Second Amendment discussion (kinda long)

[para.2]

Freewheeling:

Don't know if this helps or not, but here's my interpretation:

The Constitution recognizes (not grants) the right of individuals to "keep" and "bear", "arms". I read this to mean individual arms, of the type in common use by the military/army/"militia" of the day. This would include all "small arms" i.e. rifles, pistols, shotguns, both semi-, and full-auto/select-fire, and even light machineguns, of the SAW variety, intended as individual weapons. I don't necessarily agree with the idea of a constitutional guarantee to ownership of crew-served weapons, artillery, tanks, warships, nukes, etc., but don't see those items as constitutionally proscribed, either. The "grey area", to me, is things like hand grenades, 40MM grenade launchers and their munitions, RPGs, shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, etc. These weapons are clearly individual arms, in common use by our, and other militaries worldwide, but may, in their use and effect, come closer to the above crew-served/artillery pieces. Again, not guaranteed, but not proscribed.

Obviously, I'm not a scholar, but, I hope just as obviously, I have given this some thought, and haven't set my thoughts in stone.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

I haven't dealt with the notion of small arms against a big army. I guess on the latter I'm willing to acknowledge that if the cause is widely seen as just a group that is supplied with small arms, but with significant popular support, could prevail against a large army.

I was infantry (mortar platoon) in an Armored unit in Germany. We used to serve as opfor when they were qualifying, and we were known to seriously embarrass them. seriously. Think "one guy with a .45 takes out 5 tanks" level of embarrassment.

Other than the need to pee and resupply occasionally, those million-dollar war machines are uncomfortable. Climb up the back to the TC hatch and take out the commander, gunner, and loader, and there you go. A 300-yd shot at the driver if he's not buttoned up ain't that hard either.

You might not be able to take out an apache, but they can't fly without fuel. Can you take out a couple of tanker trucks? What if they're escorted by bradleys, tanks, dismounts in deuce-and-a-halves? Answer: sure -- it's fuel and it'll ignite. They're flesh, and they'll die.

As to you other arguments, ummmmm, we disagree strongly.

The other side is arguing that you have rights simply because you were born. The fact that a thug (or a government officer) can take your life for no reason in no way implies that you don't have the right to live free from molestation. This line of thinking argues that men team up to form a government, and they assign to this government certain roles that they believe it can perform better than they can. If individuals don't have the right to do something (like knock over the local 7/11 for funding, or enslave the cutest coeds for the sexual needs of the members) then they can't assign that right to the collective.

If the feds can work on nukes and/or bio-weapons, then so can we. If we can't have them, then the government shouldn't, either.

Me? I don't see a whole lot of difference between the 2,000 lb bombs our fighters are throwing aroung in Iraq and a briefcase-size equivalent that uses fissionable materials to get an equivalent blast. The latter actually sounds more useful from a militia perspective.

Question: is it impossible for Al Quaida to get nukes in this day and age? Is it impossible for countries like Israel, South Africa, India, and Pakistan to produce their own weapons programs? Is a nuke even cost-effective for terror applications, compared to poison in a water supply, or releasing smallpox somewhere? Do you know what enough plutonium to create a 1 megaton warhead would cost? How about coming up with the cost of 100 gallons of pure nicotine, along with a mechanism to create an air-burst over a populated area?

 

[MacPelto]

From the Declaration of Independence -

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --

Now, I'll give this a go...but I'm not very articulate, so bear with, and keep in mind that I reserve the reight to elaborate/clarify.

The Founding fathers believed in the unalienable right to life, liberty, etc., they said so. They also believed that it was the government's job to secure that right, see above. They understood as well, that the government may not be able or willing to secure that right (hence the American Revolution).

If you believe in the right to life, liberty, etc., it follows that you will believe in the right to defend that life. If life is such a precious thing, then it follows that no effort should be spared to defend it, and that, since survival is at stake, you should make your best effort to do so. Reason indicates that your best efforts should include the most efficient tool for the job. Now, keeping in mind that one's life, liberty, etc., can be put into jeopardy by individuals and groups alike, it follows that one be prepared to defend that right against both.

So to sum up for now -

If you accept that life is a right, you should defend it with the most efficient tool, which may be some piece of ugly military hardware.

