<p>A bit of trivia along these lines is that in Switzerland every eligible citizen is issued a fully automatic rifle and ammunition that they keep at home for pretty much life. While in active service the rifle is fully functional; while not in active service the fully automatic functionality is disabled with a removable rivet.</p>
<p>At least that was correct, per my Swiss friend, in the past.</p>
<p>As someone who has fired many types of fully automatic weapons I can say that functionality is overrated. It’s not worth the trouble, unless you use the weapon so frequently you learn to use it effectively as in war. The tendency is to burn through so much ammunition with inaccurate fire it does more harm than good. Ammunition is quite heavy in quantity and it is a burden to carry just to waste and then need to find more.</p>
<p>There is a reason the US military trains people to fire on semi. Full auto is for supressive fire and CQB. (btw, the M16A2, which is standard issue today, is semi and burst only).</p>
<p>On the issue of modern militia service, I don’t think giving the 2A a pseudo-collective right status is going to solve the issue. Linking the right to keep and bear arms to militia service is taking a collectivist stance, but leaving all “non-military” type guns (what are those?) to individual standards is a clearly individual right approach. If that were to happen, it would serve to create a confusing double-standard.</p>
<p>I agree, I was merely making a point about fully automatic M-16s and militia service. I do not agree that one would have to be in the militia to keep and bear arms; even though I find widespread firearms training and patriotic service appealing.</p>
<p>The 3-shot burst feature of the M16A2 is an improvement. Disciplined controlled fire wins the day.</p>
<p>No. But my understanding is that the indications from comments made at oral argument (particularly by Justice Kennedy) were that a bare majority seems inclined to find a personal right, but restricted by as yet unspecified conditions. Personally, if that is the majority opinion, I’ll be disappointed. If it is an individual constitutional right with no connection or obligation to assume militia duties associated with it, then it’s a “right” and not a privilege. All those people who were outraged by “penumbra” should sharpen their crayons to write outraged letters to the editors if the high court finds an individual right but does not authorize unlimited ownership of RPG’s for example. That would be a copout. </p>
<p>(Just kidding. I understand that “strict construction” is only an issue when the case comes down a way you don’t like. )</p>
<p>Stevens, Breyer and Ginsburg could have just phoned in their opinions, along with Thomas and Scalia, I suppose. We really only have four justices…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I suppose, but only if there is no JDAM launcher or BGM-109 TLAM available.</p>
The idea that the second amendment creates a personal right in citizens is simply crazy. If that were the case then the framers would not have inserted the language, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”. It woud have been unnecessary to do so.</p>
<p>Razorsharp, there’s no question that the language is ambiguous in the context of modern America. I suspect it was less so in the 18th century. The problem is that the context has changed, but the language hasn’t. As to how it is to be sortd out, well, that’s why we have a Supreme Court. (Marbury v. Madison settled that )</p>
<p>Then how do you explain Article I, Section 8 of the constitution, which states that congress has the power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia?? If the purpose of the second amendment was to provide for arming the militia, don’t you think that Article I, Section 8 would have been enough? </p>
<p>Also why didn’t the independant clause state “the right of the states to organize and arm militias shall not be infringed”??</p>
<p>Not to mention the fact that the second amendment couldn’t possibly establish the right of the states to do anything - states (government in general, actually) don’t have rights, they have powers given to them by the people. The very fact that it is in the Bill of Rights shows its applicability to the people.</p>
<p>So the second amendment does indeed secure an individual right to arms. The first clause is a dependant one that does not restrict the meaning of the independant clause.</p>
<p>Well, the problem which Stickershock has correctly identified and which you have tried to bury in a mass of verbiage and ratiocination, Icarus, is that your interpretation renders the first part of the sentence meaningless surplusage. And that’s generally not an accepted way to interpret important documents.</p>
<p>Again, I think that the problem is that the context in which the Amendment was adopted - a society in which state militias were a very real and very significant part of the defense system of the country - gave it a meaning which does not apply to modern America. The problem then is what do you do with it? Generally when a legal provision has become obsolete because the context in which it was adopted has changed as much as this one has, it isn’t an issue. Laws governing the use of horses and buggies, for example: Not a hot issue today.</p>
<p>But this issue is driven by the gun nuts desire to own guns, and their rage at bing told they can’t, even though militias in the 18th century sense don’t really exist anymore. So even though there aren’t any militias anymore, and even thought the existence of militias was an inherent part of the context in which the amendment was adopted, it’s a hot button issue.</p>
Militias have envolved into the National Guard. The right to bear arms is not an individual right, it is a right to protect the State such as pursuant to the National Guard.</p>
<p>The right to bear arms relates to the security of a State, not the security of an individual. An individual has the right to bear arms only in furtherance of the security of the State. </p>
<p>The US Constitution does not give an average joe the right to walk around with a gun to protect his own security or just for the fun of it. His purpose of bearing arms must related to the security of the State. Contrary to what you say Kluge, this is not that complex of analysis. </p>
<p>Those of you who love your liberal judges should realize that judicial activism can work both ways. In this case, the judicial activism will be to misinterpret the Consitution in order to create an unrestricted individual right to carry guns.</p>
<p>Actually, it isn’t necessarily meaningless, it just doesn’t mean what you think it does. So yeah I guess to you, it could be considered meaningless :P</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know you like to just completely turn a blind eye to the writings of the founders, but those pretty much destroy the argument that the founders intended a collectivist right. I could go dig up the quotes, but I’m sure you’ve seen them before.</p>
<p>Also, if you haven’t been too confused by my verbage, would you care to respond to the claim that Section 8 of Article I renders the 2A superfluous in the collectivist view?</p>
<p>And in response to the assertion that the state militias have become the National Guard… I suppose thats why the National Guard is basically a completely federalized entity, which is funded and supplied by the federal government and reports to the Department of Defense?</p>
<p>Not to mention that the US Code (i.e. the LAW) says that the unorganized “militia” is comprised of all able bodied males between the ages of… etc. Why should only the organized militia get arms, if your view is that the 2A is intended to protect the militia only? Come on, these collectivist arguments are so problematic for the liberal position…</p>
<p>The state militias HAVE become the National Guard; it’s a simple fact of history. Individual units do get federalized in times of war or other need, but in the rest of the units remain under state control to this day. The Commander in Chief of the California National Guard is the Governor, not the President.</p>
<p>You can read a brief history of how the militias evolved into today’s Guard here right on the Guard’s own website </p>
<p>“Throughout the 19th century the size of the Regular Army was small, and the militia provided the bulk of the troops during the Mexican War, the early months of the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War. In 1903, important national defense legislation increased the role of the National Guard (as the militia was now called) as a Reserve force for the U.S. Army. In World War I, which the U.S. entered in 1917, the National Guard made up 40% of the U.S. combat divisions in France; in World War II, National Guard units were among the first to deploy overseas and the first to fight.”</p>
<p>Take a look at the National Guard Mobilization Act of 1933, which permanently federalized the National Guard. From the same website, you quoted: “The National Guard Mobilization Act of 1933 made the National Guard of the United States a component of the Army at all times”. </p>
<p>All the training, payroll, etc is funded by the Federal government. National Guard units receive the same training as their full-time active duty counterparts. All the equipment of the national guard is owned by the Federal government. And as I pointed out above, they are controlled by the Federal government. Do you honestly believe that they are the “state militia”?? :rolleyes:</p>
)</p>
)</p>