NationStates Jolt Archive


You ever just stop and read the Second Ammendment? It's really not that complicated

Pages : [1] 2
Klonor
29-04-2008, 21:05
So, I carry around with me a copy of the U.S. Constitution, it's in a pouch on my backpack where I also keep a copy of the Qur'an and New Testmant (Also an umbrella. I like to be prepared), and occasionally I take it out and just thumb through the ammendments. I'm not usually looking for anything specific, just browsing, and sometimes I giggle at how people really don't seem to actually know what's written in this thing (Did you know, for example, that we actually haven't outlawed slavery at all? It's still legal as punishment for a crime. If we made it illegal to be black, and there is no part of the constitution that says we can't, then bingo-bango-bongo we're back to completely legal and constitutionally endorsed bondage and wide-scale oppression). Yesterday I happened to pop in on the Second Ammendment, which I've done many times before, but this time I stared at it for a bit and realized something: What the hell is all this controversy about?

Honestly, it's a pretty straight-forward sentence: 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 makes no mention of people having an inherent right to bear arms, but that a militia is necessary for security and, because of that, the right to bear arms exists; if you're not in such a militia, this ammendment makes no reference to you. It makes no mention of an inability to restrict or govern the use of firearms, but actually specifically mentions that the militia (Which is why we have this right) needs to be well regulated.

Now, I'm actually not a person who supports the banning of guns from the country, or believes that everybody who owns a gun is a trigger-happy whacko, but seriously, this ammendment is pretty clear. It refers to the organization and membership of a militia, and that's it, not to an inalienable right. Why all the big fuss?
Ryadn
29-04-2008, 21:09
Damn, you know what no one ever bothered to do? Read the amendment. It was under our noses the whole time!

It's slightly more complicated than that. Today's world is not the world of the framers, the words "militia", "right", "infringed", even "free State" are all subject to interpretation from multiple angles, and we also happen to have a court whose sole purpose is to decide whether or not certain laws are constitutional... leading me to believe that it's not quite that simple.
God339
29-04-2008, 21:12
If they were only talking about the militia, then why did they say the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Kryozerkia
29-04-2008, 21:13
It's because the average American citizen has the attention span of a gold fish. They only take in the parts that are convenient for them.



Nothing against Americans. :)
Trollgaard
29-04-2008, 21:14
The people need guns so if they join/form a militia they will already be armed...
New Genoa
29-04-2008, 21:16
It's because the average American citizen has the attention span of a gold fish, when they are forced to sit through boring high school classes and only remembered parts of the amendment; the parts that suit them.

Like you mean how people only concentrate on "a well-regulated militia" part as opposed to say "right of the people to keep and bear arms" part?

For the record, the sentence is not very clear...it sounds like poor english to me.

The people need guns so if they join/form a militia they will already be armed...

Also weren't some of the founders against having a standing army? The only way the states could defend themselves is if the people armed themselves into local militia and what not...or something.
Kryozerkia
29-04-2008, 21:18
Like you mean how people only concentrate on "a well-regulated militia" part as opposed to say "right of the people to keep and bear arms" part?

For the record, the sentence is not very clear...it sounds like poor english to me.



Also weren't some of the founders against having a standing army? The only way the states could defend themselves is if the people armed themselves into local militia and what not...or something.

Sounds like 18th century English to me that needs to be updated and written concisely to fit in the pocket edition of "You and The American Constitution: A guide to understanding your rights in a post-911 Era". ;)
Trollgaard
29-04-2008, 21:19
Also weren't some of the founders against having a standing army? The only way the states could defend themselves is if the people armed themselves into local militia and what not...or something.

A large standing army was against the wishes of the founding fathers. We didn't have a large standing army in peacetime until the Cold War, if I recall correctly.
Khadgar
29-04-2008, 21:31
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.

I've read it, apparently you didn't. You have to realize they intended there to be no real army. The people were to be tasked with that kind of thing in the form of militias.
Intangelon
29-04-2008, 21:36
It's poor (modern) English, given that there's one unnecessary comma and a dangling appositive.

I think that the people in Jefferson's time needed to be armed in order to have the ability to muster a militia. That militia needed to be well-regulated (makes sense, given that all those people were, well, armed). How anyone gets gun control out of that sentence is...interesting.
Londim
29-04-2008, 22:16
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:WxAVn8fZ5eRtsM:http://www.demopolislive.com/gallery/images/1/large/1_the_right_to_bear_arms.jpg

And that's my contribution.
Fassitude
29-04-2008, 22:26
So, I carry around with me a copy of the U.S. Constitution

Dang, you people are obsessed with that thing...
Neo Art
29-04-2008, 22:29
The problem was, at the time of the framing of the constitution, the concept of "army", "militia", and indeed the fundamental concepts of warfare as we know it were radically and substantially different.

At the time of the constitution's framing, it was possible for a group of peasant, yeoman farmers with muskets and hunting rifles to fight off an organized national army. The framers were well aware of that fact, having not 15 years earlier, seen it done. Many of them actually participated.

Which was the fundamental issue, the only difference between a farmer or hunter or trapper with a gun, and a soldier in a standing army with a gun was, for the most part, training. And if you had sufficient numbers, sufficient officers, sufficient tactics, and/or sufficient time, the training disadvantage could be negated.

After all, a bunch of farmers beat the redcoats, and while it took guerilla tactics, familiarity with the land, amazing tactical skill and a HELL of a lot of luck, it could be done. So the very principle behind the 2nd amendment was that people should be free to have guns, and their right to have those guns shouldn't be infringed upon, in case such time would arise again where the everyman farmer would have stand up and defend his nation.

It was a pre-industrial, agricultural society, and the idea behind the 2nd amendment was that the founders wanted people to have the means to defend themselves, and country, through their own means, their own guns. Back then, the idea of a militia, indeed, the idea of an army entirely, was inseperably intertwined with the idea of private gun ownership, our militias were comprised of young men using their own guns. In order to have a militia when we needed it, we needed to ensure that ech individual could have access to firearms. We didn't have this notion of a military industrial complex where each soldier was issues a firearm from the state

The problem is, times have changed, and the everyday man in today's society can't really stand up to a modern military. Before the difference between citizen and solider was a matter of training. Now it's a matter of tanks, and bombs, and planes, and sonar, and battleships, and when someone joins our modern military, we don't expect them to come to war with their own guns. We give them the guns they need, we give them the weapons they require.

We're an industrial society now capable of manufacturing our own weapons, and while in the 1791 the idea was that we wanted each person to have the right to his own guns in case we needed him to bring those guns, we don't have that any more. We're quite capable of arming our own soldiers, and the fact is, a well armed populace has become less of a virtue, and more of a liability, in modern society.

Which makes the 2nd amendment somewhat of a relic, important for its time, but sadly anachronistic in modern times
Call to power
29-04-2008, 22:30
So, I carry around with me a copy of the U.S. Constitution

well thats not weird and worrying at all...

Did you know, for example, that we actually haven't outlawed slavery at all?

well we did try to warn you about those founding fathers but did you listen? hell no all you did was shoot at our friendly redcoats! (http://www.topfoto.co.uk/gallery/butlins/images/prevs/1070066.jpg)

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.

mobs with guns and security rarely go hand in hand if you ask me

Why all the big fuss?

because the constitution actually has little to no relevance over modern society?
Neo Art
29-04-2008, 22:32
because the constitution actually has little to no relevance over modern society?

The law has no relevance in modern society?

I fear I must disagree.
Copiosa Scotia
29-04-2008, 22:33
It's my understanding that "well-regulated" at the time more nearly meant "well-trained." I don't have any strong opinions on what difference this distinction makes to the overall interpretation of the amendment, though.
[NS]Click Stand
29-04-2008, 22:34
Dang, you people are obsessed with that thing...

I had a three way...with two constitutions.

However that's beside the point. By now gun use is so ingrained in our culture, that it doesn't even matter how the founding fathers viewed it then, just how it is viewed right now.
Tmutarakhan
29-04-2008, 22:34
It's poor (modern) English, given that there's one unnecessary comma and a dangling appositive.
The comma between "militia" and "being" is, in fact, a typo in the constitution. It got there because there was a blot of ink on the copy that the printed text was prepared from (true story!)
Lunatic Goofballs
29-04-2008, 22:37
So, I carry around with me a copy of the U.S. Constitution, it's in a pouch on my backpack where I also keep a copy of the Qur'an and New Testmant (Also an umbrella. I like to be prepared), and occasionally I take it out and just thumb through the ammendments. I'm not usually looking for anything specific, just browsing, and sometimes I giggle at how people really don't seem to actually know what's written in this thing (Did you know, for example, that we actually haven't outlawed slavery at all? It's still legal as punishment for a crime. If we made it illegal to be black, and there is no part of the constitution that says we can't, then bingo-bango-bongo we're back to completely legal and constitutionally endorsed bondage and wide-scale oppression). Yesterday I happened to pop in on the Second Ammendment, which I've done many times before, but this time I stared at it for a bit and realized something: What the hell is all this controversy about?

Honestly, it's a pretty straight-forward sentence: 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 makes no mention of people having an inherent right to bear arms, but that a militia is necessary for security and, because of that, the right to bear arms exists; if you're not in such a militia, this ammendment makes no reference to you. It makes no mention of an inability to restrict or govern the use of firearms, but actually specifically mentions that the militia (Which is why we have this right) needs to be well regulated.

Now, I'm actually not a person who supports the banning of guns from the country, or believes that everybody who owns a gun is a trigger-happy whacko, but seriously, this ammendment is pretty clear. It refers to the organization and membership of a militia, and that's it, not to an inalienable right. Why all the big fuss?

How exactly does the militia's arms regulate it? Can't a well regulated militia bear cinnamon buns? Can't a militia with guns up the wazoo be poorly regulated? The right to bear arms don't refer to those in the militia. The right to bear arms refers to the regulators of the militia. Namely, the public.

“ 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. "

The right to bear arms exists in order to guarantee that the public has the ability to regulate the militia. *nod*
Call to power
29-04-2008, 22:39
Dang, you people are obsessed with that thing...

well naturally they need a compensate for something ;)

The law has no relevance in modern society?

you forgot "colonial" at the start of that...and also that modern society effects law more than the opposite
Neo Art
29-04-2008, 22:43
you forgot "colonial" at the start of that...and also that modern society effects law more than the opposite

No, I did not. The law is the law, and does not simply expire with age. And considering some of your laws faaaaaar outdate our own...
Conserative Morality
29-04-2008, 22:44
How exactly does the militia's arms regulate it? Can't a well regulated militia bear cinnamon buns? Can't a militia with guns up the wazoo be poorly regulated? The right to bear arms don't refer to those in the militia. The right to bear arms refers to the regulators of the militia. Namely, the public.

The right to bear arms exists in order to guarantee that the public has the ability to regulate the militia. *nod*

LG, you're a genius. An insane genius, but a genius nonetheless.
Trollgaard
29-04-2008, 22:45
The problem is, times have changed, and the everyday man in today's society can't really stand up to a modern military. Before the difference between citizen and solider was a matter of training. Now it's a matter of tanks, and bombs, and planes, and sonar, and battleships, and when someone joins our modern military, we don't expect them to come to war with their own guns. We give them the guns they need, we give them the weapons they require.

We're an industrial society now capable of manufacturing our own weapons, and while in the 1791 the idea was that we wanted each person to have the right to his own guns in case we needed him to bring those guns, we don't have that any more. We're quite capable of arming our own soldiers, and the fact is, a well armed populace has become less of a virtue, and more of a liability, in modern society.

Some good points. We arm our troops now, as individuals can't really afford to buy or make tanks, planes, etc.

But

Paramilitary units like Hamas have done quite well against well trained and well equipped armies. I think you underestimate Americans. Yes, lots of us are fat and lazy, but there are many more who are fit, determined, and armed.

Guns are not a great liability, either. The chances of someone being shot are very small. Yes, there are occasional nuts who snap, but they are the exception, not the rule.


Which makes the 2nd amendment somewhat of a relic, important for its time, but sadly anachronistic in modern times

I do not agree.

It is an important part of our history that we are going to keep.

The only way the government would get guns away from the people is from their cold, dead hands.
The South Islands
29-04-2008, 22:46
Did you know that all males age 18-45 are part of the Militia?
Neo Art
29-04-2008, 22:47
The only way the government would get guns away from the people is from their cold, dead hands.

Which, if true, is aptly demonstrative as to why private gun ownership should not be allowed
1010102
29-04-2008, 22:49
If we take the poplein refence to the millita, then we would have to rule that everytime people is used in the Bill of rights it will be in reference to the Millita. So freedom of assemble? Not unless your in the Millita. Want to say what you want? Gotta be in the millita. Want to vote? gotta be in the millita. Its a slippery slope. You'll either have to live with gun ownership, or join the millita to have rights.
Trollgaard
29-04-2008, 22:50
Which, if true, is aptly demonstrative as to why private gun ownership should not be allowed

So the government can trample all over our rights and do whatever it wants without fear of repercussion?

I. Think. Not.
Atruria
29-04-2008, 22:52
Some good points. We arm our troops now, as individuals can't really afford to buy or make tanks, planes, etc.

But

Paramilitary units like Hamas have done quite well against well trained and well equipped armies. I think you underestimate Americans. Yes, lots of us are fat and lazy, but there are many more who are fit, determined, and armed.

Well, no, something like 64% of us are overweight
Lunatic Goofballs
29-04-2008, 22:52
LG, you're a genius. An insane genius, but a genius nonetheless.

I keep telling them that, but they still chase me with the butterfly nets. :(
Atruria
29-04-2008, 22:53
So the government can trample all over our rights and do whatever it wants without fear of repercussion?

I. Think. Not.

I think they do that already
Call to power
29-04-2008, 22:54
The law is the law, and does not simply expire with age.

yeah it does, hence all of Britain's dead laws

The only way the government would get guns away from the people is from their cold, dead hands.

I'm sure this was also said during the time of the English civil war :p
Andaluciae
29-04-2008, 22:55
Now, I'm actually not a person who supports the banning of guns from the country, or believes that everybody who owns a gun is a trigger-happy whacko, but seriously, this ammendment is pretty clear. It refers to the organization and membership of a militia, and that's it, not to an inalienable right. Why all the big fuss?

It doesn't actually refer to the necessity of membership in a militia, though. It merely mentions that well-regulated militias are vital to the security of the free state, and, thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Further, by law, every able-bodied American male, ages 17-45 is a member of the general, unorganized, militia.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311
Llewdor
29-04-2008, 22:55
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.
There are actually two different official versions of the second amendment. The one you're quoting is punctuated horribly, and as such is arguably meaningless. The other reads:
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.
The problem here is that you think that's a conditional statement, with the right to bear Arms being contingent of the bearing of those arms being part of a well regulated militia, but that's not what it says. The structure of the sentence makes the reference to a milita an aside. It's offered, seemingly, as justification for the guaranteed right to bear Arms (though I can't imagine why - the law doesn't need justification to be law).

There's nothing in that amendment that makes any part of that statement conditional or contingent. The words "because", "if", or "therefore" don't appear in it anywhere.

A well regulated being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. That italicised bit is all that really matters, because the grammatical structure of the sentence says so. The structure suggests that the need for a well regulated militia is why they've guaranteed the right to keep and bear Arms, but there are no restrictions placed on the scope of that guarantee.

The zoo being a place where there are tigers, I'm going to the zoo today.

This suggests I'm going to the zoo, and I'm doing so because they have tigers, but nothing in my statement suggests I'm going to the zoo only to see the tigers, and no other animals will be seen or enjoyed by me.
Trollgaard
29-04-2008, 22:56
I'm sure this was also said during the time of the English civil war :p

What, matchlocks and flintlocks?

As far as I know, the English Civil war was fought because one side wanted an autocratic ruler, and the other wanted the parliament to have more power. I do not recall it being over guns...

What was your point with your statement...?
Conserative Morality
29-04-2008, 22:58
I think they do that already
Unfortuanatly... :(
Well, no, something like 64% of us are overweight
The highest is actually 25% in alabama, the fattest state.
I keep telling them that, but they still chase me with the butterfly nets.
I only wanted to capture and clone you! *Takes out butterfly net. Chases*
Neo Art
29-04-2008, 22:59
So the government can trample all over our rights and do whatever it wants without fear of repercussion?

If you believe a bunch of handguns is going to stop a tyrannical government with a modern military, then this:

I. Think. Not.

Is very true.

We are a democracy. The fear the government has against the people is that they will kick them out and replace them with new leadership. And if we have gotten to the point that a government in power cares not for the democratic process, the rule of law, and the rights of hte people ot self govern....I don't think they're really going to respect the 2nd amendment either.