 

[hops]

The 2nd ammendment is perhaps the most interesting of all balance acts, by a state to preseve the inherent right of people to carry arms in defense of themselves and the state, and yet also try to protect the State from the greatest danger to it; the treason from within.

I believe the 2nd is perfectly crafted.

Part one: which is the milita part, allows for the right of a 'well regulated militia'.

Why 'well regulated'. Because if the people could form organized militias at will, and just operate with no supervision of the State, then the State may face the treason from within scenario. A militia implies (to me at least), a force with proper military training in proper use of arms, tactics and strategy. This is a much greater threat than people just being allowed to bear arms.

Part two: the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, allows the people the chance to defend against an oppressive government, with any arms available - if WMD are needed then so be it. An oppressive state will certainly use WMD - Iraq against its own Kurds for example. People will learn to become an organized militia relatively quickly, if the need arises.

We are all part of the unregulated militia, and if required by the state, can become members of a well regulated militia.

All types of arms are covered. Just like all types of 'political speech', regardless of the delivery medium, is covered by the 1st ammendment.
We may not like all aspects that apply today, but if we pick and choose, then we eventually lose the right completely.

Edited to add: I realize that the 18th century term 'regulated' means 'trained' or something like that, but in view of the current meaning of the word, perhaps my modern view of what the 2nd tries to do, is not that far of the mark.

 

[Jeff White]

freewheeling said;

I'm, frankly, a little disappointed. There are. to my mind, some pretty exotic and interesting answers but they seem absolutely indefensible from a political or practical standpoint.

There sir is your problem. The Bill of Rights is not a political or practical document nor was it meant to be. The BOR was enshrined as the first ten amendments to the constitution because it was to be above political and practical considerations. This prevents the tyranny of the majority. Back in the 80s there were some polls done that stated a very high percentage of the American people would support eliminating many of the protections against unlawful search and seizure in drug cases. If we were to use your standard of being defensible from a political and practical standpoint, the Fourth Amendment would have ceased to xist. After all there is no way the founders could have envisioned the crack cocaine scourge sweeping through the inner city. Surely the political and practical considerations would have allowed warrantless searches?

I'm not sure it's possible to come up with a more fundamentally flawed conception of rights and obligations. We have rights *because* we live in a state that defends them. Ask any stateless people that, and they'll set you straight.

Once again, you obviously don't understand where our rights come from. We have rights because we are armed. We are the the state. Our founders devised a governemnt that supported us, not the other way around. Stateless people have no rights because they have no arms. Give stateless people arms, and suddenly they are a force to be reckoned with. When the stateless refugees from Europe moved to Palestine they created the state of Israel for themselves by aquiring arms and forcing the existing states to recognize them by default. The Palestinian movement is using the same tactics. It's been that way throughout history. Israel wouldn't exist without stateless people aquiring arms, and no one would give the Palestinians the time of day if they were not armed. We retain our arms as the ultimate check on tyranny. Armed men are free, unarmed men are slaves. It's that simple.

Of course there are things that groups can do that individuals within the group are barred from doing. Levying taxes, for instance. I can't require you to automatically send me a certain portion of your paycheck every year without a contract specifying the delivery of a specific good or service. A tax is not a fee, and individuals cannot "opt out" at their own discretion. In fact the whole notion behind the concept of a Constitution is that, like Ulysses tied to the mast, it allows the group the ability to restrain certain individual behavior that would otherwise lead to "the war of all against all" and therefore allows cooperation in endeavors that would be impossible for the individuals themselves, operating alone. It's not a "free ride." *Of course* there's a difference between Public and Private Choice. Governance would be impossible without it. Why bother with a Constitution otherwise?

You are very wrong. The constitution does not allow for the group to rule. The constitution puts limits on what the group can do. The constitution specifically authorizes the group to do certain things, but it says that the group (government) has limits on what it can do. The constitution was written to limit government, not to authorize it. The founders wanted to greatly limit what government could do. They recognized that government was necessary, there are things individuals cannot effectively do by themselves, but they knew that governments had a tendancy to grow out of control. So they specifically limited what government was permitted to do.

