Which constitutional amendment is the most important? [Archive]

Bob Blaylock

26th June 2010, 11:27 PM

Someone seriously thought the right to own a gun was more important than the right not be be enslaved?

:boggled::boggled::boggled:

The Second Amendment is what protects all the others. It's not nearly as easy to enslave someone who has a gun, as it is to enslave someone who does not.

It is well worth noting that the earliest “gun control” laws in the United States were specifically aimed at blacks, shortly after slavery was abolished. As it was no longer legal to keep them in slavery, laws were implemented prohibiting them from owning arms, in order to assure that they could still be oppressed and abused by those who remained armed.

KingMerv00

26th June 2010, 11:29 PM

The Second Amendment is what protects all the others.

No, that would be the courts. When was the last time anyone used a gun to protect their Constitutional rights?

It's not nearly as easy to enslave someone who has a gun, as it is to enslave someone who does not.

And if I start shipping in slaves from other countries?

jhunter1163

27th June 2010, 12:30 AM

No one but me thought that giving the vote to half of all Americans was important?

Mark R

27th June 2010, 12:50 AM

It's not nearly as easy to enslave someone who has a gun, as it is to enslave someone who does not.

Your point taken, but it is also hard to enslave someone who has the right to speak out against that enslavement, which is part of the importance of the First Amendment. Freedom of speech makes it difficult to marginalize a group because they have the power to speak out. It acts like a safety valve that prevents violence from becoming a necessary competent. I am not going to argue it always works, but I think it has been an essential factor in the relative stability of our political system since its inception.

Ladewig

27th June 2010, 02:26 AM

Clearly the third is the most important. It has never been challenged in court, nor is there any evidence in 200 years of anyone trying to abuse it

Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957 (2d. Cir. 1982).

Ladewig

27th June 2010, 02:36 AM

No, that would be the courts. When was the last time anyone used a gun to protect their Constitutional rights?

While number 2 is not my choice, understanding those who did vote for it might be achieved by reading NRA President Charlton Heston's February 1997 Press Club Address.

a short clip:
The Second Amendment is America's First Freedom, the one right that protects all of the others. Among freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, of assembly, of redress of grievances, it is the first among equals. It alone offers the absolute capacity to live without fear. The right to keep and bear arms is the one right that allows "rights" to exist at all.

defaultdotxbe

27th June 2010, 06:09 AM

When was the last time anyone used a gun to protect their Constitutional rights?
to put it another way, when was the last time anyone had the balls try TRY to take away our constitutional rights?

Someone seriously thought the right to own a gun was more important than the right not be be enslaved?

:boggled::boggled::boggled:
No one but me thought that giving the vote to half of all Americans was important?
and this is why i said first, the second may or may not be needed to protect rights you DO have, but the first amendment is the only way to get rights you SHOULD have

Unabogie

27th June 2010, 08:40 AM

Merv, this is a great question. And though I voted for the fourth, in my opinion it's kind of meaningless, since I think almost none of the big ones can exist without the others. So you can own a gun, but you can't speak out about it? So you'd have to engage in gun battles to defend what you say? Not good. Likewise, you can say whatever you want, but with no fourth amendment, police can spy on your every word and deed with no warrant? Put cameras in your home? How long before they could find an "offense" that could put anyone they wanted in jail? I could go on and on.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it addresses all of this. Our freedoms are pretty amazing.

27th June 2010, 08:47 AM

whats more important, breathing or eating?

Beerina

27th June 2010, 09:03 AM

You go out shooting when you lose a Supreme Court case?

If it re-authorized slavery, or abridged the first ammendment, wouldn't you?

Or do we all just sit with blinders on, hoping things don't change, against all experience from human history?

ponderingturtle

27th June 2010, 09:18 AM

ponderingturtle

27th June 2010, 09:22 AM

to put it another way, when was the last time anyone had the balls try TRY to take away our constitutional rights?

Reagan had issues with many of them, 1st 4th 5th specifically. He so I guess John Hinkley really shows the importance to our system that firearms bring.

We really need to think about abolishing the secret services role in presidential protection, makes it too hard for those armed people to properly express their political opinions.

defaultdotxbe

27th June 2010, 09:36 AM

Reagan had issues with many of them, 1st 4th 5th specifically. He so I guess John Hinkley really shows the importance to our system that firearms bring.

We really need to think about abolishing the secret services role in presidential protection, makes it too hard for those armed people to properly express their political opinions.
thats clearly not the point and i really hope you are smart enough to realize that, assassinating a figurehead does nothing to further anyones political goals (except perhaps the next in line of succession)

Noztradamus

27th June 2010, 09:38 AM

ponderingturtle

27th June 2010, 09:43 AM

thats clearly not the point and i really hope you are smart enough to realize that, assassinating a figurehead does nothing to further anyones political goals (except perhaps the next in line of succession)

The point is clearly about domestic terrorism, so which forms of domestic terrorism are you for and which ones are you against?

defaultdotxbe

27th June 2010, 09:48 AM

It stems from the idea that the threat of domestic terrorism is vitally important to this country.

The point is clearly about domestic terrorism, so which forms of domestic terrorism are you for and which ones are you against?
it seems the implication is that the only reason someone would support the 2nd amendment is if they plan to engage in domestic terrorism

once again, i hope you are smart enough to realize this is not the case

MaGZ

27th June 2010, 10:53 AM

Preempt the Gun Godwin

Hitler was not in favor of gun control.
http://www.natall.com/national-vanguard/assorted/gunhitler.html

gnome

27th June 2010, 11:05 AM

I voted Fourteenth... though it's really hard to pick just one.

The Bill Of Rights wouldn't be terribly meaningful if each state were free to violate it.
Plus the definition of citizenship is remarkably unqualified.

Cain

27th June 2010, 11:07 AM

I disagree with the poll question but who else picked the 14th?

ETA: Other than Noam.

CptColumbo

27th June 2010, 01:19 PM

Without the first amendment, it would be hard to have discussions like this one.

Loss Leader

27th June 2010, 01:27 PM

I think repeal of the 4th would most fundamentally change the nature of our society.

KingMerv00

27th June 2010, 04:25 PM

to put it another way, when was the last time anyone had the balls try TRY to take away our constitutional rights?

Everytime someone tries to strike down a law for being unconstitutional, they are claiming exactly that. When they lose in the Surpeme Court, they don't storm the capitol building, they go back to their daily lives. In other words, the democratic process protects your rights, guns do not.

Guns are nearly worthless when it comes to enforcing your rights. The only time I could see them being useful is if the federal government converts to fascism (at which point the Constitution is a moot point anyway). Do you think that is at hand? Do you think private gun ownership keeps fascism at bay?

Merv, this is a great question. And though I voted for the fourth, in my opinion it's kind of meaningless, since I think almost none of the big ones can exist without the others. So you can own a gun, but you can't speak out about it? So you'd have to engage in gun battles to defend what you say? Not good. Likewise, you can say whatever you want, but with no fourth amendment, police can spy on your every word and deed with no warrant? Put cameras in your home? How long before they could find an "offense" that could put anyone they wanted in jail? I could go on and on.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it addresses all of this. Our freedoms are pretty amazing.

Just because an amendment is repealed, it wouldn't mean the end of that freedom. For example, if the 2nd amendment was repealed, Congress would still be accountable for the gun laws they create and the states could create a gun right in their own constitutions.

whats more important, breathing or eating?

Breathing.

KingMerv00

27th June 2010, 04:29 PM

Without the first amendment, it would be hard to have discussions like this one.

Depends on what laws follow.

KingMerv00

27th June 2010, 04:31 PM

If you ask the question, don't complain about the answer.

Don't answer a question and expect no one to challenge you.

MontagK505

27th June 2010, 04:46 PM

whats more important, breathing or eating?

As long as you breathe you can search for food.

defaultdotxbe

27th June 2010, 04:48 PM

Everytime someone tries to strike down a law for being unconstitutional, they are claiming exactly that. When they lose in the Surpeme Court, they don't storm the capitol building, they go back to their daily lives. In other words, the democratic process protects your rights, guns do not.

Guns are nearly worthless when it comes to enforcing your rights. The only time I could see them being useful is if the federal government converts to fascism (at which point the Constitution is a moot point anyway). Do you think that is at hand? Do you think private gun ownership keeps fascism at bay?
the framers of the constitution seemed to think so

and it seems the JREF forum members agree with me too, first is first, second is second

KingMerv00

27th June 2010, 05:18 PM

the framers of the constitution seemed to think so

That's not a real argument.

In all fairness, it made more sense back then. The states were not fully unified and the lack of technology meant that private gun ownership posed a real threat to the military.

and it seems the JREF forum members agree with me too, first is first, second is second

That's not an argument either.

Ladewig

27th June 2010, 05:21 PM

I can't remember the last time I saw a poll where Planet X was at 2%.

MontagK505

27th June 2010, 05:25 PM

The Second Amendment is what protects all the others. It's not nearly as easy to enslave someone who has a gun, as it is to enslave someone who does not.

It is well worth noting that the earliest “gun control” laws in the United States were specifically aimed at blacks, shortly after slavery was abolished. As it was no longer legal to keep them in slavery, laws were implemented prohibiting them from owning arms, in order to assure that they could still be oppressed and abused by those who remained armed.

This is a interesting point Bob. The framers of the bill of rights knew that all political power ultimately rests on the use or threat of armed violence. I don't think it's any accident that it was the next thing they thought of after freedom of speech and religion.

Politics is the science of coercion.

KingMerv00

27th June 2010, 05:36 PM

This is a interesting point Bob. The framers of the bill of rights knew that all political power ultimately rests on the use or threat of armed violence. I don't think it's any accident that it was the next thing they thought of after freedom of speech and religion.

Politics is the science of coercion.

I don't buy it. Do you really think that the only thing stopping Congress from taking your freedom is speech is your guns?

Does Congress listen to the Supreme Court because they are heavily armed? How does the UK maintain its civil rights?

Beerina

27th June 2010, 05:44 PM

I don't buy it. Do you really think that the only thing stopping Congress from taking your freedom is speech is your guns?

Does Congress listen to the Supreme Court because they are heavily armed? How does the UK maintain its civil rights?

Not sure they do. The model of the world has in recent decades given up the right not to have your silence used against you, and has free speech problems with certain disapproved political groups, even when some are elected as members of Parliament.

Then there's the whole CCTV thing, which apparently has not lead to any decrease in crime prevention whatsoever.

KingMerv00

27th June 2010, 05:51 PM

Not sure they do.

That's a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think?

Darth Rotor

27th June 2010, 06:23 PM

I didn't say they weren't all important. In what way was I dishonest?
Making the incorrect statement that any one is more important than the others. What, you think some can be done without? Not sure what motivated you to ask the question.

The point is that they come as a package. The sum is far greater than each, or any, component part.

Don't break up the set.

DR

KingMerv00

27th June 2010, 06:47 PM

Making the incorrect statement that any one is more important than the others. What, you think some can be done without?

Some are certainly more important to society than others. Imagining America without the First Amendment is difficult. Imagining America without the Twenty-Seventh Amendment is not.

Not sure what motivated you to ask the question.

Nothing special. On Fathers Day, I was talking to my dad about the repeal of prohibition. I then started musing about the theoretical repeal of other amendments.

The point is that they come as a package. The sum is far greater than each, or any, component part.

Don't break up the set.

DR

I didn't suggest the set should be broken up. I was only asking which repeal would be the scariest. Your answer seems to be "I can't decide". That's fine.

wufwugy

27th June 2010, 06:55 PM

Gazpacho

27th June 2010, 08:14 PM

It's the 21st. If all the other amendments perish, at least you can drown your sorrows.

DDWW

27th June 2010, 08:25 PM

No, that would be the courts. When was the last time anyone used a gun to protect their Constitutional rights?

First time around 1776 to protect thier inherient rights as affirmed by the Bill of Rights (part of the Constitution.)

And it worked very well.

DDWW

KingMerv00

27th June 2010, 08:39 PM

Around 1776 to protect thier inherient rights as affirmed by the Bill of Rights (part of the Constitution.)

And it worked very well.

DDWW

Guns are probably necessary to create a country. On the other hand, guns are not helpful in enforcing our constitution.

Let's assume you lost your home in the Kelo case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_vs._New_London) and you want it back. Do you start a civil war or go to court? If you lose in court, what do you do?

Another funny thought: There was a time when people had a right to own a gun and slavery existed. People used those guns against the government to keep their slaves. Guns are not synonymous with human rights.

quixotecoyote

27th June 2010, 08:52 PM

I didn't realize that quarting soldiers was prohibited. I guess I'll have to bite the bullet and start buying them by the gallon.

KingMerv00

27th June 2010, 09:07 PM

I didn't realize that quarting soldiers was prohibited. I guess I'll have to bite the bullet and start buying them by the gallon.

Hey, there is a limited time to write up the poll choices. I rushed and made an ass of myself. :D

MontagK505

27th June 2010, 09:34 PM

I don't buy it. Do you really think that the only thing stopping Congress from taking your freedom is speech is your guns?

Does Congress listen to the Supreme Court because they are heavily armed? How does the UK maintain its civil rights?

Note the bolding of the word ultimately . If you defy the law they can send armed policemen to arrest you.

All governments no matter what their form claim this right to coerce their citizens if they refuse to obey.

Now, that same power can be used to protect you from others who wish to do you harm or to violate your civil rights.
But it's power still ultimately rests on the claimed right of the goverment to do armed violence.
I hope that clarifies it.

MontagK505

27th June 2010, 09:38 PM

ponderingturtle

28th June 2010, 03:47 AM

it seems the implication is that the only reason someone would support the 2nd amendment is if they plan to engage in domestic terrorism

once again, i hope you are smart enough to realize this is not the case

No, but that is the only reason to base an argument that it creates all the other amendments. If the point of the second amendment is so that you can have insurrections against an unpopular government then it is about supporting domestic terrorism. And there are actually good reasons to think that this might well be the case. It seems our founders have trusted the odd civil war now and then rather than having faith in democracy.

So why shouldn't John Wilks Booth be the idea about why handguns are so important to America? Sic Semper Tyrannis after all.

Darat

28th June 2010, 03:51 AM

Surely none of the amendments are important? If they were wouldn't the Founding Fathers (blessed be their names) have included them in the Constitution....

ponderingturtle

28th June 2010, 03:54 AM

First time around 1776 to protect thier inherient rights as affirmed by the Bill of Rights (part of the Constitution.)

And it worked very well.

DDWW

Also 1865 Booth made a very convincing stand against people trying to strip away his rights. Go Handguns!!!!

Also Oklahoma city bombing is someone standing up and using force to protect their rights. We need to view these people as the noble patriots that they were in the eyes of our founders.

