2nd ammendment skepticism

[Smiledriver]

Hello,

I have noticed that an ever present fixture in the gun control debate in the U.S. is an argument over the intention of the 2nd ammendment to the American constitution.

The ammendment seems to be viewed as either...

1.) That well regulated miltias are crucial to the security of a free state therefore the people must be free to keep and bear arms so as to be able to raise up such militias in short order to aid in the common defence.

2.)...or well regulated militas are crucial to the security of a free state therefore the militias (in contrast to the people) should be free to keep and bear arms to aid in the common defence.

The second of these interpretations seems to me to be dead wrong and flys in the face of everything I have ever read about the American founding and the much older idea of an armed citizenry.

My question is this: How old is this contraversy? How far back can we go and see a lively debate over the intention of the 2nd ammendment? Is it actually a argument meant to get at the founder's intention or a political ploy to forward one political agenda or another?

Thanks in advance.

[Tiktaalik]

The way I've heard it phrased is, is it an individual right or a collective right? I've heard people expound upon it from both sides of the debate.

I decided I couldn't personally make a decision until I knew what the founders were thinking, without relying upon the interpretations of others. So I bought a bunch of Thomas Paine, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, and some other writings of influential individuals around that time, and I'm slowly working my way through them paying special note to any comments regarding the right to bear arms.

So far I reserve judgment...

[rwguinn]

The way I've heard it phrased is, is it an individual right or a collective right? I've heard people expound upon it from both sides of the debate.

I decided I couldn't personally make a decision until I knew what the founders were thinking, without relying upon the interpretations of others. So I bought a bunch of Thomas Paine, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, and some other writings of influential individuals around that time, and I'm slowly working my way through them paying special note to any comments regarding the right to bear arms.

So far I reserve judgment...
I've always wondered at the convoluted thought process that brings folks to the conclusion that in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, every mention of "The People" is accepted as meaning the Citizens and residents of the country, except in this one (1) instance, where it doesn't...

[quixotecoyote]

I've always wondered at the convoluted thought process that brings folks to the conclusion that in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, every mention of "The People" is accepted as meaning the Citizens and residents of the country, except in this one (1) instance, where it doesn't...

I've never seen anyone (eta: excluding random internet wackos, who will say anything) actually hold that position. Only pro-gun people claiming to be astounded by those egnurnt libruls. Could be wrong of course, but it smells of well worn straw.

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.


It's not that "the people" doesn't refer to the citizens and residents of the country, it's that the amendment starts off by saying that militias are important, so people should have the right to keep and bear arms. Since militias are no longer important, the logic of the sentence suggests the people should no longer have the right to keep and bear arms.

The construction "X is important, therefore Y is a right" creates the right of Y as contingent on the importance of X.

[WildCat]

No longer a debate, it's settled law now.

[quixotecoyote]

No longer a debate, it's settled law now.

Until another court takes it up and the dissenting opinion becomes the majority opinion. Then that will become settled law.

Until another court takes that up and the dissenting opinion becomes the majority opinion. Then that will become settled law.

Until another court takes that up and the dissenting opinion becomes the majority opinion. Then that will become settled law.

Until another court takes that up and the dissenting opinion becomes the majority opinion. Then that will become settled law.

Until another court takes that up and the dissenting opinion becomes the majority opinion. Then that will become settled law.

[JamesDillon]

I think it's fairly unlikely that the Supreme Court will overrule Heller's fundamental conclusion that the Second Amendment right is an individual rather than a collective one in the foreseeable future, not least because the Court's conservative wing is not likely to lose its majority at least during the Obama administration. Future litigation will more likely be fleshing out what the individual right means-- what kind of state regulation and control over firearms is constitutional given the Court's decision in Heller?

[Alex Libman]

Though they happened to be right, what a bunch of aristocratic slave-owners put on paper hundreds of years ago is irrelevant.

Weapon ownership is a natural right, an extension of one's right to produce and keep any other form of property. You can regulate it through voluntary agreements (i.e. you come to Singapore, you leave your gun and your pot behind), but there is a natural need for people to defend themselves (as opposed to waiting for cops to pick up their dead bodies).

Armed societies have been shown to reduce crime, while societies where government tries to forces itself to have a monopoly on defense become defenseless, and often tyrannical.

As technology progresses, natural incentives will lead to guns being replaced with non-lethal / less-lethal weapons to incapacitate the aggressor.

[Smiledriver]

It's not that "the people" doesn't refer to the citizens and residents of the country, it's that the amendment starts off by saying that militias are important, so people should have the right to keep and bear arms. Since militias are no longer important, the logic of the sentence suggests the people should no longer have the right to keep and bear arms.

The construction "X is important, therefore Y is a right" creates the right of Y as contingent on the importance of X.

I would suggest this proposition is far from being established as true.

[quixotecoyote]

I would suggest this proposition is far from being established as true.

I suggest you need to do a lot more than that to argue against it.

Offer an actual argument instead of assertion, for example.

The supreme court interprets what the constitution means. Different courts interpret it differently. That this one says this now doesn't prevent us (or anyone else) from arguing that other interpretations are better/worse, only that other interpretations do not carry the force of law.

[quixotecoyote]

I think it's fairly unlikely that the Supreme Court will overrule Heller's fundamental conclusion that the Second Amendment right is an individual rather than a collective one in the foreseeable future

Oh sure, America's been trending towards individual gun rights for a while and court decisions have been following the sentiment, generally.

I just think the interpretations of the second amendment that see it as granting an individual right divorced from the rationale of a militia are stretched, as did Justice Stevens in the dissent.

[Smiledriver]

Offer an actual argument instead of assertion, for example.

The supreme court interprets what the constitution means. Different courts interpret it differently. That this one says this now doesn't prevent us (or anyone else) from arguing that other interpretations are better/worse, only that other interpretations do not carry the force of law.

Alright, an armed citizenry stands as a bullwark against tyranny. We are guarenteed our rights in our various founding documents, however, we know that these rights can be abridged or ignored by those in power. Thus, right to keep and bear arms is truly what Charelton Heston called a first among equals i.e, this right gives us the power to ensure the others. Tyranny is eternal, we are never free from it or the threat of it. We have the right to defend ourselves not just from personal harm, but the taking of our property and our freedom.

[JamesDillon]

Alright, an armed citizenry stands as a bullwark against tyranny. We are guarenteed our rights in our various founding documents, however, we know that these rights can be abridged or ignored by those in power. Thus, right to keep and bear arms is truly what Charelton Heston called a first among equals i.e, this right gives us the power to ensure the others. Tyranny is eternal, we are never free from it or the threat of it. We have the right to defend ourselves not just from personal harm, but the taking of our property and our freedom.

But if that's the argument, then isn't the Second Amendment obsolete? It's not much of a bulwark when tyranny has modern military technology and you've got a few hunting rifles. It seems like you have to either argue for a constitutional right to maintain a personal nuclear arsenal, or acknowledge that if this was the principal purpose of the Second Amendment, it has long since outlived its usefulness.

[Uncayimmy]

I think Cecil Adams did a pretty good treatment of the subject in his Straight Dope column. Check out is article on the Second Amendment (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1114/what-does-the-right-to-bear-arms-really-mean)

[quixotecoyote]

But if that's the argument, then isn't the Second Amendment obsolete? It's not much of a bulwark when tyranny has modern military technology and you've got a few hunting rifles. It seems like you have to either argue for a constitutional right to maintain a personal nuclear arsenal, or acknowledge that if this was the principal purpose of the Second Amendment, it has long since outlived its usefulness.

Exactly, although you don't even have to go so far as a nuclear arsenal.

If the second amendment is to provide for the possibility of armed revolution and overthrow of the government, then explosives and rocket launchers and mobile SAM equipment and mortars should be the subject of debate, not handguns.

I suppose you could argue that you're trying to drive a thin wedge, but even the most gun-loving hunters I know tend to agree that most weapons like that should be kept out of the general market.

I think a more reasonable interpretation was that the armed citizens militia was meant to protect the government, not destroy it. eta: Given that the founders had just fought off the British to protect the newly formed American government, i think it's reasonable to think they had outsiders in mind, not themselves.

[Dragoonster]

[/B][/I]It's not that "the people" doesn't refer to the citizens and residents of the country, it's that the amendment starts off by saying that militias are important, so people should have the right to keep and bear arms. Since militias are no longer important, the logic of the sentence suggests the people should no longer have the right to keep and bear arms.

But militias are important, to local security and crisis intervention. They're now called the National Guard. And while it appears that they + the regular armed forces are capable of meeting any threat (or have enough arms), it may be necessary in a quick-acting crisis for citizens to join it, using their own arms. This was more important when the US wasn't as powerful as it is now, and embroiled in actual continental warfare, but the idea may still be sound.

I guess this isn't how the Constitutional or rhetorical arguments go, but that's how I've seen it and it seems a reasonable explanation for why the Amendment was put in, historically. Not to give citizens a chance to fight against a corrupt US government, but to quickly form to fight a foreign invader or rebellion on behalf of the US governement.

ETA: Yeah, as in your last paragraph above. Didn't see your post while I was writing mine.

[JamesDillon]

Given that the founders had just fought off the British to protect the newly formed American government, i think it's reasonable to think they had outsiders in mind, not themselves.
I guess you could read history either way; Thomas Jefferson did argue for a God-given right to secession from tyranny in the Declaration of Independence and the principal theme of the U.S. Constitution is putting checks on the federal government's ability to become tyrannical, so I think it's fair to say that the Founders were somewhat suspicious of governmental power generally and cognizant of the need to prevent the United States from turning tyrannical over time. That said, for the reasons stated in my prior post it seems to me that the right to keep small arms just isn't an effective check on governmental overreaching any more, if it ever was. For better or worse, the real checks on tyranny these days include a committment to the rule of law and democratic decisionmaking, an informed and engaged public, and, to no small extent, good faith and integrity on the part of elected officials. The right to bear arms, or lack thereof, seems pretty irrelevant in comparison.

[Aerik]

I've come to learn that he 2nd amendment necessarily applies to individuals, as the Constitution and it's amendments, including the bill of rights, is not in the business of enumerating the rights of institutions. Corporate personhood is a sham, and so is any idea that the Constitution gives groups of people rights rather than individuals.

