WORDS: 1,670 — I truly wish someone would explain to me that reasoning but nothing I have heard so far makes sense at all. I own guns. Am I supposed to know, as a bona fide gun owner, instinctively what to do with them to protect the country, and when I should start protecting the country, and how I am to know when to start killing foreign invaders, alien invaders, zombies, or fellow Americans? Someone once told me, “Don’t worry. You’ll know what to do when it happens.” Huh?
The Founding Fathers went to great lengths to create the single most confusing sentence in the entire Constitution.. confusing to us, that is.. but not to them. They failed to indicate when we start the killing, and who we kill. No “When To Use Your Guns For A Righteous Kill” instructional manual? Let’s look again….
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’m a little confused here. It says something about a militia being necessary to the security of a Free State… and government shall not prevent the right to keep and bear arms as in a militia. I see nothing here about using guns against anyone specifically…. or even against extraterrestrials or dead and rotting organic walking dead life forms. I see nothing here about using guns against any government inside or outside our borders. In fact, I see nothing here that says us citizens need to own guns to protect ourselves from bad people with guns. Personally, I’d prefer the Second were re-written to be more specific along these lines. But I suppose being more specific reduces the value for others to obfuscate their own interpretation to fit some agenda.
But alas, we are a nation of laws (made by man) therefore subject to the whims of a constantly changing social order that determines how we exercise our democratic rights. In the end, if you still truly love and respect the Constitution in the morning, our final authority is the Supreme Court that determines how pure our laws reflect our living within our rights. The Court is also made up of men (and ladies, of course), but select in their knowledge, education, experience, and wisdom that sets them apart from the personal biases the rest of us are subject to (we hope), to render final judgements that the laws of common man are not compromising our Constitutional rights.
Our “temple” of law.
In all fairness I do tend to hold the Justices in a higher esteem and generally speaking I do not necessarily assign to them political bias when they render a decision that came to them exactly because of politics. The folks who serve are able to serve for life and they occupy that rather prestigious position on the “Mount Olympus” of final justice under our Constitution. Once appointed (and they become anointed) it’s seldom that they do media interviews or even appear in public. They seem to have no paparazzi chasing them down for that special incognito photo that might bring them down to our common man level. The occupiers of the White House are certainly not kings (or queens), but the nine justices are certainly as close to a heavenly Greek deity that we have simply because they don’t generally mix with us commoners. But to each of them when they get into that office I am very sure there is that shock & awe and professional admiration in that they feel they can leave a personal legacy of providing sage legal judgement that serves the nation.. or more accurately, serves the Constitution, which we expect them to do. So I do not necessarily go along with the idea that they should be identified with who appointed them in order to assign a bias predictability to their decisions. Yet.. throughout American history there have been times where their original political slants before they ascended into the heavens failed to get left behind on Earth. Nonetheless…. as I have often professed… I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the Constitution for which it stands.
The Right To Bare Arms
So then we get to the idea of the Second Amendment having all kinds of wild interpretations and meanings…. with references and connotations given to our Founding Fathers.. to less about the document they created , and more about their other writings, extrapolations of publications of their days; admonitions and pontifications inside op-eds of their day. Then we take from that and form the unshakeable precept… “Well, this is what they REALLY meant given all this other stuff they wrote.” Pure Donkey Dust. BUT…. as the years have progressed and those justices have come and gone, they have left in their wake the rather haphazard meanderings of trying to make judgements to interpret that single sentence and how future law should be administered to satisfy their meaning. Of course those of us commoners out in the real world…. the folks siding one way or the other regarding that sentence’s “proper” interpretation, as we see it… are left grasping onto the slightest morsel and crumb of legal expression to justify our positions… and when we think we finally got it and when all the headlines representing our individual sides read that “We Won!”… the next legal challenge heads off to start the entire process all over again. In the meantime people continue to die, but that’s the cost of freedom. Right?
Let me get this straight… YOU are watching over MY liberties?