MikeMangum

28th June 2010, 04:33 AM

Can one of the 2nd amendment people please tell me what the hell you are thinking? I can understand that you think the second amendment is important but the MOST important? Are you friggin kidding me?

Well, for me it is a tossup between the 1st and 2nd (out of the amendments at least), but the reason people will choose the 2nd is because without the 2nd, none of the other amendments exist, nor the document that they amend.

Read my sig, and maybe you'll see why.

ETA: In and of itself, the 2nd Amendment isn't that big of a deal. It is a means, not an end.

MikeMangum

28th June 2010, 04:40 AM

Surely none of the amendments are important? If they were wouldn't the Founding Fathers (blessed be their names) have included them in the Constitution....

Actually, there was a large faction that didn't want to include the amendments...but not because they didn't think that citizens had the rights enumerated in the amendments, but because they considered it obvious that these were all natural rights and making a list of rights posed the danger of the government assuming it was a definitive, all inclusive list and any natural right not on the list could be violated.

KingMerv00

28th June 2010, 11:36 AM

Well, for me it is a tossup between the 1st and 2nd (out of the amendments at least), but the reason people will choose the 2nd is because without the 2nd, none of the other amendments exist...

Yes, I know the claim. What I don't get is why people believe it.

Bob Blaylock

28th June 2010, 12:41 PM

Actually, there was a large faction that didn't want to include the amendments...but not because they didn't think that citizens had the rights enumerated in the amendments, but because they considered it obvious that these were all natural rights and making a list of rights posed the danger of the government assuming it was a definitive, all inclusive list and any natural right not on the list could be violated.

…which is exactly why they included the Ninth Amendment, to make it clear that the Bill of Rights wasn't an all-inclusive list.

Yalius

28th June 2010, 01:39 PM

Fourteenth, here, as well. Without the 14th, any of the other amendments could be abrogated simply by defining to whom and under what circumstances they apply. The 14th and Article VI are really the source of virtually all that we interpret as "Civil Rights" today.

MikeMangum

28th June 2010, 03:09 PM

Yes, I know the claim. What I don't get is why people believe it.

Knowledge of history.

Telaynay's G'son

28th June 2010, 03:13 PM

No, that would be the courts. When was the last time anyone used a gun to protect their Constitutional rights?

Perhaps, the Cherokee should have tried that route. At least the ~4,000 that perished on the Trail of Tears would have died facing the enemy.

Telaynay's G'son

28th June 2010, 03:23 PM

Not sure

But I do know that the second is most worthless. People need to stop living in the past. The only rights guns protect today involve not getting mugged. If the retarded fairy tale scenario of the government warring against its people happened today, we would need more than guns; we would need night vision, tanks, aircraft carriers, missles....

You know, because back when The Second was drafted, a focused group of people with guns was essentially the same as a military. Since that is no longer the case, The Second is obsolete.

Tell that to the Vietnamese people. They whipped the #1 military machine in the world. Why? IMHO, largely because they were fighting for their own ground and our military wasn't (at that time) adaptable to such warfare.

There are two (2) essential elements to facilitating the second amendment into action should it become necessary. Ordnance and the will to use it. The Alabama and Mississippi National Guard organizations are purportedly #3 & #4 in the world (troop strength) behind Israel & Switzerland. Do you honestly think those guys are going to shoot their own people because D.C. says to do it?

The real threat will be from the foreign troops wearing the blue UN helmets.

KingMerv00

28th June 2010, 03:31 PM

Knowledge of history.

*sigh*

Do we HAVE to play this game? Stating generalities is not helpful. Just give a bloody example.

MikeMangum

28th June 2010, 04:16 PM

*sigh*

Do we HAVE to play this game? Just give a bloody example.

Are you asking me to Godwin the thread? ;)

Ok, since I can't bring up he-who-can't-be-named without closing down the thread, there was the massive social change and loss of freedoms caused by Toyotomi Hideyoshi disarming the peasants. Then there were the disarmed Tutsis in Rwanda who died by the hundreds of thousands. Turkey basically banned guns a handful of years before the Armenian genocide. The USSR implemented gun control shortly before the artificial Ukrainian famine and the war on the kulaks. Uganda, Cambodia, etc., etc.

And of course, ongoing right now, Sudan:
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/gun-bans-and-genocide.htm
A U.S. Department of State document notes: “After President Bashir seized power in 1989, the new government disarmed non-Arab ethnic groups but allowed politically loyal Arab allies to keep their weapons.” How'd that work out for those animist blacks in south Sudan or the muslim blacks in Darfur?

http://www.merip.org/mero/mero072204.html
Conflicts in Darfur between settled farmers and nomads migrating in search of water and pastures have been commonplace for centuries, but traditionally solutions were reached by negotiation. During the 1980s and 1990s, however, these conflicts intensified, aggravated by drought and the government policy of selectively arming tribesmen while removing the weapons of the farmers, the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa. Because livestock is Darfur's main export, the pastoralists have more influence in this region than in places where Khartoum favors settled communities.

IIRC you are a law student. "Human Rights and Gun Confiscation." Quinnipiac Law Review 383 (2008) (http://davekopel.org/2A/Foreign/Human-Rights-and-Gun-Confiscation.pdf).

KingMerv00

28th June 2010, 04:27 PM

MikeMangum

28th June 2010, 04:36 PM

I acknowledged the role violence plays in revolution. I do not readily acknowledge the role an armed populace plays IN in modern America.

You are talking about times and places that are far removed from the reality in which we live. I understand the desire to have guns if you live in an unstable part of Africa or in a time before modern technology. If a new Hitler comes to power and you want to subvert the government, grab your guns because THE CONSTITUTION WOULD HAVE BECOME IRRELEVANT ANYWAY.

Yeah, because human nature is somehow different in places like Sudan, or North Korea, than it is here in the US. Your argument seems to be along the lines of 'this sort of thing could never happen here, get real', to which I would respond: that's the point.

And you can thank the 2nd Amendment for that.

KingMerv00

28th June 2010, 04:52 PM

Yeah, because human nature is somehow different in places like Sudan, or North Korea, than it is here in the US. Your argument seems to be along the lines of 'this sort of thing could never happen here, get real', to which I would respond: that's the point.

No, I'm arguing that if it DOES happen here the Constitution doesn't matter anyway. If some charismatic loon wants to throw you under jackboots they will try to take your guns whether the 2nd amendment exists or not.

During stable democratic periods, the 2nd amendment is not necessary to keep the government in line because the government is not interested in totalitarianism. During totalitarian periods, the 2nd amendment is meaningless because the government is not interested the Constitution.

You are essentially saying, "We need to stockpile so we can deter the next dictator." Do you really think a dictator that has control of F-22 Raptors is deterred by your hunting rifles and handguns? The very nature of despotism makes deterrance meaningless.

And you can thank the 2nd Amendment for that.

Please explain England.

dtugg

28th June 2010, 04:56 PM

No, I'm arguing that if it DOES happen here the Constitution doesn't matter anyway. If some charismatic loon wants to throw you under jackboots they will try to take your guns whether or not the 2nd amendment exists or not.

Yeah, probably. But there are currently hundreds of millions of guns in the United States thanks to the 2nd Amendment so this would likely be an impossible task.

ETA: The government has no idea that I own guns. Good luck to them if they want to take them away.

KingMerv00

28th June 2010, 04:58 PM

Yeah, probably. But there are currently hundreds of millions of guns in the United States thanks to the 2nd Amendment so this would likely be an impossible task.

Unless of course the next dictator happens to lead a private militia. In that case, it actually makes the task easier.

Good luck to them if they want to take them away.

If a cop came to seize your guns, would you kill him/her?

dtugg

28th June 2010, 05:03 PM

Unless of course the next dictator happens to lead a private militia. In that case, it actually makes the task easier.

Because every gun owner would belong to that militia.

If a cop came to seize your guns, would you kill him/her?

Why would a cop come to seize my guns? They have no idea I have them. If they came to ask me if I had any, I would just say no.

KingMerv00

28th June 2010, 05:06 PM

Because every gun owner would belong to that militia.

Of course not. I am just saying there is more than one path to a dictatorship. Sometimes it comes from the top down (See Hitler, Adolph). Sometimes it comes from the bottom up (See Castro, Fidel). In either case, private gun ownership didn't help.

Why would a cop come to seize my guns? They have no idea I have them. If they came to ask me if I had any, I would just say no.

That's changing the hypothetical.

dtugg

28th June 2010, 05:12 PM

Of course not. I am just saying there is more than one path to a dictatorship. Sometimes it comes from the top down (See Hitler, Adolph). Sometimes it comes from the bottom up (See Castro, Fidel). In either case, private gun ownership didn't help.

Which of these countries was the population to gun ratio near 1:1?

That's changing the hypothetical.

How is that? A cop comes to seize my guns, I tell him that I don't have any. He has no evidence to the contrary. It ends right there. Or perhaps you mean the entire Constitution is void and they try to search my house anyway. In that case, I would have no problem killing a cop working for this hypothetical tyrant.

GeeMack

28th June 2010, 05:16 PM

How is that? A cop comes to seize my guns, I tell him that I don't have any. He has no evidence to the contrary. It ends right there. Or perhaps you mean the entire Constitution is void and they try to search my house anyway. In that case, I would have no problem killing a cop working for this hypothetical tyrant.

So? Give KingMerv00 a few minutes and he can doctor up that hypothetical to make you look like an immoral gun nut anyway.

MikeMangum

28th June 2010, 05:17 PM

Oh, and btw, you may think that the civil rights abuses that happen in other countries during/after disarmament can't happen here. I would strongly suggest reacquainting yourself with American history.

KingMerv00

28th June 2010, 05:34 PM

I should apologize. Some things I have said could be construed in a way I didn't intend. I am neither opposed to the 2nd amendment nor do I think gun owners are in any way bad people. I simply have trouble understanding why one would place it at the very top of the list. From what I gather, the two main arguments are deterrence and resistance.

Deterrence
The US military is ungodly powerful so I can't see how private gun ownership would be a deterrant. The American government was not deterrent by the far more impressive might of Iraq. We do not live in the the days of the Founding and guns are not the last word in power anymore. If the government wanted your stuff, they'd take it with bigger and better weaponry.

Resistence
Yes, you could dissolve into the landscape and fight a guerilla war against a powerful dictator but by then, you aren't living under an active constitution, you are living the life of a rebel. You are going to amass as much weaponry as possible whether the government approves or not.

MikeMangum

28th June 2010, 05:34 PM

Please explain England.
Bill of Rights 1689

KingMerv00

28th June 2010, 05:35 PM

Oh, and btw, you may think that the civil rights abuses that happen in other countries during/after disarmament can't happen here.

I don't think that.

KingMerv00

28th June 2010, 05:37 PM

Bill of Rights 1689

I meant please explain how England maintains civil rights without a constitutional right to gun ownership.

ponderingturtle

28th June 2010, 05:41 PM

I meant please explain how England maintains civil rights without a constitutional right to gun ownership.

See they became dependent on Irish terrorism instead of proper domestic terrorism to support their own rights.

Tsukasa Buddha

28th June 2010, 05:51 PM

I did 14th as well, because it was kinda big with the Civil War. On that issue, why don't people count that more often when talking about the Constitution. I always hear about the foresight of the founders and keeping us together for over 200 years. Doesn't our bloodiest war count for something?

And look, criminals don't obey anti-gun laws. Why would revolutionaries? I still don't buy the argument.

MikeMangum

28th June 2010, 05:51 PM

No, I'm arguing that if it DOES happen here the Constitution doesn't matter anyway. If some charismatic loon wants to throw you under jackboots they will try to take your guns whether the 2nd amendment exists or not.

During stable democratic periods, the 2nd amendment is not necessary to keep the government in line because the government is not interested in totalitarianism. During totalitarian periods, the 2nd amendment is meaningless because the government is not interested the Constitution.

YOu seem to be operating under the mistaken assumption that tyranny is binary. It is not, as any descendant of American slaves can tell you. Before the revolutionary war started, it would have been accurate to refer to it as a 'stable democratic period'; the only thing that had really happened were a few riots, some protests, some letters of protest sent to various officials of the crown by private citizens, and declarations of protest being passed by colonial governing bodies. The 1960s were actually more turbulent than the late 1760s and early 1770s...up until the time that the representatives of the crown tried to disarm the public.

You are essentially saying, "We need to stockpile so we can deter the next dictator." Do you really think a dictator that has control of F-22 Raptors is deterred by your hunting rifles and handguns? The very nature of despotism makes deterrance meaningless.

Do you really think a dictator that has control of multiple 140 gun Ship of the line and the strongest regular army in the world is deterred by hunting rifles? Hint: William Legge felt that the Intolerable Acts could not be enforced without first disarming the population, which is why he sent the command to Gage to disarm the colonists. It was this attempt to disarm the colonists that led to the war, because without any way to defend their liberties, the colonists knew that they would lose them.

Ladewig

28th June 2010, 05:52 PM

I would fight equally hard to restore any amendment that afforded civil rights to some or all. Therefore I had to come up with a different criteria for determining which one's loss would bother me the most. I chose first because that would be the hardest to restore if it were lost.

ponderingturtle

28th June 2010, 05:53 PM

Ladewig

28th June 2010, 05:54 PM

Which of these countries was the population to gun ratio near 1:1?

How is that? A cop comes to seize my guns, I tell him that I don't have any. He has no evidence to the contrary. It ends right there. Or perhaps you mean the entire Constitution is void and they try to search my house anyway. In that case, I would have no problem killing a cop working for this hypothetical tyrant.

I'm not trying to pick a fight or argue against your position, but I do want to ask a question. What do you expect will happen after you kill this (tyrannically supported) police officer?

MikeMangum

28th June 2010, 05:54 PM

I meant please explain how England maintains civil rights without a constitutional right to gun ownership.

I'm assuming you didn't actually read the contents of the link.

The Bill of Rights (a short title[1]) is an act of the Parliament of England, whose title is An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown. It is often called the English Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights was passed by Parliament in December 1689. It was a re-statement in statutory form of the Declaration of Right presented by the Convention Parliament to William and Mary in March 1689, inviting them to become joint sovereigns of England. It enumerates certain rights to which subjects and permanent residents of a constitutional monarchy were thought to be entitled in the late 17th century, asserting subjects' right to petition the monarch, as well as to have arms in defence. It also sets out—or, in the view of its drafters, restates—certain constitutional requirements of the Crown to seek the consent of the people, as represented in parliament.

...

In the United Kingdom, the Bill of Rights is further accompanied by the Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 as some of the basic documents of the uncodified British constitution.

KingMerv00

28th June 2010, 05:57 PM

I'm assuming you didn't actually read the contents of the link.

Where is private gun ownership mentioned?

dtugg

28th June 2010, 05:58 PM

I'm not trying to pick a fight or argue against your position, but I do want to ask a question. What do you expect will happen after you kill this (tyrannically supported) police officer?

