militia is the original militia that took arms against the tyranny of King George and subsequent tyrannous individuals who may try to place themselves in the position of king.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Benjamin Long
Ifthe militia is meant to be for the preservationof a "free" state. how can it maintain the integrity of a free state and serve an occupier at the same time??? Just because it is a law does not make it sensible.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Benjamin Long
I would like to also like to say that I find "a "Well regulated Militia" separate from "Keep and bear arms. The modifier issue aside, they are two main clauses that should be separated with a semi colon... Since they are independent... the right to bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with Maintaining a militia. Just my two cents on that.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
<p>One thing I don't agree with about gun control is how they use a specific incident for example Sandy Hook to try to push new laws on the people. Using the Sandy Hook for example to target assault weapons when the shooter didn't even use an assault weapon. Additionally Connecticut already had more strict laws than what were recommended to combat shooting like this from happening.</p><p> </p>
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Exactly what it says. We are citizens and have the right to bear arms. I firmly believe that if a gov. Believes it's people are well armed then the will second guess qbout trying something crazy and crooks will second guess about attacking if they think someone might have a weapon.
Now I do believe some regulation is needed, but not to the point that governments are saying you can only one so many mags or the type of gun(this does not include military grade weapons sys.)
Now I do believe some regulation is needed, but not to the point that governments are saying you can only one so many mags or the type of gun(this does not include military grade weapons sys.)
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Cpl Benjamin Long
Also It can be regarded as a squinting modifier... does regulation apply to the first clause (Right to bear arms) or the second clause (Well regulated militia... Free state)?
(0)
(0)
MSG Mitch Dowler
"Well Regulated" as it refers to the militia means individual private Citizens who are well trained because they have a wide variety of military weapons at their disposal to become very proficient with.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Benjamin Long
Corroborate with facts MSG.... how does causation of regulation correlate to being well trained because of wide variety of weapons? Without evidence you merely are at post hoc logic.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
First, thank you for using the text of the amendment as it was originally passed. All the commas that usually appear were added later, as was the capitalization of the word "State". I believe that the second amendment says:
1. A functional militia is necessary to the security of a free state. That means that a state that is FREE has need of a militia. The militia is the sum total of armed civilians, and yes many of them would be worse than useless in a fight. So were most of the Continental militia, but they kept showing up to the party, and the survivors got better. The same would happen now in any protracted fight between militia (that's not the Reserve or National Guard) against regulars (and that should include the Reserve and National Guard in this usage.)
Since the Federal government was given the sole power to make and declare war, it was obvious that there would be at least a small standing army. The States would also have their own armed forces -- that was just how things were at the time, and nobody saw any issue with that. These organized forces were not and never have been part of the militia.
2. The people, and that's everyone -- although mentally incompetent and children would have been excepted at the time, as they should be now -- has the right to keep and carry arms of any sort. That right is not to be interfered with. I don't believe that this means that any and all regulations regarding gun ownership are wrong, but anything that says, either explicitly or by logical extension, that you need government permission to own and use a gun (or any other weapon) is unconstitutional on its face. And therefore null and void.
I'm aware that the 18th century view would have also excluded women, chattel slaves, and possibly even unpropertied men from any sort of militia service, but those were contemporary beliefs that have changed. The wording of the second amendment has nothing that would necessarily exclude any of these groups.
1. A functional militia is necessary to the security of a free state. That means that a state that is FREE has need of a militia. The militia is the sum total of armed civilians, and yes many of them would be worse than useless in a fight. So were most of the Continental militia, but they kept showing up to the party, and the survivors got better. The same would happen now in any protracted fight between militia (that's not the Reserve or National Guard) against regulars (and that should include the Reserve and National Guard in this usage.)
Since the Federal government was given the sole power to make and declare war, it was obvious that there would be at least a small standing army. The States would also have their own armed forces -- that was just how things were at the time, and nobody saw any issue with that. These organized forces were not and never have been part of the militia.
