silenus, it’s obvious why the government has to have guns. But what do you actually, sincerely think you can do with your guns, that can stop the government from doing anything it decides to do?
Thats an interesting interperatation. Is that your interperatation or are you getting that from somewhere? If you are getting that from somewhere, could you provide the cite so we can take a look at it?
Here’s ABCNEW’s interperatation:
You will notice that while a majority of people favor some form of gun control (as do I) and regulation, the overwhelming majority of American’s in every category from sex to race to political affiliation feels that our right to keep and bear (god, that still cracks me up) arms is something that is and should be guarenteed by the constitution. Do a google search on “poll” “right to bear arms”…I haven’t found a poll yet that contridicts this. If you have some opposing data, by all means lets look at it and see what it means in light of these other polls.
By what standard to you judge which rights should continue to be important enough to be guarenteed by the constitution and which aren’t? Its not important to YOU, but it IS important to others. How do we judge which rights should continue to be guarenteed by the constitution and which shouldn’t be? Its pretty obvious to me that the majority of American’s DO feel its important, that it IS a right that is guarenteed by the constitution. If a minority of American’s feel the Freedom of Speech isn’t important enough to be guarenteed by the constitution (not to say that it would be revoked mind you, but that its not important enough to be guarenteed and should be subject to the individual states…as I assume you’d put the right to keep and bear arms), should we then go with that minority over the objections of the majority…for the good of the public of course.
I’m not sure I agree with this…I have to give it some thought. To be honest you’ve taken me aback a bit here with this position. My knee jerk reaction is you are just wrong…it IS important enough to be a protected right. Of course, it currently ISN’T guarenteed by the constitution afaik…
-XT
I doubt that… and even if somehow the regular Army were to fight the mobilized National Guard, it would almost certainly be a Pyhrric victory.
The NG has the majority of the Army’s combat power- this is something many people overlook.
The Army currently has 10 active-duty divisions(3 light infantry/airborne, 7 armored/mech infantry), 2 Armored Cavalry regiments, and 2 independent airborne brigades.
The NG currently has 11 divisions(mixed infantry/armor brigades), as well as 12 independent infantry brigades and 3 independent armored/armored cavalry brigades.
The Air National Guard pilots frequently outfly their active-duty colleagues because they have more experience.
So the NG has more people, similar training, and more unit cohesion due to longer time together than active duty units.
Both have similar equipment- NG has M1A1 tanks, F15/F15 fighters, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, etc… not old 1970’s stuff.
I think it’s pretty simplistic to say that the Army would always win- in this case, it’s entirely likely that the Army would NOT win vs. the National Guard.
No, they don’t. Well, extremists might make effective watchdogs in a political sense, but they are no more effective for being armed. Do you think the Feds and the Army and your local police are afraid of the “bear in the woods”? They’re not. They fear the law and the courts and the voters and public opinion, and that is all they fear, and that is all they should fear.
But, bump, the federal armed forces have nukes.
And they also have legitimacy. In the eyes of the public, how much legitimacy do you think the National Guard of any state, or grouping of states, would have against the federal armed forces?
Regardless of whether it was a good interpretation of the Constitution when it was originally decided, Stare Decisis princples ultimately prevail. Stare Decisis (“let the decision stand”) says that even if we might have made a different decision if we were viewing things from afresh, if our system relies heavily upon it’s foundations then the decision should not be disturbed.
Even if Roe vs Wade was a legal error, it would be a disaster to overturn 31 years of constitutionally guaranteed reproductive freedom to correct it.
Look, apart from hunting and gun-collecting, there are a limited number of conceivable reasons why private citizens might want to own firearms:
(1) To commit crimes.
(2) To defend their country and their families from foreign invaders.
(3) To defend themselves, their families and their property from violent criminals, because they do not trust the police to do that job for them adequately.
(4) To shoot at the police or the Army or the National Guard, if, in their judgment, that should become necessary.
