Official Constitution website is VERY anti-2A!

[Orthonym]

That "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" thing seems mostly misquoted these days:

I think the original was more like, "You may not falsely shout FIRE! in a crowded theater". Obviously, if there really is a fire in the theater, it is one's duty to his neighbors there to tell them about it. (Of course, a prudent man will get his own pale tender soft pink bottom over to the closest exit door before sounding the alarm....)

 

[Mountain]

As the webmaster of the "offending" site, I want to say a few things.

First, to the original poster, the site is not the "official" site of the U.S. Constitution - there is, in fact, no "official" site. The closest, perhaps, it at http://www.archives.gov, where you can see the Constitution's physical form as it appears in Washington today. Any site, and there are lots and lots of them out there, that posts a true copy of the Constitution, either photographically or transcribed, is a public service - I certainly think of my site in that way.

Second, as someone else noted, the site's topical, FAQ, and other commentary pages are, when opinions are given, the opinions of me, and no one else. I think this is reasonably clear.

Third, on that page you reference, I start with what I think are two very unbiased sections on the Amendment itself - on its history and on the contemporary debate on the issue. Only after that do I procede with my thoughts on a replacement amendment, one which I think is very reasonable and thoughtful. Do I see my version appearing in the state legislatures any time soon? No. Do I foresee any version appearing in the state legislatures any time soon? No. It is there as an imepetus for debate. Like this one.

Fourth, I do have lots of links to HCI, but I also have as many links to the NRA. I believe in a fair and balanced approach, and I think I've provided that on this page.

Firth, to jimpeel, who said

The scary part:

I simply say that this was included because it is included in many current amendments, and in those in which it is not included, it is implied.

Sixth, to jimpeel, who said

Is that something like the second article of clothing?

I note that the Bill of Rights is often referred to as the "first ten articles of amendment," and I don't see anything odd about my turn of phrase. My apologies if you disagree.

Seventh, to Jake, who said

Granted of course that I get to decide what's "reasonable" for personal defense.

I think this is the part of my proposed replacement that I am the most concerned about, and I think that with the guidance of the ratification debates and the wisdom of the courts, we would have reasonable restriction only. If this wording seems too liberal, I would be open to hearing commentary on what it could be changed to. One of my main points in drafting this version was to come up with something succinct. Too often, proposed changes to the Constitution are over-worded and exhaustive.

Eighth, to Mark Tyson, who said

His proposed amendment is, in effect, the way the right is treated today.... To me, this guy just doesn't sound like a foaming-at-the-mouth anti.

thank you for actually reading the page and not having a knee-jerk, reactionist response. I'm not a foaming anti by any means. I'm simply looking to quell the rhetoric on both sides of the issue. We don't need an outright ban, and we don't need freewheeling ownership of whatever firearm you want.

Ninth, to para.2, the analogy is not perfect, I admit. But my point was not to provide a perfect analogy, but to show that even the most precious of rights (and I consider my first amendment rights my most precious) are subject to some restriction.

Tenth, to romulus, who said

I don't care which amendment he wants to repeal, the fact that he even emtertains altering the Bill of Rights is sickening...

I only say that times change. The militia aspect of the 2nd Amendment meant something 200 years ago. Today, it means nothing. That may sound like a "foaming anti" thing to say, but I don't see it that way. Of course, we are all entitled to our opinions. As for altering the Bill of Rights, the Bush administration has done more of that with the Patriot Act than this proposed amendment ever would.

... oy, I'd love to respond to more, but I gotta go to church. I'll be back later.

 

[Mark Tyson]

Here's our chance guys! Let's keep it on the high road!

Mountain:

First off, Welcome to the High Road!

Current gun legislation passed off as "common sense gun control" makes little sense in my opinion. For example, the 1994 Crime Bill - better known as the assault weapons ban - outlawed guns based on meaningless cosmetic features like pistol grips and collapsing stocks. It makes no sense to me to throw someone in jail for having a bayonet on their gun. In essence they were banned because they looked like military weapons.

For instance this gun is legal:

This one will get you thrown in prison:

They are basically the same. Yet one is verboten. Why? See that little metal cylinder on the end of the barrel - the flash suppressor? It doesn't make the gun more powerful or anything, yet it's all the difference in the world. Makes no sense to me.

You could just as easily kill someone with a "hunting rifle" or "ordinary" shotgun as one of these guns with all of their nasty features.

Functionally identical guns are still legal - and now there is an effort to ban these as well, so to gun owners it looks as though we give an inch and they take a mile. That is why so many of us are so adament that we must draw a hard line and fight just about every gun law proposed.

