The 2nd Amendment

[Revoltingest]

The presumption that a citizen or group of citizens has any right to take action against other citizens or the government, without the assent of the majority of the citizens, is nothing less than self-serving nonsense.

That's only one assumption one could make. It could possibly be a majority which might take action against a government which has seized power
to such an extent that voting cannot cure it. But even a minority might find it appropriate to rebel against a country (eg, black folk in the early
1800s South, Jews in pre-WW2 Germany). You argue that this is nonsense, but perhaps it's nonsensical to ignore these possibilities, eh?

That entity that ascertains and reflects the manner of assent of the citizens is called the government, not the NRA, not Joe's shootin' buddies, not the Reicht-wing Yahoos Army. The founders opposed non-representative government. It is non-representative government that people needed to be protected from, not representative government.

On being a majority, Samuel Adams said, "It does not take a majority to prevail...but rather an irate, tireless minority keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."
On weapons, T Jefferson had some pithy things to say....
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."

Lame rationalizations don't justify placing one's own arrogant desire to get one's way by violent force above the rule of law, as per the dictates of a democratically-elected, representative government.

The epithet "lame rationalizations" may cut both ways.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But even a minority might find it appropriate to rebel against a country (eg, black folk in the early 1800s South, Jews in pre-WW2 Germany). You argue that this is nonsense, but perhaps it's nonsensical to ignore these possibilities, eh?

That's indeed a rather good point.

Forgive me if you've already addressed this, but what constraints (if any) would you place on the sale/distribution of weapons and ammunition?

 

[bicker]

The revolutionists that fought the British were a minority.

I don't care. I'm talking about here and now; today; you and me and our neighbors.

I'm talking about a representative government; not a monarchy.

Minority rights are protected, but minorities don't get to enslave the majority.

That's only one assumption one could make. It could possibly be a majority which might take action against a government which has seized power to such an extent that voting cannot cure it.

A perspective that would be indistinguishable from a self-serving rationalization "placing one's own arrogant desire to get one's way by violent force above the rule of law, as per the dictates of a democratically-elected, representative government".

But even a minority might find it appropriate to rebel against a country

A representative government that respects the rights of minorities as our does is completely justified treating a bunch of self-serving, gun-toting insurgents like traitors and outlaws.

The epithet "lame rationalizations" may cut both ways.

Not in this case: A minority using violence to prevail over the majority and subjugate them to the minority's will is in the wrong, plain and simple.

 

[BBTimeless]

The revolutionists that fought the British were a minority.

For crying out loud give it a rest.

 

[Revoltingest]

A perspective that would be indistinguishable from a self-serving rationalization "placing one's own arrogant desire to get one's way by violent force above the rule of law, as per the dictates of a democratically-elected, representative government".
A representative government that respects the rights of minorities as our does is completely justified treating a bunch of self-serving, gun-toting insurgents like traitors and outlaws.

I don't see more than dismissive labels for those with opposing views here.
I could counter with "frightened little sheep" but that would be counter-productive, eh?
Let's just agree to disagree.

Not in this case: A minority using violence to prevail over the majority and subjugate them to the minority's will is in the wrong, plain and simple.

True dat. But such is not my view.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's indeed a rather good point.

Why, you dirty rotten.....oh....oops!

Forgive me if you've already addressed this, but what constraints (if any) would you place on the sale/distribution of weapons and ammunition?

I don't recall addressing it specifically.
I'd prohibit selling to anyone who is: a felon, under age, mentally unsuited. The last one will be a tough one to define, but is a necessary set of criteria to face.
I imagine it would include retarded people, minors, & people flagged as risky (another tricky one to define). In the case of minors, a parent might allow access
to guns & ammo, since they'd be in a position to make this judgement, unlike a store clerk. These prohibitions should be in an easily accessed national database,
& apply to all transfers (loans, gifts, sales), both private & commercial. There also might be other good limitations that I haven't thought of.
I don't favor limiting quantities, since this would be easy to circumvent by evildoers, but would be problematic for target shooters, who burn up large quantities.

 

[Revoltingest]

For crying out loud give it a rest.

If someone makes being a majority the issue, then it's appropriate to cite counter-examples.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why, you dirty rotten.....oh....oops!