I'm afraid that I see the problems inherent in an unrestricted right to bear arms insurmountable, and one would simply have to reject your interpretation of the Second Amendment if you insist on that, or unless there were enough of you to impose your interpretation on everyone. I thought my friend had found a way out of the dilemma. I think any responsible Supreme Court, hearing the arguments presented here for such rights, would reject those arguments. They'd have to.

A responsible supreme court would look at these issues in pure black and white constitutional terms. They could have no choice but to view it our way. Because words mean things. They mean exactly what they say. there are no footnotes that say but only sporting firearms. There is probably a reason the supreme court runs from second amendment cases. That reason is that they know what it says. And they don't want to upset the apple cart by saying it.

Now, I'm willing to acknowledge that the Constitution does, indeed, protect your right to have a nuke if you absolutely insist and there are enough of you to compel that interpretation, because agreement is really the only thing that backs up a Constitutional interpretation.

Well like it or not, that's what the founders intended. And constitutional interpretations are not subject to agreement. They are subject to what the Supreme Court says they are. The Supreme Court have made many unpopular and wrong decisions. Yet we still exist as a Constitutional republic.

Since the Constitution itself is a Public rather than a Private process I, as an individual, can't overrule it. But when push comes to shove, I'm not going to defend it. I wouldn't defend it rhetorically, and I wouldn't defend the state that it founds against a foreign aggressor. Why not? Because it doesn't provide me any security at all against the possibility of living under anarchic conditions for the balance of my life. I'd have to support a different state under a different Constitution that draws a line that prevents anarchy.

Well freedom does require you to be comfortable with taking resposibility for yourself. Perhaps you should consider moving somewhere where the government will tell you that you don't have to be concerned for your own welfare?

I am curious though. How does my owning weapons promote anarchy? Before 1934 there were virtually no restrictions of fireams in this country. None of the history books I've read make me believe we lived in anarchic conditions then. What leads you to believe things were otherwise when we had a literal interpretation of the second amendment?

And what other rights do you think we should apply political and practical standards to? As a police officer, I can tell you that I could end crime where I work if I didn't have to worry about that pesky Bill of Rights. It would certainly be a more orderly society if I could drop by your house and look for contraband, just for the public good of course. If you've got nothing to hide why would you mind? And if I found something I wasn't supposed to find, why should we waste public funds on a trial? After all the evidence of criminal activity is there.....I'm a stand up guy, hired to enforce the law, surely the public wanted me to do that when they agreed with the constitution? Yep, police states may be orderly and almost provide you a sure guarantee that you'll never live in anarchy...but I wouldn't want to live in one and I don't think that you do either.

Jeff

 

[freewheeling]

Well, I'm still not getting what I need. Jeff holds that practicality isn't the nexus of the thing, and the Public Choice perspective is that it's *all* about practicality. (See James Buchanan on the matter , if you don't believe me.) Moreover I can't acquiesce to the notion that we have rights "because we're armed." At least not as individuals. The Palestinians have arms. Are their rights to push Israel into the sea determined only by their ability to defeat Israel using the methods of total war (targetting civilians). If so, I see little chance for Israel unless they're willing to engage in genocide of the Palestinians. (And it may well come to that.)

But even apart from all that it's clear that the mere possession of arms would not even be sufficient to guarantee the rights of Israelis were they not part of a sanctioned nation-state bound together by traditions and a sense of mutual cooperation involving both rights *and* obligations (what used to be called "sovereignty"). They would be rolled up like an old worn out suit of clothes and tossed on a trash heap were that not the case. Spend a little time in the Middle East if you don't believe that. No sir, a state is what's required to ensure rights. Pure and simple.

In order to obtain a little clarity on this issue where to draw the line on bearing arms I asked my friend to elaborate. And bear in mind that this fellow is a genuine military heeero who served some 30 years in Special Forces. That doesn't necessarily make him an expert on the Constitution, but it makes him a man deserving of some respect. So here's what he had to say on the matter:

I don't have any citations to that effect, BUT given the wording of the "keep and bear" clause, I would think they were referring to sidearms and rifles. If I am correct in my definition of the word "bear," it would be a bit difficult to "bear" a cannon.

It's purely circumstantial evidence, but I think it's a valid way to read it, again assuming that my definition of the word "bear" has the same meaning today as it did then. That could certainly be in question, becasue the term "well regulated" doesn't mean the same today as it did then. At that time, it meant "well trained" not "well controlled" or organized.

