The Second Amendment, and overthrowing the government

[dmgdnooc]

[/size]
I take it you've never seen the movie Red Dawn.


For various reasons (largely slavery, IMO, though I'm sure there will be southerners here who dispute this), the southern states tried to secede from the Union and form the Confederate States of America. The Union objected to this and the Civil War ensued.


Well, no state has tried to secede since then.


You're not really familiar with the National Guard, are you? They've got tanks, artillery, strike aircraft and attack helicopters, too.

Many National Guard units have served in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of the USA's military force.

Red Dawn, no, don't think I've seen that one.
Has Hollywood accidentally depicted reality again?
Wikipedia tells me that the USA (in the movie) will be invaded from the south.
The USA's blue water navy is thereby bypassed. Damned tricky those reds!
　
Yes, slavery appears to be the overriding bone of contention for the Civil War.
But, I guess, that no State has tried to secede since then because of self-interest rather than from fear of military consequences. There are surely advantages to being a State within the United States of America.
　
Correct, I am not familiar with the National Guard.
I even, in my naivete, ask why it is called a NATIONAL Guard if it is a State Militia formed to protect State's rights?
Doesn't sending the Guard overseas put the State in jeopardy?
They are equipped like, march like, fly like, quack like private armies that would have to be nuked into submission. Or do they have nukes too?
　
And if the argument is that if one is called up into a Guard unit one must supply one's own rifle, must one supply one's own tank, howitzer etc too?

 

[Rakhel]

Red Dawn was a hypothetical depiction of a Russian invasion. The Russians took Texas and lost ground to rebels. A good Patrick Swayze movie.

 

[Mister Emu]

I would probably call it a violation of that statement if the person used the car in a way that had nothing to do with transportation (living in it, for example).

I have to disagree, "we have given you a car to use" is not a qualified statement... it is for your use as you see fit(as long as it is within reasonable regulation as with all of our rights). "Independent transportation being vital to job security" is an explanatory clause, not a limitation.

What about cases like, say, the Branch Davidians, where the group was arming themselves to fight against the very "well regulated militia" that the Constitution identifies as the purpose of the Second Amendment?

I'm not sure what you mean that the Branch Davidians were arming themselves to fight militias.
None of the armed forces are militia(they are regulars)... I believe the Davidians believed they were in apocalyptic end times, and that they were eventually going to have to fight the world.

If you look into the history of what happened at Waco, you can see it was a big government failure on many, many, fronts that led to unnecessary and tragic deaths.

I'm not a lawyer, but I do remember one principle from the one law course I did take: if there's a vague clause in a contract, one of the assumptions used in interpreting it is that it was intended to fulfil some sort of purpose, so any interpretation that makes the clause meaningless is rejected.

It seems to me that your interpretation here renders the entire statement about a "well regulated militia" meaningless. Doesn't it?

No, it doesn't. The militia is the normal citizenry who may or may not have an obligation(be formally part of) to accept the call. The point of the 2nd amendment is to allow for a well-armed citizenry(preferably with experience with their weapon) to be available when the militia is needed. If America is ever invaded(not a good possibility at the moment, but eventualities should be provided for well in advance), the more armed citizens the better.

In that, the limitation of 2nd amendment rights to overt militia activity actually contradicts the purpose.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

If you think the other amendments didn't go through at least several drafts then I suggest you get yourself a good history book.

That is also true... However we were discussing the 2nd.

The whole concept of a written constitution is flawed.

 

[Revoltingest]

The whole concept of a written constitution is flawed.

Know of a better alternative?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Know of a better alternative?

Yup we don't have one.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have to disagree, "we have given you a car to use" is not a qualified statement... it is for your use as you see fit(as long as it is within reasonable regulation as with all of our rights). "Independent transportation being vital to job security" is an explanatory clause, not a limitation.

So you're saying that despite the explanation "independent transportation being vital to job security" being included in the statement, it holds absolutely no bearing on how we interpret "we have given you a car to use"? Why include it, then?

