RTKBA. To what end?

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.


The main concern (in my mind atleast) in having the Second Amendment was to protect the states from the federal government. But, the Second Amendment established the precedent the states must use their own citizens to render that defense. That is why state is bold.

The People are who have the right.

But what is it a right to? To not only "keep" but to "bear" weapons.

With enough space, a person can keep dern near anything. I could keep a nuclear missile in an acre lot. But, the intent of the 2A is obvious in that it says you should be able to bear it as well.

As such, any weapon (not banned by treaty such as wmd) that can be borne upon my body is covered by the 2A. Pistols, long guns, even M249 squad automatics. Mortars. Even RPGs, and Stinger missiles. (while the last two definitely are covered, there would obviously have to be laws concerning where and who could have them, the liberty ends at another's nose principle).

However, crew served weapons, etc. Those are the province of the state (lit. our state governments). While the government may grant a letter of marque, it isn't a right to own a howitzer, because you are getting a permit.

Basically, the modern version (if we'd decided to follow the Constitution, like we should have), we would all have guns that we bought, and owned, and we would have them to protect our state. If Congress declared war, and we wanted to, we could become federal troops. In the meantime, we exist as a frontline against invasion, and government tyranny. However, the C-4, Stinger, and LAW missiles, and such are at the town armoury.

If there were ever a coup d'etat, let's just say that armoury wouldn't take too long to get emptied. After all, it's not in the hands of federal forces, not even in state hands. It's in the hands of the people in a county, or tri or quad county area.

Granted, this is in relationship to the concept that the states our sovereign over the federal government. Which isn't true (though it should be).
 
If you want real homeland security, arm the people with automatics and monitor the government.
Click to expand...

Automatics are for laying down lots of cover fire so that a military force can maneuver. The civilian militia fighter should focus on making every shot count. If cover fire is needed a semi auto can keep many heads down also. My focus would be on long range fighting and improvised explosives. If every fighter got at least one badguy before getting killed it would take 150 million soldiers to defeat us.
 
I am imagining a scenario where there is a rifle in every home, a small armory/arsenal in every Ward (a division of a County) where we might start getting into automatics and RPG's (for the sake of discussion), a larger armory/arsenal in every County where we might start having armored vehicles, then every State would have armories/aresenals with weapons needed to defend the whole State, and the US, as a superpower, would have stealth bombers and nukes and so on ... maybe something like that would work, but I think what we are headed towards is a much simpler division of arms, where individuals have small arms for personal defense, and every other force is under federal control.
 
Keep and Bear arms

One should understand the clear difference between ownership, carry, and use.

Ownership (and even the carry) of weapons is one thing, use is another. Passing a law that says you can't own something, because of the risk to others, automatically assumes you are a risk with whatever it is. The explosive in an apartment is definately a greater risk than in a barn in the middle of nowhere.

But making the law stating you can't own it because you live in an apartment is just the wrong way to go about it (although it is the most commonly done method). Having a law saying you can't store your explosive in your apartment is the right way to do it. Your right to ownership is protected, but public safety is enhanced by storage regulations.

Explosives and hazardous materials are a different category of material than small arms, in that there are inherent dangers in the materials themselves, unlike firearms. Rifles, pistols, shotguns, and even machine guns do not go off by themselves, and home storage of them is not a significant hazard (although some individuals are fixated otherwise). And if, through negligence, such weapons do discharge, the risks are an order of magnitude lower than explosives.

Crew served weapons, such as belt fed machine guns, can be operated by a single individual, just not as efficiently as with a crew.

I say, let the law allow each of us to own what we will, as we will, but if you must have restrictions, put then on the use, and for certain materials (explosives, flammables, etc.) have safe storage requirements.

Accept the fact that a certain percentage of humanity is dangerous to themselves and/or others, but leave the rest of us alone.
 
I think this is one of those debates that can and will go on ad nauseam for as long as our Constitution lasts (then, of course, historians will keep it going). I think there are two things that we aren't looking at here.

1. If the right is for the individual, then doesn't it make sense for the arms you assume the right grants to be made for individual use? Seems like that would rule out cannons and nukes and such. Surely, someone will correct me on that! :D

2. In going along with the individual theme, here's another thought. Any firearm you own or use use has a few properties that make it ideal for an 'individual's right'.
- - - A. They can be safely stored by an individual potentially for a lifetime. Things like explosives (i.e. grenades and such) cannot be. They degrade over time and become more dangerous.
- - - B. Firearms, like most individual primary weapons, are designed to be able to kill only one person at a time (unless you line up folks to get two for one deals routinely). Each action taken with the weapon is seperate and distinct and wholely under the control of the weapon's user. Thus, the results tend to be able to be determined prior to taking action with said weapon. If you throw a grenade, all bets are off as to who it might take out, same with cannon shell, aerial bomb, nuke, etc. The destruction level just goes up, and the control of the outcome goes down.

I tend to side with the idea that whatever primary weapons you arm your soldiers with is what the citizenry ought to be able to have. I think it's reasonable to think that lots of people with firearms, up to and including fully automatic ones, would be able to use those successfully against troops that were somewhat better equipped if you were talking about over throwing a tyrannical government. On the other hand, if that government can muster artillery, chemical weapons, nukes, and other nasties, organized rebellion becomes more difficult. I don't think though, that too many armed uprisings started with the oppressed having tools to fight with that were equal to the government that they were trying to over throw.

Even if you assumed there was not one anti-gun person in our country and we were all gun owning, law abiding, safe citizens, I just can't see how most people would want individuals owning weapons with the potential to be weapons of mass destruction simply because people do, from time to time, go nuts. You already have to accept that the ability for a nut to kill with legal weapons will occur. We call this a price of our freedom. I see no need for that price to be higher than it needs to be.

OK, now I'm going to blather a bit. I say the above meaning, ownership of firearms without restrictions. Ownership of things like grenades and on up could still be possible (I have no idea if it is now or not) if you can suffer the restrictions necessary to keep them safe. I know I have a friend who legally owns a 60mm mortar and can get practice ammunition for it. It does fall under harsher restrictions than a rifle does. If you removed full auto stuff from class III restrictions, would we not just revert back to how things were prior to '34?
 
well as far as things go I am an absolutist.

Free Speech = all Speech
Free Religion = all Religion
RKBA = All arms

committing a war would be far more difficult if you farmed out the materiel to various citizens, because you would have to convince them that the war was justified.


Thanks,
Jefferson
 
committing a war would be far more difficult if you farmed out the materiel to various citizens, because you would have to convince them that the war was justified.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that one reason the Federal government is around is to provide for the common defense. It might have a hard time doing so if it had to ask pretty please before it could get it's hands on the weapons needed. I think that was put in there so if say, Maine got attacked, Florida couldn't just say "too bad, so sad, glad it wasn't us".
 
"a suitcase nuke."

a suitcase nuke.
Click to expand...

Hate to spoil this for you but no such thing exists today... worked as a RadioChemist since 1983. Los Almos would like the info if you know how to build one.
 
Nobody likes Maine

Who would really miss Maine anyway:D

In my understanding the federal forces were to be just a small cadre to provide C cubed duties for the various militias.

I wonder if a State could hire out its militias? With the tacit approval of the members of course.

Jefferson
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top