An article in the New Yorker. Very interesting historical context.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...amendment.html
Printable View
An article in the New Yorker. Very interesting historical context.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...amendment.html
Interesting! Thanks for that link.
Why depend on a modern-day opinion of what the amendment means when we have the founders and their contemporaries thoughts on the subject? Here are a few for consideration:
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)
"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646)
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense 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, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)
"...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" (from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2,)
"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 the 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. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights." (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston, 1833])
You could also take a look at the analysis contained in the recent US Supreme Court discussion of the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Me, frankly, I don't care about the Second Amendment. I think I have a fundamental right as a human being to defend myself from harm. And I don't think anyone has a moral right to use force to prevent me from using effective tools, as long as I am offering no harm to others.
From the article:
"...the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon."
The writer of the article makes the point that the Supreme Court et al frequently bend to the prevailing winds of politics, which is supposedly what happened in the seventies. I don't dispute that. The absurdity of the above quote makes the case most convincingly since it, was what was decided by the Court.
The Bill of Rights of the constitution was ratified in order to restrict or restrain the power of those in the Federal government because it was, and is, subservient to the states i.e. the sovereign nations which formed it (see Cooperative Federalism pdf). The Bill of Rights, if you notice the language, cannot confer rights, they acknowledge pre-existing rights and restrict those with whom some authority was not conferred, but delegated.
As I understand it, the constitution was drafted in the context of a largely self-reliant citizenry. They grew their own food, built houses, made clothes and protected their property; with deadly force if necessary. They did that against the British by forming militias. People = militias.
Isn't that very clear? Does it take a legal scholar to see this?
Local groups of responsible firearms owners acting in mutual cooperation were the fundemental front line against tyranny. Today the context has changed and Americans are frequently petrified at the sight of a gun, however the principle hasn't changed.
Interesting to note that even Gandhi opposed gun control.
And I'm sure Gandhi would also approve of hundred-round magazines, armor-piercing bullets, and fully automatic weapons whose only purpose is to kill other human beings.
It may be surprising to note that many Americans are not opposed to citizens owning a weapon for the procurement of food or for their own reasonable protection. I am a gun owner, responsible and educated, and a damned good shot to boot. It's the bastardization of this "right" that has created the insane gun-worship we live in currently, and creates the climate of fear we live in. Have a gun - protect your family if you feel you are threatened -- kill your food. This is our heritage. But those who collect numerous lethal weapons, who take time to research every gun-supporting quote on the internet, who lobby for the right to have more and more weapons, all they might desire, no matter their killing capacity, no matter the fact that they already have more than enough firepower in the closet to kill a hundred invaders?
These people are mentally ill, and it's time decent intelligent people called them out as such.
Xmas, you're a smart person. Rather that parroting the "gandhi opposed gun control" squawking so prevalent among the lovers of these devices that kill other human beings, you might want to dig deeper than just kneejerk protectionist propaganda to what he really said, and the historical context in which he said it. The quote gun-lovers go all a-tingle over actually refers to his objection to the British disarmament of the Indian Army. Gandhi never advocated the individual right to bear arms, let alone the NRA's obsession with legalizing any and all arms, as many as possible, and as lethal as possible. Nor did the Dalai Lama, another gross untruth the gun lobby loves to quote.
Does it take a historical scholar to see this?
No, they aren't ill. They are just different from you. Fun to label and dehumanize people though, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by puglogic
Quote from article.
And this is exactly where handguns should start, and end, in the home, not strapped to the belt-sides of every US citizen (while out in public).Quote:
Scalia conjured a rule that said D.C. could not ban handguns because “handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home
At any rate, just heard via the news (radio), that Joe Biden, has been appointed by President Obama, to lead a gun-control task force to implement new gun-control measures. About time!
Adding, the National Rifle Association, finally broke its silence on the school shootings Tuesday, with a statement that said, "it is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again."
Empty and meaningless words, from an empty and meaningless organization.
You know I've been called a lot of things on this forum over the years but I think your "mentally ill" label is a first.Quote:
Originally Posted by puglogic
Now, off to find a shaking my head in sorrow emoticon.
I wonder if his views have changed since 2008?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs-M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...;v=XcyLeOm6yGc
Oh, not dehumanizing at all....they're very human, just a breed of human I find icky.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
I knew a man who collected instruments of torture. He found them fascinating. I know another person who was arrested for the most alarming collection of child pornography imaginable. A family member loves to salivate over the bloodiest battles in history, as though the only thing that happened on those fields was brilliant strategy. These people share a common trait with gun fanatics: they are able to completely see past the immense human suffering caused by the object of their love and affection, as though it simply doesn't exist. That breed of human is simply scary to me {shrug}
It's my personal belief that the majority of politically active gun lovers -- as opposed to people who happen to own a gun -- have a fearful, dangerous and rather scary worldview, and I'm sick of being asked to see it as normal behavior in a civilized society. It isn't.
