Guns, Freedom and Power

[ElectricZ]

@BrainGlutton

If the “insurrection scenario” should never come to pass, and self-defense against criminals is not what people need guns for, then what difference does it make whether you have a constitutionally protected right to bear arms or not?

Self defense against criminals is not what people need guns for? When did I say that? I think that’s the BEST reason for someone to have a gun, and the 2nd Amendment preserves a citizen’s right to do so. The government, under the pretext of maintaining its own security, can’t come in and take that away. Maybe you’re thinking about when I said I personally don’t own a gun. But if the crime rate in my neighborhood were to go up and for whatever reason I wouldn’t or couldn’t move away, I’d seriously think about getting one. And I appreciate the fact that it’s not against the law for me to do it.

As for the need for a constitutionally protected right to bear arms, you need it for the same reason all of the other rights were put down in writing. The people in office at any given time may have the best intentions and be in the service of the people, but sooner or later enough yahoos get into office and try to remake the government in their own image. But since the laws are in writing it makes it a lot tougher for those same yahoos to get away with it. (Not that they don’t keep trying. :rolleyes: )

@BrainGlutton

You seem to be thinking, though you never make this clear, that the known existence of arms among the populace has some kind of deterrent effect on the government. Think again, ElectricZ. Private gun ownership does absolutely nothing to prevent or deter government tyranny.

How many times to I have to say this? (This is the 4th time, for anybody keeping score.) I’ll keep saying it until you realize that what I’m saying and what you THINK I am saying are not the same thing:

@ElectricZ

The idea that guns in the hand of private citizens won’t be able to stand up to the forces of the federal government wasn’t an issue. The 2nd Amendment, in fact, ALL of the amendments in the Bill of Rights are a guarantee that scenario will never come to pass.

You are right that a bunch of small arms in the hands private citizens aren’t going to stop the professional army. But that situation will never happen as long as the Bill of Rights is intact. The members of the government are citizens, protected by the same rights as everybody else. Instead of a police state or dictatorship, the majority of government is made up of people who want to preserve those rights themselves and for their children, their friends and even their fellow countrymen. So if you DID get a president in the White House that gave the order to shut down newspapers, or confiscate weapons, or illegally sieze property or search homes, there would be a LOT of people who would try to stop it, and could do so legally. No armed insurrection necessary – it’s law. And if it came to the point of armed insurrection (which is a tinfoil hat possibility in my book, thanks to the Constitution) you’re going to see a LOT of military and law enforcement folks decide their loyalties lie with the people, because they have just as much to lose being citizens themselves.

@BrainGlutton

Do you think that when John Ashcroft sent the PATRIOT Act to Congress, he lost any sleep over the possibility that true patriots with weapons would somehow obstruct its enforcement? Anyone who tried would shortly lose all his or her civil rights, and by due process of law at that. You know it, I know it, and Ashcroft knows it.

I believe that the Patriot Act will die as soon as President Bush is out of office, either by vote or term limit. If it somehow sticks beyond that, the kind of government that grows out of it will be exactly the type that would want to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

@BrainGlutton

An important difference between the First Amendment and the Second Amendment: The right to free speech is one you can actually exercise, and you can do your country some good, and probably more good than harm, by exercising it.

Are rights something you have, or only have when you exercise them? Do I have the right to speak freely even if I don’t use it? Do I have the right to vote even if I choose to sit at home and watch Football instead of going to the polls? Rights aren’t verbs, they are nouns.

@Brainglutton

But you can exercise your right to bear arms – “exercise” in the sense of using your weapons rather than merely keeping them in a case – only by:

1. Shooting animals, for food or for sport.
2. Shooting, or threatening to shoot, dangerous criminals who are endangering you.
3. Actually being a dangerous criminal and shooting, or threatening to shoot, your victims.
4. Shooting, or threatening to shoot, agents of the government.
   The first two of these are relatively harmless and defensible. The second two are . . . not.

3 and 4 are most definitely against the law, and laws are in place to punish offenders. They aren’t terribly effective, and most importantly someone is either injured or dead. This is the part of the equation that needs to be fixed. But I say again that the answer isn’t to repeal the 2nd Amendment, and so far you haven’t done much to refute my points except to paint me as some kind of Ruby Ridge wannabe. :dubious:

EZ

[ElectricZ]

Whew – spend a few minutes typing and you miss a half dozen posts! Apologies if I skipped over anything…

EZ

[silenus]

@BrainGlutton

And the Soviet people weren’t armed, were they? They didn’t have to fight the Red Army; all they had to do was get up in their faces and yell at them. It worked.