Which makes it pointless and self defeating. If the government respects the laws, they'll respect the will of the people. If they don't respect the laws, the first thing they'll do is go is forcibly disarm the populace, in spite of the 2nd amendment.
Lunatic Goofballs
29-04-2008, 22:59
I only wanted to capture and clone you! *Takes out butterfly net. Chases*

*drops a cotton candy smoke bomb and scampers off*
Conserative Morality
29-04-2008, 23:03
We are a democracy. The fear the government has against the people is that they will kick them out and replace them with new leadership. And if we have gotten to the point that a government in power cares not for the democratic process, the rule of law, and the rights of hte people ot self govern....I don't think they're really going to respect the 2nd amendment either.

Which makes it pointless and self defeating. If the government respects the laws, they'll respect the will of the people. If they don't respect the laws, the first thing they'll do is go is forcibly disarm the populace, in spite of the 2nd amendment
So true... :(

But at least we can put up a fight! *takes out bandana*
[NS]Click Stand
29-04-2008, 23:06
Did you know that all males age 18-45 are part of the Militia?

And people say our army is spread too thin. We still have millions back home!
Trollgaard
29-04-2008, 23:06
If you believe a bunch of handguns is going to stop a tyrannical government with a modern military, then this:

I'm talking about more than pistols.


Is very true.

We are a democracy. The fear the government has against the people is that they will kick them out and replace them with new leadership. And if we have gotten to the point that a government in power cares not for the democratic process, the rule of law, and the rights of hte people ot self govern....I don't think they're really going to respect the 2nd amendment either.

Which makes it pointless and self defeating. If the government respects the laws, they'll respect the will of the people. If they don't respect the laws, the first thing they'll do is go is forcibly disarm the populace, in spite of the 2nd amendment.

A government would have a hell of a fight on their hands trying to disarm everyone. How much of the military do you actually think would turn on their friends and family? How many generals would lead whatever troops remained against American civilians?

The act of disarming the nation would trigger a second civil war. Whatever leader(s) initiated the disarment would be taken out and hanged/shot/beaten/ etc.
Indri
29-04-2008, 23:07
Honestly, it's a pretty straight-forward sentence: 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 makes no mention of people having an inherent right to bear arms, but that a militia is necessary for security and, because of that, the right to bear arms exists; if you're not in such a militia, this ammendment makes no reference to you. It makes no mention of an inability to restrict or govern the use of firearms, but actually specifically mentions that the militia (Which is why we have this right) needs to be well regulated.

Now, I'm actually not a person who supports the banning of guns from the country, or believes that everybody who owns a gun is a trigger-happy whacko, but seriously, this ammendment is pretty clear. It refers to the organization and membership of a militia, and that's it, not to an inalienable right. Why all the big fuss?
Well, no. Read it again. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." sure, you need an organized military force to defend your nation. But, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is the people in contrast with the militia. It doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it says "the right of the people". Why the word "people"? Might have something to do with the fact that the people who wrote this document had just fought a war for two years with a tyrannical state militia. They figured that the time might come when the people would have to do that again so they made the possession of weapons a right that the militia could never take away.

It's the same people refered to in the first and the fourth as well as a few others. Why did I cite those two specifically? Because any ban on weapons would also require the elimination of those two amendments to prevent the spread of information regarding the construction of firearms (the 1st) or the actual production (the 4th). Making a gun is not a difficult thing to do and those who would be most interested in building one fall into three categories; professionals, hobbyists, and nutjobs/criminals. One of these three should not have a gun. Bans on guns eliminate the first two.

Now there are those that say the wording is clumsy and that the comma between the state and the pople is just a pause to get your breath. Strange how those same people can't find another instance of this anywhere else in the document.

Now I know you didn't say that you're for a complete ban on guns but as you said, the amendment is pretty clear. Your interpretation is just the wrong one.
Call to power
29-04-2008, 23:08
So the government can trample all over our rights and do whatever it wants without fear of repercussion?

welcome to Earth :)

As far as I know, the English Civil war was fought because one side wanted an autocratic ruler, and the other wanted the parliament to have more power. I do not recall it being over guns...

and the American civil war was solely to do with slavery :p

King Charles threatened gun ownership (or at least rumored, I was 11 when I last did this) which led to a boon in support for parliamentarians oddly this is also about the time when the new model army emerged

If you believe a bunch of handguns is going to stop a tyrannical government with a modern military, then this:

Is very true.


pfft I seem to remember modern examples of this not being true

*drops a cotton candy smoke bomb and scampers off*

so it was you who made all the 3rd world farmers plant sugar cane!
Atruria
29-04-2008, 23:08
Unfortuanatly... :(

The highest is actually 25% in alabama, the fattest state.


I think your figure is for obese people, mine was just for overweight

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/obese/obse99.htm

But anyway, my contribution to the actual topic of this thread is that it might make more sense if, instead of blindly following the dictates of however we grammatically interpret a single sentence of a document written over 200 years ago, we look to how/whether it should apply to the modern world and not just do something "because the constitution says so."

Despite everything I just said, however, and that I generally do lean to the left, I think that guns should still be legal as a means of self-defense.
Tmutarakhan
29-04-2008, 23:09
Yes, lots of us are fat and lazy, but there are many more who are fit, determined, and armed.

And even more who are fat and armed!
Call to power
29-04-2008, 23:11
A government would have a hell of a fight on their hands trying to disarm everyone. How much of the military do you actually think would turn on their friends and family? How many generals would lead whatever troops remained against American civilians?

most of them? its rather easy to do especially in times of hardship

And even more who are fat and armed!

we are way ahead of you in tank design (http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/04_02/scooterSNP_468x355.jpg)
Trollgaard
29-04-2008, 23:18
most of them? its rather easy to do especially in times of hardship

Lulz, no.

I know people in the military. They wouldn't attack American civilians.

On a further note: there should be little restrictions on gun ownership. If someone is not crazy and has the money, they should be able to buy basically whatever they want. Assault rifles, 50 cals, sniper rifles, etc. Fine by me.

We need gun markets in the US like they have in Pakistan.

*searches for video*

finds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9xf62PKC5M

Absolutely awesome!
Knights of Liberty
29-04-2008, 23:26
Lulz, no.


Lulz, yes.


It happens. See: American Civil War.


Families were on opposite sides of the conflict. Southerners fought their brothers in the Northern Militias.
Call to power
29-04-2008, 23:28
I know people in the military. They wouldn't attack American civilians.

US troops don't torture, US troops have never opened fire on American civilians (http://gloucestercitynews.typepad.com/clearysnotebook/images/2007/07/13/riot_span600.jpg), US troops don't wake up with boners...
Trollgaard
29-04-2008, 23:31
Lulz, yes.


It happens. See: American Civil War.


Families were on opposite sides of the conflict. Southerners fought their brothers in the Northern Militias.

Some would, no doubt, but a majority? Doubtful.

US troops don't torture, US troops have never opened fire on American civilians (http://gloucestercitynews.typepad.com/clearysnotebook/images/2007/07/13/riot_span600.jpg), US troops don't wake up with boners...

As I said before. The majority wouldn't

And the people I know wouldn't.
Knights of Liberty
29-04-2008, 23:32
US troops don't torture, US troops have never opened fire on American civilians (http://gloucestercitynews.typepad.com/clearysnotebook/images/2007/07/13/riot_span600.jpg), US troops don't wake up with boners...

Exactly.



You damn well better believe that if the government turned the military on its people, the military would as a whole go along. Theyre indoctrinated to obey orders, and smart politicians would spin the civilians that were being attacked as aggressors threatening America, which would help the soldiers sleep at night.



American troops fired on and killed peaceful Vietnam protesters at a University during the war. Enough said.
Knights of Liberty
29-04-2008, 23:33
Some would, no doubt, but a majority? Doubtful.



As I said before. The majority wouldn't

And the people I know wouldn't.

See above. You are naive if you think they wouldnt.
Greater Trostia
29-04-2008, 23:38
The amendment doesn't say that "the right to bear arms" is necessitated by (and only by) the "well-regulated militia." It's not a conditional statement.
Trollgaard
29-04-2008, 23:41
Exactly.



You damn well better believe that if the government turned the military on its people, the military would as a whole go along. Theyre indoctrinated to obey orders, and smart politicians would spin the civilians that were being attacked as aggressors threatening America, which would help the soldiers sleep at night.



American troops fired on and killed peaceful Vietnam protesters at a University during the war. Enough said.

The military as a whole would not attack us civilians. Maybe put down riots, but not by shooting people to disperse them.

The military would fracture, and split down the middle if they were ordered to attack civilians.

One instance.

See above. You are naive if you think they wouldnt.

No. You just think soldiers are mindless zombies. They are people, and do think.
Call to power
29-04-2008, 23:51
Some would, no doubt, but a majority? Doubtful.

The military as a whole would not attack us civilians. Maybe put down riots, but not by shooting people to disperse them.

awww its so cute how you think US troops are special

No. You just think soldiers are mindless zombies. They are people, and do think.

worse they happen to be humans
The Atlantian islands
29-04-2008, 23:54
I didn't read the whole thread, so I don't know if this has been covered already...

I think alot of what they meant by the right to bear arms can be understood simply by looking into the philosophy that these people believed in and formed America by.

For example..alot of this can be seen by the fathers beliefs in the "right to revolution".....

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 in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a 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.

I think that along with the need for citizens to be armed to form the militia and common defense, the founders believed in the right to revolution, and thus felt that Americans needed to be armed to defend themselves against tyranny, that is...if the government became corrupt, tyrannical and unrepresentative, Americans were have the right, the duty to strip it down and replace it.
Knights of Liberty
29-04-2008, 23:57
awww its so cute how you think US troops are special


Exactly. History shows time and time again, especially recent history when soldiers shot with intent to kill (and did kill) protesters when ordered by their commanding officers, that its very, very easy to turn soldiers on a populace.


I dont know why Trollgaard thinks that US soldiers are somehow different.
Greater Trostia
29-04-2008, 23:57
The military as a whole would not attack us civilians. Maybe put down riots, but not by shooting people to disperse them.

The military would fracture, and split down the middle if they were ordered to attack civilians.


Generally I agree with this... but with caveats. The situation could involve factors that would change it. Say, a nuclear 9/11 with Washington DC eradicated. Add to that an energy and perhaps food crisis... panicked, hungry, worried, angry people... harder to predict.

Still, even facing 'only' 1/2 the US military... I'd want a gun. Just in case. Better to have and not need than need and not have.
Eignes
29-04-2008, 23:58
Exactly.
American troops fired on and killed peaceful Vietnam protesters at a University during the war. Enough said.

I assume you are referring to Kent State in 1970, so I am calling you on your ignorance. Those "peaceful protesters" had looted sections of the city, burned down the ROTC building, and were pelting soldiers with rocks. The response of the National Guardsmen may have been excessive, but those protesters were in no way peaceful.
Call to power
29-04-2008, 23:59
Americans were have the right, the duty to strip it down and replace it.

its just to bad that population never rise up unless they come under real hardship then ;)
Knights of Liberty
30-04-2008, 00:00
I assume you are referring to Kent State in 1970, so I am calling you on your ignorance. Those "peaceful protesters" had looted sections of the city, burned down the ROTC building, and were pelting soldiers with rocks. The response of the National Guardsmen may have been excessive, but those protesters were in no way peaceful.

Considering that the people who initiated and did most of the looting were not the protesters, but drunk bikers....


Also, considering the riot happened three days before the shooting...when the soldiers opened fire, it was not a riot. Your attempt to paint it as though the kids had it coming is cute, however, but it seems youre the ignorant one.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
Trollgaard
30-04-2008, 00:04
Generally I agree with this... but with caveats. The situation could involve factors that would change it. Say, a nuclear 9/11 with Washington DC eradicated. Add to that an energy and perhaps food crisis... panicked, hungry, worried, angry people... harder to predict.

Still, even facing 'only' 1/2 the US military... I'd want a gun. Just in case. Better to have and not need than need and not have.

Me to. I think the some portion of the military would try to aid the citizens. How many is tough to say, though.
Call to power
30-04-2008, 00:04
I dont know why Trollgaard thinks that US soldiers are somehow different.

because US troops have never massacred whole villages never ever, don't even get my started on rape and mutilations especially if it involves women and children (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre)

especially in the 21st century! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5033648.stm)
Neo Art
30-04-2008, 00:08
I wonder, for those that think the US military would not follow orders en masse, if they've ever heard the name "Milgram"
Knights of Liberty
30-04-2008, 00:10
I wonder, for those that think the US military would not follow orders en masse, if they've ever heard the name "Milgram"

Apperantly US soldiers are immune to the human psychological condition.
CthulhuFhtagn
30-04-2008, 00:12
Even if the military was this perfect thing that would always disobey unlawful orders, it wouldn't matter. Simply put, if the government went tyrannical, it would need the support of the military. In other words, it wouldn't go tyrannical until it had turned the military into something that would support them.
Call to power
30-04-2008, 00:18
Even if the military was this perfect thing that would always disobey unlawful orders, it wouldn't matter. Simply put, if the government went tyrannical, it would need the support of the military. In other words, it wouldn't go tyrannical until it had turned the military into something that would support them.

pfft like the government would need the military as the tyranny of the cultural revolution showed

hell armed mobs don't even need the government (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6735.html)
The Atlantian islands
30-04-2008, 00:25
its just to bad that population never rise up unless they come under real hardship then ;)
What?
Nobel Hobos
30-04-2008, 00:33
It's not simple. The "militia" clause is there for a reason, and if as Neo Art says at post #11, the need for guns to be privately owned is so that militia can be called up ... they really should have made that explicit.

Government "calling up" privately-armed citizens isn't done with, either. They're called mercenaries now.
Call to power
30-04-2008, 00:34
What?

history shows that your common man doesn't give a rats ass about his rights and will only rise up if economic hardship appears (though even this is only in certain cases) or if they have little to no actual risk to themselves.

thus the "founding fathers" happened to be wrong and the whole argument that its keeps the government in line is silly
Nobel Hobos
30-04-2008, 00:35
What?

"Prosperity is the Zoloft of the People" perhaps.
Tmutarakhan
30-04-2008, 00:37
I assume you are referring to Kent State in 1970, so I am calling you on your ignorance. Those "peaceful protesters" had looted sections of the city, burned down the ROTC building, and were pelting soldiers with rocks. The response of the National Guardsmen may have been excessive, but those protesters were in no way peaceful.

Have you seen the video?
Knights of Liberty
30-04-2008, 00:39
Have you seen the video?

Yeah, I already dealt with him. But you know, those anti-American commies had it coming.
Umatnika
30-04-2008, 01:38
A technologically advanced, enlightened society should have no need for weapons to be carried by civilians. A regulated military should, in theory, be sufficient to offer support and defense to its populace. The very fact that people in this country clamor for their 'right to bear arms' not only portrays the militaristic and violent mentality of those who clamor, but also brings to light the ignorant and irrational philosophies to which those who support such ideas have fallen victim and are subjected to.

It is no secret that our government utilizes fear and terror to take advantage of the ignorant in society to create an atmosphere of paranoia and distrust amongst the population. By dividing 'the people' the government ensures its continued survival and control over society with the age-old tactic of divide-and-conquer. Abraham Lincoln himself said, "A nation divided cannot stand." Almost 150 years later, we are proving his point.

While the American people are busy arguing over, among other things, the semantics of 'the right to bear arms' the government is free to wage unjust wars, initiate illegal occupations, utilize destructive environmental actions, take part in human atrocities, violate international laws, etc.

Retrospectively, it is a violent and unenlightened people who desire weapons manufactured with the sole purpose of ending life. It would indubitably be altogether different if the weapons were used to usurp a corrupt and tyrannical government in attempts to instate a governing body based on logic, reason, and common sense. Instead, we have staged massacres to garner support for a war on terror, students dying at institutions of learning, families gunned down by maniacal sociopaths, innocent people murdered for their meager belongings, race against race, nation against nation, and brother against brother.

While numerous Americans cry for weapons of violence - the enlightened ones in society cry for peaceful resolutions, respectful diversity, and mutual cooperation.
Geniasis
30-04-2008, 02:24
US troops don't torture, US troops have never opened fire on American civilians (http://gloucestercitynews.typepad.com/clearysnotebook/images/2007/07/13/riot_span600.jpg), US troops don't wake up with boners...

because US troops have never massacred whole villages never ever, don't even get my started on rape and mutilations especially if it involves women and children (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre)

especially in the 21st century! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5033648.stm)

But what's the ratio of soldiers who do this compared to those who don't? I find it hard to believe that the majority of soldiers would easily be able to rationalize turning on U.S. citizens on a national level (more than just local incidents).

Then again, I think you may have been the person who claimed that under certain circumstances I would rape another human being, so that speaks volumes about our views on man's essential nature that bring this to a bit of an impasse, no?
Lyerngess
30-04-2008, 02:38
I hate to rain on anyone's parade but, being someone with rather extensive knowledge in this area, your argument has absolutely no backing in something that we who know the English language call grammatical syntax. Just because militia and the people are referred to in the same sentence does not mean that they refer to the same group.