We can't stuff this genie back in the bottle, but we can call a spade a spade. Stop pretending the adoration and collection of lethal weapons is something to be respected. It's really just strange and sad.
Baloney. The people I see at my gub club are some of the most caring and respectful people I have ever met.Quote:
Originally Posted by puglogic
With the exception of Bae and a probable small handful of others, I think the obsession probably stems from an unjustified paranoia fueled by the media and peer groups.Quote:
Originally Posted by puglogic
I believe in psychology that there is the concept that we create a self image and then construct a reality that is designed to protect our self image. Such as might be the case with a conservative political self image, and then a constructed reality that global warming is not real or man caused that would then conform to the self image concept. I think radical gun advocates suffer a similar self delusion.
These gun control conversations almost always come down to this: bae & others on this forum, a very small number, are reasonable humans but those out there in gun totin' land are crazed jerks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
I don't buy it.
And anyone who doesn't adhere to that constructed reality is simply delusional?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
I guess it depends on whether the reality is based on fact and rational thought, or whether it is bent to conform to the image of self.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
So which basis are you using to declare so many groups of people delusional?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
I have tried to swear off any gun debates after the last futile 26+ page debate. I would like to bow out of this one and will only add this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Cold hearted orb
That rules the night
Removes the colours
From our sight
Red is gray and
Yellow white
But we decide
Which is right
And
Which is an Illusion
This is where posturing breaks down any possibility of discussion. Of course not all people who own guns are mentally ill. But of course not all who own guns are not mentally ill.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
I don't need to be told that crazed jerks exists, when rage outbroke in my home growing up you took cover or you ran, no guns whatsoever, but random objects would hit the air .... I believe enough in the human *capacity* for crazy thank you very much (though I'll never even emotionally understand premeditated murder). I just think the odds of seeing any at the movie theater or church or a school is absurd and yes that paranoia is driving the conversation all over (why should I think that media whipped hysteria should only influence one side, riddle me that). I definitely think it does drive some of gun culture. I also think it's the exact same thing that drives the belief that we need armed guards everywhere now. It drives mass incarceration and law and order legistlation. It drives the fear of terrorism, the TSA, a decades plus worth of unnecessary war (ok um it is very far from the *only* thing that drives that, economics drives that, it's just what got the masses buy out on it).
I see a bright career in government somewhere for him, with room for advancement, he's rationally economical, probably one of the few jobs left with a pension!Quote:
I knew a man who collected instruments of torture. He found them fascinating
oh you've been infinitely calm and reasonable, you always are in these political debates. Just ha, way above this crazed fray.Quote:
I have tried to swear off any gun debates after the last futile 26+ page debate. I would like to bow out of this one and will only add this.
One of the things I most like about these fora is the wide range of differences in thinking & philosophy. I am a radical feminist & pacifist, who once owned & used a gun. I'm a progressive who loves those who choose to serve in government - I considered a run once myself - with an appreciative streak for libertarians. I'm an anti-capitalist with a serious talent for sales.
I value each & everyone's contributions, even if I shriek "are you KIDDING?!?" out loud when I read it. It's a big country. All of our voices are needed in this national convo. Please keep it up!
PS - a useful tool for thinking:
http://www.systems-thinking.org/loi/loi.htm
I don't either. The ones here are a bit out there as well, but we are trying to play nice..;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
I love the fact that so many american really seem to believe gun ownership 'protects them from the government'... that's hilarious... :~)
I just sent the NRA $20,000 for you, Peggy. I hope it brings you many happy returns.Quote:
Originally Posted by peggy
I am an American, yea I really and truly am, a real American, even have the birth certificate ;), and I believe no such thing, nor do many of us. I find the idea ridiculous. The government is just too well armed, and with more than just guns, it is the single largest armed force the world has ever known (and people wonder why we are always at war, maybe that's the inevitability of that ... of just having that kind of massive armed force :( ) I can't imagine any arsenal competing, and it grows better armed all the time (we just keep being so eager to finance that afterall). Anyone who worries about having to overthrow the government should at least be consistent and want to gut the defense department (um just basic sense here, you don't empower that which you might want to overthrow).Quote:
I love the fact that so many american really seem to believe gun ownership 'protects them from the government'... that's hilarious...