Yet in spite of all that I completely support the Constitution and hence all decisions made by our Supreme Court… without question as to legitimacy or process. That does NOT in the least mean I always agree practically or morally with their decisions… and I accept that no one cares what I think. I actually support the Second Amendment… as it’s currently written, not as it’s currently interpreted by the Court. I have no issues with owning a gun.. and I think certain controls need to be in force to assure people are indeed capable of owning a firearm in meeting the social obligation on when it’s permissible to use it and pull the trigger. But what I do not think makes one damn bit of sense is this idea that the public needs to be armed in order to assure government doesn’t go too far. Read that Second Amendment sentence above again…. where does it say we need to own guns to make sure government doesn’t get carried away? Seems the Founding Fathers were rather concerned that we all kept our muskets in the event the local militia would need to be called up, given we didn’t have much of a standing army at the time. It made rather good sense to me given our local militias made a difference in our fight for independence from Britain.. and the post war preparedness on a young and defenseless new nation being vulnerable to attack from other world powers of the day.
But wait… the debate includes also the idea the Declaration of Independence has something to say about this. A list of inalienable rights? You mean “endowed by their Creator in being life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness”? Great stuff for declaring independence.. worth fighting for, in fact. But where is that anywhere in the Constitution? Maybe we should check the Preamble…
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Nothing in that to reflect the official adoption of a John Locke philosophy of what constitutes natural rights. But what about this right to have guns in order to keep government from going to far… or more to the point.. the right to revolt when government is unjust. Wiki suggests this….
“In political philosophy, the right of revolution (or right of rebellion) is the right or duty of a people to “alter or abolish” a government that acts against their common interests and/or threatens the safety of the people without cause. Stated throughout history in one form or another, the belief in this right has been used to justify various revolutions, including the American Revolution, French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and the Iranian Revolution.”
So.. this idea of having a gun is giving the owner confidence that he (or she) can go out and kill people he /she perceives is taking away his/her freedoms… and this concept is not entirely an American patriotic “right” unique only to us? The Russians? The Iranians? Shucks.
God and Guns?? Gimmie a break.
Ok.. so I am left wondering here… the Second Amendment as written doesn’t seem to include anything about having a gun for personal defense, or even defense of house and home. Nor is anything written in the Second to indicate people need to be armed to make sure government doesn’t take away our rights. Doesn’t mean those are not worthy reasons in general if all agree. But I find it odd if the Founder Fathers were making the supreme all-or-nothing gamble of creating a Constitution all could live by.. and then had this little side amendment suggesting, “Oh.. by the way… owning of guns shall not be infringed just in case everyone needs to rise up in revolt if they don’t like what’s going on.”
Yeah, ok… powerhouse lobbying from the likes of the NRA have pushed this “guns=patriotism” narrative, and it’s been adopted by disgruntled and disenfranchised Conservatives who feel “the other” is/has taken over and freedoms are being lost or whittled away in some form. It’s become part.. a major part… of our current political divide, and a sign of Trumpism.
Here’s the scary part… to all those lovers of the Second Amendment whose pride of gun ownership is all about “saving” the country… how do we save the country from you? Buy a gun? The beat goes on… the beat goes on.
I have made my opinion about your gun laws very clear in the past. I can see no reason why any individual should be allowed to openly carry handguns and assault rifles on public streets in any country, including America. You have more privately-owned guns in your country than people. I think that statistic is a tragedy, and a shame on the USA.
Best wishes, Pete.
Well, Pete… your forefathers over there made us do it with all that oppression back in the day. In fact.. maybe I can sue you personally for some sort of financial reparations. You have a relative in your past that did a tour over in the colonies in service to the King? 🙂
None that I know of, Doug. If I had been around then I would have given you independence without a fight and let you get on with it. Except you were all actually English colonials then, I forgot that bit. 🙂
Damn.. you are correct! Maybe you and I are related!
The 2nd really isn’t worded differently than say, the 1st. But both Rights are just as sacrosanct. The 1st Amendment doesn’t go into detail as to the specific reasons or justifications. Could they have been worded better? Sure. But the Framers relied on the brevity of accepted truths of Natural Rights [or God given if that’s your bent]. Were they formed today, the Amendments would look like the voluminous bills that Congress votes on, without reading them.
I view supporting, and exercising the 2nd Amendment just as patriotic as exercising the 1st. Sadly, our own government doesn’t feel likewise about the 4th or the 10th.