This stems from a singular issue: it is illegitimate to apply the law as if the people are consenting to government. You can't consent when you're underage, so simply existing here doesn't count, and it was impossible for every first citizen of the United States to have consented to the ratification of the Constitution. If you read the Constitution and dive into some studies on it, you'll find that what the Constitution does is acknowledge rights of persons, rather than create them. For the branches of government and its institutions, they have not rights, but functions.

All this stems from the fact that individuals have rights, but not groups. Remember this at all times.

So the 2nd amendment deems that we have the rights to militia. Because only individuals are endowed with rights, there is no other way to enable the right to bare arms except to allow individuals the right to own guns privately. For a group, a formed militia to express this right, it has to first exist. It's illegitimate, absurd even, to talk about the rights of a thing that does not always exist (and in fact rarely ever does).

Does the second amendment prescribe that we may gather and form a militia, but only the government or some other institution/business can supply the arms? Absolutely not. That would be giving the government the right to create and nullify militia. That is clearly not the intent of the 2nd amendment by any stretch of the imagination.

The pre-requisite of a militia is private gun ownership. Anything else is a military. That's just the way it is.

[NobbyNobbs]

Though they happened to be right, what a bunch of aristocratic slave-owners put on paper hundreds of years ago is irrelevant.

Weapon ownership is a natural right, an extension of one's right to produce and keep any other form of property. You can regulate it through voluntary agreements (i.e. you come to Singapore, you leave your gun and your pot behind), but there is a natural need for people to defend themselves (as opposed to waiting for cops to pick up their dead bodies).



How do you come to the conclusion that gun ownership is a natural right?

Thus, right to keep and bear arms is truly what Charelton Heston called a first among equals i.e, this right gives us the power to ensure the others.


My father-in-law, a lifetime member of the NRA, quoted that to me as well. I responded, "Well, if it's the most important, why isn't it the 1st Amendment?"

:D

[Smiledriver]

But if that's the argument, then isn't the Second Amendment obsolete? It's not much of a bulwark when tyranny has modern military technology and you've got a few hunting rifles. It seems like you have to either argue for a constitutional right to maintain a personal nuclear arsenal, or acknowledge that if this was the principal purpose of the Second Amendment, it has long since outlived its usefulness.

No, have you not heard of the Cuban revolutiuonaries defeating the Batista gov't. The Viet Kong rebels, the Mujadeen fighters and so on and so on. Guerilla armies have no need for more than semi-auto rifles and the support of the people.

[Smiledriver]

Also what Aerik said.

[rwguinn]

I've never seen anyone (eta: excluding random internet wackos, who will say anything) actually hold that position. Only pro-gun people claiming to be astounded by those egnurnt libruls. Could be wrong of course, but it smells of well worn straw.

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.


It's not that "the people" doesn't refer to the citizens and residents of the country, it's that the amendment starts off by saying that militias are important, so people should have the right to keep and bear arms. Since militias are no longer important, the logic of the sentence suggests the people should no longer have the right to keep and bear arms.

The construction "X is important, therefore Y is a right" creates the right of Y as contingent on the importance of X.
As I said.
Convoluted logic..

[Yjacket]

I've never seen anyone (eta: excluding random internet wackos, who will say anything) actually hold that position. Only pro-gun people claiming to be astounded by those egnurnt libruls. Could be wrong of course, but it smells of well worn straw.I have heard spokespersons for the Brady Campaign make that statement and I have heard politicians use phrases that mean the same. I believe there was an effort made to have people believe that in the case of the Second Amendment the word the people meant the state, collective.



It's not that "the people" doesn't refer to the citizens and residents of the country, it's that the amendment starts off by saying that militias are important, so people should have the right to keep and bear arms. Since militias are no longer important, the logic of the sentence suggests the people should no longer have the right to keep and bear arms.Doesn't quite work that way. Just because the states have not kept up with having a militia does not mean the right of the people is in any way affected, nor should it be. Also I tend to think of the first 13 words of the amendment as a preamble setting a reason for the following 14 words and as such could be omited without changing the meaning of the sentence. I think that if you will check out english grammer you will find that the sentence is a complex sentence, not a compound or conjoined sentence.

[JamesDillon]

No, have you not heard of the Cuban revolutiuonaries defeating the Batista gov't. The Viet Kong rebels, the Mujadeen fighters and so on and so on. Guerilla armies have no need for more than semi-auto rifles and the support of the people.

I assumed we were talking about the United States, since the Second Amendment, so far as I know, does not apply in foreign countries. And there is simply no way that a guerilla band could defeat the U.S. military on U.S. soil.

I've come to learn that he 2nd amendment necessarily applies to individuals, as the Constitution and it's amendments, including the bill of rights, is not in the business of enumerating the rights of institutions. Corporate personhood is a sham, and so is any idea that the Constitution gives groups of people rights rather than individuals.


What about the Tenth Amendment?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Clearly reserving some powers to the States, as corporate entities and explicitly distinguished from the people.

[Yjacket]

But if that's the argument, then isn't the Second Amendment obsolete? It's not much of a bulwark when tyranny has modern military technology and you've got a few hunting rifles. It seems like you have to either argue for a constitutional right to maintain a personal nuclear arsenal, or acknowledge that if this was the principal purpose of the Second Amendment, it has long since outlived its usefulness.Small arms and explosives did a pretty good job in Nam, seem to be doing a pretty good job in two other nations right now. Modern military technology seems to have limited application in the latest wars that the US has been involved in.

And arguing that weapons of mass destruction are included in the term "arms" as used in the Second Amendment - I think not. You see if you dig hard into the diary and letters of the time and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist paper you will find that the State is to furnish the field artilley and the individuals the small arms. I would like to think that the Second Amendment does not include weapons of mass destruction. Or even crew served weapons on the basis of "to keep and bear" which means carry.

[Yjacket]

Hello,

I have noticed that an ever present fixture in the gun control debate in the U.S. is an argument over the intention of the 2nd ammendment to the American constitution.

The ammendment seems to be viewed as either...

1.) That well regulated miltias are crucial to the security of a free state therefore the people must be free to keep and bear arms so as to be able to raise up such militias in short order to aid in the common defence.

2.)...or well regulated militas are crucial to the security of a free state therefore the militias (in contrast to the people) should be free to keep and bear arms to aid in the common defence.

The second of these interpretations seems to me to be dead wrong and flys in the face of everything I have ever read about the American founding and the much older idea of an armed citizenry.

My question is this: How old is this contraversy? How far back can we go and see a lively debate over the intention of the 2nd ammendment? Is it actually a argument meant to get at the founder's intention or a political ploy to forward one political agenda or another?

Thanks in advance.It seems to me that the debate is really not as long going as many would think. Up until about the time of the murder of two of the Kennedy family and Dr. King there was very little effort to remove access to firearms from the average citizen. Even as far back as 1934 Congress moved very carefully in the area of firearm controls. The regulations of the 1934NFA are in fact set up as a tax collecting situation and at the time were not specifically intended as regulatory control.

[JamesDillon]

Small arms and explosives did a pretty good job in Nam, seem to be doing a pretty good job in two other nations right now. Modern military technology seems to have limited application in the latest wars that the US has been involved in.


Again, I thought we were talking about this in the context of a prospective domestic insurrection against a tyrannical United States government, which is the only context in which the Second Amendment could possibly apply. And I don't think that Vietnam or Iraq, in which our troops were invading hostile terrain in a foreign country, are at all analogous. Our military was also holding back to some degree in those situations; we weren't going to nuke Baghdad, after all. In the hypothetical situation in which an autocratic U.S. government needed to put down a domestic uprising, I just don't think that the rights guaranteed even under a broad reading of the Second Amendment could slow it down, much less stop it.

[Alex Libman]

How do you come to the conclusion that gun ownership is a natural right?

I buy a gun (or build one in my basement) => I have a gun.

No one else need be involved.

What's unnatural about that?

[Yjacket]

Again, I thought we were talking about this in the context of a prospective domestic insurrection against a tyrannical United States government, which is the only context in which the Second Amendment could possibly apply. And I don't think that Vietnam or Iraq, in which our troops were invading hostile terrain in a foreign country, are at all analogous. Our military was also holding back to some degree in those situations; we weren't going to nuke Baghdad, after all. In the hypothetical situation in which an autocratic U.S. government needed to put down a domestic uprising, I just don't think that the rights guaranteed even under a broad reading of the Second Amendment could slow it down, much less stop it.

I for one would hope that if such an unfortunate situation as an armed rebellion were to occur in the US that things would not have degenerated to such a point that the government would consider the use of nuclear weapons. Or to put it another way, as you say we aren't going to nuke Baghdad so I would hope the same could be said for any American city as well. So now you are in fact down to situations involving guerrilla warfare in populated areas and the same problems would exist in any American city that exist in any city in Iraq. Whether you like it or not the analogy is there.

I do believe that you have forgotten Posse Comitatus as well. You are assuming that the complete military would willingly violate it. I would like to think that you are incorrect.

[quixotecoyote]

As I said.
Convoluted logic..

Oh look a magical pixie just set up shop in your lower intestines and is passing out hamburgers to passing jackalopes.

Equally supported.

[quixotecoyote]

Also I tend to think of the first 13 words of the amendment as a preamble setting a reason for the following 14 words and as such could be omited without changing the meaning of the sentence.

I agree the first part sets the reason for the following part. That reason no longer applies. So now you have an unjustified bit hanging out that the end that you want to support even though the reason for it is gone.

[JamesDillon]

I for one would hope that if such an unfortunate situation as an armed rebellion were to occur in the US that things would not have degenerated to such a point that the government would consider the use of nuclear weapons. Or to put it another way, as you say we aren't going to nuke Baghdad so I would hope the same could be said for any American city as well. So now you are in fact down to situations involving guerrilla warfare in populated areas and the same problems would exist in any American city that exist in any city in Iraq. Whether you like it or not the analogy is there.

I do believe that you have forgotten Posse Comitatus as well. You are assuming that the complete military would willingly violate it. I would like to think that you are incorrect.

