Right to Bear Arms

[JPhillips]

As most people who participate in Philosophy Forums seem to support the Constitutional and love the freedom we enjoy as Americans, I thought I would bring up a very controversial topic for discussion.

The Second Amendment in the Constitutional Bill of Rights reads: “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.”

I copied the following paragraph from this website:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/c onlaw/beararms.htm

"The meaning of the Second Amendment depends upon who you talk to. The National Rifle Association, which has the Second Amendment (minus the militia clause) engraved on its headquarters building in Washington, insists that the Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to possess and carry a wide variety of firearms. Advocates of gun control contend that the Amendment was only meant to guarantee to States the right to operate militias. For almost seventy years following its cryptic decision of U. S. vs. Miller in 1939, the Court ducked the issue, finally to resolve the question in its much anticipated 2008 decision, District of Columbia v Heller."

To set the record straight, I support the right of an individual to bear arms. As an individual, not only do I feel I should have the right to defend my home and property from criminal intrusion, or to hunt for food if I so desired (which I don't), but I have the right to defend myself against a government gone bad. I know ordinary citizens could not possibly defend themselves against the trained military, but many in the military would more than likely break ranks and fight against a tyrannical government in the event the government decided to abolish the Constitution and establish a dictatorship; or attempted to possess personal properties of American citizens without cause in an effort to distribute this property among the ruling class.

My problem with the second amendment is it does not define “arms”. Machine guns and semi-automatic weapons were non –existent when the Constitution was written. In fact, the revolver had not been invented.

It also does not define regulation. We cannot legally operate a vehicle without a license. We can’t even get married without a license. What is wrong with the establishment of reasonable regulations governing the possession and ownership of guns? Is the establishment of a brief waiting period to allow a background check of the potential gun buyer unreasonable? Why shouldn’t all gun owners be required to show proof that they have been educated in gun safety and the proper use of firearms? Should the Federal Government once again ban ownership of assault weapons?

[Homicidal Pacifist]

I would like to add this...

Should civilians be allowed to carry hand granades and RPGs? What about nuclear weapons?

If the right to bare arms is not to be infringed upon, that means to me that we should be allowed to possess and carry these weapons without regulation or inspection. We should be allowed to take them into schools and courthouses because you never know when you're gonna need them.

My position is that civilians and the military ought to be allowed to carry the same level of weaponry (if we are to be able to truly defend ourselves against a corrupt government) and that that weaponry should be NON-LETHAL (or in the case of the blade, used only to non-lethal degrees).

Good topic.
_________________
"If Ignorance Is Bliss, Then Knock The Smile Off My Face!"

- Rage Against The Machine

[Belinda]

But weapons are dangerous in the hands of untrained or fanatical individuals.
_________________
Socialist

[Scott]

I support what I support regardless of what any particular Constitution says. If a Constitution disagrees with me, than I would not change my views, I would encourage changing the Constitution.

I support freedom. But even if we can agree on that, then that still leaves much to discuss and consider.

For freedom-supporters, I think my article about public health and safety can shed some light on this issue. It addresses gray issues in relation to public safety that blur the lines between exercising one's own freedom and infringing on others' freedom.

Firstly, I firmly support the incarceration of those who commit offensive violence, such as murders, rapists, muggers and so forth, until if ever they can be rehabilitated. If and when they are released, I think it is smart to use conditional releases rather than go from full incarceration to full release. In other words, we can disallow them from engaging in activities when it would be authoritarian for us to do the same for innocent citizen. For instance, we can release a convicted murder, rapist or mugger is being released under the condition that they do not use guns. Similarly, I would suggest restricting them from engaging in any activity that may depending on their specific case enable them or cause them to re-offend. These activities may include gambling, doing drugs, drinking alcohol or being around kids. Guns would be number 1 on the list. If a guy has murdered someone, raped someone, mugged someone or committed some other violent act of aggression, then I think the usually the only way I would support releasing that person is under the condition that they never possess any guns or weapons. I support it, I think most would support it, and it would appease the vast majority of the concerns of the anti-gun crowd.

As for the rest of society, I feel towards most personal gun possession like I feel towards drug possession or prostitution. It's an infringement on our freedom for a state or national government to criminalize it. Of course, I think any homeowner, or voluntarily-formed condo community or voluntarily-formed small town (which is like a private condo community by another name), can prohibit whatever they wish as long as they are not using more than their fair share of natural resources (e.g. land).

That's the beauty of freedom. If you want to have guns and be around guns, you can go to a town that allows them, have friends who like them, go to restaurants that allow them, and go to people's houses who don't mind you having them there. If you don't want to be around guns, you can go to a town that doesn't allow them, disallow guests from bringing them into your home, stay in homes where people don't have them, go to restaurants where they are not allowed.

