Are there any limits to the 2nd amendment?

That is how you and I sum it up but in reality the Heller decision was terrible and you can argue this with me all you want. The Supreme Court left in "reasonable restrictions" which can be twisted any way a municipality or state wants it to be.
Agreed - presuming we can prevent Heller from being overturned in the next 4 years, there are battles ahead to define "reasonable" and they are all up-hill...

Heller himself has already filed some...

Mass needs a kick in the law library as well since its laws are now in direct contradiction to the Constitution and its current interpretation...
 
I'm writing this post in hopes of getting some serious replies. (Smartasses feel free, but please preface your comment with: "I'm being a smartass")

As an AR owner, I'm as sick of the question: "why do you need a weapon like that?" as anyone else.

My standard answer is: "I don't have to justify my needs to you, it's my fundamental human right," that is, the right of self defense.

But, for instance, I was asked, by a gun owner, what was the possible purpose of a Barret .50 was. (with the obvious followup being why shouldn't it be banned) All I could say was that what the Hell, if someone wanted to spend a few grand on that weapon, what was the harm?

I can see the restrictions on nuclear weapons. I can even see restrictions on explosives. But beyond that, I don't see it. Full-Auto? -go for it. Put the ones that abuse away forever, but leave the rest of us the F**** alone.

So what do you folks say? (not what you'd LIKE to say) to this kind of argument? I'd like to have something better than "You can never trust government to be benign" which has always been my default argument against gun control.

Is there something more convincing? (especially to the young/naive) or am i just hoping for the impossible?

I can argue 2nd Amendment til I'm blue in the face. But what other logical,/historical argument can i make to otherwise skeptical folks that gun control is a bad idea? I believe that there ARE other arguments, but I haven't heard/read them clearly stated. Any suggestions? I'm all ears, because I have a lot of people I'd like to convince. I honestly believe that the facts are on our side. That the history of tyranny is so rampant that no government, even ours, can ever be trusted with absolute, un-rivaled power.

But I also know that this view is not necessarily shared by many in our society. How do we convince these people? Any thoughts? I'm all ears.

Late to this thread....

If your justification is one predicated upon self-defense (SD) then there is no inherent SD capability to the Barret .50. It's not a SD tool. So your justification falls flat on it's face there, as only those tools (guns) which can be used for SD are admissible.

If your rationale is for something other than SD, then that can open the door for many different types of guns.
 
Late to this thread....

If your justification is one predicated upon self-defense (SD) then there is no inherent SD capability to the Barret .50. It's not a SD tool. So your justification falls flat on it's face there, as only those tools (guns) which can be used for SD are admissible.

If your rationale is for something other than SD, then that can open the door for many different types of guns.

It is justified upon self defense of the individual and the state, in which case a Barret would be entirely necessary.
 
It is justified upon self defense of the individual and the state, in which case a Barret would be entirely necessary.

Legally, no. While I understand your point, legally self defense means responding while under direct, serious threat to life or serious bodily injury. Taking someone out from half a mile away kinda precludes the old "I was in fear for my life" defense. [smile]

If you're talking about going to war with the government, then that's not SD either. That's just out and out war, and there's no legal justification needed for that, is there? [smile]
 
Law Dawg,
It is justified upon self defense of the individual and the state, in which case a Barret would be entirely necessary.
Agreed - the 2nd amendment is the result of a few iterations and lots of compromise and ends up being pretty confusing to everyone...

That said, the legislative intent, the words that are there and everything that led up to this all point to two basic ideas:

1. the state needs a populous with access to arms to defend itself as a state
2. individuals have a right to defend themselves from anything including the state

It is unfortunate that the mish-mash of verbiage that was pressed into there ended up as it did - but it is quite clear to me from reading other things written by the founders and putting them into the context of the day what they meant...

It includes both the ability of the "state" (as a collection of the populous) to fight for the state as well as civilians to resist the state...

Look at what Washington did - he formed essentially a private army that was turned on the British "state"...

The word "state" and the current "us/them" connotation coupled with the various revisions and compromises really does make this messy, but the intent and the context are more clear...
 
Late to this thread....

If your justification is one predicated upon self-defense (SD) then there is no inherent SD capability to the Barret .50. It's not a SD tool. So your justification falls flat on it's face there, as only those tools (guns) which can be used for SD are admissible.