The fact is, I studied Constitutional Law rather extensively in college, and it is guaranteed by the Constitution, that all citizens should have the right to bear arms. The controversy surrounds whether or not the government is allowed to regulate the right to bear arms. The answer is, quite obviously, no. It is like giving the government the ability to regulate any of your other rights; it is just plain dull.

To put it in perspective, another of our constitutionally guaranteed rights is the right to a fair trial and a jury of our peers. How would you like it if the government came in and said you are only allowed such a trial if you are registered to have one, or if you have not committed any previous felonies? What about your right to life? Would you like to have to register for the right to be alive? When you give the government the ability to regulate a right, it is the same as losing it, plain and simple; to allow the government to regulate any right is only one step away from allowing the government to regulate all rights. We have to stop them here, by opposing anti-gun legislation in all forms, even if we don't want guns, because our other rights are only a skip and a jump away.
Knights of Liberty
30-04-2008, 02:42
I hate to rain on anyone's parade but, being someone with rather extensive knowledge in this area, your argument has absolutely no backing in something that we who know the English language call grammatical syntax. Just because militia and the people are referred to in the same sentence does not mean that they refer to the same group.

The fact is, I studied Constitutional Law rather extensively in college, and it is guaranteed by the Constitution, that all citizens should have the right to bear arms. The controversy surrounds whether or not the government is allowed to regulate the right to bear arms. The answer is, quite obviously, no. It is like giving the government the ability to regulate any of your other rights; it is just plain dull.


Its adorable that you think the issue is so simple.

To put it in perspective, another of our constitutionally guaranteed rights is the right to a fair trial and a jury of our peers. How would you like it if the government came in and said you are only allowed such a trial if you are registered to have one, or if you have not committed any previous felonies? What about your right to life? Would you like to have to register for the right to be alive? When you give the government the ability to regulate a right, it is the same as losing it, plain and simple; to allow the government to regulate any right is only one step away from allowing the government to regulate all rights. We have to stop them here, by opposing anti-gun legislation in all forms, even if we don't want guns, because our other rights are only a skip and a jump away.

This anology fails. Hard. You know why? Because having a trial doesnt give you the ability to pump out several armor peircing .3 Caliber bullets a second.
Knights of Liberty
30-04-2008, 02:42
I hate to rain on anyone's parade but, being someone with rather extensive knowledge in this area, your argument has absolutely no backing in something that we who know the English language call grammatical syntax. Just because militia and the people are referred to in the same sentence does not mean that they refer to the same group.

The fact is, I studied Constitutional Law rather extensively in college, and it is guaranteed by the Constitution, that all citizens should have the right to bear arms. The controversy surrounds whether or not the government is allowed to regulate the right to bear arms. The answer is, quite obviously, no. It is like giving the government the ability to regulate any of your other rights; it is just plain dull.


Its adorable that you think the issue is so simple.

To put it in perspective, another of our constitutionally guaranteed rights is the right to a fair trial and a jury of our peers. How would you like it if the government came in and said you are only allowed such a trial if you are registered to have one, or if you have not committed any previous felonies? What about your right to life? Would you like to have to register for the right to be alive? When you give the government the ability to regulate a right, it is the same as losing it, plain and simple; to allow the government to regulate any right is only one step away from allowing the government to regulate all rights. We have to stop them here, by opposing anti-gun legislation in all forms, even if we don't want guns, because our other rights are only a skip and a jump away.

This anology fails. Hard. You know why? Because having a trial doesnt give you the ability to pump out several armor peircing .30 Caliber bullets a second.
Fourteen Eighty Eight
30-04-2008, 02:44
Originally, when our country was founded, the local militia used to keep arms at the house because you never knew when an attack was imminent. Banditry and brigands were the norm on the frontier and in the more rural areas of our country. It was the citizen soldiers responsibility to defend the local area. Not to mention, if the citizen-soldiers supplied their own weapons, then the government didn't have to spend the money. As history progressed, standardization and specialty weapons became the norm. It changed from flintlock and percussion cap rifles/pistols to black powder cartridges, and finally smokeless powder cartridges. We also started going from single shot weapons to firearms that could fire rounds rapidly. The states took over the militias. Now that brings us to a more interesting point, and that is, what is a legally defined militia? Is the militia regulated by the federal government, the state, or the citizens? Are the various "militias" of today legal and comprised of caring citizens who feel their rights are being trampled on, or are they just whack jobs out there trying to stir hate and discontent
I also feel that our founding fathers had a fear of tyranny. After all, they had just declared independence from a nation they viewed as somewhat tyrannical and oppressive. The whole taxation without representation and individual rights thing. If the masses are allowed to own firearms, then if the government should ever become tyrannical, then it is up to the masses to restore the government to it's proper place. Only the citizens can decide if their rights are being trampled on. While it may seem to be a clear cut document, the grey areas are overwhelming. While the government is responsible for regulating the militia, to what degree is that regulation permitted? Is it the responsibility of the federal government to tell the various state militias what they have to use, and how (granted I know it's done for uniformity and to keep everybody on the same sheet of music) they are supposed to train? Or is it the states responsibility? It is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to interpret and decide all this, making what should be some simple straightforward words very complicated indeed. Now in my personal opinion, any government that fears firearms in the hands of it's people is a government afraid of the people. People will always find a way to commit violence upon one another, whether it is with firearms, or kitchen knives, baseball bats, rocks, or whatever is handy. While there are those who say guns are wrong and those who say it is their constitutionally guaranteed right, in truth, only the supreme court can decide that as they are the ones doing the interpreting.
Nobel Hobos
30-04-2008, 03:07
I hate to rain on anyone's parade but, being someone with rather extensive knowledge in this area

Nine posts? You have yet to persuade anyone that you have any knowledge, extensive or otherwise. Save your breath on that.

To put it in perspective, another of our constitutionally guaranteed rights is the right to a fair trial and a jury of our peers.

Gone.

What about your right to life?

Never existed. Death penalty.

We have to stop them here, by opposing anti-gun legislation in all forms, even if we don't want guns, because our other rights are only a skip and a jump away.

What about Habeas Corpus? It's a far better established "right" held in common with many other democratic republics. It's in the Universal Declaration, unlike any right to keep weapons.

The argument that "right to bear weapons" is where the battle line should be drawn is based on the vague idea of overthrowing tyrannical government by force of arms. That "right" looks like the Oklahoma bombing, in practice.

Surely, a core right BEFORE THE LAW is more vital.
Eignes
30-04-2008, 03:08
Considering that the people who initiated and did most of the looting were not the protesters, but drunk bikers....


Also, considering the riot happened three days before the shooting...when the soldiers opened fire, it was not a riot. Your attempt to paint it as though the kids had it coming is cute, however, but it seems youre the ignorant one.


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

You have countered looting, but nothing else (such as burning a building down). I put multiple points out there to avoid dumb rebuttals.

One day of protesting leads to looting, the next day leads to a burned down military building, the guardsmen obviously have clear reason to stop the next days of rioting. At least no one is still trying to call them peaceful anymore.
Indri
30-04-2008, 03:10
This anology fails. Hard. You know why? Because having a trial doesnt give you the ability to pump out several armor peircing .3 Caliber bullets a second.
It's adorable that you think the issue is so simple. This analogy fails. Hard. You know why? Because teaching people inclined toward violence how to construct bombs out of readily available materials and kill people is covered under the First Amendment. If you can show people how to do it then you are supplying them with the means to commit violent crimes. By your logic speech, among other things, should be screened so that potentially dangerous words and materials do not fall into the wrong hands or ears.
Neo Art
30-04-2008, 03:12
I hate to rain on anyone's parade but, being someone with rather extensive knowledge in this area

. . . .

The fact is, I studied Constitutional Law rather extensively in college

That's....cute
Eignes
30-04-2008, 03:13
Nine posts? You have yet to persuade anyone that you have any knowledge, extensive or otherwise. Save your breath on that.


I would generally give the number of posts a negative correlation with intelligence. Dismissing someone for having a low number of posts is like declaring their argument invalid because they are employed.
Trollgaard
30-04-2008, 03:14
Could people cut the 'cute' and 'adorable' bs remarks out? It is very irritating and condescending.
Knights of Liberty
30-04-2008, 03:14
You have countered looting, but nothing else (such as burning a building down). I put multiple points out there to avoid dumb rebuttals.

One day of protesting leads to looting, the next day leads to a burned down military building, the guardsmen obviously have clear reason to stop the next days of rioting. At least no one is still trying to call them peaceful anymore.

:rolleyes:



When the soldiers shot them, it was a peaceful protest they shot.


Damn anti-American commies had it coming.
Knights of Liberty
30-04-2008, 03:15
I would generally give the number of posts a negative correlation with intelligence. Dismissing someone for having a low number of posts is like declaring their argument invalid because they are employed.

Yep. No one here is employed.:rolleyes:
Gun Manufacturers
30-04-2008, 03:16
So, I carry around with me a copy of the U.S. Constitution, it's in a pouch on my backpack where I also keep a copy of the Qur'an and New Testament (Also an umbrella. I like to be prepared), and occasionally I take it out and just thumb through the amendments. I'm not usually looking for anything specific, just browsing, and sometimes I giggle at how people really don't seem to actually know what's written in this thing (Did you know, for example, that we actually haven't outlawed slavery at all? It's still legal as punishment for a crime. If we made it illegal to be black, and there is no part of the constitution that says we can't, then bingo-bango-bongo we're back to completely legal and constitutionally endorsed bondage and wide-scale oppression). Yesterday I happened to pop in on the Second Amendment, which I've done many times before, but this time I stared at it for a bit and realized something: What the hell is all this controversy about?

Honestly, it's a pretty straight-forward sentence: 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 makes no mention of people having an inherent right to bear arms, but that a militia is necessary for security and, because of that, the right to bear arms exists; if you're not in such a militia, this amendment makes no reference to you. It makes no mention of an inability to restrict or govern the use of firearms, but actually specifically mentions that the militia (Which is why we have this right) needs to be well regulated.

Now, I'm actually not a person who supports the banning of guns from the country, or believes that everybody who owns a gun is a trigger-happy whacko, but seriously, this amendment is pretty clear. It refers to the organization and membership of a militia, and that's it, not to an inalienable right. Why all the big fuss?

It does make mention of people having the right to bear arms, as I've highlighted in your post. If it was only the militia's right to own firearms, then the second amendment would have said, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Also keep in mind that the phrase, "the people", refers to ordinary citizens in every other instance of the Constitution, so I doubt it would it be different in the second amendment.
Neo Art
30-04-2008, 03:16
Could people cut the 'cute' and 'adorable' bs remarks out?

nope, but thanks for asking
Knights of Liberty
30-04-2008, 03:18
Could people cut the 'cute' and 'adorable' bs remarks out? It is very irritating and condescending.

Its cute that youd ask;)
Maineiacs
30-04-2008, 03:22
An aid for everyone who screams about gun control but doesn't say a word about losing things like habeas corpus...



http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/7716/constitutionfordummiesbd4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
New Limacon
30-04-2008, 03:24
For the record, the sentence is not very clear...it sounds like poor english to me.


I think it is, purposefully. There are plenty of other places where the Framers, in order to get something in the Constitution, were intentionally vague.
Bann-ed
30-04-2008, 03:29
No, but occasionally I stop and smell the roses.

They smell of death.
Conserative Morality
30-04-2008, 03:32
An aid for everyone who screams about gun control but doesn't say a word about losing things like habeas corpus...

We lost Habeas corpus!?!? When did that happen? I really need to get my TV fixed...
Knights of Liberty
30-04-2008, 03:32
We lost Habeas corpus!?!? When did that happen? I really need to get my TV fixed...

Its ignored a lot...
Gun Manufacturers
30-04-2008, 03:35
It's my understanding that "well-regulated" at the time more nearly meant "well-trained." I don't have any strong opinions on what difference this distinction makes to the overall interpretation of the amendment, though.

Well regulated might also mean everyone in the militia using the same equipment (or the same caliber), making sure everyone had the proper equipment to be in the militia (enough powder, enough shot, extra flint, etc), or making sure all the equipment the militia would use is in proper working order.
Lord Tothe
30-04-2008, 03:35
In modern English:

"Because a well-prepared militia is necessary to protect the rights of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"Militia" is defined as every male of military age, enrolled in the service or not. "The People" is the regular citizenry. Furthermore, Amendments 9 and 10 state that the inclusion of certain rights in the Constitution is not meant to deny the existence of rights not included, and government power is strictly limited to the areas specifically defined in the relevant sections of the Constitution.

The sentence structure is rooted in Latin, so it appears unusual to our English-only eyes and this is the root of most misunderstandings regarding the Constitution. Word definitions have also shifted over the past 200+ years.

Thus, the OP's points fail on every level.
Andaluciae
30-04-2008, 03:37
American troops fired on and killed peaceful Vietnam protesters at a University during the war. Enough said.

I'm from Northeast Ohio, my mom graduated from Kent State, I've had teachers who were there, and it's a major chapter of our local history. Not to mention that I've worked on the incident in an academic capacity, and I approached it from what was described as a fresh and unbiased point of view.

I can say, without question, that the protesters were not peaceful, the Guardsmen were in a tenuous situation, they had been deployed because a significant number of violent actions had occurred at Kent State, and the local and state police no longer felt that they could maintain order. The protesters were belligerent, confrontational and violent. Further, the Guardsmen were surrounded by a belligerent group, who outnumbered them significantly. They were poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly lead. They were alienated, both by their own peers, their officers, and their psyches.

The only conclusion is that it fucking awful human tragedy. The lives destroyed on that day were more than merely the four who were shot, there were dozens more on both sides of the incident, and even those not involved, such as the families and loved ones. I've been to the site more times than I can count. I've walked the steps from where the protest started, to where it turned ugly, to where the shots were fired, to where Scheuer was shot.

This is an area of expertise for me, and I don't think you treated this the way it deserves.

Read (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings#Monday.2C_May_4)

The blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the commanders of the Ohio National Guard, and Governor James"Term limits? Fuck term limits! I'm just gonna take a term off and go again!" Rhodes.
The South Islands
30-04-2008, 03:39
An aid for everyone who screams about gun control but doesn't say a word about losing things like habeas corpus...


You do understand that the people screaming loudest against gun control are usually the people screaming against Habeas Corpus, right?
Indri
30-04-2008, 03:40
An aid for everyone who screams about gun control but doesn't say a word about losing things like habeas corpus...



http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/7716/constitutionfordummiesbd4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Inter arma enim silent leges. Through arms the laws fall mute, for those of you who've never heard it.

What good are rights if you having nothing to secure them? The state has arms. Deprive yourself and your fellow man of his and all the state need say is 'inter arma enim silent leges' to make all your rights vanish.
Umatnika
30-04-2008, 03:42
A technologically advanced, enlightened society should have no need for weapons to be carried by civilians. A regulated military should, in theory, be sufficient to offer support and defense to its populace. The very fact that people in this country clamor for their 'right to bear arms' not only portrays the militaristic and violent mentality of those who clamor, but also brings to light the ignorant and irrational philosophies to which those who support such ideas have fallen victim and are subjected to.

It is no secret that our government utilizes fear and terror to take advantage of the ignorant in society to create an atmosphere of paranoia and distrust amongst the population. By dividing 'the people' the government ensures its continued survival and control over society with the age-old tactic of divide-and-conquer. Abraham Lincoln himself said, "A nation divided cannot stand." Almost 150 years later, we are proving his point.

While the American people are busy arguing over, among other things, the semantics of 'the right to bear arms' the government is free to wage unjust wars, initiate illegal occupations, utilize destructive environmental actions, take part in human atrocities, violate international laws, etc.

Retrospectively, it is a violent and unenlightened people who desire weapons manufactured with the sole purpose of ending life. It would indubitably be altogether different if the weapons were used to usurp a corrupt and tyrannical government in attempts to instate a governing body based on logic, reason, and common sense. Instead, we have staged massacres to garner support for a war on terror, students dying at institutions of learning, families gunned down by maniacal sociopaths, innocent people murdered for their meager belongings, race against race, nation against nation, and brother against brother.

While numerous Americans cry for weapons of violence - the enlightened ones in society cry for peaceful resolutions, respectful diversity, and mutual cooperation.
Gun Manufacturers
30-04-2008, 03:46
Exactly.



You damn well better believe that if the government turned the military on its people, the military would as a whole go along. Theyre indoctrinated to obey orders, and smart politicians would spin the civilians that were being attacked as aggressors threatening America, which would help the soldiers sleep at night.



American troops fired on and killed peaceful Vietnam protesters at a University during the war. Enough said.

Everyone in the military takes an oath when they join, not to the government, but to the constitution. If they are given an unlawful order, they have a duty and obligation to disobey it (they can be held criminally responsible if they don't). And I seriously doubt that the second amendment will be repealed, so an order to the military to confiscate all firearms would be unlawful.
Knights of Liberty
30-04-2008, 03:48
Everyone in the military takes an oath when they join, not to the government, but to the constitution. If they are given an unlawful order, they have a duty and obligation to disobey it (they can be held criminally responsible if they don't). And I seriously doubt that the second amendment will be repealed, so an order to the military to confiscate all firearms would be unlawful.