I am sure that they would come after me and I would be killed if caught. I would go underground. Maybe they would catch me, maybe not.

KingMerv00

28th June 2010, 06:16 PM

It is not, as any descendant of American slaves can tell you.

Not the best example. People attempted to maintain slavery by rebelling against the big bad government using (in part) privately owned weaponry.

Before the revolutionary war started, it would have been accurate to refer to it as a 'stable democratic period'...

Really? The primary complaint of the colonies was that they were not represented in government matters.

The 1960s were actually more turbulent than the late 1760s and early 1770s

Yes the 60s were very turbulent. Private gun ownership did not solve the civil rights fight. Peaceful protest and federal intervention did.

Do you really think a dictator that has control of multiple 140 gun Ship of the line and the strongest regular army in the world is deterred by hunting rifles? Hint: William Legge felt that the Intolerable Acts could not be enforced without first disarming the population, which is why he sent the command to Gage to disarm the colonists. It was this attempt to disarm the colonists that led to the war, because without any way to defend their liberties, the colonists knew that they would lose them.

Your example precedes modern warfare. I'm talking about tanks, planes, bombs, missiles, and spy satellites, not sailing ships. I'm am discussing the value of the 2nd amendment TODAY, a time when flintlocks not considered state of the art.

DDWW

28th June 2010, 07:45 PM

I meant please explain how England maintains civil rights without a constitutional right to gun ownership.

Because tens of thousand of American servicemen, with lots of background in owning and shooting thier personel owned constiutional protected firearms, gave thier lives for a free and civil England.

BTW:That included my uncle.

Also tens of thousands of personel firearms were "loaned" to England at the start of WWII when Germany was looking over at the cliffs of Dover. BTW: My father never got back his S&W triple lock.

Other than that I can't think of a reason.

DDWW

KingMerv00

28th June 2010, 07:51 PM

Because tens of thousand of American servicemen, with lots of background in owning and shooting thier personel owned constiutional protected firearms, gave thier lives for a free and civil England.

BTW:That included my uncle.

Also tens of thousands of personel firearms were "loaned" to England at the start of WWII when Germany was looking over at the cliffs of Dover. BTW: My father never got back his S&W triple lock.

Other than that I can't think of a reason.

DDWW

Or maybe it was the official national armies of England and the US.

The draft? The RAF? D-Day? What are those?

DDWW

28th June 2010, 08:53 PM

Or maybe it was the official national armies of England and the US.

The draft? The RAF? D-Day? What are those?

The draft? Yes, That is what I said. Americans, many drafted, with lots of experince in firearms.

You got it!!!:)

DD (I'm so happy for you)WW

Telaynay's G'son

28th June 2010, 09:09 PM

My young friend from the Keystone state;

Grasshopper, you forget one thing...the silent (and armed) majority...most of us are "old" men...not afraid to die and will shoot you from a long distance.

One other thing, an uncle recieved his purple heart for a day at the beach...Omaha beach...another is buried in Belgium...all so you, I and all the smug people can say whatever they like (within civility) on this forum.

KingMerv00

28th June 2010, 09:21 PM

The draft? Yes, That is what I said. Americans, many drafted, with lots of experince in firearms.

Basic Training (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Basic_Training)?

Methinks you are overestimating the things you learn from gun ownership.

Did the 2nd Amendment prepare soldiers for bombing runs?
Military tactics?
Hand to hand combat?
Artillery?
First Aid?
High explosives?
Amphibious landings?
Tanks?
The chain of command?
The physical and mental hardships of war?
Heavy machine guns?
Bridge building?
Stealth?
Espionage?
Counter-Espionage?
Radar?
Rockets?
Logistics?
Code breaking?
Submarines?
Special forces tactics?
Naval combat?
Bunkers?
Dam busting?
Land mines?
Desert warfare?
Urban warfare?
Hedgerow warfare?
Nuclear weapons?
Radio technology?
War economics?
Diplomacy?
Taking prisoners?
BEING a prisoner?
Armor technology?
Propaganda?
etc.
etc.
etc.

Yep, you're right. The 2nd Amendment was THE reason England remains free. One thing is crystal clear...it certainly had NOTHING to do with the English army. It couldn't have; they had no 2nd Amendment.

KingMerv00

28th June 2010, 09:31 PM

My young friend from the Keystone state;

Grasshopper, you forget one thing...the silent (and armed) majority...most of us are "old" men...not afraid to die and will shoot you from a long distance.

That almost sounds like a threat but I'm sure that's not what you intended. :D

One other thing, an uncle recieved his purple heart for a day at the beach...Omaha beach...another is buried in Belgium...all so you, I and all the smug people can say whatever they like (within civility) on this forum.

Your uncles are certainly heroes but that has little to do with the 2nd amendment. The military power of the US government is controlled by Article I Section 8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Enum erated_powers) and Article 2 Clause 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clau se_1:_Command_of_military.3B_Opinions_of_cabinet_s ecretaries.3B_Pardons).

MikeMangum

29th June 2010, 10:49 AM

Where is private gun ownership mentioned?

Are you daft? The English Bill of Rights was written in the 17th century, not the 13th. 'Arms' would most assuredly have meant 'guns'.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6077526#post6077526
The Bill of Rights was passed by Parliament in December 1689. It was a re-statement in statutory form of the Declaration of Right presented by the Convention Parliament to William and Mary in March 1689, inviting them to become joint sovereigns of England. It enumerates certain rights to which subjects and permanent residents of a constitutional monarchy were thought to be entitled in the late 17th century, asserting subjects' right to petition the monarch, as well as to have arms in defence. It also sets out—or, in the view of its drafters, restates—certain constitutional requirements of the Crown to seek the consent of the people, as represented in parliament.

But if you don't think that summary of the English Bill of Rights is accurate, you can always read the text yourself.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp

Piscivore

29th June 2010, 12:38 PM

Are you daft? The English Bill of Rights was written in the 17th century, not the 13th. 'Arms' would most assuredly have meant 'guns'.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6077526#post6077526

But if you don't think that summary of the English Bill of Rights is accurate, you can always read the text yourself.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp

You might want to familiarise yourself with some of the more recent developments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom
These factors create what is believed to be some of the strictest gun legislation in the world, particularly as legislation has often followed large-scale shootings...

To obtain a firearm certificate, the police must be convinced that a person has "good reason" to own each gun, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace". Under Home Office guidelines, gun licences are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting or work-related reasons for owning a gun. Since 1946, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a gun.

KingMerv00

29th June 2010, 01:43 PM

Thank you Piscivore. That was the point I was trying to make. There is no absolute right to gun ownership in England and yet I was not summarily thrown in prison when I visited London last year. Astonishing.

I am quite daft though. I did miss the "arms" portion of Mike's link. Der.

Telaynay's G'son

29th June 2010, 01:50 PM

That almost sounds like a threat but I'm sure that's not what you intended. :D

My Bad...was a rhetorical attempt.

Your uncles are certainly heroes but that has little to do with the 2nd amendment. The military power of the US government is controlled by Article I Section 8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Enum erated_powers) and Article 2 Clause 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clau se_1:_Command_of_military.3B_Opinions_of_cabinet_s ecretaries.3B_Pardons).

The point was their efforts (along with all the other troops) likely played a substantial part in our being able to even have these types of discussion.

Consider the possible outcome(s) had the parents of all those students murdered in Tiananmen Square, if only their parents had AK-47's at home via their version of the 2nd amendment.

GreNME

29th June 2010, 02:06 PM

Consider the possible outcome(s) had the parents of all those students murdered in Tiananmen Square, if only their parents had AK-47's at home via their version of the 2nd amendment.

:dl:

Not much to consider: there would have been a boatload of dead parents.

Really, guys, the bravado is unconvincing. If I were to hypothetically be thinking of an aggressive revolution against the government, guns wouldn't be at the top of my list of "must have" supplies. This is the 21st century, and there are far more useful tools than firearms.

gnome

29th June 2010, 02:50 PM

Telaynay's G'son

29th June 2010, 03:03 PM

:dl:

Not much to consider: there would have been a boatload of dead parents.

Really, guys, the bravado is unconvincing. If I were to hypothetically be thinking of an aggressive revolution against the government, guns wouldn't be at the top of my list of "must have" supplies. This is the 21st century, and there are far more useful tools than firearms.

That would indeed be one possible outcome especially if the idea of having your children slaughtered is reprehensible.

BTW, was not alluding to using "21st century tactics" such as computer hacking, et. al. but a more visceral response to government aggression as (historically speaking) that appears to what has transpired by the end of the day.

Were the guys killed at places like Bunker Hill or Lexington exercising bravado?

KingMerv00

29th June 2010, 06:27 PM

Consider the possible outcome(s) had the parents of all those students murdered in Tiananmen Square, if only their parents had AK-47's at home via their version of the 2nd amendment.

Your post and many others remind me of this:

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm!
Lisa: That’s specious reasoning, dad.
Homer: Why thank you, honey.
Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Hmm. How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn’t work; it’s just a stupid rock!
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Hmm... Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

The 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee your right to own an AK-47 BTW.

KingMerv00

29th June 2010, 06:31 PM

Were the guys killed at places like Bunker Hill or Lexington exercising bravado?

For the 50th time. Please present a MODERN example. Maybe within the last 100 years.

Guns back then are not the same as guns now.

ponderingturtle

30th June 2010, 03:39 AM

Because tens of thousand of American servicemen, with lots of background in owning and shooting thier personel owned constiutional protected firearms, gave thier lives for a free and civil England.

BTW:That included my uncle.

Wait we sent people to Europe in WWII now with out issuing them firearms? Or even bringing them into the army?

The important part the the constitution there is not in any of the amendments but in the main body, you know the part about raising an army, or are you just against any army at all and think armed private citizens are all we need?

ponderingturtle

30th June 2010, 03:41 AM

Grasshopper, you forget one thing...the silent (and armed) majority...most of us are "old" men...not afraid to die and will shoot you from a long distance.

So there are a lot of homicidal maniacs in your area, sounds like a good reason not to go there.

ponderingturtle

30th June 2010, 03:43 AM

ponderingturtle

30th June 2010, 03:45 AM

Realistically, the only way to actually overthrow a fully equipped modern military is with another fully equipped modern military, or to gain the cooperation of a significant portion of that military.

Is there a counterexample I'm not thinking of?

Insurgent techniques have been effective at getting rid of occupying armies. So all you need is to make IED's readily available.

GreNME

30th June 2010, 06:28 AM

That would indeed be one possible outcome especially if the idea of having your children slaughtered is reprehensible.

That's a weird statement, somewhat implying that the parents of those students who were beaten or killed didn't find it reprehensible. Whether that's what you meant to imply or not, the presence or absence of guns wouldn't have changed a thing at Tiananmen Square except to cause more deaths of civilians. Even Kalashnikovs wouldn't have equaled the tanks, tear gas, and other military machinery present.

BTW, was not alluding to using "21st century tactics" such as computer hacking, et. al. but a more visceral response to government aggression as (historically speaking) that appears to what has transpired by the end of the day.

That's your problem, then: welcome to the 21st century, where 19th century tactics aren't going to be as effective against the military machinery that exists.

Were the guys killed at places like Bunker Hill or Lexington exercising bravado?

I love it when the conversation turns to people pretending to identify with revolutionaries, because it shows just how outdated and outmoded the thinking being applied really is.

Drudgewire

30th June 2010, 06:53 AM

I voted 2nd because gun shows are a lot more fun than free speech rallies. :p

GreNME

30th June 2010, 07:02 AM

I voted 2nd because gun shows are a lot more fun than free speech rallies. :p

I can appreciate answers like that. :)

maxpower1227

30th June 2010, 09:01 AM

First time around 1776 to protect thier inherient rights as affirmed by the Bill of Rights (part of the Constitution.)

And it worked very well.

DDWW

Is nobody else going to point out the anachronism here?

Cicero

30th June 2010, 09:11 AM

No, that would be the courts. When was the last time anyone used a gun to protect their Constitutional rights?

Didn't your correspondence law course teach you to never ask a question you don't know the answer to? Every time a citizen uses a firearm to defend themselves from being a victim of a crime they are protecting their "right to be secure in their persons."

Cicero

30th June 2010, 09:14 AM

The 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee your right to own an AK-47 BTW.

And yet 37 states allow for Class III ownership with the $200 ATF tax, background check, and CLEO sign-off per the 1934 NFA ACT.

Dancing David

30th June 2010, 09:19 AM

the framers of the constitution seemed to think so

and it seems the JREF forum members agree with me too, first is first, second is second

All are equal, the right to bear arms, supports the first, as do the others. The bill of rights was passed together. :)

Dancing David

30th June 2010, 09:22 AM

Realistically, the only way to actually overthrow a fully equipped modern military is with another fully equipped modern military, or to gain the cooperation of a significant portion of that military.

Is there a counterexample I'm not thinking of?

Um, the supply chain and cooperation of the citizens?

Ladewig

30th June 2010, 09:31 AM

I voted 2nd because gun shows are a lot more fun than free speech rallies. :p

YMMV

http://current.com/news/90176865_clowns-made-fools-of-the-kkk.htm

Piscivore

30th June 2010, 09:58 AM

If you have the First, you don't need the Second, because you already have a better, non-violent way to address greivances.

If you don't have the first, you don't need the second either, because a government that doesn't allow basic dissent has already made armed dissent illegal, and breaking one more law for freedom isn't an issue.

Cicero

30th June 2010, 10:42 AM

If you have the First, you don't need the Second, because you already have a better, non-violent way to address greivances.

Have you ever been introduced to the human race?

If you don't have the first, you don't need the second either, because a government that doesn't allow basic dissent has already made armed dissent illegal, and breaking one more law for freedom isn't an issue.

What does "need" have to do with the right to own firearms? That is the false argument favored by SCJ Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, Souter as well as Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, Waxman, etc.

Piscivore

30th June 2010, 11:46 AM

Have you ever been introduced to the human race?
Yes. Have you? I mean, outside of "Red Dawn"?

What does "need" have to do with the right to own firearms? That is the false argument favored by SCJ Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, Souter as well as Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, Waxman, etc.
What argument do you think I'm making? Because I'm not against private ownership of firearms. I'm only addressing the purported "need" to keep access to personal firearms legal as a "check" on the government of a modern industrial nation with modern mechanised armed forces.

KingMerv00

30th June 2010, 12:00 PM

Didn't your correspondence law course teach you to never ask a question you don't know the answer to? Every time a citizen uses a firearm to defend themselves from being a victim of a crime they are protecting their "right to be secure in their persons."

Your snarky overconfidence only makes you look foolish.

