Is the second amendment outdated?

[pprimeau1976]

It’s been said by many people that the purpose of the second amendment is to give individuals the right to bear arms so that in the case that the government became tyrannical, the people may overthrow it. This sort of made sense back in the 18th century when an armed citizenry had pretty much the same access to the same weaponry as the army did. Now, in the 21st century, this is no longer the case. An armed citizenry with guns has no chance of overthrowing a government defended by tanks, stealth aircraft, drone aircraft, spy satellites, a nuclear arsenal, etc.

If the reasons for having the second amendment in the first place are outdated, should the second amendment be replaced with something that’s more relevent to today?

 

[lizaanne]

If the reasons for having the second amendment in the first place are outdated, should the second amendment be replaced with something that’s more relevent to today?

Sure! Give citizens the same fire power as the government so we are on the same footing!

Of course it shouldn’t be changed - it is still perfectly relevant today. I should have the right to protect myself and my family. Not only against a corrupt government, but against others as well.

~Liza

 

[vern_humphrey]

It’s been said by many people that the purpose of the second amendment is to give individuals the right to bear arms so that in the case that the government became tyrannical, the people may overthrow it. This sort of made sense back in the 18th century when an armed citizenry had pretty much the same access to the same weaponry as the army did. Now, in the 21st century, this is no longer the case. An armed citizenry with guns has no chance of overthrowing a government defended by tanks, stealth aircraft, drone aircraft, spy satellites, a nuclear arsenal, etc.

I take it you have no combat experience or military training?

If the reasons for having the second amendment in the first place are outdated, should the second amendment be replaced with something that’s more relevent to today?

You are perfectly free to push for a constitutional amendment. But simply blithely ignoring the Second Amendment will also vitiate the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, as well. If one Amendment can be declared “outdated” and ignored, **all **Amendments will ultimately receive the same treatment.

 

[pprimeau1976]

Sure! Give citizens the same fire power as the government so we are on the same footing!

Of course it shouldn’t be changed - it is still perfectly relevant today. I should have the right to protect myself and my family. Not only against a corrupt government, but against others as well.

~Liza

What is dangerous is having a second amendment that is so open to interpretation though. Whether you are conservative or liberal, you have your own interpretation and whether the courts are filled with conservatives or liberals, they will have their own interpretation.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What is dangerous is having a second amendment that is so open to interpretation though. Whether you are conservative or liberal, you have your own interpretation and whether the courts are filled with conservatives or liberals, they will have their own interpretation.

“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.”

What’s open to interpretation to that – the people have a right to keep and bear arms, that right shall not be infringed, and it is necessary to the security of a free state.

 

[pprimeau1976]

I take it you have no combat experience or military training?

You’re right, I have no military training, but you don’t have to be a Eisenhower, Patton, or McArthur to know that a person with a concealed weapons permit is no match against our modern military. If we ever had a civil war though, it would have to be an urban guerilla war for there even to be some sort of level playing field.

You are perfectly free to push for a constitutional amendment. But simply blithely ignoring the Second Amendment will also vitiate the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, as well. If one Amendment can be declared “outdated” and ignored, **all **Amendments will ultimately receive the same treatment.

I never advocating ignoring constitutional amendments, unless you do it with another constitutional amendment. For example, nobody pays attention to the 18th amendment because it was repealed by the 21st.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You’re right, I have no military training, but you don’t have to be a Eisenhower, Patton, or McArthur to know that a person with a concealed weapons permit is no match against our modern military. If we ever had a civil war though, it would have to be an urban guerilla war for there even to be some sort of level playing field.

You have a long way to go before you understand military operations. What you’re talking about is called “asymetrical warfare.”

I never advocating ignoring constitutional amendments, unless you do it with another constitutional amendment. For example, nobody pays attention to the 18th amendment because it was repealed by the 21st.

Then we accept the literal meaning of this (and all other) amendents. If we want to look deeper into them, the Federalist Papers and the Debates are quite specific about the meaning of the articles of the Bill of Rights.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

In Alice, Humpty Dumpty claims that words mean what he intends them to mean; neither more nor less. More recently he has gone to the Supreme Court. The Constitution now means what the Supreme Court intends it to mean; neither more nor less.

 

[BamaRider]

It’s been said by many people that the purpose of the second amendment is to give individuals the right to bear arms so that in the case that the government became tyrannical, the people may overthrow it. This sort of made sense back in the 18th century when an armed citizenry had pretty much the same access to the same weaponry as the army did. Now, in the 21st century, this is no longer the case. An armed citizenry with guns has no chance of overthrowing a government defended by tanks, stealth aircraft, drone aircraft, spy satellites, a nuclear arsenal, etc.

