2nd Amendment Debate

[Michael Landon]

I'm currently in an e-mail debate with a co-worker about the 2nd Amendment and I was wondering what are some debating points I should use to defend the 2nd Amendment.

I originally sent out an e-mail to my e-mail list about Montana threatening to secede from the US and his was my co-worker's response:

Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda should move to Montana so they can legally possess a nuclear weapon. I mean any person can bear arms, right. We wouldn't want to be overly legislative and say who can possess and what arms they can have. Because that's what the DC ban does.

Here was my response:

The last time I checked, Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda aren't American citizens and thus aren't protected under the US Constitution.
Scott, you may want to read the Constitution. The right to bear arms doesn't give the arms-bearer the right to use those arms in a violent act. There are MANY laws against acts of violence.
We wouldn't want to be overly legislative and say who can speak freely and what words they can say either, right?

Here was his response:

I am a hunter and fisherman. I don't believe in banning guns. I do see a reasonable line to be drawn. Do you? Or are you so extreme that there is no limit to the kind of weapon you think should be allowed. Is it OK for me to own an anthrax bomb? Is it OK for your neighbor to own a .50 caliber machine gun? Personally I don't want to go deer hunting with someone who needs an automatic weapon to take down a deer. I also don't think it should be OK for someone to have a shoulder mounted surface-to-air missile launcher for ...oh, say duck hunting. Is there a reasonable line? You've got kids. I'm really not worried about myself. I'm pretty aware of my surroundings. When I do go hunting, I don't go with Dick Cheney or anybody drunk.. OK just once, or as stupid as him.
So, yes I'm talking about Americans. Because we don't need to go overseas to find criminals intent on killing people. The Constitution and the second amendment have been around quite a while. Have they stopped those bearers of arms from using them to kill people, or in your words, use them in a violent act? I mean has anybody in this country died from guns in the last 200 years. What, you mean the second amendment didn't stop them? Didn't their neighbor with a gun stop the offender before any innocent people were killed? As I said earlier I not against all guns. I wouldn't own them if I was. I don't know that I trust that neighbor who has the shoulder mounted SAM to use it only on ducks. Well, you could say not everybody can afford a surface-to-air missile. True. The alcoholic down at the liquor store isn't going to have one. But rich people aren't always trustworthy or mentally stable. I guess I'm just asking, should there be any restriction at all to the kind of weapon you may own?

I'm thinking about arguing the difference between the rights under the 2nd Amendment and the privileges of hunting. With them being two separate issues they shouldn't be merged together into one particular argument against the 2nd Amendment.

What are your suggestions?

- ML

 

[coastie]

Sounds to me he'd be one of the first in line when the gubmint offers to buy back your guns in lieu of them imposing "criminal" penalties for you having them.

Find another "friend"-seriously. These are the types of people I've been avoiding lately, because these are the types that will throw you under the bus when the shit hits the fan.

I'd drop this debate immediately with this guy, get off his radar.

 

[Banana]

I'd tell anyone who thinks that second amendment was a license to go hunting to read the documents surrounding the origin of second amendment to see that it had nothing to do with hunting, recreation, or self-defense (against a thief or mugger), but rather self-defense against foreign foes or corrupt domestic foes.

Someone once made a thread listing about how gun controls led to genocides....

 

[Southron]

I hate to use the argument that something is a privilege and not a right. I mean obviously the 2nd Amendment wasn't meant to be about hunting but that does not mean that we should not have the right to hunt on our own property. The 9th Amendment states that we have more rights than just what is in the Constitution.

IX-The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Better to ask why he trusts the government to own any type of weapon and not his neighbors when governments have killed so many more people in the last 100 years than any individuals could do.

 

[asmartchimp]

Sounds to me he'd be one of the first in line when the gubmint offers to buy back your guns in lieu of them imposing "criminal" penalties for you having them.

Find another "friend"-seriously. These are the types of people I've been avoiding lately, because these are the types that will throw you under the bus when the shit hits the fan.

I'd drop this debate immediately with this guy, get off his radar.

+1

 

[Mini-Me]

When it comes to most arms (i.e. anything you can pick up and wield with your own two hands), we must punish and prohibit only after a violent offense is committed or threatened. To fulfill the purposes of the Second Amendment, it's extremely important that nobody infringes upon your right to bear small arms, such as pistols, rifles, shotguns, or even automatic and semiautomatic weapons. After all, the soldiers of a tyrannical government will be using those same weapons to oppress the people, so the people must have similar firepower to stand a fighting chance.

However, it is also obviously unreasonable for someone to have nuclear missile silos in his backyard. The mere possession of such weapons is an existential threat to his entire city.