2. The people, and that's everyone -- although mentally incompetent and children would have been excepted at the time, as they should be now -- has the right to keep and carry arms of any sort. That right is not to be interfered with. I don't believe that this means that any and all regulations regarding gun ownership are wrong, but anything that says, either explicitly or by logical extension, that you need government permission to own and use a gun (or any other weapon) is unconstitutional on its face. And therefore null and void.
I'm aware that the 18th century view would have also excluded women, chattel slaves, and possibly even unpropertied men from any sort of militia service, but those were contemporary beliefs that have changed. The wording of the second amendment has nothing that would necessarily exclude any of these groups.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The core argument of those who argue against private ownership of weapons is that the 2nd ammendment was meant for "a well regulated militia". In their opinion, if you aren't a policeman or a member of the Military (Guard or reserve,,, with your weapon in an armory) you don't have a right to own a firearm.
In my opinion the Militia of that time was completely different than what we consider militia of today. A militia was any group of citizens who responded to an emergency, be it attacks by natives, foriegn military or criminals.
Two perfect examples of a group of citizens acting as militia with ad-hoc organization were incidents involving criminals. The first was the raid/robbery attempt in 1876 in Northfield Minnesota where armed Citizens killed or wounded 5 members of the Jesse James/Cole Younger Gang.
The second was in the 1992 LA riots when Shop Owners banded together to protect their property from looters.
A "well regulated Militia" is nother more than one or more law abiding citizens with a firearm, in my opinion.
In my opinion the Militia of that time was completely different than what we consider militia of today. A militia was any group of citizens who responded to an emergency, be it attacks by natives, foriegn military or criminals.
Two perfect examples of a group of citizens acting as militia with ad-hoc organization were incidents involving criminals. The first was the raid/robbery attempt in 1876 in Northfield Minnesota where armed Citizens killed or wounded 5 members of the Jesse James/Cole Younger Gang.
The second was in the 1992 LA riots when Shop Owners banded together to protect their property from looters.
A "well regulated Militia" is nother more than one or more law abiding citizens with a firearm, in my opinion.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I interpret it as Citizens of this country can have whatever kind of weapon they want. However the line that must be drawn is how much is to much. Tanks, Rockets, Mortars, Bombs, Grenades etc are things I wouldn't include as being protected by the second.
The Militia is the people all of them. Historically speaking if hostiles attacked your settlement everyone grabbed a gun and defended the settlement. That was the Founders True intent.
The Militia is the people all of them. Historically speaking if hostiles attacked your settlement everyone grabbed a gun and defended the settlement. That was the Founders True intent.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The 2nd Amendment also covers people in the U.S. illegally ...
People living in the United States illegally have a constitutional right to bear arms but are still barred from doing so by a separate law, a federal appeals court ruled.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling Thursday in a case involving Mariano Meza-Rodriguez. His family brought him to the United States from Mexico illegally when he was four or five years old, according to the 7th Circuit ruling. Now an adult, he was arrested in 2013 after a bar fight in Milwaukee. Police found a .22-caliber bullet in his shorts pocket.
Federal law prohibits people in the country illegally from possessing guns or ammunition. Meza-Rodriguez argued that the charges should be dismissed because the law infringes on his Second Amendment right to bear arms. U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa rejected that contention on the broad grounds that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to people in the country illegally. Meza-Rodriguez was ultimately convicted of a felony and deported.
The 7th Circuit panel, however, ruled unanimously Thursday that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment's guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed also applies to those in the country illegally. The ruling, which applies in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, conflicts with opinions from three other federal appellate courts in recent years that found the Second Amendment doesn't apply to people in the country illegally.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/court-second-amendment-also-covers-those-in-us-illegally/ar-BBm5Bx1?li=AA54ur
People living in the United States illegally have a constitutional right to bear arms but are still barred from doing so by a separate law, a federal appeals court ruled.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling Thursday in a case involving Mariano Meza-Rodriguez. His family brought him to the United States from Mexico illegally when he was four or five years old, according to the 7th Circuit ruling. Now an adult, he was arrested in 2013 after a bar fight in Milwaukee. Police found a .22-caliber bullet in his shorts pocket.
