Gun Control - The ninth amendment

Great Debates
41

Sorry,I don’t view slavery as an “uneasy social condition.” And my point is that there has never been a “progressive militia” since the adoption of the Constitution. The only rebellions I can think of were the Whiskey one, which had a legitimate complaint and was squashed by the same Founding Fathers who wanted guns in the first place. And then theres the Civil War, where an armed rebellion took place in the NAME of oppression. So go ahead: name 3 cases in which a rebellion in this country actually stopped government oppression.

And just so you know, Thomas Jefferson also opposed the adoption of the Constitution.

Forcibly disarmed by people with guns.

If they were being oppressed, according to your logic, someone with guns should have immediately stopped the government from doing that. After all guns, are for people of your views, the magical instrument through which all justice is done. And what about the Native Americans. They’ve been armed, but still oppressed.

42

If you can think of a way in which a militia can be well-regulated while its weapons are not, let’s hear it. If you further want to say that it’s most likely what the Framers actually meant, let’s especially hear it.

43

You lost me right there, pal. What do you disagree with - slavery being a social condition, or being uneasy?

44

**

Good for you. With 150 years of hind sight, I’m sure you feel very proud. If slavery was so vastly against social acceptance at the time, it wouldn’t have been viable. Things were different, then.

**

That’s true - but… it affected negatively so small a part of the population that it wasn’t such a grave oppression that it inspired outright revolution. Were the founding fathers supposed to say “Well, some guys in pennsylvania are trying to rebel… let’s step down and give them the country.”?

**

This is pure ignorance. A peaceful secession took place in the name of objecting to growing, unconstitutional federal powers. It only became a war when Lincoln decided he would launch a war of aggression against half the country because they opposed his usurption of Constitutionally-granted state powers. Your “The Evil South tried to blow up the north to keep slaves!” assertion is so 4th grade.

**
Um… that’s sort of impossible, isn’t it? I mean, if a rebellion was succesful and stopped government oppression, it’d be a new country, wouldn’t it? You couldn’t do that 3 times.

Rebellion is a last resort type of thing. You don’t do it every time you find something you object to. There haven’t been many cases in which the government has generally oppress the population in a clear cut fashion.

You’re forgetting the value of deterrence. If the government knows it is outgunned by the populus, it will be less likely to enact tyranical legislation.

**

Be more specific.

**

Yeah, that makes sense. “The slaves were brought over and forcibly disarmed by oppressive people with guns. Therefore, in the future, we should make sure other people are disarmed by oppressive people with guns.”

To follow the logical conclusion of that line of thinking, you’d conclude that “Slavery was good”, and such an event, people being disarmed by oppressive people with guns is productive and good.

**

Why? I didn’t ascribe altruism to the average civilian gun owner. You’re saying that a bunch of guys in Maine should’ve rebelled, killed, and got themselves killed, for a bunch of slaves in the south? Purely in the name of altruism?

**

Nice one, dumbass. Indeed, from a few paragraphs, you’ve analyzed my psychology.

Guns are tools. They can be used for good, or bad. I’ve never suggested anything otherwise.

When only one side has a monopoly on such tools, there’s a much greater ability to abuse than if both sides had parity.

There was a war of genocide. They lost. They were then disarmed. War is different from civil oppression.

45

Oh yeah, the Ninth Amendment: All it says is that the people can have rights that aren’t specifically listed elsewhere in the Constitution. What’s there to debate about that? Seems like a simple truism.

If you want to debate something with a little meat, try the Tenth, which says that the government can do only what the Constitution allows it to. That one’s been a dead letter since the Hamiltonians won the debate with the Jeffersonians, but we just haven’t had the heart to repeal part of the Bill of Rights itself.

46

Hey, the whole “founding fathers” thing is your gig, not mine. You haven’t given me any reason to believe that we are bounded by their 18th-century conceptions, even if they could be divined with 100% accuracy (which, of course, they cannot).

Even if you want to talk in terms of “natural rights,” why on earth should we be limited in that discussion, in the year 2002, to what a bunch of 18th century schmoes may or may not have thought were natural rights when they couldn’t even be bothered to write them into law? Nope, I’ll happily let you fumble around with the 225-year-old quotes, while I happily rely on the overwhelming mainstream of modern, democratic thought that says there is no fundamental right to private gun ownership.

47

This has come up on other threads, but I’ll reiterate it here.

In 1700s parlance, if a clock were well-regulated, it would mean that it was well oiled and functioned well. If an army were well-regulated, they would be properly equipped and trained. If a militia was well-regulated… Oh, oops, this mean’s that the federal government, whose potential tyrany the militia is meant to resist, can completely disarm the militia through regulation in a tyranical fashion. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

48

Yep, this is exactly the sort of calm, rational poster I want to be armed to the teeth. Take it to the Pit, bubba.

49

**

We live in a Republic, and all of our elected officials are sworn to uphold a Constitution which they wrote. Their intentions clearly are relevant.

Then you are exactly what the founding fathers had the wisdom to protect against. We are a repbulic, rather than a democracy, because the core of our philosophy, as our country, is that individuals have inalienable right, not subject to any sort of mob rule or “the overwhelming mainstream of modern, democractic thought”.

Understand that when mob rule determines what a person’s rights are, they aren’t rights. They’re privileges, only allowed when they are socially acceptable. Would you be so cavalier about accepting the “overwhelming mainstream of modern, democratic thought” decides that the right to free speech, or against unreasonable search and seizure is not a fundamental right?