The notion of a ‘Right of rebellion’ is often denigrated in this nation [as it appears to be above]….but it’s also often celebrated when exercised in nations fighting against tyrannical and authoritarian regimes. Just because we haven’t reached that stage in this nation [since 1776 at least, Civil War notwithstanding]….doesn’t negate the principle itself.
The security of your person, or your nation….depends on having the tools necessary to counter the threat. And political narratives indeed have clouded the debate, but you haven’t included those from the gun control camp. Why?
Actually I have in the way you have detailed.. the opinion that guns are needed for protection… which is not stated in the Constitution. I fully agree if the Constitution were re-written each amendment would be the size of War & Peace. God loves lawyers. Which might help to explain the complexities of the Fourth.. it’s about defining “unreasonable”. Back in 1789 the world was a far more simpler place and “unreasonable” was their current level of common sense. Same for the Tenth. What was simple constructs then are not that simple anymore.
I like your final sentence. Given my post was expressed and noted as totally my opinion, the intent was not to present all sides of the debate but rather to make three points… I accept how the Second was written.. literally… I do not accept the Court’s interpretation of it… but I will defend their decision as a process of the Constitution. In other words.. I’m likely not going to show up on the steps of the Supreme Court carrying a sign “Guns Kill”.
On the side, Jeff, I am also bugged a bit when there’s this need to “interpret” the Constitution by dragging out all these other publications of the day.. from the Declaration to the Federalist Papers to someone’s learned quote. Those are fine historical sources to understand the mindset of a few of the Founders and the politics of the day… but even Madison said later in life that it was not meant to be a resource for the Court to interpret Constitutional meaning. The Constitution was a compromise (something we can’t do these days) of many influencers, following which it was ratified.
But ok… present the other camp(s).. in here, or do a post on your blog if more convenient.
As I think of this… if there’s some assumption, or interpretation, that what the Second does not spell out, that it can be spelled out at the state level under the Tenth. Yet the Tenth is never cited (praised?) to “fill in the blanks” of the Second… as everyone praises the Second.
I firmly believe that the SCOTUS decisions in Heller and McDonald were absolutely spot on, as they referenced the very treatises and opinions that the Framers relied on. In fact, in every one of the gun control camps arguments….there are no similar references to those primary documents – making, in my estimation – the case for the 2A as it’s understood. much to the chagrin of the gun controllers.
It can hardly be argued, that the ability to defend one’s person, family and property – with tool commensurate with the threat – is both a Natural and a Civil Right…..which lends itself neatly with it being a Constitutional Right.
Well, you cite my exact point there, Jeff. You believe Heller, et el was spot on to the treatises and opinions of the day.. hence I see no direct line from the Second to owning a gun for protection or for “keeping government in line” simply using other outside sources to determine what’s in the Constitution. The Constitution make no specification of what is or might be a natural right.
I am not a gun control nut.. but neither do I side with those who worship the gun beyond the point from that which is in the Second. I’m not suggesting you specifically, because you appreciate the Second for what it is.. not for what it should be because you have a gun and hate the government.
For context…. much of this would not even be issues at play were it not for our ever increasing population, coupled with our current political, social, and pandemic stresses pushing the limits to show our complete ignorance in how to handle mental health, and having no unified mental health program. Hell, we don’t even acknowledge, nor want to acknowledge, that mental health is the problem for a huge element of our society. The conundrum with that… we want to take away certain liberties from folks with this malady.. like gun ownership… and that gets a bit tacky with those that see that as governmental control.
We can agree to disagree on this one, as to the interpretation of the Second, Jeff… but we are not far off in principle.
I am not one bit concerned that the “government” (who is us) might want our guns.. but more concerned with.. why would they. Therein is the battle to be fought… in Congress and in the courtrooms… and with our vote. The rest is just emotion.
….simply using other outside sources to determine what’s in the Constitution
In determining the Framers intent behind Amendments that don’t seem clear today [or to educate our poorly tutored society], you don’t see the utility in referencing the Framers own words, and the specified legal precedents that informed their codification of the Constitution?
That would certainly set you apart from Constitutional law scholars.
Restricting certain Liberties of those who cannot function in polite society may have some merit [the debate will never cease]…….it’s the broad limitations on society as a whole, based on the criminal actions of a few, that will always bring me to the fight [so to speak].