Actually, it worked quite well. I’ve never been one to claim that I needed to be heavily armed to repel Canadian Invaders Bent On Raping Our Womenfolk, or to Teach The Gummint A Lesson. I don’t need to be armed at all. I choose to be armed, and until someone can convince me that there is a valid reason for me not to possess this freedom, I shall remain so armed. What other people do with guns is irrelevant - mine have never harmed anybody. Prove that they have, and you might have a case. Until you can do that…

[SnakeSpirit]

@BrainGlutton

I really can’t imagine any plausible scenario, in America, where the local police would be on one side of the barricades and the federal troops on the other. Anyhow, it makes no difference. In such a scenario, the Army would win and the police would lose. Remember who has the tanks and the flamethrowers.

Sorry, friend; I disagree.

I was in VietNam, where the USA had bombers, flame throwers, tanks, APC’s, BIG artillery, a greater variety of weapons, better resupply, choppers, Snoopy, .50 cal MG’s (even mounted on jeeps), mine detectors, psychics, night scopes, ad infinitum. The police had a keen sense of how the wind was blowing, and acted accordingly.

We LOST. Or, under a great number of pressures at home and abroad, we quit. In any case, Ho and his NVArmy, aided by"A well-regulated militia" called the Viet Cong, won.

Although the demise was speeded by Uncle Ho’s invading armies, I don’t doubt the VC alone, with unconventional warfare, would have eventually won.

@BrainGlutton

Personal ownership of firearms does absolutely nothing to protect the people from government tyranny.

No. It does not offer absolute protection, but it does offer protection, and it is the only thing that practically speaking, does offer that protection.

[SnakeSpirit]

@Filli

Which is why I’m involved with the new Congressional 2nd Amendment Caucus, so that arguments such as these shall become moot.
Please visit us at http://wwwc.house.gov/musgrave/108th%20Web/pr_040426_2ndAmendmentCaucus.htm

Thanks for that cite and link. Perhaps you (or someone, if you don’t come back (though I’m betting you will)), will explain to us what it means if such a caucus succeeds, what if it fails?

@Filli

Frankly, Snakespirit, I think you are a hopeless idealist.

You’re probably right. I thought about this comment a lot. Still thinking, it’s invasive.

btw, I do think you’ll be back. This website has a lot to offer and it’s very addictive.

[akennett]

@BrainGlutton

Just because the United States owed its independence to an insurrection does not mean that the United States Constitution should be construed so as to authorize insurrection, in any sense, under any circumstances. See Article I, Section 9: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Of course the government will maintain that it has the authority to quell rebellions, but that has no bearing on the right of the citizens to rebel. Furthermore, to claim that an article of the Constitution can modify a subsequent amendment is ludicrous. If there is a conflict between the two, and I do not think there is, it would have to be resolved in favor of the amendment.

But when the Framers attended the Constitutional Convention in 1787, they were drafting a blueprint for a political system that was intended to last indefinitely. “The Constitution is not a suicide pact,” etc.

Yes, they thought the Constitution would last indefinitely, just as those who drafted the Articles of Confederation did. The Constitution itself, and therefore the government it created, is a result of a revolt against the legitimate government under the AoC. It may have been bloodless, but it was a coup.

Furthermore, the “insurrectionary theory” of the Second Amendment depends on the assumption that the “well-regulated militia” is intended to be, not an arm of the state, but a countervailing popular force against the state – or else a force of the state governments against the federal.

And it wasn’t? The debates surrounding the ratification of the Constitution make it clear that the individual rights theory, and the “insurrectionary theory” is exactly what the people as a whole desired. Federalists and Anti-federalists all agreed on this point. It is hard to believe that in the few short years between that argument and the ratification of the Bill of Rights that the prevailing mood would shift so sharply.

“To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” – Richard Henry Lee writing in letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788)

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.” --Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government” – Thomas Jefferson

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” – Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” – Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court

“Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” – Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788

“Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” – “M.T. Cicero”, in a newspaper letter of 1788

“…what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Col. William S. Smith, 1787

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” – Patrick Henry, speech of June 5 1788

There is no contemporary historical evidence that the first version is what the drafters of the Bill of Rights had in mind. And any argument based on the second version is very much a dead letter ever since 1865, and rightly so.

Quite to the contrary, it is exactly the first version, that the second amendment preserved an individual right to bear arms including, if necessary, against the government, that the framers of the Bill of Rights intended. I submit that you will find no evidence to the contrary.

