A question about the Second Amendent (the right to bear arms).?

It will still take a hell of a lot of tanks and even nuclear weapons to take out a 301 million strong militia. The military would also be compromised because they will not fight against their family.

I completely agree with you in the original purpose of the 2nd amendment. It does appear that any attempted rebellion to overthrow a tyrannical government with the firearms one can purchase today (especially with the background checks and waiting periods) would prove ludicrously futile.

If the purpose is to defend the citizenry against an oppressive government, should there be any restrictions at all? Shouldn't Americans then have the right to bear nuclear weapons and heavy artillery and tanks? What good is a shotgun and a pistol against a bombing run from a squadron of B-52s?

And if there DOES need to be some restriction on what citizens may posses, doesn't that infringe on a person's right to bear said arms? Perhaps it's time the 2nd amendment was rewritten or just made more clear about the original intent, because there definitely appears to be more controversy and debate about this one than the rest of the Bill of Rights.

I think what it comes down to is the effect that a single individual is capable of achieving. And I'm not talking about a single armed individual going after a number of unarmed, unsuspecting civilians such as at VT, I'm talking about some sort of organized resistance. One man, by himself, would quickly perish if he engaged the government armed only with rifle, pistol, and shotgun. But a dozen men can make a standoff. A hundred men can make a battle. And a million men makes an army that can bog down even the greatest military force the world has ever seen. But what's the prime ingredient? Numbers. The limits on the second amendment ensure that a single nutjob or two with a grievance can not have an effect beyond their numbers. Think of it as the Timothy McVeigh syndrome. By keeping limits on the firepower available to the citizenry we ensure that only an extremely popular movement supported by the vast majority will be able to overthrow the government. It's kind of like making amendments to the Constitution. They make it hard to do on purpose, otherwise the republicans would be bombing DC whenever the democrats are in power and vice versa. And it's an individual, rather than a collective, right for the same reason. The second amendment DOES give us the right to protect ourselves from the government. But it also protects the government from the fickle nature of man. Overthrowing our government would be possible, but it would be a hard road drenched in blood, tears, and sacrifice. As it should be.

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't." -- Thomas Jefferson

Agreed about the primary purpose of the 2nd Amenment.

And I agree that the army could outgun any single individual in this day and age.

However, if (for instance) 5 million legally armed citizens showed up at the White House to remove a President by force, would that President authorize the use of military force to kill all 5 million citizens?

Somehow I doubt it.

The writing is on the wall at that point and I doubt that other Americans would put up with that kind of wholesale slaughter.

(I'm willing to bet that the Pentagon has a contingency plan in place for that exact dilemma though.)

I think that's exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind. As you point out the Federalist Papers are fairly direct in making the point. The idea is that citizen soldiers can #1 protect their families (ie Indian raids, etc.) and #2 be equipped to overthrow a tyrannical government.

Of course, our Founding Fathers never conceived of assault rifles, panzerfausts, grenades, M-60's, tanks, etc. And in essence the citzenry of the US should have access to like weapons in order to defend the Constitution of this country from its own government should that ever be necessary.

Now we Southerners put this idea to the test and paid a bitter price for it.

First off, are you mental???

I'm uneasy enough with the government having nukes; why on earth would I want my next door neighbor to have them!

The average Joe citizen in those days had a musket that was inferior to the average Brit soldier; Joe citizen also didn't have cannons or bayonets.

The purpose of the SA was to prevent the citizen from being disarmed, so he would be able to respond due to a militia callup in case of emergency, not to allow him to create a private arsenal sufficient to equip a third-world country.

Keep and bear arms means small arms of all types in my opinion; that would include assault rifles, machine guns and sniper rifles. It does not include explosives, missile/rocket launchers, grenades and the like. Besides, most states don't allow Joe citizen to own Class 3 destructive devices.

BTW, tanks can be burned with Molotov cocktails, and fighters/bombers have to land somewhere, upon which they are vulnerable.

properly, confident it does. what's traditionally been below dispute is its motive and how any law can alter that precise. somewhat a brilliant many debates you will stumble on on Yahoo! solutions by potential of using the "seek for questions:" option, yet this is yet another one to evaluate. If the purpose became into determine that voters had the potential to overthrow a tyrannical government, then shouldn't persons have the properly suited to own an identical weaponry with the aid of fact the protection rigidity? in spite of everything, what good are pistols and shotguns against heavy artillery? If the purpose is its own, then shouldn't ALL voters have the properly suited to own despite weapons they desire without regulations which incorporate background tests, criminal archives, high quality, and psychological wellness?

Interesting point. I would have to wonder how long our government would last if lets say the KKK (for example) were to have a nuke.

I guess that's why the soldiers have an Oath. That Oath is the only reliance we have as citizens that we will be protected against all enemies foreign and domestic.

The 2nd ammendment got watered down in the 20's. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" went out the window with the advent of organized crime, and the availability of automatic weapons.

While I hold my right to bear arms sacred, there has to be a line drawn. I see a lot of folks walking around that I wouldn't trust with a butter knife.

Todays top of the line weapons cause too much colateral damage. To protect an individual from the government today is imposable. Just ask anyone that has delt with the taxing authority.