Wow, you guys really dont know anything about Milgram.
The Scandinvans
30-04-2008, 03:52
"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."

-- George Washington
Geniasis
30-04-2008, 04:03
Wow, you guys really dont know anything about Milgram.

Which had nothing to do with the quoted post. The point was that the military is designed to answer to the Constitution and not to the Government, not whether that is actually true in function.

Furthermore, Milgram only ended up with about 65% administering the final shock, and that was in an experiment where the subject could not even see the face of the person he was supposedly shocking.
Under-the-sea land
30-04-2008, 04:07
The highest is actually 25% in alabama, the fattest state.

He was talking about overweight not obesity. Obesity is about 25 % while overweight is much higher.
The South Islands
30-04-2008, 04:14
He was talking about overweight not obesity. Obesity is about 25 % while overweight is much higher.

Getting off topic a minute, someone being overweight or obese is calculated by BMI. Although theres not much controversy over obesity (if your a fatass, you know it), there is some over overweightness. BMI is notoriously rigid in it's definitions of overweight. It only take into account weight and height. It does not take into account body fat, body type, or tow dozen other factors that are much more telling then an arbitrary one size fits all number.
Nobel Hobos
30-04-2008, 04:31
I would generally give the number of posts a negative correlation with intelligence.

Ha ha. Look at my join date. That's a long steady post history, hundreds of thousands of words which can be searched to find if I know what I'm talking about.

I don't really. Never studied the US Constitution, even at school. I've wred it, but big whoop, doesn't make me an expert.

Even I can see the bollocks that Lyerngess is parading as an expert decision. A right to life? Not only is that going to open the issue of abortion which has no place here, it's a strikingly badly chosen analogy for a right to kill.

Oh, and look. States executing felons. That looks like a fairly significant "infringement" on their supposed "right to life."

If Lyerng is inclined to reply they'll still be getting the new-poster delay, so I'll go easy. For one post ...


Dismissing someone for having a low number of posts is like declaring their argument invalid because they are employed.

I addressed their argument. Your idea that crummy posting is excusable by "having more important things to do" is just wrong.
Nobel Hobos
30-04-2008, 04:35
Getting off topic a minute,

... the way poor old Jumbo got off his feet ...

BMI is really quite a tangent, but I'll try.
New Granada
30-04-2008, 04:52
It takes quite a few convolutions on the OP's part, in his dishonest assertion that a simple reading of the 2nd amendment leads to his personal interpretation of it, to ignore the plain "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Nobel Hobos
30-04-2008, 04:56
It takes quite a few convolutions on the OP's part, in his dishonest assertion that a simple reading of the 2nd amendment leads to his personal interpretation of it, to ignore the plain "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Nor is it right to ignore part of the sentence, call the rest "plain and simple" and assert that that is all the ammendment says.

Two bulls sharing a horn.
The South Islands
30-04-2008, 05:02
Nor is it right to ignore part of the sentence, call the rest "plain and simple" and assert that that is all the ammendment says.

Two bulls sharing a horn.

Is it not the liberal way to interpret a broader meaning of a law if the law guarantees freedoms?
Nobel Hobos
30-04-2008, 05:23
Is it not the liberal way to interpret a broader meaning of a law if the law guarantees freedoms?

Neither interpretation is sufficient. IF you have to choose between the broader interpretation and the narrower, yes I would agree.

But do we? The qualified right to bear arms is a compromise, and arguing to ignore the first clause is to argue for an unqualified right. Automatic weapons, RPG's, strike aircraft ... etc.
The South Islands
30-04-2008, 05:33
Neither interpretation is sufficient. IF you have to choose between the broader interpretation and the narrower, yes I would agree.

But do we? The qualified right to bear arms is a compromise, and arguing to ignore the first clause is to argue for an unqualified right. Automatic weapons, RPG's, strike aircraft ... etc.

No one can seriously argue for no restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. No other amendment in the Bill of Rights is absolute, the 2nd is no different.

It just depends on what restrictions are reasonable or not. Among other questions, this should be answered this June.
Trollgaard
30-04-2008, 05:37
Neither interpretation is sufficient. IF you have to choose between the broader interpretation and the narrower, yes I would agree.

But do we? The qualified right to bear arms is a compromise, and arguing to ignore the first clause is to argue for an unqualified right. Automatic weapons, RPG's, strike aircraft ... etc.

Automatic weapons are fine. So are RPGs. If someone can afford a modern fighter plane, more power to them.
Nobel Hobos
30-04-2008, 05:47
No one can seriously argue for no restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

No, they can't. Perhaps that's why teh second does NOT read "congress will make no law to infringe the right of every person to keep and bear arms."

No other amendment in the Bill of Rights is absolute, the 2nd is no different.

It just depends on what restrictions are reasonable or not. Among other questions, this should be answered this June.

Perhaps a strong ruling for the less qualified right is just what is needed to get the actual wording changed.

Tell me there's no way it can be rewritten, and I'll just point and laugh at your hidebound reverence for a document which was written to be changed. It is called an "amendment" after all. I.e. a correction. It's not the damn bible.

EDIT: Yeah, that's widening the debate most unhelpfully. Sorry TSI.

I am rather proud of the correct use of "hidebound" though. :p
Skalvia
30-04-2008, 05:52
It's because the average American citizen has the attention span of a gold fish. They only take in the parts that are convenient for them.



Nothing against Americans. :)

That would be THE WORLD not just Americans friend...

Its Human nature, our brains automatically filter irrelevant information...
Nobel Hobos
30-04-2008, 05:53
Automatic weapons are fine. So are RPGs. If someone can afford a modern fighter plane, more power to them.

You really can't help yourself, can you? You see wishy-washy liberalism at work, trying to find common ground between entrenched enemies, and you're outa there, bound for the most extreme position you can think of.

Yeah, lets have private militias. Let's have Mafia Inc taking Liberty Tower by force. Let's have drive-by shootings with tactical nukes.

Honestly, I wonder sometimes why I read past the letter "g" in your name.:rolleyes:
Skalvia
30-04-2008, 05:54
It's not the damn bible.

Just thought id point out that the Bible's been retranslated, and rewritten more times than you can count...:p
Trollgaard
30-04-2008, 06:01
You really can't help yourself, can you? You see wishy-washy liberalism at work, trying to find common ground between entrenched enemies, and you're outa there, bound for the most extreme position you can think of.

Yeah, lets have private militias. Let's have Mafia Inc taking Liberty Tower by force. Let's have drive-by shootings with tactical nukes.

Honestly, I wonder sometimes why I read past the letter "g" in your name.:rolleyes:

Haha.......

Fighter planes do seem a bit excessive...though if people can afford a private militia...in some cities that would come in handy...

But automatic weapons are fine by me. Same with rpgs. Citizens have to have something that can stop tanks and humvees if and when shit hits the fan.
Nobel Hobos
30-04-2008, 06:07
Just thought id point out that the Bible's been retranslated, and rewritten more times than you can count...:p

Yeppum. I just wanted to say "damn bible" because it makes me feel good to blaspheme. Bad habit taht.
Nobel Hobos
30-04-2008, 06:14
Fighter planes do seem a bit excessive...though if people can afford a private militia...in some cities that would come in handy...

It's called a "gang." They're great, you should join one.

But automatic weapons are fine by me. Same with rpgs. Citizens have to have something that can stop tanks and humvees if and when shit hits the fan.

"If and when" -- honestly!

Perhaps it would make sense to stop adding to the pile of shit.

You might also want to look at stopping the government building an ever bigger and more centralized fan, too.
The South Islands
30-04-2008, 06:15
No, they can't. Perhaps that's why teh second does NOT read "congress will make no law to infringe the right of every person to keep and bear arms."



Perhaps a strong ruling for the less qualified right is just what is needed to get the actual wording changed.

Tell me there's no way it can be rewritten, and I'll just point and laugh at your hidebound reverence for a document which was written to be changed. It is called an "amendment" after all. I.e. a correction. It's not the damn bible.

Wow. I try to be moderate and you fuck me over.

You can kiss my gun owning ass.
Nobel Hobos
30-04-2008, 06:22
Wow. I try to be moderate and you fuck me over.

You can kiss my gun owning ass.

I'm fine with that.

After all, I'd like to own my own gun. They're fun, and if I ever decide that I'd like to kill someone, they are pretty handy for that.

My country has fairly strict gun-control, I'm happy with the relative safety that I live in and think the gun-control laws are working fine. So, I kiss government ass on this subject. I follow the spirit of that law, as well as the letter, because I don't have a really good reason to own a gun. I don't consider sport shooting or home defence good enough reasons to go against a law which I think is working well.

Sorry if I missed something there. You were trying to be moderate ?
DrVenkman
30-04-2008, 06:31
I don't consider sport shooting or home defence good enough reasons to go against a law which I think is working well.

I have a couple of rapists who want to put you in government office. Where can they contact you and your female companions?
Nobel Hobos
30-04-2008, 06:37
I have a couple of rapists who want to put you in government office. Where can they contact you and your female companions?

They need to use mah hos? No problem.

Uh, they have money, right?
Everywhar
30-04-2008, 06:48
They need to use mah hos? No problem.

Uh, they have money, right?
Nice! I'm a newbie, but I'm totally staying here. At least debate can be light-hearted.



I think that people should be able to own guns if they want to. Having an AK-47 or M16A4 rifle might be necessary for the revolution besides. Also, I believe that small pistols are good for people in dangerous cities. Police can't be everywhere (and even if they could, that's not desirable.)
Trollgaard
30-04-2008, 07:12
It's called a "gang." They're great, you should join one.



"If and when" -- honestly!

Perhaps it would make sense to stop adding to the pile of shit.

You might also want to look at stopping the government building an ever bigger and more centralized fan, too.

20-30 years max.

All hell will break loose.
Lacidar
30-04-2008, 07:28
If you believe a bunch of handguns is going to stop a tyrannical government with a modern military, then this:

<snip>


You really think that an armed populace is ineffective against a modern military? Take a peek through history and look for partisans, guerrilla's, freedom fighters, rebels..hell, look at terrorists..anything else you want to call them. History seems to disagree with you. Technological differences cannot overcome human will and simple technology unless considering nuclear, chemical, and germ...and even those could be debated.
Honsria
30-04-2008, 07:36
Well, I know for a fact that in the state of Illinois anyone can be considered part of the "militia", as long as they haven't tried to kill anybody recently (illegally). Anyway, there is more wiggle room in the constitution than it would seem from the OP's point of view. That being said, I have few problems with most gun control laws.
Lunatic Goofballs
30-04-2008, 07:51
I would generally give the number of posts a negative correlation with intelligence.

:eek:

Butt I lern reel gud! :mad:
Maineiacs
30-04-2008, 08:31
A technologically advanced, enlightened society should have no need for weapons to be carried by civilians. A regulated military should, in theory, be sufficient to offer support and defense to its populace. The very fact that people in this country clamor for their 'right to bear arms' not only portrays the militaristic and violent mentality of those who clamor, but also brings to light the ignorant and irrational philosophies to which those who support such ideas have fallen victim and are subjected to.

It is no secret that our government utilizes fear and terror to take advantage of the ignorant in society to create an atmosphere of paranoia and distrust amongst the population. By dividing 'the people' the government ensures its continued survival and control over society with the age-old tactic of divide-and-conquer. Abraham Lincoln himself said, "A nation divided cannot stand." Almost 150 years later, we are proving his point.

While the American people are busy arguing over, among other things, the semantics of 'the right to bear arms' the government is free to wage unjust wars, initiate illegal occupations, utilize destructive environmental actions, take part in human atrocities, violate international laws, etc.

Retrospectively, it is a violent and unenlightened people who desire weapons manufactured with the sole purpose of ending life. It would indubitably be altogether different if the weapons were used to usurp a corrupt and tyrannical government in attempts to instate a governing body based on logic, reason, and common sense. Instead, we have staged massacres to garner support for a war on terror, students dying at institutions of learning, families gunned down by maniacal sociopaths, innocent people murdered for their meager belongings, race against race, nation against nation, and brother against brother.

While numerous Americans cry for weapons of violence - the enlightened ones in society cry for peaceful resolutions, respectful diversity, and mutual cooperation.

QFT, and sigged.
Lacidar
30-04-2008, 08:42
<snip>

Honestly, it's a pretty straight-forward sentence: 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.



Yes, it is very straightforward. I find it disturbing this stuff isn't taught in schools anymore.

Recognizing that a standing army, being necessary to ensure the security of a free State...

Having nearly lost the revolution, and fearing tyranny..it was recognized that having a standing army may be necessary to ensure the security of a free State...but if the free State were to become corrupt..the standing army would then become an instrument of tyranny..so, the people shall retain the right of being armed...

in order that the people have the ability to resist said instrument of tyranny...

Logically, this would imply the people retain the ability to defeat said army, thus the armaments of which the people retain the right to cannot logically be presumed to mean only weapons of that time period, or even limited to conventional hunting weapons. I believe that the people were expected to retain arms comparable to anything that the standing army might reasonably be expected to field against them.

and...

that right shall not be diminished.

This is kind of redundant in my opinion, but I imagine it was added on to explicitly specify that the government and people themselves could in no way justify any modification or augmentation of this amendment. So the people will have this right, whether they want it or not.

Of course, ultimately..constitution or no..when push comes to shove, all people have the right and duty to resist tyranny. The last part just ensures that the people which live under the US Constitution have, or have easier access to, weaponry sufficiently able to resist their own military.


It makes no mention of people having an inherent right to bear arms, but that a militia is necessary for security and, because of that, the right to bear arms exists; if you're not in such a militia, this ammendment makes no reference to you. It makes no mention of an inability to restrict or govern the use of firearms, but actually specifically mentions that the militia (Which is why we have this right) needs to be well regulated.

Now, I'm actually not a person who supports the banning of guns from the country, or believes that everybody who owns a gun is a trigger-happy whacko, but seriously, this ammendment is pretty clear. It refers to the organization and membership of a militia, and that's it, not to an inalienable right. Why all the big fuss?


The big fuss is because a lot of people cannot fathom how their standing army could ever turn or be turned against them. Likewise, a lot of people do see how it could happen. History shows it as so, but many say "no, we are a democracy, or we are a republic, or they are our sons and daughters, or any other slew of short sighted thoughts.

It's the big battle of ideas....some know that freedom is retained only by the vigilance and blood of the people...and others take it for granted and think it will always be there.

~
Maineiacs
30-04-2008, 08:50
It's the big battle of ideas....some know that freedom is retained only by the vigilance and blood of the people...and others take it for granted and think it will always be there.

Some are motivated by fear, and think freedom means the right to destroy any perceived threat, even if that threat be a boogey man of their own imagining or simply even a different opinion, others are not and have the discernment to use violence as a last resort against only real threats.

If you prove to be right, and the government attempts to impose a tryannical dictatorship on us, then I'll take up a gun myself, and join you -- or more likely fight against you, as I have a feeling your definition of what constitutes government tryanny and mine are very different.
Honsria
30-04-2008, 08:55
20-30 years max.

All hell will break loose.

Oh snap, better build that personal redoubt faster!! Order me up some claymores!
greed and death
30-04-2008, 09:05
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.



you got to take it in context. in the late 18th century early 19th century, what we today would call a posse so long as they were acting with in the law would be considered a well regulated militia.

Not to mention you need armed people to be able to form a Militia in the first place. normally it is individuals with fire arms who form a Militia when need arises, not people forming a Militia then sending a request to the government for the right to bear arms.

If you look in an 18th century dictionary a militia is defined as" The entire able-bodied male population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms. " (note I am not using 18th century english it sucks).

So just the fact I am an able bodied male makes me in the Militia by the definitions that the writers of the second amendment worked with. That also explains why it switches from talking about Militia, and then switches to the people.

interesting site here http://yarchive.net/gun/politics/regulate.html

basically describes how 18th century english regulated would have meant a properly functioning militia more so then a controlled tightly by the goverment.
Honsria
30-04-2008, 09:09
Besides, if you take the spirit of the law (which is something the supreme court does regularly) instead of the letter of it, all of the signers of the constitution owned guns, and most wouldn't serve in a militia if the need arose. They didn't want people to give up guns, they wanted to make sure that the government couldn't become so powerful, or complacent that the populace would get put in a bad place by not being properly armed.
Lacidar
30-04-2008, 09:17
I wonder, for those that think the US military would not follow orders en masse, if they've ever heard the name "Milgram"

The Milgram experiment concluded about 68% of people tested would follow orders which contradicted their personal sense of morality if I recall correctly.

I also seem to recall a survey of military personnel which showed about 73% (most of which were enlisted or lower grade officers) would follow an order which they thought to be unlawful to their oath or unethical to them personally.