So, at least I am "consistent" in my attempt to make sure the language means now what it meant then.

By the way, the federalist papers and the letters written between the framers, at the time they were wrting the constitution, are MOST telling with regard to what they thought about personal firearm ownership. I didn't really want to get into another gun-control discussion, but those letters, particularly between Jefferson and Adams, where one of the two of them said, "...nothing in the constitution shall be construed as to limit the PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms...." were pretty straigntforward in content and intent. I think it was Adams that said that, but I would have to look to be sure. If anyone were to have a doubt as to the intent of the second amendment, and what the framers were thinking, that ONE statement makes it pretty clear! (with or without a well-regulated militia).

So according to Mike, if you can pick it up and lug it around without mechanical assist it qualifies under the Second Amendmend. If you can't, it doesn't. That certainly doesn't solve all the problems, but it at least gives a toehold.

 

[Jeff White]

freewheeling,

Moreover I can't acquiesce to the notion that we have rights "because we're armed." At least not as individuals. The Palestinians have arms. Are their rights to push Israel into the sea determined only by their ability to defeat Israel using the methods of total war (targetting civilians). If so, I see little chance for Israel unless they're willing to engage in genocide of the Palestinians. (And it may well come to that.)

Are the Palestinians a nation? No. they are a loose alliance of armed groups. If they were not armed, no one would care about them. They would either languish in refugee camps or be assimilated into other societies. Their freedom and ability to be a player in world politics is dependant on their being armed. My personal opinion is that there will be no peace in the middle east until one side is decisively defeated. Which side should win is not in the context of this discussion. What is in context is that without arms, no one would care about the Palestinian cause.

But even apart from all that it's clear that the mere possession of arms would not even be sufficient to guarantee the rights of Israelis were they not part of a sanctioned nation-state bound together by traditions and a sense of mutual cooperation involving both rights *and* obligations (what used to be called "sovereignty"). They would be rolled up like an old worn out suit of clothes and tossed on a trash heap were that not the case. Spend a little time in the Middle East if you don't believe that. No sir, a state is what's required to ensure rights. Pure and simple

How did the nation of Israel come into being? Wasn't it a group of armed stateless men and women who wrested control of the area from the British. Using many of the same methods the Palestinians are now using against them BTW.

Men must possess arms in order to ensure their freedom. Without arms, Israel would not exist as a nation. Palestine may or may not ever exist as a nation, it hasn't been decided yet, but one thing is certain, without arms it wouldn't even be a consideration.

I would like you to comment on if you feel we should apply politics and practicality to the rest of the Bill of Rights. Or is it only the fact that many people feel (rightly so IMHO) that they should be permitted to own any weapon they can afford that bothers you?

Like I said earlier, cost is be the limiting factor. Not many people could afford modern artillery or AFVs much less attack aircraft. You do know that there is an organization called the Military Vehicles Collector's Association that is composed of individuals who restore and operate old crew served weapons like tanks? Do these people scare you? Should their hobby be banned because the weapons are not man portable?

Jeff

 

[freewheeling]

Jeff:

Like I said earlier, cost is be the limiting factor. Not many people could afford modern artillery or AFVs much less attack aircraft. You do know that there is an organization called the Military Vehicles Collector's Association that is composed of individuals who restore and operate old crew served weapons like tanks? Do these people scare you? Should their hobby be banned because the weapons are not man portable?

Well, again I'm probably not going to claim that they have a 'right' to such artifacts, which doesn't mean I wouldn't allow it or even support it. I'm primarily concerned with mounting a practical defense of the Second Amendment that doesn't make it look ridiculous to a reasonable person. I think the contention that such a right is unbounded is patently ridiculous. More importantly perhaps, I don't see it as moral in the sense of moral philosophy. It reminds me somewhat of "Hume's Horror," if you happen to be familiar with that argument from the noted Scotsman. It represents something like the Achilles Heel of classical liberalism.