Therefore, I'd imagine that the "sensible" limit to arms is, "If it's something an infantry unit would carry, you're well within your rights. If it's something that the US armed forces can't use without the President and several generals independently agreeing to it, then you're way outside of the realm of your rights."

 

[pcosmar]

ANY Weapon.
NO Infringement.
The Government has NO business, Regulating, licensing,Prohibiting or involvement in any aspect of a persons arms.

I have heard the "What about Nukes?' question many times. It usually come from someone trying to justify Infringement.

However, it is also obviously unreasonable for someone to have nuclear missile silos in his backyard. The mere possession of such weapons is an existential threat to his entire city.

Therefore, I'd imagine that the "sensible" limit to arms is, "If it's something an infantry unit would carry, you're well within your rights. If it's something that the US armed forces can't use without the President and several generals independently agreeing to it, then you're way outside of the realm of your rights."

The answer is Property Rights.
If you are wealthy enough to own and properly care for them, they are protected under the 2nd.

In the days of the founders the Artillery, and even War Ships were privately owned.

Are you saying private citizens can not own radioactive materials?
You might want to turn in your watch.
They are in private hands today. X ray machines are used in hospitals, industrial testing, and research. Microwaves are in most homes.
Until recently, explosives could be bought and used by anyone.

Shall not be infringed, means that it is none of the Governments business.

 

[[email protected]]

"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." - Aristotle


"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth." - George Washington


"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson


"Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." - Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, Inc.


"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal" - Janet Reno

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin

 

[Eponym_mi]

Your friend apparently doesn't see the government as a threat. The right exists to allow a person to defend themselves and their property against the aggression of others, including government. Hunting is a diversion and a way to put food on the table, which may or may not be all that important to a person staying alive.

 

[Doktor_Jeep]

The Second Amendment applies to parity between the militia and state military.

If it was enforced in the same way the 1st Amendment is enforced (and kept sacred by people who abuse it - like the MSM), every county would have a citizen militia and an armory of military-grade weaponry.

What this means is, we give soldiers machine guns, and therefore citizens can have them.

Sorry if that is harsh but the law states that.

Now of course the Nuke argument comes up. But keep in mind that the Founders were referring to small arms. Not WMDs.

It is not a coincidence then that the same governments that come up with ICBMs, full-auto grenade throwers, bio weapions, nukes, and chemical weapons - all the kinds of things that NO government should be allowed to produce - want to ban small arms and limit them only to their minions.

So that "do you want your neigbor having a nuke" arguement is pointless when it is considered that no government can be trusted with one either.

What may come of this, and an application of the concept of small arms in the hands of citizens, is they can turn those small arms on those people who command the governments that produce and use WMDs. This almost occured in WWI, when the Europeans were so fed up with the war that the oligarchy of Europe was threatened by it. Then president Wilson sent troops to save the oligarchy and they came up with another way to get people to exterminate each other, known as WWII.

 

[danberkeley]

Yeah yeah yeah. I got into an argument about napalm with one of my classmates. I asked him if we were going to outlaw gasoline because some one might make napalm.

 

[Banana]

It's funny because liberals don't even realize that even items bought from your local grocery can be a potential weapon.

Petroleum jelly + propane = napalm!

Bleach + ammonia = poison gas!

There's so many more, but I think we get the idea. Good luck outlawing them all.

 

[danberkeley]

Hairspray + lighter = flamethrower

 

[wv@SC]

ANY Weapon.
NO Infringement.
The Government has NO business, Regulating, licensing,Prohibiting or involvement in any aspect of a persons arms.

I have heard the "What about Nukes?' question many times. It usually come from someone trying to justify Infringement.


The answer is Property Rights.
If you are wealthy enough to own and properly care for them, they are protected under the 2nd.

In the days of the founders the Artillery, and even War Ships were privately owned.

Are you saying private citizens can not own radioactive materials?
You might want to turn in your watch.
They are in private hands today. X ray machines are used in hospitals, industrial testing, and research. Microwaves are in most homes.
Until recently, explosives could be bought and used by anyone.

Shall not be infringed, means that it is none of the Governments business.

BIG +++! The authority to govern is by consent of the governed in our country. Why should we be afraid of what is authorized by us? The government should be afraid of making us upset, and having ANY weapon you can afford will give some substance to that fear.

Or can it be that we cannot be trusted?

 

[Zeeder]

The nuke response is easily delt with.

Just say this:" If Nukes were as prevalent as handguns, what good would you silly laws do?"

If you can't keep handguns and other weapons out of the hands of criminals, how are you going to prevent nukes? Then I show them my illegal automatic rifle to prove my point.

The final response would be, amend the constitution if you don't like it. That's what the amendment process is for.

