The right to bear arms

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Crane

Thanks for the thoughtful and learned discussion above. I’m sure that is all correct.

However, were the Founders here today, I am certain they would not be in favor of arming a now diverse, urban, unregulated population with long range, rapid firing, magazine fed, semi-automatic weapons.

Crane

You know those guys were revolutionaries right?

Or are you saying that they were also racists so they would want to limit the second amendment to white land owning men?

[septimus]

@MEBuckner

The potentially lethal narcissistic demagogue who is now President of the United States didn’t get elected because his supporters used “assault weapons” to shoot everyone and seize power. Trump gained power through forms of free speech that were totally inconceivable to the Founding Fathers–talk radio, cable news (Fox News), the Internet (Breitbart), and Twitter. You do free speech no favors by claiming that free speech is just some harmless right without consequences, and therefore it’s OK to let the rubes have their free speech (but not guns, 'cause someone could get hurt with those!).

Free speech (especially–but not only–the 21st century forms of free speech that exist in the Electronic Age) in the hands of a demagogue who cares about nothing and nobody but himself is incredibly dangerous–just check the news. It’s just that the solutions to that problem, other than more free speech, are also incredibly dangerous.

Good point. The First Amendment — specifically the right to spend million blaring lies 24/7 with no risk of slander or perjury charges — is doing far FAR more damage to America than the Second Amendment.

Unfortunately, as you say, there’s no easy solution.

[Crane]

Agreed, the world has changed. I believe the Founders, in our modern context, would limit the availability of weapons to those who need them for some useful purpose.

An armed insurrection would be quickly eliminated. This was illustrated by the government response to the recent incident in Oregon. Had government organization and weaponry been unleashed the insurrectionists would simply have been vaporized by a couple of drones. Private gun ownership has nothing to do with our form of government.

This is the communication age.

Crane

[Revenant_Threshold]

Apologies for my late reply; health issues.

@Abatis

The idea goes back a couple thousand years, to Aristotle. Aristotle’s form of government included a large middle class in which each citizen fulfilled all three functions of self legislation, arms bearing and working.

Aristotle criticizes the constitution of Plato’s Laws because, despite its suffrage, it was oligarchical, one of its central features was a disarmed populace. According to Aristotle, “there are many things which Socrates left undetermined; are farmers and craftsmen to have no share in government . . .? Are they or are they not to possess arms . . .?”

Were Plato’s Laws designed with a republic in mind? Because if so, this is a refutation of your point.

It was further explained in the treatises of Locke, Sidney, Montesquieu and Rousseau, which had a more immediate impact on the founders / framers.

Useful, but you actually do need to cite these things.

It isn’t expressing a “new” reason. You need to remember the impetus and origin of the provisions of the Bill of Rights.

I think you need to re-look at what you’ve written here regarding the impetus and origins of this (at the time) new Bill of Rights, continuing on to discuss the new situations provided by this new understanding and compromise. We’re certainly talking about primers on Constitutional interpretation… *and *substantive claims of liberty.

And that you feel that way proves that the Federalists arguments against adding a bill of rights were on point.

Read that one again; I don’t feel that we can assume poor writing on the part of the founders, otherwise my prior points would make no sense.

Over time, Madison’s “1% of the total population” has proven to be the limit of government’s ability to maintain / provide for a standing army. As Madison noted that is “1/25th the number able to bear arms” with (in 1788) 3/4 of them “having arms in their hands”.

Proven by what? Law?

I am just relating the arguments of Madison. The conflict between the federal and state governments and between all government and the citizen was an all encompassing theme of the Constitution and bill of rights ratification period. The idea of a general militia was always geared towards resisting oppressive government action and defending the liberty of the people.

That’s extremely worrying. You mean that at no point did people conceive of the idea that an armed populace could rise up oppressively, or to remove the liberty of the people? The idea was “always geared” in the way you describe? That seems remarkably blinkered. I have to admit, I find it hard to believe that the idea was always geared so; surely someone, at some point, thought “Hey, you know, an armed militia could in theory do some bad shit.” or some such?

The difference in America was the acceptance of self-evident truths that the government is instituted to protect the inherent rights of the people and it is a duty of the people to throw off any government that violates the principles of its establishment.

That’s not actually a difference, given that those things if written directly into the law would not stop dictators or popular oppressive uprisings (and it would a bad thing if they were, don’t get me wrong), and they aren’t, anyway.

I would suggest you read Federalist 84. The 2nd Amendment (along with the 1st) is a redundant prohibition on government re-affirming that it can not exercise powers it was never granted.