 

[freewheeling]

Jeff:

Are the Palestinians a nation? No. they are a loose alliance of armed groups. If they were not armed, no one would care about them. They would either languish in refugee camps or be assimilated into other societies. Their freedom and ability to be a player in world politics is dependant on their being armed. My personal opinion is that there will be no peace in the middle east until one side is decisively defeated. Which side should win is not in the context of this discussion. What is in context is that without arms, no one would care about the Palestinian cause.

I'm certainly not going to disagree or quibble with you that arms aren't important. Of course they are! My contention is that they may be a necessary, but not sufficient condition for securing rights. And if anything that second condition is more important than the first. The Palestinians make a good case in point. And as a corollary, perhaps, the establishment of that second condition requires a process of defining the sovereignty of individual members of the state, what their rights, freedoms and privileges are to be as well as what obligations they owe for the mainenance of those rights, freedoms and privileges. That's the essence of statehood. It is *not* a free ride. And that, perhaps, is something the Palestinians have no grasp of at all. Which is why they're willing to put up with a kleptocracy that rules their lives, and that has a virtual monopoly on force (by which I mean the P..A., not Israel).

 

[freewheeling]

Jeff:

I would like you to comment on if you feel we should apply politics and practicality to the rest of the Bill of Rights. Or is it only the fact that many people feel (rightly so IMHO) that they should be permitted to own any weapon they can afford that bothers you?

Sorry about multiple posting, but my circumstance entail taking things in parcels.

I don't perceive the other elements of the Bill of Rights as presenting anything like the tensions of the Second. And I have a fairly indulgent definition of "practical" in the sense that I primaliry mean "avoiding the conditions that lead to self-extinction." You'll have to admit you won't find a broader or more lenient definiton of practical anywhere. And yes I do have a problem with cost providing the limits, because it would mean that Osama could have a nuke, and you and I can't. And frankly, I'm not that anxious for any of us to have them.

 

[freewheeling]

Jeff:

Well freedom does require you to be comfortable with taking resposibility for yourself. Perhaps you should consider moving somewhere where the government will tell you that you don't have to be concerned for your own welfare?

It ought to be obvious that I'm not looking to live in a nanny state. But I do recognize that I'm not a free rider in this society, and that in additon to the freedoms and rights I enjoy I also have obligations.

I am curious though. How does my owning weapons promote anarchy? Before 1934 there were virtually no restrictions of fireams in this country. None of the history books I've read make me believe we lived in anarchic conditions then. What leads you to believe things were otherwise when we had a literal interpretation of the second amendment?

I think even you would have to admit that both society and weaponry have changed a good deal since those simpler times. The bottom line here, which ought to be obvious, is that I don't want any Tom, Dick, Harry or Achmed able to launch a nuclear warhead at some part of the world they may or may not particularly like, or carry it in a suitcase for that matter. If it's not obvious to you that such a situation is fundamentally anarchic, and that the higher the frequency of such "super-empowered" individuals, the more likely such events would become commonplace, then we have no common ground. Moreover the situation will only become more grave, because the weapons will become more compact, cheaper, and lighter as time passes. Claiming that it's reasonable for a society to protect itself from such a suicidal scenio is not quite the same as wanting to live in a nanny state.

 

[Jeff White]

freewheeling,

Do you really think that a private individual could aquire a nuclear weapon? I don't think that it will ever be an issue. Many second and third world nations who would love to have nuclear wepons are unable to aquire them. And they have the total resources of their nation to devote to the project. Using your standard of practicality, the chance of a private citizen aquiring a nuclear weapon and then asserting he can have it under his rights to bear arms is pretty remote.

I really don't see all the tension you are seeing with the second amendment. Osama would like to have a nuke, just the same as every other megalomaniac out there. Osama has already attacked us several times. I have no problem with killing him and every member of his organization. The limits you are looking for in the second amendment are there. They are in the use of the weapons we keep and bear. Osama has already proven he will use any weapons he aquires against us. He forfiet his rights when he attacked.