Federal law prohibits people in the country illegally from possessing guns or ammunition. Meza-Rodriguez argued that the charges should be dismissed because the law infringes on his Second Amendment right to bear arms. U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa rejected that contention on the broad grounds that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to people in the country illegally. Meza-Rodriguez was ultimately convicted of a felony and deported.
The 7th Circuit panel, however, ruled unanimously Thursday that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment's guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed also applies to those in the country illegally. The ruling, which applies in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, conflicts with opinions from three other federal appellate courts in recent years that found the Second Amendment doesn't apply to people in the country illegally.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/court-second-amendment-also-covers-those-in-us-illegally/ar-BBm5Bx1?li=AA54ur
Court: Second Amendment also covers those in US illegally
MADISON, Wis. — People living in the United States illegally have a constitutional right to bear arms but are still barred from doing so by a separate law, a federal appeals court ruled.The three-judge panel of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling Thursday in a case involving Mariano Meza-Rodriguez. His family brought him to the United States from Mexico illegally when he was four or five years old, according to the 7th...
(0)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
I just dont understand why courts want to give people that are here illegally and are not citizens the same rights as those that follow the law or are US Citizens. These are the same people that want to violate the law and bring enemy combatants to US Prisons. This is against the LAW! Presidents, politicians and judges that refuse to follow or enforce the law should be removed from office NOW. I took my oath seriously, WHY dont these A$$wipes??
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
We're somewhat alone when it comes to arms which makes it a hot topic as a country. There are countries out there that think we're nuts having this 2nd Amendment thing. I referee soccer in Europe every summer and get asked many questions and hear about their contrived stereotypes about American Cowboys. Then there are a few countries that promote ownership like the Swiss.
So we have "No" countries, "Yes" countries, and we seem to be the "Smoke 'em if you got 'em" which defies logic to outsiders.. It's a right but you are not required to exercise it. Same goes for speech and religion.
We see a lot of the "framers said this". Yes they did say it but in context with their times which was white gentry landowners are the only ones who can vote. Things have changed since then. We struggle with these questions because there is no clear answer that would work for most everyone. There won't be one. So if you're a Constitutional purist, then you have to realize you're working against gravity and have to work at not losing more and work harder to regain what has been lost. With the uberliberal gun control media, it becomes harder.
That said, I wonder if things are headed the right direction with more carry friendly states. And how about that national carry idea? You'd never see that 20 years ago.
So we have "No" countries, "Yes" countries, and we seem to be the "Smoke 'em if you got 'em" which defies logic to outsiders.. It's a right but you are not required to exercise it. Same goes for speech and religion.
We see a lot of the "framers said this". Yes they did say it but in context with their times which was white gentry landowners are the only ones who can vote. Things have changed since then. We struggle with these questions because there is no clear answer that would work for most everyone. There won't be one. So if you're a Constitutional purist, then you have to realize you're working against gravity and have to work at not losing more and work harder to regain what has been lost. With the uberliberal gun control media, it becomes harder.
That said, I wonder if things are headed the right direction with more carry friendly states. And how about that national carry idea? You'd never see that 20 years ago.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
This part of the sentence says it all. "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." IF you look at the Amendment line for line and word for word, the conclusion is simple.
Militias can be looked at as either State Funded Militias or the National Guard and Reserve Forces. It could also mean that it is each of our Obligation to defend our nation through owning our own firearms and wanting to whip our enemies ass.
However, I look at the Second Amendment as my Right to Responsibly own firearms and ensure I keep them safe and out of the hands of douche bags, politicians, criminals, my wife, and Joe Biden.
Militias can be looked at as either State Funded Militias or the National Guard and Reserve Forces. It could also mean that it is each of our Obligation to defend our nation through owning our own firearms and wanting to whip our enemies ass.
