Second Amendment discussion (kinda long)

[freewheeling]

Frohickey:

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.

It was a joke, not a statement of princple. I can posit an elaborate defense of handguns that doesn't, of necessity, end in a holocaust. Indeed, it leads to a better society. I can't do the same with regard to massively destructive weapons unless I engage in out and out fantasy, of the sort that has Michael Jordan talking to Bugs Bunny in my living room.

 

[Waitone]

Freewheeling, first I would like to welcome you to THR. We regulars here tend to take some degree of pride civil discourse

I have followed this thread from the beginning. While I do not want to engage in some of the more obtuse argumentation, I do have an observation which might be of value to you as you evaluate the responses to your questions.

Like all internet fora there is a WIDE variety of opinions, views, and positions to be found here. Spend some time lurking and you'll see the breadth of opinions.

There is one philosophical outlook that is well represented and that is that of libertarianism. As such advocates take a dim view of any restrictions on human activity by government. The view is amplified when applied to issues pertaining to the second amendment. The second amendment is the one amendment to the bill of rights where state and federal lawmakers and regulators have engaged in wholesale violation of it provisions (along with lying, deceit, fraud, and political gamesmanship). Combined with the supreme court's refusal to clarify its position on the meaning of the second amendment and you have fertile ground for positions which to the uninitiated appear to be extreme. Perhaps you are engaged in one such discussion. I'll not attempt to lay out the various philosophical threads which run through THR. The task is far beyond my abilities.

I suggest that in your spare time you run a search on libertarian and its derivatives and you'll see fairly quickly the philosophy is growing in fertile ground. Also bear in mind those of us who do not take a rigorous libertarian stance have yet to weight in on your thread.

Great discussion. Keep it up!

 

[yayarx7]

Freewheeling,
I understand the position you are taking though I do not concur with it. I think that the reason you find so much opposition is the liberties that have been taken in the past at the expenditure of the 2A. I would argue that if there is an individual right to keep and bear arms as you describe, and there is not a legal definition of arms, who makes a list of what is allowed and what is not. We know who does, and that is just what has been done at the expense of ordinary logic and judiciousness. The problem is that the people that say they want to “limit†the private ownership of a weapon, really just want to forbid it and there is no stance to take to assure them. I use CA and NYC as examples. The folks here at THR will not agree on an infringement of the right we believe we have, and cannot help your case. You say, †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.†Which is noble, but what is the definition of small arms. Your definition, my definition, the states definition? This is why you cannot own an AR-15 in CA, or buy a new AR with a good flash suppressor, or buy a new FA rifle. The resulting silliness has got us all on the defense and all wary of any intrusion on our right.

Anyway, that is the reason for the resistance methinks.

 

[MacPelto]

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.

Well, I'd like to think that there is a connection to the 2nd amendment as a practical reality, even if we don't get take the words in it to have their dictionary meanings, whether historical or modern. I would say that an easily defensible position would go something like this -

So long as you can control the terminal location of your projectiles, any given launcher is ok for personal ownership.

This would indicate that explosive weapons, chemical, biological, radiological, etc. were outside the scope of this principle. If we take 'arms' in the 2A to mean this, then I would consider it fair grounds for discussion. Note that machine-guns are, in my mind, controllable weapons. You aim and fire them, unlike the others, which are 'released' if you will.

Now, our government is beholden to us in many ways, one of which is our defence from foreign states. These other weapons exist in our nation's arsenal, presumably for such defense. If we grant that even in times of armed insurrection, our government is not likely to use them on us, (not much use nuking Detroit, since you can't keep what you've already destroyed), then I believe that the 'arms' which you can control, are enough to throw off a government that has become destructive to its citizens' rights. And, hypothetically if the government did decide to anthrax Seattle, I still think that it would be enough. The Afghans threw off the Soviets, and the Soviets weren't slaughtering their own, which, one would hope, would give them pause. They managed to parley their flintlock rifles and SMLE's into RPG's and tanks, and finally the Soviets left them alone.

So, to sum up, if you can stop it from going nuts when fired, the public should be able to own it.* This fulfills both the Founding Fathers' intent that we be able to throw off an oppressive government, and the 'Don't Point That Thing at Me' principle.



*(Note: Not proposed as a replacement text to the actual 2nd Amendment. )

 

[freewheeling]

Waitone:

I suggest that in your spare time you run a search on libertarian and its derivatives and you'll see fairly quickly the philosophy is growing in fertile ground. Also bear in mind those of us who do not take a rigorous libertarian stance have yet to weight in on your thread.