Jeff

 

[freewheeling]

Para2:

Don't know if this helps or not, but here's my interpretation:

The Constitution recognizes (not grants) the right of individuals to "keep" and "bear", "arms". I read this to mean individual arms, of the type in common use by the military/army/"militia" of the day. This would include all "small arms" i.e. rifles, pistols, shotguns, both semi-, and full-auto/select-fire, and even light machineguns, of the SAW variety, intended as individual weapons. I don't necessarily agree with the idea of a constitutional guarantee to ownership of crew-served weapons, artillery, tanks, warships, nukes, etc., but don't see those items as constitutionally proscribed, either. The "grey area", to me, is things like hand grenades, 40MM grenade launchers and their munitions, RPGs, shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, etc. These weapons are clearly individual arms, in common use by our, and other militaries worldwide, but may, in their use and effect, come closer to the above crew-served/artillery pieces. Again, not guaranteed, but not proscribed.

I can buy that. You guys really had me worried for awhile. Here I'm attempting to defend the right to bear arms while keeping the city of New York from being blown to kingdom come and I'm being accused of being a closet socialist!

Again, I think the "test" is whether you could somehow manifest Jefferson and Adams in the present day, breif them on the social and technological advances since the 18th Century, and then ask them what they think of embracing the above categories of weaponry in the Second Amendment. If it appears they'd be appalled then we probably ought to exclude such devices. And I'm sure there will be gray areas remaining, even if we perform such a test. I'm not sure we need to tighten down all the screws just yet. And again, I'm just talking about excluding them from the category of "rights." That doesn't necessarily mean they'd be proscribed. That would depend on other circumstances, as you point out.

 

[freewheeling]

Jeff:

Do you really think that a private individual could aquire a nuclear weapon? I don't think that it will ever be an issue.

In the course of events they eventually will be available to individuals, yes. That will be the case even if there is no inalienable right to have them, sorry to say. We can but slow down the process while we figure out what to do. But if "bearing" such arms is, in fact, an inalienable right then frankly I can't see how you could justifiably prevent the above from developing into a new growth industry. Welcome to Hume's Horror.

 

[Frohickey]

MacPelto...

If you accept that life is a right, you should defend it with the most efficient tool, which may be some piece of ugly military hardware.

Um... Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

And I think black is beautiful. Black rifles even more so.

 

[Frohickey]

And yes I do have a problem with cost providing the limits, because it would mean that Osama could have a nuke, and you and I can't. And frankly, I'm not that anxious for any of us to have them.

Isn't this the same rationale that the anti-gunners have when they talk about banning handguns? They are not anxious for anyone, including you to have handguns.

 

[freewheeling]

Jeff:

I really don't see all the tension you are seeing with the second amendment. Osama would like to have a nuke, just the same as every other megalomaniac out there. Osama has already attacked us several times. I have no problem with killing him and every member of his organization. The limits you are looking for in the second amendment are there. They are in the use of the weapons we keep and bear. Osama has already proven he will use any weapons he aquires against us. He forfiet his rights when he attacked.

Assuming that having such devices is OK as long as they aren't used, just exactly how would you prevent some kid in the Palestinian occupied terrortories from receiving a grant from some noble Arab organization to purchase for himself and his posterior a little light 100 kiloton nuclear divice and keeping in in his front yard? Until, of course, he decides to set it off at which point we could just place him under arrest.

You see what I mean by "ridiculous?"

 

[Derek Zeanah]

You see what I mean by "ridiculous?"

I think this is the point to ask: is there any legitimate use for an explosive device that's the equivalent of 100,000 tons of TNT? If not, then the feds ain't got no binnis messin wif 'dem. If there is, then they should be available to all.

Including your well-funded Palestinian kid. Is it OK for the Israelis to have them?

 

[yayarx7]

I would like to chime in on this...

I think the whole problem here is that the Founding Fathers mindset and our own are so far removed that your average modern man cannot imagine those conditions in modern times that would bring about such a mindset. It seems that defending the second amendment by focusing on why it was included in the BOR makes one seem “ridiculousâ€. Telling your neighbor that you own an (insert evil weapon here) because it guarantees your freedom from tyranny is the equivalent to vilifying SUVs. It makes you seem a fool or a radical, indeed ridiculous. Our FF were indeed worried about tyrannical governments and the idea is so foreign to us that we tell ourselves that they must have meant the National Guard, or they were referring to sporting arms. Practicality says that private ownership crew served weapon is silly. The problem is that is talking practical, and we are speaking technically. If you tell yourself that the FF wrote the 2A under the conditions that they did, the private ownership of cannons and ships of war does not seem that ridiculous, at least not to myself. If the founding fathers were brought up to speed on the modern improvements of warfare but still were in the same fear of the power of the government they would probably sound a lot like a large portion of the people who visit here on a regular occasion.