The Constitution applies to what the GOVERNMENT can do to you. Mugging is a CRIME, it is not UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I said, "When was the last time anyone used a gun to protect their Constitutional rights?" I (obviously) meant defending your constitutional rights FROM THE ACTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT...because that's who the Constitution applies to.

And yet 37 states allow for Class III ownership with the $200 ATF tax, background check, and CLEO sign-off per the 1934 NFA ACT.

I said the 2nd Amendment does not GUARANTEE your right to an AK-47. The government my allow you to own such weapons but they are not Constitutionally obliged to.

Drudgewire

30th June 2010, 01:24 PM

YMMV

http://current.com/news/90176865_clowns-made-fools-of-the-kkk.htm

Now that's just freakin' awesome. :D

gnome

30th June 2010, 04:22 PM

Insurgent techniques have been effective at getting rid of occupying armies. So all you need is to make IED's readily available.

Has that proven true of "occupying" armies that are native to the country in question?

gnome

30th June 2010, 04:23 PM

Um, the supply chain and cooperation of the citizens?

Can you give an example of that approach in history?

Dancing David

30th June 2010, 05:37 PM

Can you give an example of that approach in history?

I can think of times that the military in many nations has not acted against the people despite the wishes of the current government in power.

The consent of the ruled is a very real thing, it may be implicit or explicit, yet it is needed. If even ten percent of the citizens of the US practiced disruption of supplies, it would be a big deal. If even one percent actively disrupted the supply chain that would be a big deal.

The armed forces can only do so much, if you are having to guard the means of production and the supply and distribution chain, that severely hampers you ability to fight and control. Especially in a country with such a dispersed production chain.

A modern army is not going to want to use weapons of great destruction on its own population, it would rile things up even more. Which is where the implicit support comes in. If patrols of soldiers have to show up in big squads to round up suspects, that further limits their effectivesness. Assuming that all the members support the coup d’etat , which seems unlikely.

All theoretical of course.

Metullus

30th June 2010, 05:55 PM

Is nobody else going to point out the anachronism here?What anachronism? The rights for which they fought were, in their minds, inherently theirs; the Bill of Rights later only affirmed those rights. The Bill of Rights did not create those rights...

gnome

30th June 2010, 06:22 PM

I can think of times that the military in many nations has not acted against the people despite the wishes of the current government in power.

I covered that when I said the "rebels" needed the support of a good part of the actual army.

The consent of the ruled is a very real thing, it may be implicit or explicit, yet it is needed. If even ten percent of the citizens of the US practiced disruption of supplies, it would be a big deal. If even one percent actively disrupted the supply chain that would be a big deal.

The armed forces can only do so much, if you are having to guard the means of production and the supply and distribution chain, that severely hampers you ability to fight and control. Especially in a country with such a dispersed production chain.

A modern army is not going to want to use weapons of great destruction on its own population, it would rile things up even more. Which is where the implicit support comes in. If patrols of soldiers have to show up in big squads to round up suspects, that further limits their effectivesness. Assuming that all the members support the coup d’etat , which seems unlikely.

All theoretical of course.

Exactly. In theory, it would work. I think in practice, if you have the overwhelming majority of the American military willing to do what you say, you will not be undone by force of arms. That is my point.

Piscivore

30th June 2010, 08:21 PM

What anachronism? The rights for which they fought were, in their minds, inherently theirs; the Bill of Rights later only affirmed those rights. The Bill of Rights did not create those rights...

That's exactly the point- the amendment is superfluous.

KingMerv00

30th June 2010, 09:07 PM

Every time a citizen uses a firearm to defend themselves from being a victim of a crime they are protecting their "right to be secure in their persons."

I let this slip by and I shouldn't have.

The fourth amendment in no way applies to the criminal acts of private citizens. It applies to GOVERNMENT searches and seizures. (Explains all that talk of "warrants" and "probable cause" huh? Or do you think a private citizen can use a warrant to break into your house?)

Metullus

1st July 2010, 11:06 AM

That's exactly the point- the amendment is superfluous.One might just as easily hold that a written contract, once the details of an agreement are agreed to, is superfluous.

ponderingturtle

1st July 2010, 11:37 AM

Has that proven true of "occupying" armies that are native to the country in question?

Sure, look at the Tamil Tigers. As long as they kept to insurgency tactics they were very effective at driving away government forces, when they tried to convert over to conventional techniques they got crushed.

Piscivore

1st July 2010, 11:38 AM

One might just as easily hold that a written contract, once the details of an agreement are agreed to, is superfluous.

They are, that's why there are oral contracts too. The only function a written contract serves is as a record of the agreement. Any contract is binding only so far as the parties remain amenable to complying by the terms and/or there is an authority able to sanction parties that do not abide by the terms. Without these, a written contract is just ink on paper. Ask a Native American about that sometime.

As has been said, if a body of citizenry feel irked enough at their government to the point of taking up arms against it they have already decided they are no longer bound by the terms of their citizenship- and, I'd wager, they feel their government does not seem to them to be complying with those terms either.

Any law or constitutional provisions allowing or disallowing arms ownership are not relevant in such a situation- no laws or constitutional provisions apply to their actions anymore. No one checks the law to see if rebellion is allowed before taking up arms.

Metullus

1st July 2010, 01:11 PM

They are, that's why there are oral contracts too. The only function a written contract serves is as a record of the agreement.Emphasis added.

Of course there are oral contracts, but how does the fact that there are oral contracts make written contracts superfluous? The great advantage of a written contract is that the agreement is memorialized and available for reference later; the details of the agreement are spelled out to the satisfaction of all parties. This makes the contract easier to enforce and narrows argument and disagreement from "this is what I thought we agreed to" to "this is what is written".

This is hardly superfluous...

Likewise with the Bill of Rights;we might debate what constitutes freedom of speech but we do not need to argue about whether our founding fathers considered Freedom of Speech to be a basic right - it is right there in black and white.

Any contract is binding only so far as the parties remain amenable to complying by the terms and/or there is an authority able to sanction parties that do not abide by the terms. Without these, a written contract is just ink on paper. Ask a Native American about that sometime.So? Has anyone suggested otherwise?

As has been said, if a body of citizenry feel irked enough at their government to the point of taking up arms against it they have already decided they are no longer bound by the terms of their citizenship- and, I'd wager, they feel their government does not seem to them to be complying with those terms either.Likely they would disagree with the former and agree with the latter.

Any law or constitutional provisions allowing or disallowing arms ownership are not relevant in such a situation- no laws or constitutional provisions apply to their actions anymore. No one checks the law to see if rebellion is allowed before taking up arms.Huh? What does this have to do with anything I have said?

Piscivore

1st July 2010, 02:48 PM

Emphasis added.

Of course there are oral contracts, but how does the fact that there are oral contracts make written contracts superfluous? The great advantage of a written contract is that the agreement is memorialized and available for reference later; the details of the agreement are spelled out to the satisfaction of all parties. This makes the contract easier to enforce and narrows argument and disagreement from "this is what I thought we agreed to" to "this is what is written".

This is hardly superfluous...
It is superflous if one of the parties no longer cares about holding up their end of the deal and does not care about/there is no third party to "enforce" the contract.

Likewise with the Bill of Rights;we might debate what constitutes freedom of speech but we do not need to argue about whether our founding fathers considered Freedom of Speech to be a basic right - it is right there in black and white.
The founding father's opinions are likewise superfluous at the point where a citizen feels there is no other recourse than armed rebellion agains his government. "Ooh, John Adams thought I should have the right to own guns, so that makes it okay to shoot the government troops hauling granny off to a labour camp" - I don't think so.

So? Has anyone suggested otherwise?
Suggesting the second amendment has some magical authority or relevance when fundamental law and order has comletely failed is doing that, yeah.

Likely they would disagree with the former and agree with the latter.
How so? Someone shooting at government troops or spreading dissent is still going to pay taxes, vote, obey the speed limit, etc? How do you think they will still be bound by their citizenship?

Huh? What does this have to do with anything I have said?
What anachronism? The rights for which they fought were, in their minds, inherently theirs; the Bill of Rights later only affirmed those rights. The Bill of Rights did not create those rights...
"Any law or constitutional provisions allowing or disallowing arms ownership are not relevant in such a situation- no laws or constitutional provisions apply to their actions anymore. No one checks the law to see if rebellion is allowed before taking up arms."

The Founding Fathers did not fight because a constitutional amendment gave them the right to fight. Anybody in the future who fights against a hypothetical tyrannical US Government are not going to do so because the 2nd amendment grants them the right. The amendment, in these situations, is superfluous, irrelevant.

Metullus

1st July 2010, 03:07 PM

It is superflous if one of the parties no longer cares about holding up their end of the deal and does not care about/there is no third party to "enforce" the contract.So, a contract is superfluous at its inception because one of the parties to the contract might someday abrogate it or the contract might someday become moot?

Makes no sense and has nothing to do with anything I have said.

The founding father's opinions are likewise superfluous at the point where a citizen feels there is no other recourse than armed rebellion agains his government. "Ooh, John Adams thought I should have the right to own guns, so that makes it okay to shoot the government troops hauling granny off to a labour camp" - I don't think so.Again, this has nothing whatever to do with anything I have said.

Suggesting the second amendment has some magical authority or relevance when fundamental law and order has comletely failed is doing that, yeah.Again, this has nothing whatever to do with anything I have said.

How so? Someone shooting at government troops or spreading dissent is still going to pay taxes, vote, obey the speed limit, etc? How do you think they will still be bound by their citizenship?They might well recognize what they consider to be the legitimate constitutional government and merely be opposed to what they consider to be a usurping unconstitutional government.

"Any law or constitutional provisions allowing or disallowing arms ownership are not relevant in such a situation- no laws or constitutional provisions apply to their actions anymore. No one checks the law to see if rebellion is allowed before taking up arms."Again, this has nothing whatever to do with anything I have said.

The Founding Fathers did not fight because a constitutional amendment gave them the right to fight.Has anybody said that they did?

Anybody in the future who fights against a hypothetical tyrannical US Government are not going to do so because the 2nd amendment grants them the right. The amendment, in these situations, is superfluous, irrelevant.Again, has anybody made this argument? I know that I have not.

Seriously, dude, who are you arguing with?

Piscivore

1st July 2010, 03:30 PM

So, a contract is superfluous at its inception because one of the parties to the contract might someday abrogate it or the contract might someday become moot?
Not quite, a contract is only as valid or binding as long as the participants agree that it is so, or fear enforcement by a third party enough to continue to comply. Whether it is written down or not does not affect this.

The same applies to the idea that the second amendment has any meaning in terms of protecting the right to posses arms as a check against government.

They might well recognize what they consider to be the legitimate constitutional government and merely be opposed to what they consider to be a usurping unconstitutional government.
If the "legitimate constitutional governement" has been "usurped" by anything, then it is irrelevant, as are all of it's laws.

Seriously, dude, who are you arguing with?
Who's arguing? I'm just trying to answer your questions.

Metullus

1st July 2010, 03:53 PM

Not quite, a contract is only as valid or binding as long as the participants agree that it is so, or fear enforcement by a third party enough to continue to comply. Whether it is written down or not does not affect this.

The same applies to the idea that the second amendment has any meaning in terms of protecting the right to posses arms as a check against government.

If the "legitimate constitutional governement" has been "usurped" by anything, then it is irrelevant, as are all of it's laws.

Who's arguing? I'm just trying to answer your questions.What question?

Piscivore

1st July 2010, 04:14 PM

What question?

So? Has anyone suggested otherwise?

Huh? What does this have to do with anything I have said?
So, a contract is superfluous at its inception because one of the parties to the contract might someday abrogate it or the contract might someday become moot?

These. Apart from that, it's just been us having a conversation.

Cicero

1st July 2010, 06:35 PM

I let this slip by and I shouldn't have.

The fourth amendment in no way applies to the criminal acts of private citizens. It applies to GOVERNMENT searches and seizures. (Explains all that talk of "warrants" and "probable cause" huh? Or do you think a private citizen can use a warrant to break into your house?)

Yes, your slip is showing. A warrant would be tough, but a credit card, that would be another matter.

No, I'm arguing that if it DOES happen here the Constitution doesn't matter anyway. If some charismatic loon wants to throw you under jackboots they will try to take your guns whether the 2nd amendment exists or not.

During stable democratic periods, the 2nd amendment is not necessary to keep the government in line because the government is not interested in totalitarianism. During totalitarian periods, the 2nd amendment is meaningless because the government is not interested the Constitution.

You are essentially saying, "We need to stockpile so we can deter the next dictator." Do you really think a dictator that has control of F-22 Raptors is deterred by your hunting rifles and handguns? The very nature of despotism makes deterrance meaningless.

You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that the 2nd Amendment is a right that was originally only intended as a protection for civilians against the federal government.

Thomas Jefferson was simpatico with Cesare Beccaria on the subject of firearms for personal protection for the average citizen against the average citizen.

"The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.""

Cesare Beccaria's Essay on Crimes and Punishments as partly quoted in Thomas Jefferson's "Legal Commonplace Book," 1765-67

KingMerv00

1st July 2010, 07:55 PM

Yes, your slip is showing.

Well you were running around stark naked earlier so perhaps we are even.

Are you going to admit you misunderstood my post (which is no big deal) or just fling insults?

You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that the 2nd Amendment is a right that was originally only intended as a protection for civilians against the federal government.

I have no idea where you got that notion.

I have absolutely no problem believing that the 2nd Amendment was intended to allow citizens to protect themselves from the government and other citizens. You quoted me talking about the former not the latter because that was the topic at hand. None of that changes the fact that only the government (state or federal) can violate the Constitution.

shemp

2nd July 2010, 07:47 PM

Obviously, the Twenty-First.

Vermonter

2nd July 2010, 10:31 PM

And yet 37 states allow for Class III ownership with the $200 ATF tax, background check, and CLEO sign-off per the 1934 NFA ACT.

Or, you can own a semi-automatic-only without the need for the tax. I bought a Romanian AK-47 at a gun show several years ago, and all it took was a quick (<5 minute) background check, and some moolah. Bought that and a big box of ammo, and they happily waved me goodbye as I left with my nice shiny rifle and ammunition.

JoeTheJuggler

6th July 2010, 11:14 AM

One might just as easily hold that a written contract, once the details of an agreement are agreed to, is superfluous.

It is. Oral contracts are perfectly valid. It's just not nearly as easy to settle disputes as it is when you have a written contract.

JoeTheJuggler

6th July 2010, 11:19 AM

Speaking of anachronisms and the intent of those who passed the 2nd Amendment, does the word arms even mean remotely the same thing now as it did then?

Does the Second Amendment give citizens of the U.S. the right to keep nuclear arms? Chemical weapons? Did the founding fathers anticipate anything like an assault rifle, or were they thinking of muzzle loading muskets mostly?