Another example:

The 1986 machine gun cut-off, outlawing new machine guns for civilians, might seem agreeable to you if you don't think civilians "need" machine guns. But in point of fact from 1934(date of the National Firearms Act requiring registration of automatic weapons) until then there had been no murders that I know of commited with a legally owned civilian machine gun(there was one committed after that - by a police officer no less). Most criminals wouldn't bother to jump through all the legal hoops made necessary by the 1934 law to get a machine gun - approval by local chief law enforcement officer, fingerprint, local and federal background checks, fingerprint, etc. They got them the old fashioned way - they stole them from the government! The system wasn't broke but the politicians fixed it anyway.

These are just a couple examples of why gun owners are so defensive these days.

I agree with you that times and circumstances change, and the founding fathers would want our laws to evolve to deal with new problems. We do live in a different country today than we did in 1792. But in changing our laws we have to preserve our fundamental liberties.

 

[Publicola]

Mountain,
The problem with your proposed amendment is that it gives government too much power over what is viewed as a fundamental Right.

I know you're trying to find a "reasonable" compromise that will appease both sides of the issue, but I think you misunderstand what is reasonable. Having the government possess implicit authority to reasonably regulate firearms makes as much sense as giving whiskey & car keys to teenage boys. The government will inevitably abuse their power just as they've done currently regarding the constraints that the second amendment has placed on them.

About yelling fire in a crowded theater - that's not really comparable to gun control as you seem to advocate it. Ya see gun control is prior restraint based, whereas yelling fire is only punishable after an act has been commited. One punishes the action, the other punishes the potential action. For a more detailed explanation on this I invite you to read the following link

http://publicola.blogspot.com/2003_02_16_publicola_archive.html#89184875

It mainly deals with concealed carry but you should get the idea of how it applies to any prior restraint based gun control laws.

Further you misunderstand the nature of the Right that the second amendment acknowledges. All the second amendment does is prevent the government from interfering with the Right to have the tools necessary for self defense. It is not dependant upon having an organized militia, any more than your Right of Free Speech depends on belonging to a newspaper. & The militia is not as useless as you seem to think. Ya see the whole idea of the militia is simply that the people within a community (or state or nation) will band together for their common defense if attacked. You may think the idea is outdated, but that shows you fail to understand history, human nature & the nature of humans within a government. It is not likely, but it is possible, that one day you & I, or our children or grandchildren or even great grand children will have to take up arms to protect our homes & families from a government bent on domination of us. It doesn't matter if that government is ours or someone elses - what will matter is that we at least have the tools to defend ourself with. Other things besides arms are necessary, but arms makes things so much easier. Here's a link on the 3 part recipe necessary for a successful defense of community

http://publicola.blogspot.com/2003_04_06_publicola_archive.html#92355641

Finally I believe you misunderstand the concept of Rights altogether. It's true that some are collective &/or political in nature (such as the Right to Vote) but the second amendment deals with a fundamental individual Right that cannot be changed or altered. If your proposed second amendment alteration were to become ratified it would not change the Right to arms at all - it would just put the government at odds with the Right to Arms.
Here's one on why the Right to Arms is Absolute

http://publicola.blogspot.com/2003_03_09_publicola_archive.html#90402258

One last thing - the NRA is not an effective counter to the HCI links you have up. If anything the NRA is closer to the HCI than most would think. I invite you to look at http://www.gunowners.org/ (Gun Owners of America), http://jpfo.org/ (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership), http://www.libertybelles.org/index.html (Liberty Belles), http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/ (Armed Females of America), & http://publicola.blogspot.com/ (my blog). These will give you a truly opposite perspective than the pro-gun control sites you have linked. The NRA is too willing to compromise & in fact supports gun control, so they are not a good example of a fair & balanced counter to HCI.

 

[Mountain]

So... as I was saying...

Mark Tyson said

Well, then try writing him and see what he says.

... heh heh - that's what referrer logs are for

AZRickD said

Also, the term "sporting use" is the basis for gun control since early 1900, through 1930s in Germany and 1968 with our own Gun Control Act of 1968.

I think that bringing up Nazi Germany is a bad tactic on the pro-gun side, so I'm going to pretty much ignore it. I will say this, though. I think that the gun in the United States in the 21st century has three uses: self-defense, sport, and hunting. And that's it. Now, the 2nd Amendment does not get into any of these, except perhaps self-defense, but in a much more communal way. The fact that I faced as I developed my own personal opinion on the gun is that in today's America, I have nothing to fear from a tyrannical government nor from a foreign invader (nor from an invader from a neighboring state, a concern of the contemporaries of the Bill of Rights). Perhaps the prevalence of guns in our history has prevented both tyranny and invasion, perhaps not. If it has, the continued prevalence of guns for sport, hunting, and self-defense will continue to do those jobs. But the stated aim of the Constitution will not be on the defense of the nation, but on personal defense and recreation. We have an Army. It is a great Army, and all of my experience with guns, 99% of it positive, was when I served. The militia clause of the 2nd Amendment has done nothing but cloud the issue since the 1930's. Let's have an amendment that reflects our actual us of the gun today. Let it be relevent.


