Help with Anti's on another board!

[Feud]

I'm fairly active on another message board, most of who's members are very liberal and non-American. A gun debate struck up, and I've been trying to hold my ground while maintaining the High Road. I was hoping that I might get some advice and constructive criticism on my response to them, that way I can be more effective in the future.

The discussion is located here. My main response is on page four, although I made a few others throughout it. For those who don't want to link over, I'll cut and paste my main response:

I originally voted changing the constitution but then realized that when I read the 2nd amendment it seems perfectly reasonable.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Fixed (you missed a few very important commas).

The amendment states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed on the people if necessary for a well regulated militia. Which I agree is fair enough, if someone had a gun for the purpose of use when their country need to call upon citizens in defense of the
country, then they shouldn't be able to be arrested for carrying one.

First, there do exist in America "well regulated militias", they are the National Guard which are under the command of the States (unless called upon for national duty in which case they take orders from the President).

It seems unlikely that the 2nd Amendment is intended to be applied to the carrying of issued arms by sworn soldiers, whether in times of war or peace. What government would include in it's Bill of Rights the right of soldiers to be armed, wouldn't such be assumed by the government to be a legitimate and necessary need, and what government would arrest it's soldiers for such?

There are three rational options then, does the 2A mean that States have the right to maintain armed groups of citizen soldiers under local control, does it mean that the individual has the right to keep arms, or both? I personally feel that, having studied the issue more since my last comment, that both is the best answer.

It does not refer to "the States" but to "a State", this seems to imply that it is not specifically talking about the States of the Union but instead to any given State be they in America, Europe, or elsewhere, and is explaining why it is that a free State would require a militia. This gives the States legal basis for maintaining their own military forces. However, these States also have the right to subdivide this authority to the local communities, and such practices were quite common for many years with many major cities and towns maintaining their own State authorized militia forces made up of local people.

However, the sentence then mentions "the right of the People". Who are the people that it is talking about? In every single instance of the Bill of Rights "the People" is always interpreted as the individual. For example, the First Amendment does not mean that the people by means of the State have freedom of speech, it means that the individual has that right. The whole point of arming the people, as NeoThermic pointed out, is so that the people have the effective means of opposing and overthrowing a tyrannical government if and when that government fails to meet it's obligations of the social contract (in this case the Constitution) and all reasonable means of redress have been exhausted. With such in mind, it cannot mean that only the government should have the right to bear arms, but instead (and even a casual reading of the writings of the founders confirms this) that the people must have the right to maintain their own arms.

Okay, I can definitely see the that interpretation. But what is the likely hood of America becoming a "non-free" country. While I agree America is losing lots of it's civil liberties by the government in the name of the war on terror I don't see and honestly can't imagine the people forming a militia to overthrow the government. The size of America's army is so big that ordinary civilians aren't going to be able to fight considering most people don't have military training. Honestly if the American government became a complete dictatorship then nobody really has a hope of stopping them, save all out civil war which would absolutely devastate the country. I think I still have enough faith left in the American people that if things do get that bad the will get of their arse and protest, strike, impeach the government. The government was designed for total control not to happen that's why there are three branches to keep each other in check. I personally don't believe that the amount of gun-crime in America is worth the chance that the government might make a ironfisted military dictatorship in which case I can't see the newly formed dictatorship allowing a people's militia to arise.

Well, our Revolution was fought against the most powerful military force on earth (did you know that in the first year of fighting the British had more cannon on one ship of the line then we had ships in our fleet?) by locals with very little formal military training. Certainly we had some outside help, but the people fought on their own with their own arms for several years to buy the time needed to get such help. As for forming militias to overthrow the current government, it happens, ever hear of the Oklahoma City bombing or the Freemen militia?

As for actually stopping it should it ever get out of hand, we very well might not. Our system is designed to resist such an event, but that doesn't mean that such cannot or will not one day happen. Were such an event to happen I would rather see the country devastated by Civil War in resisting such then, even if we lose, then to sit idle while our government and way of life is stripped away. Our country still has far to go until such would be required, you all act like the current state of things is unique to our history but things like the Patriot Act happen about every 50 or so years in our country, they have their heyday of a few years, then go away (the Alien and Sedition act, Lincolns suspending of Habeus Corpus, arresting anti-war protesters during WW1, etc).