Just my $.02

 

[freewheeling]

Derek:

I think this is the point to ask: is there any legitimate use for an explosive device that's the equivalent of 100,000 tons of TNT? If not, then the feds ain't got no binnis messin wif 'dem. If there is, then they should be available to all.

Including your well-funded Palestinian kid. Is it OK for the Israelis to have them?

No I don't think that's the point to ask. You're welcome to believe it if you like, but I'm not expending a single ounce of my energy, let alone my treasure or my blood, to defend it.

 

[freewheeling]

Telling your neighbor that you own an (insert evil weapon here) because it guarantees your freedom from tyranny is the equivalent to vilifying SUVs. It makes you seem a fool or a radical, indeed ridiculous. Our FF were indeed worried about tyrannical governments and the idea is so foreign to us that we tell ourselves that they must have meant the National Guard, or they were referring to sporting arms. Practicality says that private ownership crew served weapon is silly. The problem is that is talking practical, and we are speaking technically. If you tell yourself that the FF wrote the 2A under the conditions that they did, the private ownership of cannons and ships of war does not seem that ridiculous, at least not to myself. If the founding fathers were brought up to speed on the modern improvements of warfare but still were in the same fear of the power of the government they would probably sound a lot like a large portion of the people who visit here on a regular occasion.

I'm beginning to despair. Can you not see that in a world where such "rights" are sacrosanct they mean absolutely nothing? It's not merely a matter of looking silly. Nor is it a matter of changing circumstances. It's a matter of morality. According to the position most of you seem to be adopting (unless I misunderstand) that Palestinian kid would not only be *able* to acquire a nuke (or a bioweapon that would initiate a "soft kill" of a continent), but that he *will* acquire such a weapon. What do you think prevents it right now, other than a few minor technical breakthroughs and the fact that governments wishing to ensure some security for their citizens are routinely stomping on his "rights" by suppressing such knowledge. And not only that but he WILL USE IT? Not because he wants to preserve some sort of parity against the state. Hell, he already lives in a totalitarian state. It's simply because he hates your kufr guts and doesn't want to breathe the same air you do, and he'd prefer that you both die than that you both live.

Lets say that there is such an inalienable right and you're 100% correct that it's inscribed somewhere in the holy of holies, and that the US Constitution drafters just happened tap into the holy of holies and wrote that right down on paper. Lucky us. Any nation or people in range of the nuke would simply kill the phuquer with the missile in his front yard outright if they wished to live, and to hell with the bastard's rights. They'd drop an ICBM right down his throat, and they'd nuke the factory and the city where the weapon was produced just for good measure, as well as all his like-minded neighbors and pals, and anyone who facilitated the purchase. And I daresay they simply wouldn't worry very much about stepping on the little fellow's toes. And as long as they're quicker on the draw that he is, sobeit.

So, you want me to defend this concept? Sure, any time. Don't call me though, I'll call you.

 

[MacPelto]

In order to throw some spice into the stew, I believe it's time to throw out some definitions. Not just any definitions, mind you, but definitions from The Royal English Dictionary, published in London, in 1775. And I don't mean a replica - the dictionary I am looking at is an original 18th century artifact. My idea here is to help us understand exactly what The Founding Fathers meant.



ARMS, S [not used in the singular, arma, Lat.] all kinds of weapons, whether offensive or defensive. Figuratively, a state of hostility between two nations; war.

MILITIA, S [Lat. from miles Lat] the standing force of a nation; the inhabitants of a country trained to arms, and acting in their own defence.

To REGULATE, V.A. [regula, Lat.] to adjust or direct by rule or method.

If anybody would like any other definitions from the 1700's, let me know, I'd be happy to look them up. Also, Tomorrow I should have a modern copy of Samuel Johnson's dictionary of 1755, so I can look up from two sources.