I should, perhaps, provide a little more meat on the bones of my skeleton. No, I'm not a libertarian, but I've attended and am a scholar at a major university that's probably the home base for the Public Choice perspective as well as the Classical Liberal perspective. The specific entities would be the Public Choice School of Economics and the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason. Those may not quite be libertarian, because they may have some significant differences with Robert Nozick for instance, but I think they appreciate him and his contributions. I frequently attend seminars at the Cato Institute when I have the time. But I'm not really a doctrinaire anything. I suppose the primary influence on my thinking in these matters is James Buchanan, from whom I've taken a couple of classes. If you know Jim or his work you probably know he's no statist, but he is rigorous to a fault and will also freely tell you what he thinks are the weaknesses in his own arguments. Through him and a few others I picked up the insights of game theory, and how they apply to these questions.

In that regard the biggest problem I have with a genuinely unbounded right is that it leads directly to what game theorists call "the dominant solution." In other words it leads to the worst possible outcome for everyone concerned, and one that no one would choose if they could avoid it. But having committed themselves, at some point the dominant solution controls the game, and the participants can no longer avoid disaster.

I understand the position you are taking though I do not concur with it. I think that the reason you find so much opposition is the liberties that have been taken in the past at the expenditure of the 2A. I would argue that if there is an individual right to keep and bear arms as you describe, and there is not a legal definition of arms, who makes a list of what is allowed and what is not. We know who does, and that is just what has been done at the expense of ordinary logic and judiciousness. The problem is that the people that say they want to “limit†the private ownership of a weapon, really just want to forbid it and there is no stance to take to assure them.

That's why I feel compelled to chase down this elusive principle. The bottom line, or guiding principle, must be that if an unbounded right leads to the destruction of the institutions that guarantee the exercise of rights then it must be bounded. If that determination is robust, if you have analyzed the situation appropriately, then the result will be a more robust and impassible bright line. Personally I don't think it's possible to squeeze all the uncertainty and ambiguity out of this, so I'd be fine with a definition that provides a practical guideline that allows people to attain a game theoretical outcome that's at least "on the diaganal and above the vertical center." The upper lefthand square would be ideal.

People who commit to a Constitution by definition don't get everything they want. And if they gave up nothing, while achieving all the goals that the group effort promises, then they either have low expectations or they're free riding. An individual acting alone without the benefit of such a constitutional arrangement that provides the parameters of cooperation could not provide for themselves so much as a functional hammer, let alone a decent weapon. Nor would you have any defense from predatory groups even if you *did* manage to somehow survive. Well you could hide I suppose, for awhile. You could steal their weapons under cover of night and use those, if you knew how. But in that case *you'd* be the predator, and the group would be fully justified in offing your parasitic arse.

So the bottom line is what group do you join and what rules are you willing to live under, recognizing that you probably can't have everything. Jim Buchanan once told me that in his youth he was a libertarian socialist. He then studied a bit, and found that there was no such thing, nor could there be. So he decided to oppose socialism and hope for the best. He received the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1993 for clarifying and deploying a concept that's not entirely intutive: what he calls the "relatively absolute absolute." That's probably about the best we can hope for, frankly.

 

[freewheeling]

Mac:

Thanks again.

Now, our government is beholden to us in many ways, one of which is our defence from foreign states. These other weapons exist in our nation's arsenal, presumably for such defense.

I'm a little puzzled at the language. Did you mean to say that we protect the state, or the state (which is really the cooperative "we") protects us. I suppose it's reciprocal, which is what most contracts are about. And rather than look at insurrection as the alternative, I consider exit as the alternative first. This is a fairly basic concept of federalism, and as Buchanan puts it, exit is the essence of sovereignty. That's sort of what I meant when I said I couldn't support the principle of the Second Amendment as an unbounded right. I meant I'm gettin' outa here. You guys stay if you like. And if I can't leave then I'll start considering an insurrection.

If we grant that even in times of armed insurrection, our government is not likely to use them on us, (not much use nuking Detroit, since you can't keep what you've already destroyed), then I believe that the 'arms' which you can control, are enough to throw off a government that has become destructive to its citizens' rights. And, hypothetically if the government did decide to anthrax Seattle, I still think that it would be enough. The Afghans threw off the Soviets, and the Soviets weren't slaughtering their own, which, one would hope, would give them pause. They managed to parley their flintlock rifles and SMLE's into RPG's and tanks, and finally the Soviets left them alone.

