Second Amendment Debate- What does the "right to bear arms" really mean?

[mason123]

I've gotten used to it lol

[jack24]

A lot of people seem to be missing the point about the gun control debate.
First, I don't buy guns to defend my house from criminals I buy guns because I love to hunt, and I love to shoot guns.  I'm a good guy. Don't take away my recreation, please!
Second, enforcement should be the key issue.  Drugs are illegal, and because they are illegal BAD people sell them. If Guns are Illegal BAD people will sell them. Honestly, would a law abiding citizen really go buy a gun in a back alley from a gang member if they can just go down to a sporting goods store?  
Make guns illegal and it will create a huge black market for weapons.  Gun dealers will go from retail store employees with background checks, to rapists and murders who throw in a case of hollow-point shells when you buy a piece from the trunk of their 1985 cadillac.

[BearlyLegal]

A lot of people seem to be missing the point about the gun control debate.
First, I don't buy guns to defend my house from criminals I buy guns because I love to hunt, and I love to shoot guns.  I'm a good guy. Don't take away my recreation, please!
Second, enforcement should be the key issue.  Drugs are illegal, and because they are illegal BAD people sell them. If Guns are Illegal BAD people will sell them. Honestly, would a law abiding citizen really go buy a gun in a back alley from a gang member if they can just go down to a sporting goods store? 
Make guns illegal and it will create a huge black market for weapons.  Gun dealers will go from retail store employees with background checks, to rapists and murders who throw in a case of hollow-point shells when you buy a piece from the trunk of their 1985 cadillac.

This is credited. Banning guns means a lot more business for unscrupulous russian gunrunners.

[mason123]

A lot of people seem to be missing the point about the gun control debate.
First, I don't buy guns to defend my house from criminals I buy guns because I love to hunt, and I love to shoot guns.  I'm a good guy. Don't take away my recreation, please!
Second, enforcement should be the key issue.  Drugs are illegal, and because they are illegal BAD people sell them. If Guns are Illegal BAD people will sell them. Honestly, would a law abiding citizen really go buy a gun in a back alley from a gang member if they can just go down to a sporting goods store? 
Make guns illegal and it will create a huge black market for weapons.  Gun dealers will go from retail store employees with background checks, to rapists and murders who throw in a case of hollow-point shells when you buy a piece from the trunk of their 1985 cadillac.

Agreed but we must also consider the criminal minded who will purchase weapons to commit violations of law, and that is where my interpretation may help.

[mason123]

I thought it was just a comment about my observations of what he posted in the last few pages,  I've only attacked the words and things he has presented as far as I can tell.

Not all of what you have said has been on point.

[philibusters]

For what its worth my Philosophy of the law prof wrote a paper outlining the individual right arguments of a right to bear arms and the standard criticisms.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1095339

[mason123]

Interesting overview of the philosophical arguments that surround this debate. However I am of the opinion that even if the Second Amendment makes us collectively less safe, it is still our individual right to have this nuclear option at our disposal, the right to fight back against threats to property, your person, and other innocent individuals.

But the District could plausibly argue that the reason the
ban currently makes citizens of the District less safe is because of the failure of neighboring
states to enact similar bans. Gun violence, it could argue, is a prisoner’s dilemma that must
be overcome through collective action. And collective action will not occur unless one
government takes the first step, even though this government will temporarily makes its
citizens worse off.

I do not think this is a reasonable argument to justify the affirmation of such unconstitutional laws. From what I understand, the court cannot compel surrounding jurisdictions to adopt similar laws. Whether or not the surrounding jurisdictions will EVER adopt similar statutes is totally uncertain, yet the possibility remains that the ban of pistols may potentially make the citizens that are under its jurisdiction less safe.

[Papa Bear]

For what its worth my Philosophy of the law prof wrote a paper outlining the individual right arguments of a right to bear arms and the standard criticisms.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1095339

This is really interesting. Thanks!

[Freak]

Goodness, ya'll really think small arms are useless against the government?  Let's see, what weapons do terrorists use (besides bombs which are terribly easy to create). That's right, you guessed it - small arms, generally automatic, but any gunsmith will tell you that it's relatively easy to convert many semi-auto weapons to fully auto.

Why are small arms effective? Because you have to locate a target to bomb it to oblivion and it's really difficult to locate somebody who fires a few shots and then relocates.

Has nobody seen what these imbecile terrorists can do without high priced, high tech weapons? What are they costing us in lives and money in Iraq? Sure they have a few larger weapons, but nothing compared to what the US government deploys.

Conclusion - yes small arms in the hands of citizens can still cause the government a real headache. If it reduces the tax base, those high priced weapons systems will eventually run out of fuel and repair parts (those systems need replacements almost weekly). I remember when we sold f-14 fighters to Iran (I think it was Iran) and when we stopped supplying the parts they quickly went out of service.

[mason123]

Very true, small arms can cause huge problems for even the most technically advanced Western powers; as we have seen in most recent times. Our military tactics have made us the British Red Coats of modern warfare against insurgency. We are a big force that is more organized, and predictable. This makes us much easier to target than our enemies who are de-centralized, and essentially scattered throughout major cities and deserts.

I was also pondering another dilemma.

Must/Can all Militias be under the directional authority of federal government or state governmental institutions (see, National Guard)?

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 if that free state is under threat of falling under a governmental authority that becomes tyrannical? Is that not a security issue? Are we to just rely on a militia that falls under the authority of such a government? Should there not be a military institution that is independent of such potential tyrants; an institution like THE PEOPLE?