Why aren't bombs covered by the "Right to Bear Arms"

Hey anti gun lefties, why would the government need to grant itself the right to bear arms?

Let's think this through a moment wrote:

Hey anti gun lefties, why would the government need to grant itself the right to bear arms?

The Federal government did not. The issue was the states. At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, there was not much of a federal army. The revolutionary war was mostly fought by state militias. The Minutemen were a militia. The Continental Army was formed to consolidate the state militias. But by 1787, there was still not much in the way of a true national army. State militias were still in place.

Virginia grudgingly ratified the Constitution on the representation that the Federal government's right to form a standing army was concurrent with the states' rights to maintain a militia. The fear was that the Federal government would have the right to disarm the state militias. But with deep divisions between the south and the north over slavery, the southern states quickly demanded explicit protection for their state militias, which were not much more than slave patrols needed to put down a growing number of slave insurrections.

The first draft of the second amendment referred to the "country": “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free COUNTRY, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This was a conscious decision to make it clear that militias could only be used to fight foreign invaders and protect the national sovereignty of the United States. The southern states demanded that "country" be changed to "state" to make it clear that their slave patrols would be protected.

Because bombs kill people. Duh...

I approve of this message.

I've always been more of a Grenade Guy than a gun Guy. Why waste all that time learning to aim and sh*t when you can just grab-and-lob?

I'll confess. I should be arrested for the bomb I just dropped in the Men's toilet

3hr-marathoner wrote:

There's no mention of weapons used for sporting, personal deference or hunting.

This may all be true, yet using and for personal deference – shooting to avoid acting on a matter – is considered a universal law. See it referenced in the Bible, Haumrabi's code, Confucianism, etc.

Actually the phrase usually referred to slave patrols.

hoo-ah wrote:

"Well-regulated" at the time--and supported by subsequent Supreme Court decisions--meant "well-functioning" (like Metamucil®--keeping yourself "regular"). Militias were informal, called up as necessary by towns (versus "sovereign states"), and eligible men were *required by law* to own and maintain a weapon (often cobbled together to meet the barest minimum, known as "farm guns"). Go check it out for yourself at, say, Colonial Williamsburg, Sturbridge Village, etc.

Whether MAD holds is uncertain. While some scholars argue for the stability-instability paradox including Glaser, suggesting that strategic deterrence works but incentivizes lower levels of conventional warfare, other researchers such as Jervis and Schelling would argue that the 'threat that leaves something to chance' leads to situations in which crisis bargaining at lower levels would escalate to the use of strategic weapons.

Serious question, even if it seems a little silly: we’re private citizens legally able to own a cannon during that time ?

Lucas Tanner wrote:

we’re private citizens legally able to own a cannon during that time ?

Who wants to walk around holding a cannon?

scatological wrote:

I'll confess. I should be arrested for the bomb I just dropped in the Men's toilet

winner.

Because you're trying to trigger people. Which doesn't help the debate.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Batman Bread wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

who wants to walk around holding a bomb?

Batman. That's who.

https://youtu.be/9pSD26bGy3I

well done

Bad Wigins wrote:

Lucas Tanner wrote:

we’re private citizens legally able to own a cannon during that time ?

Who wants to walk around holding a cannon?

Chicks dig it when I do

PoliSci grad wrote:

Whether MAD holds is uncertain. While some scholars argue for the stability-instability paradox including Glaser, suggesting that strategic deterrence works but incentivizes lower levels of conventional warfare, other researchers such as Jervis and Schelling would argue that the 'threat that leaves something to chance' leads to situations in which crisis bargaining at lower levels would escalate to the use of strategic weapons.

yeah, i was being sarcastic

I'm sure you can find the full text of the decision easily enough or any number of other summary overviews. As much as people love to argue about what they think the text of the 2nd amendment means, DC v Heller is the only analysis of the 2nd amendment that matters, and given the makeup of the court, it's unlikely to be overturned any time soon. Super quick summary:

-2nd amendment infers a natural right to self defense in the home which isn't limited to only within the context of a militia. So, the government can't ban gun ownership outright.

-2nd amendment does not prohibit regulations and limitations on the sale of firearms, bans of excessively dangerous firearms, possession of firearms in certain types of places, possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill, etc...

This is the starting point that we have to work with. It was 5-4 decision and many anti-gun people agree with the dissent. Time to get over it and move forward.