Looks like you and I think a lot alike, Exgineer. And I understand you didn’t bring it up, and was just responding to an inquiry.
Can I make an appeal to everyone? Please don’t being up the (dreaded and poorly-worded) Second Amendment. There have been countless threads on it. Besides, we give it way too much importance. In fact, I don’t even like talking about it, as it is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not I have a right to keep and bear arms.
Well, I guess I could quit the Second Amendment after this post. I don’t think it’s poorly worded or insignificant. It’s significant because it prevents the government from deciding we don’t have the basic, human-right to defend ourselves. I think it isn’t worded more clearly because the founding fathers couldn’t imagine anyone making an argument nearly as stupid as the one Waverly is pushing.
I think you hit the nail directly on it’s little round head here. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again.
The militia in concept is comprised of all able-bodied citizens capable of bearing arms in defense of their community/state/nation/society, subject to being “called forth” in times of crisis or emergency, and supplying their own “arms.”
The provisions for calling forth the militia, their employment and deployment, and their discipline, is contained within Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution; the “well regulated” part of the Second Amendment.
With the Dick Act of 1903, The National Defense Act of 1916, The National Defense Act Amendments of 1920, The National Guard Mobilization Act of 1933, the federal government recognized the need to augument the standing military in times of war, and established a selct corps of citizen-soldiers called the National Guard. Note the term “select corps;” it implies that the screening and selection process has criteria that may preclude some citizens from joining the organized militia.
Thus we have Title 10, subtitle A, part 1, chapter 13, section 311: “Militia: Composition and Classes.”
With the stare decisis of numerous Federal court cases, it is increasingly evident that the National Guard is a select federal corps, and not a state militia. FindLaw is a great reference, if you can wade through the legalese. As you can see from the footnotes, the Federal position has flip-flopped a bit during the history of the National Guard as the “militia,” but it is quite clear that the National Guard is the “organized militia,” while everyone else is the “unorganized militia.”
Regardless, the militia is still any able-bodied (and willing) citizen capable of bearing arms in defense of their nation, and supplying their own arms IAW the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
Not for the first time, I’ll make the point of stating that I am a) not arguing against guns, and b) not arguing as if I was on the Supreme Court. Make up your mind. On one hand, the big bad government better not interfere with your guns, on the other you implore me to look up SCOTUS decisions.
For clarity: I’m trying to figure out what is behind some of the common rationalizations I see repeated in this thread. As I said on page one, I don’t care if .05 rifles are banned. I’m trying to see both sides of the argument.
Krebbs, you think I’m pushing an agenda because you are knee-jerk reacting as if I’m a gun control zealot. I’ll take some blame; perhaps I don’t write clearly. However you’ll forgive me if I address any further comments or questions to others.
Afford it? I’d build my own if I really wanted one.
Actually, you doofus, I asked you to look up SCOTUS dissents and 9th circuit dissents on the definition of “militia”, since you seemed to want to bring up the term in discussing second amendment issues.
You act as if I’m an anti-government nutjob and that’s just ridiculous, and patronizing, to boot.
And both sides of it have been presented to you, what’s your point? Most people here don’t see the justification fo the ban. Most people here see paranoia and fear behind the government’s ban on the weapon, not rational reasons for said ban. Most people here see a waste of time and money legislating something that wasn’t an issue, culminating in yet another clamping-down on our rights to own weapons*
Sam
*-which are of course not guaranteed in the State of California by our state constitution which supercedes the bill of rights’ provision to keep and bear arms.
Not really. The definition of militia becomes important at some point, but all that I was demonstrating is that some sort of scope proceeded the “right to bear arms” portion of the amendment. That’s all. I think we agree the definition isn’t clear, and has been interpreted differently over the course of time, but that main gist of my point.
Actually, I see paranoia on both sides.
I have several questions for you, crafter_man, which I hope you’ll view as being asked in the spirit of genuine curiosity.
(1) Were you entirely serious with your comment about multiple, competing, governments? If so, what happens if you and I are neighbors, and we don’t have the same government, and some relatively innocent neighborly dispute comes up that we want to have resolved? And for that matter, what if a NONinnocent neighborly dispute comes up, ie, my government has super-absolute every-man-is-master-of-his-domain rules, and your toddler innocently climbs over the fence into my backyard, and I shoot him.
(2) Is there anything that you think you DON’T have the right to do?
