The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 20, 2012, 01:05 AM   #1
Quick Karl
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2008
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 36
A Philosophical argument for the repeal of Second Amendment

OBJECTION:

There is no way the authors of The Bill of Rights could ever have imagined semi-automatic firearms with 30-round magazines, they were talking about single-shot muzzle loaders for hunting only, therefore The People should NOT be allowed to have semi-automatic high-capacity firearms...

REPLY TO OBJECTION:

There is no way the authors of The Bill of Rights could ever have imagined the Internet, Internet **** easily viewed by children, Rap music replete with its glorification of murder and its degradation of women as whores, Hollywood movies that glorify killing, or video games that may subliminally program people to kill (subliminal messages in TV advertisements was outlawed in the early 60's)... They were talking about only what you could say or print and distribute in the small communities and churches you were a part of.

Therefore, we should repeal BOTH the First AND Second Amendments, because the Founders were fools with no foresight whatsoever.

Furthermore, we should repeal Miranda Rights, and the Right to an Attorney appointed and paid for by the State if you cannot afford one, because it is paranoid and foolish to think that a Law Enforcement Officer, Prosecutor, or Judge (the State) would EVER violate your rights...

It's amazing how few people today comprehend these simple truths!
Quick Karl is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 01:17 AM   #2
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
I have an old school friend who is married to someone who recently just made this very same argument over social media sites in anger(some days after the tragedy after he had time to think). Everyone who tried to explain his mistakles about certain weapons was "distorting" the truth for their own agenda. He does whole-heartedly believe that the musket is what was honored and the second amendment is antique and at best needs to be totally revampled. he also made the statement, which is very common, that there was absolutely no need for people in some nice, quaint areas to have any firearms. Some people just don't realize that someone can invade the home and severly injure or kill their family.
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 01:22 AM   #3
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,410
Some other replies:

1. The Second Amendment, when conceived, was, in effect, guaranteeing the right of the people to own the most potent military weapons of the time--certainly weapons on par with those in the armories of the best-armed nations of the time. In fact, it was not uncommon for (wealthy) private citizens to own cannons or even warships.

2. The Second Amendment is carefully worded in such a way as to make it clear that its purpose is to insure that the armed citizens could help insure the "security of a free state". Clearly, the authors intended to protect the right of the citizens to arm themselves to the point of being an effective military fighting force.

3. Multi-shot (multi-barrel) firearms were not unheard of during the timeframe that the constitution was penned. There were also breechloaders (such as the Ferguson Rifle) which could enable the user to fire at a rate of perhaps 2 to 3 times greater than the single-shot muzzle-loading muskets. Yet the constitution makes no attempt to exclude such weapons from private hands.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 01:29 AM   #4
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
While I am glad that the 18th amendment was repealed, the existence of the 21st and the standard that amendments can be repealed is a little disheartening. Yes, societies make mistakes, and yes, we should be able to fix them. However, it makes me uneasy that there is a precedent to draw upon for a new amendment to repeal the 2nd.
I hope i dont live to see the day
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 04:20 AM   #5
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 370
Carl,
Your objection was put to bed in the Heller opinion. We've won that battle.
Davey is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 05:23 AM   #6
Scorch
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2006
Location: Washington state
Posts: 11,476
How about this for a political opinion?
The President cannot repeal the 2nd Amendment (unless he dismisses Congress as in a National Emergency). Congress, however, can repeal the 2nd Amendment. It is a lot easier to influence a Congressman than a President. So write to your Congressman.
__________________
Never try to educate someone who resists knowledge at all costs.
But what do I know?
Summit Arms Services
Taylor Machine
Scorch is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 06:13 AM   #7
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Karl
OBJECTION:

There is no way the authors of The Bill of Rights could ever have imagined semi-automatic firearms with 30-round magazines, they were talking about single-shot muzzle loaders for hunting only, therefore The People should NOT be allowed to have semi-automatic high-capacity firearms...
But they very definitely were NOT talking about just single shot muzzle loaders, and they were not talking about hunting:

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst 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.... [T]he 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." (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 02:38 PM   #8
Quick Karl
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2008
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 36
I was being satirical...
Quick Karl is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 03:35 PM   #9
SIGSHR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 3,095
Congress CAN NOT repeal a Constitutional Amendment, that must be done by the States-think of the failed Equal Rights Amendment. The real threat is from the Courts, specifically the Liberals with their "Living Constitution-Blank Slate" attitude.
SIGSHR is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 04:16 PM   #10
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Actually as a historical fact there were a very few muti-shot muskets that to the best I can figure must have operated on a roman candle type effect... Probably a side barrel with powder to burn from one to the next but its just my guess..

All that aside you can simply look up what the founding fathers said about arms and the government... Really quickly they realized the government could easily be a threat to the people and that the people would need arms appropriate to combating a over reaching government....

