> It was probably meant to protect to right of the people to engage in a violent revolution when required, and enacted by people who had literally done so to create the United States.
This is how I learned 2A. More or less, no government can last forever and at some point governments will need to be overthrown and set anew. Sound familiar?
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
They even provided some basic criteria for when might be a good time:
> Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
I was taught that 2A was the tool that ensures that this section of the Declaration of Independence would still be relevant to their new government.
If you believe this, does the 2A give people individual rights to own tanks, missiles, nukes, chemical weapons?
If not, why? Where are the limits in the constitution on the types of arms a person can own?
This is especially relevant if the goal of the 2S is to be able to stand up to the US armed forces.
Or is it your view that the goal of the 2A is for a poorly armed mob to be able to rise up in collective suicide against better armed better trained government forces?
> Or is it your view that the goal of the 2A is for a poorly armed mob to be able to rise up in collective suicide against better armed better trained government forces?
You need to define the hypothetical 'sides' here a little better. Is this armed mob fighting for principles that many members of the 'government forces' agree with? Would this government force be willing to kill large numbers of their neighbors and fellow countrymen?
A surprisingly effective resistance can be made by an outnumbered/outgunned 'mob', assuming they have some basic weapons. Home field advantage and guerrilla warfare go pretty far. See: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Ukraine.
As a follow up - If Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Ukraine are related to the 2nd Amendment necessary rebellion theory, then the implication is that the insurgent weapons in those wars are covered by the 2A.
Very interesting.
A personal right to fully automatic weapons, SAMs, tanks, anti-tank, etc.
Yeah, I don't think so.
Militia is used 6 times in the Constitution and collected amendments. I tend to think that it means the same thing in the 2A as in the 5 places.
You and I actually believe the same thing, I just believe 2A is linked to early militias, and in the event that there were infighting in the US that early component would be needed again. I also believe 2A reinforces state power with respect to federal power, and balancing them is important.
You on the other hand are an egotistical ass with 220 karma and behavior to boot.
> If you believe this, does the 2A give people individual rights to own tanks, missiles, nukes, chemical weapons?
Yawn.
But I suppose you want an answer, so how about this: infantry weapons that a regular citizen can reasonably afford and practice with (i.e. shoot on a regular basis).
So military-style automatic rifles, machine guns, etc.
> If you believe this, does the 2A give people individual rights to own tanks, missiles, nukes, chemical weapons?
This question seems loaded, especially after how you started it with "if you believe this" when I already stated the foundational belief I have, but I'll take your question in good faith.
Citizens can already own rockets and missiles? Yes, they can, which is why there's private space companies. That has very little to do with 2A. As far as I'm aware an FFL (Federal Firearms License) would not give you access to chemical weapons. It's also not that hard for citizens to produce chemical weapons with household cleaners, but that also is beside the point.
2A, and pretty much anything below an FFL, is mainly the subject of my discussion. With an FFL a citizen can purchase pretty much any weapon, including a tank, or explosive.
> Where are the limits in the constitution on the types of arms a person can own?
Various states have attempted to circumvent the federal governments monopoly on this law, but I guess you could start to form some specific criteria by looking here: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/apply-license You'd have to cross these with state laws; some are very permissive, others not.
> This is especially relevant if the goal of the 2S is to be able to stand up to the US armed forces.
I mean, it's not that hard. The Taliban did it and they mostly had assault rifles, REX, grenades, and rockets (the anti-tank kind, not the artillery kind). I'll also address this in the next answer.
> Or is it your view that the goal of the 2A is for a poorly armed mob to be able to rise up in collective suicide against better armed better trained government forces?
There are several types of militias, two predominately in the US [2]. The first is a private militia [3]; to my knowledge in current day most of these are just extremists, but in a scenario that necessitated separating from the federal government I would assume people would start forming their own legitimate militias. How effective a militia would be would likely depend on their knowledge of tactics that the US military would employ. The second type is the state national guard [1]. State guards are trained by federal military but serve the states and are under the states command. National guard numbers, when fighting a federal power, would not be sufficient though. Supply lines would likely be disrupted and choked as well, so citizens and their weapons would be needed.
The short of it is no, I don't think it'll be just some randos running around fighting and causing an insurrection. It'd be coordinated state action alongside citizen militias if things came to that. To me, though, all these things help keep the government in check because the power of the federal government is not larger than the sum of collective state action.
Edit:
I also don't really appreciate the "fantasy" comment. I'm a U.S. citizen, I don't want any of that to happen. History shows that the influence of militias and participation was key in forming the US and was key throughout the politics of staying together as a country. Private citizens having access to weapons was key to early militias and you can't really separate the two at any point in history. For a more contiguous history: https://angrystaffofficer.com/2017/03/20/a-short-history-of-... (this does leave out that states actually have laws regulating private militias, though that's the only thing I could find wrong with it)
This is how I learned 2A. More or less, no government can last forever and at some point governments will need to be overthrown and set anew. Sound familiar?
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
They even provided some basic criteria for when might be a good time:
> Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
I was taught that 2A was the tool that ensures that this section of the Declaration of Independence would still be relevant to their new government.