2nd ammendment skepticism

[quixotecoyote]

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 By your argument the Second Amendment is obsolete but the Third Amendment is not, both for the same reason.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

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

3rd says, "no soldiers in houses""


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

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

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

 

[Alex Libman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[fishbob]

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

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

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

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

 

[Yjacket]

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

When dealing with people who seek power over others I cannot make predictions. I have said that I hope such a situation would not arise in the US. I do not believe that it could not happen. As to ignoring the legal constraints if such a situation were to come about I have no doubt that those in power would do so. But as I noted before I would hope that many of the men and women in the armed forces would see their way to failing to comply with orders that require them to violate Posse Comitatus, especially most flag officers.

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

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

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

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

 

[Yjacket]

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

3rd says, "no soldiers in houses""


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

Who says that we don't need militias anymore. Just because the various states have failed to organize a militia does not mean that such units are not needed. Seems to me that since the DoD loans the states units that perhaps the states should organize their own again.

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

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

 

[PhantomWolf]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The overthrow of monarchy was good.

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

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

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

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

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

All governments are as evil as they can get away with

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

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

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

 

[PhantomWolf]

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

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

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

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

 

[zooterkin]

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

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

 

[PhantomWolf]

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

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

 

[Alex Libman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Let's take it to a separate thread: "Libertarianism, Voluntary Communities, Seasteading, and Singapore".)

 

[PhantomWolf]

High compared to what, socialist aging Europe and Japan?

Compared to the rest of the western world.

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

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

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

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

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

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

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC a dictatorship?

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

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

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

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

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

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I was born in the Soviet Union

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

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

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

 

[Gagglegnash]

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

3rd says, "no soldiers in houses""

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

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

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

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

Federal law...

TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A - General Military Law

PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes​

-STATUTE-

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

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and

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

....

Indiana, where I live, law:

IC 10-16-6

Chapter 6. Organization and Personnel​

IC 10-16-6-1
Age of personnel

Sec. 1. Under Article 12, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana, the militia consists of all persons who are at least eighteen (18) years of age except those persons who are exempted by the laws of the United States or of Indiana.​

As added by P.L.2-2003, SEC.7. Amended by P.L.115-2003, SEC.17

IC 10-16-6-2
Classes of militia

Sec. 2. The militia shall be divided into two (2) classes, the sedentary militia and the national guard, as follows:

(1) The sedentary militia consists of all persons subject to bear arms under the Constitution of the State of Indiana who do not belong to the national guard.

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

As added by P.L.2-2003, SEC.7.

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

To put a finer point on things:

Article 1

Bill of Rights​

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

....

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

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

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

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

....Not an enviable position.

 

[Darth Rotor]

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

I fail to understand, yet again, why the liberal justices consider this right as something constitutionally unsound, and worthy of discarding on a Constitutional basis. There is already significant statutory modification on any absolute and unconstrained firearm sale, distribution, and possession in place. I do not find a draconian response, punish all for the actions of a minority, consistent with a government allegedly serving the people.

As usual, yesterday, twenty million law abiding gun owners didn't kill anyone. What is your -- or the generic liberal if it isn't your's specifically -- beef with them?

But if that's the argument, then isn't the Second Amendment obsolete?

No, it is not, see the Constitution and amdendment procedures. Until the collective will swings to disarming, from the bottom up and the appropriate super majority style decision arrives, no, it is not obsolete.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[volatile]

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

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

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

 

[WildCat]

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

The only thing that is stretched is your interpretation of the amendment.

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

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

Bizarre.

 

[WildCat]

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

Oddly enough, there is a way to repeal amendments to the Constitution.

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

Good luck on getting the 2nd Amendment repealed.

 

[JamesDillon]

I fail to understand, yet again, why the liberal justices consider this right as something constitutionally unsound, and worthy of discarding on a Constitutional basis. There is already significant statutory modification on any absolute and unconstrained firearm sale, distribution, and possession in place. I do not find a draconian response, punish all for the actions of a minority, consistent with a government allegedly serving the people.

I think it's worth noting that how much of that statutory regulation will survive Heller is still an open question.

As usual, yesterday, twenty million law abiding gun owners didn't kill anyone. What is your -- or the generic liberal if it isn't your's specifically -- beef with them?

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

No, it is not, see the Constitution and amdendment procedures. Until the collective will swings to disarming, from the bottom up and the appropriate super majority style decision arrives, no, it is not obsolete.

I said obsolete, not nullified. As in (a phrase I later used), "outlived its usefulness." That doesn't mean that we can just ignore it but it does mean that, if Smiledriver's theory of why the Second Amendment exists is valid, that it would appear not to serve any useful purpose today.

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

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

I'm not really clear on what this has to do with anything I was saying. Again, if we're hypothesizing a world in which Smiledriver's justification for the Second Amendment were to come to fruition and the U.S. population were justified in taking up arms against the federal government, I don't think that hypothetical, tyrannical government would find itself constrained by the limitations on power that our actual government today observes. So the fact that these limitations exist today is not really relevant to the question, except insofar as to demonstrate that we haven't yet arrived in a world in which armed rebellion would be justified, and seem to have no prospect of arriving at one in the foreseeable future.

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

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

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

 

[JamesDillon]

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

 

[Drudgewire]

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

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

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

 

[billydkid]

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

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


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

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

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