As for "allowing" a people's militia to arise, they wouldn't. That's why the individuals right to keep and bear arms is so important, so that if such an occasion arises they don't have to ask permission to fight back, but instead have the means at their disposal.

So, if you all don't mind giving advice, what might I have done better? Oh, sorry for the typo in the title...

 

[nwilliams]

No point in arguing with anti's they're always right according to them.

Just laugh at their ignorance and and contemplate what your next gun purchase should be.

That's my advice anyway....

 

[14427H]

I think you are doing a good job with it. Like you say, most people who can't understand the Second amendment think the definition of "rights" is crystal clear in the First.

Samuel Adams said:
If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of Almighty God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.

 

[4v50 Gary]

The Court have consistently interpreted "the people" to indicate an individual and not collective right.

 

[ColinthePilot]

I too belong to another forum or three. The flying forum has members from all over the world. most of us are in the States but many are from the British Isles and Oz. The gun conversations are civilized and very High Road, but do get heated between us violent, bloodthirsty Americans, and our civilized friends across the pond(s). The foreigners truly do not understand what it means to have "inalienable rights" and think we're crazy, to boot. Those of us who own and shoot proudly post a new thread every time we procure a new firearm and watch the anti's squirm and throw rocks at us. I would say stack up your armory and post a picture on that forum. Then explain that your guns have never killed anyone. It'll be fun.

 

[CrawdaddyJim]

I for one appreciate your efforts to educate and remain on the high road as well.

Do these people you are playing nuclear bombing games with understand what kind of game they are playing? You might want to just close up shop with these people and go outside and maybe do some shooting or hiking or paddling.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Just be mindful of the line that we don't do interboard flame wars here.

 

[Soybomb]

I would recommend pointing out a few things:

A population that is capable of fighting back a corrupt government might never need to. Its much easier to do terrible things to people where there is no immediate risk to yourself. Just having citizens with guns might mean they never have to use them.

Gun crime has nothing to do with letting law abiding people own guns other than giving them a way to defend themselves against criminals. Simply look at the war on drugs and the availability of drugs as proof.

Despite his belief that the US military is an unstoppable force that would require trained soldiers to even begin to fight, we've been spending alot in the middle east fighting groups of poorly equipped poorly trained rebels. So far it has went poorly enough that it has demoralized our country and despite the skills and equipment our soldiers have, it looks like we'll be abandoning the fight.

 

[Feud]

Do these people you are playing nuclear bombing games with understand what kind of game they are playing? You might want to just close up shop with these people and go outside and maybe do some shooting or hiking or paddling.

Yes, the irony of of the game vs. personal feelings of violence is often brought up. As for "clos(ing) up shop", I've been around there long enough that I consider many of them to be as good of a friend as a message board can grant, and since I'm considered to be one of the best at the game I have no intention of packing up just because of a little disagreement (last summer a gun thread came up at the same time as a religion thread and the fireworks were really flying!). I won't convince most of them, but not everyone must agree on everything and there is always that chance to plant a good seed.

I do try to get out shooting as often as I can though! (College makes it hard)

Just be mindful of the line that we don't do interboard flame wars here.

Understood, and I have no intention of having a flame war on this forum, that forum, or between the two. I think that two opposing sides can rationally talk about virtually any issue without resorting to flaming the other, and while they may not agree they can be civil and polite.

 

[Tokugawa]

Hey, Colinthepilot, ask them if they would like to be able to go fly around for an afternoon and not have to file a flight plan. Last i heard, America was the freest place on the planet for general aviation. Also the least expensive. You would think we would be crashing all over the place, cause we don't have "enough" rules. (and don't tell the FAA!)

 

[Feud]

I would say stack up your armory and post a picture on that forum. Then explain that your guns have never killed anyone. It'll be fun.

Oh, they freaked out last April when I posted a picture of my M&P, something about having a Military and Police handgun... There are a few though that back us up, mainly Scottish and eastern Europeans. It's all in good fun though (at least it is to me).

 

[shc1]

I had someone tell me that (instead of having a firearm) I should move closer to the police station.

The human mind is an exceptional thing until logic and reason skip out.

 

[yenchisks]

i agree liberals should not own guns (says the crimial to the fly)