Well, I think you've hit on the essence of that "parity" thing. If there *are* no external allies that we might tap for support then it may not matter whether we have arms, should the "government" (and I use that term only in a very loose sense, since it isn't really a legitimate government) become totalitarion in nature. I don't even think it would matter much if you had WMD unless you had some sort of doomsday weapon. Because a totalitarian state (since by definition they'd be willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill civilians should their rule be threatened) would simply start murdering their "hostages" willy nilly, even if it mean their own deaths. That would actually have been the situation for Iraqis had there not been anyone outside the country willing to at least pessure him.

I'm not sure the founders understood totalitarianism, to be frank. It certainly has little in common with the sort of despotism they were used to. It doesn't exist merely to exploit. It has this shining goal, this perfected ideal condition. And when it finds that the ideal is unreachable it falls in love with death itself, not just for itself, but as a "gift" for us all. Well come to think of it they did have an example didn't they? But that wasn't until after the Bill of Rights was ratified.

 

[Jeff White]

freewheeling,
It might be useful for you to look into what kind of thinking makes the citizens of a modern industrial nation (like Germany in the 20s and 30s) follow a despot into the dark ages.

Well, I think you've hit on the essence of that "parity" thing. If there *are* no external allies that we might tap for support then it may not matter whether we have arms, should the "government" (and I use that term only in a very loose sense, since it isn't really a legitimate government) become totalitarion in nature. I don't even think it would matter much if you had WMD unless you had some sort of doomsday weapon. Because a totalitarian state (since by definition they'd be willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill civilians should their rule be threatened) would simply start murdering their "hostages" willy nilly, even if it mean their own deaths. That would actually have been the situation for Iraqis had there not been anyone outside the country willing to at least pessure him.

A Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot would have no qualms with usings WMDs on his own people. What conditions do you envision that would bring someone like that to power here?

I'm not so certain that it could happen yet. Our unique American culture contains a healthy distrust of government and those who seek power. While we bemoan how we're becoming a nation of sheep in many threads here, we are still pretty independant and strong willed compared to other industrialized nations. I don't see Americans meekly lining up for the train ride to the concentration camp.

You are also overlooking the members of the armed forces who have physical possession of the WMDs. In order to use those weapons you have to control them. We have the most apolitical armed forces you'll find anywhere. The oath of office is not to a party or a person, or even the real estate, but to the constitution.

I'm not saying it couldn't happen here, but I think it would take a couple more generations of suppressing the American culture before it's possible.

The Second Amendment is an important part of our uniquely American culture. No other nation insists that the citizenry have the means to overthrow the government should said government get out of hand.

I am curious about this though:

I consider exit as the alternative first. This is a fairly basic concept of federalism, and as Buchanan puts it, exit is the essence of sovereignty. That's sort of what I meant when I said I couldn't support the principle of the Second Amendment as an unbounded right. I meant I'm gettin' outa here. You guys stay if you like. And if I can't leave then I'll start considering an insurrection.

Where would you go? I can't think of any other country where I could live as free as I am here. I have seen war. I have been in countries where an active revolution has been going on. It's not something that I would wish on anyone. But I would not leave my home...The truth is, there isn't anyplace where we are as free as we are here. So I'll stay......

I've detected a common thread throughout your posts on this subject. It's that your philosophy seems to value personal safety and security over freedom. Is this what the Public Choice Perspective is about? If it is, I don't see it squaring up with the views of the founding fathers at all. They valued liberty and freedom over comfort and security. It wasn't a disenfranchised lower class that started the American revolution. It was the leaders of the colonies. Men who had wealth, power and comfortable lives. These men would have continued to live comfortable lives as subjects of the crown, yet they chose to risk their fortunes, their land, their families and their very lives to give us this republic. I suppose you can say that they already used their option to get out when they came to the colonies....But that wouldn't be entirely true. So I don't see the founding fathers as being adherants of the Public Choice Perspective.

Jeff

 

[voilsb]

I just gotta jump in on the NBC weapons availability thing ... I'll use Osama bin Laden as the exampe because he's been brought up already.

Does anybody honestly have any doubts that, regardless of US law on the topic, he would acquire an NBC weapon if he had the means? Does anybody rationally think that a US law will stop him from doing so? It was illegal for him to hicjack two passenger liners and fly them into the Twin Towers, but that didn't stop him from doing it. It was illegal for Tim McVeigh to turn a van into a mobile bomb and set it off in OK City, but that didn't stop him from doing it.

Does anybody honestly thing these sorts of things would happen any more often if suddenly it was legal to own a bomb? It'd still be illegal to drive up to an office building and set it off. It'd still be illegal to hijack an airliner and crash it into a building, even if it's not illegal to own a G18.