I suppose we can craft our hypothetical doomsday situations however we like, but it seems to me like the original argument regarding the purpose of the Second Amendment calls for a worst case scenario analysis, particularly if we're assuming that armed rebellion would be justified. I would hope that a substantial number of American citizens wouldn't be inclined to take up arms against the federal government unless all democratic efforts had failed (or, you know, unless they were worried about it taking their slaves away), in which case almost by definition the government we're talking about would not be a particularly nice or merciful one. So it seems reasonable to me that the situation we're postulating almost demands presuming that the hypothetical totalitarian U.S. government would use all means at its disposal to put down an armed rebellion.

[Yjacket]

I agree the first part sets the reason for the following part. That reason no longer applies. So now you have an unjustified bit hanging out that the end that you want to support even though the reason for it is gone.The first 13 words define a reason but not necessarily the only reason. However even if we were to assume you are correct and the reason for the Second Amendment no long is valid -- so what? That does not negate the following 14 words.

If you want to remove the Second Amendment, specifically the last 14 words, then invoke Article V of the Constitution. While you are at it has there ever been a need for Amentment III since King George and crew were routed in the 1770's? Why not eliminate it as well since it seems to be obsolete?

[Yjacket]

I suppose we can craft our hypothetical doomsday situations however we like, but it seems to me like the original argument regarding the purpose of the Second Amendment calls for a worst case scenario analysis, particularly if we're assuming that armed rebellion would be justified. I would hope that a substantial number of American citizens wouldn't be inclined to take up arms against the federal government unless all democratic efforts had failed (or, you know, unless they were worried about it taking their slaves away), in which case almost by definition the government we're talking about would not be a particularly nice or merciful one. So it seems reasonable to me that the situation we're postulating almost demands presuming that the hypothetical totalitarian U.S. government would use all means at its disposal to put down an armed rebellion.In which case you darned well better hope that a lot of people have firearms and know how to use them and that plenty of the Armed Services would see the need to desert and take as much as they could with them. It would be a situation in which every time the government tried to use exteme firepower they provoke more support for the rebels.

I still submit that you are overlooking Posse Comitatus or are assuming that all of the armed service from the 4 and 5 star flag officers to the recruit are willing to overlook it.

[PhantomWolf]

Armed societies have been shown to reduce crime, while societies where government tries to forces itself to have a monopoly on defense become defenseless, and often tyrannical.

And yet strangely the US, an armed society, is among the top when it comes to violent crime while Japan, an unarmed and some would call tyranical society, is amongst the lowest....

[quixotecoyote]

The first 13 words define a reason but not necessarily the only reason. However even if we were to assume you are correct and the reason for the Second Amendment no long is valid -- so what? That does not negate the following 14 words.

Why doesn't it? If an amendment said "Beasts of burden being necessary for the transportation needs of the country, the right of the people to house horses and oxen on their property shall not be infringed" I doubt we'd have much argument that since beasts of burden are not necessary for transportation, zoning restrictions regarding animals should stay constitutional. The need for militias is equally antiquated, and the justification for the amendment equally archaic.

eta: Example chosen to show an invalid reason, not because I actually think people kept oxen penned up in the dining room

If you want to remove the Second Amendment, specifically the last 14 words, then invoke Article V of the Constitution.

Why?



While you are at it has there ever been a need for Amentment III since King George and crew were routed in the 1770's? Why not eliminate it as well since it seems to be obsolete?

Houses are still important. Soldiers are still around. I think its kinda funny you picked this one since the creation of a professional army largely negated the need for militias that justified the 2nd amendment.

[Yjacket]

Why doesn't it? If an amendment said "Beasts of burden being necessary for the transportation needs of the country, the right of the people to house horses and oxen on their property shall not be infringed" I doubt we'd have much argument that since beasts of burden are not necessary for transportation, zoning restrictions regarding animals should stay constitutional. The need for militias is equally antiquated, and the justification for the amendment equally archaic.




Why?





Houses are still important. Soldiers are still around. I think its kinda funny you picked this one since the creation of a professional army largely negated the need for militias that justified the 2nd amendment.
Seems to me that you are boxing yourself into an unpleasant corner. By your argument the Second Amendment is obsolete but the Third Amendment is not, both for the same reason. Cannot follow your thinking on that at all.

Why invoke Article V of the Constitution you asked. Because that is the way you change the document.

[Alex Libman]

And yet strangely the US, an armed society, is among the top when it comes to violent crime while Japan, an unarmed and some would call tyranical society, is amongst the lowest....

U.S. isn't on top when it comes to crime, just its gun-controlled urban areas.

And... Does a little petty violence have infinite harm? Would you be willing to live in a concentration camp, for example, if it meant greater personal safety?

Japan would have been a better country if it had universal gun ownership. Its whole history would have been different: no feudal tyranny, no emperor-imposed isolation until mid-19th century, no tyrannical modernization (which was good but quite a bit of blood was spilled, like in that Tom Cruise movie), no nationalist militarism that helped lead to imperial expansion and WW2...

Petty criminals kill thousands (and in many cases gun deaths are cases of legitimate self-defense). Gun-grabbing governments, on the other hand, kill millions and harm billions. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." Etc.

I'm not a gun nut myself though: never even held one in my hand, and probably never will. There are smarter methods of self-defense, but helpless obedience to a government's monopoly of insurmountable power isn't one of them. Anti-gun activists are not genuinely against guns, they just want the bully who (they think) is their buddy to have all the guns to itself.

[PhantomWolf]

U.S. isn't on top when it comes to crime, just its gun-controlled urban areas.

Perhaps you need to check the violent crime stats, and not all the US urban areas are gun controlled.

And... Does a little petty violence have infinite harm? Would you be willing to live in a concentration camp, for example, if it meant greater personal safety?

Strangely enough there are positions between giving everyone a gun and locking everyone up.

Japan would have been a better country if it had universal gun ownership. Its whole history would have been different: no feudal tyranny, no emperor-imposed isolation from the west until mid-19th century, no tyrannical modernization (which was good but quite a bit of blood was spilled, like in that Tom Cruise movie), no nationalist militarism that helped lead to imperial expansion and WW2...

Funny thing then that weapons were freely availible and widely used in Japan until the Emperor got sick of the freuding and wars made weapons illegal. Perhaps you mean France... oh hang on, they had guns and thousands got killed in the Revolution and what happened after.....

Petty criminals kill thousands (and in many cases gun deaths are cases of legitimate self-defense). Gun-grabbing governments, on the other hand, kill millions and harm billions. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

And yet once again, the US (which is under a pre-gun constitution) seems more likely to start wars that the New Zealand and Australian (Both anti-gun) Governments....

[JamesDillon]

I still submit that you are overlooking Posse Comitatus or are assuming that all of the armed service from the 4 and 5 star flag officers to the recruit are willing to overlook it.

Well, yes, I am; let's get back to Smiledriver's original argument for a moment, which was that Second Amendment rights are necessary as a "bulwark against tyranny." In other words, violent uprising would be (arguably) constitutional only if the United States government becomes tyrannical, and it is, I submit, a necessary characteristic of a tyrannical government that it doesn't respect constitutional or statutory limitations on its exercise of force. In other words, in order for the "bulwark against tyranny" argument to come into play, the U.S. government would have to devolve into a totalitarian dictatorship, and under those circumstances I don't think it's appropriate to expect the government to respect any legal constraints on its power. If you don't think such a situation could ever arise, then Smiledriver's justification for Second Amendment rights seems pointless (because no armed rebellion would ever be justified).

For the record, I do tend toward supporting an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, but not for the reasons Smiledriver mentioned. It seems to me that the textual analysis of the very poorly drafted Second Amendment is either too close to call or simply has no objectively right answer, in which case I support erring on the side of finding an individual right (sort of a rule of lenity applied to constitutional interpretation). If the states want to limit that individual right, let them say so clearly by passing a constitutional amendment-- which surely would never pass today. But I also think a universal right to bear arms is quite hard to defend on policy grounds alone, and that arguments along the lines of Smiledriver's "bulwark against tyranny" just aren't very convincing because the right to keep small arms really isn't an effective bulwark against tyranny (and the cost-benefit analysis comparing the number of lives lost in firearm crimes and accidents each year vs. the remote possibility of a successful and justified popular uprising against a totalitarian U.S. government surely weighs against recognizing the right), and no one would argue that the Second Amendment bestows a right on private citizens to keep nukes or other weapons that could convceivably topple the United States government.

[quixotecoyote]

Seems to me that you are boxing yourself into an unpleasant corner. By your argument the Second Amendment is obsolete but the Third Amendment is not, both for the same reason. Cannot follow your thinking on that at all.

2nd says, "because we need militas, keep guns"

3rd says, "no soldiers in houses""


Well we don't need militias anymore, so the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to our reality. We do still have soldiers and houses so there's no disconnect.





Why invoke Article V of the Constitution you asked. Because that is the way you change the document.

Or we could just interpret "Because X, Y" as no longer demanding Y in a world with no X.

[Alex Libman]

Perhaps you need to check the violent crime stats, and not all the US urban areas are gun controlled.

I have. The crime stats are cited by pro-freedom groups all the time. That's why anti-freedom groups have to appeal to emotions: "oh, boo hoo hoo, some idiot kid got a hold of a gun" ...


Strangely enough there are positions between giving everyone a gun and locking everyone up.

Universal gun ownership doesn't mean "give everyone a gun" - very socialist of you to interpret it that way. It means any free person who wants to buy a gun can, subject only to voluntary agreements - neighborhood association contracts, marriage contracts, ethical society pledges, etc. Free market would naturally lead to specialization of self-defense technologies: your insurance company might make it worth while to have a non-lethal gun instead of a 15th century projectile launcher. As I discussed on another thread, accountable private protection agencies would come about, reducing the need for individuals to handle weapons themselves. Etc.

As for locking people up, at some point they don't have to. When all power is held in a few hands (i.e. government), the whole country, the whole planet can be a prison.


Funny thing then that weapons were freely availible and widely used in Japan until the Emperor got sick of the freuding and wars made weapons illegal.