Wait, now you’re agreeing that it’s redundant? Ok.

As Hamilton said in Federalist 84, arguing that adding a bill of rights to the constitution was unnecessary, dangerous and absurd:

[INDENT]“I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”[/INDENT]

The argument was, government can only legitimately exercise the express powers granted to it and only to perform the duties assigned to it. The action of listing various liberty interests NOT included in the compact, would lead some to think that a power can be conjured to impact those interests through inventive reading of the provisions intended only to bind government – and that those interests not listed fall within the domain of government.

IOW, If you hire a handyman and assign him just the tacks of a handyman, do you really need to tell him he can’t dictate to you what you can read, or what you can say or what God you can worship or what gun you can own?

Oh, that’s a bad shift of the point. You moved from an interpretation of fears of an affirmative declaration of liberties of the populace (since that may provide pretext for removing them) to fears of the results of an affirmative declaration of the constraints of the government. And that’s a big difference; it’s the point on which we seem to be disagreement on. There is a massive difference between “this law says the people can now do this thing” and “this law says the government can never take away the right to do this thing”.

Your handyman analogy fails on that point. We’re not talking about assumed rights; we’re talking about an affirmative constraint on him. A better analogy would be if, in our contract for his work, I wanted a section ensuring he could not unilaterally charge me more for the work we’ve agreed he’ll do. It is an additional defense to protect me; on his part, he would have signed his name to declare that defense.

We see the Federalist fears come alive WRT the 2nd Amendment . . . the inventive readings and redefining of words, trying to invent power where none exists, is exactly why the Federalists resisted adding a bill of rights.

No, not really. Absent the 2nd, there’s nothing protecting that"inventive readings and redefining", not even words. Absent the 2nd, you don’t need to re-interpret - you can just interpret.

Feel free to personally reject the concept of inherent rights but in the USA we have a contract that demands all government to treat our fundamental rights as originating from another plane, above the legislative actions of man.

True enough.

I find it interesting that you make mention of the 9th Amendment in one breath and then denounce the singular principle it exists to explain in the next breath . . .

Why? I disagree with the concept; nevertheless, it is recognised in law. I’m not Christian, and yet there is a person called a Pope. I’m philosophically opposed to drinking alcohol personally, and yet, there are bars.

There is nothing particularly interesting about believing or not believing something personally and yet recognising that others think the opposite. What are those ominous . . .'s about?

[Weisshund]

@Crane

Agreed, the world has changed. I believe the Founders, in our modern context, would limit the availability of weapons to those who need them for some useful purpose.

No, they wouldn’t, they would venomously disagree with you.
These were not stupid men, these were not men who could not look back on history and see the world changes.
They knew of changes past, they made changes present, they knew untold changes would come in future.

They made the constitution purposely so it could be immune to time

An armed insurrection would be quickly eliminated. This was illustrated by the government response to the recent incident in Oregon. Had government organization and weaponry been unleashed the insurrectionists would simply have been vaporized by a couple of drones. Private gun ownership has nothing to do with our form of government.

This is the communication age.

Crane

That is not an armed national insurrection. (not even a local one)
Be real huh?

200 million people telling the government that it has over stepped its boundaries and has ceased to further serve it’s intended purpose and that it needs to step down.
The government refusing to abide by the will of that majority, and so 200 million People being forced to take up arms and actions against the now unlawful government.

There is your armed national insurrection
Vaporize that with a drone.

[PatrickLondon]

@Weisshund

They made the constitution purposely so it could be immune to time

But if it were capable of producing a government so oppressive as to require an armed insurrection against it, wouldn’t that indicate that there might be something sufficiently wrong with it to invalidate all of its provisions anyway?

[Alessan]

If the Constitution is designed to be immune to time, why does it have a mechanism for amendments?

[Crane]

When the second amendment was created all able bodied male citizens formed the basis of the militia. They were the substitute for a standing army.

Today .5% of the able bodied population serves in the military. The militia system has been discredited and we have a standing army. The second amendment is vestigial.

Armed insurrection in the US failed with the civil war. A large, well organized, professionally led army attacked the Constitutional government and failed. A modern disorganized armed rabble would not have a chance. It would just create terror within the country before being eliminated.

The Founders correctly addressed the needs of a different time. They would do the same today and there would be nothing as sweeping as the second amendment.

Crane

[sear]

"Agreed, the world has changed. I believe the Founders, in our modern context, would limit the availability of weapons to those who need them for some useful purpose.

