Second Amendment Case - did anyone else catch this?

Question

Justice Scalia discusses at length the fact that a significant factor behind the second amendment was the concern that the government could use its own militias to disarm individual gun owners who might be a threat to the government, like the Stuarts did in England to the Protestants in the 1600s and like King George III did in the colonies in the 1760s and 1770s. 

Meaning, one of the justifications for the right to bear arms in the second amendment was so that we as individual citizens can protect ourselves from the government's attempt to unlawfully disarm us.  If the government comes to disarm me with a tank, I need an anti-tank weapon to defend my right to bear arms. 

However, later in the opinion Scalia suggests in dicta that the opinion should not be read to limit a states' ability to prohibit or regulate ownership of "unusual weapons" or something to that effect.  But how can I keep the government from unlawfully disarming me with just a handgun or a shotgun?

Jagermann · Accepted Answer

We ~at least~ need .50BMG Browning M2s and anti-tank RPGs. These weapons loaded with high explosive amour piercing projectiles can destroy tanks and aircraft and are protected by the second amendment because they are commonly used by individuals in the militia. 

The laws regarding a semi-auto Browning M2 are the same as buying any rifle or shotgun, but the laws regarding machine guns and RPGs are too restrictive and will hopefully be repealed.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Anonymous · Answer

You needn't go back to the Stuarts for your example. The New Orleans police, assisted by the National Guard (the liberals favorite militia) forcibly disarmed law abiding citizens after hurricane Katrina. Leaving them defenseless against the marauding bands of dangerous criminals.

As to your tank example, there are thousands of citizens who have been highly trained by the US military in small unit military tactics. A small but effective guerrilla unit can use ordinary weapons to capture any heavier weapons it may need. A SEAL platoon, using small arms, managed to capture a nuclear submarine from the US Navy.

All of us who served in the US Military swore an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Most of us still consider ourselves bound by that oath.

America is inching ever closer to an unpopular police state. The federal government now has an effective civilian military in the DEA, ATF, FBI, and a federalized National Guard to use against US citizens, skirting the constitutional ban against the US Military being used against the American people.

Two weeks ago we watched heavy handed thugs in police uniforms, with guns drawn, prevent US citizens from approaching their own homes after the flood waters receded in Iowa. We saw law abiding citizens disarmed after hurricane Katrina. We saw men women and children murdered in Waco Texas. All by the government's official militias.

Scalia got it right. Thank goodness. I am very disappointed in the 4 justices who refused to protect our bill of rights. I wonder if they feel that freedom of speech only applies to CNN and not to the people.

Truth is elusive · Answer

As a single individual, you wouldn't have much chance of stopping the government but a larger group of individuals would have a better chance.  One individual should not be able to usurp the government but a large faction could.  This is the principle behind the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

John de Witt · Answer

God is indeed on the side of the big battalions, but there is a deterrent effect even with small arms if there are enough people wielding them.

? · Answer

look this up and read:

People's Awareness Coalition

Trending News

Second Amendment Case - did anyone else catch this?

5 Answers