Ok but thinking through the idea ... guns protecting you from government ... hypotheticals. Suppose the government is a SWAT team unjustly breaking into your house (you haven't done anything but they think you are dealing drugs or something) and opening fire or something (these types of raids have happened, mostly to minorities). Well you might have a chance against that but you are still probably outgunned (and they are well dressed for just such an encounter) and what will you gain for that self-defense anyway, probably lifetime imprisonment! Authority protects itself, the courts mostly protect authority. But that's one SWAT team, the whole government being overthrown is absurd, thats tanks, and missles and drones (though non-government can build those) and nuclear weapons (um you don't want non-government building those!) ....
But we do need a revolution in this country, the utter and complete corruption of the political process is just something I see no way out of at this point (money out of politics might help some, but I see no way to even get that). But a violent revolution is unlikely to work like I said (short of a military coup maybe and I'm not sure that's an improvement). And the country is too divided politicaly to even make mass non-violent resistence work, people wouldn't even agree on the problems (at least yet). So I guess for now we will be ruled by utterly corrupt plutocratic oligarchs who care nothing about our lives (they really don't, they'd happily watch us die, in fact they often happily kill, riches are all that matter), life as such, or even the future of the planet.
No, they're not mentally ill but those who feel it's necessary to build their own personal arsenal to prepare to fight the US Government are not committed to the public good.Quote:
Originally Posted by puglogic
The public good requires that we buy into the compact we have made with our government to participate in it and give those running the country the benefit of the doubt when making decisions about how to govern. Those committed to the 235+ year old US democratic government participate in it and when they don't agree with how it's operating, work within its established parameters to change what they don't like. They don't establish an armed camp, ready to engage in warfare with the government. Those people who don't buy into this compact should actually not live in this country. They should go to some desert island somewhere and establish a government based on what they believe. For our government to work, the citizenry has to buy into the idea that it will work and if it currently isn't, it's been designed that it can be fixed without resorting to civil war.
Additionally, those who are establishing their own armed compounds are utterly deluding themselves if they think for one minute they can keep the US military out. It's preposterous thinking but it's not mentally ill.
Bae: Mentally ill people are not less than human. They're ill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by puglogic
For some perspective... I once knew (of) a group of educated, articulate men. Natural leaders who were admired and respected. Between them they directed their flocks to design and build enough firepower to destroy the world 20 times over. Amassing the capability to murder 140 billion people when we only have seven billion living on the planet should probably cause sanity to be questioned.
I probably have enough food in my house to last my family a year with very few stops at the grocery store. I see possible disruptions to the food supply chain from natural disasters, peak oil, labor strikes, terrorist activity, economic collapse (the country's or my own), etc. I think all those and more are possible, but none are likely. It makes me feel like I will be able to provide for my family even in the face of some pretty extreme events. Am I compensating for some other shortcoming? Probably, but you'd have to ask a shrink to know for sure. Am I mentally ill because I want to be prepared for something that in all likelihood will never happen? I don't think I am. Is anybody else harmed by me having a large collection of canned goods?
We live in Nebraska where tornadoes are fairly common. We have a storm shelter even though the chance of our house actually being directly hit by a tornado is only a little better than my chance of winning the Power Ball jackpot. Am I mentally ill or prudent because I'm prepared even if it never happens? When a violent storm is baring down on us do you think my neighbor, who has no shelter, will simply sit in her kitchen and watch her house be destroyed or will she run next door and take shelter? When she comes running to my house do you suppose she will tell me how crazy I was for spending extra money to build our shelter or will she think it was a pretty good idea? Is anyone harmed by it's presence even if we never use that shelter?
To be honest pug what scares me is the personification of these objects. The "immense human suffering" was caused by other humans. Unless it just happens to randomly fall on your head, no object has, by itself, ever caused suffering. ANY object has the potential to cause suffering if used to that end by someone with that intent, but none can do it on their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by puglogic
The comparison between child pornographers and gun owners is offensive. We all have our filters and mine tells me anyone who would use children in this way is a monster, but to apply that to someone even if they are "fanatic" about guns is wrong. The others in your example may be a bit macabre, but do they hurt anyone? Should we have the right to stop someone in their (perfectly legal) pursuit of happiness just because we find what they're doing icky? Is a guy with 1,000 guns in his closet a monster even if he has never and will never use one against anyone? What about a guy with 1,000 hammers? Or 1,000 books? The monsters are people that will harm others without cause or remorse. They are no more significantly represented among gun owners than they are among any other group you would care to name.