If your rationale is for something other than SD, then that can open the door for many different types of guns.

It is justified upon self defense of the individual and the state, in which case a Barret would be entirely necessary.

Legally, no. While I understand your point, legally self defense means responding while under direct, serious threat to life or serious bodily injury. Taking someone out from half a mile away kinda precludes the old "I was in fear for my life" defense. [smile]

If you're talking about going to war with the government, then that's not SD either. That's just out and out war, and there's no legal justification needed for that, is there? [smile]

Self defense of the state (or individual) relies on the same tools of war available to a foot soldier (or common man). So whatever an infantryman would hold or carry or use would be used in defense against the State (Government) as well, or in defense of the state if the state were in a sovereign war.

So 50 BMGs and the like are on the table. RPGs perhaps no since they would be more or less sovereign weapons for or against standing armies.
 
Self defense of the state (or individual) relies on the same tools of war available to a foot soldier (or common man). So whatever an infantryman would hold or carry or use would be used in defense against the State (Government) as well, or in defense of the state if the state were in a sovereign war.

So 50 BMGs and the like are on the table. RPGs perhaps no since they would be more or less sovereign weapons for or against standing armies.
My point is self defense is a legal term. If one uses that in a debate about firearms it has a very specific meaning.
 
My point is self defense is a legal term. If one uses that in a debate about firearms it has a very specific meaning.
It is a legal term that has no definition in the Constitution that I am aware of...

Unfortunately, I suspect its a little like the "right of privacy", they so plainly presumed the sanctity of one's home that they didn't feel a pressing need to enumerate the right or it just didn't occur to them to break it out beyond "keep and bear arms" which accomplishes self defense...

The 2nd amendment regrettably says nothing about "self-defense" in its text...

One can assume that saying we can both "keep" and "bear" arms implies that you would use them for self defense, but self defense is not the purpose for our right to bear arms enumerated in 2 places in the constitution. The right that is preserved is the right to protect from and overthrow a tyrannical government as well as protecting the state should it be on your side in such an endeavor...

You can construe that as being another form of self defense, but fundamentally, they are IMO, defining a check and balance on the government's and/or foreign government's standing armies...
 
Legally, no. While I understand your point, legally self defense means responding while under direct, serious threat to life or serious bodily injury. Taking someone out from half a mile away kinda precludes the old "I was in fear for my life" defense. [smile]

If you're talking about going to war with the government, then that's not SD either. That's just out and out war, and there's no legal justification needed for that, is there? [smile]

You're applying a modern legalese definition of self defense to the term which meant something entirely different when it was wielded by our forefathers when describing the purpose of the Second Amendment. In the Federalist papers and other writings by the founding fathers, specifically in arguing for the basis of the Second Amendment, the term self defense is stated many times in reference to defense of ones person, and in defense of the state. While I may not need a Barret to defend my person from a pocketpicker with a knife, weilding a Barret in defense of my state against an invading military with armored vehicles is entirely within reason.

The Second Amendment is not only about carrying a .38 snubbie with you to 7-11 on the wrong side of the tracks.

"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." --George Washington
 
An armed society is a polite society. If everyone were armed, we'd be more polite and hopefully the miscreants would kill themselves or be killed quickly.
 
Self defense of the state (or individual) relies on the same tools of war available to a foot soldier (or common man). So whatever an infantryman would hold or carry or use would be used in defense against the State (Government) as well, or in defense of the state if the state were in a sovereign war.

Actually according to Guncite that's a completely bogus Washington quote.

"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies."
-Washington's first annual address to Congress, 1790

I agree with the sentiment completely though.
 
Actually according to Guncite that's a completely bogus Washington quote.

"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies."
-Washington's first annual address to Congress, 1790

I agree with the sentiment completely though.


Hi Bill,

According to Washingtons letters to Hamilton regarding the prevailing notion of independence of the newly found country with regard to a manufacturing base, and then later scribed from his first address, the text is as follows:

State of the Union Address
George Washington
January 8, 1790

Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives:

I embrace with great satisfaction the opportunity which now presents
itself of congratulating you on the present favorable prospects of our
public affairs. The recent accession of the important state of North
Carolina to the Constitution of the United States (of which official
information has been received), the rising credit and respectability of
our country, the general and increasing good will toward the government
of the Union, and the concord, peace, and plenty with which we are
blessed are circumstances auspicious in an eminent degree to our
national prosperity.