 

[freewheeling]

Jeff:

I don't think the US is anywhere close to becoming the totalitarian state I mentioned. In fact, of all the nations on earth I think it's the fartherst from such a condition. So no, I don't see us capitulating. But as Seymour Martin Lipset said watching the twin towers burn on TV (shortly after suffering a massive stroke that left him unable to speak in more than one word for months): "They know that if they defeat the US, no one else stands in their way." It is not the US that I'm worried about, Jeff. Hence, I don't see this "parity" with our own state as essential. I see it more along the lines of the Swiss militia: a last line of defense if, God forbid, we lose. And though I don't see that as likely, the "peace movement" worries me.

Where would you go? I can't think of any other country where I could live as free as I am here. I have seen war. I have been in countries where an active revolution has been going on. It's not something that I would wish on anyone. But I would not leave my home...The truth is, there isn't anyplace where we are as free as we are here. So I'll stay....

I guess I'm talking about a method by which you can determine whether your sovereignty is intact, even though you may not like the government you happen to be under. You have the option of exit or voice. You can change things by using your political voice and failing that you can "theoretically" leave. There are huge numbers of people under oppression all over the globe who choose to leave their homes and come here, to the US, or to other liberal democracies, which tells us that there is a lack of individual sovereignty on the globe. And I have no problem if you want to infer from that, that we're the best of the lot.

But *within* the US you can choose to live in states with lower tax burdens, or more amenities, or more social welfare, or less social welfare, or friendlier gun laws, etc. You don't *have* to leave, but you can. And the fact that you're free to leave without subterfuge, and find some place that's more to your liking, is a measure of your sovereingty. Likewise, the fact that you have political voice, that you can act to change things, is also a measure of your sovereignty. But there are limits. You can't reinstitute chattel slavery, for instance. And there's no place on earth where you can.

Whether or not you "run" if, God forbid, the US ever *did* become Totalitarian, the very fact that there's someplace to run *to* gives you more soverignty than you'd have if there were not. It gives you more options, even if your choice is to stay and fight. The Latvian resistance spent 12 winters in the forests of Latvia after WWII waiting for the US to invade and come to their rescue. After 12 winters they realized we weren't coming, and went back to their homes to live the best lives they could, waiting for the Cold War to set things straight and deliver the victory that hot war coudn't.

I've detected a common thread throughout your posts on this subject. It's that your philosophy seems to value personal safety and security over freedom. Is this what the Public Choice Perspective is about? If it is, I don't see it squaring up with the views of the founding fathers at all. They valued liberty and freedom over comfort and security. It wasn't a disenfranchised lower class that started the American revolution. It was the leaders of the colonies. Men who had wealth, power and comfortable lives. These men would have continued to live comfortable lives as subjects of the crown, yet they chose to risk their fortunes, their land, their families and their very lives to give us this republic. I suppose you can say that they already used their option to get out when they came to the colonies....But that wouldn't be entirely true. So I don't see the founding fathers as being adherants of the Public Choice Perspective.

I think they'd absolutely be Public Chocers. You may be confusing this with "Social Choice" And I think you're misunderstanding me somewhat. What you see as a "concern with personal safety and security" is really a concern for the Civilazation of the Middle East, which I think when push comes to shove we will destroy utterly. By adopting a strategy that targets civilians here, and in Israel, and in other nations like Turkey, the Islamists have opened the door to retaliation in kind. I see them as the next wave of Totalitarians. And if they are somewhow able to prevail in their "insurrection" in Iraq, and launch a WMD attack against a US city, which they seem inclined to do, circumstances may evolve where we strike at their population centers. There's a good discussion of this on Seven Den Beste's web log, as well as on the Belmont Club's. So one way or the other it won't be the Islamists who come out on top, but there are a lot of people in the middle who don't quite see the danger they're in or what the stakes of our little rescue mission in Iraq really are. And ultimately I'm worried that If that happens it may change us in ways we don't yet understand. I think total war is, in some circumstances, justified. But it's still my least favored scenario, other than just lying down and submitting. You really see this as a preoccuptaion with "personal safety and security?"

If WMD are largely available, as an "inalienable right" I see this as a windfall for the Totalitarians. *That's* the bottom line of my concerns about "personal safety and security."

 

[Jim March]

Freewheeling:

You and I started from the same "mental place" on guns: pro-CCW, skeptical past that.

I have a feeling that conditions in California drove me in a slightly different direction than you're taking so far.

You probably scored a carry permit not long after applying for one. I first applied in 1997, and have yet to score under California's "discretionary" system.

I'll gloss over details, other than to say that issuance of a CCW permit out here usually depends on political connections, campaign contributions and to some degree even race .