So basically anything appropriate for military action short of weapons of mass destruction is IMHO a allowed arm under the 2A. (Im not advocating breaking laws). Further (and no one ever, ever learns apparently) as a historical note time and time again when governments are the only ones with arms at some point or another it goes really badly for the people..
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 05:07 PM   #11
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
The Government of China thinks its a good idea if we repeal our 2nd Amendment. Considering their human rights record, if their call for repeal was the only fact I knew about the debate, it would be enough reason for me to be against it.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 05:44 PM   #12
ronl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2007
Posts: 783
The intent of the framers of the Constitution was very clear. The fact that the right to keep and bear arms is included in the Bill of Rights denotes the importance of such a right in relationship to the maintainence of freedom. There were three primary reasons for its inclusion; the ability of the bearer to protect his or her life and property, the ability of the bearer to aid in the protection of the United States in case of an invasion, and the protection of freedom from a tyrannical, overbearing government if thrust upon them. The framers feared the thought of a standing army, and an armed populace stood as a bulwark against its unlawful misuse. The militia included every male over the age of 17. It would be, considering the intended purpose of the right, ludicrous to assume anything other than the weapons intended for the people be on par with current military standards. It would be extremely difficult, and rightly so, to repeal or add any amendment, not to mention the time it would take for every state house pass it. It amazes me that after 200+ years the government still doesn't understand the simple phrase "shall not be infringed."

Last edited by ronl; December 21, 2012 at 01:09 AM.
ronl is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 06:05 PM   #13
David13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 243
ronl
The part 'shall not be infringed' is not the big issue.
The big issue, which was addressed in Heller and McDonald in 2008 and 2010 was; is the right to have a militia; to be in the militia; or, to have guns for your own personal protection.
It is clear that reasonable regulation does not 'infringe' the right.
I don't even know if there have ever been any cases that defined 'infringe', as regards guns, or gun rights. All the cases are on copyrights.
dc
David13 is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 06:50 PM   #14
ronl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2007
Posts: 783
David, the line about infringe was intended as a little levity, not to be taken too serously. In all seriousness though, the laws so far enacted have, to some degree, limited the ability of the armed populace to defend itself in certain of the scenarios envisioned by the framers. To infringe means to violate, encroach upon. I think for certain some of the rights of law-abiding citizens have been encroached upon and limited. NFA items are the primary ones so far. Do those laws limit my ability to respond with some sense of equality to certain situations that could arise? Hypothetically, yes. Would an AWB limit my ability to respond? In no uncertain terms, yes. An AWB would not only limit my ability to respond, but would infringe upon the ability of generations yet to come to fulfill their duty as citizens. I certainly wouldn't think too much of facing a gang of AK wielding BG's with a bolt action rifle, but I would if I have to.
ronl is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 07:52 PM   #15
Crankgrinder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 24, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 715
John: . The Second Amendment, when conceived, was, in effect, guaranteeing the right of the people to own the most potent military weapons of the time--certainly weapons on par with those in the armories of the best-armed nations of the time. In fact, it was not uncommon for (wealthy) private citizens to own cannons or even warships.

2. The Second Amendment is carefully worded in such a way as to make it clear that its purpose is to insure that the armed citizens could help insure the "security of a free state". Clearly, the authors intended to protect the right of the citizens to arm themselves to the point of being an effective military fighting force.

Were alittle outgunned these days arent we?
Crankgrinder is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 08:19 PM   #16
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,410
Things certainly aren't as they were intended to be.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 08:44 PM   #17
Nickel Plated
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2010
Location: Brooklyn, NYC
Posts: 543
Actually another good reply to that common myth would forego the whole "apply it to the other amendments" idea. And simply refute the actual statement itself.

The founders were not idiots. Weapons and their lethality has been steadily advancing and improving throughout history ever since weapons were invented. From sharpened rocks, to spears, swords, bows and the flintlock muskets that they were so familiar with.
It would be ludicrous for anyone to think that we would have just stopped at muzzle-loading flintlocks and called it good enough.
While the founders may not have envisioned M16s and AK-47s specifically they were well aware of the fact that weapons would become faster firing, more accurate, and longer ranged.
Nickel Plated is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 09:07 PM   #18
scrubcedar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 478
The actual argument is that our weapons are much more deadly than theirs were. This is a complete and utter falsehood.
What they are not taking in to account is that Medicine has evolved as well. A bullet wound today is not nearly as likely to kill as it was back then. Period.

Swords, knives, pikes etc. were far more deadly back then than any semi auto rifle is today. The death it led to was for more gruesome and painful. A metally deranged person in the 1780's armed with a brace of pistols, a musket, and a sword could easily have killed MORE than this Mentally deranged person.
These men (the Founders) almost without exception participated in the fighting at some point. They were quite aware of what weapons were capable of doing, they saw the consequences close up and personal. They got to watch their friends die slowly and horribly from wounds that we could deal with in minutes now.
DO NOT LET PEOPLE GET AWAY WITH TELLING THIS COMPLETE AND UTTER LIE!
__________________
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado
scrubcedar is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 11:34 PM   #19
Quick Karl
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2008
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 36
The 'militia' was, and is, The People.