My city, and many others, have laws prohibiting anyone without a permit from owning, buying, selling or using fireworks. What distinguishes fireworks from "arms"?

Almo

6th July 2010, 11:37 AM

The Second Amendment is what protects all the others. It's not nearly as easy to enslave someone who has a gun, as it is to enslave someone who does not.

:eye-poppi

I...

:boggled:

KingMerv00

6th July 2010, 11:44 AM

KingMerv00

6th July 2010, 12:00 PM

:eye-poppi

I...

:boggled:

Hey, the 2nd Amendment also made it easier to defend your right to OWN slaves. (As a bonus, it kept your property from running away.)

ponderingturtle

6th July 2010, 01:01 PM

As I said above, that is currently a privilege not a Constitutional right.

I always wonder which constitutional rights we decided convicted fellons don't deserve. Clearly self defense in one of them, but what about unreasonable search and seizure? Due process? Habeas Corpus? Free Speech? Free Assembly?

What rights did Martha Steward lose anyway?

KingMerv00

6th July 2010, 01:04 PM

I always wonder which constitutional rights we decided convicted fellons don't deserve. Clearly self defense in one of them, but what about unreasonable search and seizure? Due process? Habeas Corpus? Free Speech? Free Assembly?

What rights did Martha Steward lose anyway?

I don't understand your post. I'm pretty sure that's my fault.

ponderingturtle

6th July 2010, 01:25 PM

I don't understand your post. I'm pretty sure that's my fault.

It is fairly tangential, and I am a fairly tangential person. I was just musing on the idea that felons who have served their time still lose out on at least their second amendment rights, so I was wondering which other amendments they might lose out on.

The Painter

6th July 2010, 02:12 PM

Hey, the 2nd Amendment also made it easier to defend your right to OWN slaves. (As a bonus, it kept your property from running away.)

Ironically the first gun control laws were to keep free blacks, after the war, from owning guns. This way they couldn't defend themselves from the KKK and made it easier for the Klan to kill them.

KingMerv00

6th July 2010, 02:25 PM

Ironically the first gun control laws were to keep free blacks, after the war, from owning guns. This way they couldn't defend themselves from the KKK and made it easier for the Klan to kill them.

That's my point. Guns are a double edged sword. Many in here are ready to sing their praises when they think they work (still waiting for a non-Revolutionary War example btw) but ignore the fact private gun ownership has been used to oppress people too. Some posters treat it like a magical cure all and ignore the clearly posted side effects.

Cicero

6th July 2010, 04:51 PM

Or, you can own a semi-automatic-only without the need for the tax. I bought a Romanian AK-47 at a gun show several years ago, and all it took was a quick (<5 minute) background check, and some moolah. Bought that and a big box of ammo, and they happily waved me goodbye as I left with my nice shiny rifle and ammunition.

The semi-auto civilian version of any machine gun or submachine gun are of course not covered by the 1934 NFA or the 1968 NFA or the 1986 NFA. The reason is that they are just imitation knock-offs masquerading as the military version. Unfortunately, the lame stream media never differentiates between these semi-auto versions and the select fire military originals. They love to use the terms AK-47 and UZI not appreciating the fact that these civilian models are just semi-auto versions, or in the case of the Hollywood Bank Of America hold-up, illegally converted full auto versions of the semi.

Cicero

6th July 2010, 04:55 PM

Piscivore

6th July 2010, 05:27 PM

War of 1812.

The 2nd Amendment is not a double edged sword. Since you want recent examples (in the last 100 years) where the 2nd Amendment protected Americans from their government, how about a recent example of where private gun ownership by American civilians has oppressed Americans?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrin_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Race_Riot#The_Violence_of_the_Elaine_Race_R iot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_riot_1963
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Families
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crips
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

Do I need to go on?

KingMerv00

6th July 2010, 06:02 PM

The 2nd Amendment is not a double edged sword. Since you want recent examples (in the last 100 years) where the 2nd Amendment protected Americans from their government, how about a recent example of where private gun ownership by American civilians has oppressed Americans?

Please see "War, The Civil".

My 100 year limitation only applies to your side of the argument. I brought that limitation into the conversation because the explosion of military technology has left private arms obsolete as a deterrent against government action. Private gun ownership is still as effective as ever for threatening other citizens, however.

Edit: I don't think the War of 1812 fulfills my requirements. First, it isn't within the last 100 years. Second, it was a war. I asked for an example of a private individual defending his rights against the government (either state or federal), not a foreign force. I am being nitpicky because some in this thread have said private gun ownership preserves the Constitution from US government encroachment.

Piscivore

6th July 2010, 06:08 PM

KingMerv00

6th July 2010, 06:37 PM

We had one within the last 100 years? :p

I edited that above.

My 100 year limitation applies to their arguments, not mine. My arguments apply regardless of the time period. Theirs do not.

Cicero

6th July 2010, 06:49 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrin_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Race_Riot#The_Violence_of_the_Elaine_Race_R iot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_riot_1963
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Families
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crips
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

Do I need to go on?

Yes, you do need to go on until you can come with a valid example.

Since people on both sides had access to firearms, private gun ownership by American civilians was not exclusive to one side of Americans used to oppress another side of Americans.

Cicero

6th July 2010, 07:03 PM

Please see "War, The Civil".

My 100 year limitation only applies to your side of the argument. I brought that limitation into the conversation because the explosion of military technology has left private arms obsolete as a deterrent against government action. Private gun ownership is still as effective as ever for threatening other citizens, however.

And it is still as effective as ever as a defense against being threatened by other citizens.

Castro and his supporters used small arms to overthrow the Batista Government that was equipped with an air force and armor units.

mortimer

6th July 2010, 07:04 PM

I brought that limitation into the conversation because the explosion of military technology has left private arms obsolete as a deterrent against government action.
I think you'll need to substantiate that. Hundreds of millions of citizens with personal arms would likely be at least a serious threat against any government and army, no matter how well armed the government/army is.

Piscivore

6th July 2010, 07:31 PM

Yes, you do need to go on until you can come with a valid example.

Since people on both sides had access to firearms, private gun ownership by American civilians was not exclusive to one side of Americans used to oppress another side of Americans.

You didn't ask for examples of gun ownership disparity. You asked for "a recent example of where private gun ownership by American civilians has oppressed Americans".

Having a gun is not a magic panacea agains being oppressed. The oppressor just needs a bigger gun or more guns on their side.

This is what is sad and unskeptical about partisan politics- facts become an enemy when they don't agree with one's ideology. Maybe next time you will be better at asking questions that get you the answers you want to see.

ETA:
And, here's one for your goalpost's new location-
The Jim Crow era accompanied the most cruel wave of "racial" suppression that America has yet experienced. Between 1890 and 1940, millions of African Americans were disfranchised, killed, and brutalized. According to newspaper records kept at the Tuskegee Institute, about 5,000 men, women, and children were murdered outright, tortured to death in documented extrajudicial public rituals of mob violence —human sacrifices called "lynchings." The journalist Ida B. Wells estimated that lynchings not reported by the newspapers, plus similar executions under the veneer of "due process", may have amounted to about 20,000 killings.[citation needed]

Of the tens of thousands of lynchers and onlookers during this period, it is reported that fewer than 50 whites were ever indicted for their crimes, and only four sentenced. Because blacks were disfranchised, they could not sit on juries or have any part in the political process, including local offices. Meanwhile, the lynchings were a weapon of white mob terror with millions of Afro-Americans living in a constant state of anxiety and fear.[32] Most blacks were denied their right to keep and bear arms under Jim Crow laws, and they were therefore unable to protect themselves or their families.[33]

KingMerv00

6th July 2010, 07:32 PM

I think you'll need to substantiate that. Hundreds of millions of citizens with personal arms would likely be at least a serious threat against any government and army, no matter how well armed the government/army is.

You are arguing a different point. I said it is an ineffective deterrent. Senators aren't sitting around thinking "I'd better not pass this law because armed rebels will storm the Capitol." They are thinking "I'd better not pass this law because the Supreme Court will strike it down".

(How does the Supreme Court manage that anyway? Near as I can tell, none of them have ever threated to shoot up the place.)

mortimer

6th July 2010, 07:35 PM

You are arguing a different point. I said it is an ineffective deterrent. Senators aren't sitting around thinking "I'd better not pass this law because armed rebels will storm the Capitol." They are thinking "I'd better not pass this law because the Supreme Court will strike it down.

(How does the Supreme Court manage that anyway? Near as I can tell, none of them have ever threated to shoot up the place.)

No, I'm arguing the exact point you made. You'll need to show that private ownership of arms is not an effective deterrent to government action.

KingMerv00

6th July 2010, 07:40 PM

Castro and his supporters used small arms to overthrow the Batista Government that was equipped with an air force and armor units.

Assuming for the moment I grant you this, does it really help your argument?

A dictator seized power using private gun ownership and you think guns aren't a double edged sword?

KingMerv00

6th July 2010, 07:44 PM

No, I'm arguing the exact point you made. You'll need to show that private ownership of arms is not an effective deterrent to government action.

I think the burden would be on you actually.

Earlier in the thread, I used the Simpson analogy:

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.

Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.

Homer: Thank you, dear.

Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.

Homer: Oh, how does it work?

Lisa: It doesn't work.

Homer: Uh-huh.

Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.

Homer: Uh-huh.

Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?

[Homer considers this.]

Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

You are asking me to prove the rock doesn't keep tigers away. In reality you are the one making the positive claim.

I do admit my initial wording was poor. I should have said, "I don't think guns deter the government because I have seen no evidence to suggest it."

mortimer

6th July 2010, 08:13 PM

I think the burden would be on you actually.

Earlier in the thread, I used the Simpson analogy:

You are asking me to prove the rock doesn't keep tigers away. In reality you are the one making the positive claim.

I do admit my initial wording was poor. I should have said, "I don't think guns deter the government because I have seen no evidence to suggest it."
Revolutionary War. I know that you've already dismissed that as an example because it was too long ago.

KingMerv00

6th July 2010, 08:29 PM

Revolutionary War. I know that you've already dismissed that as an example because it was too long ago.

Time was one reason why I rejected it. Another is because it wasn't about enforcing existing constitutional rights in a stable democracy. It was about overthrowing an old government to establish those rights.

Cicero

6th July 2010, 09:20 PM

Assuming for the moment I grant you this, does it really help your argument?

I don't require your grant for this to be obviously true as based on your own parameters.

A dictator seized power using private gun ownership and you think guns aren't a double edged sword?

First you said:

"the explosion of military technology has left private arms obsolete as a deterrent against government action."

Then when confronted with an easy example of how your conclusion is totally invalid you revert to the "double-edged sword" platitude. You really need to spend more time thinking about realities instead of theories.

Castro wasn't a dictator until after he seized power.

KingMerv00

6th July 2010, 10:09 PM

I don't require your grant for this to be obviously true as based on your own parameters.

I am using hypothetical assent as a part of rhetoric. Whether you require it or not, you have it.

Then when confronted with an easy example of how your conclusion is totally invalid you revert to the "double-edged sword" platitude. You really need to spend more time thinking about realities instead of theories.

I don't think you are familiar with how people have conversations. I was saying that even if I hypothetically grant your premise, it doesn't prove your conclusions. You've been in the forum long enough. You should know how that works.

In other words, even if you are right in one respect, you are wrong in another so there is no need for a long, drawn out discussion of your example.

Castro wasn't a dictator until after he seized power.

Well yes. A powerless dictator is a contradiction in terms.

KingMerv00

6th July 2010, 10:22 PM

Fine Cicero, I'll address this point directly instead of hypothetically:

Castro and his supporters used small arms to overthrow the Batista Government that was equipped with an air force and armor units.

Yes. Castro overthrew Batista. How did he do it?

By seizing equipment that would not be protected by the 2nd amendment anyway. How did he seize them?

By using fully automatic weapons which are not guaranteed by the 2nd amendment anyway.

Bob Blaylock

7th July 2010, 12:28 AM

Bob Blaylock

7th July 2010, 12:30 AM

War of 1812.

The 2nd Amendment is not a double edged sword.

And even if it was, so what? Surely, the Second Amendment protects our right to own a double edged sword if we so choose.

The Painter

7th July 2010, 03:32 AM

That's my point. Guns are a double edged sword. Many in here are ready to sing their praises when they think they work (still waiting for a non-Revolutionary War example btw) but ignore the fact private gun ownership has been used to oppress people too. Some posters treat it like a magical cure all and ignore the clearly posted side effects.

You have completely missed the point. It wasn't guns that got the free blacks killed. It was the laws that took that right away from them that got them killed. Do you think the KKK would even exist if the free blacks were armed? In this case laws were used to oppress people not guns. Should we do away with laws?

ignore the fact private gun ownership has been used to oppress people

Can you please cite examples of legal private gun ownership in the USA being used to oppress people.

Guns are a double edged sword.

Everything is a double edged sword. A baseball bat is a double edged sword. I can play a game with it or I can use it to stove someones head in. See?? A gun is an inanimate object. It neither evil or good. The person wielding it has those qualities.

ponderingturtle

7th July 2010, 03:42 AM

You have completely missed the point. It wasn't guns that got the free blacks killed. It was the laws that took that right away from them that got them killed. Do you think the KKK would even exist if the free blacks were armed? In this case laws were used to oppress people not guns. Should we do away with laws?

Can you please cite examples of legal private gun ownership in the USA being used to oppress people.

Hey, look up at the previous paragraph you wrote. Oh wait the KKK would never use any kind of weapon when they blow up a church I guess.

The Painter

7th July 2010, 03:45 AM

Hey, look up at the previous paragraph you wrote. Oh wait the KKK would never use any kind of weapon when they blow up a church I guess.

What are you referring to? A bomb? Where did I mention a bomb?

Piscivore

7th July 2010, 09:58 AM

Can you please cite examples of legal private gun ownership in the USA being used to oppress people.

From my previous links:
About 100 black sharecroppers had gathered at the Hoop Spur Church in Elaine, Arkansas before dawn on October 1, 1919. They wanted to be able to obtain better prices for their products from the white planters who controlled the land. They considered joining the Progressive Farmers and Household Union of America. They also were discussing filing a class action lawsuit against their landlords. Union members advocating for the union brought armed guards to protect the meeting.

The summer of 1919 had been marked by deadly race riots in numerous major cities across the country, including Chicago, Knoxville, and Washington, DC. In addition, postwar tensions were high because of labor unrest across the country. Added to labor tensions were racial ones — in Phillips County, a plantation area of the Mississippi Delta since before the Civil War, blacks outnumbered whites by ten to one. Whites feared resistance to their domination...

When a white deputy sheriff and a railroad detective, arrived at the church, a fight broke out between them and the guards. In the ensuing gunfire, the railroad detective was killed and the deputy sheriff was wounded.