Having seen first hand what happens when the government gets the ability to decide the level of armament of the citizenry, I am *NOT* at all impressed. If you still don't understand what I'm talking about, see also:

http://www.equalccw.com/donperata.gif

http://www.equalccw.com/colafrancescopapers.pdf

http://www.equalccw.com/oaklandzen.html

http://www.equalccw.com/aerosmith.html

http://www.equalccw.com/newsday.html

Those are just for starters.

You show me a way to solve THIS problem while giving government the level of control you WANT to give them, and I'll pay more attention.

 

[freewheeling]

Does anybody honestly have any doubts that, regardless of US law on the topic, he would acquire an NBC weapon if he had the means? Does anybody rationally think that a US law will stop him from doing so? It was illegal for him to hicjack two passenger liners and fly them into the Twin Towers, but that didn't stop him from doing it. It was illegal for Tim McVeigh to turn a van into a mobile bomb and set it off in OK City, but that didn't stop him from doing it.

Does anybody honestly thing these sorts of things would happen any more often if suddenly it was legal to own a bomb? It'd still be illegal to drive up to an office building and set it off. It'd still be illegal to hijack an airliner and crash it into a building, even if it's not illegal to own a G18.

Well.. yeah?! You don't??? Why do you think it hasn't happened *yet*? Surely you see it's only because he CAN'T GET THE DAMN THINGS!!! And it's not because he can't afford them. It's because we've effectively MADE THEM ILLEGAL by righteously threatening to nuke anyone who sells one to him.

Try a little common sense.

 

[freewheeling]

Jim:

We're still talking past one another, I think.

Having seen first hand what happens when the government gets the ability to decide the level of armament of the citizenry, I am *NOT* at all impressed:

If what I'm talking about comes to pass, and we can establish even a somewhat hazey "bright line" on what constitutes "arms" it would invariably allow whatever you want to carry in Callleeeforrrneeaah. And there isn't a damn thing the state government there could do about it, because it would be a judicial principle upheld by the USSC. What's missing is, essentially, that bright line. And here you guys are arguing against it. I think it's a strategic mistake. I'm talking about taking that discretion AWAY from the government, not giving it to them.

Why am I not getting through?

 

[freewheeling]

Let me be clear about something here. The logic of bearing arms to intimidate criminals, including a criminal state, doesn't carry over to intimidating totalitarians. Hence they only care marginally if *you* have WMD, as long as *they* have them. Their objective is to kill as many people as they can, even their own people (or haven't you noticed), so you aren't going to deter this latest wave of totalitarianism by having an ICBM in your front yard. You won't cause them to stand down or even think twice. You won't have a face off with them and win. If everyone has WMD, they win. In their eyes they win even if there isn't a single human left on earth. Not your "normal" criminal, is it?

 

[freewheeling]

Jim:

On second thought it's probably more realistic to say that establishing this "bright line" makes presentation of a case to the USSC a good deal easier. They are simply not *ever* going to agree with an interpretation of the Second Amendment that allows private ownership of nuclear devices, let alone RPGs. Nor are they going to make a ruling that allows lesser arms while leaving that question ambiguous. Not now. Not in the next thousand years. BUT, with that out of the way I think the rest of the argument falls into place. "Militia" clearly means "the people." And even if there's some question about that "well-regulated" clearly means "well-trained." Absent the issue of where to draw the line on what was mean by "arms" in terms of their intent, there just isn't much left to discuss. And if "arms" includes WMD, then the Second Amendment will simply have to go, or be rewritten to include a clause that excludes WMD (at the very least). It's one of those mistakes that were made in the absence of foresight, which is really understandable. The FF could hardly be faulted for failing to foresee something like Hiroshima. Although there's a statement on the tip of my tongue by Adams which indicates that he foresaw totalitarianism.

Anyway, you're welcome to come out here to VA until they get that thing in CA sorted out. The winters are a little colder, but the Blue Ridge in Spring are gorgeous!

 

[yayarx7]

OK, I think I get you now freewheeling, by establishing a concrete definition of "arms" you establish what "shall not be infringed" upon. If you put grenades in the list of arms then everyone has the right to keep and bear grenades.

I just do not trust the government with a definition. If you established said definition in 1799 and it included cannons and smoothbore muskets and excluded ships of war. Do you think that you and I would be "allowed" to own a cartridge firearm today? What about a semi auto firearm? Please expand on how or what your definition would be and how it could work.

BTW I just wanted to say I wish I could argue a point with half as much eloquence as yourself.