If the reasons for having the second amendment in the first place are outdated, should the second amendment be replaced with something that’s more relevent to today?

. :nope:

 

[vern_humphrey]

In Alice, Humpty Dumpty claims that words mean what he intends them to mean; neither more nor less. More recently he has gone to the Supreme Court. The Constitution now means what the Supreme Court intends it to mean; neither more nor less.

Correct. The Constitution is a “living document” – which is code for “it means whatever the people in power say it means.”

 

[bilop]

It’s been said by many people that the purpose of the second amendment is to give individuals the right to bear arms so that in the case that the government became tyrannical, the people may overthrow it. This sort of made sense back in the 18th century when an armed citizenry had pretty much the same access to the same weaponry as the army did. Now, in the 21st century, this is no longer the case. An armed citizenry with guns has no chance of overthrowing a government defended by tanks, stealth aircraft, drone aircraft, spy satellites, a nuclear arsenal, etc.

If the reasons for having the second amendment in the first place are outdated, should the second amendment be replaced with something that’s more relevent to today?

No. The right to self-defense is a fundamental, natural-law, human right. The defense of others often rises to a duty. Check the catechism on self-defense.

Also, ask the Russians and the Afghanis about an armed citizenry having no chance against a government, they might have a different view.

God Bless

 

[vern_humphrey]

No. The right to self-defense is a fundamental, natural-law, human right. The defense of others often rises to a duty. Check the catechism on self-defense.

Also, ask the Russians and the Afghanis about an armed citizenry having no chance against a government, they might have a different view.

God Bless

This is a mixed question;

1. Is the Second Amendment relevant? The answer is, yes. The right to bear arms for self-defense and for defense of our liberties is fundamental. One has only to read the Federalist Papers to understand that.
2. If we don’t like an article of the Bill of Rights, can we just ignore it, violate it, and pretend it doesn’t exist (or means the opposite of what it says?) The answer is, no. If we do that to the Second Amendment, someone else will do it to the First, Fourth, Fifth and all the other Amendents.

 

[sawman]

It’s been said by many people that the purpose of the second amendment is to give individuals the right to bear arms so that in the case that the government became tyrannical, the people may overthrow it. This sort of made sense back in the 18th century when an armed citizenry had pretty much the same access to the same weaponry as the army did. Now, in the 21st century, this is no longer the case. An armed citizenry with guns has no chance of overthrowing a government defended by tanks, stealth aircraft, drone aircraft, spy satellites, a nuclear arsenal, etc.

If the reasons for having the second amendment in the first place are outdated, should the second amendment be replaced with something that’s more relevent to today?

Just a couple of points. In the 18th century the governments had access to all kinds of superior firepower that was way beyond the reach of “the people”. Naval power as an example. Cavalry was exclusively a governmental arm.Even the lowly 6 pounder was not an arm in the arsenal of the average Joe, or even the aristocrat.
In the case of a hypothetical confrontation between the “government” and the “people”, who would be shooting who?Americans shooting Americans? Where? In our cities and suburbs?With stealth aircraft and tomahawk cruise missles and tanks? What about civilians, innocents?
Anyway something to think about.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Just a couple of points. In the 18th century the governments had access to all kinds of superior firepower that was way beyond the reach of “the people”. Naval power as an example. Cavalry was exclusively a governmental arm.Even the lowly 6 pounder was not an arm in the arsenal of the average Joe, or even the aristocrat.

None of the above is true – in fact, in the early days, Artillery was owned and operated by contractors – which is the basis of Cardinal Richlieu’s famous quip, “Pay the artillery, feed the cavalry and lie to the infantry.”

Cavalry was hardly a government monopoly – every farmer had horse, and our cavalry duing the Revolution came off farms.

Much of our naval power was in the form of privateers – privately-owned ships that sailed under Letters of Marque to attack enemy commerce.

In the case of a hypothetical confrontation between the “government” and the “people”, who would be shooting who?Americans shooting Americans? Where? In our cities and suburbs?With stealth aircraft and tomahawk cruise missles and tanks? What about civilians, innocents?
Anyway something to think about.

Is there some meaning in this “hypothetical confrontation?”