Furthermore, the failure of the secession of the Confederate States in no way lessens the right we all have to rebel against the government. It certainly shows that it will be a hard fight, and that it will likely take more than a sectional difference to accomplish a successful revolt, but that is all.

[silenus]

The Constitutions of most of our states (and of The United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that is their right and duty to be at all times armed. – Thomas Jefferson

[SnakeSpirit]

This has come up a couple of times in reference to case law, where the keeping and bearing of arms has been interpreted to mean arms that are suitable for a militia to use in a defensive situation.

Yet, we have the Firearms Act of 1934 banning possession of machine-guns, and the “Assault Weapons” Ban of 1994 banning semi-automatic weapons that have at least three of a number of features, like a large magazine, a flash suppressor, a bayonet lug, a folding stock or a pistol grip.

Seems to me that if I were in a militia, those would be exactly the kinds of weapons that would be appropriate.

[SnakeSpirit]

CNS News says in a recent (May 5) article that the police chief wants more laws. Yet with the most restrictive laws in the nation, the gun-related violent crime rate is the highest!
Meanwhile, two womens groups, one pro-gun, one anti-gun, are facing off to promote their sides of the issue.

[Mtgman]

@Snakespirit

This has come up a couple of times in reference to case law, where the keeping and bearing of arms has been interpreted to mean arms that are suitable for a militia to use in a defensive situation.

Yet, we have the Firearms Act of 1934 banning possession of machine-guns, and the “Assault Weapons” Ban of 1994 banning semi-automatic weapons that have at least three of a number of features, like a large magazine, a flash suppressor, a bayonet lug, a folding stock or a pistol grip.

Seems to me that if I were in a militia, those would be exactly the kinds of weapons that would be appropriate.

If you join a well-regulated militia those are exactly the [types of weapon you will be issued](http://www.accesskansas.org/ksadjutantgeneral/Assets/Pics/Image Archive/KSARNG Equipment/Kansas Army National Guard Equipment.htm)(bottom three items). In the meantime, you have the freedom to purchase other weapons for personal use as long as they are suitable according to the laws of your area. If your militia needs you to carry a M16A2, they’ll issue you one. That’s all part of the “well regulated” bit. Fully-Automatic weapons stay on base or are issued to people actively serving. As a member of the unorganized militia(basically all the able-bodied men) you are free to carry a weapon of your choice from among the lists of weapons deemed safe for use in the segment of the militia that is dispersed among the general populace. Moreover, you can use it for hunting, or other non-militia purposes, instead of having to keep it in a gun safe until you’re activated. Of course you’re also required to pay for it and its upkeep, but that’s the trade off for being able to use a weapon for non-militia purposes.

Enjoy,
Steven

[ExTank]

Silensus:

The collective argument, as upheld in the courts, generally goes something like “the States have the right to maintain militias.” These are assumed to be the National Guard. SCOTUS has never ruled on the 2nd Amendment very specifically, and really, neither the gun-grabbers nor the NRA want it to. As long as the issue is up for grabs, both sides get headlines, donations, power as lobbyists, and the illusion that they are the side “Blessed By God.” If SCOTUS ever gave a definitive ruling, one group would be out of business. So it behooves both sides to fight the battle on a lower level. Think Vietnam vs MAD. Do you think Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton want a color-blind America? Hell, no! They’d have to go back to selling used cars if that happened. Same thing with HCI & the NRA.

Hey, buddy, that’s my line. Get your own platform.

Actually, I’m slightly less cynical; I just think both sides are afraid of being proven definitively wrong by a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court.

Personally, I could give a rip. I’m not giving up my firearms under any circumstances. Period. “Cold, dead fingers,” and all that.

The less one makes definitive statements, the less one is apt to look the fool. Dude, you just told the Gun Police that:

A) You have guns, which is (yet) no big deal; and
B) You’ll go down swinging

Bad idea. Real bad.

BTW: I’m somewhere between Alec Baldwin and Ft. Hood, Texas.

Brain Glutton: the only thing your pithy quote from a movie shows is that hypothetically, when confronted with potentially hostile extraterrestrials, more than a two-duck gun is necessary.

Was it your intention to quote a cite that reinforces the negative stereotype of gun owners as mean, stupid provincials?

In any case, look at all of the trouble being caused by Iraqi militias; the only problem with their methodology is that they are in a hurry to die while killing American Infidel Invaders, and thus gain instant admission to Allah’s Heavenly Paradise ™. God help the U.S. Military if those fuckers ever wise up and decide they want to live beyond a single, glorious firefight with us Western Demons.

Leave the tactical thinking to someone qualified and trained a bit to do so.