Until recently, it was easily understood, but something in the water has affected people's intelligence, so lots of people that believe they are, in fact, educated, don’t have a clue what it meant, or means, and the nut cases that plan the bombings of court buildings and call themselves a militia, has given the word militia, a bad name, in spite of the fact that the left tries to use militia to men GOVERNMENT FORCES ONLY.

The fact is, we are arguing the case with facts that are insignificant to the opposition, and we keep using unarmed Boy Scout philosophies to win a knife fight with murderers.

So, stop being stupid.
Quick Karl is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 12:01 AM   #20
scrubcedar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 478
Karl I agree that that rabid anti-gunners do not understand the constitution, nor will they accept well reasoned arguments based on truth. None of my reply is about them.
My reply is for the average person that right now is very upset and looking for answers. If we don't have answers that make sense and refute the seemingly reasonable arguments, then we deserve the loss of the rights we didn't fight hard enough for.
I make my living in sales. I'm surrounded every day by people who can make anything sound like the truth. Think about that for a second. These people have that same ability. What will save us from them persuading our friends and neighbors that they are right? Us, armed with facts, patiently, reasonably, making them look like the liars and extremists that they are.
__________________
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado
scrubcedar is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 12:02 AM   #21
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,398
Tenche Coxe: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?"

Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.”

George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.”
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 03:57 AM   #22
HamsterHamster
Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Posts: 33
My understanding if 2A is that we as citizen is entitled to "bear ARMS", a guarantee against tyrannical government.

"Arms" does not apply exclusively to guns and should mean to the whole spectrum of defensive technology; ie, ballistic missile, helicopters, tanks, or instrument of information warfare.
HamsterHamster is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 11:36 AM   #23
Stressfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,497
Quote:
There is no way the authors of The Bill of Rights could ever have imagined semi-automatic firearms with 30-round magazines, they were talking about single-shot muzzle loaders for hunting only, therefore The People should NOT be allowed to have semi-automatic high-capacity firearms...
At the time, a single-shot front-stuffer was exactly what the military had.

I would argue that equivalent arms was exactly what was envisioned.

Do I need an "assault weapon?" Meh, probably not. But as a mentally sound, law abiding citizen why shouldn't I have one? Why shouldn't you, as a (presumably) mentally sound, equally law abiding citizen have one too? We could go shooting together

There are lots of things that people don't need, but I don't believe it is the role of government to tell me what I need
__________________
"The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank" - Montgomery Scott
Stressfire is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 11:52 AM   #24
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
I don't think the weapon is important provided you see the situation the same way the convention saw it. It was that they did not want a standing army. The idea was that the militia (the well regulated militia) was going to do whatever armies did. And in fact, it mostly did, though not well enough to actually do without a standing army. Sometimes it did very poorly, although that is neither here nor there. But basically, the militia of that day was like our national guard, only it was a requirement and not a voluntary organization. The purpose of the second amendment does not seem to have been to allow any and all to carry a weapon. Naturally, much argument centers around that point.

Another point of considerable disagreement is the confusing idea that the second amendment is to ensure that citizens can overthrow the government. Now, I ask you: if you were writing a constitution, would you say that in so many words? Would you even want that possibility? Really, that's not the way it'd done.

Finally, it hardly applied to everyone in the first place, partly because membership in the militia was a defined state, not something that included everyone. Obviously, a lot of the language in the declaration of independence and the constitution was very high-sounding but clearly did not apply to all that many people. While many things have been changed over the years, whatever the original meaning was remains the original meaning, if that's what one is going by.

Another minor point is the whole concept of government. No rights are ever surrendered to government but at the same time, governments have powers that no individual ever has. Which is why there is government. Any kind of government, any time, anywhere.

I rather doubt that any person not a pirate during the late 18th century had cannon. They could have armed ships but only with license from the government. Even in the middle ages, one could simply not build a castle if one wanted to. You had to get a license. No forms, no inspections but you had to get permission from the government.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 12:04 PM   #25
Romeo 33 Delta
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 27, 2009
Posts: 315
The organized or Select Militia was of restricted membership by definition, but you are leaving out the unorganized Militia which, while it had some restrictions on age and did not permit certain government officals, was much more inclusive.

I'm also reminded of "... being necessary for the security of a free state..." and the question: what if the government at some point becomes tyrannical? What then as to the "security of a free state?

Are you certain, or just speculate, that a shipping merchant needed government permission to arm his vessels?
Romeo 33 Delta is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14118 seconds with 7 queries