However, I look at the Second Amendment as my Right to Responsibly own firearms and ensure I keep them safe and out of the hands of douche bags, politicians, criminals, my wife, and Joe Biden.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
In the hunt to be the 2016 GOP pick, top contenders agree on 1 thing: Guns
The near-unanimity in supporting the Second Amendment — even among candidates who don’t own firearms — underscores the importance of guns in modern-day conservatism.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The founding fathers felt so strongly about a citizens right to bear arms, they took up the issue "Second", only behind the right to speak! My interpretation means little to those who have given the ultimate sacrifice defending my right to bear arms. Their sacrifice was not in vain and I continue to bear it proudly!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
My understanding is that the Bill of Rights applies to citizens, not the government. That being the case "A well regulated militia" has nothing to do with the military which is very much a part of the government.
(0)
(0)
1LT Aaron Barr
Actually, it's just the opposite. Our Natural Rights, referred to in the Declaration of Independence as 'inalienable rights', precede government and men establish governments for their protection. The fundamental Natural Rights, as defined by John Locke whom the Founders plagiarized, are Life, Liberty and Property. They're fundamental because they apply even if you're totally alone. These, in turn, form the basis of other Natural Rights that apply when in the company of others to include Privacy, Trade, Movement, Association etc.
Our fundamental equality of rights forms their natural limit; since my rights do not, by nature, trump anybody else's nor do their rights trump mine, the limit of their exercise is that nobody may violate the rights of anybody else. However, it's well-understood that people will do this. Therefore, another Natural Right that precedes government is that of Self-Defense; if a person will threaten or apply force against another in violation of their rights, that person has an absolute right to respond in kind.
The Founders recognized this philosophy as well as the fact that the government is also the worst violator of the rights of its people. To wit, they crafted the Constitution to include democratic representation, division of power between the Federal government and the states and between the branches of the Federal government and a whole slew of others. In addition, they added the Bill of Rights which applies to the Federal government and reads like the Ten Commandments. Each one is a 'thou shalt not' aimed at the government. In this manner, the Constitution establishes LEGAL rights, at the highest level of law, to prevent the government from infringing on pre-existing NATURAL rights.
Our fundamental equality of rights forms their natural limit; since my rights do not, by nature, trump anybody else's nor do their rights trump mine, the limit of their exercise is that nobody may violate the rights of anybody else. However, it's well-understood that people will do this. Therefore, another Natural Right that precedes government is that of Self-Defense; if a person will threaten or apply force against another in violation of their rights, that person has an absolute right to respond in kind.
The Founders recognized this philosophy as well as the fact that the government is also the worst violator of the rights of its people. To wit, they crafted the Constitution to include democratic representation, division of power between the Federal government and the states and between the branches of the Federal government and a whole slew of others. In addition, they added the Bill of Rights which applies to the Federal government and reads like the Ten Commandments. Each one is a 'thou shalt not' aimed at the government. In this manner, the Constitution establishes LEGAL rights, at the highest level of law, to prevent the government from infringing on pre-existing NATURAL rights.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I think that the right to keep and bear arms is essential to keep our other rights. If we lose that right, we have no way to guarantee we keep the others. It was put in place to protect us from our own government should it decide it wants to become tyrannical. Remember that at the time it was written, all weapons were military style. To limit one type of weapon based on looks is irrational. Limiting the type of weapons we are allowed to bear to something far less the what the government has effectively limits our ability to resist a tyrannical government. I'm not saying that our government will ever be tyrannical. It is a way to keep our government "for the people" and not "against the people". Lets hope we never have to use our right that way but that's what I think it was written for.
With all that said, I believe that being denied the right because you're crazy is a touchy subject. If you are the only sane person in a room of crazy people, by definition, you're the crazy one. Who gets to decide who is crazy or not and for what reasons would that judgment be given? It is a slippery road when you say that someone can't keep or bear arms because they are crazy. It only takes someone to say that if a person is crazy because of one thing, than we can say they are crazy for an unrelated thing. Next thing you know, people are crazy for stupid things like walking or talking different. That doesn't make them crazy, just different. The judgment should not be given lightly.
If the person committed a crime with a weapon then YES, by all means deny them the right. They have proven that they're not responsible enough to have it. We are innocent until proven guilty and thus should have the right until proven that we shouldn't have it.
