2nd ammendment skepticism

[quixotecoyote]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#​

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

 

[quixotecoyote]

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

And the libertarian contingent is heard from.

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

 

[applecorped]

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

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

How much is often?

 

[Kestrel]

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

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

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

 

[JamesDillon]

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

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

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

 

[Darth Rotor]

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

Aye.

I wouldn't say that I particularly have one; as I said above I incline toward the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

Aye, as do I.

Purely as a policy matter if the constitutional issue were off the table I'd probably support a statutory right at the very least to hunting rifles and antiques; I'm not sure about handguns for personal defense and would be inclined against a personal right of ownership of military style assault weapons.

I see no reason to ban assault weapons, nor any massively compelling case for their proliferation. Most people would need a firearms training course to correctly and safely us one in the first place. Since I have a brother in law in law enforcement, I am somewhat biased in being pleased that he is not facing assault weapons legally purchased, and displeased that he is facing the assault weapons illegally purchased. The benefit to them being illegal seems mostly after the fact.

I'll leave the stronger abolitionist argument to someone who holds that view.

Thank you.

I said obsolete, not nullified. As in (a phrase I later used), "outlived its usefulness."

It's utility varies. When utility arises, should I go to an extreme and point out that police forces have outlived their usefulness, as they can't protect me from crime? (Obviously, that's not an airtight position. )

That doesn't mean that we can just ignore it but it does mean that, if Smiledriver's theory of why the Second Amendment exists is valid, that it would appear not to serve any useful purpose today.

But is its utility confined to the militia? No.

Again, if we're hypothesizing a world in which Smiledriver's justification for the Second Amendment were to come to fruition and the U.S. population were justified in taking up arms against the federal government, I don't think that hypothetical, tyrannical government would find itself constrained by the limitations on power that our actual government today observes.

Most likely true.

So the fact that these limitations exist today is not really relevant to the question, except insofar as to demonstrate that we haven't yet arrived in a world in which armed rebellion would be justified, and seem to have no prospect of arriving at one in the foreseeable future.

I do not assume away a more troubling future than the one we now live in.

Fine, but the point I've been making is that it's not at all clear to me how the Second Amendment protects liberty in any meaningful way in today's world.

I don't find "meaningful" a useful standard for measure here, given the subjective nature. If we go back to the IX and X, and first principles somewhat, reserving the rights remains as a priority. In short, it isn't broken, and doesn't need a fix. A significant portion of the troublel with firearms lies in the activities and behavior of those acting outside the law, and the statutes already agreed as reasonable risk mitigation are sufficient for that. That condition is is hardly helped by a draconian "fix" to a perceived problem.

If the federal government wants to shred the Constitution and impose a totalitarian regime, a few citizens with pistols and hunting rifles aren't going to be able to stop it.

Your "few" is belied by the millions of gun owners. the number of gun owners outnumber the troops by about 10 to 1. You are also neglecting the fairly simple methods of violent action that do not require firearms. The combined arms approach works for irregulars as well as regulars. The IED using a garage door opener is not new technology, nor is it all that complex. It's fairly effective at what it is meant to do.

So the "liberty" protected by the Second Amendment is an illusion.

Not hardly. The liberty to be left the hell alone as a law abiding citizen is no illusion to be dismissed, it goes back to some first principles about what our Constitution is based upon: free men being served by a limited government, limited in scope by the document we are discussing.

As I said above, the real bulwarks against tyranny in today's world include a commitment to the rule of law and democratic procedure; an informed and engaged public; and good faith on the part of elected officials.

I generally agree with that as well, except I no longer have any faith in the good faith of any elected official. It has to be demonstrated, or it is absent. Call me skeptical, call me cynical, but don't call me a believer in the good faith of any elected official. That, sir, I hold as an illusion until action demonstrates otherwise.

DR

 

[volatile]

How much is often?

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

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

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

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

The whole argument is built on sand.

 

[JamesDillon]

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

 

[Phrost]

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

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

Fortunately this was already addressed by the man himself:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

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

 

[volatile]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Drudgewire]

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

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

 

[volatile]

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

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

 

[Phrost]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Drudgewire]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USA!! USA!!

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

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

 

[Phrost]

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

No, you missed the point: Tyranny was defined in the Declaration of Independence.

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

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

 

[Ranb]

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

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

Ranb

 

[Phrost]

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

Ranb

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

 

[Drudgewire]

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

Glad I wasn't the only one.


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

 

[quixotecoyote]

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

Ranb

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

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

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

 

[Drudgewire]

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

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