What about full auto weapons? Should people have the right to buy those from the grocery store, no background checks? What about high explosives, RPG's, anti-aircraft missiles, etc.?

I oppose lax gun laws in Finland, I don't really care if the Americans are forced to 'pack heat' every time they leave the house and sleep with a gun under the pillow. Maybe that is just an example of the bad conscience of the US, they know their past will catch up with eventually.

Maybe, maybe not, but either way making such decisions is not the job of the court. Their job is to determine the constitutionality of the cases brought before them, period. They have absolutely no business "legislating from the bench".

Bingo!
Right on the money!

Case in point. Any futher rebuttal of you would be redundant at this point. Now, if you will excuse me, I am on my way to Giant to purchase some SAMs for my front yard.

Yes... IMHO if you -as a private citizen - can afford to purchase an M1 Abrams battle tank, you should be able to follow the appropriate channels to legally purchase one.

if you ask me... anything the military has access to - the citizens should have access to.

but then again my interpretation to 2nd amendment rights is extremely liberal to say the least.

Woh hey yea... I want access to a F16 :yeah:

Pfft, wimp. Give my an LGM-30G with a W87.

I'll bite on that one. That particular part of the Constitution IS obsolete.

The Second Amendment was written at a time when an oppressed population had recently armed itself, risen up, and thrown off their shackles. The Second Amendment was not written so that people could defend themselves from robbery. It was not written so that people can go hunting in deer season. It was not written so some guy with a shotgun could stop the Russians from invading. It was written so that an armed population could put an end to an out of control government.

The Second Amendment was written in a time when the average citizen could be equally well equipped as the government soldiers. A farmer could easily become an infantry soldier. A few craftsmen could put together the funds and buy a cannon. A town could easily put together enough people, with the same equipment, to face down the regular Army.

But technology has moved on. The army is no longer using those same muskets. The town cannon is a memorial, not a working artillery piece. The government forces can field mechanized infantry, tanks, helicopters, and jet planes. The government forces can call in airstrikes from aircraft carriers, cruise missiles from submarines, artillery bombardment from miles away. If it came to it, the government has nuclear weapons that it could employ.

I don't care how many handguns, rifles, and shotguns you have. Without equality to the equipment and training that the government can field, an armed population cannot stand against it. Unless you advocate giving every citizen access to their own automatic weapons, private ownership of armor, a local air force, artillery, and naval forces (including nuclear weapons), the Second Amendment will never be able to serve its original purpose.

So, yes, some parts of the Constitution become obsolete. There used to be parts in there about slavery. There used to be a bit in there about prohibition. But those were taken out with Amendments, using the Constitutionally provided process, and any changes to the Second Amendment needs to be dealt with the same way.

that makes two of us... but then again, its out of my budget. :oops:

What do you know of the naval side of the Revolution? War of 1812? Do you know what a Letter of Marque was? Most of the small warships of the time were privately owned, with the biggest cannons that would fit. The government gave them official license to act as 'Privateers', or government-sanctioned pirates.

You do realize the the shooting started in April 1775 because the British Military Governor of Massachussets sent troops to confiscate the contents of a privately owned armory, including cannons? That's the main reason we have the Second Amendment - to guarantee that citizens can have the same firepower as the government. Because the government is never to be trusted.

You're making a couple of assumptions here that are neither accurate nor born out by history.

First an armed population not counting non combatants would potentially number upwards of 100 million. Even armed with just popguns that is a force to be reckoned with.

Second access to auto weapons, armor, artillery and other ground combat weapons is little more than a trip to the local national guard armory away.

Third if the US Military were ordered by the Federal government to make war on American civilians it would see wholesale desertions to the insurgent side , most of them bringing their equipment with them.

Fourth the government hasn't used nuclear weapons since WW2. What makes you think they would use them on US soil, against US citizens?

Fifth the US military hasn't fully defeated an insurrection since the civil war. Even if they did remain loyal to the government they would find pacifying a pissed off US citizenry far more difficult. I don't know the numbers of civilians with military experience out there but we are very numerous. Many of us are armed and still have contacts within the military.

Sixth I can't see the Federal Government willing to pay the price in blood it would cost to disarm the entire population even if we are just a bunch of farmers with shotguns. They certainly wouldn't be willing to turn the country into an uninhabitable wasteland to subdue the population.

I have a hard time believing that it would be anything other than a wholesale slaughter of 100 Million laughably equipped civies.

were outgunned in every way. read razark's post.

It's that simple is it? A high-tech government force versus a motley milita? Would it be a wholesale slaughter?

I've heard this argument before, and like others, you are oversimplifying. Even a handful of properly trained troops can wreak absolute havoc with nothing more than second-rate firearms and household supplies. Never underestimate the strength of an insurgency. We've learned this lesson too many times to be ignoring it now, and we learned it while facing second-rate cannon fodder. There is no telling what kind of damage an armed American insurgency could do.

You also assume that the military would be on only one side. When it comes to national policies of all kinds and constitutionality, the military falls mostly on the side of conservativism. They would not likely take kindly to any obvious infraction or restraint of protected rights. I, for one, would not fight on the federal side.

Perhaps your view on the subject has been colored by the ineptitude of the current terrorist insurgency. I assure you, an American insurgency would not be the same thing. The relative success in terms of cost/benefit in the war on terror has much more to do with the complete incompetence of the insurgents than it does with the skill of our own forces. I've seen them fight...and they suck. They can't shoot, they can't maneuver, and they are cowards.

An American insurgency would be a whole different beast. It would likely have the backing of a generations' worth of ex-military professionals and a civilian populace that knows how to use weapons. It would not be brief, and it would not be a slaughter. It would be a long, drawn-out, bloody conflict. Consider what the South did to the North in the war for Southern Independence, and then consider what proportion of industrial infrastructure and population the South now holds.

The civilian population of the US is not "laughably equipped" by any stretch of the imagination. Let's hope we don't have to find that out the hard way again.

Hrm...

I thought the Second Amendment was about the right of the civilian population "to keep and bear arms", not "to steal whatever they can once the beep hits the fan", or the right of the military to defect and join the rebelling forces.

I have to laugh every time someone says that a high tech military force can overcome a "obsolete" equipped "civilian" force....

Think so?

Perhaps you can explain the Russian war in Afghanistan then....
Or maybe you can explain the lack of total success in Iraq and Afghanistan by US and other forces.

When talking about a true civilian insurrection against its own government in the US, its obvious that those who claim it would be a cakewalk for the government have no clue as to how this country works.

Do you really think that the government, that relies on the people for its existence, that relies on a volunteer army made up of those same civilians in major numbers, can thus look at its military and say "go kill the people who pay for everything, your friends, neighbors and countrymen"? If you think the military would obey that, you have no understanding of this country. The military would itself overthrow the rogue regime.

Sure, there have been rumblings by a few politicians who care more for power than freedom, but all it takes is a look at the support that organizations such as Oath Keepers has within military and civilian law enforcement to see that the government doesn't have the means necessary to turn itself against the citizenry.

Even if it did have the means, the government realizes that it must have the support - ie taxes - of the citizenry to function. Hard to do when you have to kill pretty much the entire society to pacify it. That would be the necessity - and if you don't get that, you don't get what it means to the American citizen to truly be free.