An armed insurrection would be quickly eliminated. This was illustrated by the government response to the recent incident in Oregon. Had government organization and weaponry been unleashed the insurrectionists would simply have been vaporized by a couple of drones. Private gun ownership has nothing to do with our form of government.

This is the communication age.

Crane #103

Is this an “original intent” argument?
You may be right.

But that in turn raises a more fundamental question.

Even if you are right: so what?
What matters is not what they intended.
What matters in 2017 is what the literal meaning of the words in the law mean.

“… shall not be infringed.” 2A

If that’s bad law, then we should change the law.
Implementing hypocrisy in law:
stating one thing,
but enforcing another:
BAD IDEA!!

Yet that is the status quo.
Gun registration is one thing.
Gun registration application that can be declined is another.

How can an unalienable right possibly be declined / rejected?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Weisshund

200 million people telling the government that it has over stepped its boundaries and has ceased to further serve it’s intended purpose and that it needs to step down.
The government refusing to abide by the will of that majority, and so 200 million People being forced to take up arms and actions against the now unlawful government.

There is your armed national insurrection
Vaporize that with a drone.

If 200 million people were prepared to take up arms to change the government then, long before that, 200 million people would vote to change the system. Neat how that works.

Gun advocates seem to have this weird notion that the populace will rise up as one mind to affect change.

What they forget is you are not likely to ever get 200 million people to be of one mind on most any subject. I recall supporters of Cliven Bundy were in-fighting and they went there with a common cause. Look at the utter mess that followed the French revolution. The populace overthrew the existing government and then they were at each others throats for years after.

If 200 million people rise up with weapons to overthrow the government then all bets are off; the United States of America is gone. You will have anarchy and what comes out of it is anyone’s guess. It would be a horror show.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@sear

How can an unalienable right possibly be declined / rejected?

What makes having a gun an inalienable right?

Was it an inalienable right to have a gun in 500 B.C.?

When the first gun was invented did the inalienable right for everyone to have one poof into existence?

Are countries where gun ownership is severely restricted denying inalienable rights to their citizens?

[sear]

“What makes having a gun an inalienable right?” WM #111

The right of self-defense.
Were it otherwise there’d be an unalienable right of assault and plunder.

There isn’t.

“Was it an inalienable right to have a gun in 500 B.C.?”

Yes.
And if you’re trying to leverage irony on chronology, leverage this:

The Chinese invented gun powder long before guns were invented.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

“When the first gun was invented did the inalienable right for everyone to have one poof into existence?”

Nope.
Rights precede the means to defend them.

We don’t have laser pistols yet. But when we do, 2A enshrines our right to use them to defend ourselves.

“Are countries where gun ownership is severely restricted denying inalienable rights to their citizens?”

Yes.

And I’m not endorsing one over the other here.

National gun “bans*” such as in Australia & Canada may reduce the per capita attrition rate.
My comments address U.S. law, as Art.6 Sect.2 confirms.

• understood

[Weisshund]

@Whack-a-Mole

If 200 million people were prepared to take up arms to change the government then, long before that, 200 million people would vote to change the system. Neat how that works.

Neat, and it should work in a perfect world, except we are not always collectively that bright and could be drawn along into something that seemed good at first and not realize until it had gotten well into place that it is rotten.

And then it probably wont be too agreeable to stepping down, it will have to be forcibly removed.

Gun advocates seem to have this weird notion that the populace will rise up as one mind to affect change.

They will.
It wont be some SciFy movie thing where it happens in 48 hours, that is a silly notion, but they will

What they forget is you are not likely to ever get 200 million people to be of one mind on most any subject. I recall supporters of Cliven Bundy were in-fighting and they went there with a common cause. Look at the utter mess that followed the French revolution. The populace overthrew the existing government and then they were at each others throats for years after.

If 200 million people rise up with weapons to overthrow the government then all bets are off; the United States of America is gone. You will have anarchy and what comes out of it is anyone’s guess. It would be a horror show.

Our Revolution and Independence was not exactly a text book cake walk, but we have something already together to use now, that we had to create then.
We have a solid framework to work from, we are not throwing it out, not the baby with the bath water.
Our constitution and such did not fail, the government had failed to represent and honor it.

It’s the failed government that we would be reforming and reviewing where it went wrong, and where we went wrong in ultimately allowing it to get that far.
We rebuild it to better represent the constitution country and people.