 

[sawman]

None of the above is true – in fact, in the early days, Artillery was owned and operated by contractors – which is the basis of Cardinal Richlieu’s famous quip, “Pay the artillery, feed the cavalry and lie to the infantry.”

Cavalry was hardly a government monopoly – every farmer had horse, and our cavalry duing the Revolution came off farms.

Much of our naval power was in the form of privateers – privately-owned ships that sailed under Letters of Marque to attack enemy commerce.

Is there some meaning in this "hypothetical

confrontation?"

Dear vern,
I meant that The average citizen did not own a canon. Average citizens did not contract a battery to perform a bombardment. Privateers are not a navy. A group of neighbors on horse back are not a squadron of troops until called out by the prudential authorities ie: the government. All the entities you mentioned were at the beck and call of the government,not private citizens. In the 18th century standing armies and navies had become a common thing. Artillery sub-contractors were on the way out as well.
Anyway my point was that the government’s capabilities were far in excess of the private individual’s. I think that is a valid point.
As to the hpothetical confrontation,I was merely extrapolating the op’s idea of an armed citizenry vs the government. Where would such a confrontation take place who would be involved. The government in our country still is the people. Our armed forces are composed of citizens almost exclusivly. I’m not able to believe that our armed forces would be persuaded to conduct combat operations against citizens over the issue of the second ammendment.Or that such operations would ever be considered legal.

 

[TemplarKnight]

It’s been said by many people that the purpose of the second amendment is to give individuals the right to bear arms so that in the case that the government became tyrannical, the people may overthrow it. This sort of made sense back in the 18th century when an armed citizenry had pretty much the same access to the same weaponry as the army did. Now, in the 21st century, this is no longer the case. An armed citizenry with guns has no chance of overthrowing a government defended by tanks, stealth aircraft, drone aircraft, spy satellites, a nuclear arsenal, etc.

If the reasons for having the second amendment in the first place are outdated, should the second amendment be replaced with something that’s more relevent to today?

I will readily admit that I have not read this entire thread. I assure you I will accomplish that task and offer my opinion on this subject. However, I felt I needed to interject something here as the first thing I thought of when I read this post is I wonder if the Soviets in Afghanistan in the '80s thought “An armed citizenry with guns has no chance of overthrowing a government defended by tanks,…(omit), spy satellites, a nuclear arsenal, etc.”

It’s amazing what a grossly underarmed homemade militia with desire can do isn’t it?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Dear vern,
I meant that The average citizen did not own a canon. Average citizens did not contract a battery to perform a bombardment.

Actually, many towns had artillery – have you ever seen the Gonzales Flag? The town had a cannon, the Mexicans came to confiscate it – and the Texans stopped them. That’s how the Texas War of Independence started.

The war was won at the Battle of San Jacinto, where the Texan artillery consisted of two guns personally owned byh Sam Houston.

Privateers are not a navy.

During the Revolution, they were our most effective force at sea.

A group of neighbors on horse back are not a squadron of troops until called out by the prudential authorities ie: the government.

That, by definition is militia. And it is the existance of privately-owned weapons, guns, horses, and so on that made militia effective.

All the entities you mentioned were at the beck and call of the government,not private citizens.

What’s your point?

That armed citizens responded to the call of their local, state or national government is a given. They might defend their homes from attacks by marauders, enemies, or even oppressive government is the whole point.

In the 18th century standing armies and navies had become a common thing. Artillery sub-contractors were on the way out as well.

The US Government continued to issue letters of marque in wartime, or to deal with things like piracy.

The US Army conducted an experiment to see if artillery could be completely handled by the Army in 1828. They concluded it could, but was too expensive.

Anyway my point was that the government’s capabilities were far in excess of the private individual’s. I think that is a valid point.

Who is the “government?” It is, ultimately, the people. Should the people ever rise in arms against the gocernment, who would be in the right?

As to the hpothetical confrontation,I was merely extrapolating the op’s idea of an armed citizenry vs the government. Where would such a confrontation take place who would be involved. The government in our country still is the people. Our armed forces are composed of citizens almost exclusivly. I’m not able to believe that our armed forces would be persuaded to conduct combat operations against citizens over the issue of the second ammendment.Or that such operations would ever be considered legal.

And one good guarentee of that is that the people are armed – the concept is called “force in being.” The government cannot decapitate the opposition, because citizens have the power to resist.