-Walk up to me on the street and shoot me dead
-If I say insulting things to you on the street, pull out a gun and shoot me dead
-If a neighborhood kid climbs over the fence into your back yard, shoot him dead
-Walk out on the street and start firing a machine gun around in all directions
-Walk out into your (normal-sized-suburban) backyard and start firing a machine gun around in all directions
-Invite a bunch friends over into your normal-sized-suburban backyard and have a shooting competition with big-ass rifles, in which you put in a pretty good effort to ensure the safety of things
-Leave your collection of loaded automatic weapons sitting in your front yard, unattended
-Leave your collection of loaded automatic weapons sitting in your back yard, unattended
-Leave your collection of loaded automatic weapons in your garage, protected only by the normal lock on your normal door
-Build an extremely tall skyscraper in your backyard, despite no established knowledge of construction techniques, and store volatile chemicals on the top floor
(3) Suppose a bunch of people lived in an anarchistic area, and all voluntarily decided to join together and form a society. And suppose that they unanimously, and uncoercedly, agreed that in their society the rule would be that every private citizen would be required to own a rifle and a shotgun, but no one would be allowed to own a machine gun without first clearing it with the group. And a few years later, one of these people suddenly decided he wanted a machine gun. In your opinion, does he have the “right” to have a machine gun?
(3a) What if it was the now-adult child of one of the founders of the society?
(4) You’ve said on several occasions that you would never surrender your inalienable rights. I take this to mean that if the political climate in the US swung seriously anti-gun, and a new amendment to the constitution was passed prohibiting all private gun ownership, period, and the police showed up at your door demanding that you surrender all of your guns, you would resist, with deadly force if necessary. (And I can’t say I would blame you.) What if, however:
(4a) …a historic compromise was reached between top anti-gun and pro-gun people, which was that weapons above a certain caliber would be outlawed, but everything else would remain legal, and no further changes would be made for 99 years (and you trusted that all the people involved were basically honest, and meant what they said, and there were safeguards in place, etc.) And the cops show up at your door and ask you to surrender one, and only one, of your guns. What would you do?
(4b) …you sensed that the political climate in your state was leaning more and more anti-gun, but the political climate in another nearby state was leaning more and more pro-gun. Would you consider moving out of practicality? (I mean, presumably, being WILLING to defend your rights with deadly force doesn’t make you EAGER to do so)
(4c) …someone offered to sell you, for a really cheap price, something that you believe you have the right to own, and which you (for some reason) want to own, but which is currently illegal. Would you buy it? Would the practical consideration of “this is illegal, I might get in trouble/have to defend my rights with deadly force” enter into your deliberations?
I’m not saying your actions aren’t justified. I’m just saying that it’s a shame that a debate about, say, a 7-day-waiting-period ends up mostly being a debate about “what mile would those bastards ask for if we gave them this inch” or “the 2nd amendment is absolute absolute absolute and must not be tampered with at all” vs. “is a 7-day waiting period a good and justified law or not”.
I dunno about that. As I mentioned earlier this thread, there are a LOT of types of expression that are not protected by the first amendment (libel/slander, invasion of privacy, etc.), and no one seems to worry that it’s going to lead us down the slippery slope to government thought control.
MaxTheVool: Excellent questions, but the clock just turned 5:00 and a 22 oz. Guinness is beckoning me at the local watering hole. I promise to answer your questions this weekend. In the mean time, keep your power dry. 
Having had the unfortunate luck of taking a job in the gun law industry, I can safely say that what you see here doesn’t even register on my paranoia scale. I’ve seen it all and this is just mild, man. Most of what I’ve seen goes past paranoia and into “psychotic”, or “bat-shit crazy”.
And me? I’m just a liberal who owns guns, thinks owning assault weapons is ludicrous, doesn’t mind registering handguns, and sees some form of logic in constraining the number of CCW permits the local counties hand out to the aforementioned nuts.
Take from it what you will.
Sam
My goodness, that quote confused me until I realized you probably meant “powDer”.
Anyhow, if you like cool weapons, you need to get yourself one of these bad boys.
I’m sure he’ll be back to address all of your questions, but will you allow me to answer in his stead in the meantime?
I don’t know what in hell to say about this one. I’m too busy worrying about what my current government thinks it’s doing.
This is a list of nascent strawman arguments and silly propositions. Freedoms come with resposibilities. If I owned a howitzer, I’d make certain it was secure when I wasn’t in direct control of it, because I wouldn’t want to be liable for any damage it might cause when stolen by street punks. Please note for the record that I don’t have any desire to own a howitzer.