Dave Markowitz wrote

NOT Official ... is not an "official." It's run by this guy:

Good! Someone else who read a little deeper! I say again that there is no such thing as an "official" Constitution website.

Drjones wrote

I didn't think I'd have to point it out, but his choice of the word "reasonable" is what is frightening.

Again, I don't disagree. I'm not sure what other word there is, and I settled on "reasonable" after some time thinking on it. I guess reasonableness would be defined by the people of the time, as I would expect the Constitution to continue to live for many centuries to come. If the people of the 2100's have a different interpretation of what is reasonable, then who are we to say they are wrong? However, I do think that there should be some minimum level of protection, something akin to today's norm - I just don't know how you put that into an amendment in 100 words or less.

gunsmith said "nuff said" when it mentioned that many visitors to the site are fans of The West Wing. I also like Clint Esatwood and Charles Bronson. Hopefully we can bring the discussion to a bit higher level than gunsmith seems to want to reduce it to.

Nightfall said, of repeal of the 2nd Amendment,

To even entertain the notion that the gov't would be allowed to continue past this point is silly.

I wonder what he/she means? I agree, as I've noted, that it seems unlikely that my amendment suggestion, or any amendment suggestion, will ever come to pass - it is a hard row to hoe. But should it come to that point, I wonder what "allowed to" would even mean? Do you mean that the amendment might not be passed by Congress, that it would not be ratified by the states, or something more ominous?

dustind said

This guy is pretty misguided and does not know much about the constitution not to mention the second amendment.

and I can only assume that "this guy" means me. I wonder why dustind would attack me in such a way. It is a light attack, but I think we can all agree that it is an attack - I've been doing "this" (the website) for almost ten years now, and the fact that I have an entire page devoted to the topic of the 2nd Amendment belies his assertion that I don't "mention" it.

Orthonym said

I think the original was more like, "You may not falsely shout FIRE! in a crowded theater". Obviously, if there really is a fire in the theater, it is one's duty to his neighbors there to tell them about it.

and of course you are right. The case is actually Schenck v US (249 US 47) and the exact quote is "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." My only point was that free speech is not absolute - it can be regulated to prevent such a false utterance.

I think that does it ... I'll read any replies and reply as needed. Thanks.

 

[Thumper]

My only point was that free speech is not absolute - it can be regulated to prevent such a false utterance

Not at all...it appropriately allows you to prosecute those who abuse free speech.

It doesn't exercise prior restraint. Note that you don't have to have a license to operate a printing press, operate a website, or simply speak.

You see, Freedom of Speech is a fundamental right, not to be infringed, get it?

A question for you Mountain:

Do you really believe that the intentions of the writers have so little bearing on the discussion?

Edited to add a further question:

Are you open minded enough to continue the debate? In other words, if truth is your goal, we'll be glad to go on with this. If your mind is already made up, then I see no point.

I suggest you stick around. I hope you do.

 

[Mountain]

Mark Tyson said:

It doesn't make the gun more powerful or anything, yet it's all the difference in the world. Makes no sense to me.

This makes no sense to me - and part of the reason why we have legislation like that is the compromises that honest people looking to reduce gun violence make with honest people looking to maintain and support the right to bear arms. They are both reasonable issues, and both are honorable goals. What I've attempted to do, and whether I have failed or succeeded is not up to me (for my view on the page has been attacked by both sides), is apply that same compromise to my idea. Under my amendment, maybe both guns are banned, maybe both are legal - I don't know. Maybe a feature, like a flash suppressor, is enough to make any gun sporting one illegal - I don't know. What it could do, though, is protect absolutely some types of guns, like hunting rifles and personal hand guns, and render some others obviously illegal. We would still have a grey area, but then we would also have some recent debate, and some fresh perspective from the legislature and judiciary, on what is permissable and what is not.

I think we can all agree that the legislation we have now is a mess.

The 1986 machine gun cut-off, outlawing new machine guns for civilians, might seem agreeable to you if you don't think civilians "need" machine guns.

Frankly, I don't think civilians do need machine guns. I've fired them - they are fun. But do civilians need them? No. Can anyone reasonably argue that they do? I haven't heard a reasonable argument in their favor yet, and I've been listening for one for a long time. The only ones that I have heard that approach reasonable is that the populace would need them to counter a military revolution. But I reject that such a revolution would ever take place, and see this as a way of playing into the militia aspect of the Amendment. As for criminals getting their hands on these kinds of weapons anyway, I guess we will always live with the criminal element, and we learn new ways to counter that all the time. But I also reject the "they got 'em, we gotta have 'em" argument, too. Perhaps it is unfair of me to reject some arguments out of hand, and if so I apologize ... but there it is.

But in changing our laws we have to preserve our fundamental liberties.

I absolutely agree. We just have differing views of the exact details of those fundamental lberties. And that's fine.