 

[freewheeling]

yayarx7 (Scott):

Thanks for the compliment. I practice alot. (Probably too much.)

OK, I think I get you now freewheeling, by establishing a concrete definition of "arms" you establish what "shall not be infringed" upon. If you put grenades in the list of arms then everyone has the right to keep and bear grenades.

I just do not trust the government with a definition. If you established said definition in 1799 and it included cannons and smoothbore muskets and excluded ships of war. Do you think that you and I would be "allowed" to own a cartridge firearm today? What about a semi auto firearm? Please expand on how or what your definition would be and how it could work.

I'm getting a better sense of your concerns, and why there's so much resistance. But the government enjoys discretion *because* there are no "relatively absolute absolutes." As long as those remain ambiguous they can, effectively, draw the line anywhere they like, and they need not even be consistent about it. Holding out for a "true absolute" doesn't help your hand, it helps theirs. The only option you're left with makes you a law-breaker, which further justifies their position, etc.

Fortunately a court can rule on an interpretation of the Second Amendment that's binding on "government," including state and federal legislatures and regulatory agencies. And in the mean time the statiscal case for carrying arms is growing, even with all the methodological difficulties (too complex to even mention here).

As regards the specifics, I would argue against including automatic weapons because I think the FF would be appalled at making such weapons available to everyone. And I think I could argue that case with some eloquence. However, if over-ruled I'd accept the ruling. In fact, I'd probably accept grenades and RPGs as well, though I think the case against them would give me a pretty sound argument. They are, in general, a great deal more useful to out-of-power totalitarians than liberals or even libertarians. But even with al Qaeda shooting down passenger planes daily I think civilization would probably survive. We'd find a way to work around it. So my "line" shades from more to less acceptable, and it draws an absolute line at weapons that can kill, say, a thousand people at a time. Because the right to bear arms in that category gives the advantage unmistakably to the totalitarians. (They may even get the advantage earlier, I'm just not sure about it. Remember, they only need destroy to win. We need to build to survive. AND THEY KNOW THAT.)

 

[Graystar]

The Second Amendment, like all the amendments of the Bill of Rights, was meant to address abuses by King George III to insure that such abuses would never happen again.

When it became apparent to England that war was going to break out, the King attempted to empty the colonies’ armories. It was this act which the Second Amendment addresses. The Anti-Federalist, fearful of a strong central government, refused to support the new Constitution without guarantees against this act, and other violations committed by England. That is why we have an amendment against quartering soldiers.

If the King had tried to disarm individuals, we probably would have an amendment for that as well, or a differently worded Second. However, the King did not to disarm individuals, so the issue was never considered.

The primary purpose of the Second Amendment was to insure that a state could fight, regardless if it was to defend the country or fight off a tyrannical Federal Government. It has always been that law defined the weapons of such defense. Various Militia acts through the last few hundred years have defined the type weapon to the born by militiamen, as well as what supplies they should have. It is this fact that determined the outcome of the Supreme Court’s Miller decision.

As with many of the rights in the Bill of Rights, the Second is part right, part obligation. The right to a jury trial creates an obligation to serve on a jury. The right to have witnesses compelled to testify creates an obligation to testify when called upon. With the Second, the right to keep and bear arms creates an obligation to fight when called upon. That is why versions of the Second that contained exemptions for religious beliefs were rejected.

The Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with possesses firearms for our personal defense.

We do, however, have a right to possess firearms for our personal defense. Unfortunately, all but two states do not recognize that right and either ban possession altogether or require licenses…thereby turning a right into a privilege.

As to the question of what weapons we can possess, the answer is simple. Weapons in support of the Second Amendment are set through legislation (just like jury duty and subpoenas are set through law.) Weapons in support of our right to possess firearms for personal protection are to be determined on a case-by-case basis (as is all questions of rights) with suitability-to-task and danger posed to others probably being the most likely determining factors. By that measure we cannot possess nuclear bombs or tanks or grenades. Something like a Glock 18, however, could go either way. Such a decision would be up to a judge. However, before we get that far we need to firmly reestablish our right to possess firearms for personal protection.

 

[freewheeling]

Mac, another definition please?

Mac:

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.

It occurred to me that although you helped with the definitions of "arms," "militia," and "regulate," the meaning of "to bear" is still hanging. Could you look that up for us?

 

[freewheeling]

Graystar:

When it became apparent to England that war was going to break out, the King attempted to empty the colonies’ armories. It was this act which the Second Amendment addresses. The Anti-Federalist, fearful of a strong central government, refused to support the new Constitution without guarantees against this act, and other violations committed by England. That is why we have an amendment against quartering soldiers.