They wrote the Constitution to protect against people who would try to rob other people of their natural rights, through a tyranical government, or through mob rule. You are exactly what they were protecting against.

50

I am entirely calm and rational. You are a person who advocates stripping people of their natural rights. I have no respect for you, and treat you accordingly. There was no anger or irrationality involved.

Are you trying to suggest because I called you something on a bulletin board that I can’t be trusted with arms?

That’s as much of an ad hominem attack as you’re criticizing me for. It’s only sugar-coated in “high brow” wording.

51

Er, the original comment was directed towards Qwertyasdfg, but I used “you” in the response. My bad. You’re both seemingly advocating that I be stripped of my natural rights - just because supporting the anti-gun-rights cause is the fad of the day doesn’t mean it’s any fundamentally less offensive than if I were to advocate you no longer have freedom of speech, or a right to a trial by jury.

52

Dude, you can’t even remember who you called a dumbass? That’s pretty weak. Scroll up the screen and take a gander. Then go polish your magic thundersticks or something, because you’re not going to be long for this forum if you keep up the personal insults.

53

WHEREAS the original intention of the 2nd Amendment was intended to reserve to the people of the United States the right to possess sufficient firepower, to “bear arms” in the terminology of the day, to deter the US Government from infringing on the rights of the people; and

WHEREAS the firepower provided by personal ownership of a “gun”, e.g., a Colt 45, a Marlin .444, an AK-47, etc., is entirely insufficient to deter the US Government in any meaningful sense;

be it RESOLVED therefore that the right of the people of the United States to arm themselves with tactical nuclear weapons shall not be infringed
– ??
SeñorBeef, please critique my logic here…

54

SenorBeef: Despite not knowing your entire psychology, I can summarize your point of contention in a few sentences: Many gun owners feel that in the case of oppression, a population that owns guns will be able to resist the government and stop this oppression.

I presented you with half a dozen examples in which this theory did not pan out. In every example, injustice was done, ranging from internment camps to genocide as you yourself admitted. In every single one of these examples, gun owners were either neutral, or took an active part in doing the oppression.
So my assertion is that gun owning does not make a country immune or even resistant to oppression. This is well supported by historical fact.
Misc. Notes:

  • Thomas Jefferson said “I smell a rat!” on hearing that the Constitution had been adopted. They had to send him as an ammbassador to France so that he couldn’t get in the way.
  • The Constituion is not perfect. It protected slavery in the south and the “unconstitutional” actions the north was committing against the south were a) largely imaginary. b) justified to end slavery.
  • The South’s “peaceful secession” ended when they attacked Fort Sumter
55

**

Give me a break. You’re both advocating the same position and declaring that I’m some redneck bubba who can’t think straight, so who the insult went to isn’t of horrible importance.

He started making broad declarations about the sort of person I had, with absolutely no indication that I might be. He was condescending in doing so. That was insulting. In return, I insulted him.

Brilliant!
You managed to both insult me, and criticize me for throwing insults, in the very same sentence!

I applaud your hypocracy.

56

So you’re offended by somebody else’s expression of his or her political beliefs, and that entitles you to flout the rules of the forum, insult their intelligence, and shut down any further attempt at rational discussion of the issues? This is an odd and mysterious realm you inhabit, Senor.

57

Easy. You completely made B up off the top of your head without knowledge of the issue.

The “the government has nukes so your rifle can’t do anything!” argument is stupid. Are they going to start nuking their own citizens? Of course not, or they’d fuel the revolution. We have millions and millions of people with hunting rifles easily adapted to sniping, against an army that could mobilize only a few hundred thousand. They wouldn’t have a chance against us, in a protracted revolution where we had at least some popular support.

Regardless, there’s a difference between arms and ordnance. It seems clear to me that the founding fathers wanted the people armed with the commonly accepted military rifle of the day. Ordnance is something managed by units greater than the individual soldier, as a general rule, and is not covered under “arms”. This is debatable, though.

58

BTW, the word you mean is spelled “hypocrisy”. “Hypocracy”, if it were a word, would mean “government by the lowest” - hmmm, there may be some possibilities there…

59

I’ll be gone for a few hours. Don’t interpret my silence as concession.

60

**

Your wording here is “be able”, rather than “will be magically compelled to, in every case”. This defeats your next paragraph.

**

Only those who are being oppressed, typically, are the ones willing to resist. You’re ascribe “gun owners” to be this altrustic guardian of everyone’s rights, and no one made that assertion here. If a people were being oppressed, and were armed, they’d be able to resist. You can’t read that as “If a people were being oppressed, everyone who is armed will resist.”

**

I agree that it doesn’t make it immune to oppression. However, it definitely makes it resistant. As I said, resistance requires 2 things. A will and a means. In the cases you’ve mentioned, one of the two was lacking.

Does that mean that we should take away everyone’s means to resist, because some people didn’t have the will?

**

I don’t know enough about this to comment on it.

**

Agreed. Hence the ability to amend it. It’s much more honest than pretending like it doesn’t say what it says.

**

A) Usurpation of state powers by the federal government is not an imaginary violation of the Constitution. Neither is the suspension of the writ of habeus corppus, and other things.

B) Get off your feel-good idea that the civil war was about ending slavery.

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.”

  • Abraham Lincoln, 1862.

This was provoked by naval blockades that were a clear act of war.