I never have bought the notion that an armed citizenry is necessary to protect against tyranny. If so, then why are there so many free societies that don’t have guns in the hands of citizens? As for the Battle of Athens, such a situation today would be corrected by media coverage. The pen is mightier than the sword, and the camcorder is mightier than the pen.
The Founding Fathers certainly were familiar with 18th century weaponry. But I doubt they could have foreseen AK-47s, gang warfare, and organized crime. Had they could, I believe they would have made the relationship between the “right” to bear arms and the militia much clearer.
Unless you hold the opinion that you should be able to say absolutely anything (like shouting “I like to rape babies” in a maternity ward) there has to be some regulation of what is and is not permitted; wouldn’t the logical place to start negotiations be “tell us what you want to say and where you want to say it?”
For the second time, there is a difference between arms and ordnance. Learn the terminology, if you are going to dare to critique.
Generally, it refers to ‘the weapons of an individual soldier’, which is what you would expect to see in a milita.
There are militias other than the National Guard. For example, there is the New York Guard, which even has an air force and navy.
You show your ignorance. I shall now give you four more examples of reasons for gun ownership.
Collecting, sport, family history, and varmit eradication. Varmit eradication is not hunting, nor is it self protection. However, when swamp rats are tearing the throats out of the ducks at night, the ability to kill them when they do so is certainly handy.
Traps were ineffective, poison would kill the dogs, rabbits, and small children.
And as far as family history goes, there is a rifle that fought to free this country. Admittedly, it protected Rhode Island, but my great-4 grandfather served in the Revolutionary War. Nobody’s taking her away.
Don’t taze me, Bob. It’s only mightier when they care.
I’m pretty sure Ben Franklin knew about the Puckle Gun, the first step towards the machine gun. He was no fool, either. As far as gang warfare and organized crime? Pirates operated out of the US quite a bit. Privateers count as organized, I do think.
Not to mention the Barbary Pirates to be specific. There is nothing new under the sun.
George Allen will tell you that YouTube is a very formidable force indeed. If someone tried to intimidate voters today with guns, they’d be all over the net and in jail before they could spit.
Was it a private militia that eventually took down the pirates, or was it people acting on behalf of the government? Even then, some of the private citizens that received commissions from the government to go after the pirates got just a mite overzealous and took up pirating themselves, so I really wouldn’t use them as a good example.
As I have mentioned before, this idea that individuals with firearms would in any way be effective in overthrowing a supposedly tyrannical government is just silly.
Most of them aren’t trained in the art of war.
Unlike during the start of our country, the weapons private citizens have are in no possible way equal to what the government has.
They are not organized in any recognizable “militia”.
You couldn’t get any decent percentage of them to agree on what type of government is “tyrannical” in the first place. If you were able to get a large number of people together to fight what you consider to be tyranny, you would probably end up fighting another group of citizens who consider your group to be terrorists. There is no private citizen-militia, there are only approximately three million individuals with firearms.
If you think there is any possible way to link up and coordinate all the private supposed “militias” that currently exist, I suggest you look into their backgrounds. More than a few of them are run by a-holes who wouldn’t be willing to give up the power to their little kingdoms for anything in the world, and if you gave most of them the authority to organize anything on a large enough scale to be a threat to our government, well, you’re going to get exactly what you deserve government-wise.
“Tin soldiers and Nixon coming, We’re finally on our own. This summer I hear the drumming. Four dead in Ohio.”
Remember the no-knock warrant served on the 98 year old grandmother, Bob? If the police have no reason to respect the citizen, they won’t.
A note on varmit shooting:
And I live in an area populated since 1646. We get bears and coyotes, still. Sometimes the bears get into the middle of a city. Generally, the black bear is a relatively placid individual, capable of being treed by a declawed cat.
Sometimes it isn’t.
There’s a half hour response time to my house on average from the police. We get rabid animals around here. Raccoons, generally. Small enough to hide, crazy enough to be a danger to people and pets alike. I see a rabid raccoon, I’m going to find someone to watch it and warn people off the street, call the police, then shoot it from a distance.
But, I’ll be honest, I don’t trust the cops at all. In my town, one got busted for selling weapons to crooks not too far back. They’re small town cops, I grew up with some of them, and they have their own opinions. Not all of which are bright and shiny.
But, you know, we’re getting into justification. No justification is needed here. It’s a right. It’s a partner right to free speech. And if you think it’s outmoded, how long has it been outmoded for? Since 1969? Since WWII? Since 1930? Since 1776?
I wouldn’t say all of them were. But I will say that Captain Kidd was framed. That said, if they didn’t have the training beforehand, they would have been pretty useless.
All the ones who served in the military are trained in the art of war. And you’d be surprised what private citizens have around. Legally. Or can build, given the urge. (I’ve got very simple plans for field artillery around somewhere from a field manual. Should work just fine. Mortars aren’t much more than a pipe and cap. Course, this was from when I was working on pyrotechnics, back when I was really interested in special effects.) As far as nukes… nukes are always problematic. (and theoretically, a high school kid all but built one the other month)
Some are, some aren’t. There’s no national organization, but there are local ones. Militia is a local solution to a problem anyhow. I see it as a relative strength.
True. I see that as a strength.
Oh, I do not doubt that in any way, shape, or form. Hell, half the people in my club are loonies.
But I consider militia solutions to local issues rather than a field army, anyhow. See: Battle of Athens. It’s not the feds you have to worry about. It’s the local cops who don’t give a crap about the law.