From publicola:

The government will inevitably abuse their power just as they've done currently regarding the constraints that the second amendment has placed on them.

This is an inherent danger, and one of the reasons why I am troubled that the Supreme Court has, in 70 years, not take up a 2nd Amendment case. A lot of this debate could be quieted with some guidance from the court, but they have been uncharacteristically timid on this issue.

About yelling fire in a crowded theater - that's not really comparable to gun control as you seem to advocate it. Ya see gun control is prior restraint based, whereas yelling fire is only punishable after an act has been commited. One punishes the action, the other punishes the potential action.

I see your point, but there has to be some common sense. You cannot prior-restrain the utterances from someone's mouth. I mean, I suppose you could, if you could strap some tech to everyone's head that prevented certain words from entering space ... but there is a difference between words, which are intangible, and a gun. The alternative is to allow a free market in certain guns but make their final sale to a consumer illegal - that makes no sense. Prior restraint, in the form of making certain firearms illegal is the only alternative. Additionally, if you only prosecute utterances after they are uttered, in most cases we are only talking about words, not lives (the "fire in a crowded theater" example is slightly different, because I presume someone would be prosecuted because someone else was hurt). In the case of the gun, if the only time you could prosecute was after someone is shot, then we're talking about a much different situation. I would rather some one slander me for 24 hours straight than shoot me once.

Finally I believe you misunderstand the concept of Rights altogether. It's true that some are collective &/or political in nature (such as the Right to Vote) but the second amendment deals with a fundamental individual Right that cannot be changed or altered.

I don't think I misuderstand - as I've said, I've dealt with these issues and concepts for almost ten years, and I feel I have a comfortable grasp on them. There can be a difference of opinion, though. I might feel the 2nd protects a collective right, and you an individual right. And I think the arguments on both sides of that issue are compelling. But this, to me, is one of the fundamental flaws in our 2nd Amendment. The replacement I propose removes any such ambiguity. It is undeniably a protection of an individual right.

 

[Thumper]

Perhaps it is unfair of me to reject some arguments out of hand, and if so I apologize ... but there it is.

Not to jab, that's a common sentiment among the antis.

The Second exists has nothing to do with personal protection, hunting ducks, or "because the rednecks want to"...it exists as a barrier to governmental tyranny.

Your site purports to explain the Second Amendment...how can you simply ignore those that had a hand in writing that Amendment?

I'm asking you to rebut, in turn, the following comments by smarter men than I:



The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-JEFFERSON, THOMAS, proposed Virginia Constitution, June 1776, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed.)1950


"A militia when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves." - Richard Henry Lee

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." - Rep. Edbridge Gerry, debating the Second Amendment, 1789

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.-ADAMS, SAMUEL, in Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789

Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article [the Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms.-COXE, TENCH, under pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian," Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

B]ut if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights.-HAMILTON, ALEXANDER, The Federalist Papers, No. 29

Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own 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?-HENRY, PATRICK, June 9, 1788, Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution

 

[Mark Tyson]

While the term "keep and bear arms" has a military connotation, there was, at the time of the founding, also a widely recognized individual right. The Pennsylvania constitution, for example contains an amendment as follows:

"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Keep in mind that this was written around the same time as the federal constitution - a little before, if I'm not mistaken. There is clearly a distintion between personal and collective defense here. There are similar provisions in many other state constitutions, although most invoke the militia concept.

Regarding machine guns:

The thing is, machine guns, the ones owned by civilians, weren't being used in crime at all(from 1934-1986), yet they were outlawed anyway. That doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Really, any gun that can be used for criminal purposes can be used for legitimate purposes, and visa versa. The difference is in the human being behind the gun.

There was a case in NYC where a guy took a can of gasoline and killed over 80 people in a crowded nightclub - in 1990, at the Happy Land Social Club. Evil people have always found ways of wreking havoc, even without guns, even with something as simple as fire.

I know that criminals do a lot of harm with guns. It makes sense to try and keep violent people from getting guns, but I also think that in a free society you have to accept a certain ammount of danger. I know that sounds terribly callous. Look at it another way. Some crime fighting measures are unacceptable, even if they would reduce crime. Warrantless searches, roadblocks in inner cities, random checkpoints, all these measures might work but I don't think most people wouldn't accept them.

 

[Mountain]

Thumper said:

Not at all...it appropriately allows you to prosecute those who abuse free speech.

True - but as I noted in my previous post, the consequences of abuse of free speech, and the consequences of abuse of gun use, are quite different, and warrant different approaches. In my humble opinion.

Do you really believe that the intentions of the writers have so little bearing on the discussion?

No, of course not - but I am also not a literalist nor a strict constructionist. They wrote the Constitution for themselves and for us, and while we can use their contemporary writings and speeches to guide us in their meaning, we also can, and should, add our own interpretations. They would, I believe, have it no other way.