With all that said, I believe that being denied the right because you're crazy is a touchy subject. If you are the only sane person in a room of crazy people, by definition, you're the crazy one. Who gets to decide who is crazy or not and for what reasons would that judgment be given? It is a slippery road when you say that someone can't keep or bear arms because they are crazy. It only takes someone to say that if a person is crazy because of one thing, than we can say they are crazy for an unrelated thing. Next thing you know, people are crazy for stupid things like walking or talking different. That doesn't make them crazy, just different. The judgment should not be given lightly.
If the person committed a crime with a weapon then YES, by all means deny them the right. They have proven that they're not responsible enough to have it. We are innocent until proven guilty and thus should have the right until proven that we shouldn't have it.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I don't see what is wrong with the regulation of what guns we can have. If a citizen is allowed to have a pistol or shotgun, why would they want/need a semi-automatic or automatic rifle?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
There is no 'interpretation.' It is written as any person can understand, and it should be followed as such.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Quibble or not, both halves of the one-liner are integral to the meaning that I interpret it as and that takes a small amount of explanation, please bear with me.
First, let's separate the two statements broken up and put in a reverse manner:
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."
For the term 'regulated' I am defining it as the ability to keep up with modern challenges.
For the term 'militia' I am defining it as a group of citizens banded together under the cause for common defense against an enemy, such as was the case at the dawning of our nation.
Bearing arms by the citizenry, when looked at in such a fashion, is undeniably appreciated and encouraged in a manner to maintain the security of the free state.
The simplicity of the sentence lends itself to adapt to the present and future times as well in my humble opinion.
How can a militia be up to the task of securing/maintaining a state of freedom if, in modern terms, it cannot provide superior firepower to repel attacks from an enemy such as the world's recognized best in the days of the writing of the Constitution?
Simply, if your neighbors across the border have fully automatic weapons plus other weapons with unkind abilities to produce a massive amount of casualties in short order, how can our people defend with pea shooters and dirt clods?
First, let's separate the two statements broken up and put in a reverse manner:
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."
For the term 'regulated' I am defining it as the ability to keep up with modern challenges.
For the term 'militia' I am defining it as a group of citizens banded together under the cause for common defense against an enemy, such as was the case at the dawning of our nation.
Bearing arms by the citizenry, when looked at in such a fashion, is undeniably appreciated and encouraged in a manner to maintain the security of the free state.
The simplicity of the sentence lends itself to adapt to the present and future times as well in my humble opinion.
How can a militia be up to the task of securing/maintaining a state of freedom if, in modern terms, it cannot provide superior firepower to repel attacks from an enemy such as the world's recognized best in the days of the writing of the Constitution?
Simply, if your neighbors across the border have fully automatic weapons plus other weapons with unkind abilities to produce a massive amount of casualties in short order, how can our people defend with pea shooters and dirt clods?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Lots of great discussion here, my hats off to everyone. I'm not a huge fan of the "right to bear arms" as it applies to the average citizen, based on this thought process: When in uniform, we trained professionals can't access our government issue small arms on a moments notice due to all the regs that govern said weapons. These are the very weapons that we use to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We are barred from carrying personal weapons when in uniform (a rising debate in light of recent incidents), especially in combat. Take off the uniform and that becomes the great equalizer. We're on the same playing field with those who abuse the right and show little to no responsibility that having that right entails. We're trained in ROE, use of force and restraint. Where are the ROE on Main street? Just MHO.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
I guess I come from a different school of thought. Yes there are terrible people out there who use weapons for the wrong reasons. But if we have a police force, I don't personally see a NEED to be armed & carrying. I don't oppose those who do, but I also don't see the NEED to be carrying an assault weapon - IMHO - anything over 10 rounds. I am well aware that anyone of us can come faced to face with an armed criminal at any time or be in a position when one's life and well being is in imminent danger and a police officer will not be right there. I feel that violence will beget more violence and me drawing in a bad situation could still get me or someone around me injured or worse. Same issue I have with carrying on post - another discussion here on RP.