It’s easier on Government, and those who wield the levers of power, to pursue a docile and meek society. I’m referring to all of the fences on State power [that continually get eroded]. Good Patriots don’t stand by and let that happen.
A healthy democracy is hardly considered to be a meek and docile one… and certainly our society is not meek and docile one bit.
To your first paragraph/question… perhaps in my older age and from listening/reading all the screaming about how everyone from all sides are lamenting the fall of American democracy because “everyone” is interpreting the Constitution as they see fit, makes me want to fall back to the basics. Doesn’t mean in the least I am any more right than anyone else.. just alt-thinking. On one hand… if we have to decide how to interpret the Constitution in our here-and-now would that not suggest we might have a bit of a problem in our collective obsession to save their original words as the only sage wisdom available.. but yet we need to constantly refer to “what they really meant” sources? I mean… I have always thought the Constitution is a living, or dynamic, document as the Founders included in it instructions for making changes according to the will of the people. Others feel it’s a static document… more like a museum piece that cannot be tainted by future generations.
You are correct… the current scholars, and even the traditions of the robed occupants of the Court themselves, will reference those outside sources, but they are (alleged?) to also consider current social mores and norms to the extent it doesn’t present a legal precedence. Point being, the Court supposedly does take reference from areas not simply from what the Founding Fathers thought. Technology (including medicine) is one of those areas…. and the Court has only scratched the surface on judging those cases. They also have a “habit” of affirming the status quo by choosing to not judge. But that’s a whole different area.
Again.. to your question… I question the process by which we seek interpretation from outside the ratified document itself… from sources outside that which was ratified. If Founding Father John Doe said that all Americans should own a gun.. yet the Constitution itself was ratified under the precept that guns are allowed in an organized militia…. and 250 years later Americans are referencing back to Founding Father John Doe’s op-ed in the local newspaper as somehow having merit in interpreting what was ratified.. and the Court uses John Doe’s opinion to pass judgement?
Something not right with that picture to me.
If your john Doe analogy were true, then you’d have a point. I wouldn’t classify works such as the Federalist papers as an OpEd in the local birdcage liner though. The 2A is not speaking toward an ‘organized militia’…it speaks to the People. Just as the 1st does.
But to your first point, indeed a healthy democracy is not a meek and docile one. But given the amount of power we’ve allowed the Executive to usurp from the Legislative, the Legislative from the states…..and the State [big S] from the People…..meek and docile we are indeed.
Bloviating and bluster do not change the paradigm where we’re less free and more regulated in every facet of our lives.
The Constitution is a living document, insofar as the inherent Amendment process, but not beyond. But I am a bit of an originalist….
Doug….I marked this for later use….https://www.summitdaily.com/news/2nd-amendment-doesnt-support-private-gun-ownership/ chuq
Interesting article. I want to verify a couple things.. but yes, good for a citation reference. So the idea that there is no explicit Constitutional prohibition to owning a gun, and there is no stipulated “right” to owning a gun, we assign it to the Tenth Amendment… to which I think it might have been Constitutional Insurgent who mentioned the Tenth somewhere above.
“The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people.”
Where we are currently at is that ownership and/or regulation of ownership is up to the individual states AND the Fed. I think we are mixing up the debate in that there is no Constitutional right of self defense, much less using a gun in doing so…. and what the Second says under interpretation.
I suppose we can debate this forever… but my differences are not because of a bias toward some nonsense about confiscating guns altogether…. and the idea of proponents suggesting owning a gun somehow keeps government in line is not any sort of logical argument as gun ownership can’t assure that anyway.
Rewrite the damn amendment saying we can all own guns for personal pleasure and protection in the home, and leave it up to the states as to the kind of guns and open carry.
Here’s the crux of the issue with that OpEd, where the author states: None of these letters and notes suggest the intent of the Second Amendment was to guarantee individuals the right to own and bear arms.
Balderdash. We have plenty of primary sources where the Founding Fathers state just the opposite, the indeed the People do have the Right to keep and bear arms.
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms. Trench Coxe, Pennsylvania Delegate to the Continental Congress
The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. William Rawles, U.S. District Attorney in Pennsylvania
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government…….This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty… The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty. St. George Tucker, U.S. District Court Judge
Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. Trench Coxe again
If you desire evidence of the intent of the 2A for defense against a tyrannical government:
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. Alexander Hamilton
And that is merely skimming the surface.