This is actually supports why ..."the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Honsria
30-04-2008, 09:22
The Milgram experiment concluded about 68% of people tested would follow orders which contradicted their personal sense of morality if I recall correctly.

I also seem to recall a survey of military personnel which showed about 73% (most of which were enlisted or lower grade officers) would follow an order which they thought to be unlawful to their oath or unethical to them personally.

This is actually supports why ..."the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Uhh, I think there is a difference between carrying out immoral acts against foreign nationals and American citizens. The fact that they speak English and would be able to convince the soldiers of their viewpoints (if they were valid) would be one major factor. Soo, I really don't see the military being a big problem (being on the "wrong side") if the government finally goes too far and is overthrown violently.
Intestinal fluids
30-04-2008, 12:15
Isnt this kind of irrelevant? The Supreme Court is deciding this issue as we speak. During the questioning when the issue came in front of the court a few weeks ago, it seems that the Justices have taken an interpretaion that it does indeed cover personal rights to bear arms but the arguement that seems to be up to debate among the justices is how does the Second Amendment affect the ability of the State for regulation and restriction of such accepted rights. The issue now seems to be, citizens have the right to bear arms as a given Constitutional right, but what powers, if any, do the States have to regulate this Constitutional right.
Lyerngess
30-04-2008, 12:25
Its adorable that you think the issue is so simple.

It is that simple. I don't support guns, I don't own a gun, and I would never fire a gun. But it is the right of all people to possess a weapon. I can see regulation as to what sorts of weapons you can possess being reasonable and not unconstitutional, but to regulate who can possess a weapon and where they can possess it (concealed carry, for instance) is a flagrant dismissal of the Constitution.

This anology fails. Hard. You know why? Because having a trial doesnt give you the ability to pump out several armor peircing .3 Caliber bullets a second.

What you fail to see is that it was not an analogy but a logical next step. When you give the government the power to do something, they naturally expand upon that power. Giving them the right to regulate any one of our rights gives them the legal right to regulate all of them. Leading, as stated, to fair trials only when the government allows you to have one, or only being allowed to live if they feel you are stable enough.

Nine posts? You have yet to persuade anyone that you have any knowledge, extensive or otherwise. Save your breath on that.

I hate to say it, person I have no knowledge about, but post count does not equate to knowledge. I have a bachelors in economics and political philosophy. I am also a constitutional lawyer. The kind no one hires, but it certainly means I know plenty about the Constitution. If you don't want to believe me, go right ahead, but I know that I know what I am talking about.

What about Habeas Corpus? It's a far better established "right" held in common with many other democratic republics. It's in the Universal Declaration, unlike any right to keep weapons.

The argument that "right to bear weapons" is where the battle line should be drawn is based on the vague idea of overthrowing tyrannical government by force of arms. That "right" looks like the Oklahoma bombing, in practice.

Surely, a core right BEFORE THE LAW is more vital.

I agree. But this thread is about the 2nd amendment, not about every other right that people have ever possessed. Therefore, I am attempting to keep my posting within the limits of that particular discussion.

Ha ha. Look at my join date. That's a long steady post history, hundreds of thousands of words which can be searched to find if I know what I'm talking about.

I don't really. Never studied the US Constitution, even at school. I've wred it, but big whoop, doesn't make me an expert.

Even I can see the bollocks that Lyerngess is parading as an expert decision. A right to life? Not only is that going to open the issue of abortion which has no place here, it's a strikingly badly chosen analogy for a right to kill.

Oh, and look. States executing felons. That looks like a fairly significant "infringement" on their supposed "right to life."

If Lyerng is inclined to reply they'll still be getting the new-poster delay, so I'll go easy. For one post ...

Again, join date does not equal intelligence. Unluckily, I do not have the time to go back through your other posts, but I will assume that you are reasonably intellgient.

The fact is, I chose the right to life because I believe it to be something that is guaranteed by our government, if not by the Constitution, and is one of the most infringed upon rights every created. My argument goes back to the Declaration of Independence, in which it grants the right of life to all people, and it is this document that is the first layer foundation of America's government, not the Constitution. The Constitution is the second layer, with all laws, judicial precedents, and the like being the third layer. The Constitution cannot contradict the Declaration of Independence just as laws cannot contradict the Constitution.

Regardless, read above where I quite specifically state that it is not an analogy, and that I am not referring to capital punishment, but to the requirement of registration for the government to 'allow you' your life. That is the next step when it comes to them regulating your rights.

One last thing...

The right to bear arms is one of the most important rights ever granted to us by the Constitution. The fact is, it is this right that truly holds the government accountable to the people, not the Constitution. To take away people's firearms is to completely eliminate the government's accountability, allowing them to speed on their way to an authoritarian regime.
Doughty Street
30-04-2008, 13:54
Inalienable right maybe, but there is a strong positive correlation between the proportion of the population that owns a gun, and the number of gun deaths per capita (via the various types of homicide, suicide, and accident).

For some reason the words "Brandeis Brief" spring to mind. Yes, it may be an inalienable right, but I'm bloody glad we don't have it, it's a damned expensive one.
Neo Art
30-04-2008, 14:59
After reading this:

My argument goes back to the Declaration of Independence, in which it grants the right of life to all people, and it is this document that is the first layer foundation of America's government, not the Constitution. The Constitution is the second layer, with all laws, judicial precedents, and the like being the third layer. The Constitution cannot contradict the Declaration of Independence just as laws cannot contradict the Constitution.

I'm 100% convinced that this:

I am also a constitutional lawyer.

Is a lie. There's no way you managed to squeak through a JD program with that shit.

I know plenty about the Constitution.

Yeah, I thought I knew a lot about the constitution after my college constitutional law classes too.

The right to bear arms is one of the most important rights ever granted to us by the Constitution. The fact is, it is this right that truly holds the government accountable to the people, not the Constitution. To take away people's firearms is to completely eliminate the government's accountability, allowing them to speed on their way to an authoritarian regime.

Really? It's firearms that keeps government accountability? Not the right to, I don't know...vote?
Intestinal fluids
30-04-2008, 15:07
Really? It's firearms that keeps government accountability? Not the right to, I don't know...vote?

They both keep government accountability differently. If the government suddenly decided to suspend Writ of Habeus Corpus for whatever reason, it wouldnt ask us to vote on it.
Doughty Street
30-04-2008, 15:12
Hmm, yes, I frequently use guns to ensure my elected representatives are kept accountable. It's the only language they understand.
greed and death
30-04-2008, 15:44
Isnt this kind of irrelevant? The Supreme Court is deciding this issue as we speak. During the questioning when the issue came in front of the court a few weeks ago, it seems that the Justices have taken an interpretaion that it does indeed cover personal rights to bear arms but the arguement that seems to be up to debate among the justices is how does the Second Amendment affect the ability of the State for regulation and restriction of such accepted rights. The issue now seems to be, citizens have the right to bear arms as a given Constitutional right, but what powers, if any, do the States have to regulate this Constitutional right.

Really only antigun nuts ever view it as just applying to the armed forces or those too busy to look into the language of the day.


The issue is really does the 14th amendment prevent the states from regulating the right to bear arms. Prior to the 14th amendment, states were not covered by the bill of rights at all.
Geniasis
30-04-2008, 15:50
A technologically advanced, enlightened society should have no need for weapons to be carried by civilians. A regulated military should, in theory, be sufficient to offer support and defense to its populace. The very fact that people in this country clamor for their 'right to bear arms' not only portrays the militaristic and violent mentality of those who clamor, but also brings to light the ignorant and irrational philosophies to which those who support such ideas have fallen victim and are subjected to.

It is no secret that our government utilizes fear and terror to take advantage of the ignorant in society to create an atmosphere of paranoia and distrust amongst the population. By dividing 'the people' the government ensures its continued survival and control over society with the age-old tactic of divide-and-conquer. Abraham Lincoln himself said, "A nation divided cannot stand." Almost 150 years later, we are proving his point.

While the American people are busy arguing over, among other things, the semantics of 'the right to bear arms' the government is free to wage unjust wars, initiate illegal occupations, utilize destructive environmental actions, take part in human atrocities, violate international laws, etc.

Retrospectively, it is a violent and unenlightened people who desire weapons manufactured with the sole purpose of ending life. It would indubitably be altogether different if the weapons were used to usurp a corrupt and tyrannical government in attempts to instate a governing body based on logic, reason, and common sense. Instead, we have staged massacres to garner support for a war on terror, students dying at institutions of learning, families gunned down by maniacal sociopaths, innocent people murdered for their meager belongings, race against race, nation against nation, and brother against brother.

While numerous Americans cry for weapons of violence - the enlightened ones in society cry for peaceful resolutions, respectful diversity, and mutual cooperation.

So if I want a gun so I can go hunting, or go to a shooting range then that makes me "violent and unenlightened"? I'm not sure I like the implication that someone on the opposite end of the debate is an idiot.
Soyut
30-04-2008, 15:51
So, I carry around with me a copy of the U.S. Constitution, it's in a pouch on my backpack where I also keep a copy of the Qur'an and New Testmant (Also an umbrella. I like to be prepared), and occasionally I take it out and just thumb through the ammendments. I'm not usually looking for anything specific, just browsing, and sometimes I giggle at how people really don't seem to actually know what's written in this thing (Did you know, for example, that we actually haven't outlawed slavery at all? It's still legal as punishment for a crime. If we made it illegal to be black, and there is no part of the constitution that says we can't, then bingo-bango-bongo we're back to completely legal and constitutionally endorsed bondage and wide-scale oppression). Yesterday I happened to pop in on the Second Ammendment, which I've done many times before, but this time I stared at it for a bit and realized something: What the hell is all this controversy about?

Honestly, it's a pretty straight-forward sentence: 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 makes no mention of people having an inherent right to bear arms, but that a militia is necessary for security and, because of that, the right to bear arms exists; if you're not in such a militia, this ammendment makes no reference to you. It makes no mention of an inability to restrict or govern the use of firearms, but actually specifically mentions that the militia (Which is why we have this right) needs to be well regulated.

Now, I'm actually not a person who supports the banning of guns from the country, or believes that everybody who owns a gun is a trigger-happy whacko, but seriously, this ammendment is pretty clear. It refers to the organization and membership of a militia, and that's it, not to an inalienable right. Why all the big fuss?

have a problem with that interpretation. Why would it say militia, and then people? "The right of the people(not the militia), t keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Intestinal fluids
30-04-2008, 15:53
Any "technologically advanced nation" is a 2 week power failure away from a lawless society. Good luck with the government protecting you then. Ill keep my guns thanks.
Neo Art
30-04-2008, 15:59
They both keep government accountability differently. If the government suddenly decided to suspend Writ of Habeus Corpus for whatever reason, it wouldnt ask us to vote on it.

and you think that government would respect your right to own a gun too?
Intestinal fluids
30-04-2008, 16:02
and you think that government would respect your right to own a gun too?

When your aiming it with a few hundred neighbors, they tend to have little choice.
Knights of Liberty
30-04-2008, 16:09
The Constitution cannot contradict the Declaration of Independence

Are you on something?



You are talking about the US Constitution right?


Ill give you a perfect example here. The Declaration of Independence grants the right to revolution. The Constitution forbids treasonous acts.


Thats just the easiest one to pick out.
Knights of Liberty
30-04-2008, 16:31
When your aiming it with a few hundred neighbors, they tend to have little choice.

And when the government rolls in the well trained and better equiped military, you now have two choices.


Give em up or get slaughtered.
Intestinal fluids
30-04-2008, 16:32
And when the government rolls in the well trained and better equiped military, you now have two choices.


Give em up or get slaughtered.

If they could do that, then we would have won Iraq 5 years ago.
greed and death
30-04-2008, 16:35
have a problem with that interpretation. Why would it say militia, and then people? "The right of the people(not the militia), t keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It says Militia because in 18th century english.
Militia meant every able bodied male able to be called to arms.

So the people (white males) and militia were interchangeable terms.

Also well regulated meant more along the lines of functioning rather then under goverment control.
Neo Art
30-04-2008, 16:39
If they could do that, then we would have won Iraq 5 years ago.

We could have won Iraq easily, IF our goals in Iraq were the same as the goals of a despotic dictator. Seize control, impose martial law, and rule by force.

We could do that easy. Our military is fantastic at overthrowing regimes and ruling by force. We could kill every single dissenting Iraqi and throw their bodies in a ditch, if we wanted to.

What's stopping us from winning in Iraq is that that kind of win is a victory we don't want.

But we could sure as hell do it
Intestinal fluids
30-04-2008, 16:45
Neo, your a smart guy, im sure you can understand how voting and guns both serve to keep government accountability but in different ways.
Everywhar
30-04-2008, 16:50
Ill give you a perfect example here. The Declaration of Independence grants the right to revolution. The Constitution forbids treasonous acts.

Interestingly, some state constitutions "grant" the right of revolution.

im sure you can understand how guns both serve to keep government accountability.
Fixed.
Gurrania
30-04-2008, 17:26
To everyone who don't think that the U.S military (or any other national military), would not by any means turn against the citizens, then I guess you should probably read a bit more about the history of Rome and it's emperors. This, since the U.S.A and the Roman Empire is built upon the same pillars.

How many times didn't different generals use the military for it own purpose and to become emperor, even if it was against the will of the senate and therefore, the will of the citizens?

Rome was at the beginning a representative democracy(the system was a repr. democracy, women and slaves were not allowed to elect senators), as the U.S is today. So my conclusion is that there's a theoretically chance that the military could turn against the people...
greed and death
30-04-2008, 17:33
To everyone who don't think that the U.S military (or any other national military), would not by any means turn against the citizens, then I guess you should probably read a bit more about the history of Rome and it's emperors. This, since the U.S.A and the Roman Empire is built upon the same pillars.

How many times didn't different generals use the military for it own purpose and to become emperor, even if it was against the will of the senate and therefore, the will of the citizens?

Rome was at the beginning a representative democracy(the system was a repr. democracy, women and slaves were not allowed to elect senators), as the U.S is today. So my conclusion is that there's a theoretically chance that the military could turn against the people...

the U.S. Military thus far has shown it does not wish to assume power.
General Washington Refused to become dictator of the country, as well as marine general during the great depression.
Neo Art
30-04-2008, 17:34
Neo, your a smart guy, im sure you can understand how voting and guns both serve to keep government accountability but in different ways.

I understand how voting and guns did serve to keep government accountable, at the time the 2nd amendment was written.

I understand how a, for lack of a better term "peasant militia" could defeat a national armed forces, at the time the 2nd amendment was written.

I understand the perspective the framers were looking at, at the time the 2nd amendment was written.

However I am thoroughly unconvinced that a populace sporatically armed with handguns will do much against a despotic regime backed by a modern military. If there is to be a revolution in this country, and I very much doubt it, but if there is, it will be decided primarily on what side the military falls on.
Neo Art
30-04-2008, 17:36
I mean, don't get me wrong, I've seen Red Dawn. It was a hell of a movie. But that's all it was, a movie.
Cosmopoles
30-04-2008, 18:30
The necessity for guns to ensure your rights assumes that the people with guns are willing to use them when a dictator seizes power, rather than cheering him on.
Lunatic Goofballs
30-04-2008, 18:45
Are you on something?



You are talking about the US Constitution right?


Ill give you a perfect example here. The Declaration of Independence grants the right to revolution. The Constitution forbids treasonous acts.


Thats just the easiest one to pick out.

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.

“ The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ”

:)
Everywhar
30-04-2008, 18:51
The Declaration of Independence has no legal force whatever. You can't really put the Ninth Amendment together with the Declaration of Independence and come up with a right of revolution. The right definitely exists, but it has nothing to do with what the constitution says.
Lunatic Goofballs
30-04-2008, 18:53
The Declaration of Independence has no legal force whatever. You can't really put the Ninth Amendment together with the Declaration of Independence and come up with a right of revolution.

Why not?
Llewdor
30-04-2008, 18:59
“ The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ”
Of course, the Ninth Amendment doesn't assert that those other rights exist, only that the constitution doesn't say they don't.
Tmutarakhan
30-04-2008, 19:01
Of course, the Ninth Amendment doesn't assert that those other rights exist, only that the constitution doesn't say they don't.

You're construing it to deny and disparage my retained rights, exactly what it tells you not to do!!! :D
Neo Art
30-04-2008, 19:01
Why not?

Because the declaration isn't a legal document. If the right does exist, it's within the confines of the 9th and, possibly, the 14th amendment. The declaration of independance has no legal authority.
Lunatic Goofballs
30-04-2008, 19:01
Of course, the Ninth Amendment doesn't assert that those other rights exist, only that the constitution doesn't say they don't.

More specifically, just because a right isn't mentioned in the constitution doesn't mean it isn't protected by the constitution.