The parish sheriff called for a posse to investigate and capture those who were responsible for the killing. Violence expanded beyond the meeting place. Additional armed white men came into the county from outside to support the white citizens until a mob of 500 to 1,000 armed men had formed. Fighting in the area lasted for three days. Sensational newspaper articles reported that an 'insurrection' was occurring. After arriving in Elaine, white men roamed the area randomly attacking and killing black men.

Despite the presence of the National Guard, on July 11th, "two carloads of white men ripped down Pine Street, the main black thoroughfare of the city, at seventy miles an hour while shooting in all directions."[5]

In 1980, three KKK members shot four elderly black women (Viola Ellison, Lela Evans, Opal Jackson and Katherine Johnson) in Chattanooga, Tennessee, following a KKK initiation rally.

And more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_massacre
During the rally, a caravan of cars containing Klansmen and members of the American Nazi Party drove by the housing projects. After being heckled by Klansmen, several marchers began to attack the Klansmens' cars with sticks. A standoff ended in a scuffle, whereupon Klansmen and Nazis left their cars and wildly fired into the crowd with shotguns, rifles and pistols.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Order_(group)

Suddenly

7th July 2010, 10:43 AM

(How does the Supreme Court manage that anyway? Near as I can tell, none of them have ever threatened to shoot up the place.)

Puts the lie to the "force" theory of politics, no?

Arguably what separates a just government from an unjust one is the executive's willingness to defer to the judicial branch when appropriate. Unfortunately sometimes there is a Taney on the bench, but so it goes.

I really don't see how it can be disputed that the 14th is the most important single amendment by a mile. Most importantly, without that the rest of the document is something the states can ignore.

That the second is the most important is a bit daft seeing up until now the idea of that right existing apart from a militia context was soundly rejected in the courts, and even so the document has been a rousing success from any sane historical perspective.

Cicero

7th July 2010, 11:18 AM

That the second is the most important is a bit daft seeing up until now the idea of that right existing apart from a militia context was soundly rejected in the courts, and even so the document has been a rousing success from any sane historical perspective.

From 1791 to 1934, there wasn't any confusion that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right. SCOTUS has finally established that the 2nd Amendment means what it says.

Cicero

7th July 2010, 11:21 AM

From my previous links:

Your links might as well be missing links since they have no bearing on how the 2nd Amendment was ever used to oppress Americans.

Next you will be citing how Capone used the 2nd Amendment to oppress "Bugs" Moran.

Suddenly

7th July 2010, 11:25 AM

From 1791 to 1934, there wasn't any confusion that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right.

Does it hurt to pull things out of your rear like that? Miller didn't come out of a vacuum.

SCOTUS has finally established that the 2nd Amendment means what it says.

...because that talk about "militia" isn't really in there.... or is it...

I can accept an argument about construction either way, but anyone that says it is plainly obvious, again either way, is blinded by prejudice and/or a fool.

Piscivore

7th July 2010, 11:29 AM

Your links might as well be missing links since they have no bearing on how the 2nd Amendment was ever used to oppress Americans.
That's not what was asked for.

You are trying to turn these facts into an argument, but I'm not making one. Legally owned guns in the hands of private citizens have been used to opress people, mainly ethnic minories and union workers. They have also been used to defend rights, sometimes in the same incidents.

Yes, it would be difficult to find an incident in which someone declared "the Second Amendment to the Constitution gives me the right to shoot your uppity ****** ass", but that doesn't wash the amendment's hands clean of all the occasions when legally owned guns were used for nefarious purposes.

Cicero

7th July 2010, 11:32 AM

Fine Cicero, I'll address this point directly instead of hypothetically:

Yes. Castro overthrew Batista. How did he do it?

By seizing equipment that would not be protected by the 2nd amendment anyway. How did he seize them?

By using fully automatic weapons which are not guaranteed by the 2nd amendment anyway.

There isn't a 2nd Amendment in Cuba. The Madsen M-50 and M3 Grease Gun were the favored smg's of the Castro's rebels, but many were armed with semi-auto M1 Carbines.

Select-fire weapons were indeed protected by the 2nd Amendment. Even after the 1934 NFA, select-fire weapons were still guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, only there would now be a $200 tax collected by the government for anyone wishing to purchase them.

Since 1791, the U.S. has not been taken over by a dictator. To say that if it ever was, the 2nd Amendment would be useless in re-establishing our democracy is not only absurd, but history has already proven that an armed citizenry can defeat a government that is backed by a modern military.

Cicero

7th July 2010, 11:41 AM

Does it hurt to pull things out of your rear like that? Miller didn't come out of a vacuum.

What are you babbling about? What does Miller have to do with the 2nd Amendment between 1791 and 1934?

...because that talk about "militia" isn't really in there.... or is it...

I can accept an argument about construction either way, but anyone that says it is plainly obvious, again either way, is blinded by prejudice and/or a fool.

What in Hell do you think was a militia in 1791? Again, it was plainly obvious for 143 years that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right.

JoeTheJuggler

7th July 2010, 12:04 PM

Guns are a double edged sword.

Did you say that with a straight face?

:)

However, it brings me back to the questions I asked (that no one has answered). The 2nd Amendment refers to "arms" and not "guns" or even "firearms". I think the right of the people to own swords was in part what the founding fathers were thinking of.

They were no more thinking of assault rifles or automatic guns than they were thinking of biological or nuclear weapons. I don't understand why NRA-types assume 2nd Amendment rights extend to the former but not the latter.

Suddenly

7th July 2010, 12:16 PM

What are you babbling about? What does Miller have to do with the 2nd Amendment between 1791 and 1934?

That it didn't come out of a vacuum. I will elaborate. That it didn't become a controversial decision until about fifty years later. This is because Miller fairly represented the legal understanding at the time.

What in Hell do you think was a militia in 1791? Again, it was plainly obvious for 143 years that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right.

I am fully aware of the relevant history.

Miller is a nice primer on this. It explains in detail various state militia laws that the second amendment was meant to protect. Laws that required citizens to own arms in case they were needed for defense of state.

The feds were to be kept from interfering with this. No person was to be kept from participating via federal law.

Again, I'm not saying this is "obvious," but it is at least a reasonable construction and IMO persuasive.

Suddenly

7th July 2010, 12:20 PM

Did you say that with a straight face?

:)

However, it brings me back to the questions I asked (that no one has answered). The 2nd Amendment refers to "arms" and not "guns" or even "firearms". I think the right of the people to own swords was in part what the founding fathers were thinking of.

They were no more thinking of assault rifles or automatic guns than they were thinking of biological or nuclear weapons. I don't understand why NRA-types assume 2nd Amendment rights extend to the former but not the latter.

You see, applying modern ideas to the language of the constitution is common sense when a conservative does it and judicial activism that will kill us all when a liberal does it.

Get with the program.

Cicero

7th July 2010, 01:19 PM

Did you say that with a straight face?

:)

However, it brings me back to the questions I asked (that no one has answered). The 2nd Amendment refers to "arms" and not "guns" or even "firearms". I think the right of the people to own swords was in part what the founding fathers were thinking of.

They were no more thinking of assault rifles or automatic guns than they were thinking of biological or nuclear weapons. I don't understand why NRA-types assume 2nd Amendment rights extend to the former but not the latter.

It doesn't matter that firearms capable of firing continuously by holding the trigger did not exist in 1791. The technology of a projectile being hurled from a barrel did exist in 1791. Did you think that James Madison figured any future firearm development would never surpass the Brown Bess?

You let us know when an American citizen builds a nuclear weapon and then says their right to own it is protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Dancing David

7th July 2010, 01:32 PM

KingMerv00

7th July 2010, 01:58 PM

There isn't a 2nd Amendment in Cuba.

No kidding. I was saying that if the Cuban Revolution happened in America, it could not rely on the 2nd Amendment for appropriate weaponry.

The Madsen M-50 and M3 Grease Gun were the favored smg's of the Castro's rebels, but many were armed with semi-auto M1 Carbines.

Select-fire weapons were indeed protected by the 2nd Amendment. Even after the 1934 NFA, select-fire weapons were still guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, only there would now be a $200 tax collected by the government for anyone wishing to purchase them.

You are having trouble distinguishing between what is GUARANTEED by the 2nd Amendment and what the government ALLOWS you to have. The federal government has banned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban) assault weapons in the past and could do so again in the future. The statute survived 10 years and was never overturned on constitutional grounds. It ultimately expired because the government decided to be generous.

Since 1791, the U.S. has not been taken over by a dictator. To say that if it ever was, the 2nd Amendment would be useless in re-establishing our democracy is not only absurd...

I'd like to sell you an anti-tiger rock.

but history has already proven that an armed citizenry can defeat a government that is backed by a modern military

Addressed already.

KingMerv00

7th July 2010, 02:03 PM

Anyway, I'll be heading to Vegas soon. Seems like a good time to bail on the thread. It has been nice talking to everyone, especially those that disagree with me. One exception: It was not nice talking to Cicero. He felt the need to fling insults from the the get go.

JoeTheJuggler

7th July 2010, 02:13 PM

It doesn't matter that firearms capable of firing continuously by holding the trigger did not exist in 1791. The technology of a projectile being hurled from a barrel did exist in 1791. Did you think that James Madison figured any future firearm development would never surpass the Brown Bess?

You didn't answer my question.

Do you think "arms" in the 2nd Amendment does refer to automatic weapons but not to biological, chemical or nuclear weapons?

FWIW, there's nothing in it about "a projectile being hurled from a barrel". Surely swords, crossbows and so on were considered "arms".

ETA:

You let us know when an American citizen builds a nuclear weapon and then says their right to own it is protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Does that mean you won't answer the question? What about anthrax? Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee the right of the individual to keep and bear weaponized anthrax?

ETA (again): These questions aren't limited to Cicero. I'd like to hear how anyone who thinks the 2nd Amendment guarantees the individual's right to keep and bear any type of firearm thinks it doesn't guarantee that right to the individual wrt to any other kind of arms (for examples, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons).

Piscivore

7th July 2010, 03:19 PM

You didn't answer my question.

Do you think "arms" in the 2nd Amendment does refer to automatic weapons but not to biological, chemical or nuclear weapons?

FWIW, there's nothing in it about "a projectile being hurled from a barrel". Surely swords, crossbows and so on were considered "arms".

ETA:

Does that mean you won't answer the question? What about anthrax? Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee the right of the individual to keep and bear weaponized anthrax?

ETA (again): These questions aren't limited to Cicero. I'd like to hear how anyone who thinks the 2nd Amendment guarantees the individual's right to keep and bear any type of firearm thinks it doesn't guarantee that right to the individual wrt to any other kind of arms (for examples, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons).

For that matter, what about computer viruses? Seems like the right bit of code in the right place at the right time would be a far more effective weapon than the fanciest of full-auto high caliber peashooters nowadays.

Cicero

7th July 2010, 04:27 PM

No kidding. I was saying that if the Cuban Revolution happened in America, it could not rely on the 2nd Amendment for appropriate weaponry.

There are currently more Class III firearms legally in the possession of Americans than Castro's revolutionaries had.

You are having trouble distinguishing between what is GUARANTEED by the 2nd Amendment and what the government ALLOWS you to have. The federal government has assault weapons in the past and could do so again in the future. The statute survived 10 years and was never overturned on constitutional grounds. It ultimately expired because the government decided to be generous.

Sales were suspended, but no confiscation of the misnomer "assault rifles" that were already sold. So once you legally owned them, you were guaranteed to continue to legally own them.

I'd like to sell you an anti-tiger rock.

?

Addressed already.

You mean spun.

It was not nice talking to Cicero. He felt the need to fling insults from the the get go.

You really were rattled to the point of stuttering.

Cicero

7th July 2010, 04:48 PM

You didn't answer my question.

Sure I did. You just have trouble confronting how the answer rendered your question pointless.

Do you think "arms" in the 2nd Amendment does refer to automatic weapons but not to biological, chemical or nuclear weapons?

Do you know of a court case where an American with their personal nuclear weapon has filed with SCOTUS the right to keep it under the 2nd Amendment?

FWIW, there's nothing in it about "a projectile being hurled from a barrel". Surely swords, crossbows and so on were considered "arms".

If you are looking for an argument that the 2nd Amendment also includes edged weapons as well as firearms, you came to the wrong place.

ETA:

Does that mean you won't answer the question? What about anthrax? Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee the right of the individual to keep and bear weaponized anthrax?

The only NRA I know of that is associated with the 2nd Amendment is the National Rifle Association. I don't know of any National Anthrax Association.

Fortunately, the 2nd Amendment allows you to abstain from owning a firearm, or edged weapon. You might be safer only using a spoon at meals.

The Painter

7th July 2010, 05:03 PM

The Painter

7th July 2010, 05:06 PM

From my previous links:
And more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Order_(group)

I love it when nothing shows up in a quote. I think you and I have different meanings for oppression. What you have quoted is more intimidation than oppression. They are different.

UNLoVedRebel

7th July 2010, 05:09 PM

Vegas is great. It's gonna' be hot as hell there.Nope. It's only 102 at McCarran. The record is 116 this time of year.

Piscivore

7th July 2010, 07:05 PM

I love it when nothing shows up in a quote. I think you and I have different meanings for oppression. What you have quoted is more intimidation than oppression. They are different.

How?

The Painter

8th July 2010, 02:43 AM

How?

1) unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power

2) to compel or deter by or as if by threats, to make timid or fearful

JoeTheJuggler

8th July 2010, 05:38 AM

Sure I did. You just have trouble confronting how the answer rendered your question pointless.
No, you did not answer my question at all, and it is not pointless. It raises the point that the word "arms" in the 2nd Amendment could no more logically be said to apply to assault weapons and automatic guns than it does to chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

Do you know of a court case where an American with their personal nuclear weapon has filed with SCOTUS the right to keep it under the 2nd Amendment?

So still no answer to my question. You can't say how the word "arms" in the 2nd Amendment can refer to automatic weapons but not to biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. Instead you keep asking me an irrelevant question.

If you are looking for an argument that the 2nd Amendment also includes edged weapons as well as firearms, you came to the wrong place.
So that stuff about "a projectile being hurled from a barrel" has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

ETA: And even if it were the limiting definition of "arms" (which it's not), then do you think the 2nd Amendment grants an individual right to own a tank which fires projectiles from a barrel?

The only NRA I know of that is associated with the 2nd Amendment is the National Rifle Association. I don't know of any National Anthrax Association.
Yes, that's exactly my point. Why do NRA types claim that the word "arms" in the 2nd Amendment refers to firearms alone? And why do they think it grants an individual right to own assault weapons and automatic guns but not to biological, chemical or nuclear weapons?

Still can't answer the question?