Are you open minded enough to continue the debate? In other words, if truth is your goal, we'll be glad to go on with this. If your mind is already made up, then I see no point.

I have to chuckle - when you ask if my mind made up, do you mean is it made up as much as your's is, and others' are? Probably. I don't have one inkling that I am going to change any of your minds. And I have about as much inkling that you can change mine. My primary purpose of coming here was to clarify what I felt were misrepresentations of my website as posted in the beginning of the topic. I am happy to offer my perspective, as much as it is desired and/or welcomed. But my primary purpose is not to debate the 2nd Amendment - I have wider goals in mind, and those primarily revolve around the dissemination of information about the Constitution, of which the 2nd is but one part. My own website already occupies enough of my time in pursuit of that goal. I will keep coming back to visit this issue as long as this topic stays alive. But since this site seems to concentrate only on the gun issue, I don't think you'll find me a frequent visitor. On my 2nd Amendment page, I may add a link to this site - it seems pretty well on-topic.

At the same time, if anyone reading this wants to talk about any constitutional issue not related to the 2nd (or, heck, related to the 2nd), then feel free to visit The USConstitution Online and read and/or visit the message boards.

 

[Mark Tyson]

But since this site seems to concentrate only on the gun issue, I don't think you'll find me a frequent visitor.

Actually you can talk about all kinds of civil liberties in the political section. Just steer clear of homosexuality, religion, abortion . . .

Hmm. Maybe the discourse isn't so free after all! LOL!

 

[Mountain]

Thumper wrote:

Your site purports to explain the Second Amendment...how can you simply ignore those that had a hand in writing that Amendment?

Do I ignore them? I don't think I do, but if you think I do, I can certainly revisit some of what I've written. What I thought I had made clear, but perhaps not enough, is that I think the reasons for the amendment have become moot. Today, we do not see our ownership of guns as contributing to the national defense or to defense against tyranny. Sure, some do. But ask your average gun owner why he or she owns one, and the answer will be "hunting," "sport," or "personal defense." Those are the reasons that have evolved over time. And that is part of what clouds the issue. The quotes you provide are all valid, solid quotes in favor of keeping guns for defense. But if we're going to get stuck on that defense of gun ownership, then I think we've reached an impasse.

Does that mean we should ignore the historical record? No, but if we are to not ignore the historical record, we also need to see that there had not been a tyranny to defend against, ever, nor a foreign invader since the War of 1812. The only time I ever held a gun in my hand with the thought that I would be using it for one of these things was when I was in the National Guard. That was it. All other times, I had far different things in mind.

 

[Thumper]

contemporary writings and speeches to guide us in their meaning

Okay...we can agree on that as a starting point...

But if you're willing to admit that the writers should serve as a guide, how can you take a position that runs completely counter to their intent?

No, but if we are to not ignore the historical record, we also need to see that there had not been a tyranny to defend against, ever, nor a foreign invader since the War of 1812.

Those that fought in the civil war would probably tend to disagree.

But if we're going to get stuck on that defense of gun ownership, then I think we've reached an impasse.

Why? I believe I've provided salient argument, with actual quotes from the people that wrote the document to counter your interpretation.

You defended that with why gun owners "think" they own guns...I'm sure you can admit that's a little weak of an argument.

You simply ignore the intent of the writers...no chance of argument there...perhaps it would be prudent to note that in your "interpretation."

Not knocking you, but I really believe that unless you can admit to yourself that you are a bit biased, it might be important to include some of these quotes provided.

 

[Publicola]

Mountain,
What you are proposing is exactly the equivilent of taping someone's mouth shut as they enter a theater for fear that they might yell fire. It places an undue burden on those who would not seek to yell fire lightly, & prevents those who would only yell fire when appropriate from warning their co-patrons in said theater.

Prior restraint based gun control - which punishes for mere possession - is the same thing as taping someone's mouth because they have the potential to cause harm.

& there are no differences between words & Arms; at least not for the purposes of our discussion. Both can be used for good or bad. The deciding factor rests solely on the user of the words or the gun.

& making certain firearms illegal to possess is dangerous in that it gives the government control over what types of arms the populace can have, while it simply will not affect the criminal element (both civilian & governmental) who would take advantage of a populace that's not adequately disarmed.

As to your asserttion that we have nothing to fear from government - do you have any idea how many people have thought that just before their government started murdering them? In 1920 no one had the slightest idea that the Jews in germany would be subject to mass exterminations. Germany was viewed at that point as the most friendly European nation for Jews. But 20 years later that changed. The same could be said of almost any government-induced murder of its own people: 20 to 30 years prior to such events it was not seen as likely.

Now in the U.S. it is doubtful that the government will start attempting to wipe out black people, or white people, or any racial, ethnic or religious group. But it is possible. & it does happen here & there, albeit on a limited scale. The MOVE house in the late 1980's in Philedelphia is a good example; so are what occurred at Ruby Ridge, Idaho & Waco, Texas in the early 90's. The Japanese Internment of WW2 comes to mind, as well as the attack on ther Bonus Army in 1932.

