It took a civil war to impose the authority of the federal government and the US Constitution on rebels, and to discredit slavery and it’s supporters enough for abolition to gain the political support it did. The 13th was the result of the Civil War, not the other way around.
Meaning what? That it’s just too hard to amend the Constitution, so to get the “correct” outcome, we have to find ways to end run around it?
Uuh… which history books have you been reading? The pre-13th Constitution spelled out several measures accomodating and supporting slavery. The law was on the side of the slave holders, they didn’t need to read or pervert it in any way.
Maybe because by “clarifying” you mean “explicity striking down a personal right to own guns”, and lots of American citizens don’t want that? Gun owners don’t need to revolt against the government, all they need is to make clear to their representatives that any Congressperson who for one moment would even consider supporting an amendment overturning the 2nd would never be voted into public office ever again.
I see, we don’t go by what the law says, we go by what the “spirit” of the law intended. OK, I’ll go by what the FF were after: a government with little or no professional armed force at it’s disposal, being reliant on posses and militias of armed citizens to enforce the law.
No, we should “read” the 2nd to mean what it says, and if the result is so obviously an absurdity in these modern times, then AMEND THE CONSTITUTION.
In the course of this debate, I’ve come to the conclusion that the ambiguity in our times about the 2nd is deliberate, or at least was until Heller came along. Neither side of the political spectrum wanted to press the issue simply because a ruling upholding an individualist interpretation of the 2nd would force people to make a very hard choice about it: DO we let people own anti-aircraft missiles? Or DO we finally say that individuals can’t be allowed the same weapons that government police and troops have, with all that implies for democracy? Because not many people vocally objected to it, the public acquiesced to restrictions amounting to de facto bans on automatic weapons and explosive ordinance. But attempts to de jure ban all guns went too far; sophistries to try to evade the 2nd don’t cut it anymore.
The militia then and now was never supposed to be a standing army or marine force. How does the presence of an army now, in any way change the role of the militia which has been defined as every able bodied man from 18 to 50 or so?
Good read. Seems to me that the Militia Act spells out that militia members need to be equipped just as the regular army. That really puts the creation of the NFA act of 1934 in question to me.
… Okay. First, you need to read some history, then.
The French and Indian War was not a war between the French and Indians, but a war with the French and their proxies, the Indians.
I’d suggest the book ‘White Devil’, about Robert Rogers and the first Rangers. Yes, indians came, enslaved entire towns, and kidnapped them, considerably before the American Revolution.
The US was distinctly polarized during the Civil War. It is distinctly polarized today. No change to the 2nd is possible in the foreseeable future be it pro- or anti-gun ownership.
Yet clearly there is ambiguity here so it is left to the SCOTUS to tell us what it means. Your “end run” works both ways you know. Personally I think Scalia did an “end run” reading a right to self defense in the 2nd with Heller. To me that is as much pretzel logic as the privacy bit in Roe was (despite my support for a woman’s right to choose).
That does not mean I do not think a right to privacy or a right to self defense do not exist (personally I think they’d drop out of the 9th Amendment). I just think they are being used tortuously here.
While it may take years or decades it is quite possible, as things stand, for some future court to read the 2nd in a much more limited fashion and indeed I think it will be as the current logic Scalia applied is goofy and sooner or later I expect it will be corrected.
Oh I dunno…I guess I am reading the Constitution that says:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
And
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
And
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
And
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Of course you have to assume somewhere in the Constitution that it says that African Americans are not “people”. You really have to side with the decision in Dred Scott (a perfect example of an appalling decision with no basis in fact or law) to think the Constitution allowed for slavery as it stood.
“Clarifying” can mean different things to different people. To you it might mean clarifying that DRAGON Anti-Tank missiles are permissible and should be sold at WalMart. Lots of ways to go on this as it is NOT clear in many ways today. As has been noted in the thread already just how far should your rights to “Arms” not be infringed? Are there any acceptable restrictions on that freedom? After all we accept restrictions on other “absolute” freedoms such as freedom of speech. So why should this be different? Does it bother you that the mentally ill are barred from gun ownership? That is a restriction.
Sadly all the pro-gun lobby does is hoot-and-holler that the rights to own a gun should be unrestricted when in fact most reasonable people think some restriction is appropriate. Why can’t the gun lobby help draw some clear lines that could be put into an amendment clarifying what a “right to bear arms” means? Note that with an amendment there is less a slippery slope issue they generally fear if it is just laws.
I do not know that the FF’s wanted militia to be law enforcement. Cite?
And as for “spirit” read the Heller decision. Scalia appealed to just that reaching back into the 17th century for justification. The SCOTUS often goes in for “original intent”. Not what it “says” because what it “says” is clearly ambiguous to a lot of people. If it were crystal clear we would not be having this debate.
I have asked before in this thread for the rational reasons today to support the 2nd Amendment. Pretend the FF’s are writing the Constitution today. Why put it in there? Would they include “militia” in the language today? All I get from gun owners is “guns are my right because the Constitution says so hands off!” While that may be the facts on the ground it is in no way persuasive. I’d expect slave owners would have responded similarly (albeit with no Amendment to point to).
What I find truly jaw dropping in this thread are some people suggesting they SHOULD be allowed to own Stinger AA missiles. I can see as a debate tactic they refuse to give ground there because it undermines their notion of an absolute right but c’mon…how can anyone possibly support such a notion as an honest position? There are NO lines to be drawn in restricting ownership of weapons? Chemical? Biological? Nuclear? Tanks? Missiles? Gunships? Anything?