Yes, there were many internal wars, but that wasn't caused by wide-spread weapon ownership, it was because of the feudal system. (Population density and lack of agricultural land were probably also a factor.) Weapons were a status symbol of obedience to your lord. Centralization of power by the Emperor had down-sides as well.


Perhaps you mean France... oh hang on, they had guns and thousands got killed in the Revolution and what happened after....

The overthrow of monarchy was good. The socialist ideas behind the revolution were bad. (Though there were a few good ideas in there also, but diluted poison is still poison.)


And yet once again, the US (which is under a pre-gun constitution) seems more likely to start wars that the New Zealand and Australian (Both anti-gun) Governments....

Individual gun owners don't start wars, governments do, and that's precisely who you're empowering. If U.S. citizens didn't have guns, the U.S. soldiers might have been in Iran, Syria, and Pakistan by now.

All governments are as evil as they can get away with, and empowering yourself against government force is not just a good idea, it is a moral duty. Quoting Solzhenitsyn:

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?

To a government armed with nukes and microwave weapons that make flesh fall off your bones through walls from a distance, handguns would be just as much a deterrent as axes and hammers, but a deterrent still. My challenge to American freedom fighters is not just to empower themselves with guns, but to look for force multipliers.

[fishbob]

And yet strangely the US, an armed society, is among the top when it comes to violent crime while Japan, an unarmed and some would call tyranical society, is amongst the lowest....

And yet strangely the US, an armed society, is among the top when it comes to violent vehicle accident deaths.

And yet strangely the US, an armed society, is among the top when it comes to drug and alcohol abuse.

And yet strangely the US, an armed society, is among the top when it comes to fallacious arguments.

[Yjacket]

Well, yes, I am; let's get back to Smiledriver's original argument for a moment, which was that Second Amendment rights are necessary as a "bulwark against tyranny." In other words, violent uprising would be (arguably) constitutional only if the United States government becomes tyrannical, and it is, I submit, a necessary characteristic of a tyrannical government that it doesn't respect constitutional or statutory limitations on its exercise of force. In other words, in order for the "bulwark against tyranny" argument to come into play, the U.S. government would have to devolve into a totalitarian dictatorship, and under those circumstances I don't think it's appropriate to expect the government to respect any legal constraints on its power. If you don't think such a situation could ever arise, then Smiledriver's justification for Second Amendment rights seems pointless (because no armed rebellion would ever be justified).When dealing with people who seek power over others I cannot make predictions. I have said that I hope such a situation would not arise in the US. I do not believe that it could not happen. As to ignoring the legal constraints if such a situation were to come about I have no doubt that those in power would do so. But as I noted before I would hope that many of the men and women in the armed forces would see their way to failing to comply with orders that require them to violate Posse Comitatus, especially most flag officers.

But I also think a universal right to bear arms is quite hard to defend on policy grounds alone, and that arguments along the lines of Smiledriver's "bulwark against tyranny" just aren't very convincing because the right to keep small arms really isn't an effective bulwark against tyranny (and the cost-benefit analysis comparing the number of lives lost in firearm crimes and accidents each year vs. the remote possibility of a successful and justified popular uprising against a totalitarian U.S. government surely weighs against recognizing the right), and no one would argue that the Second Amendment bestows a right on private citizens to keep nukes or other weapons that could convceivably topple the United States government.

Speaking of the cost benefit why not include into that some other data and get a full picture. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics firearms are used in some 9% of the violent crime committed in the US. What do you suppose the crime rate in the US would be if private individuals did not stop a crime in progress or prevent a crime by the use of a firearm? You see I have stated my belief that the first 13 words of the Second Amendment give a reason for the amendment, not necessarily the only reason. I suggest that your cost-benefit analysis needs more looking into before you hang a hat on it.

As to the concept that small arms are not a bulwark against tyranny I would not be too sure of that. I don't recall my understanding of history over the last century showing any out of whack government that did not first confiscate small arms from their equivalent of Joe Lunchbox. Perhaps the tyrant has more understanding of what can happen to his goal of power over others if people have the means to start resisting and use that means to increase their ability to resist.

I too would not support a concept of the Second Amendment assuring me of a right to keep weapons of mass destruction, area effect weapons or crew served weapons. I hope that none of the posters here will try and go there.

[Yjacket]

2nd says, "because we need militas, keep guns"

3rd says, "no soldiers in houses""


Well we don't need militias anymore, so the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to our reality. We do still have soldiers and houses so there's no disconnect.Who says that we don't need militias anymore. Just because the various states have failed to organize a militia does not mean that such units are not needed. Seems to me that since the DoD loans the states units that perhaps the states should organize their own again.






Or we could just interpret "Because X, Y" as no longer demanding Y in a world with no X.No, that is not how it works which is good. We should not ignore or delete just because a few or even the majority think so. However since we are discussing a portion of the US Constitution I submit that we should really follow the principals of good government. You want to ignore part of the Constitution then use Article V and suspend that which you wish to ignore so that your position becomes the law of the land.

[PhantomWolf]

I have. The crime stats are cited by pro-freedom groups all the time. That's why anti-freedom groups have to appeal to emotions: "oh, boo hoo hoo, some idiot kid got a hold of a gun" ...

So then you know that the US is high in violent crime, good.

Universal gun ownership doesn't mean "give everyone a gun" - very socialist of you to interpret it that way. It means any free person who wants to buy a gun can, subject only to voluntary agreements - neighborhood association contracts, marriage contracts, ethical society pledges, etc. Free market would naturally lead to specialization of self-defense technologies: your insurance company might make it worth while to have a non-lethal gun instead of a 15th century projectile launcher. As I discussed on another thread, accountable private protection agencies would come about, reducing the need for individuals to handle weapons themselves. Etc.

I take that to mean you agree that there are "positions between give everyone a gun" and "lock everyone up", so that question is, why did you jump right to the extreme of living in a concentration camp?

As for locking people up, at some point they don't have to. When all power is held in a few hands (i.e. government), the whole country, the whole planet can be a prison.

I'd agree that if the Government has all the power you are correct, but unless you're living in Zimbawee or China or another dictatorship then they don't. Our last Government just found that out the hard way. The old PM is now looking for a new job as are a number of other members of her party. In a democracy the people always hold the power and they can do it just as effectively with the ballot as by hiding a handgun under their pillow.

Yes, there were many internal wars, but that wasn't caused by wide-spread weapon ownership, it was because of the feudal system. (Population density and lack of agricultural land were probably also a factor.) Weapons were a status symbol of obedience to your lord. Centralization of power by the Emperor had down-sides as well.

Lots of things have down sides, weapons aren't the answer. Look at Afghanistan, weapons have helped there a lot haven't they.

The overthrow of monarchy was good.

Personally I don't call the killing of people whoever they are "good"

Individual gun owners don't start wars, governments do, and that's precisely who you're empowering.

So you are backing off your claim that gun grabbing governments start wars, or are you planning to give examples of coutries who have introduced gun law and then started wars in the past 50 years?

If U.S. citizens didn't have guns, the U.S. soldiers might have been in Iran, Syria, and Pakistan by now.

wow, talk about a stretch and 3000. Next you'll be telling me that the only reason they haven't taken over South Africa and France is because US Citizens have guns.

All governments are as evil as they can get away with

Well at least you have now come out and said what I figured you thought all along. I bet you don't personally know anyone in a Government do you?

To a government armed with nukes and microwave weapons that make flesh fall off your bones through walls from a distance, a handguns would be just as much a deterrent as axes and hammers, but a deterrent still. My challenge to American freedom fighters is not just to empower themselves with guns, but to look for force multipliers.

I'm seriously considering that one for the Stundies....

[PhantomWolf]

And yet strangely the US, an armed society, is among the top when it comes to violent vehicle accident deaths.

And yet strangely the US, an armed society, is among the top when it comes to drug and alcohol abuse.

And yet strangely the US, an armed society, is among the top when it comes to fallacious arguments.

And strangely enough pointing out that an armed society has far more violent crime that an unarmed one is not a fallacy when it is used against the argument that armed societies have less crime than unarmed ones. You did a pretty good one though. Now of course if the argument had been that that armed societies have less violent vehicle accident deaths than unarmed ones or that armed societies have less drug and alcohol abuse than unarmed ones, you might have a good point.

[zooterkin]

Weapon ownership is a natural right, an extension of one's right to produce and keep any other form of property. You can regulate it through voluntary agreements (i.e. you come to Singapore, you leave your gun and your pot behind),
.

And how is Singapore different from any other state that has gun laws? How are they more 'voluntary' than those of the UK or France?

[PhantomWolf]

And how is Singapore different from any other state that has gun laws? How are they more 'voluntary' than those of the UK or France?

The UK, France, NZ, or Aust will simply fine you and boot you out again. Singapore will hang you. :)

[Alex Libman]

So then you know that the US is high in violent crime, good.

High compared to what, socialist aging Europe and Japan? The Japanese society is very collectivist, ethnically homogeneous, aging, etc. Europe has fewer prohibitions against lighter drugs, which reduces crime also. You can't compare across cultures like that. But within the United States, gun control leaves people helpless targets. Plus, as I've said above, crime isn't the most important reason for gun ownership.


... why did you jump right to the extreme of living in a concentration camp?

Saying "would you trade 20% of your freedom for some small decline in odds of being killed by a petty criminal with a gun" is a mouth-full, and more difficult for the reader to understand. The point is - I wouldn't. You're far, far more likely to die of natural causes or in a car accident anyway. If you want to wall yourself off, fine, knock yourself out. By raising your dependence on the government, your life expectancy will only go down.


I'd agree that if the Government has all the power you are correct, but unless you're living in Zimbawee or China or another dictatorship then they don't. Our last Government just found that out the hard way. The old PM is now looking for a new job as are a number of other members of her party. In a democracy the people always hold the power and they can do it just as effectively with the ballot as by hiding a handgun under their pillow.

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC a dictatorship? C'mon, don't you realize they too are being taught they live in the best country in the world? The difference between you and them is per-capita GDP: as it rises governments change their methods of control. Your government finds it more profitable to keep you on a longer leash, but it can shorten it if/when it has the power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Everything is a cost-benefit analysis, and an armed citizenry raises the cost of tyranny quite a bit. Your naive "democratic" slogans won't work against government thugs with guns. Not even in NZ. All it takes is an excuse, real or manufactured.