The scenario that goes through my mind and why I mention ROE is this. I come across an individual drawn and shouting, are they the perpetrator or the suppressor? They fire, still can't see who or what they are firing at because I just dove for cover - Am I on the right or wrong side of the tracks? Will I get taken down because I'm carrying too? they turn towards my direction and see me, carrying and drawn, do I shoot first and ask questions later because I may be in imminent danger? do I have the training to asses the individual's intent and make that fatal decision?
I'm carrying and cross state lines? It's my responsibility to know the laws & regs there, am I on the right side of the law for carrying, does imminent danger apply here?
The scenario that goes through my mind and why I mention ROE is this. I come across an individual drawn and shouting, are they the perpetrator or the suppressor? They fire, still can't see who or what they are firing at because I just dove for cover - Am I on the right or wrong side of the tracks? Will I get taken down because I'm carrying too? they turn towards my direction and see me, carrying and drawn, do I shoot first and ask questions later because I may be in imminent danger? do I have the training to asses the individual's intent and make that fatal decision?
I'm carrying and cross state lines? It's my responsibility to know the laws & regs there, am I on the right side of the law for carrying, does imminent danger apply here?
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Sir, to be fair, the law enforcement officer that finds himself in the same scenario you just described is not any more prepared than you are to deal with that situation and likely faces the same questions. So why would it be advantageous to take no action and wait for a Policeman to arrive? That police officer is armed for his safety, not yours, so why is it reasonable that you aren't armed for the same reason. And if you are armed in that situation with a gun and a brain, (just like the cop), is it not reasonable for you to take action accordingly? I'm just saying it sounds as if bullets are flying in your scenario and you are in immediate potential danger. I'm not sure how doing nothing would be better in that situation than weighing your options while armed. I understand why you don't want to make a bad decision, but no decision is often worse. Whose to say you have to shoot anyone? There are many different options in your scenario. I can guarantee you one thing though, having a gun in your hand wont interfere with your ability to think outside the box. If you do nothing, well, bad things are already happening. And even worse, that guy could see you and mean you harm even without a gun. What happens when you decide you need to do something beyond a shadow of doubt, but you are ill equipped to do anything. Limiting your options doesn't limit risk, it magnifies it.
Also, I'm not sure "assault weapon" actually defines anything, but if you are referring to anything over ten rounds I believe I can justify all day every day. It is simple. I don't want to run out before the bad guy, and neither does anyone else. Having been in many firefights I can attest that bullets often become spent as quickly as adrenaline, and I have been shocked at how quickly I am looking for an opportunity to reload. With thirty round magazines. I currently carry 15 rounds (when I carry), and that makes me nervous. I cannot imagine being in a close quarters fight for the lives of myself and my family and being reliant on only ten opportunities to neutralize a threat. Hell I have hit my target more than 6 times before and the individual was still able bodied enough to kill me if he could. Imagine if I had missed all those shots and only have 4 left!
I don't carry because I believe I will save the day sometime or because I live in constant fear. I carry because it is my responsibility to make sure my family and myself are protected should the worst day happen. Frankly I find it inappropriate the idea of expecting a police officer (or anyone else) with his own family to place his life in harms way for me simply because I oppose being responsible for the task myself. Do I want the police to investigate crime and detain criminals who infringe on our liberty? Yes. Do I need the police to be there if an armed assailant decides he is going to make an attempt on my life or that of my family? No. And that is not their job. Contrarily, I would say that officer is actually less qualified than I am to be killed in defense of my loved ones.
The truth is, we actually make our community and each other safer by taking responsibility and refusing to be victims, without even squeezing a trigger. You just have to be willing to squeeze a trigger in order to take responsibility and refuse to be a victim.
Of course, these are just the ramblings of a neanderthal Infantryman and former LEO.
Also, I'm not sure "assault weapon" actually defines anything, but if you are referring to anything over ten rounds I believe I can justify all day every day. It is simple. I don't want to run out before the bad guy, and neither does anyone else. Having been in many firefights I can attest that bullets often become spent as quickly as adrenaline, and I have been shocked at how quickly I am looking for an opportunity to reload. With thirty round magazines. I currently carry 15 rounds (when I carry), and that makes me nervous. I cannot imagine being in a close quarters fight for the lives of myself and my family and being reliant on only ten opportunities to neutralize a threat. Hell I have hit my target more than 6 times before and the individual was still able bodied enough to kill me if he could. Imagine if I had missed all those shots and only have 4 left!