Cicero

8th July 2010, 08:21 AM

No, you did not answer my question at all, and it is not pointless. It raises the point that the word "arms" in the 2nd Amendment could no more logically be said to apply to assault weapons and automatic guns than it does to chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

But you don't even admit that it applies to the Brown Bess. Exactly what in your world does the 2nd Amendment encompass?

So still no answer to my question. You can't say how the word "arms" in the 2nd Amendment can refer to automatic weapons but not to biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. Instead you keep asking me an irrelevant question.

Since automatic weapons, sawed off shotguns, SBR's, and silencers are legal in the USA for private citizens to purchase and own, you should ask the BATF about how the word "arms" includes those and not nuclear weapons.

BTW: Since anyone can own a flame thrower in the USA, does that suggest that the 2nd Amendment included them as well?

So that stuff about "a projectile being hurled from a barrel" has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Of course it does. If it didn't, why do people like you get hives over the SCOTUS ruling that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right to own firearms.

ETA: And even if it were the limiting definition of "arms" (which it's not), then do you think the 2nd Amendment grants an individual right to own a tank which fires projectiles from a barrel?

You really need to become educated on all the weapons that are legal to own in the USA. Anyone can own a tank as long as it meets BATF regs: demil the breech and torch cut a hole equal to the bore in the high pressure area.

Yes, that's exactly my point. Why do NRA types claim that the word "arms" in the 2nd Amendment refers to firearms alone? And why do they think it grants an individual right to own assault weapons and automatic guns but not to biological, chemical or nuclear weapons?

Still can't answer the question?

The NRA does not declare that the 2nd Amendment only refers to firearms. Firearms are their only concern hence their name NRA. You really are having trouble with the obvious.

JoeTheJuggler

8th July 2010, 08:45 AM

The NRA does not declare that the 2nd Amendment only refers to firearms. Firearms are their only concern hence their name NRA. You really are having trouble with the obvious.

No, but at least some NRA members claim that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to own ANY kind of firearms, including kinds which no more resemble the idea of "arms" as used by the founding fathers than do chemical biological or nuclear weapons.

I don't think you have answered my question yet. How is it that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear assault weapons and automatic weapons but not chemical, biological or nuclear weapons when the word "arms" used by the founding fathers no more referred to the former than to the latter?

When the founding fathers used the term "arms" they referred to all sorts of arms (not just firearms), and the firearms they referred to were single shot things that didn't even fire tapered or conical bullets--nothing at all like some of these modern weapons. I do not think they meant the 2nd Amendment to prohibit laws that banned some types of weapons. (As KingMerv pointed out, that doesn't mean the federal government can't allow those kinds of weapons.)

JoeTheJuggler

8th July 2010, 08:51 AM

Since automatic weapons, sawed off shotguns, SBR's, and silencers are legal in the USA for private citizens to purchase and own, you should ask the BATF about how the word "arms" includes those and not nuclear weapons.

I'm not asking whether or not it's legal to own any of these things. (See again KingMerv's point that simply because it is currently legal to own automatic weapons, silencers, or whatever doesn't mean that it's an individual right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.)

I'm asking, how is it that people who think the 2nd Amendment guarantees the individual right to own automatic and assault guns but does not guarantee the right of the individual to own chemical, biological or nuclear weapons make this distinction given that the word used in the 2nd Amendment was "arms"?

JoeTheJuggler

8th July 2010, 08:54 AM

You really need to become educated on all the weapons that are legal to own in the USA. Anyone can own a tank as long as it meets BATF regs: demil the breech and torch cut a hole equal to the bore in the high pressure area.

Oh. So you're completely cool with a law that requires all automatic and assault weapons to be completely disabled as long as it doesn't prohibit owning these guns that cannot ever possibly function? You don't think the 2nd Amendment would strike down a law, for example, requiring that all handguns owned or possessed in Chicago be rendered non-functional?

Or are you just trying hard not to answer my question?

Cicero

8th July 2010, 09:09 AM

I'm not asking whether or not it's legal to own any of these things. (See again KingMerv's point that simply because it is currently legal to own automatic weapons, silencers, or whatever doesn't mean that it's an individual right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.)

Well, what Amendment do you think addresses the owning of these weapons?

I'm asking, how is it that people who think the 2nd Amendment guarantees the individual right to own automatic and assault guns but does not guarantee the right of the individual to own chemical, biological or nuclear weapons make this distinction given that the word used in the 2nd Amendment was "arms"?

Do you acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right to bear arms?

If so, exactly what arms does it guarantee?

Why are you only obsessed with nuclear and biological weapons being considered as fair game under the 2nd Amendment? What about a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range?

Piscivore

8th July 2010, 10:04 AM

1) unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power

2) to compel or deter by or as if by threats, to make timid or fearful

Using those defintions, asking for examples of "oppression" by a private citizen with a gun is nonsense, since "oppression" requires authority.

On the other hand, it could be understood that being a member of a group in a numerical majority and with disproportionate (or in the cases I referenced, exclusive) representation in government is a "power" in itself- which is the context in which I offered these examples and in which context they are valid.

Piscivore

8th July 2010, 10:10 AM

Why are you only obsessed with nuclear and biological weapons being considered as fair game under the 2nd Amendment? What about a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range?

The first two actually exist.

Cicero

8th July 2010, 10:40 AM

The first two actually exist.

And the chances of a American private citizen buying those or making those are as probable as American private citizen buying or making a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.

Why are the anti-gun contingent consumed with theoretical nonsense when they are already apoplectic about American citizens owning conventional weapons?

Piscivore

8th July 2010, 10:51 AM

And the chances of a American private citizen buying those or making those are as probable as American private citizen buying or making a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.
No they are not "as probable". The technology for making an atomic bomb is known. There are instructions on the web. Nuclear bombs exist.

The technology for making a bioweapon is known- in fact, it is so ridiculously easy some techniques are ancient. Diseases exist.

None of this is true for the imaginary weapon you referenced.

Why are the anti-gun contingent consumed with theoretical nonsense when they are already apoplectic about American citizens owning conventional weapons?
Again, your partisanship is creating arguments out of questions. Where did Joe or I say we were "anti-gun", let alone part of any "contingent"?

Cicero

8th July 2010, 11:04 AM

No they are not "as probable". The technology for making an atomic bomb is known. There are instructions on the web. Nuclear bombs exist.

The information to make these weapons exist, but not for a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range. I wonder why then neither of them are in American private citizen hands, unless of course you know something the rest of us do not.

The technology for making a bioweapon is known- in fact, it is so ridiculously easy some techniques are ancient. Diseases exist.

Then who are all these American private citizens that posess them?

None of this is true for the imaginary weapon you referenced.

And yet the reality is the same in that no American private citizen has them.

Again, your partisanship is creating arguments out of questions. Where did Joe or I say we were "anti-gun", let alone part of any "contingent"?

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the purpose of those who are fixated on worrying about whether the 2nd Amendment covers nuclear and biological weapons when there is no incident of any American private citizen having them.

Do you own any firearms? If yes, what are they.

Suddenly

8th July 2010, 11:25 AM

Yes, that's exactly my point. Why do NRA types claim that the word "arms" in the 2nd Amendment refers to firearms alone? And why do they think it grants an individual right to own assault weapons and automatic guns but not to biological, chemical or nuclear weapons?

Still can't answer the question?

I'm far from the NRA as to my opinions, but I can answer the question somewhat. The main point is that rights are not absolute, the best example being the yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre not being protected under the first amendment because of the public danger to innocents and such. They are subject to reasonable regulation.

Thus the assumption that WMDs are not covered is reasonable. That "guns" are covered is somewhat reasonable, but as a legal matter that distinction is a bit broad. They don't worry much about non-guns because once you eliminate guns and obvious violators of the reasonable regulation concept there isn't much left.

(Courts probably aren't going to be so broad as to just treat "guns" as a monolithic entity. When weighing public safety against the right to self defense, they will be a bit more specific and give a .22 pistol a different analysis from a high caliber machine gun.)

What I've been wondering about was my dim recollection that cryptography is sometimes treated as a weapon....

Piscivore

8th July 2010, 11:27 AM

The information to make these weapons exist, but not for a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.
Right, so the probability of a nuclear weapon in private hands is greater than zero. It cannot be higher than zero for an imaginary weapon.

I wonder why then neither of them are in American private citizen hands, unless of course you know something the rest of us do not.
Imaginary weapons are not in private hands because they cannot be, they do not exist. I don't know if there are any atomic weapons in private hands, but I know the possiblity is greater than zero. Do you know that there aren't any?

Then who are all these American private citizens that posess them?
Anybody with TB, to start with.

And yet the reality is the same in that no American private citizen has them.
No, because we cannot be certain that no private citizen possesses an atomic weapon, we know that some private citizens possess bioweapons (http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/agentlist.asp), and we know for certain no one has a weapon that does not exist.

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the purpose of those who are fixated on worrying about whether the 2nd Amendment covers nuclear and biological weapons when there is no incident of any American private citizen having them.
Maybe they are just asking for your opinion.

Do you own any firearms? If yes, what are they.
Yes. Why is that relevant?

JoeTheJuggler

8th July 2010, 02:52 PM

I see you're still avoiding my simple straightforward question. I'll try to answer yours:
Well, what Amendment do you think addresses the owning of these weapons?

Do you acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right to bear arms?

If so, exactly what arms does it guarantee?
I can answer all three of these at once, I think. I think the 2nd Amendment was not meant to be an individual right separate from the need to establish a military. It was written by people who didn't know about automatic weapons, assault rifles (or chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons). In fact, they also didn't foresee a standing army and the authority of the president to go to war without Congress declaring war, appropriating funds, and raising an army.

Why are you only obsessed with nuclear and biological weapons being considered as fair game under the 2nd Amendment? What about a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range?

I'm not obsessed with anything. I'm having trouble with the logic of people who think the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own any type of firearm but not any type of arms.

And I still haven't heard you answer the question as to how you decide that "arms" refers to one type of arms that the founding fathers didn't know about but not to all of other sorts that they didn't know about? It's a less awkward question to fill in assault and automatic guns for one group and chemical, biological or nuclear weapons for the other group.

So far, the only thing I've seen that even resembled an attempt to answer my question was that bit about "a projectile being hurled from a barrel" which would indeed distinguish firearms from other types of arms. Trouble is, that language isn't part of the 2nd Amendment, and you've already ceded that the word "arms" in the 2nd Amendment wasn't limited to that definition.

Marquis de Carabas

8th July 2010, 02:53 PM

I voted for the First. Take away any of the others, and the First still guarantees me the right to bitch about it.

JoeTheJuggler

8th July 2010, 02:59 PM

I'm far from the NRA as to my opinions, but I can answer the question somewhat. The main point is that rights are not absolute, the best example being the yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre not being protected under the first amendment because of the public danger to innocents and such. They are subject to reasonable regulation.

Thus the assumption that WMDs are not covered is reasonable. That "guns" are covered is somewhat reasonable, but as a legal matter that distinction is a bit broad. They don't worry much about non-guns because once you eliminate guns and obvious violators of the reasonable regulation concept there isn't much left.

(Courts probably aren't going to be so broad as to just treat "guns" as a monolithic entity. When weighing public safety against the right to self defense, they will be a bit more specific and give a .22 pistol a different analysis from a high caliber machine gun.)

What I've been wondering about was my dim recollection that cryptography is sometimes treated as a weapon....

I think your answer is closer to what the courts have said than what the NRA-types I'm talking about say. As KingMerv has pointed out, there are types of firearms that can be banned, and the 2nd Amendment does not present a legal obstacle to banning them. (That is, it doesn't guarantee the individual's right to own any type of firearm.)

My question is specific to those who don't take the view that gun ownership is subject to reasonable regulation that can include banning some types of firearms. That is, it's directed at those who think the 2nd Amendment guarantees the individual right to own automatic weapons and assault weapons but not to own chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. How do they make the distinction, since the 2nd Amendment uses only the word "arms"?

Under the understanding you've presented, it's not such a slam dunk that the recently tossed Chicago handgun ban was unconstitutional. (And I think the longevity of that ban and the split decision reflects that it was a near thing.)

I also recognize that my opinion (given in my previous post) is not the majority opinion of the courts or the law of the land.

ETA: To clarify further, while I disagree with the majority opinion of the courts (the current law of the land), I don't see a glaring logical flaw in their reasoning. The question they had to answer, according to your well-explained framework, was whether or not the Chicago handgun ban was reasonable, not whether or not there was an absolute guarantee of the individual's right to own any kind of firearm. From what I've heard in the media (I have not read that opinion), I think your description is probably accurate or pretty close to what the courts said.

JoeTheJuggler

8th July 2010, 03:04 PM

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the purpose of those who are fixated on worrying about whether the 2nd Amendment covers nuclear and biological weapons when there is no incident of any American private citizen having them.

I'm sure I've explained the significance and point of my question several times.

I'm pointing to a logical flaw in a certain position. If there is not a logical flaw, then I want to hear a proponent of that position say he thinks the 2nd Amendment protects the individual's right to own these other types of arms.

Whether or not a private citizen owns any of these other types of weapon is irrelevant. (But for point of fact, you are wrong. Don't you remember the anthrax attacks? That guy certainly did possess weaponized anthrax. I suspect there are other examples.)

GlennB

8th July 2010, 03:12 PM

And I still haven't heard you answer the question as to how you decide that "arms" refers to one type of arms that the founding fathers didn't know about but not to all of other sorts that they didn't know about? It's a less awkward question to fill in assault and automatic guns for one group and chemical, biological or nuclear weapons for the other group.

Aye. Let's rephrase the 2nd Amendment to make it more sensible :

A well regulated up-to-date Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms fit for the needs of the times, shall not be infringed.

Thus, any modern militia will definitely need SAMs, RPGs and lord knows what-all. That's Joe Soap right there, folks. With a functional tank.

The 2nd Amendment is a total nonsense as currently interpreted in today's world.

Cicero

8th July 2010, 03:36 PM

Whether or not a private citizen owns any of these other types of weapon is irrelevant.

As a private citizen, do you own any type of firearm?

Cicero

8th July 2010, 03:41 PM

The 2nd Amendment is a total nonsense as currently interpreted in today's world.

Those like yourself who believe that it requires interpretation will continue to be confused. At least the SCOTUS finally put that notion to rest by declaring it is an individual right just as it was written in 1791.

The Painter

8th July 2010, 04:15 PM

Using those defintions, asking for examples of "oppression" by a private citizen with a gun is nonsense, since "oppression" requires authority.

On the other hand, it could be understood that being a member of a group in a numerical majority and with disproportionate (or in the cases I referenced, exclusive) representation in government is a "power" in itself- which is the context in which I offered these examples and in which context they are valid.

In your first paragraph you understand, and then you throw understanding away in the 2nd paragraph. No wonder you're confused.