I don't recall addressing it specifically.
I'd prohibit selling to anyone who is: a felon, under age, mentally unsuited. The last one will be a tough one to define, but is a necessary set of criteria to face.
I imagine it would include retarded people, minors, & people flagged as risky (another tricky one to define). In the case of minors, a parent might allow access
to guns & ammo, since they'd be in a position to make this judgement, unlike a store clerk. These prohibitions should be in an easily accessed national database,
& apply to all transfers (loans, gifts, sales), both private & commercial. There also might be other good limitations that I haven't thought of.
I don't favor limiting quantities, since this would be easy to circumvent by evildoers, but would be problematic for target shooters, who burn up large quantities.

Do you see no grounds for curtailing the type of weaponry that should be protected? Mines? RPGs? AK47s? Anti-Aircraft Stingers? If the logic is that there should be no infringement on the ability of a people to take on a rogue army, then one should think that all of these should be protected and made readily available. Yes?

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you see no grounds for curtailing the type of weaponry that should be protected? Mines? RPGs? AK47s? Anti-Aircraft Stingers? If the logic is that there should be no infringement on the ability of a people to take on a rogue army, then one should think that all of these should be protected and made readily available. Yes?

Oh, I thought you were talking about the ordinary stuff we can buy today. As I've said before, I see the 2nd Amendment applying to the
class of weapons militia types would've owned, ie, militarily capable small arms. This would not include mines, missiles, cannons, etc.
I'd expect those to be greatly restricted, typically just to manufacturers & researchers. Extraordinary circumstances could possibly
broaden ownership rights though. The underlined portion seems unreasonable, & I know of no gun rights groups claiming this.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Oh, I thought you were talking about the ordinary stuff we can buy today. As I've said before, I see the 2nd Amendment applying to the class of weapons militia types would've owned, ie, militarily capable small arms. This would not include mines, missiles, cannons, etc. I'd expect those to be greatly restricted, typically just to manufacturers & researchers.

But why? If the intent is to enable a well regulated people's militia, such a body would be powerless against a modern army without high powered weaponry.

 

[Revoltingest]

If this article is accurate, NY just enacted a game changer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/n....html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY

I travel to Maine every year or so. In the past, I always put my Glock #22 in a gun safe bolted down in my truck, which was legal
in NY, CT, MA & NJ. Now, it appears that I can't travel thru NY at all with it, since the mag is detachable & can hold over 7 rounds.
This deserves future scrutiny before I travel in June!

 

[Revoltingest]

But why? If the intent is to enable a well regulated people's militia, such a body would be powerless against a modern army without high powered weaponry.

I've covered this ground many times before. To summarize, I don't believe we'd be powerless in a situation where a large number of citizens
opposed the government & had sympathy within the military. Moreover, as we see in countries where the US tries to exercise military might,
the enemy's small arms become augmented by more powerful weapons, which somehow materialize despite our best efforts.

I prefer the originalist approach to law. Whatever the lawmakers intended when writing a law, that is how it should be enforced.
This would supersede literal interpretation. The founders saw militia members owning state of the art militarily capable rifles, so
this is what I see the 2nd Amendment addressing.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I've covered this ground many times before. To summarize, I don't believe we'd be powerless in a situation where a large number of citizens opposed the government & had sympathy within the military.

But that is not an answer. Why limit the type of weaponry to be protected?

 

[Revoltingest]

But that is not an answer. Why limit the type of weaponry to be protected?

See my prior post.
I explained further how I view it in an edit.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

"I'm not giving up my 2nd Amendment rights" is sounding more and more like "Twenty first-graders getting gunned down isn't my problem" these days. When people are mindlessly and reactively attached to rights, they usually forget that they include responsibilities and should be rational.

That's a very polite way to put it. More bluntly, it sounds like "my right to defend myself against a potential invasion exceeds a child's right to live." Pro-life, my ***.

And I'm REALLY getting annoyed at all this "defense of liberty" crap as an excuse to defend civilians' privilege to own weapons that should only belong in the military. Jon Stewart completely dismantled that lie a few days ago--if you haven't seen it, you should.