Lots of things have down sides, weapons aren't the answer. Look at Afghanistan, weapons have helped there a lot haven't they.

Nice of you to pick a very poor and dysfunctional country, notice that it has weapons (mostly supplied by the CIA to fight the Soviets), and imagine that there's a causation. Guns are bad, but not having a gun when some bully that comes after you does (i.e. government) is worse.


Personally I don't call the killing of people whoever they are "good"

Yes, it would be nicer if no one got killed, and nicer still if there was no such thing as death. It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. Oh, wait, that's your quote.


So you are backing off your claim that gun grabbing governments start wars, or are you planning to give examples of coutries who have introduced gun law and then started wars in the past 50 years?

Sorry to step outside your arbitrary time-frame, but the Soviet Union is the example I'm sticking with. Every country that ever started a war was also concerned about keeping power at home. Remember, it's all about putting guns in the hands of "desirables" while disempowering the "undesirables". Most tyrannical aggressors didn't just take away your gun when they found you to be "undesirable", they also shot you (i.e. the civil war) or sent you to the gulag.


Next you'll be telling me that the only reason they haven't taken over South Africa and France is because US Citizens have guns.

Why would they want to take over those countries? They are integrated into the global power structure very well.


Well at least you have now come out and said what I figured you thought all along. I bet you don't personally know anyone in a Government do you?

Well, I was born in the Soviet Union, there everyone worked for the government in one form or another. When I was too young and uneducated to know better, I've had friends who worked for the U.S. government. I myself worked on government projects as a consultant. One person who used to be a close friend picked Social Work as his college major. Needless to say, I've severed all ties.


I'm seriously considering that one for the Stundies....

Please don't - there was a typo there, and it will be taken out of context.


The UK, France, NZ, or Aust will simply fine you and boot you out again. Singapore will hang you. :)

Yeah, that's stupid but rules are rules. If you want to smoke half a kilo of pot (minimum for death penalty), don't come to Singapore.

(Let's take it to a separate thread: "Libertarianism, Voluntary Communities, Seasteading, and Singapore" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=130209).)

[PhantomWolf]

High compared to what, socialist aging Europe and Japan?

Compared to the rest of the western world.

But within the United States, gun control leaves people helpless targets.

I'm sure the NRA would be surprised about this gun control in the US.

Plus, as I've said above, crime isn't the most important reason for gun ownership.

Is that a backing off of the claim that large scale gun ownership is a crime deterrent?

Saying "would you trade 20% of your freedom for some small decline in odds of being killed by a petty criminal with a gun" is a mouth-full, and more difficult for the reader to understand. The point is - I wouldn't. You're far, far more likely to die of natural causes or in a car accident anyway. If you want to wall yourself off, fine, knock yourself out. By raising your dependence on the government, your life expectancy will only go down.

The thing is that in a civilised country you do trade some freedoms for safety. I trade my freedom to shot anyone that comes within 100m of my property for the freedom to drive down the street without someone else shooting me for coming within 100m of their property. Civilisation is about learning to compromise our freedom so that as a whole the entire community is benefited in a way that gives us the most freedom and the most protection. I guess I really shouldn't point out there that Japan's life expectancy is over 80 years and the US's is only 77.1. Even NZ's is 77.8.

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC a dictatorship?

It might as well be, it just that instead of one leader they have one party.

C'mon, don't you realize they too are being taught they live in the best country in the world?

I also realise that they are kept from seeing anything that disagrees with that view as well, right down to censorship of the internet.

The difference between you and them is per-capita GDP: as it rises governments change their methods of control. Your government finds it more profitable to keep you on a longer leash, but it can shorten it if/when it has the power.

Baloney, for a start our media is free to say what it likes about politicians and it does. Our media has been responsible for getting politicians fired and even tried in criminal courts, so much so they seem to delight in ripping a politician apart even if they have to make the issue fifty times bigger then it actually is. Prior to this last election our media went after a Government Minister to the point that even though the police found nothing to charge him with, his reputation was so destroyed that his party failed to get any seats back in Parliament this term. See that's how much power our Governments wield, they can't even stop the media ripping apart their allies, and in several cases over the past 5 years, even their own Cabinet members (one of whom is now on trial in our first ever case of bribery. And no it's not a case of power corrupting, it's over acceptance of gift giving, something that appears to be a cultural thing that would be acceptable in Pacific Island Culture, but not European.)

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

No, absolute power has the ability to corrupt absolutely. It doesn't automatically do it. Again I suspect you have never known anyone actually in Government. I have known three of them personally, and can say without reservation that their time in Government did not corrupt them.

Everything is a cost-benefit analysis, and an armed citizenry raises the cost of tyranny quite a bit.

Not if the tyranny controls the army. If the Government has trained "thugs with guns" a few people with handguns isn't going to stop it. Here's a question for you. What brought down the Berlin Wall? People with Guns or people with flowers and candles?

Your naive "democratic" slogans won't work against government thugs with guns. Not even in NZ. All it takes is an excuse, real or manufactured.

And your paranoia doesn't make every Government a potential tyranny any more than having a penis makes all men potential rapists.

Nice of you to pick a very poor and dysfunctional country, notice that it has weapons (mostly supplied by the CIA to fight the Soviets), and imagine that there's a causation. Guns are bad, but not having a gun when some bully that comes after you does (i.e. government) is worse.

I never said that the guns in Afghanistan were the cause of it's problem, I was pointing out that they haven't been a solution for it's problems. If anything they have made it's problems worse because the only law is a gun.

Yes, it would be nicer if no one got killed, and nicer still if there was no such thing as death. It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. Oh, wait, that's your quote.

Yeah, there have never been countries that changed their entire form of government without anyone getting killed has there, oh, hang on Taiwan did it....

Sorry to step outside your arbitrary time-frame, but the Soviet Union is the example I'm sticking with.

Well fine, can you name all the wars the Soviet Union started?

Every country that ever started a war was also concerned about keeping power at home.

Every country on the planet is concerned about keeping power at home, if they don't they don't have a country anymore, either someone else has it or it becomes anarchy.

Remember, it's all about putting guns in the hands of "desirables" while disempowering the "undesirables". Most tyrannical aggressors didn't just take away your gun when they found you to be "undesirable", they also shot you (i.e. the civil war) or sent you to the gulag.

You know the really funny thing? Most tyrannical aggressors come to power by having loads of guns and starting civil wars, and then send the people that opposed them to gulags or shoot them to stop them doing the same thing. Most, if not all of them of them have been extremists, either to the far left or the far right, and to my knowledge, no democratically elected, centrist government has ever become tyrannical aggressors, shot people they found "undesirable", started civil wars, or sent people to the gulag. Perhaps you know of a few? Heck in New Zealand having Government Thugs with guns would be near impossible because both the police and the army are sworn to the Crown, not the Government.

Why would they want to take over those countries? They are integrated into the global power structure very well.

Someone should tell France that, they must have forgotten, after all they reject everything the US suggests.

Well, I was born in the Soviet Union

Which would certainly explain a lot about your paranoia of Governments and socialism. You need to realise firstly that Democratically elected governments are very different to Communist governments. Secondly you need to realise that Socialism and Communism are different beasts, yes I know they are related and many communists like to call themselves socialists, but in real terms, socialism is where the Government actually works for the benefit of all citizens to make sure that all are looked after properly, Communism is where the Government makes the people work to look after it and doesn't really care about anyone but itself. Governments like that don't last in a democratic environment which is why Communist countries only have a single party.

there everyone worked for the government in one form or another. When I was too young and uneducated to know better, I've had friends who worked for the U.S. government. I myself worked on government projects as a consultant. One person who used to be a close friend picked Social Work as his college major. Needless to say, I've severed all ties.

I didn't ask if you knew people that worked for the Government, I asked if you knew people in the Government, totally different. Personally I have known three of them in the New Zealand Government, representatives for two different parties. Knowing them and where they came from, what they believed I can tell you without a doubt they weren't there to become Tyrants and they didn't. They were in it to try and do their best to make the country a great place to live, to serve the people they represented and make sure their voices were heard in Government. Not all governments are the same as the USSR's was, even the US Government isn't set up in such a way that it could become a tyranny. The very set up of the US House, Senate and Executive make trying to become a tyranny nearly impossible, one person or even a set of people would find it hard to totally control all three to the point of allowing a tyranny to exist. Even with the huge win the Democrats just got they don't have that control because the Republicans can philabuster still and prevent any bill they don't want to past that way. I can see why your are distrustful and hate governments, but just because one type of Government is capable of evil, doesn't mean that all are, some are set up in very specific ways to prevent exactly that issue, and in democracies there is no such thing as absolute power.

[Gagglegnash]

2nd says, "because we need militas, keep guns"

3rd says, "no soldiers in houses""

Well we don't need militias anymore, so the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to our reality. We do still have soldiers and houses so there's no disconnect.

Or we could just interpret "Because X, Y" as no longer demanding Y in a world with no X.


...or, given that it's written in English, it may state one cause, preeminent among those too numerous to list.

Also, about those militias, "we don't need any more:"

Federal law...

TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A - General Military Law

PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

....


Indiana, where I live, law:

IC 10-16-6
Chapter 6. Organization and Personnel
IC 10-16-6-1
Age of personnel
Sec. 1. Under Article 12, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana, the militia consists of all persons who are at least eighteen (18) years of age except those persons who are exempted by the laws of the United States or of Indiana.
As added by P.L.2-2003, SEC.7. Amended by P.L.115-2003, SEC.17

IC 10-16-6-2
Classes of militia
Sec. 2. The militia shall be divided into two (2) classes, the sedentary militia and the national guard, as follows:
(1) The sedentary militia consists of all persons subject to bear arms under the Constitution of the State of Indiana who do not belong to the national guard.

(2) The national guard consists of those able-bodied citizens between the proper ages as established by this article who may be enrolled, organized, and mustered into the service of the state as provided in this article. The organized militia of the state constitutes and shall be known as the Indiana national guard.
As added by P.L.2-2003, SEC.7.