There's a line to be drawn somewhere. If someone is building a nuclear bomb, then that is obviously too far. It's tantamount to threatening other people's freedom or attempted murder. But having a stick that fell from a tree in your house is not. Where's the line between one exercising his freedom to have a weapon and have tools to defend himself and putting others at risk against their will or attempting to hurt them? As a rule, I say lean towards the side of freedom and thus non-violence. (Criminalization is inherently an act of violence.)

As long as we stop the clear-cut infringements on freedom, such as building a nuclear bomb or openly pointing a gun at people in a crowded bank, and as long as we let home owners, small business owners and small towns choose whether to allow guns, what types to allow and under what conditions, I think there will be little controversy and debate to be had. That's the beauty of freedom.
_________________
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

[Juice]

[whitetrshsoldier]

Folks, it's fairly simple.

The original language of the second amendment read:

[Jerry]

Citizens should have the right to bear arms. Its purpose is to protect person, family and propety. Its limit might be similar to the 'Right of Free Speech' which, I believe, means political speech. But we may not yell fire in a crowded theater. neither do we need military weapons for protection. Military is to protect us from an outside force. If we had to protect ourself from the military, all is already lost - there is monarchy and the constitution is dead, much more to worry about.

[JPhillips]

Jerry

You expressed the view which I believe is shared by many, very succinctly and eloquently.

[Tragicjoke]

I think the founding fathers put the right to bear arms as a last resort to tyranny.

But it hasn't worked the way they envisioned it.

A lone gunman killed JFK, not Hitler.

Arms always seem to go with dangerous men and return fire has never helped in making dangerous men less so. Only the complete removal of guns from society will do that.

[Dusty]

i agree that the 2nd amendment does give a LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN the right to own weapons to a certain degree obviously stopping at weapons with such unholy amounts of power as nukes or worse, weaponized infectious diseases that can be made by materials bought on the internet (a german scientist made a synthetic smallpox like this to prove it). A little fact: knife assaults in great britain went up over 500 percent when they banned firearms. One last thing, weed is illegal but most people can get it in two hours. Homicide is illegal so if your gonna kill someone, why not break one more law?

[JPhillips]

Dusty

If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns.

I want the option of being about to protect my home and property. I have a gun in my house, but never, ever leave the house with it. I've never needed to use it and I pray I never will.

Some man tried to break into my childhood home one night when I was 14 and my brother was 15. We were home alone. My brother took my dad's gun from where my dad kept it and pointed it at the guy through the glass window in the back door. The man left in a hurry. Nobody got hurt.

Some of us have guns for the same reason the United States still has nuclear weapons. We wish all the nuclear weapons in the world could be destroyed but if all the rational thinking nations destroyed all their nuclear weapons, we would be at the mercy of Iran or North Korea, or some other extremist nation or group.

It is unfortunate guns or nuclear weapons were ever invented or are still needed. They were, and they are.

[Homicidal Pacifist]

... Not if we have non-lethal weapons that are just as effective.
_________________
"If Ignorance Is Bliss, Then Knock The Smile Off My Face!"

- Rage Against The Machine

[Scott]

There are countries in the world where even the vast majority of police officers do not have guns, and regarding violent crime these are the safest countries on Earth. Widespread legal gun possession does not stop violent crime, and the lack of guns does not empower or encourage violent criminals.

***

whitetrshsoldier,

Of course a condo community can limit one's speech. If the owners of a certain condo community or house say you can't paint the walls blue or write any words starting with the letter P or some other silly rule, they can. A condo community can force people in the condo community not to do many things that would be unconstitutional for the Federal Government to ban. It would be a blatant and devastating infringement on freedom for a state or national government to ban countless activities that homeowners or condo community owners could ban in their own homes without violating anyone's freedom. If you do not like the conditions a homeowner, condo community or potential roommate has on their allowance of you entering or living in their home (e.g. "you can't bring in a gun" or "you can't say anything negative about George Bush"), then you are as free to refuse to visit or live with them as they are to refuse to live with you. That is how freedom leads to happiness, peace and order.

Insofar as any country or state's constitution significantly revokes such freedom, I oppose the constitution and would like to see it amended.

The same way freedom would allow one to criticize a certain politician or to have a knife is also the freedom that would allow a homeowner to not allow knives or criticisms of a certain politician in his own home. It would be an infringement of freedom for a state or national government to disallow the first person from criticizing a certain politician or possessing a knife just like it would be a infringement of freedom for the same government to disallow the second person from determining who can and cannot come into his home and under what conditions.
_________________
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

[Meleagar]

[Scott]