So whether it's on a local or national level, there is always the chance, even if it seems remote, that the citizen will have to take up arms for defense of his/her community from a foreign or domestic force.

As far as the Army preventing any chance of a foreign invasion - you do misunderstand the framers' intent. They viewed a standing army as a serious & immediete threat to liberty. & they were correct to do so. If a gun confiscation law is passed & the people of Denver, Colorado refuse to obey it - who do you think would get sent door to door? The Colorado National Guard? Nope - it's be the U.S. Army; a group of proffessional soldiers whose allegiance is clearly to the federal government, not the state government or its people.

Now as to the concept of Rights in general - I must insist that you do seem to misunderstand.

Aside from political &/or collective Rights, the Rights remaining are indeed Absolute. This does not mean they cannot through force or threat of force be chilled in their exercise, but rather it means that there is no moral authority on the part of government to chill these Rights in any way.

Where you seem confused is associating behavior that is similar to that used in the exercise of a Right to the Right itself. It's a bit of a semantic point but a necessary one if we're going to correct the errors that stem from Schenck v US.

Imagine two people walking down opposite sides of the street at different times. The first person is walking with a firearm on his hip. He is just walking along minding his own business. He's merely exercising a Right.

Now the other person is walking along with a firearm on his hip. At this point he too is merely exercising a Right. But then he draws his firearm & starts indiscrimantly shooting up the street - both people & property. He is not exercising a Right by doing this, but merely using actions that some would mistake for the exercise of a Right.

Mistaking the latter example as a legitimate case for restraining a Right is the root of our problem, & your misunderstanding. By passing a law making it illegal to carry a gun openly while walking down the street you place an undue burden on those who have only peaceful intent, while doing nothing to prevent those with harmful intent from causing harm.

Let's imagine our two fictional people walking down opposite sides of the street at the same time. When the one draws his firearm & starts shooting up the street, the other has the option of drawing his firearm & stopping the other person from causing harm.

But let's look at the same situation in a world with prior restraint based gun control;

The first person is walking down the street unarmed because he obeys the law. The second person who intends on shooting up the street does not leave his gun at home, because since he's intent on violating the law against shooting people & property w/o cause he doesn't mind breaking the law about carrying a gun. He pulls his gun & starts shooting. But the first person cannot do anything except duck & run since he has been disarmed by prior restraint based gun control. He is at the second persons mercy until the cops can show up & stop him.

So as a policy matter prior restraint based gun control is a failure. It only disarms the innocent while guaranteeing that the ones with harmful intent will be in no serious danger until the cops can be summoned.

But as an ideaology matter, prior restraint gun control deprives us of a fundamental Right - that being the Right to Arms, which is directly derived from the Right to Self Defense, which is a direct derivitive of the Right to Life. You or anyone else shoudl not make a decision for me concerning what I need or don't need to exercise any Right of mine. The common sense approach you advocate asks me to give up a portion of what I already have (My Right to Arms) for absolutely no gain on my part. It is no different than if I had $100 & you had $0 for you to ask me to share my $100 equally with you. No matter how much I give you I loose what I had & gain absolutely nothing in return.

What I'm hoping you will understand is that the Right to Arms is subject only to the abilities & desires of the individual who wishes to exercise it or not exercise it. Banning machine guns or rifles with flash hiders won't accomplish anything except making the populace more susceptible to a hostile government (foreign or domestic).

& on machien guns - if the military &/or police finds them useful, then they should be available to the average citizen w/o the hassles that are currently imposed. A short pistol caliber submachinegun is a great tool for home defense, just as its a great tool for offensive actions in tight spaces (that's why the cops/military has them). But before I explain to you all the situations in which a machine gun can be useful if not downright ideal for a citizen to have, I must first ask what authority do you think you or anyone else has to limit or even question my or anyone elses' decision to purchase, own, or possess a machinegun? Ya see the burden of proof is not on the individual to explain why they need a machine gun, it's on the government to explain why we must justify our decision to them. As a policy matter this justification has been mighty lacking; as an idealogical one it's been completely absent.

The framers intended every individual to be able to possess a firearm equivilent to the ones the common (& uncommon) soldier possessed. Then it was a flintlock musket. Now it's an assault weapon (a real, fully automatic assault weapon - not the assault weapon as defined by the AWB) 50 years from now it might be a laser firing rifle. The point is despite how technlogy changes the idea is for the populace to be as equally armed as any potential foot soldier who would invade that persons community.

So again, tell me why I have to justufy my decisions to you or anyone else?

 

[Dashunde]

The web site is not official in any way.

 

[Thumper]

pack of fools

Civil discourse, bro...come on. We don't do that here.