Seems to me like the US and the state of Indiana disagree with you.

To put a finer point on things:

Article 1

Bill of Rights
Section 1. WE DECLARE, That all people are created equal; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that all power is inherent in the people; and that all free governments are, and of right ought to be, founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and well-being. For the advancement of these ends, the people have, at all times, an indefeasible right to alter and reform their government.
(History: As Amended November 6, 1984).

....

Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.


The people are the militia, and the militia is the people... well... in Indiana, anyhow.

Have you checked your state laws about what, "militia," means where you live? You should probably do that before you unilaterally decide what's needed and what's not.

You see, otherwise, you're stuck defending an opinion that expands to a mess of guys, just having got out of an armed revolution against a jackassulating government, spending all that time hammering out language, proposing, passing, then ratifying an amendment that states, in effect, "the military can have guns."

....Not an enviable position.

[Darth Rotor]

I think it's fairly unlikely that the Supreme Court will overrule Heller's fundamental conclusion that the Second Amendment right is an individual rather than a collective one in the foreseeable future, not least because the Court's conservative wing is not likely to lose its majority at least during the Obama administration. Future litigation will more likely be fleshing out what the individual right means-- what kind of state regulation and control over firearms is constitutional given the Court's decision in Heller?
I fail to understand, yet again, why the liberal justices consider this right as something constitutionally unsound, and worthy of discarding on a Constitutional basis. There is already significant statutory modification on any absolute and unconstrained firearm sale, distribution, and possession in place. I do not find a draconian response, punish all for the actions of a minority, consistent with a government allegedly serving the people.

As usual, yesterday, twenty million law abiding gun owners didn't kill anyone. What is your -- or the generic liberal if it isn't your's specifically -- beef with them?
But if that's the argument, then isn't the Second Amendment obsolete?
No, it is not, see the Constitution and amdendment procedures. Until the collective will swings to disarming, from the bottom up and the appropriate super majority style decision arrives, no, it is not obsolete.

As to police versus military organizations, I'll suggest that you look at nations the world over. In far too many cases, the military is used as a form of civil control. (See also the internal role the Mexican military plays versus ours.) I don't find that palatable. An important safeguard we have against that is the Posse Comitatus Act.

While I grant the Posse Comitatus act of 1878 has roots in reaction to the Reconstruction, it is for my money a necessary safeguard against excesses in federalism. It also promotes the function of the National Guard, and hence the militia in general (or the principle of it) as organs of the states and tools of the governor, which in turn supports the principle of the citizen soldier. (Don't want to derail too far into that.) One of the things Rummy tried to do that mightily pissed me off was his attempt to further federalize the Guard, in effect disempowering the Governors. His argument was efficiency.

Our system is by design inefficient, which is a protection for the citizen. Autocracies and corporations can be very efficient. Efficiency isn't necessarily a boon to liberty.

Which brings us back to the personal right to bear arms. The risk level may not be an optimal efficiency model, but that risk is accepted since another feature, liberty of the citizen or person, is held to be of higher value. Freedom includes acceptance of risk, not the abolition of it.

At this point, Franklin's well worn adage on the security versus liberty trade off is usually cited. For good reason.

[volatile]

Every country on the planet is concerned about keeping power at home, if they don't they don't have a country anymore, either someone else has it or it becomes anarchy.

Psst! Alex thinks anarchy is a good thing...

Oh - and the point about the birth of tyranny often coming from groups of armed citizens is entirely correct - and entirely lost on those that persist in making thes emoronic pro-gun arguments.

[WildCat]

I just think the interpretations of the second amendment that see it as granting an individual right divorced from the rationale of a militia are stretched, as did Justice Stevens in the dissent.
The only thing that is stretched is your interpretation of the amendment.

If they had meant the second part of the amendment to mean "the militia", they would have said "the militia" instead of "the people". But they used "the people", didn't they?

And here you are claiming that this is the only part of the Constitution where "the people" doesn't really mean "the people", but "the militia".

Bizarre.

[WildCat]

I agree the first part sets the reason for the following part. That reason no longer applies. So now you have an unjustified bit hanging out that the end that you want to support even though the reason for it is gone.
Oddly enough, there is a way to repeal amendments to the Constitution.

Declaring that part of it "no longer applies" isn't it.

Good luck on getting the 2nd Amendment repealed.

[JamesDillon]

I fail to understand, yet again, why the liberal justices consider this right as something constitutionally unsound, and worthy of discarding on a Constitutional basis. There is already significant statutory modification on any absolute and unconstrained firearm sale, distribution, and possession in place. I do not find a draconian response, punish all for the actions of a minority, consistent with a government allegedly serving the people.
I think it's worth noting that how much of that statutory regulation will survive Heller is still an open question.

As usual, yesterday, twenty million law abiding gun owners didn't kill anyone. What is your -- or the generic liberal if it isn't your's specifically -- beef with them?
I wouldn't say that I particularly have one; as I said above I incline toward the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Purely as a policy matter if the constitutional issue were off the table I'd probably support a statutory right at the very least to hunting rifles and antiques; I'm not sure about handguns for personal defense and would be inclined against a personal right of ownership of military style assault weapons. That's based on my intuitive evaluation of the relative costs and benefits and I'll concede that it's not an issue I've spent an enormous amount of time pondering (since my, and the Supreme Court's, interpretation of the Second Amendment makes the policy question mostly moot). I'll leave the stronger abolitionist argument to someone who holds that view.

No, it is not, see the Constitution and amdendment procedures. Until the collective will swings to disarming, from the bottom up and the appropriate super majority style decision arrives, no, it is not obsolete.
I said obsolete, not nullified. As in (a phrase I later used), "outlived its usefulness." That doesn't mean that we can just ignore it but it does mean that, if Smiledriver's theory of why the Second Amendment exists is valid, that it would appear not to serve any useful purpose today.


As to police versus military organizations, I'll suggest that you look at nations the world over. In far too many cases, the military is used as a form of civil control. (See also the internal role the Mexican military plays versus ours.) I don't find that palatable. An important safeguard we have against that is the Posse Comitatus Act.

While I grant the Posse Comitatus act of 1878 has roots in reaction to the Reconstruction, it is for my money a necessary safeguard against excesses in federalism. It also promotes the function of the National Guard, and hence the militia in general (or the principle of it) as organs of the states and tools of the governor, which in turn supports the principle of the citizen soldier. (Don't want to derail too far into that.) One of the things Rummy tried to do that mightily pissed me off was his attempt to further federalize the Guard, in effect disempowering the Governors. His argument was efficiency.
I'm not really clear on what this has to do with anything I was saying. Again, if we're hypothesizing a world in which Smiledriver's justification for the Second Amendment were to come to fruition and the U.S. population were justified in taking up arms against the federal government, I don't think that hypothetical, tyrannical government would find itself constrained by the limitations on power that our actual government today observes. So the fact that these limitations exist today is not really relevant to the question, except insofar as to demonstrate that we haven't yet arrived in a world in which armed rebellion would be justified, and seem to have no prospect of arriving at one in the foreseeable future.

Which brings us back to the personal right to bear arms. The risk level may not be an optimal efficiency model, but that risk is accepted since another feature, liberty of the citizen or person, is held to be of higher value. Freedom includes acceptance of risk, not the abolition of it.

At this point, Franklin's well worn adage on the security versus liberty trade off is usually cited. For good reason.

Fine, but the point I've been making is that it's not at all clear to me how the Second Amendment protects liberty in any meaningful way in today's world. If the federal government wants to shred the Constitution and impose a totalitarian regime, a few citizens with pistols and hunting rifles aren't going to be able to stop it. So the "liberty" protected by the Second Amendment is an illusion. As I said above, the real bulwarks against tyranny in today's world include a commitment to the rule of law and democratic procedure; an informed and engaged public; and good faith on the part of elected officials.

[JamesDillon]

Actually maybe I'm wrong about all that. I've been assuming all along a situation in which an evil dictator is already in full control of the U.S. government apparatus, a circumstance in which I do think that ownership of small arms, or lack thereof, wouldn't make much difference. But an armed population is at least marginally more difficult to control than an unarmed one, and the existence of resistance exerts a psychological effect on the rest of the group. So maybe the Second Amendment continues to serve a deterrent effect, discouraging would-be dictators from attempting a takeover of government and making it more difficult for them to consolidate their power in the first place. Whether that's a sufficient benefit to outweigh the costs associated with firearm proliferation, I'm not sure; I'll have to think about it a bit more.

[Drudgewire]

My father-in-law, a lifetime member of the NRA, quoted that to me as well. I responded, "Well, if it's the most important, why isn't it the 1st Amendment?"

:D


I'm an equally big fan of both of them, hence my membership in the NRA and the ACLU until the latter decided they didn't consider the Heller decision any reason to defend gun ownership as a civil right. MAN I love telling them that any time they call to see if I want to donate these days.

Lifetime membership in the NRA is not the way to go. The secret is to let your membership expire, then they bribe you to get you back. I've got an AWESOME duffel bag coming in a week or so. :cool:

[billydkid]

I've never seen anyone (eta: excluding random internet wackos, who will say anything) actually hold that position. Only pro-gun people claiming to be astounded by those egnurnt libruls. Could be wrong of course, but it smells of well worn straw.

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.


It's not that "the people" doesn't refer to the citizens and residents of the country, it's that the amendment starts off by saying that militias are important, so people should have the right to keep and bear arms. Since militias are no longer important, the logic of the sentence suggests the people should no longer have the right to keep and bear arms.

The construction "X is important, therefore Y is a right" creates the right of Y as contingent on the importance of X.
But the premise hasn't changed - a well regulated militia is still neccessary to the security of a free state. Over time we have progressively chosen to have less free state. It was the intention in the formation of this nation that we should have a free state and be a free people. Some people don't agree with that intention. Some people view the notion of personal, individual liberty - as opposed to liberty conditional on the whims of the collective populace at the moment - as obsolete.

[quixotecoyote]

Just because the various states have failed to organize a militia does not mean that such units are not needed.

That's exactly what it looks like to me, actually. We don't use militias in the sense that the founders meant, even if people can find current definitions that can encompass the standing army/national guard. There's no unmet need given the lack of such organizations.