(1) hardly merits discussion. (2) is anachronistic. It might have had some merit in 1776 and 1812 but it would not apply to any realistically conceivable military threat the United States might face in the future, Red Dawn notwithstanding. (3) is a legitimate concern but it is not really a question of personal civil liberties; it is, as I said above, an ordinary public-safety issue, a question of balancing the crime-deterrence value of armed householders against the obvious safety threats of personal gun ownership. As such, it should be left to the ordinary political process. (4) is the only concern of any political significance, of any relevance to the idea of personal liberties and civil rights; and I’ve already made clear how I feel about its relevance in that area. “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.”
Of course. Irrational beliefs need no justification. Like believing that you have a God Given right to posess instruments of death and the state is evil for wanting to restrict that.
And let’s face it, that’s what guns are. They are instruments of death. Guns are designed to kill, and they have no other practical use.
The reasons why people want to own their own fire arms are irrelevent IMO…the fact of the matter is, it’s their right to do so (guarenteed by the Constitution), and the majority of people in this democracy agree with that concept. Again, I ALSO think that the majority of the citizens would support a new amendment that is clearer and spells things out a bit plainer (i.e. one that makes sense would be nice), that sets the bounds and limitations…but that continues to guarentee the average citizen the right to keep private fire arms.
I can make similar arguements, btw, against free speech (or any other right guarenteed by the constitution) to limit it or control it (thought it makes me slightly ill to do so)…in fact there are several European countries that have already done so based on my examples. There are a limited number of reasons to allow, say, Nazi or racist propaganda or Holocaust denial, there are a limited number of reasons to allow pornography…hell, you name it and an excuse could (and probably HAS been) made to deny it. Yet they are all important to some people (just as the right to keep and bear arms are important to some folks), the the principal is important to the majority (and thats the key), even if the majority don’t agree with this or that specific instance (you’d probably be hard pressed to find a lot of support for Nazi or KKK propaganda). Hell, I can’t stand racists or Nazi’s but I’d fight to uphold their rights to say any damn fool thing they want, because failing that we start down a very slippery slope.
In fact I think there are several European countries that have already set foot on that path. Maybe in the various European nations the majority of their citizens support controls on their freedom of speech…and on completely or partially banning of fire arms in the hands of their private citizens. But in the US the majority do NOT support such things…and frankly I hope they never do. It won’t be the same country if that ever happens…
-XT
You guys are missing a major point. If we assume that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to form militias, that doesn’t mean that you CAN’T own firearms individually, it merely means that the decision is left to THE STATES. So whether anyone made or makes any “move to stop them” is irrelevant. Just because something is not constitutionally protected does not mean it is ipso facto outlawed.
Under the collective interpretation of the Second Amendment, states can pass laws regulating individual ownership of guns, but it doesn’t mean they have to.
That argument doesn’t make sense. You’re saying that if we use the collective interpretation, it means the founding fathers were explicitly “announcing” a “right” to regulate firearm possession. But the states are given the power to make laws by the constitution. States don’t have to be explicitly given permission in the U.S. Constitution for every law they pass. Just because one right is granted does not mean they are “announcing” that another right is taken away. It would mean that, like all other things not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, it would be delegated to the states. It’s unneccessary to make an explicit negative declaration of every conceivable law that might be passed by the states.
I prefer to look at them as instruments of life. As in, they help me protect my life.
Furthermore, your assumption is incorrect. When it comes to personal protection, the purpose of a gun is not to kill. The purpose of a gun is to stop. Any death is incidental.
I see this kind of thinking from anti-gun types on nearly every gun control thread. I always wonder how is it possible for some people to actually believe such a foolish notion.
If the only use for guns is to kill, would you support locking up every gun owner in the country in jail? After all, they are all clearly guilty of plotting to kill. Why else would they own a gun? Lets arrest them all for attempted murder.
While we are at it, lets lock up all the baseball players. Let’s face it, that what baseball bats are. They are instruments of death. Baseball bats are designed to bash peoples heads in, and they have no other practical use.
Can we take a middle ground here, and say that guns are designed to accelerate a metal projectile, allowing said projectile to penetrate objects that a thrown projectile could not? That’s what a gun is designed to do, and whether the bullet goes through a paper target, a deer, or a person, is irrelevant to the gun.
Of course, if the bullet does go through a living thing, it’ll cause injury or death, and since that’s the general reason you want to accelerate projectiles like that, guns, like their predecessors bows and slings, are characterized as weapons. Now, whether or not it’s good to cause injury or death to another living thing is a moral question, but the general consensus is that it can sometimes be immoral (shooting an innocent person), morally neutral (shooting a deer), or morally acceptable (shooting a person who’s attacking you).