In resuming your consultations for the general good you can not but
derive encouragement from the reflection that the measures of the last
session have been as satisfactory to your constituents as the novelty
and difficulty of the work allowed you to hope. Still further to realize
their expectations and to secure the blessings which a gracious
Providence has placed within our reach will in the course of the present
important session call for the cool and deliberate exertion of your
patriotism, firmness, and wisdom.

Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention that
of providing for the common defense will merit particular regard. To be
prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.

A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end
a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and
interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to
render them independent of others for essential, particularly military,
supplies.

The proper establishment of the troops which may be deemed indispensable
will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may
be made respecting it it will be of importance to conciliate the
comfortable support of the officers and soldiers with a due regard to
economy.

There was reason to hope that the pacific measures adopted with regard
to certain hostile tribes of Indians would have relieved the inhabitants
of our southern and western frontiers from their depredations, but you
will perceive from the information contained in the papers which I shall
direct to be laid before you (comprehending a communication from the
Commonwealth of Virginia) that we ought to be prepared to afford
protection to those parts of the Union, and, if necessary, to punish
aggressors.

The interests of the United States require that our intercourse with
other nations should be facilitated by such provisions as will enable me
to fulfill my duty in that respect in the manner which circumstances may
render most conducive to the public good, and to this end that the
compensation to be made to the persons who may be employed should,
according to the nature of their appointments, be defined by law, and a
competent fund designated for defraying the expenses incident to the
conduct of foreign affairs....

I'll spot you the $5 for a library card. [wink]
 
It really is amazing how semantics of often over-flourished (by modern standards) English are coming to a head here...

As I've said - the context is one of loosely coupled states comprised of fiercely independent individuals (i.e. wealthy land owners) having recently joined to overthrow and oppressive regime. They did so in the face of gun confiscation attempts by the British state and by armies raised from within the population and privately funded arms. It is illogical to presume they intended to legislate the ability to repeat this out of the realm of possibility... (given that they expressly acknowledge our/their right to do so).

The compromise language that ended up in the Constitution in many places jumbles up state as the body of people who the government serves and the government itself and then again as the Federal Government...

It really is interesting to see some of the prior iterations that were clearer mutating into what are left with...

It is also interesting to hold back the vomit and think like a liberal for a moment where government is the great protector and everyone else is unarmed... Thus the false British notion of "if the guns did not exist, no one could use them and every one would be safe". The violent crime growth there proves otherwise.

Given time and need the human animal will make and use tools sufficient to accomplish his purpose...

We are at an impasse here with the liberal think and we are a shrinking (or at least largely silent minority). When even gun owners are afraid of armed citizenry - I wonder if we have not lost the ideals of liberty already?
 
The title to your thread said:
Are there any limits to the 2nd amendment?

The internal question was:
Why do you need a weapon like that?

I am not sure what you are asking - a 2nd amendment question or suggestions for answers to the second question.

If it is a 2d Amendment question - I don't know what you mean by "limits" - there has seemingly been alot of debate as to the translation of the 2nd amendment in our society as of recent - maybe that has included discussions of it limitations.

As to why people own or need guns - and, in fact, some just own guns, some feel they need them, and some feel both.

Why own a gun? Here might be some reasons:

Because It's Cool
Family Legacy (Because my Parents Owned Guns)
Just For Hunting
Target Shooting Only
For Social Reasons (social shooting activities)
For Self Defense
Because the Founding Fathers Wanted me to
As an Investment
Historical Reasons
Interest in The Mechanics of Firearms
and
My Own Reasons
One could say something like this to those who pose questions:
For me, my reasons include most of those outlined above... though I'm unlikely to buy a gun simply to set it aside and not use it. I own and use guns for hunting, target shooting, clay busting, and self defense, as well as just plain exercising my right to protect myself against any and all oppressors. And although I know there are people in the world who hate me for owning guns, I really don't think there's anything wrong with it.
 
I'm not going to apologize for being scared of any ordinary citizen being allowed to own a nuclear warhead or similarly destructive device. We're scared of f***ing countries that have nukes for Christ's sake.
 