No, that is not how it works which is good. We should not ignore or delete just because a few or even the majority think so.

Well I guess its a good thing I suggested that the supreme court interpret the amendment in a way that acknowledges the internally stated purpose of the amendment rather than appealing to popularity, which would be a really stupid thing to do pragmatically, given that the populace wants to have guns.

If they had meant the second part of the amendment to mean "the militia", they would have said "the militia" instead of "the people". But they used "the people", didn't they?

I'd appreciate it if you'd at least read my posts before disagreeing since I already clearly, directly, and explicitly said that a narrow definition of people was not part of my argument.

t's not that "the people" doesn't refer to the citizens and residents of the country, it's that the amendment starts off by saying that militias are important, so people should have the right to keep and bear arms. Since militias are no longer important, the logic of the sentence suggests the people should no longer have the right to keep and bear arms.


Rather my argument was that the prefatory statement tells us why the amendment is there and given that reason no longer exists in the modern world you have to mentally substitute something relevant to make that part of the document work.

It's the only amendment with a prefatory statement and I think that's important.

#

I get that my opinion is not the majority view and the supreme court has gone in another direction, but I would appreciate argument about the interpretation, not accusations of appeals to authority given my minority position or strawman arguments that are the exact opposite of what I've actually said.

[quixotecoyote]

But the premise hasn't changed - a well regulated militia is still neccessary to the security of a free state. Over time we have progressively chosen to have less free state. It was the intention in the formation of this nation that we should have a free state and be a free people. Some people don't agree with that intention. Some people view the notion of personal, individual liberty - as opposed to liberty conditional on the whims of the collective populace at the moment - as obsolete.

And the libertarian contingent is heard from.

You never get absolute freedom, but I think we're doing fine. I also don't think handguns, rifles, and shotguns are necessary for the freedom of the people using the same argument about mortars, rocket launchers, and high explosives not being necessary

[applecorped]

Psst! Alex thinks anarchy is a good thing...

Oh - and the point about the birth of tyranny often coming from groups of armed citizens is entirely correct - and entirely lost on those that persist in making thes emoronic pro-gun arguments.

How much is often?

[Kestrel]

Actually maybe I'm wrong about all that. I've been assuming all along a situation in which an evil dictator is already in full control of the U.S. government apparatus, a circumstance in which I do think that ownership of small arms, or lack thereof, wouldn't make much difference. But an armed population is at least marginally more difficult to control than an unarmed one, and the existence of resistance exerts a psychological effect on the rest of the group. So maybe the Second Amendment continues to serve a deterrent effect, discouraging would-be dictators from attempting a takeover of government and making it more difficult for them to consolidate their power in the first place. Whether that's a sufficient benefit to outweigh the costs associated with firearm proliferation, I'm not sure; I'll have to think about it a bit more.

Was personal gun ownership prohibited in Iraq while Saddam was in power?

Personal weapons are no real threat to a dictator. When the dictator's henchmen come for you, you come along quietly. If you don't, they take your entire family away to be tortured.

[JamesDillon]

Was personal gun ownership prohibited in Iraq while Saddam was in power?

Personal weapons are no real threat to a dictator. When the dictator's henchmen come for you, you come along quietly. If you don't, they take your entire family away to be tortured.

That's pretty much the argument I've been making previously, and I don't think it's wrong if you postulate a situation where Saddam is already firmly in power. But my point in the post you quoted is that maybe an armed public would either deter an aspiring Saddam from making an attempt at converting the United States into an autocratic dictatorship, or would be able to prevent him from consolidating power in the early days of such an attempt when the military is not firmly behind him. That, at least, is I think the strongest argument that could be made in support of the "bulwark against tyranny" theory of the Second Amendment.

[Darth Rotor]

I think it's worth noting that how much of that statutory regulation will survive Heller is still an open question.
Aye.
I wouldn't say that I particularly have one; as I said above I incline toward the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.
Aye, as do I.
Purely as a policy matter if the constitutional issue were off the table I'd probably support a statutory right at the very least to hunting rifles and antiques; I'm not sure about handguns for personal defense and would be inclined against a personal right of ownership of military style assault weapons.
I see no reason to ban assault weapons, nor any massively compelling case for their proliferation. Most people would need a firearms training course to correctly and safely us one in the first place. Since I have a brother in law in law enforcement, I am somewhat biased in being pleased that he is not facing assault weapons legally purchased, and displeased that he is facing the assault weapons illegally purchased. The benefit to them being illegal seems mostly after the fact.
I'll leave the stronger abolitionist argument to someone who holds that view.
Thank you.
I said obsolete, not nullified. As in (a phrase I later used), "outlived its usefulness."
It's utility varies. When utility arises, should I go to an extreme and point out that police forces have outlived their usefulness, as they can't protect me from crime? (Obviously, that's not an airtight position. :p )
That doesn't mean that we can just ignore it but it does mean that, if Smiledriver's theory of why the Second Amendment exists is valid, that it would appear not to serve any useful purpose today.
But is its utility confined to the militia? No.
Again, if we're hypothesizing a world in which Smiledriver's justification for the Second Amendment were to come to fruition and the U.S. population were justified in taking up arms against the federal government, I don't think that hypothetical, tyrannical government would find itself constrained by the limitations on power that our actual government today observes.
Most likely true.
So the fact that these limitations exist today is not really relevant to the question, except insofar as to demonstrate that we haven't yet arrived in a world in which armed rebellion would be justified, and seem to have no prospect of arriving at one in the foreseeable future.
I do not assume away a more troubling future than the one we now live in.
Fine, but the point I've been making is that it's not at all clear to me how the Second Amendment protects liberty in any meaningful way in today's world.
I don't find "meaningful" a useful standard for measure here, given the subjective nature. If we go back to the IX and X, and first principles somewhat, reserving the rights remains as a priority. In short, it isn't broken, and doesn't need a fix. A significant portion of the troublel with firearms lies in the activities and behavior of those acting outside the law, and the statutes already agreed as reasonable risk mitigation are sufficient for that. That condition is is hardly helped by a draconian "fix" to a perceived problem.
If the federal government wants to shred the Constitution and impose a totalitarian regime, a few citizens with pistols and hunting rifles aren't going to be able to stop it.
Your "few" is belied by the millions of gun owners. the number of gun owners outnumber the troops by about 10 to 1. You are also neglecting the fairly simple methods of violent action that do not require firearms. The combined arms approach works for irregulars as well as regulars. The IED using a garage door opener is not new technology, nor is it all that complex. It's fairly effective at what it is meant to do.
So the "liberty" protected by the Second Amendment is an illusion.
Not hardly. The liberty to be left the hell alone as a law abiding citizen is no illusion to be dismissed, it goes back to some first principles about what our Constitution is based upon: free men being served by a limited government, limited in scope by the document we are discussing.
As I said above, the real bulwarks against tyranny in today's world include a commitment to the rule of law and democratic procedure; an informed and engaged public; and good faith on the part of elected officials.
I generally agree with that as well, except I no longer have any faith in the good faith of any elected official. It has to be demonstrated, or it is absent. Call me skeptical, call me cynical, but don't call me a believer in the good faith of any elected official. That, sir, I hold as an illusion until action demonstrates otherwise.

DR

[volatile]

How much is often?

Well - I can't think of a tyrannical regieme that has arisen in the past century that did not have on its side groups of armed civillians. That's not to say there weren't any - but it is certainly the case that a lot of the most unpleasant places on the planet have their tyranny upheld by armed civilian militias. There are similarly plenty of places that would be more stable, more pleasant and more peaceful were there not armed militia seeking to overthrow governments which they regard as tyrannous, and killing those who disagreed.

A quick Google News search for the term "Militiamen" brings up some examples of places where militia currently operate - Somalia, the Phillipines, Rwanda, Sudan, Congo. Hardly shining examples of "free" states, and not exactly great evidence in favour of the democratising force of civilian gun ownership.

I can, however, think of plenty of states that have fallen without any armed millitias being required, particularly in the decades since the Second World War.

How many democratically-elected states that subsequently became tyrannous can you name that have been overthrown by armed civilian millitias? And even that raises an interesting point - surely were any group of dissidents to claim that the US was tyrannical (a subjective term, lest we forget) to take up arms seeking to overthrow the government, public discourse would immediately brand them terrorists.

The whole argument is built on sand.

[JamesDillon]

The subjectivity of "tyranny" is a good point that hasn't really been discussed-- even if we grant Thomas Jefferson's rather self-serving proposition that a right to rebel against a tyrannical government exists, one man's tyranny is another's... um... not tyranny. There were surely some who would argue that the Bush administration was tyrannical, and some who are already prepared to argue that the Obama administration will be. It seems to me that before the right to rebel is established, the diagnosis of tyranny has to be pretty nearly unanimous (not that it was so during the American Revolution), in which case, for the reasons I've been discussing, armed rebellion is probably futile because the tyrant is too well established and his military beats yours.

[Phrost]

The subjectivity of "tyranny" is a good point that hasn't really been discussed-- even if we grant Thomas Jefferson's rather self-serving proposition that a right to rebel against a tyrannical government exists, one man's tyranny is another's... um... not tyranny. There were surely some who would argue that the Bush administration was tyrannical, and some who are already prepared to argue that the Obama administration will be. It seems to me that before the right to rebel is established, the diagnosis of tyranny has to be pretty nearly unanimous (not that it was so during the American Revolution), in which case, for the reasons I've been discussing, armed rebellion is probably futile because the tyrant is too well established and his military beats yours.

"Self-serving"? This is the opinion you have of the man?

Fortunately this was already addressed by the man himself:

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. 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.

You can try to redefine Tyranny into such a gray area as it becomes transparent, but it's pretty well defined already. And fortunately, the justices on the Supreme Court are bound to use the founding fathers' definitions, not those of the disingenuous people who would torture the English language until it serves their own ends.

[volatile]

You can try to redefine Tyranny into such a gray area as it becomes transparent, but it's pretty well defined already.

You missed the point. Tyranny is subjective - and for every armed group who wants to overthrow the government, there will be another who will fight to the death to preserve the status quo.