And of course, none of this has any bearing on whether a person has a moral right to own a gun, a legal right to do so, or even whether one should do so. I’m sorry to intervene here, because I don’t really have much to say about the Second Amendment or gun ownership generally. I’m just bringing it up because it annoys me that in every gun control argument, proponents try to make guns look like these evil machines, while opponents portray guns as noble and wonderful.
I don’t think this is a totally obvious conclusion. “The right to bear arms shall not be infringed” has a pretty unambiguous reading. If the context is in a militia, then that term needs to be clarified, but it is pretty hard, in my opinion, to twist the first part around in such a way as to invalidate the second part.
I think under any but the uber-looney interpretation regulations may be passed.
But obviously they have to be in line with the US consitution when they do pass laws. If there is no discrimination as a federal law, a state doesn’t reserve the right to discriminate.
Only the Air Force and Navy have nukes anymore, and the vast majority of those are strategic level weapons- pretty much unsuitable for tactical use.
I think the legitimacy of the NG vs the regular Army would depend on the situation. In a rebel state scenario much like the Civil War, then yeah, they might not have much legitimacy, but in other scenarios where the Feds were doing something tyrannical, then they might definitely be considered legitimate. And if the Fed. Govt. ever used nuclear weapons on their own citizens, then the National Guard would likely have ALL the legitimacy it would need to fight the regular armed forces.
Plus, there’s one thing we’re not considering. Our armed forces swear an oath to the Constitution, not the President, etc… This would tend to put a certain damper on using the Army for unconstitutional purposes- the officers and men in the Service take that oath pretty seriously, and would probably have some difficulty obeying unlawful orders, such as those that would be unconstitutional.
But by that logic, the purpose of, say, a car, is to rotate four wheels at a certain speed and a certain angle. Nothing about driving on roads, nothing about carrying passengers, no reason to call it a “vehicle”. It’s reductum ad absurdum.
Myself, I have no problems with guns being defined as devices for killing. In fact, if when I sign up for my annual bout of Reserve duty, someone hands me a thing he calls “a device meant to propell a piece of metal at great speed”, I’d give it back and ask for a damn weapon. I want something designed for killing human beings.
Eh, yeah, it probably is. I just get tired of statements like, (as seen in this thread)
“Guns are tools of death!”
“Guns are tools of life!”
because they’re really nothing more than just appeals to emotion. They don’t have anything to do with whether or not owning a gun is legal, moral, or wise.
I didn’t say it was. Perhaps you missed the magic word “if” that was right at the beginning of my sentence.
I wasn’t getting into that argument at all. I happen to disagree with you that “The right to bear arms shall not be infringed” ought to be interpreted on its own without the context of the rest of the sentence, but let’s leave that argument alone, because frankly, I’m sick of arguing that.
What I was saying was that "If we assume that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to form militias, that doesn’t mean that you CAN’T own firearms individually, it merely means that the decision is left to THE STATES.
My point was in response to furt’s statement: “if you want to make the case that gun owners must be a part of an organized private militia, go ahead.” But if (notice the word if, please) one makes the argument that the Second Amendment applies only to militias, that is NOT the same as saying “you can only own a gun if you are in a militia”. Understand yet? Saying that something is not protected does not mean it is forbidden.
Then we are in agreement. You believe that under the Constitution, states can regulate guns. Therefore, you do not have an absolute right to own a gun.
Exactly. That’s a great example. In the absence of a Federal law, the states could and did discriminate, and only stopped when civil rights laws were passed and aggressively enforced. That’s the whole point - if a particular type of state legislation is prohibited by law, then the states can’t pass such legislation. But they aren’t automatically prohibited just because something isn’t explicitly mentioned.
So again:
Saying: “The 2nd Amendment only applies to militias” is NOT equivalent to saying: “Individuals cannot own guns.”
Cecil is of course generally a pretty intelligent guy. But I happen to disagree with him on this issue- the quotes are from Cecil’s columns referenced above unless noted otherwise.