I don't carry because I believe I will save the day sometime or because I live in constant fear. I carry because it is my responsibility to make sure my family and myself are protected should the worst day happen. Frankly I find it inappropriate the idea of expecting a police officer (or anyone else) with his own family to place his life in harms way for me simply because I oppose being responsible for the task myself. Do I want the police to investigate crime and detain criminals who infringe on our liberty? Yes. Do I need the police to be there if an armed assailant decides he is going to make an attempt on my life or that of my family? No. And that is not their job. Contrarily, I would say that officer is actually less qualified than I am to be killed in defense of my loved ones.
The truth is, we actually make our community and each other safer by taking responsibility and refusing to be victims, without even squeezing a trigger. You just have to be willing to squeeze a trigger in order to take responsibility and refuse to be a victim.
Of course, these are just the ramblings of a neanderthal Infantryman and former LEO.
(2)
(0)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
Thank you, SSG Allen! I have never met a "Neanderthal Infantryman" and I highly doubt you qualify after this, quite astounding essay. Like I said, I have different train of thought, as we all do, and I never considered the point of view, that you discuss. I think I always saw arming one's self as a risk as opposed to a responsibility. The scenario I discussed was my attempt to demonstrate my fear of what could happen. You are absolutely correct in that no one knows how a scenario can play out. I'm more a "commo puke" so it was very interesting to get color commentary on my scenario from someone more in the know.
I still feel that a police force is there to perform a similar function locally, to what armed forces do in a combat zone. You have a strong opinion on that and I do respect it. Your last paragraph, "the truth is...", is very intriguing and makes a very compelling statement. This gives me some very fulfilling food for thought. I greatly appreciate your input on this
I still feel that a police force is there to perform a similar function locally, to what armed forces do in a combat zone. You have a strong opinion on that and I do respect it. Your last paragraph, "the truth is...", is very intriguing and makes a very compelling statement. This gives me some very fulfilling food for thought. I greatly appreciate your input on this
(1)
(0)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
I also wanted to add SSG Allen , that this entire discussion on the 2nd Amendment is a demonstration of the strength of RallyPoint. On Facebook, opposing opinions like this would lead to endless streams of profane inanity - been there on the giving and receiving end of a variety of topics - but here we mostly tend to behave as civilized adults because of our common bond.
(2)
(0)
0
-3
3
As a historian, I have to point out that 18th-century militias are as obsolete as 18th-century clothing. The only vague remnant of the old militias that remain in service are the Air & Army National Guard, which serve both their home states and the federal government. However, the Guard has become nearly indistinguishable from the reserves with regard to how it performs federal service, including combat deployments post-9/11. These are not the militias warned by Paul Revere that the "Redcoats" were on the march. Indeed, those wing-nuts that presently call themselves "militiamen" are essentially potential domestic terrorists; they are the threat, not the providers of security to any U.S. state.
America developed as a frontier nation, and the Second Amendment reflects the fact that keeping and using firearms was commonplace on the frontier. But we've now settled our frontiers, with the exception of Alaska. So, that leaves us with hunting & personal protection.
Although it's not in the First Amendment, I have no problem with law-abiding citizens using bows, bolt-action or semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, or pistols to hunt. I also have no objection to ownership of a pistol or two for personal protection, again by non-felons. I support reasonable regulations on firearms use & ownership designed to promote public safety and think that the gun lobby (NRA, et al.) does not advance its long-term interests (or, more importantly, the public good) when it opposes such legislation.
A final comment: while I support laws to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons, I am very skeptical of regulations regarding mental illness and gun ownership. How many veterans with PTS could be banned unnecessarily once labeled "crazy?" Mental illness is extraordinarily complex, and just like other illnesses, is thankfully not usually permanent. An individual who is an active threat to himself or others should obviously not have access to a weapon, but they should just as obviously not be on the street. If they are in crisis, they should be somewhere that will provide them with the help that they need to recover.