 

[PatrickJT914]

It’s been said by many people that the purpose of the second amendment is to give individuals the right to bear arms so that in the case that the government became tyrannical, the people may overthrow it. This sort of made sense back in the 18th century when an armed citizenry had pretty much the same access to the same weaponry as the army did. Now, in the 21st century, this is no longer the case. An armed citizenry with guns has no chance of overthrowing a government defended by tanks, stealth aircraft, drone aircraft, spy satellites, a nuclear arsenal, etc.

If the reasons for having the second amendment in the first place are outdated, should the second amendment be replaced with something that’s more relevent to today?

Hi pprimeau,
Let me try to answer your questions as best as I know how. Although I will do it in separate replies. First on the question of, whether or not an armed citizenry can effectively go against modern weapons, technology, warfare, etc. On a head to head battle. No, they would in all probably be slaughtered.
However, the citizens would have to fight guerilla warfare. Just as our the Militia in the American Revolution did. Also look to some other historical sources. For example: WWII the various resistance groups against the Nazis and Fascists(French, Greek, Italian and others). In Vietnam the Viet Cong, the Afgans vs the USSR, the Iraqi insurgents today.
How would do they do it? How would we do it? It’s well documented in many sources; books, film documentaries, TV & theaterical films ( Red Dawn, Independence Day, et al.), websites and others. Since it’s already out there, I’m not stating anything new. (NOTE TO THE MODERATORS: I’m concerned that in mentioning the following tactics, could I be in trouble with the government? I mean in world gone paraniod with terrorism, that even mentioning something like that might send a red flag to them thinking I’m planning or encouraging some action. I’m only expressing my 1st Amendment right. I AM NOT ADVOCATING ANY VIOLENT ACTION AGAINST ANYBODY OR ANY GOVERNMENT ENTITY! Furthermore was this note even necessary? )
Some of the tactics are:
1. Disruprting communication lines
2. Disrupting power sources
3. Disrupting food and supply lines
4. Seize enemy weaponry to level out the playing field.
5. Computer hacking
6. Utilize hit-and-ran tactics
7. Disrupt fuel supplies.
8. Jam communication signals
9. and others.
Also of course there has to be Recon and Intel and it must be ongoing. I’m saying these things based upon my limited military experience, what if scenarios, movies, books, history. I know this doesn’t even equate to very experienced and professional knowledge of warfare & tactics. Although on the other hand the ordinary people have proven to be a very forminable foe. And with the right mix of seasoned military veterans, can be quite capable of victory.
Oh, there is at least one possible source of information.
“The Art Of War”- Sun Tzu

Peace is always preferrable to war, however we must learn to defend ourselves. And to think of the unthinkable, like a takeover of the United States either by peaceful, “properly elected” government. Or by foreign forces.

 

[sawman]

Dear vern,
I give up! I won’t concede your points but I’ll not fight about it either.I do not wish to divert the thread.PEACE to YOU and ALL on this thread!!! In good cheer!

Blessed be He!

 

[PatrickJT914]

Hi again pprimeau,

               I'm sending another response to your questions. The first one being, on whether an armed citizenry can effefctively stand against a modern military. I sent a post earlier about this subject. Now to answer the initial question. "Is the second amendment outdated?" :nope: 
                  We have a fundamental right to defend ourselves, and our families against aggressors& criminals when they threaten our lives. The laws of the our country recognize that as well as Church documents. A question I pose to you is, can you be sure that the local police departments, can protect and guarantee you as an individual of that protection? The police protect society as a whole not as individuals. Let's take a city the size of Los Angeles for example: the population of L.A. is roughly over 3 million,  LAPD has approxiamately 9000+ personnel. This equates to 1 police officer for every 333.3 people. (These are are not exact figures, but rounded off.) Since response time of the police to calls for assistance is between 5-8 minutes or maybe longer. Can you or do you feel safe in a situation like that? Then there are of course higher crime rates in some areas. Do you still have confidence in a gun-controlled enviroment.? So,it's basically up to ourselves to protect ourselves. 
              Although you could hire more police, install more cameras, wiretap, have listening devices, make more laws, retinal scans, fingerprinting, IDs w/ bar codes, monitor emails, bank accounts, store purchases, implant and much more. These are already being done. If these measures get stronger, Then we have a police state. We have a mild one right now. All because of an enhanced fear of terrorism. That threat is a real concern. However,

if we were to became a total police state,(slowly happening now)
would not the terrorists have won by destroying our way of life and our freedoms?

“They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.”
Benjamin Franklin 1759

A nugget of Founding Father wisdom. Too bad we don’t have that anymore today. :yup: