POLJUNK

The reason why you have never looked at the second amendment from a repeal point of view is that you've never given the Bill of Rights a full reading. You're been shooting from the lip. As the article states, the second amendment is not about hunting or target shooting. It's about the civil right of self-defense and the need for the population to be able to take care of itself in times of peace as well as during times of war and civil unrest. It also is part of the idea of keeping the populace safe from an overbearing government that might suspend other rights such as habeas corpus, freedom of speech, freedom from unwarranted search and seizure, etc. Think about it. If Bush were as bad as the extreme left makes him out to be then what recourse would they have if he seized complete control of the government? Freedom of speech would stop. Freedom of association would be eliminated. Torture and imprisonment without trial would be common place. Totalitarianism would rule. Then what? How would the people remove him (or someone like him) from power? The right to bear arms is essential to keeping government in line.

"It's about the civil right of self-defense and the need for the population to be able to take care of itself in times of peace as well as during times of war and civil unrest..."

Actually, it's not clear at all what is meant by "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." Does that mean individuals have the right to keep and bear arms or that the states have that right as part of maintaining a militia. That very question is before the Supreme Court now.

While I DO think people can and should be able to keep guns, I think it's silly to think that by keeping firearms you can somehow protect yourself against the might of the US police and military if in fact you had to. There's no gun in the world that would protect you from that.

I also think it's entirely right and responsible to have sensible gun control. The NRA is a racket and has little interest in the "rights" of their membership.

Derek,

The second amendment clearly means individuals in the same way the rest of the bill of rights refer to individuals and not the states. Spend a little time reading the federalist papers and you'll understand that there is no ambiguity there.

It's also not silly to think that an armed population can defend itself against the "might of the US police and military". The Vietnamese did it quite well. In addition, the military and police would be divided in the case of a true insurrection and would not be anywhere near as efficient as it is against a foreign enemy. It's one thing to carpet bomb the mountains of Afghanistan, it's a whole other to do the same thing to Denver.

The problem with saying that there should be "sensible gun control" is that there is no definition of what "sensible" is. It's a vague term that continually moves to the extreme of complete gun bans.

Unfortunately for your argument, our system isn't governed by the Federalist Papers but the Constitution of the United States, which is interpreted by the Supreme Court. I actually agree that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms to individuals, but a reading of the text can certainly lead others to disagree.

And not to mince words (again), but Viet Nam wasn't a military defeat but a policy defeat. The Viet Cong and NVA had few tactical victories over the US military (just as Iraqi insurgents have had few, if any), so I wouldn't say they "did it quite well" in standing up to military might. If you would like a more recent and relevant example, you can look to Ruby Ridge or Waco or any number of recent skirmishes between second amendment zealots and the US police/military establishment. How did those work out?

The Federalist Papers are important to Constitutional law (and recognized as being so) because they were written by those who were most intimately involved in the writting of the Constitution.

If we allow the Supreme Court to simply "decide" what it means without understand the underlying context of the document then we have to subscribe to the "living document" point of view, in which case the Constitution means only what someone wants it to mean at any given point. I do not find this acceptable. It means what it was meant to mean at the time it was written.

You're right about the military winning the Viet Nam conflict until Congress lost it. However, the V.C. still made a good showing and you avoided my point that the war in Viet Nam would be different from an insurrection in the United States.

Ruby Ridge and Waco were small isolated groups and it's clear that they would not be able to win. However, a general armed insurrection would have a much different result. Don't get me wrong. I don't think we are at that point. However, I do believe that the argument is still valid.

It's interesting, though, that you avoided my point that there is no clear definition of what "sensible gun control" means...

"If we allow the Supreme Court to simply 'decide' what it means without understand the underlying context of the document then we have to subscribe to the 'living document' point of view, in which case the Constitution means only what someone wants it to mean at any given point. I do not find this acceptable. It means what it was meant to mean at the time it was written."

Our system of government, as written by the founders, specifically names the Supreme Court as the interpreters of law. What documents or precedents they use to determine that interpretation is entirely up to them. Some, often conservative, justices rely on other documents like the Federalist Papers to inform their decisions. Others may look to more recent documents to inform them. That is at their descretion.

As to whether the Constitution is a living document to me is beyond debate. The fact that we're debating an amendment, which by definition is an addition to the original document, is proof. It was written to be amended and changed to meet the needs of a growing and changing populace. We live in an active democracy, not an ancient philosophy. Don't you want it that way?

I won't even get into a discusion about some sort of theoretical, organized insurrection in the United States because I think it's ludicrous. We can't get half the population to vote, how would you call them to arms against their own government?

And "sensible" gun control is whatever the populace says it is as long as it doesn't conflict with civil rights as spelled out in our Constitution, which again, is being considered now by the Supreme Court. That's our system. It works.

Derek,

I think we're going to just have to disagree since I'm appealing to objective ideas and you appeal to subjective interpretations.

Still, ammending the constitution is not the same as the idea of a "living document". You might want to check the wikipedia article that describes the concept.

As far as the poor state of voting in the US - you're right about that. It's a sad thing to see.

Funny, I think YOU should read the Wikipedia entry (not the link back to your site posted above) as it's entirely in line with my description above.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution):
This pragmatist objection is central to the idea that the Constitution should be seen as a living document. Under this view, for example, constitutional requirements of "equal rights" should be read with regard to current standards of equality, and not those of decades or centuries ago, because the alternative would be unacceptable.

...

It is often said[specify] that a Living Constitution implies a disregard for constitutional language. To call the Constitution "living," some say, is to suggest that one should not simply read and apply the constitutional text.

This is not the intended meaning of the term, however. What it suggests, rather, is that the Constitution be read contemporaneously, rather than historically.[15] As an example, when the Constitution requires "just compensation" for the government exercise of eminent domain, the Living Constitutionalists would not disregard the words "just compensation." Instead, they would ask what is "just compensation" at the present date.

...

Others have quoted Justice John Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland, in which he described the Constitution as "intended to endure for ages to come, and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs."[10] Randolph's statement, and others like it, are seen as a call for respecting the text and meaning of the general constitutional propositions, but also for considering contemporary exigencies as well, as appears to have been fully expected.

*********

And I have no idea what you mean by "objective ideas" vs. "subjective interpretations." The whole point of our argument is that the Constitution is interpreted. That's also the point of even having a Supreme Court since syntax and meaning change within a fluid language like English. What does "shall" mean? What is meant by "the People" or "the people" [note the caps]? These are questions our Supreme Court considers when interpreting the Constitution.

You know what my favorite part about the "living document vs. founders' intent" argument is? It's that politicians have been arguing about it since back when most of the dudes who wrote it were still alive!

Seriously, as early as Washington's second term, people were having this exact same discussion. I love that.

The founders left a lot of shit intentionally vague so that they could argue out of both sides of their mouths when getting both the north and the south to ratify the goddamned thing.

As for the Federalist papers, keep in mind that there were also a whole lot of equally patriotic American Revolutionaries writing the Antifederalist Papers. Dig this chronology: http://www.constitution.org/afp/afpchron.htm

This is what's so great about this country: since before it even BEGAN, we've had a government that we're all CONVINCED is going to hell in a handbasket because of the sons of bitches who disagree with us.

Derek,

Next you'll be arguing what the meaning of "is" is. ;-)

Sorry about the messed-up link. Clipboards are finicky things. For those interested, the correct link is here.

Ha, but it's true that the words have been parced and debated before thre Supreme Court. And we are, after all, a nation of laws, not of men. Not even the Founding Fathers.

"I think it's silly to think that by keeping firearms you can somehow protect yourself against the might of the US police and military if in fact you had to. There's no gun in the world that would protect you from that."

Not so fast. What about the humble AK-47? The Viet Cong, aka "individual gun owners", managed to defeat both the U.S. and South Vietnamese militaries using just such simple weaponry pitted against the greatest military force on earth using massive amounts of the absolute latest in military technology.