America developed as a frontier nation, and the Second Amendment reflects the fact that keeping and using firearms was commonplace on the frontier. But we've now settled our frontiers, with the exception of Alaska. So, that leaves us with hunting & personal protection.
Although it's not in the First Amendment, I have no problem with law-abiding citizens using bows, bolt-action or semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, or pistols to hunt. I also have no objection to ownership of a pistol or two for personal protection, again by non-felons. I support reasonable regulations on firearms use & ownership designed to promote public safety and think that the gun lobby (NRA, et al.) does not advance its long-term interests (or, more importantly, the public good) when it opposes such legislation.
A final comment: while I support laws to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons, I am very skeptical of regulations regarding mental illness and gun ownership. How many veterans with PTS could be banned unnecessarily once labeled "crazy?" Mental illness is extraordinarily complex, and just like other illnesses, is thankfully not usually permanent. An individual who is an active threat to himself or others should obviously not have access to a weapon, but they should just as obviously not be on the street. If they are in crisis, they should be somewhere that will provide them with the help that they need to recover.
(0)
(3)
Cpl Christopher Allen-Shinn
MSgt Allan Folsom I make no claim to being smarter than any of our colleagues here on RP. I probably am better educated than most (based on US census data), but education merely hones one's abilities; it does NOT confer additional intelligence.
I found your analysis sound. To have the explicit right to bear arms and to serve in militias that could supplement the standing army were seen as foundational freedoms by many of the men that we revere as as America's Founding Fathers. Although this discussion of my comments has shifted focus to my opinions on present day militias (which seem to be more controversial than I expected), I agree that 18th-century militias were considered vital, and that firearms ownership was also important.
I support reasonable firearms ownership, which I define as semiautomatic or bolt-action rifles, shotguns, and pistols, owned for regulated hunting or personal protection purposes. I further support the implementation of background checks to prevent felons and the adjudicated mentally ill from gun ownership. Those are my personal opinions, and I realize that most of my fellow veterans are more libertarian in their interpretation of the Second Amendment, but one of the beauties of the USA is its guarantee of freedom of (political) expression, right?
I found your analysis sound. To have the explicit right to bear arms and to serve in militias that could supplement the standing army were seen as foundational freedoms by many of the men that we revere as as America's Founding Fathers. Although this discussion of my comments has shifted focus to my opinions on present day militias (which seem to be more controversial than I expected), I agree that 18th-century militias were considered vital, and that firearms ownership was also important.
I support reasonable firearms ownership, which I define as semiautomatic or bolt-action rifles, shotguns, and pistols, owned for regulated hunting or personal protection purposes. I further support the implementation of background checks to prevent felons and the adjudicated mentally ill from gun ownership. Those are my personal opinions, and I realize that most of my fellow veterans are more libertarian in their interpretation of the Second Amendment, but one of the beauties of the USA is its guarantee of freedom of (political) expression, right?
(0)
(0)
Cpl Benjamin Long
Cpl Christopher Allen-Shinn - you claim you are no better than any "Colleagues" here, but then you rant how you are more educated than most... that is the most self serving rant I have ever heard....
(1)
(0)
Cpl Christopher Allen-Shinn
SSG (Join to see) - No, Staff Sergeant, I trust myself, my loved ones & friends, brother & sister Marines, and the American system of government. I am aware of the imperfections in the system, but it seems worthy of my allegiance.
(0)
(1)
SSG (Join to see)
I will post again YOUR exact words, which is contrary to your most recent statement: "They are not perfect, but I put my faith in the government over militias". The militia IS the people. The militia IS every single able-bodied person, including every single Marine, Soldier, Sailor, and Airman. There is the militia OR the government. Your statement above, which you have NOT deemed to correct, puts your faith in the government over the people. Which is it? I put MY faith in God first, then the people. I do NOT trust the government one bit. And I dare say the majority on here, as well as in the United States, do not either trust the government.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
-
Ask questionGet expert advice and
tips for your questions. -
Post updatePost pictures, personal updates, plans, or anything you like!
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google