A License For Freedom?

::::Breathing in:::::
:::Breathing out:::::

:slight_smile:

Now singledad, this is one of my buttons.

Are you Alan Keyes? :slight_smile:

Actually, it is relevant. The way the Constitution is interpreted is to understand the origninal intent. To understand any particular part of the Constitution, we have to know what isue they were addressing and why.

I can only aaume that you think there are two way to amend the Constitution. We can either add an Amendment, or, we can sort of ridicule parts of it and call it outdated.

The Constitution is a contract. Very specific terms were agreed to. Many of us still hold those terms in high regard. You can not just declare them “outdated” and change the contract. This is called Rule of Law.

Hmmm…

Do you think oppresive central governments exist today? Has humanity evolved to the point of non-aggression? Do we have nothing to fear from our government? What about 10 years from now?

Do you consider the 1st amendment as outdated as the 2nd? I’m sure you apply the 1st to radio, TV and the internet. The Bill of Rights was not meant to apply to technology, but principles.

Among other rights, it is meant to allow the publication of unpopular ideas. The printing press was only a tool of their time. They never meant for the rights they were protecting to become ignored just because the technology changed.

The right the 2nd amendment protects is the right to self-defense. Self-defense from criminals, and self-defense from our government. The 2nd makes sure that the people will be armed if the government ever encroaches on our freedom to the point where rebellion is justified.

I hold that the 2nd is put in the Bill of Rights SPECIFICALLY to hold the federal government in check by the threat of popular rebellion.

That’s it, Freedom… Keep breathing! :slight_smile:

I’ll try to phrase this yet another way. The issue of whether and under what circumstances the Constitution permits individual Gun ownership, and the original intention of the framers of the Constitution would apply if we were arguing the Constitutionality of gun ownership.

As I noted in my original post, I was very explicitly not making that argument. Rather, I argue that regardless of its Constitutionality of gun ownership, it’s a bad thing.

You are free to use the same arguments that the framers used when creating the Constitution. However, it is a logical fallacy (proof by authority) to assert that those arguments are correct because the framers held them and included them in the second amendment.

That being said, I will respond to the other points you raise.

Yes. No. Yes. I maintain, however, that unrestricted widespread gun ownership does not address those problems. I think the responsiveness of a democratically elected government to public opinion and the loyalty of the military and police forces to the Constitution rather than to a specific individual do more than widespread gun ownership to check the oppression of a government against its own people.

If this assertion were false, then the democracies that do not permit widespread unrestricted gun ownership would quickly fall to tyranny.

I also claim that no entirely private force of armed civilians has defeated a modern army, or even checked it for a significant period of time. For instance, in Vietnam, the Chinese supplied the NVA (note that I don’t want to get off-track into a discussion of why and how the US lost the Vietnam war).

No. Yes. Agreed. However, in some cases, technology changes the principles involved. And, indeed, the Internet is changing the character of the First Amendment, its interpretation and implementation.

I’m not arguing against the right of self-defense. I’m arguing that unrestricted private ownership of weapons is a dangerous and less efficient form of self-defense than a professional police force and military, with an acculturated loyalty to uphold the principles of civilian government.

I hold that the costs of an armed citizenry exceed the benefits of that method of the implementation of the right to self-defense in relation to its alternatives.

Stipulated (despite significant disagreement as to the importance of the ‘well regulated militia’ clause).

I argue that 200 years ago, private weapons technology was almost equal to that of the professional military. Since then, the technology available to the professional military is so much greater than that available to private citizens as to render private ownership of weapons an ineffective deterrent.


He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’

Oops, I missed a point…

If I were on a jury, and you were brought before me by an overzealous police force for legally possessing a weapon, I would acquit you, even if I had to hold out against the rest of the jury, who argued that even though your action was legal, it should still be punished because guns are bad.

If I thought a particular piece of gun control legislation was good, but the Supreme Court found that it violated the 2nd Amendment, I would not then argue for its implementation in defiance of the Court’s finding.

Thus I respect the rule of law. I follow the Constitution even when I disagree with it, and I work withing the means it itself specifies to amend it. If my arguments do not prevail, I can accept that.

But I will not ever accept that I may not speak out in opposition to the terms of the Constitution, or that such disagreement constitutes disloyalty against it.

I consider the ridiculous the assertion that the provisions of the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights forms “holy writ”, which may not be challenged, and that they define moral correctness.

If you indeed believe that assertion, then I challenge you to post that as its own thread, where the members may debate it directly. If you post such an assertion, I will debate it here. But I have exhaustively stated my own position on the matter. I shan’t discuss it here again. I will, of course, respond to any other points you might raise.


He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’

If you post such an assertion, I will debate it there.