 

[LuisDantas]

I've covered this ground many times before. To summarize, I don't believe we'd be powerless in a situation where a large number of citizens opposed the government & had sympathy within the military.

Fair enough. So do I. But do you believe that a militia mentality would be a significant factor there?

It seems to me that the main check against abuse of power from the POTUS is indeed that its military has strong ties to the general citizenship and can be reasonably expected to refuse or at least offer resistance to such abuse.

Heck, the US Armed Forces could hardly be expected to keep the pattern of major external interventions in other continents every ten years or so that it has held since World War 2 if it could also be kept in check by a domestic militia.

In a hypothetical armed conflict between civilians and the Executive, the militia's main asset would be its very nature as civilians, which hardly any Officer would willingly harm without strong provocation.

So in that sense too, having strong civilian weaponry is probably a hindrance instead of an advantage; it encourages excessive force and blinder obedience to the supposedly tyranical actions.

Moreover, as we see in countries where the US tries to exercise military might, the enemy's small arms become augmented by more powerful weapons, which somehow materialize despite our best efforts.

Actually, to a large extent due to your best efforts. Iraq, Lybia and Nicaragua have all received weapons from the USA and its allies at various times for reasons of convenience. That is what weapons race entails for all of us, unfortunately.

I prefer the originalist approach to law. Whatever the lawmakers intended when writing a law, that is how it should be enforced.

And you know that the 18th century lawmakers meant for people to have Glocks and even AR-15s how exactly? It is far less than clear that they would have approved of Colt Peacemakers, even.

This would supersede literal interpretation. The founders saw militia members owning state of the art militarily capable rifles, so
this is what I see the 2nd Amendment addressing.

If you want to go there, one must wonder why stop at such an arbitrary point instead of going straight ahead and defending the right of civilian ownership of biological weapons and nukes. There is a good reason not to... and as it turns out, it applies to combat rifles as well.

 

[InsurgoInsurgiInsurrect]

Okay...brace yourself. I'm going to say it.

In design and purpose, a gun is more dangerous than an ink pen (let's make it blue!).

:yes:

I'm going to head through your post but forgive me for taking so long. I try to browse RF as often as I can but that is pretty limited these days for a variety of reasons and I do appreciate the time you took to respond to my argument.

The potential lethality of an object may be partially determined by it's purpose and design, but, it's ultimate lethality is determined by whether or not its used in a lethal manner. In that regard, a ball point pen could prove to be as dangerous as a handgun.

I thought I addressed this fallacy by the example of leaving a child alone with a loaded AK-47 vrs leaving them alone with a ballpoint pen. A ballpoint pen can indeed be lethal but it takes training and has many limitations. An AK-47 on the other hand takes very little training and is almost always lethal. I think this example is obvious but your argument logically assumes we have a right to own Chemical and Nuclear weapons as well. This argument is not really valid in my opinion as a handgun in the hands of most people is much more lethal than a ballpoint pen and statistics and current murder rates in the US back my opinion.

I acknowledge that a household in theory, is safer without a gun. But, on the flipside, you must acknowledge that the household is still at risk for tragedy, as there are a myriad of things that a human can utilize to harm or kill another, intentionally or unintentionally.

Correct would having a gun make a home safer? Consider Columbine had an armed guard present and the fort hood shooting was literally a military base and the shooter was only able to be taken down while reloading.

We're knee jerking as a result of recent school shootings, but, how common are these events in comparison to automobile accidents and a list of other unfortunate ways to go?

Just because another event is more likely to kill you doesn't mean you should ignore or discount another event that is less likely to kill you. This is obviously a fallacious argument but I wonder if you are trying to convince you or me?

Behind the trigger is a person, each time. The auto reaction is often to restrict guns...restrict gun rights. Were guns really the problem? Guns were tools used.

You quoted my argument so in china the trigger was a person and every stabbed kid lived and in sandy hook every kid died. (And some mothers have recently come forward with graphic details to attempt to drive that point into public minds and remind people that their five year old children were slaughtered)

The trigger may be a person but what tools did that person have? This is a broad argument with lots of examples from all types of people...

