Finally, a solution to the 2nd Amendment

[LongBlade]

^When you have the same argument over and over and over again, it just sort of becomes automatic.  My approach to 2nd Amendment intellectual combat has been refined like L.I.N.E.  I attack autonomically.

I can recommend a mouse that allows you to bind a macro to the keys for simple cutting and pasting of this ;)

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Toonces...seems like you are confused about the meaning of the term "well-regulated militia," and the term "the People," as used in the Constitution. 

The Second Amendment was enacted to protect the people from the tyranny of an overbearing government PERIOD. The inalienable right of individuals to keep and bear arms as a check on a tyrannical government predates the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.  The term "well-regulated" meant something completely different two centuries ago.  Today, one might define it as "controlled,""limited," or "restricted".  Two hundred years ago it meant "having proper kit and provisions" or in the case of objects or machinery, "properly maintained and kept in good repair." 

The militia issue was extensively debated during the 1787-89 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and today has sadly been ignored by both sides in this issue.  Founder George Mason explicitly wished to have it clearly spelled out that the militia was "of the whole people," in effect, a "general militia" that was affirmed in the Second Amendment and the 1792 militia Act.  Mason and his supporters feared the development of "special militias".  Special militias are nothing more than state-sanctioned paramilitary groups--witness the German Nazi SA and its successor the SS as well as the Italian Fascist "Blackshirts." In those cases, Nazi/Fascist Party membership was strictly required to join them, as well as to legally own a firearm of any kind in either of those countries at the time.  These two groups were little different than standing armies.  The difference is that they were created and used by the German and Italian governments to bypass any laws against using the military domestically against the people (or in the absence of such laws, to forestall the military's unwillingness to do so)—in order to crush dissent and terrorize opponents.  Distressingly, we now have a lot of special militias in the USA—the Secret Service, FBI, BATF, DEA, IRS, the National Guard and today's "near federalized" status of most state and local police departments--to name but a few. 

One could make the argument that the above are all unconstitutional, if the plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment and the 1792 militia Act is correct. George Mason's fears about them were well placed.  Even the courts are beginning to revive this long forgotten but crucial "general vs. special" militia distinction. The 1990 Supreme Court case Perpich vs. Department of Defense is a case in point. Then Minnesota Gov. Rudy Perpich claimed the DoD violated the Constitution when it ordered the Minnesota National Guard (which he claimed was the 'state militia') to duty outside the state without his consent or that of the state legislature. The Supreme Court ruled against Perpich. It held the National Guard is an integral component of the US Army Reserve system (it has been since 1916). It further supported its ruling by specifying the difference between the "special militia" (in this case the Minnesota Guard) instead of the "general militia" (citizens with privately procured and owned arms) as expressed in the 2nd Amendment. Also in 1990 the Court in another case affirmed the definition of"the people" expressed in the Bill of Rights as meaning individual persons, not a group. So the statist left has its "militia" and the rest of us have ours.  No wonder so many of them can't free themselves from the false but mesmerizing aura of the "militia=National Guard" equation. The statist left doesn't want to because it's interested not in the right of individuals to protect their lives and liberty against a tyrannical federal government, but in giving that tyrannical federal government a blank check, figuratively and literally, to indulge in state-sponsored terror under the tautological trinity of "crime prevention," "anti-terrorism" and "national security."

That seemed like a good post that fell apart at the end.


Surely you can see the value to a nation of [size=78%] [/size][size=78%]"crime prevention," "anti-terrorism" and "national security."[/size]Yes, it is possible for a country to abuse these for ulterior motives. It is far more likely that such tendencies can be kept in check by reporters and citizens.  Countries without strong police forces descend into anarchy. Look at Mexico or Colombia. How can a lawyer argue against law and order? An example of a state with very high levels of law and order is Singapore. They are doing quite well.

[Jarhead0331]

Surely you can see the value to a nation of "crime prevention," "anti-terrorism" and "national security."Yes, it is possible for a country to abuse these for ulterior motives. It is far more likely that such tendencies can be kept in check by reporters and citizens.  Countries without strong police forces descend into anarchy. Look at Mexico or Colombia. How can a lawyer argue against law and order? An example of a state with very high levels of law and order is Singapore. They are doing quite well.

There is an obvious difference between policing and national security conducted within the confines of the Constitution and policing and national security conducted tyrannically through corruption. Mexico and columbia have large police and military organizations, but they are tyrannical and corrupt, and as such, are ineffective and detrimental to the rights of the citizens of those countries.  Your example actually proves my point, not counters it, as was your intent.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Surely you can see the value to a nation of "crime prevention," "anti-terrorism" and "national security."Yes, it is possible for a country to abuse these for ulterior motives. It is far more likely that such tendencies can be kept in check by reporters and citizens.  Countries without strong police forces descend into anarchy. Look at Mexico or Colombia. How can a lawyer argue against law and order? An example of a state with very high levels of law and order is Singapore. They are doing quite well.