Now, for Freewheeling, It seems to me that what you are looking for is for someone to list some restrictions on the Right to Bear Arms that you think are 'reasonable' or 'defensible'. Which is to say that you don't think that unrestricted arms ownership is acceptible, or that arguing it is perhaps too difficult. Unfortunately, the majority of people here don't seem to agree with your position, and therefore won't list any. Well, here's a position - not necessarily one that I agree with, but I'll call it 'sensible'. I didn't formulate it (I did read it here first, or perhaps on TFL, maybe the originator can step forward?), and I'll probably misstate it, but I believe it was called the 'Don't point that at me' principle. My understanding was that it should be OK to possess, as long as you can control the destruction it does. For example, I can shoot a bullet, and it's path is essentially under my control from launch to impact; what it damages is my decision. However, when I fire a bomb, the destruction isn't entirely under my control. Its explosive force radiates in all directions, uncontrollably. You cannot say with reasonable certainty what will be hit by shrapnel and what won't. Is this more what yuou are looking for? i hope so, but if not, do keep writing and I'll keep trying!

Cheers

Mac

 

[yayarx7]

Replace said Palestine youth with one Jewish youth living in the Warsaw ghetto of 1941. Would you deny his right to acquire and use against Berlin a WMD.

I think that is a better example of moraily.

once agian my $.02....

 

[freewheeling]

Replace said Palestine youth with one Jewish youth living in the Warsaw ghetto of 1941. Would you deny his right to acquire and use against Berlin a WMD.

I think that is a better example of moraily.

once agian my $.02....

Well thanks for the tupence. I'm having a tough time with you guys, and I appreciate your being engaged. So.... yes, good example. Yes I would deny his *right* to have such a weapon, absolutely. I might commssion him to have it though. In other words simply because it isn't a guaranteed right doesn't mean it's proscribed. The problem I have is with a sacrosanct and unbounded right.

And I also don't think it's valid to look at a 20th Century dictionary and draw conclusions about what "arms" meant to the Founders. My friend tells me that his take is that at the time the term "arms" was applied to sidearms and muskets, as literally the 'extension of a person's arm,' and I'm prepared to go with that and just leave it. I've given him the URL of this site, so he can come and explain himself more fully if he likes.

I'm actually rather suprised that no one else is taking the position I'm taking, but perhaps there are others and they've simply not shown up. The Public Choice school of philosophy is hardly the bastion of big brother politics, and I'm pretty sure I could find no one in their ranks who'd defend the position taken here. I doubt that Bill Niskanen or anyone else at Cato would defend it either. So I'm not sure who you expect to champion the position, if anyone.

 

[freewheeling]

Mac:

Thanks for the definitions. I guess that shoots down that possibility.

Now, for Freewheeling, It seems to me that what you are looking for is for someone to list some restrictions on the Right to Bear Arms that you think are 'reasonable' or 'defensible'. Which is to say that you don't think that unrestricted arms ownership is acceptible, or that arguing it is perhaps too difficult. Unfortunately, the majority of people here don't seem to agree with your position, and therefore won't list any. Well, here's a position - not necessarily one that I agree with, but I'll call it 'sensible'. I didn't formulate it (I did read it here first, or perhaps on TFL, maybe the originator can step forward?), and I'll probably misstate it, but I believe it was called the 'Don't point that at me' principle. My understanding was that it should be OK to possess, as long as you can control the destruction it does. For example, I can shoot a bullet, and it's path is essentially under my control from launch to impact; what it damages is my decision. However, when I fire a bomb, the destruction isn't entirely under my control. Its explosive force radiates in all directions, uncontrollably. You cannot say with reasonable certainty what will be hit by shrapnel and what won't. Is this more what yuou are looking for? i hope so, but if not, do keep writing and I'll keep trying!

Thanks. That sounds like a start, and it has some promise. I don't see any reference or onramp to the Second Amendment, but frankly if it's not salvagable, it's not salvagable. I'm prepared to dump it as an inadequate statement of the principle and start over. That doesn't mean that I wish to overturn the principle itself though. But to tell the truth I sorta had my heart set on salvaging the Second Amendment *as written*, though that looks like something of a failure. There's an engineering principle that if the equation keeps leading to a simulation result that has you flattened against a solid wall at 60mph you might want to consider a modification, no matter how pure the principle you're expressing.

I will, however, defend the right of citizens to keep and bear small arms and to expand conceal/carry, etc. That'll have to be good enough, I guess.

Now, back to work.