Since the OpEd was penned in 2006, it exonerates the author for not including Heller and McDonald.
To the op-ed and to your assertations of the “right being there” is indeed the debate. As I stated, for me the Court decided and I honor that. I have opinion to the contrary which means nothing in the long run anyway. BUT… to my knowledge… there is not one court (or Court) decision that even mentions it’s ok to own a gun for the specific reason of assuring government stays in line. The right of self-defense is NOT a RIGHT to revolt when government doesn’t suit you. Of course, given all the guns owned in this country, any “right” to revolt is determined by the number of people who don’t like government rising up into open revolt. The numbers of people who can manage to have the same opinions about their government to the point where they all want to grab their guns in a common cause to revolt… in that, they “take” the right by gunpoint. When that happens.. the Constitution becomes null and void anyway.
I’d argue that the accepted and codified Right of self defense is not the same as a ‘Right to revolt’ to begin with. And, to my knowledge….no U.S. court has heard a case where such a Right was seriously and credibly proffered.
And though not enshrined in our Constitution, our young nation certainly had such a Right in mind when the Declaration of Independence was penned:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
This can be the beginnings of another debate altogether, but aren’t political powers in our nation derived from the consent of the People? Is it enshrined in Constitutional law that the electoral process is the only venue for governmental change? Clearly, statue law has many prohibitions regarding violence and coercion….and the Constitution specifies parameters for the electoral process….but a case could be made.
I get it, that in our current paradigm, such a tyranny to warrant forcible removal, seems unthinkable to most; but I believe we can agree that the populations of 1920’s/30’s Germany and Italy [to name but a few] thought similarly. id those societies have, if not a Right, at least a moral duty…..to oppose and overthrow?
It’s an interesting though exercise at the least….
I agree that we need a re-write but in these days it would be a silly endeavor. I wish there was commonsense employed but since 1980 that has been in real short supply. chuq
Oh I agree… no chance in hell of any of those Bill of Rights getting changed, much less the Second.
I was watching the usual coverage today and there were a couple people.. one the noted historian CNN uses a lot, Naftali… and I again heard the same reference during an interview with a Congressman. They were referencing a warning by an op-ed reporter in the Washington Post a couple days ago, name of Kagan. I looked up the article… you might want to give this a read. It’s pretty compelling.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/23/robert-kagan-constitutional-crisis/
Jeff.. to your reply today 9/28.. changed the entry as the thread was getting a bit squashed.
Yes, while the Declaration.. declares… all that, one might assert that the signers were declaring a MORAL right to revolt for reasons given… but a moral right does not automatically indicate also a legal right. One can proclaim a moral right to self-fence but does that extend to that being a legal right.. and from there does that extend to what weapons should be used for a moral right to defend one’s self? Does that mean the citizenry should have available bigger or better guns than the bad guys from which the are defending themselves? Does that mean a moral right of self-defense translates the same weapons as the government provides the military.. simply to stay in parity just in case one has to fight the military to defend themselves?
Let’s get more contemporary rather than dredging up 1930’s Germany yet again. At what point do the women of Afghanistan finally wake up and start defending the way of life they so readily adopted for the last 20 years? The men don’t seem all that willing. Do they do it in some unified “non-violent” protests across their nation.. in ways only women can use… or do they arm themselves with all the weapons floating around that place and do some killing to win freedom? After all, the Taliban presumed they had a right to take back what America took from them. The beat goes on. Good, evil.. who decides who’s “right to revolt” is greater? Bigger cause? Greater moral cause? Bigger guns?
Somehow my comment didn’t publish, or I didn’t hit the button.
You point to a rather long philosophical discourse, that really wouldn’t be germane to the practical matter of the law.
I’m genuinely curious as to what you would have as the status of firearm ownership, rooted in the Constitution and precedent that is….not just a wish list.