Piscivore

8th July 2010, 04:47 PM

In your first paragraph you understand, and then you throw understanding away in the 2nd paragraph. No wonder you're confused.

My apologies, you were using a semantic trick to dismiss what Merv said. You're so very clever.

leftysergeant

8th July 2010, 04:52 PM

Those like yourself who believe that it requires interpretation will continue to be confused. At least the SCOTUS finally put that notion to rest by declaring it is an individual right just as it was written in 1791.Of course four out the nine justices are whacko, three of them under-qualified and only four of them really as bright as advertised.

The problem with the 2nd Ammendment, as now applied, is that the structure it was supposed to support has gone to rot and ruin.

I totally favor private ownership of firearms, with the caveat that all gun owners have a clue what they are doing with them, and that having the weapons should obligate the citizen to fall out for duty in timems of emergency under command of a competent legal authority, like the sheriff or governor.

My problem is with idiots like Trochmann and Koernke who just decided that they would be commanders. That aint the militia. That's an insurrection waiting to happen.

defaultdotxbe

8th July 2010, 07:00 PM

I totally favor private ownership of firearms, with the caveat that all gun owners have a clue what they are doing with them, and that having the weapons should obligate the citizen to fall out for duty in timems of emergency under command of a competent legal authority, like the sheriff or governor.
off topic, but do you think all sheriffs and all governors in the US are competent? are they all legal?

leftysergeant

8th July 2010, 07:05 PM

off topic, but do you think all sheriffs and all governors in the US are competent?

No, of course not. Some are Republicans. are they all legal?

Of course.

None of the private militia leaders are.

GlennB

8th July 2010, 11:46 PM

Those like yourself who believe that it requires interpretation will continue to be confused. At least the SCOTUS finally put that notion to rest by declaring it is an individual right just as it was written in 1791.

If it required no interpretation then why did it take the SCOTUS a couple of hundred years to interpret it? Meanwhile linguists, philosophers and logicians still debate the meaning, let alone the effect.

And, while they were at it, did the SCOTUS confirm the right to carry weapons that might be of some conceivable use to a modern militia?

Suddenly

9th July 2010, 06:21 AM

If it required no interpretation then why did it take the SCOTUS a couple of hundred years to interpret it? Meanwhile linguists, philosophers and logicians still debate the meaning, let alone the effect.

Obviously a plot by liberals.

Those that claim to be textualists usually are just ignorant of the concept of ambiguity. If they agree with an interpretation that interpretation is the plain meaning of the text. If they don't, it is a plot by the sorry people to twist the document into a weapon against normal people that know better....

On this principle rests much fringe. I see a lot of it in Libertarian and teabagger arguments.

Suddenly

9th July 2010, 06:51 AM

My question is specific to those who don't take the view that gun ownership is subject to reasonable regulation that can include banning some types of firearms. That is, it's directed at those who think the 2nd Amendment guarantees the individual right to own automatic weapons and assault weapons but not to own chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. How do they make the distinction, since the 2nd Amendment uses only the word "arms"?

I can't of course speak of exactly what these people think, (insert smug liberal joke here) but the general idea is that a gun is useful as a defensive weapon in day to day life while a nuke really isn't. A vague classification, but not totally unreasonable.

I mean, I'm sure I could come up with a "firearm" that such a person would consider worthy of regulation, but it would probably have to violate the general principle that a gun is pointed at something specific and if used correctly hits nothing else.

I suspect the classification fixation is a vestige of the Miller decision as that case rested a lot of the classification of a weapon, so much of the rhetoric around the second has adopted the general concept.

Under the understanding you've presented, it's not such a slam dunk that the recently tossed Chicago handgun ban was unconstitutional. (And I think the longevity of that ban and the split decision reflects that it was a near thing.)

Absolutely. The only new thing here is that now governments have to approach this from the regulation angle, stating compelling governmental interests and such.

I also recognize that my opinion (given in my previous post) is not the majority opinion of the courts or the law of the land.

ETA: To clarify further, while I disagree with the majority opinion of the courts (the current law of the land), I don't see a glaring logical flaw in their reasoning. The question they had to answer, according to your well-explained framework, was whether or not the Chicago handgun ban was reasonable, not whether or not there was an absolute guarantee of the individual's right to own any kind of firearm. From what I've heard in the media (I have not read that opinion), I think your description is probably accurate or pretty close to what the courts said.

The Chicago case was solely about whether the 14th amendment makes the states follow the 2nd amendment rights. The earlier case (Heller) is the one that adopted the so called "individual rights" view. The effect that ruling has is that now any state/local law constricting gun ownership has to be in the context of regulation of that right.

I have to admit my opinion on all of this is in a bit of flux. As ratified, I'm still of the opinion that the 2nd amendment was about the federal government interfering with state militias. The idea I'm now wrestling with is whether maybe the historical context of 14th amendment effectually amended the 2nd, making it an individual right. Justice Thomas says something similar in his concurring opinion in the Chicago case.

My finding Thomas persuasive either shows my open mindedness to conservative ideas and thinkers or that I've finally lost it....

Suddenly

9th July 2010, 06:59 AM

I voted for the First. Take away any of the others, and the First still guarantees me the right to bitch about it.

That this turned into a second amendment thread says a lot about how far the quality of public political discourse has fallen off. The second is a sideshow at best. It's main effect on American politics is as a hot button issue to scare silly people into thinking the liberals will steal their guns. Very effectively at that.

JoeTheJuggler

9th July 2010, 07:26 AM

As a private citizen, do you own any type of firearm?

Irrelevant.

JoeTheJuggler

9th July 2010, 07:32 AM

I can't of course speak of exactly what these people think, (insert smug liberal joke here) but the general idea is that a gun is useful as a defensive weapon in day to day life while a nuke really isn't. A vague classification, but not totally unreasonable.

But an assault weapon is no more useful in day to day life than anthrax. So again, I don't see how they make the distinction. They really act as if the 2nd Amendment was limited to firearms.

Also, they ignore the fact that the founding fathers definitely linked this right to the ability to wage war. If there's any individual right apart from that, it is as you say a de facto amendment.

Thanks for the info on the recent decision. I haven't been keeping up.

JoeTheJuggler

9th July 2010, 07:35 AM

Suddenly

9th July 2010, 07:49 AM

But an assault weapon is no more useful in day to day life than anthrax. So again, I don't see how they make the distinction. They really act as if the 2nd Amendment was limited to firearms.

Well, we sort of have to ignore statistical reality here and limit "day to day" life down to moments where a person is put in jeopardy of life and limb. You can shoot someone with the rifle, whereas using anthrax is both imprecise and works too slowly as a defensive weapon.

Yes, this happens rarely and generally ends with the gun owner killing a family member or some other innocent, but that is another story.

Also, they ignore the fact that the founding fathers definitely linked this right to the ability to wage war. If there's any individual right apart from that, it is as you say a de facto amendment.

Thanks for the info on the recent decision. I haven't been keeping up.

I don't know about the waging of war as such. Back then, the idea of a standing police force was virtually unheard of outside of a big city. Rural areas needed the ability to react to non-trivial threats. Those militias were as much about self defense as war, just back then it was more collective self defense than individual.

I can argue for the present "individual rights" construction based on this and the evolution of criminal activity towards smaller scale activity, but to do so I have to apply the sorts of dynamic statutory construction concepts that conservatives claim to hate.

carlitos

9th July 2010, 07:57 AM

I voted first, but am a big fan of the second, which is now back in effect in my city.

However, it's interesting how much we take for granted the eighth amendment, especially since we still kill people at the federal level. I have no doubt that this will eventually become illegal as our interpretation of the Constitution continues to evolve, but there seems to be no doubt that the founders (more or less) had no problem with hanging folks.

Cicero

9th July 2010, 08:27 AM

Irrelevant.

Could you explain how answering whether you own any firearms compromises your position? This question is much more relevant to your own personal position on the 2nd Amendment than your unctuous question regarding whether the 2nd Amendment covers nuclear and bio weapons.

Cicero

9th July 2010, 08:29 AM

But an assault weapon is no more useful in day to day life than anthrax.

Would you care to provide your idea of what is an "assault weapon?"

Cicero

9th July 2010, 08:44 AM

That this turned into a second amendment thread says a lot about how far the quality of public political discourse has fallen off. The second is a sideshow at best. It's main effect on American politics is as a hot button issue to scare silly people into thinking the liberals will steal their guns. Very effectively at that.

It is just a coincidence that the four SCOTUS judges ( Stevens, Breyer, Souter, and Ginsburg), who denied the 2nd Amendment is a guarantee of individual rights in District of Columbia v. Heller, and the four SCOTUS judges (Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, Souter), who denied to extend the 2nd Amendment beyond the federal level in McDonald v. Chicago, just happen to be libs.

Liberals cannot "steal" the 300 million firearms already in the possession of American citizens. This must be your own dream.

Cicero

9th July 2010, 09:07 AM

If it required no interpretation then why did it take the SCOTUS a couple of hundred years to interpret it? Meanwhile linguists, philosophers and logicians still debate the meaning, let alone the effect.

And, while they were at it, did the SCOTUS confirm the right to carry weapons that might be of some conceivable use to a modern militia?

From 1791 to 1934, there were no federal laws prohibiting or regulating the possession of firearms. SCOTUS hasn't been working on the meaning for a couple of 100 years. They worked on it once in 1939, once in 2008 and once in 2010.

Yes, the SCOTUS did not change current federal law that allows for American private citizens to obtain Class III weapons (what you might consider useful to a modern militia) that require a $200 tax payable to ATF.
Just because linguists, philosophers and logicians delight in making sport out of the wording of the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean their opinions have any authority over the 2nd Amendment 's validity.

Piscivore

9th July 2010, 09:34 AM

Could you explain how answering whether you own any firearms compromises your position? This question is much more relevant to your own personal position on the 2nd Amendment than your unctuous question regarding whether the 2nd Amendment covers nuclear and bio weapons.

In other words, he needs to figure out how to pigeonhole you into his narrow political views.

Cicero

9th July 2010, 09:39 AM

In other words, he needs to figure out how to pigeonhole you into his narrow political views.

You are the one who stated that JoeTheJuggler is not anti-gun. What did you base this conclusion on and why did your admission that you own some type of firearm not undermine your position?

Piscivore

9th July 2010, 09:43 AM

You are the one who stated that JoeTheJuggler is not anti-gun. What did you base this conclusion on
The fact that he hasn't said anything "anti-gun". He's simply asked a question you don't seem to want to answer, and that has somehow made him your "enemy".

why did your admission that you own some type of firearm not undermine your position?

What "position" is that, do you imagine?

Skeptic Guy

9th July 2010, 09:43 AM

No, that would be the courts. When was the last time anyone used a gun to protect their Constitutional rights?

And if I start shipping in slaves from other countries?

This has always been my point. The Constitution, in its entirity, is our protection. No group of militia goobers with automatic weapons is going to protect us against the Federal Government with its tanks, bombs, and planes. In fact, I'm more scared of the militias with their extreme views on government than anything else.

to put it another way, when was the last time anyone had the balls try TRY to take away our constitutional rights?

and this is why i said first, the second may or may not be needed to protect rights you DO have, but the first amendment is the only way to get rights you SHOULD have

Right now, if you are gay or lesbian, you are losing your right to equal protection.

Cicero

9th July 2010, 09:50 AM

This has always been my point. The Constitution, in its entirity, is our protection. No group of militia goobers with automatic weapons is going to protect us against the Federal Government with its tanks, bombs, and planes. In fact, I'm more scared of the militias with their extreme views on government than anything else.

And yet Castro and his rebels armed with semi-auto and full auto weapons overthrew the dictator Batista who had tanks, bombs, and planes at his disposal.

What militias are those and where have you ever come in contact with them?

Right now, if you are gay or lesbian, you are losing your right to equal protection.

And you want to protect gays and lesbians from shotgun weddings?

Cicero

9th July 2010, 10:01 AM

The fact that he hasn't said anything "anti-gun". He's simply asked a question you don't seem to want to answer, and that has somehow made him your "enemy".

His comments indicate a complete lack of knowledge of firearms and the laws already in existence that regulate them. Let's examine this statement by JTJ:

But an assault weapon is no more useful in day to day life than anthrax.

This sentiment parrots the positions of the famous pro-gun politicians Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, and Waxman.

What "position" is that, do you imagine?

Don't keep me in suspense.

Piscivore

9th July 2010, 10:15 AM

His comments indicate a complete lack of knowledge of firearms and the laws already in existence that regulate them.
How does that make him "anti-gun"?

This sentiment parrots the positions of the famous pro-gun politicians Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, and Waxman.
Facts have the fortunate quality of being the same for everyone, regardless of political leanings.

How many Americans do you think actually have a need to use (not just own) an "assault rifle" on a daily basis?

Don't keep me in suspense.
You seem to think you know already, since you implied that my owning a firearm "undermines" it.

And I told you once already in this thread.

Suddenly

9th July 2010, 10:28 AM

I'm anti- hand gun. Like these whimpy liberals:

Hand guns are made for killin’
Ain’t no good for nothin’ else
And if you like your whiskey
You might even shoot yourself
So why don’t we dump ’em people
To the bottom of the sea
Before some fool come around here
Wanna shoot either you or me

Lynyrd Skynyrd

Cicero

9th July 2010, 10:32 AM

QUOTE=Piscivore;6109150]How does that make him "anti-gun"?

He parrots the tired anti-gun argument about the "need" for a particular firearm.

Facts have the fortunate quality of being the same for everyone, regardless of political leanings.

There was a fact in that quote? Where?

How many Americans do you think actually have a need to use (not just own) an "assault rifle" on a daily basis?

Since JoeTheJuggler has not yet posted his definition of an "assault weapon," perhaps you could provide your own. What does "need" have to do with anything in a free country? Who needs to drive a SSC Aero on a daily basis?

You seem to think you know already, since you implied that my owning a firearm "undermines" it.

I said just the opposite.

Piscivore

9th July 2010, 10:48 AM

He parrots the tired anti-gun argument about the "need" for a particular firearm.
Did he? Can you quote it?

Since JoeTheJuggler has not yet posted his definition of an "assault weapon," perhaps you could provide your own.
Let's say a rifle of a calibre matching or approximating the military cartriges in use by modern armies, with a semi-auto action and a detachable magazine of greater capacity than five rounds.

What does "need" have to do with anything in a free country? Who needs to drive a SSC Aero on a daily basis?
Actually, "need" was my own mistaken insertion into that. I'll remove it.
How many Americans do you think actually have a use for, beyond just ownership, of an "assault rifle" on a daily basis?

I said just the opposite.
No, you didn't. You said "why did your admission that you own some type of firearm not undermine your position?" Why would you ask why owning a firearm did not "undermine my position" if you did not think it did?