Your full-blown strawman argument presupposes that someone with a gun is likely to walk up to you and shoot you in the head for no reason.
I’d need a damned good reason.
Could you please repeat this in English?
Somebody shoots at me, I shoot back. Extrapolate from there.
Yikes, who peed in your wheaties this morning? I can’t possibly be making a strawman argument, in that I’m not making an argument at all. I’m not trying to prove a point. I’m just curious to hear more about crafter_man’s philosophy and how it would deal with some potentially difficult cases.
In fact, I think it’s a generally interesting question… most people on the SDMB generally subscribe to a “what you do in the privacy of your own home is no one else’s business, is your right, and should be legal” worldview. But what are the limitations on that?
(And for the record, I think that the .50 rifle ban currently under discussion is silly, but strongly disagree with a “any conceivable weapon should be purchasable for cash with no ID at a gun show” type position)
What part is unclear?
What if someone shows up at your door, not yet shooting, but obviously armed, and says “please surrender your grenade launcher or we will have to arrest you”?
bump…
Not really. I was try to make a point, which was this: the government works for you, not the other way around. Much as a subcontractor works for you. The “multiple governments competing for your business” comment was meant to make people think about what the real role of government should be.
Wow, nice list! Perhaps this will help:
-
I do not have the right to deprive an innocent person of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I also do not have the right to put someone else’s right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in obvious jeopardy or danger.
-
Unless I have deprived someone else of their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, no one has the right to deprive me of my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Yes. Everyone has the right to own a machine gun. This right cannot be taken away. But the problem is that he promised to not exercise this right. So the real question is this: Should he break his promise, and begin exercising his right? Or should he look for another society to join?
Let’s change a few words and see how it sounds. “Suppose a bunch of people lived in an anarchistic area, and all voluntarily decided to join together and form a society. And suppose that they unanimously, and uncoercedly, agreed that in their society the rule would be that every private citizen would be allowed freedom of speech, but no one would be allowed freedom of religion. And a few years later, one of these people suddenly decided he wanted to practice religion. In your opinion, does he have the “right” to practice religion?”
I’m not sure why that matters.
I would not surrender it, obviously. Theft is wrong. If some thug knocked on your door and asked you to give him your stereo, would you do it?
I might, but strictly out of practicality (as you stated). But if I like where I lived, I would probably stay.
Any law that I believe is wrong, unconstitutional, immoral, unethical, and/or deprives me of an inalienable right does not exist in my book.
Except that it strikes me that one of the most important roles of a government is to resolve disputes between people, or at least provide a framework in which those disputes can be resolved. You and your neighbor both think you own the apple tree near the property line, or you don’t like it when he plays his music loud, or he doesn’t like it that you have a howitzer sitting in your back yard. In cases of that sort, I don’t think it really helps much to think of the government as your servant (regardless of the utility of that idea in other contexts), as if it’s your servant, and it’s also his servant, there still needs to be some way to resolve that dispute
Well, it’s hard to argue with that. The trouble, of course, is that “obvious jeopardy or danger” is not something that everyone is going to agree on. And when you and someone else disagree on what it is, you have a dispute, which is (presumably) where it’s useful to have a more clearly defined definition of what each person’s rights are, etc. AKA, a government.
For instance, if the neighbor says to you “you own a pistol. That puts my children in obvious jeopardy and danger. Won’t someone please think of the children!”, you would probably say (and, in that situation, I’d agree), that she was wrong. On the other hand, if she was saying “you own a nuclear weapon, which you have rusting in your back shed. That puts my children in obvious jeopardy and danger”, I’d definitely agree with her, although I’m still not quite sure whether you would or not. Anyhow, somewhere between the pistol and the nuclear weapon there must be a line, even if it’s not a clearly defined one that everyone can agree on. But I don’t think that the mere concept of people trying, with good faith and with basic agreement on the fundamental right to L, L and PoH, to draw such a line, is tyrranical. Nor do I think it’s ridiculous to, for instance, factor into line-drawing considerations various external factors. For instance, I don’t, off the top of my head, have a problem with a law forbidding private ownership of anti-aircraft missiles. But if those missiles were frequently used by farmers to protect their crops from Big Ass Birds, or if competitive-drone-shooting-down was a well established sport, then I might think differently. But I’m digressing…
There’s a semantic issue here, as to precisely what the word “right” means. For instance, I believe I have the right to speak, travel and associate freely. I also think that EVERYONE has the right to speak, travel and associate freely. I also think that prisoners in maximum security jails don’t have the right to speak, travel and associate freely. Is that a contradiction? Well, it’s a bit of a fuzzy issue, but I see a distinction between what I might (were I a theist) refer to as god-given-rights, and societally-practical-rights.