Anybody who refuses to have an honest discussion is unreasonable. When someone prefers to thump the 2nd as though it answers all questions and is unimpeachable are unreasonable. People who refuse to allow that there are honest differences of opinion worthy of debate are unreasonable.
Certainly many here are willing to engage in honest debate (it’s what we do here after all…or try to anyway) yet still I see a refusal to allow for even the most obvious of restrictions. But prove me wrong and tell me how unrestricted access to any military weaponry is a reasonable position. That would include biological weapons, chemical, nuclear, missiles, machine guns, mines, grenades and so on. If you can then you’ve got me.
ETA: It is gratifying to know that the best you could find to pick on in my whole post was that bit.
The poll was 644 people in a nation of some 301 million people. The article say it was taken “nationwide.” I would like to see a copy of the questions as they were asked of participants and what the distribution of those 644 people was.
Bah…now who’s being a dishonest debater? You asked for a cite…I gave it. You want to debunk it do your own work. Till then it stands as a presumably reliable poll cited by the New York Times till you prove otherwise. I agree polls of ~1000 or so seems absurd in such a big country but it is par for the course and statisticians seems to think they have good reason to believe that is enough.
Try this as another one which looks to say about the same thing:
Now here is where historical context really does matter. Nuclear weapons are arms on an international, strategic scale. Nothing like them existed or was even conceived of before they were invented and used. Obviously the 2nd Amendment could not have been written about them, and attempting to drag them into a discussion about personal ownership of guns is a straw man that would insult the intelligence of a teenager. Why? Because guns/firearms DID exist when the 2nd Amendment was written. As I have said, “a bullet from a flintlock kills you just as dead as a bullet from a 9mm.” In fact, round for round, a Kentucky rifle was as accurate and had an effective range (not an absolute range, but an effective range) roughly equivalent to an M-16. Saying that the effectiveness of modern small arms is somehow comparable to a personal nuclear bomb is pathetic.
Until I see the methodology of the poll, how am I to accept the results? Polls are notoriously easy to skew to fit the agenda of the pollsters themselves.
Not how it works around here. If you can debunk the poll fine, do so. Till then it is a poll conducted by a major news organization with no known bias for this topic. Are you an expert on polling methodology or can we work under the notion that the New York Times and CBS News know how to conduct polls professionally? I then cited a second poll that said about the same thing as the first that was conducted by Pew Research…another major polling organization.
In both cases they said such polls had been asked in the past and the numbers were about the same both times lending yet further credence to it.
You’re talking as if “honest debate” would just inevitably change everyone’s mind to your point of view. Since, as you admit, their views are the ones holding sway, what would they have to gain by engaging you in ANY debate? People have a right to feel what they feel and act on it, no matter what you think of it. And isn’t it a bit odd to say we can’t have an honest debate, in a thread like this one? I think, if we want to talk about intellectual dishonesty, we must mention how the gun control crowd keeps trumpeting how popular their views are, when they can’t seem to convince a majority of Americans to change the laws. This IS a democracy, ya know.
I’ve responded to the view that anxiety about threats from the government are sometimes more about symbolic freedom than anything else. Regarding the “slippery slope,” yes and no. Watching the way things have progressed in Great Britain and Australia, who could argue that was not a valid fear?
And what’s with this “nonexistent future threat” jazz? If you can read the future, will you pick my lotto numbers for me? Have you never heard of the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Red Scare, the illegal internment of Japanese-American citizens in WWII? McCarthyism? History contradicts your overly blase assertion that our government would never turn on its own people. Our government here is only as wise, just, and fair as we demand it be.
The arrogance of your presumption to tell others what they should and shouldn’t care about, or that anyone who disagrees with you is “blind,” is why the NRA keeps winning. Such unthinking assumptions of superiority make you, and by extension your beliefs, very hard to listen to with an open mind.
Maybe so, but in the course of this debate, in this one post, I have produced more examples of government misconduct (albeit on a scale that didn’t require armed insurrection) than you have reasons why no one should be paranoid. All you’ve done is casually dismiss those fears, as if they were ridiculous on their face. Of course the refusal of pro-gunners to debate is frustrating, but like I’ve said, if they’ve already got what they want, why should they debate you? You have nothing but assertions (unsupported by history) that we have nothing to fear from our government. I would think twice about this debate you seem to want, because it’s not clear to me how you intend to win it.
The funny thing is, I am in the camp that says (in the link) mass shootings reflect a broader problem with our society. The article implies this group is more likely to favor gun control. However, I just don’t think GUNS are the problem, merely a symptom of the problem, and that therefore banning guns is just an attempt to ignore the greater issues.
First it’s a false dichotomy, then it’s a red herring, now it’s a straw man? :rolleyes: No one is saying that modern small arms are comparable to nuclear weapons. They are just bringing up nuclear weapons because they are an extreme case of “weapons that advanced technology has given us, that need restrictions on them, because of how efficient they are at killing lots of people with little to no warning”
Where do you personally draw the line, Lizard? What existing weapons do you want civilians restricted from acquiring easily? M240s? Grenade launchers? Artillery? SAMs? Phalynx systems? How about fictional future weapons? Anti-matter tipped 5.56x45mm rounds rounds capable of vaporizing city blocks? Auto-targeting repeating laser rifles with a lethal range of 6 miles?