Second Amendment Rights, Swords, and Shoulder Fired Rockets

[Lawrence Crocker]

As you all know, the amendment second ratified to the US Constitution is not about guns. The objects of the right it constituionalizes are “Arms.” Swords, bayonets, and hatchets, as well as muskets, were the arms of the Revolutionary War. Current arms of individual use include body armor, hand grenades and shoulder rockets.

Reflect for a moment on the fact that of those who believe that large clip semi-automatics are constitutionally protected, most would be chary of claiming the same about shoulder rockets, or even bayonets. You may conclude, with me, that this shows that the dimensions of the constitutional right are in some way of function of such matters as the utility of the weapon on one side and its public dangerousness on the other. That is the details of the right do not come tumbling out fully formed from the meanings of the 18th century words and phrases, from the expectations or intentions of Hamilton, or the Special Committee of Congress, or the English Bill of Rights of 1689, or the idea that what is protected is an inalienable right authored by God.

It follows that the dimensions of the right require a normative and factual investigation – an investigation from which it could at least as plausibly be concluded that there is no constitutional right to possess Saturday night specials as that there is a constitutional right to carry large clip semi-automatics.

For the details of this argument see http://www.LawrenceCrocker.blogspot.com

[bobevenson]

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution can be further amended, but there does not appear to be sufficient desire to do so. The right to bear arms is about the ultimate defense against a tyrannical government, and all hand guns as well as large-magazine, fully automatic AK-47 type weapons would seem to qualify.

[henry quirk]

Lawrence,

You're compelling in your argument, but your energy is mebbe misplaced.

The simple reality: possession trumps law and no matter the accepted interpretation of law, a whole whack of folks won't be turning over their property. Lots will, and as law-abiders, they should, but many won't and those folks will make no appeal to, and have no faith in, law or courts.

Again: you make a compelling case, but it's only applicable to those who abide to begin with. The rest will be unmoved.

[FlashDangerpants]

As you all know, the amendment second ratified to the US Constitution is not about guns. The objects of the right it constituionalizes are “Arms.” Swords, bayonets, and hatchets, as well as muskets, were the arms of the Revolutionary War. Current arms of individual use include body armor, hand grenades and shoulder rockets.

I read recently that following the death of Scalia, your Supreme Court isn't going to be doing that sort of originalist doctrine thing any more. In any cased, if that article of the constitution is to be interpreted with rigid historical boundaries, then by the same measure, your protection against unlawful searches shouldn't include the right not to have your iPhone pillaged without warrant by the NSA. The Founding Fathers only access to electrical stuff was a key on a kite string, so they couldn't possibly have intended to protect your selfies and dick pics.

[bobevenson]

As a foreigner, you have absolutely no understanding of either the U.S. Constitution or the Supreme Court.

[FlashDangerpants]

And yet I can write coherently about these things, while you are a grunting halfwit no matter what the topic.

FWIW, this is where I read about the originalism thing.

[Hobbes' Choice]

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution can be further amended, but there does not appear to be sufficient desire to do so. The right to bear arms is about the ultimate defense against a tyrannical government, and all hand guns as well as large-magazine, fully automatic AK-47 type weapons would seem to qualify.

These were not available in 1776, and not envisioned by the writers of the Constitution, who did not say fuck all about a tyrannical government, but about defending the state.
There desire was to make householders available to the militia to keep and maintain (at their own expense) a Brown Bess.

[Arising_uk]

I'm always puzzled as to what happened to the 'well regulated militia'?

[Obvious Leo]

I'm always puzzled as to what happened to the 'well regulated militia'?

They're all holed up in remote and godforsaken outposts like the back blocks of Wyoming and North Dakota with underground bunkers stocked full of cans of baked beans and well maintained crates of deadly ordnance, waiting patiently for the "end of days" so they can join in the fun of Armageddon.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I'm always puzzled as to what happened to the 'well regulated militia'?

It's called the police force and the National Guard, earn the right to bear arms.
Because in a Republic, the right to bear arms is earned and linked to service in the army and property qualifications. And NOT the general public. That's what the second amendment is saying. The concept of Republic was, 200 years ago, a body of theory; not a political party.

It's only historical anachronistic re-interpretation which the NRA would like you tho think that all morons get to buy their guns.

[bobevenson]

You foreign idiots who have become accustomed to government oppression have no understanding of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As long as citizens have the right to bear arms against a tyrannical government, the rapid development of a well-regulated militia will be a piece of cake if the need ever arises.

[Arising_uk]

... As long as citizens have the right to bear arms against a tyrannical government, the rapid development of a well-regulated militia will be a piece of cake if the need ever arises.

Lmao! You obviously have no comprehension of your own military history nor what your founding fathers thought of militias nor why they put the term 'well-regulated' in there because of this. You also appear ignorant of how militias are currently acting all around the world but that's no surprise as you are a 'Yank'. Even funnier is that the citizen militia that you envisage could be needed in America will actually be the enforcing tools of the only type of tyrannical govt that is ever likely to arise in the good ol' US of A.

[bobevenson]

Why don't you tell that malarkey to the descendants of King George.

[Arising_uk]

Why don't you tell that malarkey to the descendants of King George.

The only people we blame are the bloody French and Spanish for paying for your sedition, tying up our navy and providing the artillery know-how. Although there are all those bloody ungrateful ex-redcoats as well
Still, we had the last laugh as just like the mercantile 'Yank' you welshed(apologies) on the French in future trade and contributed to the fall of Imperial France.

Why don't you tell your malarkey about militias to the descendants of George Washington, as you obviously aren't one.