Mountain...I hope you're still around. If you truly feel that it's a two sided issue, why such a one sided stance on your site?

 

[Mark Tyson]

Mountain, I hope you stick around.

Concerning military service and civilian gun ownership:

While nobody's about to invade the United States, people already familiar with firearms are going to have an advantage entering the armed forces. A nation of riflemen can beat a nation of coffeehouse philosophers any day. Why do you think the Afghan Mujahedeen were so formidable against the Soviets, even with old WWI era British Enfields?

Here's a quote from someone more contemporary than the Founders:

"The great body of our citizens shoot less as times goes on. We should encourage rifle practice among schoolboys, and indeed among all classes, as well as in the military services by every means in our power. Thus, and not otherwise, may we be able to assist in preserving peace in the world..."

-Theodore Roosevelt

 

[Drjones]

Hello Mountain and thank you for joining our discussion!

How did you find us?

Anyhow, welcome and I hope you enjoy your stay here.




Drjones

 

[jimpeel]

Mountain

Welcome to THR.

Firth, to jimpeel, who said

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scary part:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I simply say that this was included because it is included in many current amendments, and in those in which it is not included, it is implied.

That is where you go so very, very wrong. There is no implication of granted powers of Congress in ANY of the Ten Amendments known as the Bill of Rights. The BoR is a limitation on the powers of Congress, not a grant. To "simply say that this was included because it is included in many current amendments," is to say that you have not forethought your Amendment very carefully from the standpoint of abuse.

The first place where those words appeared in any Constitutional Amendment was Amendment XIII. At that point, the Congress took their first bold step in granting themselves powers unenumerated in the Constitution in contravention to Amendment X of the BoR. That was the purpose of Amendment X, to prevent the Congress from granting themselves powers extraconstitutionally by reserving those powers to the States. Amendment XV gave them the power to abuse. As an example:

AMENDMENT XV
Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--

Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Is this a natural right; or is this a conferred right?

It is a conferred right; and here is why.

A natural right is something that cannot be removed by legislation. This, however, is a conferred right. The Congress has removed certain persons, who are "citizens of the United States" from the voting roles by simple "apropriate" legislation; the very type of legislation granted in Section 2. Those who are on "the list" may not vote.

I have argued many times on these boards that the Second Amendment, being a natural right has been bastardized by the passage of fiat legislation which excludes certain persons from firearms ownership.For the first time in this country's history, a right has been taken for a misdemeanor violation and the laws against ex-post facto laws ignored -- that being the Lautenberg Act.

What do you think the timbre of the laws coming out of the Congress would be granted the type of power to which you subscribe? They would need no Constitutional Amendment to change the Constitution; not that they seem to need one now. Your Section 3 of your proposed Amendment would grant them unbridled power to do as they please. I vigorously oppose that.

Sixth, to jimpeel, who said
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that something like the second article of clothing?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I note that the Bill of Rights is often referred to as the "first ten articles of amendment," and I don't see anything odd about my turn of phrase. My apologies if you disagree.

I answered that in the last post on page one of this thread.

 

[Justin]

Hi Mountain, welcome to THR.

I have to say, I've followed this thread with some interest. While I don't pretend to have given your site more than a cursory glance, I would like to bring up a couple of philosphical points that I find interesting about your argument.

To give you an idea of where I'm coming from, most of my beliefs can be generally construed as being based in Objectivism.

Based on your postings here, I get the impression that you're a social utilitarian. In essence, someone who believes that society should do what is in the best interest of the greatest number of people. This can be seen in your advocacy of 'reasonable' restrictions on firearms.

The most fundamental flaw with social utilitarianism is that for it to function it assumes that 'the powers that be' are free to run roughshod over the rights of those in the minority on any given topic.

The second biggest problem with it is that it assumes that the majority will always come to the right and proper conclusion. This is, of course, wrong. Humans are fallible, and humans in groups seem incredibly suseptible to groupthink.

Which brings me full circle to your argument for 'reasonable' restrictions. The call of the social utilitarian is always that doing x is reasonable or common sense. Yet I have never seen two social utilitarians able to agree on what exactly is reasonable for a given situation. This goes doubly so for the whole gun issue. 'Reasonable' is very much in the eye of the beholder, and as such it is impossibly nebulous. Clamoring for such things is a lot like trying to get to the water in a desert mirage. You'll certainly move forward, but it is impossible to ever attain it. In the meantime, with every step forward you are passing more and more regulations, laws, and restrictions that may or may not have a positive benefit.

In fact a perfect example of this can be found in your response to inquiries as to whether a rifle with a flash hider should be illegal.

This makes no sense to me - and part of the reason why we have legislation like that is the compromises that honest people looking to reduce gun violence make with honest people looking to maintain and support the right to bear arms. They are both reasonable issues, and both are honorable goals.