What's the practical difference between "independent transportation being vital to job security, we have given you a car to use" and simply "we have given you a car to use"?

I'm not sure what you mean that the Branch Davidians were arming themselves to fight militias.
None of the armed forces are militia(they are regulars)... I believe the Davidians believed they were in apocalyptic end times, and that they were eventually going to have to fight the world.

Right... which would include fighting the forces of the government. In the case of a domestic insurrection, these forces of the government would normally include the state National Guard, which is formed under the Constitutional provisions that allow each state to maintain a militia:

National Guard of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you look into the history of what happened at Waco, you can see it was a big government failure on many, many, fronts that led to unnecessary and tragic deaths.

I agree, but that doesn't change the fact that it's contradictory when a law permitting an armed citizenry in support of an armed "militia" is actually used to support the opposition to the actual militia.

No, it doesn't. The militia is the normal citizenry who may or may not have an obligation(be formally part of) to accept the call. The point of the 2nd amendment is to allow for a well-armed citizenry(preferably with experience with their weapon) to be available when the militia is needed.

I think it's debateable whether private citizens could be considered part of the "militia" referred to in the Second Amendment; the "well regulated" part suggests to me that they're not. Regardless, I think it's clear that the official state militia, which today would mainly include the state National Guard is definitely part of that militia, regardless of whether private citizens are or not.

Because of this, I think it's strange to interpret the Second Amendment to support the right of people to arm themselves in preparation for a future conflict with that same militia.

 

[dust1n]

Yes, slavery appears to be the overriding bone of contention for the Civil War.
But, I guess, that no State has tried to secede since then because of self-interest rather than from fear of military consequences. There are surely advantages to being a State within the United States of America.

Key West attempted seceding, National Guard was brought in.
Groups who avoid federal taxes in protest of 'American' presence, (some groups in Hawaii for sure), are routinely arrested.

List of U.S. state partition proposals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some info.

 

[Mister Emu]

What's the practical difference between "independent transportation being vital to job security, we have given you a car to use" and simply "we have given you a car to use"?

Little, but one answers the question of "why".

Right... which would include fighting the forces of the government.

True... I interpreted your statement incorrectly...

I agree, but that doesn't change the fact that it's contradictory when a law permitting an armed citizenry in support of an armed "militia" is actually used to support the opposition to the actual militia.

Indeed it is. Sometimes we have to let little inconsistencies go to fulfill the broader purpose of the law.

I think it's debateable whether private citizens could be considered part of the "militia" referred to in the Second Amendment

Those that were not directly part were potential members.

Because of this, I think it's strange to interpret the Second Amendment to support the right of people to arm themselves in preparation for a future conflict with that same militia.

I think you are narrowing it too much... it isn't about the specific use of the gun, it is a law that allows all men(within reason) to keep and bear arms. This was/is to allow for a well armed populace that can be called upon in an emergency to defend the country.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Little, but one answers the question of "why".

... but with a "why" that speaks against the interpretation you've given. It'd be like saying "because I care about your health, I've given you a platter of cheeseburgers to eat." It doesn't even render the explanation irrelevant; it makes it nonsensical.

Also, now that I think about it, the Second Amendment doesn't even state what the rights in question actually are; it just states that the rights in this regard, whatever they are, will not be infringed. This doesn't mean that any use of a gun is allowed, just that there is some established standard that shouldn't be violated. It doesn't speak at all to whether the standard is extremely permissive, extremely restrictive, or somewhere in between.

To work this back into your analogy, even if the phrase "independent transportation being vital to job security, we have given you a car to use" does not imply that you can only use the car for employment-related transportation, it also doesn't give you permission to speed, run red lights, or break on-street parking regulations. (Arguably) it may not create any new restrictions on the use of the car, but it does not void any previous restrictions that apply to car use generally.