I beg to differ with the “pathetically sparse” comment, see this list of court rulings on the Second Amendment not the most non-partisan cite but the list of rulings is easily verified. If the individual rights view is closer to the framers’ intent, then one would think the courts would also take that position.
Huh? I agree with the first part, but the AK-47 being to today’s oppressed what the long rifle was to those of 1776??? I’m just not following this logic. Unless the oppressed are the drug dealers.
OK, SOME people (and a very distinct MINORITY) would like to ban all guns, and federal case law offers no protection against such a measure. True enough. But not a sound reason for misinterpreting the Second Amendment.
True, the American militia defeated a superior army, but there was a rather conspicuous accomplice- the French. But in modern times, we’ve seen tyrannical governments (USSR, E Germany, Poland, etc) fall without armed uprising of the citizenry. We’ve also seen a tyrannical government in Iraq fall from outside forces and a stable government have difficulty in forming BECAUSE of mad packs of armed citizens. We’ve seen numerous Latin Ameican nations suffer many revolutions because of these armed militias. We’ve seen Lenin, Hitler, and Castro use armed revolution to create tyrannical governments. The American Revolution is the exception to the rule, not a noble pattern that has been widely followed. A better way to overcome tyranny is exemplified by Gandhi, Mandela, and Martin Luther King. Guns in and of themselves are not the path to liberty, and liberty is not always the result of gunfire and bloodshed.
Actually, the two halves are in ONE SENTENCE! True, the first half is no miracle of clarity, but it is still there. The first half qualifies the second half. Just because “Gun owners’ recognition that one of their most cherished rights has been interpreted out of existence” doesn’t give them license to ignore half of an Amendment.
Well, it would be honest if we were controlling guns to the point of prohibition. But very few advocate that. Sensible regulations are consistent with the existing Second Amendment. The ones who need a change in the constitutional status quo are the gun rights advocates, not the gun control advocates.
Back to the OP- The militia clause is there. It has been interpreted many times by many courts in the collectivist viewpoint. If you want an absolute right of individual ownership of guns, then you’ll need to adopt a new Amendment, not ignore half of an old one.
Some quotes from Warren Burger, a conservative gun-owning Nixon appointee. Seethe American Bar Association
I think there’s a lot of room for common sense gun regulation and the existing Second Amendment offers this room.
Maybe it is WRT guns people had versus guns the military had? I don’t know either, but usually if I don’t follow an argument I don’t reject it.
For “misinterpreting” it? Loading your statement much?
And, hopefully, there’d be an accomplice again. And?
Forgive me for saying so, but I wouldn’t want to wait decades for a shitty, tyrannical, oppressive government to fall just because people were a little twitchy about public firearm possession. That’s frankly not a cost I’m willing to bear.
As much as I support the fact “Saddam gone == good”, you’re talking about a conquered nation. Of course there is going to be insurrection, instability, etc.
Or is it because of the governments they’re against?
What has been widely followed is that many governments have indeed oppressed in order to consolidate power. America has mechanisms that protect against such a thing, but no mechanism can guarantee it. If the uprising is unpopular and small enough, existing mechanisms will quell it and otherwise address the problems. If the uprising is large enough, we’re talking about a point at which your beloved mechanisms have totally failed for a large portion of the population.
I do not care to glorify martyrs. Better to not need them, thanks.
Actually, the two halves are in ONE SENTENCE! True, the first half is no miracle of clarity, but it is still there. The first half qualifies the second half. Just because “Gun owners’ recognition that one of their most cherished rights has been interpreted out of existence” doesn’t give them license to ignore half of an Amendment.
Well, it would be honest if we were controlling guns to the point of prohibition. But very few advocate that. Sensible regulations are consistent with the existing Second Amendment. The ones who need a change in the constitutional status quo are the gun rights advocates, not the gun control advocates.
Back to the OP- The militia clause is there. It has been interpreted many times by many courts in the collectivist viewpoint. If you want an absolute right of individual ownership of guns, then you’ll need to adopt a new Amendment, not ignore half of an old one.
Some quotes from Warren Burger, a conservative gun-owning Nixon appointee. Seethe American Bar Association
I think there’s a lot of room for common sense gun regulation and the existing Second Amendment offers this room.
[/QUOTE]