Sure, honest people made a compromise when this law was passed, but what is the result? A law that has had no demonstrable effect on crime and has burdened people with an onerous regulation. As a result of this law, if you make a mistake and buy a rifle made after 1994 with a flash hider you are guilty of having committed a felony. You may not be a gun owner, so I forgive you for not necessarily being intimately familiar with the details of such laws, but to tacitly give your approval to such laws simply because of the noble goals of those who passed them is silly, especially when such a law can very easily land someone in jail over a misread serial number, or because they've fallen prey to a huckster.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

 

[Mark Tyson]

If I may add to what Justin said:

to tacitly give your approval to such laws simply because of the noble goals of those who passed them is silly

Indeed, by that logic we can defend almost any law, no matter how onerous, so long as it is passed with good intentions.

 

[jimpeel]

Mountain

By the by, you failed to address one of my bones of contention wherein I asked why the following would not be more approopriate to your Amendment

"The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Period

 

[Mountain]

I can only sneak away as I tend to the children and to dinner, so I'm going to try to offer responses to the quick things, and come back later to offer responses to the not-so-quick things.

Thumper wrote

But if you're willing to admit that the writers should serve as a guide, how can you take a position that runs completely counter to their intent?

Because I think that they had a completely different world view than we have today. They had to overthrow a monarch to get their freedom. Today, we live in the pinacle of freedom (or at least we think so). My honest opinion is that we do not need guns to protect us from our own government. Now, I think we should still have guns - they are part of our heritage. Perhaps those that might think to impose tyranny upon us would see those guns held for use for hunting, sport, and self-defense and think twice ... but I honestly don't see us putting someone in a position where they would be as much of a threat to our freedoms as George was. Maybe that wasn't a quick response... in any case, the short of it is, we don't have the same experiences today that they had in latter quarter of the 18th century.

Those that fought in the civil war would probably tend to disagree.

I'm not opening that can of worms.

You defended that with why gun owners "think" they own guns...I'm sure you can admit that's a little weak of an argument.

OK, I can only speak for the six or seven gun owners I've asked the question of. I do not have any poll numbers - my sense is "to serve in the unorganized militia" would not be one of the top of that poll, though. I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Not knocking you, but I really believe that unless you can admit to yourself that you are a bit biased, it might be important to include some of these quotes provided.

I don't think I ever said I'm not biased - I do try to provide both sides on the page in question before I provide my opinion - and opinion is, on its face, biased. I am biased toward thinking that we should have gun ownership in the United States, but that it should not be an absolute right and that we can have regulation and still have effective ownership.

Publicola's message I will have to come back to.

Daschunde said:

The web site is not official in any way... just yet another pack of fools.

Insert foot in mouth? I've admitted the former. As for the latter, I don't think Daschunde has read along far enough to make that determination.

From Thumper again:

If you truly feel that it's a two sided issue, why such a one sided stance on your site?

Again, I do feel that I offer a wide range of views on both sides, and provide my own view which is somewhere in the middle. That's just on one page - remember, the rest of the site covers a wide range of topics. The 2nd Amendment page is one out of over 175.

From Mark Tyson:

people already familiar with firearms are going to have an advantage entering the armed forces.

Can't argue with that - but I entered boot camp at 17 with only a few BB-gun pot shots under my young belt, and I did pretty well with my M-16 and .45 cal. And later even better with the 9mm. My shot was horrid with the tommy gun they made us tankers train with. But if anything, my experience shows that you can train anyone to be a good shot. They need not grow up with a gun to be. With all due respect to Teddy, I would say the same thing. That having been said, I would not be totally opposed to having target practice in schools. I doubt it would ever happen, though.

From Drjones:

How did you find us?

The link to my site at the top of this topic wound up in my referrer logs, and I just followed the link.

I'll respond to jimpeel and Justin later ... gotta go peel potatoes and make sure the boys haven't skinned the cat.

 

[jimpeel]

Mountain

As to shouting Fire†in a theater, the management of that theater is not required to issue muzzles to the patrons to prevent the utterance of the offending word. Prior restraint laws would require exactly that.

The laws of this nation were formed on few principles, such as:

• There should be an overt act that causes harm prior to the law against such act being enforced.
  
• The sins of the father should not be visited upon the son.
  
• Jurisprudence dictates that three tenets be satisfied for a conviction -- means, motive, and opportunity.

Prior restraint laws throw out the first.

Firearms responsibility laws throw out the second.

Laws such as “zero-tolerance†throw out the third.

The anti-firearms agendists always demand that we “compromiseâ€. The NRA has compromised away so much there is little left. A compromise is one in which both sides gain or lose an equal amount of what is on the table. We give, they take, and then they come back to take even more.

The logical question at this point would be: Can you name one thing that the anti-firearms agendists have given up? Saying that they tempered their demands to lesser degrees doesn’t count because they always come back to re-demand them at a later time with another "compromise" being the usual result.