Look at the "secure", "free" states where militia actually operate in the 20th Century. Hardly beacons of civilization, are they?

The entire premise of the Second Amendment is invalid; and demonstrably invalid at that, given the relative levels of "freedom" and "security" in states without well-armed militias and those with them.


And fortunately, the justices on the Supreme Court are bound to use the founding fathers' definitions, not those of the disingenuous people who would torture the English language until it serves their own ends.

Exactly what role would the Supreme Court have in this hypothetical tyrannical regime?

[Drudgewire]

You can try to redefine Tyranny into such a gray area as it becomes transparent, but it's pretty well defined already. And fortunately, the justices on the Supreme Court are bound to use the founding fathers' definitions, not those of the disingenuous people who would torture the English language until it serves their own ends.


Yeah, if only we could find something else that qualifies as "the people." Dag nabbit, those pesky founding fathers and their solid grasp of the English language. :mad:

[volatile]

What would happen - particularly in terms of political discourse - if a group of the people took up arms against what they perceived as a tyrannical regime? Would they be saviours of the free state, or condemned as terrorists, hell-bent on undermining it? Can you imagine the most fervent, most patriotic flag-waving NRA members aiming their weapons at the army of the democratically elected, legitimate government of the USA? When does armed resistance to government become legitimate?

Is a well-regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state?

[Phrost]

As a die-hard skeptic up until the point of borderline militancy (tempered by common sense and the benefit of life experience), I've progressively grown more concerned with a phenomenon within the skeptics "community" with regards to how Government is perceived.

Now, you'd figure that skepticism, critical thinking, and reasonable doubt would be the predominate stances involving all aspects of one's life; especially when it comes to the intentions of an organization which has a direct effect on your life and the lives of everyone around you.

But instead, I've seen what seems to be an almost religious-level of faith in the goodness of Government. It's almost as if many skeptics have replaced their belief in one "G-word" with another.

Maybe it's just that many skeptics are averse to parties which espouse limited government because recently (the past 28 years) they've put themselves in bed with the religious right. Or maybe it's because the "big government" parties always spend more money funding science and other pursuits which appeal to skeptics.

Regardless, the idea of giving progressively more power and responsibility over your life to the Government should be fundamentally abhorrent to someone who considers themselves skeptical and/or free-thinking.

Time and time again history has shown that people who seek government power often do so for their own benefit. And that the more power you give your government, the more likely it is to be abused.

So why any skeptic would advocate forcing individuals to turn over to the state the only means they have to ensure their individual sovereignty, is simply beyond my comprehension. The police don't care about your safety, they're just there to enforce laws after they've already been broken. Politicians can't be trusted to care about your concerns beyond how they'll affect their chances at retaining power.

Thomas Jefferson and his protege' James Madison both knew that ensuring the sovereignty of the individual was the foundation of a truly free society. And the means of ensuring that, was to have an armed, educated population. Otherwise, the devils of our worst natures will always slide our governments down the slope into tyranny.

[Drudgewire]

What would happen - particularly in terms of political discourse - if a group of the people took up arms against what they perceived as a tyrannical regime? Would they be saviours of the free state, or condemned as terrorists, hell-bent on undermining it? Can you imagine the most fervent, most patriotic flag-waving NRA members aiming their weapons at the army of the democratically elected, legitimate government of the USA?

Is a well-regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state?

It's not so much about how history percieves it, we just are guaranteed that option. I'm one of those "we're more free if the government fears its people" than vice versa.

And for those who refuse to believe Thomas Jefferson's stance on the issue wasn't crystal clear:

Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion.

The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state.

What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

USA!! USA!! http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/patriot.gif

Oh, and the close of that letter is the rule I live by, both online and in my daily life:

We must be contented to amuse, when we cannot inform.

[Phrost]

You missed the point. Tyranny is subjective - and for every armed group who wants to overthrow the government, there will be another who will fight to the death to preserve the status quo.
No, you missed the point: Tyranny was defined in the Declaration of Independence.




Exactly what role would the Supreme Court have in this hypothetical tyrannical regime?

I'm not even sure what you're asking here.

[Ranb]

[/B][/I]It's not that "the people" doesn't refer to the citizens and residents of the country, it's that the amendment starts off by saying that militias are important, so people should have the right to keep and bear arms. Since militias are no longer important, the logic of the sentence suggests the people should no longer have the right to keep and bear arms.

Fortunately it takes much more than militias going out of style before a part of the constitution can be ignored, it takes an amendment. :)

Ranb

[Phrost]

Fortunately it takes much more than militias going out of style before a part of the constitution can be ignored, it takes an amendment. :)

Ranb

Exactly. And because those against gun-rights realize they'll never be able to get the 2nd repealed, they disingenuously pursue a strategy of subjecting it to a "death by 1000 cuts" via legislation, misinformation, and fearmongering.

[Drudgewire]

I'm not even sure what you're asking here.


Glad I wasn't the only one. :boggled:


ETA: I had a better response, but there's no vid of the scene from "Stone Cold" where Lance Henriksen guns down the state Supreme Court on youtube. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/clint.gif

[quixotecoyote]

Fortunately it takes much more than militias going out of style before a part of the constitution can be ignored, it takes an amendment. :)

Ranb


Well not really. What made me think of interpreting the 2nd amendment in terms of changing times and circumstances was the lack of judicial intervention through the eighth amendment re the torture of alleged terrorists.

If torture is no longer considered cruel and unusual and the rights and protections from it relaxed due to changing modes of society than certainly the changing shape of society means the justification of militias no longer support the rights to guns.

It also drops the argument that judiciary can't change the meaning of the amendments. That they worked in concert with the executive branch is not relevant here.

[Drudgewire]

If torture is no longer considered cruel and unusual and the rights and protections from it relaxed due to changing modes of society than certainly the changing shape of society means the justification of militias no longer support the rights to guns.


Thanks to the comma, the militias thing and the right of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed are separate. It's like "the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You want a reason? Fine. 'Militias.' Happy now?"

[quixotecoyote]

Thanks to the comma, the militias thing and the right of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed are separate. It's like "the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You want a reason? Fine. 'Militias.' Happy now?"

Yeah I get that's the argument on the other side.

I don't think it holds water given the latitude of interpretation the courts have demonstrated themselves capable of. I see no reason why the right couldn't be interpreted as the right of the people to bear arms in a militia, since that's why they have that right.

In my admittedly biased opinion (I don't have any desire to own a gun since I lack a clear need) it seems like people who want gun rights don't really care why that right was specified. I hear "The constitution says it, I want it, that settles it" without considering why the constitution says it, which is a legitimate area of judicial interpretation.

[Drudgewire]

I don't think it holds water given the latitude of interpretation the courts have demonstrated themselves capable of. I see no reason why the right couldn't be interpreted as the right of the people to bear arms in a militia, since that's why they have that right.

In my admittedly biased opinion (I don't have any desire to own a gun since I lack a clear need) it seems like people who want gun rights don't really care why that right was specified. I hear "The constitution says it, I want it, that settles it" without considering why the constitution says it, which is a legitimate area of judicial interpretation.


Actually I find the whole militias thing to be a valid enough reason for guns too. I look to Switzerland during WWI, when a German Kaiser was invited to watch their militia train. At one point, he asked a militiaman "what will happen if your 500,000 man militia comes up against a million German invading soldiers?"

The historic response? "We'll shoot twice and go home." Germany never invaded Switzerland.

Edited for civility. Drudgewire, you should realize that this is a violation of the Membership Agreement. Don't do it again.

[Drudgewire]

Edited for civility. Drudgewire, you should realize that this is a violation of the Membership Agreement. Don't do it again.

I sowwy. :o

[tyr_13]

I'm sorry, but even if you think that people shouldn't have guns now, the entire, "The second amendment only gave the right to the militia or only if militias are need," doesn't work contextually, historically, legally, or grammatically. Of course that has already been pointed out.

If you think the 2nd Amendment should be dropped, that's fine. That's a valid opinion to hold. To say the 2nd Amendment no longer applies is just grasping at things, and it does a disservice to people who want more gun control.

[Drudgewire]

I'm sorry, but even if you think that people shouldn't have guns now, the entire, "The second amendment only gave the right to the militia or only if militias are need," doesn't work contextually, historically, legally, or grammatically. Of course that has already been pointed out.


The bottom line is this: If you think inside the box then I can see how "the only reason for militias is to overthrow the government" argument makes sense in a convoluted, confirmation-bias sort of way.

But that's incredibly short-sighted.

10 years ago we could never have imagined what "living in a post 9/11 world" could be like. Today, it gets harder and harder to remember what that was like when we didn't.

Some consider the biggest threat in the future to be China, a country that outnumbers us 4 to 1. We don't have a real need for citizen militias today, and we won't tomorrow. 10 years from now, we might not remember a time when we didn't.

And like Switzerland, the simple fact we are capable of fighting back is one hell of a deterrent. I'm not paranoid enough to say it will happen, but I'm also not enough of a fantasist to think it never could.


PS: I'd like to take a moment to legitimately apologize for the thing that got me yellow-carded. It's not an excuse because I still knew better, but I'm having an ulcer flair-up for the first time since I quit smoking pot and refuse to go off the wagon in order to "medicate" myself. It's made me a bit snippy. :o

[Tricky]

Edited for civility. Drudgewire, you should realize that this is a violation of the Membership Agreement. Don't do it again.

I sowwy. :o
I know you meant it to be humorous. But this is the public section, and James Randi has made it clear that he wants it to be school-friendly. That's just the way it works here. Sorry to have to infract you. No big deal though.

Now I'd better shut up before I get infracted for talking about FM issues here.:D

[tyr_13]

If you read the 2nd Amendment to say it only gives the people the right to own arms as long as militias are needed, that also means that you believe we no longer are a free state.

[Drudgewire]

If you read the 2nd Amendment to say it only gives the people the right to own arms as long as militias are needed, that also means that you believe we no longer are a free state.


And here comes the page of off-topic Patriot Act posts. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/doh.gif

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

And here comes the page of off-topic Patriot Act posts. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/doh.gif


:D You bad! :D

I fully intend not even to mention the Patriot Act in this post.

....

Eep...

D'oh!! (_8(|)