There is an obvious difference between policing and national security conducted within the confines of the Constitution and policing and national security conducted tyrannically through corruption. Mexico and columbia have large police and military organizations, but they are tyrannical and corrupt, and as such, are ineffective and detrimental to the rights of the citizens of those countries.  Your example actually proves my point, not counters it, as was your intent.

No, Mexico and Colombia have very small government. People basically are free to do whatever with very little tax. That sounds good but it has to work. In their cases it does not work. The corruption of officials is a different issue. There is an international listing of countries by corruption. 3 with the lowest IRRC, Autralia, Canada, Japan. That is cultural. People in official positions do the job. In corrupt countries officials are places by crime syndicates. Either way it is not countered by people carrying guns on their hips.


People carrying guns can work in a culture that is reasonably law abiding. Then the guns are pulled for self defence. A country without the law abiding culture with guns on hips is Afghanistan. Hardly a model of how carrying guns spreads contentment.

[son_of_montfort]

^When you have the same argument over and over and over again, it just sort of becomes automatic.  My approach to 2nd Amendment intellectual combat has been refined like L.I.N.E.  I attack autonomically.

I can recommend a mouse that allows you to bind a macro to the keys for simple cutting and pasting of this ;)

I think most of our debates have become like that story about jokes in the future. They are told so often that we simply refer to them by number. So I might say, "#1453" and everyone laughs because they know it.

We should do that here.

Global Warming Point #422!

Gun Rights Opposition #809!

My Opinion of Your Sister's Morals #697!

[Jarhead0331]

No, Mexico and Colombia have very small government.

OK...I confess.  I have no idea what you are talking about.  We're talking about tyrannical government through the use of armed coercion, ie. law enforcement, police, military.  you come back with Mexico and Colombia have a small government where people are free to do "pretty much" whatever they want?  Yeah, I'm lost.

If you want to discuss something relevant to the conversation, like the size of armed para-military and military organizations, then you'll find that Mexico is ranked in the top 30 largest military forces in the world...I'll add that Mexico uses it military in a domestic capacity to combat civil crime.  Meanwhile, Columbia has the largest armed force in Latin America and as of 2007 spent 6.1% of its GDP on the military, one of the highest in the WORLD. 

So you're statement regarding "small government" in Mexico and Colombia is completely irrelevant and at odds with irrefutable fact where military and national police organizations are concerned.

Additionally, I don't see how you can argue that "corruption is a separate issue."  We are armed, as Americans, so that we can protect our selves from corrupt government so that our nation does not degenerate as it has in Mexico and Colombia. 

Do you still want to have this argument?

[Toonces]

JH,
If I'm reading your post correctly, you are stating that "well-regulated" was intended to mean (in 21st century speak):

"properly provisioned and equipped"

and further, that the purpose of arming the population was to act as a check against a tyrannical government, such that I could re-paraphrase the 2nd ammendment to:

"Because a properly provisioned and equipped militia is required for the safety of a free state, the right of all individuals to bear arms shall not be infringed as a balance to that militia."

Hmmm.  That's interesting.

Ok, I'll buy that argument.  They should have made that more clear when they wrote it- it seems another sentence or two really could have gone a long way towards making things more straight-forward.

"the right to bear arms" is awfully broad.  How do you feel about the rights of states to put restrictions on this right- eg. concealed carry, automatic weapons, age limits, etc.?

[LongBlade]

I suspect if we go back and read what they wrote, it will be abundantly clear that they meant it exactly so.

As to Kev's point (Bigglesworth's point), no one here is arguing for a lack of law and order. No one here is calling for the abolition of law enforcement agencies.

Rather, JH is discussing Constitutional law, and how those agencies fit into it.

And there are very legal means to go about authorizing their creation if indeed they aren't properly authorized under the law (the Amendment process).

The point is, the US government, in all of its bloated splendor, doesn't fit into the legal boundaries as defined by the rule of law.

That's all fixable, but for some reason we've moved away from that process because it was inconveniently difficult to pass a Constitutional Amendment. (and rightfully so)

It took us about a hundred years to get to this point. If we start working now, it will take us many decades to return to the proper boundaries, create and pass the appropriate legal structures to get things working as they properly should.

At the risk of putting words in JH's mouth, I think that's where he's coming from.

[Jarhead0331]

JH,
If I'm reading your post correctly, you are stating that "well-regulated" was intended to mean (in 21st century speak):

"properly provisioned and equipped"

and further, that the purpose of arming the population was to act as a check against a tyrannical government, such that I could re-paraphrase the 2nd ammendment to:

"Because a properly provisioned and equipped militia is required for the safety of a free state, the right of all individuals to bear arms shall not be infringed as a balance to that militia."

Close, but more like this...

A properly provisioned and equipped populace being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Ok, I'll buy that argument.  They should have made that more clear when they wrote it- it seems another sentence or two really could have gone a long way towards making things more straight-forward.