Well, you don’t see me petitioning for a right to own tanks, either, Czarcasm. Nor to run around shooting people, in regards to restrictions on free speech. I just have an eye to history, an opinion that any trend that has run for less than 200 years to be one that can be reversed, and a severe distrust of anyone who says they know what’s good for me better than I do.
I am serious about asking when people think the right to bear arms became outdated.
Whether it is outdated or not depends on the Supreme Court. I wouldn’t mind getting a final interpretation of the 2nd Amendment from them, and would obey whatever they finally agree on.
When it comes to our own history, it would help if people realized how incredibly lucky we were when we overthrew British rule using violence. If you look at the history of violent overthrow of government over the last couple of hundred years, it’s not a pretty sight, is it? It seems that tyranny is in the eye of the beholder, and not many “solutions” are much better than the perceived problems they replace and, more often than not, they turn out to be worse. One of the major strengths we have left in the U.S.A. is our stability-we can make deals and treaties with other countries because those we deal with know that the people they are dealing with won’t be assassinated or thrown in prison because a violent uprising has installed a new “Supreme Benevolent Leader”. Our economy is pretty much stable because our government is stable. Our military might is under control, not factionalized, because our government is stable. Our political process is under control(barring ocasional political catfights) because our government is stable. That stability is our safety and security.
If you think you have a right to overthrow a tyrannical government, first tell me two things:
What is a definition of “tyrannical” that you believe most people with weapons will rally behind?
What in the hell do you plan to replace it with? Who gets to decide? The militia with the most guns? The militia that has seized the industrial centers? Who? Once you decide that the answer to your problem lies with violence, you have taught those who might disagree with you how to argue with you.
There is no evidence at all that the conversation at the time concentrated on these rights discretely - they were debated as a whole and ratified as a whole.
They drew heavily on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was written in 1776 by George Mason and incorporated into the Virginia Constitution - a version of such is still binding law today in the Commonwealth as Article I.
As I said above, drafting a Bill of Rights of this exact type was a top priority of the First Congress. They responded with these ten amendments - all of which constrain state power so that it does not interfere unjustly with individual rights or overstep other bounds. Now, you may wish to limit debate here, but history shows that these matters were discussed at the same time, by the same people.
I think we’re intelligent enough to do the same, at least in a limited way. If you feel you can’t do so, of course you can opt out.
And if the Founding Fathers had forseen “Two Girls, One Cup,” I believe the First Amendment would be a little different, too.
The point, obviously, is that you cannot cherry-pick the standards you apply to reading amendments based on your personal belief in how society should operate. That’s the point of having written law: so that we may rely on a standard, not the whim of the ruler of the moment. If you are unwilling to apply your “If the authors of the text had foreseen ,” approach unflinchingly to the entire Constitution, please don’t trot it out here.
I think there’s a difference between being grossed out by a video that offends you and a police force finding itself outgunned by criminals toting weapons that have no legitimate sporting or personal protection use. Even if one were to believe, incorrectly in my view, in the individual right theory, there must be limits on what weaponry is available, taking into account the advances in technology.
I would consider it if the armed populace itself showed any signs of stability. I’m not convinced that “If you misbehave you will be assassinated” is better than “If you misbehave we will get off of our lazy asses and vote you out.”, and I’m pretty much sure the second method is more stable than the first. Tell me, if you would-which militia group would you trust to take over our government?
Sure – just as there are limits on speech and press. We cannot point to “free speech” as a defense to inciting immediate violence. We can’t shield obscenity with freedom of the press. Those are existing interpretations of the First Amendment, and I agree with them. In the same vein, I agree that not every restriction on any piece of destructive technology is a violation of the Second Amendment.
I AM saying, though, that the method of reading the two must be the same – you can’t clamp down tightly on the Second Amendment’s words and wave the First’s freely about…
That’s not quite right. They looked at each one discretely, which is why they rejected two of them (there were twelve original amendments proposed as a package).
And if we really want to consider historical context, we should consider those amendments which were proposed but not accepted as part of the package. If an amendment was proposed which explicitly gave a right to individuals to bear arms was rejected, would that affect your view of the issue?
I guess we’ve gotten off-topic, so I will offer a few thoughts of my own on the general subject of gun control laws:
I really hate the “but why do you NEED that” argument. In a free society, the burden should fall on those who propose a new restriction on peoples’ liberty to provide a compelling reason for that restriction. The burden should not fall on citizens to demonstrate a NEED for some right.
It’s a cliche, but I once saw a bumper sticker that said “What gun control law has ever reduced crime?” I think there’s a lot of truth to that. The obvious way to test gun control laws is to look at political regions both before and after some new gun control law goes into effect. Generally speaking, the laws don’t seem to have much effect.
Generally speaking, the pro-gun control crowd has a lot of jerks in it. Let me illustrate that with an example: One issue that has gotten a lot of attention in the past 10 years or so is so-called “nondiscretionary CCW” Basically, the idea is that if a person satisfies certain requirements, they must be issued a concealed carry permit. This seems sensible enough to me, and there’s plenty of history to show that this sort of legislation has little or no negative effect on crime. So how could any sane and reasonable person oppose such a law? And yet many pro-gun control people do. (I’m not trying to attack any individual posters on this board. It’s more of an attack on people like Diane Feinstein and Sarah Brady.)
The bottom line for me is that gun control would be a much more challenging issue if it actually worked.
