Would you vote to ratify the 2nd Amendment?

[Gabu]

Not in its current form.  I personally think it's way too vague regarding what "arms" means (as evidenced by the people who think that people should be able to freely buy nuclear weapons).

It also isn't really correct English.  It needs an "and" in there somewhere.

[Gabu]

I most definitely would not vote to ratify this.  First of all, 'arms' is too vague.  What about handheld nuclear weapon launchers?  Handheld atomic bomb detonators?

The amendment would not protect the right to bear nuclear weapons. The amendment's text, as well as its context, suggests that it protects weapons of a nature suitable for self-defense. Nuclear weapons do not fall within this category.

It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."  Where does this imply that there is a restriction on what arms people can keep and bear?

[Gabu]

It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."  Where does this imply that there is a restriction on what arms people can keep and bear?

The preamble of the amendment is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." The amendment can be interpreted so that only those arms "necessary to the security of a free State" are protected.

Also, note the First Amendment says that Congress may make no law abrdidging the freedom of speech. This does not imply that one can say whatever one pleases. One cannot commit perjury, publish libels, or threaten to kill someone. The First Amendment cannot be interpreted in an absolutist fashion; the same applies to the Second Amendment.

I still feel that it could be much better worded.  It says that "a well regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State", but then it goes on to simply say, in unqualified terms, that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."  Given that, supposedly, this militia is supposed to be a check on government tyranny, and given that the government has nuclear weapons, would it not follow that the militia should be able to possess nuclear weapons as well?

It seems to me that, if it's so clear-cut, there would likely not be as many people as there are who advocate making available in the free market nuclear weapons, battleships, bombers, etc.

[Gabu]

To stand up to our own government today, to protect "a free State", would require nuclear weapons.

Um, no.  What Bono was demonstrating (I think) was that even a people with inferior weaponry to our own could stand up to the world's only superpower, and eventually force them to withdraw, as they had in Vietnam, and what they threaten to make us do in Iraq.  And as far as I know, they have no nuclear weapons.

Therefore, it follows that nuclear weapons are not required to stand up to our own government -though they can help in such an extreme circumstance. 

That's exactly what I meant. Thanks for saving me the trouble to explain.

The problem with that reasoning is that, in Iraq, the entire problem is that the soldiers must differentiate between innocent civilians and violent insurgents, who blend together exceedingly well.  On the other hand, if the American military decided that it would enslave the masses, every citizen would be a legitimate target, eradicating this issue.

[Gabu]

To stand up to our own government today, to protect "a free State", would require nuclear weapons.

Um, no.  What Bono was demonstrating (I think) was that even a people with inferior weaponry to our own could stand up to the world's only superpower, and eventually force them to withdraw, as they had in Vietnam, and what they threaten to make us do in Iraq.  And as far as I know, they have no nuclear weapons.

Therefore, it follows that nuclear weapons are not required to stand up to our own government -though they can help in such an extreme circumstance. 

That's exactly what I meant. Thanks for saving me the trouble to explain.

The problem with that reasoning is that, in Iraq, the entire problem is that the soldiers must differentiate between innocent civilians and violent insurgents, who blend together exceedingly well.  On the other hand, if the American military decided that it would enslave the masses, every citizen would be a legitimate target, eradicating this issue.

As, becuase there would be no loyalists. Besides, I doubt exterminating everyone in the country would be a realistic objective, even for a dictatorship, and would be quite counterproductive.

I'm not talking about extermination, but simply that they wouldn't need to worry if they accidentally shot an innocent person who they thought posed a threat to them.  If they did worry about such a thing, it's highly unlikely that they would have taken over in the first place, rendering this whole discussion moot.