...assuming the right is acknowledged to exist.
Lunatic Goofballs
30-04-2008, 19:02
Because the declaration isn't a legal document. If the right does exist, it's within the confines of the 9th and, possibly, the 14th amendment. The declaration of independance has no legal authority.

Why not?
Neo Art
30-04-2008, 19:06
Why not?

because it's not a legal document...and therefore has no more legal authority than Harry Potter
Tmutarakhan
30-04-2008, 19:06
Rome was at the beginning a representative democracy(the system was a repr. democracy, women and slaves were not allowed to elect senators)
No, Rome was a hereditary oligarchy. Free men, as well as women and slaves, were not "allowed to elect" senators because senators were not elected in the first place: they were the heads of the patrician families. The only way a new family became of "patrician" rank was if the existing patrician families accepted it as such (the need for infusing fresh blood from time to time was recognized).

The plebeians (free men, but below patrician rank) were eventually granted the right to elect "tribunes", which is where an element of representative democracy came in. Tribunes however did not have a vote in the senate and could not propose legislation, but could veto.
Tmutarakhan
30-04-2008, 19:07
because it's not a legal document...and therefore has no more legal authority than Harry Potter
I don't understand you. If the Declaration is not a legal document, then our legal sovereign is Elizabeth II, and nothing done by the so-called "President" Bush has any legal force at all.
Neo Art
30-04-2008, 19:08
Now, however, if you want to use the declaration as a contemporary document written at the time of the founders, in the same political philosophy as the founders, and, in many cases, by the founders and hold that up as an example of what important rights they would have thought to exist, beyond that which is enumerated, I see where you're coming from.

As a source of law it has no legal standing, as a source of historical understanding of those who wrote the constitution and what they would have considered important to be covered by the 9th amendment, that's more realistic.
Lunatic Goofballs
30-04-2008, 19:09
because it's not a legal document...

Prove it.
Neo Art
30-04-2008, 19:10
I don't understand you. If the Declaration is not a legal document, then our legal sovereign is Elizabeth II, and nothing done by the so-called "President" Bush has any legal force at all.

Not at all. The declaration of independance did not, as a matter of law, seperate America from England.

What did that was the Treaty of Paris. Which is a legal document. It was the treaty of paris that set the foundation of America's legal independance, not the declaration.
Neo Art
30-04-2008, 19:11
Prove it.

by what force of law does it operate?
Everywhar
30-04-2008, 19:13
Why not?
Because it has not been traditionally regarded as a legal document. Legality of the Constitution is the tradition, not legality of the Declaration. The Declaration is widely acknowledged to be a symbolistic document. (It wasn't legal either, because the Brits came with guns. In fact, signing the Declaration was an act of treason.)

I don't like it, either, because I believe in and advocate the right of revolution. But, as you might imagine, the illegality of revolution is tautology, and I am not exactly hung up on any duty to obey the law.
Soyut
30-04-2008, 19:18
And when the government rolls in the well trained and better equiped military, you now have two choices.


Give em up or get slaughtered.

And thats why we need assault rifles and RPGs. I'm glad you understand. :cool:
Everywhar
30-04-2008, 19:20
Are you kidding? What we need is to disarm everyone (except the cops, who never brutalize people, and soldiers, who always do right) and have an omnipresent police state. Everyone's safe, and we have gun control at the same time. Sounds like a great compromise. :rolleyes:
Lyerngess
30-04-2008, 19:22
Inalienable right maybe, but there is a strong positive correlation between the proportion of the population that owns a gun, and the number of gun deaths per capita (via the various types of homicide, suicide, and accident).

Absolutely correct. As I said, I do not like guns, I do not own a gun, and I would never fire a gun. I have been shot with a gun. It's not pleasant. I still believe that the right to bear arms is a necessary one for any government that believes its people to be free.

I'm 100% convinced that this:

Quote:
I am also a constitutional lawyer

Is a lie. There's no way you managed to squeak through a JD program with that shit.

I know who I am. It makes little difference to me if you believe me or not. I know that I passed with what I think, and my professor seemed to think I knew what I was talking about.

Regardless, we'll stop the pointless ad hominem arguments now, correct? Or you could keep attacking me for who I am and what I've done and start attacking my points.

Really? It's firearms that keeps government accountability? Not the right to, I don't know...vote?

It is, ultimately, the power of the people that holds the government accountable to its decisions. Voting increases the power of the people over the actions of the government by electing a government that we believe will do certain things, but in no way does it increase the accountability of the government to the people. Firearms, on the other hand, do increase the power of the people. Easy to understand, yes?

and you think that government would respect your right to own a gun too?

It should and, currently, does.

Are you on something?



You are talking about the US Constitution right?


Ill give you a perfect example here. The Declaration of Independence grants the right to revolution. The Constitution forbids treasonous acts.


Thats just the easiest one to pick out.

The Declaration of Independence gives the right to alter or abolish government, not to revolt. The Constitution does not contradict the Declaration of Independence in this area. Any other so-called contradictions you want to lay out?

And when the government rolls in the well trained and better equiped military, you now have two choices.


Give em up or get slaughtered.

Not true. The modern military is just as vulnerable, if not more vulnerable, to "peasant" militias than it has been in the past. When it is within my power to create powerful explosive devices from common household chemicals, I would call them less safe. While they have many definite advantages, there is no possibility of a military victory over a well-armed and well-informed populace of America's size.

If they could do that, then we would have won Iraq 5 years ago.

We could have won Iraq easily, IF our goals in Iraq were the same as the goals of a despotic dictator. Seize control, impose martial law, and rule by force.

We could do that easy. Our military is fantastic at overthrowing regimes and ruling by force. We could kill every single dissenting Iraqi and throw their bodies in a ditch, if we wanted to.

What's stopping us from winning in Iraq is that that kind of win is a victory we don't want.

But we could sure as hell do it

The fact is, Iraq is a stellar example of why the modern military cannot be victorious over civilians. With only a small portion of the population, Iraq's terrorists/freedom fighters/rebels have been more than capable of preventing us from installing a democratic government there even when we attempt to kill all of them with our modern military. Now imagine what a small portion of America's population would be capable of doing, when they have more resources and more people available to them?

the U.S. Military thus far has shown it does not wish to assume power.
General Washington Refused to become dictator of the country, as well as marine general during the great depression.

Just because it has not yet happened does not mean that it will not happen. It is best to be prepared for the worst of possibilities.

The necessity for guns to ensure your rights assumes that the people with guns are willing to use them when a dictator seizes power, rather than cheering him on.

Yes, it does. Which is why education is an important but oft-ignored section of the government's responsibilities to its people.

Because the declaration isn't a legal document. If the right does exist, it's within the confines of the 9th and, possibly, the 14th amendment. The declaration of independance has no legal authority.

The Declaration of Independence is as legal as the Constitution. Neither are legal under the traditional definition of legality, which requires law and government, because they were not instituted by a government. The Declaration of Independence is the document that declares our nation to exist, and the Constitution is the document that sets out the government of the nation created by the Declaration of Independence.

Finally, for those of you who will undoubtedly attack me because I happen to be posting in the middle as proof of my not being what I say I am, I just got out of all my positions for the day and, therefore, have nothing to do. And, for those of you who do not understand what I mean, you can read the below and still not understand what I mean.

I trade an automated system in which I trade a pair of oil producers and suppliers, whose prices stay close together and fluctuate only slightly. As one goes up, I short it and go long the other; they inevitably move back together and I sell the positions at a slight profit. I run eight units leveraged 4 to 1 and make between 13 and 28 percent annually. This is where the money I don't make being a lawyer because I am never hired comes from. ;)
Lunatic Goofballs
30-04-2008, 19:43
by what force of law does it operate?

You first. Show me proof that the Declaration of Independence is no accepted by the courts as a legal document of the United States and I will take it from there.
Neo Art
30-04-2008, 19:51
You first. Show me proof that the Declaration of Independence is no accepted by the courts as a legal document of the United States and I will take it from there.

how in the world do you expect me to prove a negative? burden's on you, show me a case where it has been cited as declarative law.
Lunatic Goofballs
30-04-2008, 20:10
how in the world do you expect me to prove a negative? burden's on you, show me a case where it has been cited as declarative law.

It's called 'disproving' and I tend to follow a more scientific approach which suggests that evidence that refutes a hypothesis holds far more weight than ten pieces that supports it. The burden to provide that refutation is yours.

However, just to be silly(which is something I'm quite good at), here are excerpts from two Supreme Court cases that mentions the Constitution:

In Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901), the Court stated:

The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "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. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."

and

1872

In Re Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)

Justice Field:

The right of a State to regulate the conduct of its citizens is undoubtedly a very broad and extensive one, and not to be lightly restricted. But there are certain fundamental rights which this right of regulation cannot infringe. It may prescribe the manner of their exercise, but it cannot subvert the rights themselves. I speak now of the rights of citizens of any free government. Granting for the present that the citizens of one government cannot claim the privileges of citizens in another government; that prior to the union of our North American States the citizens of one State could not claim the privileges of citizens in another State; or, that after the union was formed the citizens of the United States, as such, could not claim the privileges of citizens in any particular State; yet the citizens of each of the States and the citizens of the United States would be entitled to certain privileges and immunities as citizens, at the hands of their own government-privileges and immunities which their own governments respectively would be bound to respect and maintain. In this free country, the people of which inherited certain traditionary rights and privileges from their ancestors, citizenship means something. It has certain privileges and immunities attached to it which the government, whether restricted by express or implied limitations, cannot take away or impair. It may do so temporarily by force, but it cannot do so by right. And these privileges and immunities attach as well to citizenship of the United States as to citizenship of the States.

The people of this country brought with them to its shores the rights of Englishmen; the rights which had been wrested from English sovereigns at various periods of the nation's history. One of these fundamental rights was expressed in these words, found in Magna Charta: "No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseized of his freehold or liberties or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him or condemn [83 U.S. 36, 115] him but by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." English constitutional writers expound this article as rendering life, liberty, and property inviolable, except by due process of law. This is the very right which the plaintiffs in error claim in this case. Another of these rights was that of habeas corpus, or the right of having any invasion of personal liberty judicially examined into, at once, by a competent judicial magistrate. Blackstone classifies these fundamental rights under three heads, as the absolute rights of individuals, to wit: the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right of private property. And of the last he says: "The third absolute right, inherent in every Englishman, is that of property, which consists in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of all his acquisitions, without any control or diminution save only by the laws of the land."

The privileges and immunities of Englishmen were established and secured by long usage and by various acts of Parliament. But it may be said that the Parliament of England has unlimited authority, and might repeal the laws which have from time to time been enacted. Theoretically this is so, but practically it is not. England has no written constitution, it is true; but it has an unwritten one, resting in the acknowledged, and frequently declared, privileges of Parliament and the people, to violate which in any material respect would produce a revolution in an hour. A violation of one of the fundamental principles of that constitution in the Colonies, namely, the principle that recognizes the property of the people as their own, and which, therefore, regards all taxes for the support of government as gifts of the people through their representatives, and regards taxation without representation as subversive of free government, was the origin of our own revolution.

This, it is true, was the violation of a political right; but personal rights were deemed equally sacred, and were claimed by the very first Congress of the Colonies, assembled in 1774, as the undoubted inheritance of the people of this country; and the Declaration of Independence, which [83 U.S. 36, 116] was the first political act of the American people in their independent sovereign capacity, lays the foundation of our National existence upon this broad proposition: "That all men 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." Here again we have the great threefold division of the rights of freemen, asserted as the rights of man. Rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are equivalent to the rights of life, liberty, and property. These are the fundamental rights which can only be taken away by due process of law, and which can only be interfered with, or the enjoyment of which can only be modified, by lawful regulations necessary or proper for the mutual good of all; and these rights, I contend, belong to the citizens of every free government.

I bolded the interesting bits. Your turn. :)
Neo Art
30-04-2008, 20:20
Unfortunatly you didn't bold the real important bits, to whit:

While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits

As to the slaughterhouse cases, again it says what I said before. That the declaration of independance protects nothing. It grants no rights, sets no limits, constructs no legal regimes. The constitution does that, and gaurentees our rights to liberty and freedom. However, to determine what the founders meant by liberty and freedom we can look to other, contemporary documents by them, and their political and philosophical peers. And the declaration of independance is a big one.

Your first case citation makes it very clear, the declaration is not law, does not have the force of law, and does not, in any way, supercede the constitution, when we look to interpreting the constitution, we can look to other things the framers, and those with their philosophical outlook, had written. The Declaration of Independance is a big one there, as is the federalist papers, and others.

It's not law, the first case makes it clear it's not law. But it is a statement of principles of the men who wrote the constitution, and men like them, and is therefore very useful in interpreting the constitution.

And as a tool of interpretation, you will find no argument from me that it has significant value. But it's not law.
Tmutarakhan
30-04-2008, 20:25
Not at all. The declaration of independance did not, as a matter of law, seperate America from England.

What did that was the Treaty of Paris. Which is a legal document. It was the treaty of paris that set the foundation of America's legal independance, not the declaration.

The Treaty of Paris conferred diplomatic recognition of America by Britain, but France, Spain, the Dutch Republic, and Morocco had already granted recognition-- to what, in your view?

It was the Articles of Confederation regime which not only called the convention that drafted the Constitution but also supervised the ratification and initial implementation. The Constitution itself has no legal force unless the Articles regime (predating the Treaty of Paris, mind you) was already legitimate, and the Articles regime in turn depends on the pre-existence of the "state" governments (as opposed to "colonial") and the Continental Congress. It was taken for granted that legal actions undertaken by the preceding regimes continued to have legal force.

For example, although most court decisions of the period were by state courts (which of course continued to prosecute crimes, adjudicate contract disputes, etc. all that time), I know of one "federal" court that was set up in 1781 and rendered its decision in 1783 (still prior to the Treaty of Paris). The decision still has legal force: it was a resolution of Pennsylvania's border disputes with Virginia (occupying Pittsburgh at the time), New York (in possession of Erie), and Connecticut (by treaty with the Dutch Republic before Britain seized New Netherlands, Connecticut had renounced Long Island, Manhattan, and the lower Hudson but without prejudice to its claims further west; settlers from Connecticut and Pennsylvania in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area were engaged in the "Yankee-Pennamite War"). The court's decision that Pennsylvania should be allowed a northwest outlet (the "Erie triangle") is particularly notable as it rested on nothing whatsoever in any charter or other earlier legal document, but solely on the court's authority to do whatever seemed equitable and reasonable.
Soheran
30-04-2008, 20:26
However I am thoroughly unconvinced that a populace sporatically armed with handguns will do much against a despotic regime backed by a modern military.

Depends entirely on the political situation.

Governments are only as powerful as people let them be. A government that slaughters thousands of its own citizens, especially in a country that once had liberal democracy, is likely to very quickly lose legitimacy in the eyes of the public... and may find it has far more problems on its hands than the initial uprising.

It's true that no revolutionary organization would be able to win militarily. But that's immaterial, because that's almost never how revolutions are won anyway.
Neo Art
30-04-2008, 20:26
The Treaty of Paris conferred diplomatic recognition of America by Britain, but France, Spain, the Dutch Republic, and Morocco had already granted recognition-- to what, in your view?

Ah, but that raises an interesting, and fairly complex question of "what is a nation?" the answer to which I fear is still in much debate, and far beyond the realm of this thread.
Giapo Alitheia
30-04-2008, 20:26
In order to really understand what the 2nd Amendment implies, it may be helpful to break it down in terms of propositional logic. With a bit of convoluted language, I think we can do it.

"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."

We can presume that it would be accurate to translate this sentence the following way (in fact, someone did earlier and no one objected):

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

Or this way:

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State."

As you can see, we have a claim of causality here. In order to interpret this into propositional logic, we must formulate it into a counter-factual like so:

"If it were not the case that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, then it would not be the case that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

So here we have "If not A, then not B," where "a well regulated...free state" is A, and "the right of the people...infringed" is B. Our statement is "If it is not the case that A, then it is not the case that B," or "If not A, then not B." (I hope at least some people are following me.)

Now things get interesting. It could be argued that a well regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state in mondern times. If we mean a militia to be a group of people that is not included in the military which arms itself, then it seems that the security of the state does not hinge upon this at all. The military is the organization that is responsible for the security of the state. Militias comprised of the civilian citizenry (in the US) have little to no bearing on any wars or foreign affairs.

So if my above assertion is true, then we've satisfied the 'not A' part of our modus ponens. My claim is that it is not the case that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, so it is not the case that A. As we can now see, the 2nd Amendment laid out the logical statement, "If not A, then not B." We have 'not A,' so it logically follows that 'not B,' or spelled out, that the right of the people to bear Arms can indeed be infringed.

To sum up: Since it is not the case that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the 2nd Amendment makes no provision that the government cannot infringe upon our right to bear arms.