3. Actually being a dangerous criminal and shooting, or threatening to shoot, your victims.

4. Shooting, or threatening to shoot, agents of the government.

Please cite any court case supporting a right to keep and bear for this purpose. Please cite a quote from any pro-rights organization that supports the rights of gun ownership for criminal purposes or for use against agents of the government discharging their lawfull and appointed duties.

Tin Foil Hat, wear thyself.

Oh, your forgot one:

5. Shooting holes in targets, or blowing clay pigeons out of the sky, or shooting pins, or any other recreational target shooting.

Snakespirit:

Seems to me that if I were in a militia, those would be exactly the kinds of weapons that would be appropriate.

Again, I made this point years ago, right here on this very board. Maybe you’ll actually get an answer from the anti-forces this time, or perhaps a legal explanation from Minty concerning the apparent contradiction between U.S. v. Miller, the definitive gun-control case in the U.S., the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Assault Weapons Bans.

The only thing I’ve gotten from the legal eagles is that the law is what the lawyers and courts say it is, not what us common rabble read it to be. I rather get the impression from the Nomenklatura that they are quite affronted that the common citizen should even express an opinion, much less try to marshall facts, in defense of their rights.

But I dunno. Maybe my thinking is being interfered with by Tin Foil Hats. It’s as handy a label as any to disparage anyone who disagrees with you on an issue.

Off Topic:

To Minty (and anyone else who has had the Message Board Monster eat their replies before or during posting):

Compose your replies in a separate window (I find e-mail works; even if my browser crashes in the middle of a composition, it saves the e-mail), perhaps a Word document, Word Pad, etc. When finished, C & P the reply to the Reply screen. Preview and edit as necessary. Make sure you C & P your edited version back to whatever separate program you are using to compose your reply, in case the message gets eaten during the editing process.

While it may be just a tad bit more time consuming (but not terribly so), this nonetheless helps eliminate all of those pesky “I had a lenghty, detailed reply to your post, but the Message Board ate it, so just believe me when I tell you that you’re wrong.”

[ExTank]

AARRGGHH! I should take my own advice!

Silensus: Actually, I’m slightly less cynical; I just think both sides are afraid of being proven definitively wrong by a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court. I ascribe less motive to financial gain and political power than you, having met some of the “movers-and-shakers” of the pro-gun movement.

[Mtgman]

@ExTank

[RE: military-grade weapons as personal property] Again, I made this point years ago, right here on this very board. Maybe you’ll actually get an answer from the anti-forces this time, or perhaps a legal explanation from Minty concerning the apparent contradiction between U.S. v. Miller, the definitive gun-control case in the U.S., the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Assault Weapons Bans.

The only thing I’ve gotten from the legal eagles is that the law is what the lawyers and courts say it is, not what us common rabble read it to be. I rather get the impression from the Nomenklatura that they are quite affronted that the common citizen should even express an opinion, much less try to marshall facts, in defense of their rights.

Well, I’m no legal eagle, but I gave it a shot in my previous reply. Basically that the regulations of the “well-regulated militia” are different based on if you’re part of the National Guard or just in the unorganized militia. A weapon suitable for use by a member of the unorganized militia is a non-assault weapon. This weapon may also be used for hunting, skeet shooting, etc. A weapon suitable for use by a member of the organized militia is of the assault weapon variety and is limited to use within the performance of those duties as an active militia member.

Could you specify a little more about conflict between US v. Miller and the Gun Control act of 1968 or the Assault Weapons bans? Miller was heard in 1939. I am unaware of any cases heard by the SC on grounds that the gun control acts violate the law as interpreted in Miller. Any leads you can give me as to what the specific conflict is?

BTW, good to see you again. You doing ok in St. Louis? We’ve missed you here in Dallas, and I believe minty still owes you a beer or three.

Enjoy,
Steven

[minty_green]

@ExTank

To Minty (and anyone else who has had the Message Board Monster eat their replies before or during posting):

Compose your replies in a separate window (I find e-mail works; even if my browser crashes in the middle of a composition, it saves the e-mail), perhaps a Word document, Word Pad, etc. When finished, C & P the reply to the Reply screen. Preview and edit as necessary. Make sure you C & P your edited version back to whatever separate program you are using to compose your reply, in case the message gets eaten during the editing process.

While it may be just a tad bit more time consuming (but not terribly so), this nonetheless helps eliminate all of those pesky “I had a lenghty, detailed reply to your post, but the Message Board ate it, so just believe me when I tell you that you’re wrong.”