Heh. You mean like George Mason?

I'm not sure I want to get into an argument about the concept of "parity," but I understand the point you're making. I'd simply say that they could not have had the primary example of a terror state in mind when they drafted the Amendment, because it was still several years away from being born. (I think I have that chronology correct.) And King George wasn't Robbespierre. Had they considered the possibility that people who could commit such atrocies would gain access to all the engines of warfare available to the state they might have been a bit more specific about what they meant by "bearing arms." The French Revolution scared the hell out of them, as did the rebellion and carnage in Haiti, which was the *second* "new nation."

However, before we get that far we need to firmly reestablish our right to possess firearms for personal protection.

I basically buy most of the points of your argument and see it as consistent with the intentions of the FF. (Although it's a little too circumstancial for my taste.) But if the Second Amendment is not about "personal protection," what establishes that right? In a debate earlier with someone on another forum I pointed out the widespread existence of firearms in Switzerland, which also has a very low crime rate. Their observation was that the weapons in Switzerland were "different," because they were meant for the defense of the state against aggressors, and are required by law. But obviously the weapons themselves are *not* different. And weapons intended for a militia defense of the nation, can also obviously be used for self defense. And of course we have the right not merely to "keep" such weapons but to "bear" them. I'm not sure what the Swiss situation is on that point.

 

[MacPelto]

It occurred to me that although you helped with the definitions of "arms," "militia," and "regulate," the meaning of "to bear" is still hanging. Could you look that up for us?

Sure.

To BEAR, V.A. in its primary sense, to support, stand under, or carry a burden; to deliver or carry; to wear. Used with name, to go by. "Bore that name." Dryd. To support, sustain, or keep from falling; to endure; to permit or suffer wihtout resentment; to produce or bring forth.

After this they continue with a long list of other uses of the word that don't really apply, I think. These include 'bearing witness'; 'Taking a bearing' (such as for navigation); etc. I'll refrain from typing them since the list is quite long, and it gets to be a pain reading 'f' instead of 's'.

I'm a little puzzled at the language. Did you mean to say that we protect the state, or the state (which is really the cooperative "we") protects us. I suppose it's reciprocal, which is what most contracts are about. And rather than look at insurrection as the alternative, I consider exit as the alternative first. This is a fairly basic concept of federalism, and as Buchanan puts it, exit is the essence of sovereignty. That's sort of what I meant when I said I couldn't support the principle of the Second Amendment as an unbounded right. I meant I'm gettin' outa here. You guys stay if you like. And if I can't leave then I'll start considering an insurrection.

What I'm trying to say is (in part anyway) that our government is supposed to be our servant, and one of the ways in which it should serve us is by protecting us from foreign threats. If our government need WMDs in order to protect us, and we can guarantee that they won't be used wrongly, then let them have them. The problem is, to my mind - If I can't trust one person not to use them wrongly, why can I then trust a group of people not to use them wrongly. Wisdom isn't cumulative... However, since we can't magically erase them ,we have to work with what we've got, and what we've got is a number of other states that we have to keep at bay, so our servant, the government, has WMDs.

Speaking of a strategy of 'exiting', I'm tempted to ramble a bit (as if I weren't rambling already!), but let me say that #1, why should I leave when I am the one wronged? More important, and one of my pet peeves, is - Where to go? It seems that one of the problems of modern times is that there are no more frontiers left. Historically, if you felt restrained/persecuted/wronged/etc., you could head for the hills. The wilderness frontier was a place where you could do as you pleased, and keep what you made, if you could keep your head. People get too crowded and fights break out, and ther's no relief in sight. Oh well, enough for now.

Cheers

Mac

 

[Graystar]

Heh. You mean like George Mason?

Yeah, like him.

I'd simply say that they could not have had the primary example of a terror state in mind when they drafted the Amendment, because it was still several years away from being born.

Not sure what you mean here. England was the terror state and the colonies were suffering under England’s “repeated injuries and usurpations†for quite some time.

But if the Second Amendment is not about "personal protection," what establishes that right?

Nothing establishes our rights. We simply have them. The Bill of Rights does not establish freedom of religion or of the press. It simply restricts the Federal Government from imposing restrictions on these rights.

The term “bill of rights†is actually a legal term. Legally, a bill of rights is an enumeration of pre-existing rights over which an authority has no power. Just because a right isn’t enumerated doesn’t mean that we don’t possess it. That is what the Ninth Amendments says.

But still, that doesn’t address the question. Why is firearm possession for personal defense a right? Because of the firearm’s effectiveness for the task.