*bows*
Lunatic Goofballs
30-04-2008, 20:30
Unfortunatly you didn't bold the real important bits, to whit:

I didn't find that bit as interesting. ;)

Actually, I found that to be so confusing, it practically warrants it's own debate. Are they talking about the Declaration of Independence itself, or the 'right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness', or did it apply to the relatively vague statement in the Declaration of Independence as it applied to the fairly specific law in dispute(regarding the state of Kansas' ability to limit the financial uses of property)?

It seemed to throw more mud into the water than it filtered out.
Neo Art
30-04-2008, 20:32
I didn't find that bit as interesting. ;)

Actually, I found that to be so confusing, it practically warrants it's own debate. Are they talking about the Declaration of Independence itself, or the 'right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness', or did it apply to the relatively vague statement in the Declaration of Independence as it applied to the fairly specific law in dispute(regarding the state of Kansas' ability to limit the financial uses of property)?

It seemed to throw more mud into the water than it filtered out.

from my reading of your blurb, and the comment about "life, liberty and property" and due process, it seems they're basically saying that the rights the constitution protects (in this case, the 5th amendment) are those rights that the founders would have found worthy of protect (a bit of a truism that) and that when it comes to determining what the founders sought to protect, we look to other contemporary guidance, and "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" seems like something they'd want to grant the protections of due process to, given that they took the effort to discuss their importance in the DoI
Neo Art
30-04-2008, 20:35
It's also worth noting that the ruling in the slaughterhouse cases has been completely overturned.

And it was Louisiana if memory serves, not Kansas :p
Lunatic Goofballs
30-04-2008, 20:37
It's also worth noting that the ruling in the slaughterhouse cases has been completely overturned.

And it was Louisiana if memory serves, not Kansas :p

Cotting V Godard was in Kansas. It dealt with a stock-yard. *nod*
Neo Art
30-04-2008, 20:39
Cotting V Godard was in Kansas. It dealt with a stock-yard. *nod*

oh, I think I know what they're saying. It's basically dicta. A "look at us we're so special, we get to be the seafeguard of all these rights which are so important that they date back to the very principles behind our independance!"
Tmutarakhan
30-04-2008, 20:45
Ah, but that raises an interesting, and fairly complex question of "what is a nation?" the answer to which I fear is still in much debate, and far beyond the realm of this thread.
I thought that WAS precisely the "realm" of this thread (at least in its currently somewhat-threadjacked state) and was the very subject we were discussing.

I cannot agree that the courts were citing the Declaration merely as "other contemporary guidance" to what the founders were thinking about: they were explicitly citing it as "the first official pronouncement" of our nation. When courts cite to the Federalist Papers, sure, that is "contemporary guidance"; but the Declaration is not in the same category. Without the Declaration, the Constitution itself is a nullity.
Lunatic Goofballs
30-04-2008, 20:48
However, considering both these cases and the Supreme Court's use of the Declaration of Independence as a document of importance when interpreting the rights enumerated by the COnstitution, do you think the Ninth Amendment applies to the right to overthrow government enumerated in the Declaration of Independence?

:)

Edit: ...parry...parry....THRUST!!!...
Knights of Liberty
30-04-2008, 20:59
However, considering both these cases and the Supreme Court's use of the Declaration of Independence as a document of importance when interpreting the rights enumerated by the COnstitution, do you think the Ninth Amendment applies to the right to overthrow government enumerated in the Declaration of Independence?

:)

Edit: ...parry...parry....THRUST!!!...

Id say no, simply because the Constitution is rather explicet on how to deal with seditious and treasonous individuals.


If we had a right to revolution, why does the Constitution tell us how to go about convicting and punishing revolutionaries?;)


*trips LG mid parry and shoots him with gun Constitution lets him own* :p
Tmutarakhan
30-04-2008, 21:03
Id say no, simply because the Constitution is rather explicet on how to deal with seditious and treasonous individuals.
You need to go back and read the text. The Constitution is only explicit on the ways in which the government is NOT ALLOWED to deal with seditious and treasonable individuals.
Lunatic Goofballs
30-04-2008, 21:05
Id say no, simply because the Constitution is rather explicet on how to deal with seditious and treasonous individuals.


If we had a right to revolution, why does the Constitution tell us how to go about convicting and punishing revolutionaries?;)


*trips LG mid parry and shoots him with gun Constitution lets him own* :p



Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Seems to me that 'revolution' isn't necessarily treason.

*dodges bullet*
Knights of Liberty
30-04-2008, 21:07
Seems to me that 'revolution' isn't necessarily treason.

*dodges bullet*

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them...
LG, how exactly is a revolution against the US not levying war against it?;)
Knights of Liberty
30-04-2008, 21:08
You need to go back and read the text. The Constitution is only explicit on the ways in which the government is NOT ALLOWED to deal with seditious and treasonable individuals.

Constitution Article III Section 3 - Treason

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


Meh, that seems to be pretty explict on the grounds for one being convcted of treason.
Lunatic Goofballs
30-04-2008, 21:10
LG, how exactly is a revolution against the US not levying war against it?;)

By fighting FOR it against a government that's lost the mandate of the People.
Neo Art
30-04-2008, 21:12
By fighting FOR it against a government that's lost the mandate of the People.

at which point, the constitution itself would seem rather irrelevant doncha think?

Which makes the question of whether revolution is a "right" rather moot, because surely waging war against the united states is not a right, the constitution clearly defines such as treason.

But if it were to be a government that's not the united states, one that controls that which was the united states, but is not beholdent or bound to the constitution any longer...the existance of such a right would be largely irrelevant.
Knights of Liberty
30-04-2008, 21:15
at which point, the constitution itself would seem rather irrelevant doncha think?

Which makes the question of whether revolution is a "right" rather moot, because surely waging war against the united states is not a right, the constitution clearly defines such as treason.

But if it were to be a government that's not the united states, one that controls that which was the united states, but is not beholdent or bound to the constitution any longer...the existance of such a right would be largely irrelevant.



Exactly. Look at it this way. If you were charged with treason and invocted the right to revolution as your defense, youd be laughed out of the courtroom.

Ergo, it is clear that the Declaration of Independence has no legal standing.
Gun Manufacturers
30-04-2008, 21:18
Exactly. Look at it this way. If you were charged with treason and invocted the right to revolution as your defense, youd be laughed out of the courtroom.

Ergo, it is clear that the Declaration of Independence has no legal standing.

So you're saying the defense will work? Cool! :D
Tmutarakhan
30-04-2008, 21:18
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them... "
Meh, that seems to be pretty explict on the grounds for one being convcted of treason.
When it says "shall consist only...", those are words of limitation. The government is not allowed to convict anyone of treason on any lesser grounds; the government is not actually require to have any such offense as "treason" at all, just that if it does, it cannot define it broadly.
Lunatic Goofballs
30-04-2008, 21:26
at which point, the constitution itself would seem rather irrelevant doncha think?

Which makes the question of whether revolution is a "right" rather moot, because surely waging war against the united states is not a right, the constitution clearly defines such as treason.

But if it were to be a government that's not the united states, one that controls that which was the united states, but is not beholdent or bound to the constitution any longer...the existance of such a right would be largely irrelevant.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Why is it there then? Why does the Second Amendment guarantee the People the right to bear arms in order to regulate the militia? WHy would the Declaration of Independence still be such an important and enshrined document?

COnsider when these documents were written and the historical context of the time. These documents weren't written for the government. They were written for the people to remind them that the government serves them and not the other way around. Should the time for revolution ever come and succeed, the new government is certainly not going to prosecute the revolutionaries for treason. Should it fail, certainly the government isn't going to take much concern in the founding principles(and the historical context) of the Declaration and Constitution. But they aren't there to uphold justice, they're there motivate the people to re-establish it if lost.
Lunatic Goofballs
30-04-2008, 21:28
Exactly. Look at it this way. If you were charged with treason and invocted the right to revolution as your defense, youd be laughed out of the courtroom.

Source please.
Knights of Liberty
30-04-2008, 21:30
Source please.

Considering it hasnt happened to my knowledge, I cant provide a source. I thought it was common sense. Apperantly its not (not trying to be a dick, I mean it, apperantly not everyone agrees with me. Go figure:p). So I retract that statement.



EDIT: I think McVeigh actually used that defense. I could be wrong though. I was young(ish) when that whole thing wen down, so if Im wrong someone feel free to correct me (like you guys need permission...)
Knights of Liberty
30-04-2008, 21:31
Now we're getting somewhere.

Why is it there then? Why does the Second Amendment guarantee the People the right to bear arms in order to regulate the militia? WHy would the Declaration of Independence still be such an important and enshrined document?

COnsider when these documents were written and the historical context of the time. These documents weren't written for the government. They were written for the people to remind them that the government serves them and not the other way around. Should the time for revolution ever come and succeed, the new government is certainly not going to prosecute the revolutionaries for treason. Should it fail, certainly the government isn't going to take much concern in the founding principles(and the historical context) of the Declaration and Constitution. But they aren't there to uphold justice, they're there motivate the people to re-establish it if lost.



Thats the thing though. Why is it there? Historical context suggests that beause the founders didnt want a standing army, they were relying on those militia men to make up the bulk of the bodies in times of war.
Umatnika
30-04-2008, 21:48
So if I want a gun so I can go hunting, or go to a shooting range then that makes me "violent and unenlightened"? I'm not sure I like the implication that someone on the opposite end of the debate is an idiot.

I did not imply anyone was an 'idiot' -- merely ignorant to alternative philosophies other than ones that require the use of firearms. There is no shame is ignorance - it's 'stupidity' one has to avoid.
Umatnika
30-04-2008, 22:52
Any "technologically advanced nation" is a 2 week power failure away from a lawless society. Good luck with the government protecting you then. Ill keep my guns thanks.

What are you saying - that going without power for two weeks would drive you to take up arms against people? Although that statement is rather superfluous to my original point, that is just the kind of irrational thinking that plagues our society today. A technologically advanced nation should have the means and the drive to find alternatives to cope with a two-week power loss.

On another note - I find it disturbing that so many people are so quick to reach for a gun when situations get rough rather than communicate with others. Any person who can wiggle their finger can fire a gun and kill another person -- but putting the guns down and listening to people is so very hard. Everyone talks about how 'sacred' life is...until the power goes out - then it's every man for himself. Brilliant...simply brilliant.
40 Day Limit
30-04-2008, 23:39
What are you saying - that going without power for two weeks would drive you to take up arms against people? Although that statement is rather superfluous to my original point, that is just the kind of irrational thinking that plagues our society today. A technologically advanced nation should have the means and the drive to find alternatives to cope with a two-week power loss.

On another note - I find it disturbing that so many people are so quick to reach for a gun when situations get rough rather than communicate with others. Any person who can wiggle their finger can fire a gun and kill another person -- but putting the guns down and listening to people is so very hard. Everyone talks about how 'sacred' life is...until the power goes out - then it's every man for himself. Brilliant...simply brilliant.

Katrina
Rodney King riots
Race riots
Paris riots

When mob mentality takes over, there is precious little you can do by listening to the people that are using some perceived social unjustice or what-have-you as an excuse to justify their use of violence against anyone or anything they see.
Lunatic Goofballs
30-04-2008, 23:55
Thats the thing though. Why is it there? Historical context suggests that beause the founders didnt want a standing army, they were relying on those militia men to make up the bulk of the bodies in times of war.

I think it's because they understood that the greatest threat to free people isn't a foreign government, but by a domestic one. *nod*
Der Teutoniker
30-04-2008, 23:55
The problem was, at the time of the framing of the constitution, the concept of "army", "militia", and indeed the fundamental concepts of warfare as we know it were radically and substantially different.

At the time of the constitution's framing, it was possible for a group of peasant, yeoman farmers with muskets and hunting rifles to fight off an organized national army. The framers were well aware of that fact, having not 15 years earlier, seen it done. Many of them actually participated.

Which was the fundamental issue, the only difference between a farmer or hunter or trapper with a gun, and a soldier in a standing army with a gun was, for the most part, training. And if you had sufficient numbers, sufficient officers, sufficient tactics, and/or sufficient time, the training disadvantage could be negated.

After all, a bunch of farmers beat the redcoats, and while it took guerilla tactics, familiarity with the land, amazing tactical skill and a HELL of a lot of luck, it could be done. So the very principle behind the 2nd amendment was that people should be free to have guns, and their right to have those guns shouldn't be infringed upon, in case such time would arise again where the everyman farmer would have stand up and defend his nation.

It was a pre-industrial, agricultural society, and the idea behind the 2nd amendment was that the founders wanted people to have the means to defend themselves, and country, through their own means, their own guns. Back then, the idea of a militia, indeed, the idea of an army entirely, was inseperably intertwined with the idea of private gun ownership, our militias were comprised of young men using their own guns. In order to have a militia when we needed it, we needed to ensure that ech individual could have access to firearms. We didn't have this notion of a military industrial complex where each soldier was issues a firearm from the state

The problem is, times have changed, and the everyday man in today's society can't really stand up to a modern military. Before the difference between citizen and solider was a matter of training. Now it's a matter of tanks, and bombs, and planes, and sonar, and battleships, and when someone joins our modern military, we don't expect them to come to war with their own guns. We give them the guns they need, we give them the weapons they require.

We're an industrial society now capable of manufacturing our own weapons, and while in the 1791 the idea was that we wanted each person to have the right to his own guns in case we needed him to bring those guns, we don't have that any more. We're quite capable of arming our own soldiers, and the fact is, a well armed populace has become less of a virtue, and more of a liability, in modern society.

Which makes the 2nd amendment somewhat of a relic, important for its time, but sadly anachronistic in modern times

So, you're saying that there is no value in an informal, citizen militia? I would like to argue that point. If a foreign country invaded, America's 'loose' gun control regulations could very well be our saving grace. You can't capture foreign soil with only aircraft, and at some point, an invasion would have to touch ground, where suddenly these farmers with their guns (I live in MN, where many people I know own more than one gun) aren't a public nuissance but perhaps the last line of defense, should it come to that.

What it was intended for, and what it meant specifically may be a relic, however, there can be no denying that the idea of a citizen militia still has some relevance.
Neo Art
01-05-2008, 00:02
So, you're saying that there is no value in an informal, citizen militia?

I don't believe I said that at all. There is obviously SOME benefit, like, in case China decides to invade tomorrow, as you say.

What I DID say was that the potential virtue has been, in modern society, outweighed by the potential harm.
Nobel Hobos
01-05-2008, 00:11
What are you saying - that going without power for two weeks would drive you to take up arms against people? Although that statement is rather superfluous to my original point, that is just the kind of irrational thinking that plagues our society today. A technologically advanced nation should have the means and the drive to find alternatives to cope with a two-week power loss.

On another note - I find it disturbing that so many people are so quick to reach for a gun when situations get rough rather than communicate with others. Any person who can wiggle their finger can fire a gun and kill another person -- but putting the guns down and listening to people is so very hard. Everyone talks about how 'sacred' life is...until the power goes out - then it's every man for himself. Brilliant...simply brilliant.

Yeah, it is rather ludicrous, isn't it?

Apparently, people with horse transport and whale-oil lamps had more faith in each other than we do, with our far greater power personally and collectively. Perhaps also technology (including guns) looked more like essential tools of real work, not an end in itself.
Umatnika
01-05-2008, 00:18
Katrina
Rodney King riots
Race riots
Paris riots

When mob mentality takes over, there is precious little you can do by listening to the people that are using some perceived social unjustice or what-have-you as an excuse to justify their use of violence against anyone or anything they see.

You are indeed correct, and I totally agree with you. My underlying point, however, remains the same -- it is an unenlightened people who resort to such things. Sure, it does not alter the fact that 'mob-mentality' does indeed exist in today's society...however, it proves that society must evolve passed such methods. It is genuine quotidian confabulation such as this that will one day prove invaluable to our people.
Intestinal fluids
01-05-2008, 00:22
It is genuine quotidian confabulation such as this that will one day prove invaluable to our people.

I googled quotidian confabulation and my computer is still smoking. I think in NSG you have to have at least 10 posts to legally use that phrase anyway.
Fourteen Eighty Eight
01-05-2008, 00:25
Yeah, it is rather ludicrous, isn't it?

Apparently, people with horse transport and whale-oil lamps had more faith in each other than we do, with our far greater power personally and collectively. Perhaps also technology (including guns) looked more like essential tools of real work, not an end in itself.

I am not saying that they had more faith, but back then people were used to living that way. It was normal. A gun is a tool. Granted it's a tool for killing, but the context of the original quote was it being a tool for defense in the event of a 2 week power failure. History is replete with examples of the things people do when their normal way of life is seriously disrupted. The New York City power outage is one example. Not long after it happened, there was rioting in the streets. After Hurricane Katrina and the levee breaks, the city of New Orleans became a very lawless, anarchistic place to be. The only law that mattered was the rule of the mob. People should have the right to defend themselves. People react to changes in their environment, and sometimes those reactions are very negative. Not everyone wants to listen to communication and find a way to solve problems. They seek instead to find a way to better their lot in life. A poor person in the inner city will react to drastic changes far differently than a middle class person in the city or a people out in the country. You have to account for human nature. While I would love to say I believe in the general all around goodness of mankind, I've lived long enough to know that not everyone is a bright shining example of all that is good with the human race. There are those who delight in chaos and confusion, and will seize every chance they get to take advantage of it, legal or not.
Callisdrun
01-05-2008, 00:27
If they were only talking about the militia, then why did they say the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Because that's who the militia would logically be composed of, at least as it was in those days.
Greater Trostia
01-05-2008, 00:30
It's not simple. The "militia" clause is there for a reason

It's not a clause.