The board works so well these days that I’ve fallen out of the habit of copying my posts into memory every paragraph or so. It was inevitable that it would come back to bite me in the butt one day.

As for the disappearing post, the substance of it remains. What is missing now is an extensive selection of quotes from the cases cited on the NRA website demonstrating what they were actually about (i.e., not about individual vs. collective rights) and occasionally even lending some rhetorical support to the collective rights reading.

[minty_green]

@ExTank

Maybe you’ll actually get an answer from the anti-forces this time, or perhaps a legal explanation from Minty concerning the apparent contradiction between U.S. v. Miller, the definitive gun-control case in the U.S., the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Assault Weapons Bans.

There’s not a whole lot of law on point, as you might have guessed, and none at all from the Supreme Court. My cursory reading of the case law suggests that what the courts look for from the defendant is proof that the particular gun control measure conflicts with the maintenance of the militia. E.g., the following annotations:

Since defendant failed to present any evidence indicating conflict between record keeping requirements of Gun Control Act of 1968, and maintenance of well regulated militia, statute would not be held to violate Second Amendment. United States v Decker (1971, CA8 Mo) 446 F2d 164.

Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (18 USCS § 922 and § 924) which makes it illegal to transfer or possess machine gun does not violate Second Amendment since statute exempts from prohibition persons acting under authority of state or United States; further, conviction of individual for violating statute did not violate Second Amendment since individual failed to show that his possession of regulated weapons bore reasonable relationship to preservation or efficiency of well-regulated militia. United States v Farrell (1995, CA8 Ark) 69 F3d 891, cert den (1996, US) 134 L Ed 2d 228, 116 S Ct 1283.

Federal criminal gun-control law which outlawed possession of automatic weapons did not impair states’ ability to maintain well-regulated militia, and therefore law did not violate Second Amendment. United States v Haney (2001, CA10 Okla) 264 F3d 1161, 2001 Colo J C A R 4447.

Since, as Mtgman points out, state national guard units all supply their soldiers with their own weapons these days, it is difficult to imagine how federal gun control measures would impair the militia and thereby violate the 2nd Amendment.

That approach does not conflict with Miller, by the way. Miller held that the 2nd Am. does not apply to weapons that are not suitable for militia use; it did not hold that weapons that are suitable for militia use are automatically protected by the Second Amendment.

[ExTank]

It’s Friday, Two-For-One Day, so here goes:

Mtgman: I don’t care for St. Louis, and miss Texas greatly. Wish I was there.

U.S. v. Miller certainly implied, by addressing the issue of “instrumentality” in determining suitability for protection under the 2nd Amendment, that those weapons suitable for military (or paramilitary?) use were therefore suitable for militia use as well.

Yet the Gun Control Act of 1968 then introduced “sporting purposes” guidelines for firearms. Given the socio-political upheaval of the 1960’s, this is not entirely surprising, either then or now.

Then we factor in the various incremental restrictions upon automatic weaponry since the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, in spite of the fact that the only violent crime committed with a legally owned fully automatic weapon since the passage of the National Firearm Act was committed by a law enforcement officer in an act of domestic violence. Of course there have been dozens, if not hundreds of law-abiding owners of fully-automatic weapons owners who have run afoul of ever-changing “administrative procedures.”

What is disturbing to the pro-gun movement is this incremental incursion, especially into areas where there seems to be no need or reason for enhanced restriction. For instance, under one of the earlier definitions of “assault weapons,” a class of weapons was called for enhanced restriction, when the then-Director of the BATF testified before Congress that these weapons were used in less than 2% of violent crime.

If violent crime reduction was the goal, wouldn’t it be more intelligent from a standpoint of resource allocation to direct law enforcement and restriction efforts at a much wider scope of persons or weapons? Why squander millions of man-hours and billions of dollars on enforcement efforts that will yield no appreciable result? If violent crime reduction is not the goal of the assault weapons ban, then what is?

These are not paranoid ravings; these are legitimate concerns of tax-paying citizens and civil libertarians.

It is the very tactic of “chipping away” at the periphery of the “gun culture” the belies the pro-control movement’s claim at only being inerested in reducing violence. Coupled with ephemeral and often contradictory “standards” (military use, militia use, sporting purposes) in current and proposed legislation and a reluctance on the part of the highest court in the land to resolve this fairly divisive issue, it does not take a monumental leap of intelligence or imagination to understand why gun owners and pro-gun types are so alarmed.

What is even more distressing is that those whose role (either appointed or proclaimed) it is
to uphold civil liberty will fight tooth-and-nail over any other issue, however trivial, in the Bill of Rights. Except this one