Psycho Boy obviously had mental problems and was bullied in school. Why was he bullied? Why didn't anyone reach out to him? Why wasn't the gun secured? Had the gun been secured, would there have been a shooting? Were these not the REAL problems that contributed to the scenario?

There are likely lots of factors for this particular incident. The question is if there is a psycho boy who eludes detection to the point that he snaps what tools should he be allowed to get his hands on. This is a popular debate right now... How do you really prevent that? Why was he bullied? I think that is an ignorant question and I'm not trying to be mean but kids are bullied all the time. Hair too long? Boogers in your nose? Acne? Ask a school teacher why kids are bullied and there is almost no reason... No one tried to reach out to him? Why do you say no one did? Why do you think the gun wasn't secured? Perhaps it was but his mom told him how to unsecure it? Your argument is really focused on this one shooter as the cause of such a mass murder while ignoring the tools involved. The tools were pretty high tech and designed to kill people. While a knife and a handgun are also designed to kill people they pale in comparison to the effectiveness of the weapons used in this slaughter.

I have the right to defend myself in the United States of America. I have a constitutional right to bear arms. I'm not willing to sacrifice my rights because other Americans are not able to take responsibility for their children, themselves and embrace the responsibility that comes along with having freedoms in this country.

I tire of Americans placing blame, without looking at the individual family unit and how the disintegration of strong family units contributes to a lot of the **** that we see in American society.

Criminals will get their hands on guns, regardless as to whatever type of restrictions are implemented. The government will only screw people like me and my family, who would purchase and bear arms lawfully.

Yes you have the right to defend yourself and bear arms. Does bearing arms mean Sarin gas? Nukes? Do you understand there is a line that defines what arms you as an individual should be able to bear and what arms a nation or government that represents you and the collective citizens of your nation should be allowed to bear?

I think your line about the disintegration of strong family units is just a distraction and not related to your core argument but everyone needs to vent.

Lets say one of the largest drug dealers in mexico decided to come after you and they sent 3 attack choppers to your house at midnight. Your household with assault rifles will be ill equipped to deal with this threat where as our military would down the choppers likely before they entered our air space. Do you then argue you should be allowed to own anti air weapons and radar or do you trust your government to protect you from these threats?

I get you want your house to be safe. By your own argument I could ask you to train more with ballpoint pens since they are just as effective as handguns according to your argument. Instead I am saying I understand you needing a shotgun for protection but don't think anyone needs a semi-auto assault rifle or full auto weapon at home for everyday protection.

The gun isn't the issue. The horribly disturbed ******* wielding the gun is the issue. That's why I continue to pursue this argument. I want my right to protect myself against disturbed ******** to remain intact.

Because, a madman with a knife could pose me every bit the danger that a madman with a gun could. I want the right to defend myself with a gun, if I see fit. And I don't want you or anyone else to deny me that right.

If a knife or a pen could pose just as much threat as a gun then why not keep a few pens and knives around? Why do you want the right to defend yourself with a gun and what kind of gun do you want? (A musket? Blunderbuss?)

That's just stupid. (You know the mental image gives you a giggle too, so don't even.)

I was trying to present your argument that a pen is as dangerous as a handgun back to you by changing a pen to a coffee cup.

You're not understanding me at all. I have no intentions at all of making any attempt to try to overthrow the government. That's not the idea. The concept is to be able to protect your family, neigbors and fellow citizens in the event of a catastrophic event to where your government was no longer as it is.

I'm thinking more in terms of a natural event that separates you from your government for a long period of time while recovering. During the chaos and uncertainty of crisis, people are going to panic and will steal, use force against others for survival - it will be insane. The people that rely on the government now and can't take care of themselves and don't prepare themselves for small scale disasters, wouldn't have a chance in hell of making it through anything catastrophic. There would be insanity on the streets and believe me, having weapons to protect your family would be a good idea.

I don't care how farfetched or ridiculous anyone may find this, if you worked for a disaster relief organization and saw how helpless people are during small scale crisis, particularly those who rely on the government for sustainment, you'd have an appreciation for this.