I agree that the idea of protection from government is an out-dated concept, although reminding the government that the people have a right to self protection and self determination, rights that the government itself used to acknowledge, is a very good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucas
I agree with Alan regarding the practicality of citizens standing up against the government (think about it), but if the government doesn't see some kind of merit in that notion why is there so much emphasis put on tracking citizen's ownership of guns? Who owns what is no predictor of impending crime and once a crime has been committed does it really matter where a gun came from? Is there really any significant chance that will be determined in most cases?Quote:
Originally Posted by lucas
The nutball militia/sovereign citizen movement - what percentage of American gunowners belong, and have armed camps? (Hint, it's about 0%. I rounded down from 0.038%, and I didn't sift for the "have armed camp" requirement) And of those, how many of them are capable of any effective action? Let's round down to 0% again, especially since the data indicates that about 20% of their membership are FBI folks keeping an eye on things...Quote:
Originally Posted by bunnys
Is it reasonable to develop public policy that restricts and punishes the actions of 99.nn% of polite, law-abiding, contributing citizens in order to attempt to influence the actions of a miniscule minority? A minority that won't bother obeying any of these sorts of laws anyways? A minority that could simply produce what they want in their own workshops trivially?
I mean, heck, I have a machine shop here, and I could make just about anything I want in an afternoon or two. If I dropped ~$5k on some nice 3D printing technology, I could sit back and let my iPad do all the work even. If I were ambitious, I could build the 3D printer myself for a few hundred dollars. But that's overkill, you can make an AR-15 receiver out of a block of decent hardwood or plywood. Or an AK-47 receiver out of an old shovel, using only simple hand tools. Good thing I'm a happy member of society, eh?
And if I weren't, given my extensive engineering background, I wouldn't worry too much about me using a gun... You better start registering people with engineering and science degrees.
While I agree with you that small groups of citizens foolish enough to engage US government forces in set-piece battles would be wiped out in short order (and good riddance to them...), think about this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg
Afghanistan is about the size of Texas, and it has taken much of the might of our nation to just barely keep the lid on over there.
If large numbers of the citizens of the United States decided violent resistance was called for, there are not enough police and military in this county to keep things under control. Those rebels would be living among us, with easy access to the family members and friends of government, police, and military forces - they wouldn't be safely overseas. You couldn't bomb their cities. They probably wouldn't be so nice as to secede as a group of states, and invite Civil War 2.0.
Look at the trouble a single lame sniper team did to the DC area a few years back:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks
Multiply that by...a lot.
Then consider that some of the rebels probably would be clever enough not to use guns...
It would be horrid, who wants that? Why even go there?
Bae: I don't know where you're getting your numbers from but let's go with your 99%+ of polite, law-abiding types. Why do you think they all (or even most) would consider limiting gun access a punishment? I consider it a privilege to live in a country where I don't have to carry an assault weapon to protect myself. I do consider it a privilege to live in a country where I can count on my government to protect me from unrest. I'm grateful I live where I know I can trust my government and based on it's long history of pretty good, trustworthy actions [not flawless, but good] I believe my trust has been earned.
Oh I think the government would fight a heck of a lot harder here than they ever did in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.. See I don't think entirely subduing rebellion is crucial to the goals of those wars, I think they may be quite happy to subdue them enough so they can be manageable and not interfere with whatever the real objective is (I dont' even know anymore, Al Queda, oil, putting in U.S. friendly governments, whatever it is today, but I really don't think it's to make those regions peaceful, sorry). A citizenry in full on rebellion against the government here would face a government and all the interest that government serves (that's a lot of big money there!) fighting for it's survival, no, it would be much worse.
That sounds like the TSA.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Indeed. Security Theater.Quote:
Originally Posted by creaker
And I just sent the ATF a donation in your name...or did I just send them your name...Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Given that I have multiple Title II/NFA items registered with the BATF, and a Class III license pending, participate in sanctioned CMP events and own many "assault weapons" purchased directly from the US Government for this purpose, and participate in a winery business, I'm pretty sure they already know where to find me. I talk with them every few weeks. Nice guys really.Quote:
Originally Posted by peggy
I don't smoke or grow tobacco though, maybe you could drop them a dime about that.
But thanks!
+ 1. Remember the Civil War and that will give you an idea how hard the government will fight to keep the union together.Quote:
Originally Posted by bunnys
Edited to add: I am 67 years old and in all that time I have never felt I need for a firearm for protection. I grew up in a not so good part of Los Angeles. If there was a potential bad situation I would get out of it using my brain. If any private citizen thinks they can take on the government good luck.
Don't get me wrong, I hope we never have the need for violent/armed resistance. I do think the powers that be are kept in check to a certain degree because such resistance is a possibility and because they realize it would be impossible to squelch. To attempt to do so would be akin to scratching poison ivy, the itch would spread AND become more acute. That may just be one of our greatest strengths. God bless the USA.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
The Constitution basically says the military is to be under civilian control. This is very important to keep us from becoming a banana republic. Our military is actually the big threat to our country.