i knew it...

Thanks for taking the time to analyze that and throw in your own voice. It always seems to make things a little more organized.

__________________
"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." Alexander Hamilton

The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.
Plato

Let me ask you then, what is your limit to the term "arms" as per the 2nd Amendment?

I believe it includes all small arms carried by soldiers and Law Enforcement. I do not believe it includes anything beyond firearms, which fire bullets, as weapons such as rockets, mortars, grenades, land mines, etc. are explosive devices and only suited for military applications.

Personally, the largest weapon I would like to see allowed would be automatics. I would understand, however, laws limiting those too. That's what I would like to see though. As far as the 2nd Amendment goes, I truthfully don't know where the line should be drawn. At the time it was written it included, like you said, civilians could carry all firearms that the military had. What I would like to know though is if the founding fathers would let a civilian own a cannon if he so chose. In my mind, their cannons would be the equivalent of our tanks, mortars, etc. The limit to arms can be vague. Look at the movie Lord of War. They had borrowed those tanks from none other than arms dealers. Arms is such a broad term that it can apply to almost anything. For public safety the line will need to be drawn somewhere just as it was on the 1st amendment with the saying, "lose lips sink ships." You can't release information that will harm soldiers or yell fire in public because of public safety. Where that line will be drawn will have to be decided by the legislature. Personally though, I wouldn't understand allowing anything beyond automatics (again assuming they would allow those).

__________________
"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." Alexander Hamilton

The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.
Plato

These are very good points Okham.

First, I was pleased to see you refer to the "Federal Convention" which is its actual name. Most people erroneously call it the Constitutional Convention.

Secondly, I think Okham softpedalled (maybe I mis read it) the importance the founders placed on the citizen's responsibility and right to protect itself against their own government.

We must, however, remember that in the time period of the founding, ours was a nation of hunter/farmers. People needed a gun as musch for hunting as self protection. This is a historical perspective note - not an invitation to take this thread down a blind alley.

One area I would like to get peoples opinions is about the 2nd Ammendment's wording. It says that a well regulated militia is necessary. At the time of the writing, a standing army did not exist and was considered unwanted (since they had all seen what Britian's standing army was used for.

Should we have well regulated militias? Should one need to be a member of one to have the right to keep and bear arms?

Just want to see some discussion on this topic.

I know a gentleman in Florida, a German who owns a large microphone company, who has quite a collection of military equipment including tanks, howitzers, halftracks, and VERY large guns. He leases them to movies such as "Saving Private Ryan". There is nothing preventing him from owning them, he just can't drive them off the property.

Speaking of Germans, maybe you should ask a survivor of WWII Germany how big a gun they wish they could've had when they were loaded onto the cattle cars. I know that may seem like an extreme statement to make, but it's really not. Governments lose their way all the time. When all is said and done, at the end of the day, when all reasonably and prudent attempts have failed to protect the constitution, the last stand will be made with guns, or there will be no last stand. It is therefore important to keep in mind, that we must be allowed to equal the power of government on this last level of the defense of our rights. We are already hopelessly outgunned and out equipped... but that does not mean it is a lost cause.

I pray that the day never comes when we will have to find out.

"I would rather suffer the inconveniences of attending too much Liberty, than those of too little Liberty" [paraphrasing]

__________________
S.O.S. ------ United We Stand, Divided We Fall

Point well made. The constructionalist part of me questions if/ to what point we can limit the constitution. We have freedom of speech so can we release troop placement during war time? At the moment we can’t, but does that violate freedom of speech? Taking that same idea to the 2nd Amendment how can we limit it? Under the 2nd Amendment could nuclear arms be protected? In these cases I think I can safely agree to go against my constructionalist instincts for protection of the country i.e. ban nuclear arms and prevent the yelling of fire in a movie theater. Should people be allowed to own tanks, howitzers, and the like? If they can, I think they should have to get a collectors permit for them. I see the point you are making about self defense against the government with these, but at the same time I think making them freely available to the public posses a greater threat.

__________________
"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." Alexander Hamilton

The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.
Plato

My opinion is that the wording of the 2nd means that in order for a state to be able to secure and defend itself against an enemy, it needs to be able to produce a capable force at any time. To ensure that end the people, including every individual, have the right to keep arms in their homes so that should they be needed at a moments notice, they could show up prepared. Some argue that the National Gaurd now serves this purpose, but seeing how the Gaurd was created some 100 years after the Second was written, I argue that it does not. Furthermore I believe the Gaurd does not relieve the citizens of this duty, rather only serves as a branch of the military that would act as a safeguard should the US be attacked while the main military force is largely elsewhere, as is the case now. My opinion is that the Founders knew no king could ever come to power in their new country if EVERYONE was armed. So they gave free men the right to own weapons. Not a privilege. Not a favor. Not special permission. Not as part of a special group of guys called a militia. EVERYONE.

Hodge, take a look at the annotated constitution and the 2nd as it was proposed by the Virginia delegation at the Federal Convention. This will give you a good idea as to the direction they were headed with this amendment. You can find a link to the annotated constitution on the "Wisdom of Rights" thread. The Virginia proposal is buried somewhere on the "Gun Control, truth instead of Bush fiction" thread. Jrafe and I (and many others) had a pretty darned good debate going on that thread, it's worth a peruse.

__________________
S.O.S. ------ United We Stand, Divided We Fall

Ok, since no one is on here besides me at 3:42 AM I took the liberty of looking this up.

Virginia’s proposal goes as follows and was submitted by a committee that included Antifederalists Lee and Mason, as well as Federalists James Madison, John Marshall, and George Wythe.

The Virginia convention urged the adoption of the following language:
That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence for a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Interesting note: The Virginia Constitution lacked a right to keep and bear arms until 1971




The current wording of the Constitution’s 2nd amendment is as follows:

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.




All laws regulating weapons go back to the only Supreme Court case involving the second amendment, United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
(This case was the one that resulted in the prohibition of sawed-off shotguns.) The case originated as a challenge to the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the follwing is an excerp from Wikipedia regarding the official decision of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court declared that the NFA was not in conflict with the Second Amendment, writing:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
Describing the constitutional authority under which Congress could call forth state militia, the Court held:
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
The Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
The decision agreed that only military type arms are constitutionally protected, and stated "it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

__________________
"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." Alexander Hamilton

The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.
Plato