Keep in mind I am not a gun control “freak” nor do I wish all guns would simply vanish from the Earth. I own guns (damn ammo is hard to find these days though). I simply object to the interpretation of the Second by the Court (again, I adhere to its decisions). I firmly object to the notion that my guns are all that stand between how I might feel the government treats me and some sort of perceived liberty I have lost that I need to get back by pulling a trigger. It’s that part of the idea of high capacity magazines are needed to defend ourselves. I’d rather simply say that I want a high capacity magazine in order to shoot a bunch of bullets in rapid-fire succession to obliterate different kinds of targets just for fun. (Got an old car laying around?) I see nothing wrong with a “guns are fun” interpretation. But then that opens up the arguments from those people who might want to control how much “fun” we have. Easier to toss at them that gun ownership is a right because the Framers said so.
Anyway, Jeff, we are not that far apart. You think the Second, written in it’s current form, is easily interpreted to mean what the Court has decided. I think the Second should be re-written to mean what the Court has decided.
That you’re not a ‘gun control freak’ is why I was curious about your specific opinion.
You might agree, of course, that if our government illegally imposed martial law or some other authoritarian rule….that armed opposition would be a necessary tool to be employed, no?
Can you define “high capacity”, and then explain how you arrived at that definition?
Finally, I really can’t see a compelling reason to rewrite a Constitutional Amendment [any Amendment] anytime SCOTUS clarifies a Right of the People, or a prohibition on the scope of government power.
Regarding your “illegal martial law” example… in PRINCIPLE I would “revolt” as much as the next guy… but there are significant BUTs… truly significant. Like, who decides an application of martial law is “illegal” in the first place. Who leads the revolt to presumably “take back” the country? Who makes the plans, sets the targets for striking back. How many gun owners are actually going to allow someone else telling them when and how to pull their triggers? But to the greater effect… a collapse of the national distribution system will lead to IMMEDIATE food shortages and after 3 to 7 days no one will be caring about some political revolt but rather turning their guns on each other to survive and just stay alive.
Yes.. there’s the “theory” and there’s the practical application.
On the “high capacity” thing… that’s semantics, Jeff. I think the public presumption leans more toward the idea in the time it takes during a pause to re-load to allow for more people to run away or seek cover… or simply a chance to jump the shooter. Limiting magazine capacity forces a shooter to pause in the firing, grab another mag, divert their eyes, re-acquire a target…. lock and load. Having said that… there’s too many high cap mags in circulation to even make that an issue worth arguing. Your normal whack-job mental case will have access to a few 30 round mags easy enough.
I totally agree that no amendment, much less a Bill of Rights, will EVER be re-written as we tend to hold to the original writing of the Constitution as a sacred document.
On an unrelated subject… we get into a failure to act on the debt limit by the 18th.. you might need your gun.. and not to defend the Constitution.. but to survive. It will not matter who caused it.
Your first paragraph illustrates from applicable questions, but doesn’t negate the idea that Citizen ownership of firearms can make the difference in removing a tyrannical regime…..as we’ve seen happen throughout history.
“High capacity” is a arbitrary, politically and emotionally driven metric. Your scenario can certainly be true, but it’s also not rocket science to reload extremely fast, without taking one’s eyes off of their target. I’m not in favor of legal limitations based on a theoretical situation. BTW, the Gabby Giffords shooter was apprehended by bystanders who were able to grab the protruding bottom portion of his extended Glock magazine.
And to your last, perhaps. I’m well stocked on a number of fronts for a myriad of emergencies. Any number of which can easily play out.
Doug,
Perhaps I can help provide some information on the following.
Militia definition -: a body of citizens organized for military service (Merriam Webster)
Perhaps in the future, our organized military is defeated, our country is invaded.
There are presently 400 million guns in the USA which makes it almost impossible for any military occupation to ever feel secure from citizens who organized and snipe at them one by one same as what happened in Stalingrad in WWII,
Add that in WWII, Hitler passed a law to prevent Jews from owning a gun, and consider what happened to them, perhaps?
If you live in a high crime neighborhood like the Black elderly man who sued Chicago and won the Supreme Court decision to protect himself from home invaders which occurred and could occur in even greater number if home invaders knew the home owner had no gun.
Similar to Revolutionary times or any other time in history in any place urban or rural.
In my opinion, pass a law to require only a license to carry a gun and if use in a crime or arrested and found to have an illegal gun, to lock em’ up until a judge either convicts or acquits him will help reduce shootings.
Regards and goodwill blogging.
That might work. Give Congress a call. They might be able to fit it into one of these bills. 🙂