Indeed it is. Sometimes we have to let little inconsistencies go to fulfill the broader purpose of the law.

What's the "broader purpose" that you see being fulfilled here?

I think you are narrowing it too much... it isn't about the specific use of the gun,

Even though the law itself specifies one?

it is a law that allows all men(within reason) to keep and bear arms. This was/is to allow for a well armed populace that can be called upon in an emergency to defend the country.

And whether or not this group includes private citizens, it does include the established, official state militia (i.e. the state National Guard). While I can see the argument that the Second Amendment supports the right of private citizens who might form part of the milita to arm themselves, I don't see how it supports this right for those who would actually form an insurrection that this same militia would be called upon to defend against.

 

[dmgdnooc]

Key West attempted seceding, National Guard was brought in.
Groups who avoid federal taxes in protest of 'American' presence, (some groups in Hawaii for sure), are routinely arrested.

List of U.S. state partition proposals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some info.

Thanks for the info.
But the page you cited deals with moves by various counties and areas within a State of the USA to secede from that State, either to join another State or to form a new State within the USA.
　
Secession in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Your page led me to this page which more nearly addresses my query.
It appears that it is not possible, Constitutionally, for a State to secede from the USA except by means of a successful armed rebellion. Which would pit the State's National Guard against Federal troops.
There is a problem with this scenario because the President (through the National Defense Act 1916) is the effective CIC of both forces!

The answer to my question seems to be that the National Guard is a NATIONAL Guard not a STATE Militia formed to protect the State's rights (except in so far as those 'rights' are in accord with the National interest).
　
I am left with my original supposition that the 2nd Amendment is an 18th century measure (drafted to ensure a local force was available to protect against Indian, English, Spanish etc incursions) that is being misapplied to current circumstances.
At this stage my thinking is that the right to bear arms has more to do with the right to engage in armed rebellion against the Union (which seems to be an undisputed and current right) than with any dead-letter responsibility to form a State Militia.
State Militias ended and National Guards began in 1916.

 

[dust1n]

Thanks for the info.
But the page you cited deals with moves by various counties and areas within a State of the USA to secede from that State, either to join another State or to form a new State within the USA.
　
Secession in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Your page led me to this page which more nearly addresses my query.
It appears that it is not possible, Constitutionally, for a State to secede from the USA except by means of a successful armed rebellion. Which would pit the State's National Guard against Federal troops.
There is a problem with this scenario because the President (through the National Defense Act 1916) is the effective CIC of both forces!

The answer to my question seems to be that the National Guard is a NATIONAL Guard not a STATE Militia formed to protect the State's rights (except in so far as those 'rights' are in accord with the National interest).
　
I am left with my original supposition that the 2nd Amendment is an 18th century measure (drafted to ensure a local force was available to protect against Indian, English, Spanish etc incursions) that is being misapplied to current circumstances.
At this stage my thinking is that the right to bear arms has more to do with the right to engage in armed rebellion against the Union (which seems to be an undisputed and current right) than with any dead-letter responsibility to form a State Militia.
State Militias ended and National Guards began in 1916.

Ah, sorry. I meant to copy and paste that link, but I guess grabbed the wrong one when I was looking around.

 

[dmgdnooc]

Ah, sorry. I meant to copy and paste that link, but I guess grabbed the wrong one when I was looking around.

No need for sorry.
If you had given me the Secession in the US page I probably would not have gone looking for the US State Partition page. Both supplied good and relevant info so imo it worked to the good.

 

[Father Heathen]

Yup we don't have one.

And that's supposed to be a better alternative? :sarcastic

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

And that's supposed to be a better alternative? :sarcastic

Of course.
It works better, so it is better.

A constitution is like putting wheels on a sledge, to go across snow.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course.
It works better, so it is better.

In what way does it work better to not have a constitution?

BTW - from what I gather, what you say isn't exactly true. It's not that Britain doesn't have a constitution; it's that its constitution is formed from various parts of multiple laws. You may not have one document entitled "the British Constitution", but that doesn't mean you don't have one.