An armed society is a polite society. If everyone were armed, we'd be more polite and hopefully the miscreants would kill themselves or be killed quickly.
With respect, when Heinlein wrote this he was full of shit, and I love 99% of what the man wrote.

There are a lot more things than a gun that make politeness a requirement. I can name off several countries today that are the very definition of armed that are not the least bit polite. In fact, human life is very, very cheap there.

Heinlein's quote assumes that we'll be polite because if it gets physical the weapons will come out and someone might get killed, and neither wants that to happen. But, and Heinlein should have known this, in some cultures, societies, or subcultures, your life doesn't mean much, so losing it doesn't mean much. One's honor might be more than one's life, as it were. It's only when you give a shit about your life or possibly the consequences of ending another's that politeness starts to make sense. Only then do weapons make politeness more likely.

To blithely state that there is a causation between "armed" and "polite" is simplistic in the extreme. There are a number of factors that determine what causes people to not start shit. Simply thinking the other guy may be armed is only one of them.
 
With respect, when Heinlein wrote this he was full of shit, and I love 99% of what the man wrote.

There are a lot more things than a gun that make politeness a requirement. I can name off several countries today that are the very definition of armed that are not the least bit polite. In fact, human life is very, very cheap there.

Heinlein's quote assumes that we'll be polite because if it gets physical the weapons will come out and someone might get killed, and neither wants that to happen. But, and Heinlein should have known this, in some cultures, societies, or subcultures, your life doesn't mean much, so losing it doesn't mean much. One's honor might be more than one's life, as it were. It's only when you give a shit about your life or possibly the consequences of ending another's that politeness starts to make sense. Only then do weapons make politeness more likely.

To blithely state that there is a causation between "armed" and "polite" is simplistic in the extreme. There are a number of factors that determine what causes people to not start shit. Simply thinking the other guy may be armed is only one of them.

+1 and a thank you for the education, sir.
 
As an AR owner, I'm as sick of the question: "why do you need a weapon like that?" as anyone else.


I can see the restrictions on nuclear weapons. I can even see restrictions on explosives. But beyond that, I don't see it. Full-Auto? -go for it. Put the ones that abuse away forever, but leave the rest of us the F**** alone.

So what do you folks say? (not what you'd LIKE to say) to this kind of argument? I'd like to have something better than "You can never trust government to be benign" which has always been my default argument against gun control.


Why do you have to justify it. Because by your own concession there should be a line drawn in the sand somewhere as to what is deemed appropriate for normal citizens to be in possession of when it comes to weapons. There in lies the problem and it is partly self supported.

Humans being the imperfect beings they are are naturally going to dissagree on where that line should be. Some rationalize that line in their minds rather leniently, and others not quite so. It used to be the job of women to worry and fret abou things like that and men would assure them it was ok. Now many of the men are more feminine than the women of yesterday. Go figure.....
 
You're applying a modern legalese definition of self defense to the term which meant something entirely different when it was wielded by our forefathers when describing the purpose of the Second Amendment. In the Federalist papers and other writings by the founding fathers, specifically in arguing for the basis of the Second Amendment, the term self defense is stated many times in reference to defense of ones person, and in defense of the state. While I may not need a Barret to defend my person from a pocketpicker with a knife, weilding a Barret in defense of my state against an invading military with armored vehicles is entirely within reason.

The Second Amendment is not only about carrying a .38 snubbie with you to 7-11 on the wrong side of the tracks.

"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." --George Washington

I understand and, to a great extent, agree with your point but I can't call that SELF defense. It's not defense of my self. It's defense of my state/city/clan/nation/whatever. SELF defense means just that - defense of the self.

But again, I'm mostly full of crap so feel free to ignore my admittedly myopic view. [smile]
 
I understand and, to a great extent, agree with your point but I can't call that SELF defense. It's not defense of my self. It's defense of my state/city/clan/nation/whatever. SELF defense means just that - defense of the self.

But again, I'm mostly full of crap so feel free to ignore my admittedly myopic view. [smile]

Our Country's self defense. Our state's self defense. Our town's self defense. Our Personal self-defense.
 
"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." --George Washington


Hmmmm Im going to need alot more ammo.... speaking o' which I think I will get more 8mm now muahhaha!!
 
Back
Top Bottom