 

[Doktor_Jeep]

Fine powdered sugar, non-dairy creamer....IED!
And you can make one on the way to the boss's office in case you dont get that raise.

Or throw some coffee in it.

 

[CaveDog]

The second amendment shouldn't be seen as protecting the right to own firearms so much a a protection of the right to self defense, which the framers would have considered the first law of nature. "Arms" are just a means to that end.

What people tend to overlook is that the fundamental philosophical tenets underlying our system of government revolve around the rights of individuals and government can have no rights not delegated to it by individuals. Again, only individuals have intrinsic rights. Groups can only have rights delegated to them by individuals under certain limited circumstances. In cases where government can offer an equivalent or better then individuals may delegate thier personal rights to government. In cases where government can offer no equivalent then an individual cannot delegate such rights nor can others delegate such rights on behalf of others.

The principle of equivalency is of paramount importance. Individual rights cannot properly be usurped by any group, government included. For example, in cases where there is no imminant threat we delegate the right of law enforcement to government. Instead of rushing out and confronting a tresspasser on our property we call law enforcement. By delegating the right to protect property in that case we recieve from society not only an equivalent to our individual right, but an enhanced version as law enforcement has more resources to deal with the problem than we do as individuals. Regardless, when law enforcement arrives to deal with the tresspasser they only do so on our behalf by exercising rights delegated to them by individuals as part of our "social contract".

If the trespasser is in the process of attacking us and there is no time to summon law enforcement then government cannot offer an equivalent or better to the individual right to self defense where they can't be there in time to defend us. In that case we can properly exercise the individual right and defend ourselves. This is a case of natural law being higher than human law. For government to say we can't defend ourselves under any conditions would be a usurpation of the individual right to self defense, the first law of nature, where no equivalent to that natural right is offered. Such an action would destroy the individual right and of course where government can only exercise delegated rights it destroys it's own authority in the process. This is why some rights are considered "unalienable". They cannot be seperated from the individual. They cannot be delegated, or alienated from the individual. Again, such rights become unalienable because no equivalent can be offered.

All that being understood, we can look at the second amendment. All it really does is confirm that the people have a right to exercise the right to self defense collectively (as a militia) in addition to exercising that individual right where it cannot be delegated. In cases such as invasion the people can delegate the right to self defense to a militia or a formal army. Regardless, it's just not possible to argue that a collective right can exist in the absence of an individual right, so the second amendment can only confirm the indidual right. The only question is what aspects of that right may be delegated and which cannot.

As to arguments like the "nuclear arms" one it becomes a question of what arms are neccissary for individual defense as opposed to collective defense. Nuclear weapons are far too powerful to be neccissary for individual defense. They are by thier nature designed to defend against a collective threat by inflicting mass destruction. Thier application is clearly intended as a weapon of war only. It can then be argued that nuclear weapons belong in the hands of organized military only and the right to keep them is something we delegate but don't reserve as individuals.

Small arms are another story. They can easily be a legitimate means of defending one's life from another individual and hence don't fall under the collective defense category. When I had training in the law as part of my personal protection training, the prerequisite for applying deadly force under the law was merely a legitimate threat of serious bodily injury or death. That doesn't confine itself to confronting an assailant who is armed with a gun. It could also be someone armed with a blunt object or simply an individual or group capable of delivering a fatal beating. In that case the argument that if no one had guns then guns would not be needed falls flat. A firearm can be a powerful equalizer where confronted by the threat of serious bodily injury or death even where an assailant is merely physically more powerful.

The founders would have understood all of these principles and there's simply no way they would have intentionally circumvented them. Most anti-gun arguments are made by people who either don't understand or don't respect those principles, including misdirection such as the "nuclear arms" argument.

 

[the_british_are_coming]

CaveDog said:

"They are by thier nature designed to defend against a collective threat by inflicting mass destruction. Thier application is clearly intended as a weapon of war only."

"As to arguments like the "nuclear arms" one it becomes a question of what arms are neccissary for individual defense as opposed to collective defense."

"The founders would have understood all of these principles"




Where in the Constitution does it say "Collective?"


Did George Washington intend the new republic as a Socialist state?


Who are you to determine what weapon is "neccissary" (OP's spelling) for individual defense????

Did the founders of our nation say that we have the right to bear "what arms CaveDog deems acceptable?"

Nope, they didn't.

They were also fairly salient on the point that weapons, by their definition, are weapons of war. They didn't need to be told there is a difference between "guns you can hunt with" and "guns." The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, it's about defending yourself from an oppressive govt.


that aside, i truly hope your post was pro-individualism/2nd amendment. just wanted to discuss a few points.