A constitution is like putting wheels on a sledge, to go across snow.

How do you figure?

IMO, a constitution is simply the highest law in the land. If you're going to resolve conflicts between laws, you're going to need some sort of hierarchy to determine which law should take precedence. Having a hierarchy implies that you're going to be some sort of highest law.

BTW - it seems strange to me that a country that considers constitutions useless or counter-productive would impose constitutions on so many of its former colonies.

 

[Magic Man]

Rachael Maddow explores the idea. (Which, of course, means that some people around here will refuse to watch it. Librul idears, oooooh!)

One thing she hints at: Belief in a strong US military, and belief that the 2nd Amendment allows us to violently overthrow the government, are mutually exclusive. You cannot have it both ways. You *could* strike some sort of weird balance, but you cannot consistently claim both that we need a strong military, and we the people should have the right to overthrow it.

That's an interesting point I hadn't thought of. It does seem odd to so strongly support both things.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And that's supposed to be a better alternative? :sarcastic

As I touched on earlier, the Brits do have a constitution:

The constitution of the United Kingdom is the set of laws and principles under which the United Kingdom is governed.

Unlike many nations, the UK has no core constitutional document. It is therefore often said that the country has an unwritten, uncodified, or de facto constitution.[1] However, the word "unwritten" is something of a misnomer as much of the British constitution is embodied in the written form, within statutes, court judgments, and treaties. The constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions and royal prerogatives.

Constitution of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They don't have a single document entitled "the Constitution", but they do have a constitution.

 

[Mister Emu]

... but with a "why" that speaks against the interpretation you've given.

No, it does not... it does not necessarily endorse the interpretation I've given, but that is not the same thing as speaking against it.

Also, now that I think about it, the Second Amendment doesn't even state what the rights in question actually are; it just states that the rights in this regard, whatever they are, will not be infringed.

Keeping and bearing arms are the rights, which cannot be denied without due process.

it also doesn't give you permission to speed, run red lights, or break on-street parking regulations. (Arguably) it may not create any new restrictions on the use of the car, but it does not void any previous restrictions that apply to car use generally.

Of course, I never meant to suggest that it gave you the right to do anything with a gun, only, as the Supreme Court said, it gives you the right to own guns, and to use them lawfully.

What's the "broader purpose" that you see being fulfilled here?

Providing for a well armed citizen base from which to call the militia.

And whether or not this group includes private citizens

It does.

While I can see the argument that the Second Amendment supports the right of private citizens who might form part of the milita to arm themselves, I don't see how it supports this right for those who would actually form an insurrection that this same militia would be called upon to defend against.

Even those who are potential insurrectionists are also potential militiamen.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Thanks for the info.
But the page you cited deals with moves by various counties and areas within a State of the USA to secede from that State, either to join another State or to form a new State within the USA.
　
Secession in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Your page led me to this page which more nearly addresses my query.
It appears that it is not possible, Constitutionally, for a State to secede from the USA except by means of a successful armed rebellion. Which would pit the State's National Guard against Federal troops.
There is a problem with this scenario because the President (through the National Defense Act 1916) is the effective CIC of both forces!

Wait, so an action is unconstitutional except when done by means of an armed rebellion?

The answer to my question seems to be that the National Guard is a NATIONAL Guard not a STATE Militia formed to protect the State's rights (except in so far as those 'rights' are in accord with the National interest).
　
I am left with my original supposition that the 2nd Amendment is an 18th century measure (drafted to ensure a local force was available to protect against Indian, English, Spanish etc incursions) that is being misapplied to current circumstances.
At this stage my thinking is that the right to bear arms has more to do with the right to engage in armed rebellion against the Union (which seems to be an undisputed and current right) than with any dead-letter responsibility to form a State Militia.
State Militias ended and National Guards began in 1916.

By Union, do you mean the British Union or the United States Union?