As history shows, taking up arms against our own country is a rare thing indeed. But no matter how unlikely the possibility that it will happen,
it is part of our legal system to be somewhat prepared. Will the day come when we repeal the 2nd Amendment in order to put all our eggs in
one basket?
Hardly, among other reasons because the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with that. You are misrepresenting both its intent and its letter.
You do have a separation of powers among Executive, Legislative and Judiciary. That, far more than any preparations for armed resistance, ensures that you do not have to put your eggs all in the same basket.
Perhaps, but until that day, the right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution.
Not only until that day, but way after that as well. By a combination of practical reality and the Ninth Amendment, at the very least.
While it is true that the 2nd Amendment is cited as a defense of the right to have firearms, it serves that function very poorly indeed. It doesn't even mention firearms at all. Nor does it even make it very clear that the need for a militia should be taken as a given, at least by my reading. And then there is the matter that its first few words happen to be "A
well regulated militia", yet it is supposed to be an argument against regulation of firearms.
Truth be told, the 2nd Amendment is one of those pieces of legislation far more relevant for what people want to see in it than for what is actually in it.
Which is fine. Law is just words, after all; we should only be careful not to lend them too much importance.
And I distrust politicians who would void this right by unconstitutional fiat.
Of course. Then again, it is not clear that disrespecting the Amendment is even at all possible, given how vague and dependent on interpretation it is.
I don't know what will happen. I only address preparing for possibilities, even unlikely ones.
Fine. Still, such a thing as excessive preparation does exist. At a certain point the drawbacks simply weight too much to justify the trouble. And that point comes way before that where civilians feel the need to own combat rifles.
We didn't win in our proxy war against Iran, or our war against Afghanistan.
Even the Iraq war can't be called a "win", since it isn't clear what will happen there.
Your governments after Carter had unrealistic expectations for the most part. But not for lack of firepower. Consider too that they were fighting in foreign territory. And for all that, they still made a point of seeking the battlefield.
Clever use of inflammatory language you have there, fella.
Language is a tool. It should be used to the effect desired, and I would not want you to misread my tone. Although it seems that you did after all, since this is a very straight question with a very technical question, with no room for your reading of inflamatory intent.
Besides, to the best of my understanding that was (and still seems to be) your actual position. Which 25% did I misread?
I'll give you a 75% "yes" answer.
Now, let me ask if I have your position straight....
You believe it is necessary or at least desirable for the average law abiding US citizen to be denied the right to own of military firearms,
Military issue? Sure. Anything beyond a handgun should require specific license and registration. Semi-autos and autos shouldn't be allowed at all except for military, law enforcement and the like. Shotguns and hunting rifles need some justification and, yes, registration as well.
because we can't be trusted with them,
Not by default, correct. You need a license to drive, and you better need a license to own even an ordinary handgun as well. It is only sensible.
but we can trust our government to always be benevolent, & never tyrannical for all of time?
Of course not. But I have a hard time believing that owning personal firearms makes you safer from your own military,
particularly if we are talking about heavy weaponry. And I do believe that pursuing such a scenario creates far more problems than it solves, too.
We have the ability to repeal the 2nd Amendment, but we've not chosen to do so.
As I see it, as long as it is law, the intent of the framers shall rule.
Or rather, whatever those assigned to interpret it decide that still applies. I believe those would be your Higher Court Judges. I may be mistaken.
Was the 2nd of greater value then than now? I'd say so.
But is it obsolete in this age? I don't think so.
In all fairness, I must say that it looks quite useless now. It simply lacks any clear meaning in this day and age. Too bad that people project all kinds of expectations into it.
Tsk, tsk...such language!
And to think I was just citing you as an example of civility.
Indignation must be made clear, you know.
I understand your perspective, ie, seeking security by putting all faith in government, & not trusting your fellow citizens to
defend themselves. To me, that is lunacy.
To me too. I don't trust any government nearly half that much. But it hardly follows that I find a civil militia a good idea, much less one packing combat rifles.
But does it serve civil discourse to call each other lunatics? Nah...let's not do that.
I would rather not run the risk of making lunacy appear acceptable, you know. I'm stubborn that way, or maybe I have accepted that calling things by their proper names is conductive to proper understanding. Far too often people fall prey to false equivalency and lose their personal freedoms for that.
As I pointed out already, original intent is a foundation of the law. But we are not slaves to a law,
since we may change it any time we choose. But we've so far chosen to leave the 2nd intact.
And it makes very little difference, since it is all but meaningless now. If only we were not wasting time debating what it would mean if it meant anything...
It beats living in Brazil, where legal gun laws are more restrictive, but gun violence is even worse than here. OK, OK...that was a cheap shot.
Nah, I don't mind it at all. I can hardly complain given how often and how fiercely I talk about my own opinions.
Besides, I happen to agree with you. But I don't think that Brazil would be better off with more weapons, rest assured. We have way too many guns already.
For what it is worth, we have nothing comparable to the veneration to the Founding Fathers either. Unless you consider the worship of a demagogue named Getulio Vargas, a fascist wannabe from the 30s and 40s. Oh, and there is the odd Marxist as well. Our politicians stink, but then again our voters are hardly wise.
But freedom is a subjective thing. While you lean more towards gov't provided security,
Make that "less towards interpreting firearms as a form of security" and you will get it quite right.
I prefer a less intrusive gov't & more individual
responsibility for defense.
You know, that I agree with. Although individual responsibility to me means mostly
avoiding firearms.
I don't say you're wrong, only that I favor a less statist approach.
Call be whatever you want, I probably deserve it anyway. But don't mistake me for a statist. I'm hardly that.