Anarchy? no why?
The United States is not gone, only it’s current federal government.
Then we hopefully correct flaws and mistakes and try to reform a better version.
Won’t be a cake walk, but democracy isn’t a cake walk, it’s hard.
It is fragile and flawed and imperfect and a bitch to get running right, but until someone invents functional utopia…

[Whack-a-Mole]

@sear

The right of self-defense.

The right to self defense in no way equates to a right to have a gun.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Weisshund

Anarchy? no why?

If you have 200 million people taking up arms against the government then the government is defunct.

Further, if 200 million people take up arms that includes liberals and conservatives (yes, there are gun owners who are liberals…quite a lot actually). Once the government is knocked out there are going to be some violent disagreements about what comes next.

The writing of the Articles of Confederacy and then the Constitution were pretty rowdy affairs. We all assume it was a calm and sober process but it wasn’t. They fought each other with zeal (literally in some cases).

This magic notion of the populace coming together to end an evil government is a pipe dream.

[Weisshund]

@Whack-a-Mole

What makes having a gun an inalienable right?

The right to defend
If i have a gun and you have a stick, you aren’t defending, you are running.

Was it an inalienable right to have a gun in 500 B.C.?

Yes, but in 500BC a gun was called a sword or spear or bow, that was the “Arms” du jour, today the Arms du jour are firearms

When the first gun was invented did the inalienable right for everyone to have one poof into existence?

No it was already there and has always been.
The right to be able to bear arms to defend yourself.
If i have rocks and you have a fist, you have the right to rocks, you can not defend yourself well with unequal arms, that would not be a right, it would be a limitation.

Are countries where gun ownership is severely restricted denying inalienable rights to their citizens?

Is there anyone in the country that could and would assault them with a gun?
If the answer is absolutely no, and the people have just as good as what they may be attacked with?

If that is the case then i would say no, nothing was denied.
But i know of no such country, it would have to be isolated in a bubble, probably on another planet or another time.

[Weisshund]

@Whack-a-Mole

If you have 200 million people taking up arms against the government then the government is defunct.

Further, if 200 million people take up arms that includes liberals and conservatives (yes, there are gun owners who are liberals…quite a lot actually). Once the government is knocked out there are going to be some violent disagreements about what comes next.

The writing of the Articles of Confederacy and then the Constitution were pretty rowdy affairs. We all assume it was a calm and sober process but it wasn’t. They fought each other with zeal (literally in some cases).

This magic notion of the populace coming together to end an evil government is a pipe dream.

Who assumes it was a calm and sober process?
History does not write it as a calm and sober process unless you consider some now humorous event of fist fighting and such calm and sober, so how could anyone assume it.
Those at least we do not have to do again.

And of course there is going to be disagreements on how to reform it, a lot of disagreements, welcome to democracy, but it will get done

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Weisshund

Yes, but in 500BC a gun was called a sword or spear or bow, that was the “Arms” du jour, today the Arms du jour are firearms

So, in your view, you should be allowed to buy a tank or missile or nuke.

If the measure is ability to defend oneself then you need the right to have any weapon made. Right?

[Weisshund]

@Whack-a-Mole

So, in your view, you should be allowed to buy a tank or missile or nuke.

If the measure is ability to defend oneself then you need the right to have any weapon made. Right?

You do know you are kind of being silly now right?

You can not defend your self with a nuke, you can not defend anything with a nuke.
You can do 3 things with a nuke

1. Use it as a very nasty offensive weapon

2. Use your quantity as a means of making the other guy decide using his as an offensive weapon just isn’t worth it

3. Revenge

1 and 3 go together, and there are no men left standing after to defend anymore, and number 2, the other guy isn’t a guy, it’s a collective nation, and we also as a collective have nukes.

Again, it is not a defensive tool, i know you know that.
You can not defend the place you stand with a nuke, can not defend your town with a nuke, etc.

A tank you can get
It’s expensive, and they require a lot of work, and it gets more expensive.
Got $275,000 to blow? there is an M47 patton for sale right now, you will need extra funds to refit it though, and stamp it etc.
I don’t think you will get your defense value out of it though, unless you have some sort of land invasion come your way.

[sear]

It’s called “force multiplication”.

“The right to self defense in no way equates to a right to have a gun.” WM #114

So what did the U.S. Founders / Madison have in mind?
Target practice shooting beer cans off fence posts?

Guns are a potential force multiplier:

• Guns can not only empower the weak & frail over the strong and aggressive.

• Guns can also empower the few over the many.

“One bullet in the hands of a mentally unstable person or a convicted felon is one too many. Six bullets in the hands of a mother protecting her twin nine year olds may not be enough.” U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) [source: NBC-TV News 13/01/30]