This is pretty fair. In the event of a crisis where government protection and services may be interrupted you may find yourself in need of additional protection and I think having a shotgun or pistol at home would serve that need just as well as having an assault rifle. If you were going to face an extended situation where having an assault or full automatic weapon would be required then I find it hard to believe you would have no warning so head to the gun club and pick up your weapon to transport back home and go all american revolutionary gangster if it floats your boat.

If a man with a gun comes into my house to rape and kill me, what good will my gun do me, if it's locked up at a gun club? Seriously.

Seriously keep your guns at home. Keep your assault and military weapons at the gun club. My argument had nothing to do with not being allowed to keep your gun under your pillow but rather to keep your assault rifles and full automatic weapons at the gun club. Home defense is not usually about holding off a squadron of armed assailants as your example of defending against one guy obviously implies you already realize.

 

[bicker]

I don't see more than dismissive labels for those with opposing views here.

Instead of making up self-serving nonsense to try to distract attention away from the very strong point I made, how about actually either admitting I was right or providing a substantive reply.

More directly: Explain how what I replied to is distinguishable from a self-serving rationalization "placing one's own arrogant desire to get one's way by violent force above the rule of law, as per the dictates of a democratically-elected, representative government". Defend your implied contention that it is against my charge that it isn't, rather than engaging in inane rhetorical tactics to try to avoid the discussion.

Let's just agree to disagree.

Uh-huh. Why didn't you just say that instead of posting the nonsense you posted above it?

Never mind - I think we all already know.

 

[bicker]

I prefer ...

The question is whether or not you are insisting that your preference is somehow privileged over what we, as a society, decide collectively.

If you want to go there, one must wonder why stop at such an arbitrary point instead of going straight ahead and defending the right of civilian ownership of biological weapons and nukes. There is a good reason not to... and as it turns out, it applies to combat rifles as well.

Precisely. And the point is that that is a decision that we make as a society together. The constitutional right to bear arms has nothing to do with it, because that right is satisfied fully by the right to carry a basic handgun.

 

[Revoltingest]

Fair enough. So do I. But do you believe that a militia mentality would be a significant factor there?

What is a "militia mentality"?

It seems to me that the main check against abuse of power from the POTUS is indeed that its military has strong ties to the general citizenship and can be reasonably expected to refuse or at least offer resistance to such abuse.

Since the prez is the commander of that military, I'd prefer more separation of power.

Heck, the US Armed Forces could hardly be expected to keep the pattern of major external interventions in other continents every ten years or so that it has held since World War 2 if it could also be kept in check by a domestic militia.

You're thinking in terms of overseas war strategy, where we hate the funny look'n ignerunt ferriners we don't know.
Killing them with remote control weapons is easier than doing it to your neighbor. But even overseas, our record of winning wars is spotty.

In a hypothetical armed conflict between civilians and the Executive, the militia's main asset would be its very nature as civilians, which hardly any Officer would willingly harm without strong provocation.
So in that sense too, having strong civilian weaponry is probably a hindrance instead of an advantage; it encourages excessive force and blinder obedience to the supposedly tyranical actions.

That's one way to view it. Non-violent resistance can work on occasion. It also makes it easy to kill the opposition.
Armed conflict, despite all it's chaos & risks, can also succeed. The 2nd Amendment is to enable this option.

Actually, to a large extent due to your best efforts. Iraq, Lybia and Nicaragua have all received weapons from the USA and its allies at various times for reasons of convenience. That is what weapons race entails for all of us, unfortunately.

Hmmm....it sounds like you're supporting my point that people determined to be armed will become so.

And you know that the 18th century lawmakers meant for people to have Glocks and even AR-15s how exactly? It is far less than clear that they would have approved of Colt Peacemakers, even.

Your clever phrasing hides the point that those lawmakers were thinking of militarily capable small arms. Technology changes, so AR-15s
replace flintlocks, just as the internet replaced newspapers. Freedom of the press is similarly not about mere mechanics of putting ink on
paper, but rather communication. This is why original intent matters.

If you want to go there, one must wonder why stop at such an arbitrary point instead of going straight ahead and defending the right of civilian ownership of biological weapons and nukes. There is a good reason not to... and as it turns out, it applies to combat rifles as well.

Are you arguing that you want WMDs to be available too?
Hmmmm...I don't see the Constitution's framers envisioning that.