Honestly, I don’t have a good answer to that question, but I’m leaning towards “no”. On the one hand, I strongly believe in freedom of religion. On the other hand, I strongly believe in the right of consenting adults to enter into binding contracts. If you and I sign a piece of paper that says “MaxTheVool will pay CrafterMan $1000. In exchange, CrafterMan agrees to begin every sentence he speaks for the rest of his life by saying ‘MaxTheVool is super-cool’. If CrafterMan fails to do so, MaxTheVool will have the right to kill him with a chainsaw.”, I believe that (silly as it would be) that contract should be binding. And I think of society as a sort of contract… you’re making an agreement with society that you’ll surrender some of your rights in exchange for protection, services, etc.
So, bluntly, I would say that in that example, you have given up your right to practice religion freely, much as in the US the police can come and arrest you on suspicion of committing a crime (I’m talking about a real crime and real suspicion here, not hypothetical examples involving shotgun-ownership), meaning that by living in the US you’ve given up at least some of your right to liberty, in certain precisely defined, and hopefully very unlikely, situations.
Do you think that, if the police have a meaningful reason to suspect you of having comitted a crime, even if you know yourself to be innocent, they have the right to arrest you?
Because, to me at least, someone who helps found and define a society is VERY CLEARLY consciously electing to join it, thus I have no problem viewing them as part of the societal contract, as discussed above. Someone born and raised in that society, on the other hand, hasn’t clearly and definitely elected to be a part of it. So if you helped define police procedures, arresting of people, etc., and then you yourself get arrested, I think that’s very fair. If you grow up and want to live in a society with no police at all, then it seems like much more of a violation of your rights if you are arrested.
Does that make sense?
Again, not an easy question.
(1) If someone knocked on my door, pointed a gun at me, and said “give me your stereo”, I would
(2) If someone knocked on my door, and said “give me your stereo, or we’ll arrest you and fine you and try you and ruin your life”, I would give them my stereo
So, to go along with (2), if some law passed that I disagreed with but didn’t view as an encroachment of Fundamental Freedoms, (for instance, if the child-porn-cutoff age was changed from 18 to 21, and all of my “barely legal” porn was suddenly illegal), and the cops came politely knocking on my door asking me to peacefully surrender my now-contraband property, I would definitely do so.
On the other hand, if a law passed which I viewed as an truly heinous and unacceptable violation of Fundamental Freedoms, for instance, a law outlawing all pornography or erotic literature, I would definitely resist somehow. Which is not to say that I would necessarily just say “no, you can’t have it” or “no, you can’t have it, and if you try to take it I’ll shoot you”. But I would find like-minded individuals and discuss what type of resistance/protest would be most effective.
To be pragmatic about it, suppose Joe Sherriff comes and asks for your now-outlawed hollow-tip bullets… your choices include:
(a) give him your hollow-tip bullets
PRO: No one dies or gets hurt
CON: You feel that a Fundamental Freedom is being infringed
(b) refuse, and keep refusing when he shows up with larger and larger groups of more and more heavily armed people, resulting in a standoff and shootout
PRO: Your Fundamental Freedoms were infringed only over your dead body
CON: You are dead, as are various other guys who were basically just doing their jobs
(c) actively rebel against the government along with various likeminded folks
PRO: Your Fundamental Freedoms weren’t infringed, and the absolute best best best case scenario (albeit an unlikely one) involves the founding of a new and better country, with liberty and justice for all
CON: Your odds of success are very very very very very very very slim, and you most likely die, just like in (b)
(d) resist nonviolently, go to jail if necessary, become a hero to the gun rights movement
PRO: You refused to give an inch on your Fundamental Freedoms, you are a symoblic rallying point for your like-minded brethren
CON: You’re in jail, and have lost the freedom of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, at least ofr the moment
I think (b) is a Bad Choice, because if you were gonna do (b), you might as well do (c). But aside from that, I can’t really say that any of those choices seems prima facie idiotic.
What do you think of the distinction I made earlier about laws that are dumb but not very important vs. laws that truly violate freedom? Would you refuse to recognize the existence of fairly innocuous but pointless laws such as (for instance) laws forbidding sale of alcohol on a Sunday?
Thanks for responding, by the way… I find this quite interesting 