2nd Amendment/Natural law-Why is it that many people (especially on YA) don't get it?

Question

I had an "exchange" (not really) with a supposedly intelligent and educated (in the liberal definition) person recently that thought that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protected every weapon EXCEPT 'assault rifles'. Their reasoning was that since assault/military weapons were not actually MENTIONED, then "obviously" the founders of our country did not mean to refer to them, or to modern military hardware. It was an amazing "interpretation", to say the least. Thomas Jefferson (the penman) and many others did mention elsewhere during their lifetimes that the common people must have the means to defend themselves against (government) tyranny, and even had the right to overthrow a tyrannical despot. How else would this be accomplished without parity in force (weaponry) and power?

Answer 1

Yes, your right. But even our own government wishes to over look that point. You need remember that all guns are assault weapons: in 1776 all assault weapons were single shot, flintlocks, and if things were left up to government the next step the percussion cap may never have been developed. Sport arms have lead to many advancements in firer arms. The NATO 7.62 started life as the civilian 308 Winchester, and the current M16 round started life as the 223 Varmint round. In fact cartiages rounds were first used by cattle men and hunters before the government 45-70 was used by our army. The Spanish American War forced our arm forces to see how backward their new gun the 30-40 Krag was com paired to the weapons used in Europe and made by Paul Mauser of Germany.

Answer 2

I agree with you in theory. However even if we had every shoulder fired sort of firearm available, we could never match the firepower of the federal government. They have tanks and jets and aircraft carriers, etc. An armed insurgency attempting to overthrow the US government would be squashed like bugs. So while the intent was indeed so that the citizenry could overthrow an opressive regime, should the need arise, the reality is that such an act is no longer possible. Only if the military itself decided to overthrow the government could this succeed, and in which case wether or not the citizens are armed is moot.
So in terms of the arguement you had, I think you are right, but I'm not really sure that the idea of armed citizens being more free holds any water in today's world.

Answer 3

While you are correct in your assessment of the quality of the liberals arguement it's kind of hard to beleive that in this day and age that any group of private citizens with assault rifles could stand up to the full force of the US MIlitary. Jefferson and others were against a large federal standing army and back in those days a "well regulated" state militia had parity with the small standing army we had in those days.

Answer 4

you don't know much about Jefferson either.

If you read his writings you would know that the 2nd Amendment was more about hunting.

After the revolution it was already obvious that minutemen with rifles could not fight and win against a proper army.

But, hunting wild game and having the guns to do so, that was a big deal !

Jefferson did talk about fighting tyranny, but by his own example he used words.
( yes, Jefferson did see a forms of tyranny in the U.S. Government before his ink even dried ) In fact he talked about tyranny a lot. Jefferson saw tyranny everywhere.

Answer 5

I understand the reasoning for the 2nd Amendment but really, do you think the U.S. in the 21st century will become a tyrannical government. When this was written, it was a reality but now, come on.......

Answer 6

By this logic, every American citizen has the right to own their very own hydrogen bomb.

Too much?

OK then maybe just a small fission device.

Still too far?

Where do you draw the line?