It was clear and straight forward to them when they wrote it.  Language has evolved over time and the meaning of "well regulated" and "militia" as used by the States to ratify the Amendment has changed over the centuries.

How do you feel about the rights of states to put restrictions on this right- eg. concealed carry, automatic weapons, age limits, etc.?

I'm a life member of the NRA and a strong supporter of the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a means of self-defense, and as a means of checking the inexorable march of overbearing tyrannical government.  Does this mean that I believe there should be NO regulations on ownership of weapons? No.  I take no issue with reasonable limitations on minimum age requirements, restrictions on certain classes of criminals, ie. felons, murderers, wife beaters, drug users, etc.  I don't even mind reasonable licensing requirements, but these should be no more onerous than requirements for drivers.  As far as the type of firepower one can own, I have difficulty accepting one's right to own weapons of mass destruction because these go beyond the purpose for which the Second Amendment was enacted. 

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

No, Mexico and Colombia have very small government.

OK...I confess.  I have no idea what you are talking about.  We're talking about tyrannical government through the use of armed coercion, ie. law enforcement, police, military.  you come back with Mexico and Colombia have a small government where people are free to do "pretty much" whatever they want?  Yeah, I'm lost.

If you want to discuss something relevant to the conversation, like the size of armed para-military and military organizations, then you'll find that Mexico is ranked in the top 30 largest military forces in the world...I'll add that Mexico uses it military in a domestic capacity to combat civil crime.  Meanwhile, Columbia has the largest armed force in Latin America and as of 2007 spent 6.1% of its GDP on the military, one of the highest in the WORLD. 

So you're statement regarding "small government" in Mexico and Colombia is completely irrelevant and at odds with irrefutable fact where military and national police organizations are concerned.

Additionally, I don't see how you can argue that "corruption is a separate issue."  We are armed, as Americans, so that we can protect our selves from corrupt government so that our nation does not degenerate as it has in Mexico and Colombia. 

Do you still want to have this argument?

Sure, that is interensting stats you brought up. When I was referring to small government i did so based on a past search I did on budgets by population. In this case your stats on military size are better. I will consider your good point in this post.

[Jarhead0331]

Sure, that is interensting stats you brought up. When I was referring to small government i did so based on a past search I did on budgets by population. In this case your stats on military size are better. I will consider your good point in this post.

Fair enough. Thanks.  :)

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

^When you have the same argument over and over and over again, it just sort of becomes automatic.  My approach to 2nd Amendment intellectual combat has been refined like L.I.N.E.  I attack autonomically.

I can recommend a mouse that allows you to bind a macro to the keys for simple cutting and pasting of this ;)

I think most of our debates have become like that story about jokes in the future. They are told so often that we simply refer to them by number. So I might say, "#1453" and everyone laughs because they know it.

We should do that here.

Global Warming Point #422!

Gun Rights Opposition #809!

My Opinion of Your Sister's Morals #697!

We can have a point 1-10 by user! Your #422 can be Windy #1.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Windy's titties will be his #2.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

I'm a life member of the NRA and a strong supporter of the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a means of self-defense, and as a means of checking the inexorable march of overbearing tyrannical government.  Does this mean that I believe there should be NO regulations on ownership of weapons? No.  I take no issue with reasonable limitations on minimum age requirements, restrictions on certain classes of criminals, ie. felons, murderers, wife beaters, drug users, etc.  I don't even mind reasonable licensing requirements, but these should be no more onerous than requirements for drivers.  As far as the type of firepower one can own, I have difficulty accepting one's right to own weapons of mass destruction because these go beyond the purpose for which the Second Amendment was enacted.

Is it realistic that citizens with their gun cabinet can counter tyranny from a modern government? The case that comes to mind is Putin's return to the President of Russia. The people know it was a corrupt election. There is really nothing they can do about it. Historically an army was comprised of citizens with carried arms so it was relevant to assume a similar level of armament from organized citizens would be a counter. Now, to use the Warhammer lingo, we have a cult of the machine in state militaries. It would be hopeless to try an armed revolution by citizens of Russia. I think it is a historical nostalgia to believe a personal gun cabinet is a counter to a modern government. The real key to preventing oppression is in having a thoughtful, honest public sector that will refuse any order to oppress the people.

[Jarhead0331]

Is it realistic that citizens with their gun cabinet can counter tyranny from a modern government?

Yes.

The case that comes to mind is Putin's return to the President of Russia. The people know it was a corrupt election. There is really nothing they can do about it.

There is nothing they can do about it because they are unarmed sheep.

It would be hopeless to try an armed revolution by citizens of Russia. I think it is a historical nostalgia to believe a personal gun cabinet is a counter to a modern government.

So you're suggesting we just give up, call it a day and surrender our rights afforded by the Constitution?  No thanks.  And by the way, you haven't seen my personal gun cabinet, have you?

The real key to preventing oppression is in having a thoughtful, honest public sector that will refuse any order to oppress the people.

What kind of weed are you smoking and where can I get some?