, and if as Neo Art says at post #11, the need for guns to be privately owned is so that militia can be called up ... they really should have made that explicit.

Yet they didn't.

Government "calling up" privately-armed citizens isn't done with, either. They're called mercenaries now.

They were called mercenaries back then as well. A civilian defense force is not the same as a mercenary force.
Umatnika
01-05-2008, 00:39
I googled quotidian confabulation and my computer is still smoking. I think in NSG you have to have at least 10 posts to legally use that phrase anyway.

I am afraid I am ignorant as to the meaning of 'NSG'...haha - I don't know whether to laugh or cry...
Nobel Hobos
01-05-2008, 00:56
I have followed the discussion about the intended meaning of "militia." I'm not disputing that it principally means armed men who can be mobilized on short notice, and not a standing army or police force.

However, the characteristic of government many worry about is the monopoly on the use of violence. The pro-gun side would deny government that, the anti-gun side assert that -- for much the same reason! To protect liberties, to keep violence from being misused either for oppression or for crime.

So why aren't we looking at the real seat of violence: the armed forces? That really is the elephant in the middle of the see-saw, the deciding factor in any showdown between the state and the people. Certainly, the military is constituted to obey government, but it also has a strong tradition of duty to country, of which government is but a part.

If it is the right of the people to be armed, to protect the state from enemies, or their collective rights from the state ... why isn't it an obligation? That seems to work well for the Swiss.

It's when this idea of a right to weapons for self-defence comes in that the right and the obligation get out of sync with each other.
Nobel Hobos
01-05-2008, 00:58
They were called mercenaries back then as well. A civilian defence force is not the same as a mercenary force.

Aside from blankly gainsaying me, I can't see what you're getting at.
Intestinal fluids
01-05-2008, 00:59
If it is the right of the people to be armed, to protect the state from enemies, or their collective rights from the state ... why isn't it an obligation? That seems to work well for the Swiss.

It's when this idea of a right to weapons for self-defence comes in that the right and the obligation get out of sync with each other.

Because if its an obligation then its not a Right. We have the right to free speech. This does not mean we are obligated to speak.
Honsria
01-05-2008, 01:02
I am afraid I am ignorant as to the meaning of 'NSG'...haha - I don't know whether to laugh or cry...

cry...definitely cry.
[NS]Click Stand
01-05-2008, 01:03
I am afraid I am ignorant as to the meaning of 'NSG'...haha - I don't know whether to laugh or cry...

Nation States General. :)

Now that was a quotationuntion confabulation
Umatnika
01-05-2008, 01:07
Okay, now I know... *strains to squeeze a tear out*
Nobel Hobos
01-05-2008, 01:10
I am not saying that they had more faith, but back then people were used to living that way. It was normal. A gun is a tool. Granted it's a tool for killing, but the context of the original quote was it being a tool for defense in the event of a 2 week power failure.

Equally, a tool to get food from those who would hoard it while you and your family starve. If you hypothesise a breakdown of law and order, it makes no sense to call one person a "law-abiding citizen" and another a "criminal" any more.

History is replete with examples of the things people do when their normal way of life is seriously disrupted. The New York City power outage is one example. Not long after it happened, there was rioting in the streets. After Hurricane Katrina and the levee breaks, the city of New Orleans became a very lawless, anarchistic place to be. The only law that mattered was the rule of the mob.

And guns helped that ... how?

People should have the right to defend themselves. People react to changes in their environment, and sometimes those reactions are very negative. Not everyone wants to listen to communication and find a way to solve problems. They seek instead to find a way to better their lot in life. A poor person in the inner city will react to drastic changes far differently than a middle class person in the city or a people out in the country.

You mean they are more likely to resort to violence?

You have to account for human nature. While I would love to say I believe in the general all around goodness of mankind, I've lived long enough to know that not everyone is a bright shining example of all that is good with the human race. There are those who delight in chaos and confusion, and will seize every chance they get to take advantage of it, legal or not.

I agree somewhat. But having widespread gun ownership doesn't necessarily help. It allows some people to defend themselves, or defend others if they feel they have a duty to. But it also widens the class of potential criminals, by empowering people who normally follow the law from fear of punishment, not from respect for its principles.
Nobel Hobos
01-05-2008, 01:14
Because if its an obligation then its not a Right. We have the right to free speech. This does not mean we are obligated to speak.

The "right" to self-defence is an individual right.

But this "right" of "the People" is a collective right, and it won't exist without individuals fulfilling an obligation, from the individual to the collective called "the People."

In almost every case, a Right does not exist without some corresponding Obligation. I simply point to the implied obligation to "defend the People from Tyranny." Without the individual who would risk their life to take on tyrannical government, no such "right" of the People exists.

EDIT: And sorry to post and run AGAIN, but I'm busy today.
Fourteen Eighty Eight
01-05-2008, 01:43
Equally, a tool to get food from those who would hoard it while you and your family starve. If you hypothesise a breakdown of law and order, it makes no sense to call one person a "law-abiding citizen" and another a "criminal" any more.



And guns helped that ... how?



You mean they are more likely to resort to violence?



I agree somewhat. But having widespread gun ownership doesn't necessarily help. It allows some people to defend themselves, or defend others if they feel they have a duty to. But it also widens the class of potential criminals, by empowering people who normally follow the law from fear of punishment, not from respect for its principles.

Back in the good old days (a term I use loosely), it would sometimes take the law weeks or even months to reach the citizens. Owning firearms allowed them to provide for their families and defend them. Today, the law (hopefully) arrives in minutes of you picking up the phone and calling 911. However, a lot can go wrong in a few minutes if the person breaking the law is armed with something as simple as a box cutter or a pipe. While you stated that it makes no sense to call people law abiding versus criminal any longer (o.k. I see your point, if you speed you are a criminal), most people don't normally commit gruesome crimes such as murder, rape, and robbery on a daily basis. However, I don't think a person in this country can say they have followed every law to the letter every day of their life. Yes, people are more likely to commit violence in drastic times. While you may not hear about wide spread looting and rioting during a midwest flood, most of those places don't have the populations that our major cities do either. The disparity in classes isn't as great, and people have a tendency to know one another a little bit better. Widespread gun ownership isn't a bad thing as long as people are responsible and they seek to know about their firearms. If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws would own firearms, and you would see the crime rate soar. Just ask our good friends in England about that. Since they outlawed gun ownership, only criminal have been committing firearm related crimes, and a lot more of them.
Wowmaui
01-05-2008, 01:54
Most of the arguments have been made in one form or another so I'll just say that, IMO, anyone who does not believe the writers of the Constitution intended the 2nd Amendment to protect a private citizen's right to have firearms is either stupid, delusional or a victim of flawed logic and a misunderstanding of history and language.
Lyerngess
01-05-2008, 01:56
Most of the arguments have been made in one form or another so I'll just say that, IMO, anyone who does not believe the writers of the Constitution intended the 2nd Amendment to protect a private citizen's right to have firearms is either stupid, delusional or a victim of flawed logic and a misunderstanding of history and language.

That sums up the meat of just about everything I have to say. Oh, also this....

Ad hominem arguments are a logical fallacy. I am sure those of you towards whom this is directed understand me; if you don't, you certainly have no reason to be placing such an objection in the first place.
Tmutarakhan
01-05-2008, 02:03
If it is the right of the people to be armed, to protect the state from enemies, or their collective rights from the state ... why isn't it an obligation? That seems to work well for the Swiss.

The only reason it wasn't made mandatory is that there weren't enough guns to arm everyone. Seriously.

Gun laws of the time often required every armed male to participate in regular "town musters"; in many localities, anyone who failed to show up for these drills, or failed to maintain his weapon properly, would have his gun confiscated and given to someone who would keep up his duties.
in the good old days (a term I use loosely), it would sometimes take the law weeks or even months to reach the citizens
Rather, the citizens WERE "the law". In a remote frontier town where the marshall or sheriff did not have much of a standing "police force" to draw on (a couple deputies or maybe none), when he needed a posse to run down some outlaws he would say "I need four volunteers: you, you, you, and you." It was taken for granted that any armed man could be drafted in this way at any time.
But this "right" of "the People" is a collective right, and it won't exist without individuals fulfilling an obligation
That was the original understanding of the Second Amendment, that the "right" to bear arms was coupled to the "responsibility" to serve in whatever more-or-less-formal "militia" or ad-hoc "posse" the local community had. Now that police forces have taken over those roles, we have "irresponsible" gun-owners, in the technical not vernacular sense of "irresponsible" (having no responsibility attached to the right). This was not the Founders' intent.
Nobel Hobos
01-05-2008, 02:36
Ad hominem arguments are a logical fallacy. I am sure those of you towards whom this is directed understand me; if you don't, you certainly have no reason to be placing such an objection in the first place.

Ad hominem arguments are not a logical fallacy. That is, the identity of the person who puts the argument is irrelevant to the strength of the argument. To attack the speaker is not a logical fallacy, strictly, more a debating or informal fallacy.

You invited ad hominem, the questioning of your statements based on who you are, by making a related debating error: argument from authority. Your arguments deserve no special consideration because of your claim (unsubstantiated, by even if it were substantiated) to be a "constitutional lawyer."

In Australia, we have a word for a lawyer who does not have a law degree. We call them a "bush lawyer."
DaWoad
01-05-2008, 02:40
I have a question. Why is gun ownership such an important issue? I mean why do people WANT to own guns so badly????
Honsria
01-05-2008, 02:42
I have a question. Why is gun ownership such an important issue? I mean why do people WANT to own guns so badly????

There are quite a lot of reasons, and in the end it really doesn't matter.
Nobel Hobos
01-05-2008, 02:43
I have a question. Why is gun ownership such an important issue? I mean why do people WANT to own guns so badly????

Are you crazy? They make this enormous bang, and whatever you were pointing them at gets a hole in it. It's mad fun!
Nobel Hobos
01-05-2008, 02:47
The only reason it wasn't made mandatory is that there weren't enough guns to arm everyone. Seriously.

Gun laws of the time often required every armed male to participate in regular "town musters"; in many localities, anyone who failed to show up for these drills, or failed to maintain his weapon properly, would have his gun confiscated and given to someone who would keep up his duties.

Interesting.

That was the original understanding of the Second Amendment, that the "right" to bear arms was coupled to the "responsibility" to serve in whatever more-or-less-formal "militia" or ad-hoc "posse" the local community had. Now that police forces have taken over those roles, we have "irresponsible" gun-owners, in the technical not vernacular sense of "irresponsible" (having no responsibility attached to the right). This was not the Founders' intent.

This is what I was trying to say, said more strongly than I would dare. Thankyou!
Lyerngess
01-05-2008, 02:49
Ad hominem arguments are not a logical fallacy

And ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy. To explain, they are considered invalid in ordinary logic, and invalid equals fallacious.

You invited ad hominem, the questioning of your statements based on who you are, by making a related debating error: argument from authority. Your arguments deserve no special consideration because of your claim (unsubstantiated, by even if it were substantiated) to be a "constitutional lawyer."

I did not argue from authority, I replied to another ad hominem attack by putting forth my credentials.

Also, constitutional lawyers are those lawyers that specialize in assisting criminal and/or civil lawyers in cases where the constitutionality of certain court proceedings is in question. Just because it doesn't have a Wikipedia entry does not mean the occupation does not exist.

In Australia, we have a word for a lawyer who does not have a law degree. We call them a "bush lawyer."

Wow. That is just so funny.
greed and death
01-05-2008, 02:52
in 18th century english militia meant every able bodied man. regardless if they took part in other activities or not.
Nobel Hobos
01-05-2008, 03:03
An ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy. To explain, they are considered invalid in ordinary logic, and invalid equals fallacious.

That's incorrect. To not prove a point is not to disprove the same point.

I did not argue from authority, I replied to another ad hominem attack by putting forth my credentials.

Well, sorry if I missed that. It would help everyone to debate if you would just use the quote button properly.

Also, constitutional lawyers are those lawyers that specialize in assisting criminal and/or civil lawyers in cases where the constitutionality of certain court proceedings is in question. Just because it doesn't have a Wikipedia entry does not mean the occupation does not exist.

If you don't have a law degree, you are a paralegal not a lawyer.

Your argument was ripped to shreds by several posters, and until you do something about that you have zero credibility. Neither 10,000 posts to your name, nor a seat on the Supreme Court would make any difference.
Greater Trostia
01-05-2008, 17:01
Aside from blankly gainsaying me, I can't see what you're getting at.

I didn't really have any points of my own, I just come armed with ways to dismantle other people's. That's my MO! Criticism is easier than constructionism.
Eofaerwic
01-05-2008, 18:38
The Milgram experiment concluded about 68% of people tested would follow orders which contradicted their personal sense of morality if I recall correctly.

I also seem to recall a survey of military personnel which showed about 73% (most of which were enlisted or lower grade officers) would follow an order which they thought to be unlawful to their oath or unethical to them personally.

This is actually supports why ..."the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Milgram experiment did not conclude that only 68% of people would follow orders contradicting personal morality, 68% of participants went to the full shock amount it is true.

But, the shocks were labelled based on effects and they received verbal feedback from the 'victim'. 100% went up to 300volts which was marked with an XXX (the previous label had be 'highly dangerous' I believe or something like it), this is the point where the victim, who had previously been complaining went ominously silent. Yet, 68% still continued after this to the full amount.
Hotwife
01-05-2008, 18:43
So, I carry around with me a copy of the U.S. Constitution, it's in a pouch on my backpack where I also keep a copy of the Qur'an and New Testmant (Also an umbrella. I like to be prepared), and occasionally I take it out and just thumb through the ammendments. I'm not usually looking for anything specific, just browsing, and sometimes I giggle at how people really don't seem to actually know what's written in this thing (Did you know, for example, that we actually haven't outlawed slavery at all? It's still legal as punishment for a crime. If we made it illegal to be black, and there is no part of the constitution that says we can't, then bingo-bango-bongo we're back to completely legal and constitutionally endorsed bondage and wide-scale oppression). Yesterday I happened to pop in on the Second Ammendment, which I've done many times before, but this time I stared at it for a bit and realized something: What the hell is all this controversy about?

Honestly, it's a pretty straight-forward sentence: 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 makes no mention of people having an inherent right to bear arms, but that a militia is necessary for security and, because of that, the right to bear arms exists; if you're not in such a militia, this ammendment makes no reference to you. It makes no mention of an inability to restrict or govern the use of firearms, but actually specifically mentions that the militia (Which is why we have this right) needs to be well regulated.

Now, I'm actually not a person who supports the banning of guns from the country, or believes that everybody who owns a gun is a trigger-happy whacko, but seriously, this ammendment is pretty clear. It refers to the organization and membership of a militia, and that's it, not to an inalienable right. Why all the big fuss?

Maybe you need to read the writings of the Founding Fathers, to see what they meant by a well-regulated militia.

By US law, every male between 18 and 45 is in the militia.
Soyut
01-05-2008, 18:45
The Milgram experiment did not conclude that only 68% of people would follow orders contradicting personal morality, 68% of participants went to the full shock amount it is true.

But, the shocks were labelled based on effects and they received verbal feedback from the 'victim'. 100% went up to 300volts which was marked with an XXX (the previous label had be 'highly dangerous' I believe or something like it), this is the point where the victim, who had previously been complaining went ominously silent. Yet, 68% still continued after this to the full amount.

have you actually seen the videos of the Milgram experiment? We watched then in psychology class. Its pretty messed up. Yeah, the subjects go ominously quiet, but most of the the time the person administering the test is left to assume that the person being shocked is in unbelievable pain.
Llewdor
01-05-2008, 19:24
...assuming the right is acknowledged to exist.
This is that part people always skip.
Neo Art
01-05-2008, 19:26
have you actually seen the videos of the Milgram experiment? We watched then in psychology class. Its pretty messed up. Yeah, the subjects go ominously quiet, but most of the the time the person administering the test is left to assume that the person being shocked is in unbelievable pain.

I am thoroughly convinced that anyone who says "our people would NEVER do that" needs to be made aware of two names. The first is Milgram. The second is Zimbardo.

What I find amazing about Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment is that it was originally supposed to last 14 days. He had to cancel it after 6, out of extreme fear ofr the lives and safety of his test subjects

SIX DAYS
Everywhar
01-05-2008, 20:24
Both experiments were pretty unethical, but they are chillingly instructive about how people behave when they have power.