Why is the press free? The press is free because expression is free, and free expression means nothing without a way to express. In the same way, the right to defend oneself means nothing without an effective means of implementing such defense. Government surveys show that defending oneself with a firearm is far more effective than other weapons, and even more effective than complying with an attacker.

However, the free exercise of any right always stops at the point where others’ rights are violated. That is why you can’t assemble in the middle of Main Street without a permit to do so. If widespread firearm possession led to widespread rights violations, then I would agree with gun bans. However, there has never been such a correlation. Gun bans are intended to reduce gun related crime (which is not widespread to begin with) and have failed to accomplish that task. That is why gun bans are unconstitutional. They are unconstitutional because they restrict a right but fail to protect any other rights.

 

[Mad Man]

freewheeling,

I've only skimmed past most of your posts, since I'm on my lunch break at work. I'll have to read them more closely when I have time. And maybe what I've written here has already been said.

But I have to get my $0.02 in.

It is refreshing to see someone with a different mentality. Not necessarily to disagree, but to get some of our brain cells the workout they need. Those of us in the gun rights movement are not immune to suffering the effects of "groupthink" and an "opinion monoculture." (Of course, maybe after reading your stuff more carefully, I'll decide that you're a jerk . But I doubt it.)

You might want to read another thread here, The nuclear bomb in the basement.

As for the "where to draw the line" argument, I think that David Kopel had a good idea with the "Goose and Gander Amendment," which was about a hypothetical amendment that would require the government to abide by gun control laws.

It answers the question in a practical matter (for purposes of this argument, "government employees" excludes the military, which is prohibited by law from operating as a domestic law enforcement agency, although there are some loopholes).

For example, if the government feels that "assualt weapons," "high-capacity magazines," and "Saturday Night Specials" have no legitimate purpose, then they can ban them, as long as government employees (which includes the police, tax collectors, and other agencies) are also prohibited from having them.

Currently, this is not the case, as government employees are exempt from most gun control laws. There is no reason for this, and Kopel's "Goose and Gander Amendment" would ensure that the civilian population is at least as well armed as the police.

And from a practical standpoint, it makes sense. The police are part of our community, and unlike the military, work to protect us from the same criminal element that we must defend ourselves against.

If the police (and tax collectors and environmental regulators, etc) do not require a hand grenade, M1 Abrams tank, or nuclear weapon to "serve and protect" our communities, neither should the members of that community. If the police require (and are allowed to have) air tasers, tear gas launchers, and fully automatic M-16 rifles and Uzi submachine guns, then the members of the community should have access to the same weapons. After all, we're all dealing with the same criminal element.

It's such an obvious and practical solution to the dilemma, yet it appears that it's not too popular with many people here.

Also, as far as the "preventing tyranny" arguments of the gun rights movement, this would ensure that the police are not better armed than the population they are supposed to "serve and protect." Therefore, they could not effectivley tyranize it (although the military could, but that's another matter).

While I often hear a lot of talk that views the government/state as the enemy, it rarely seems to occur to the gun crowd that we may actually have to defend it from tyranny (e.g. the IslamoFacists). In the post 9/11 world, I don't think the "top down" approach to homeland security is viable for a free country, because the professionals can't be everywhere to protect us.

 

[Mad Man]

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!

Where do machine guns fit into this line of thinking?

 

[freewheeling]

Mac:

Thanks for the definition. My reading is that you'd really have to torture the meaning of "bear" to include cannon under the rubric of "arms" referred to in the Second. Moreover my friend assures me that he has done extensive reading of the letters and writings of the FF and has never come accross a single instance where they use the word "arms" to refer to anything other than sidearms, muskets, sabres and the like. That is admittedly circumstancial, but germaine. I will leave the issue of how to extend the meaning of their intent to the 20th Century, but I think it clearly excludes the kinds of things I'm worried about even if they could be miniaturized or lightened for one person carry (or a vial of smallpox). No dice.

Speaking of a strategy of 'exiting', I'm tempted to ramble a bit (as if I weren't rambling already!), but let me say that #1, why should I leave when I am the one wronged? More important, and one of my pet peeves, is - Where to go? It seems that one of the problems of modern times is that there are no more frontiers left. Historically, if you felt restrained/persecuted/wronged/etc., you could head for the hills. The wilderness frontier was a place where you could do as you pleased, and keep what you made, if you could keep your head. People get too crowded and fights break out, and ther's no relief in sight. Oh well, enough for now.

Buchanan knew that the concept of exit had the weaknesses you present. He used it as a kind of guage or heuristic to make judgments about the extent of oppression. And he also used it as a way of avoiding what he regarded as a pitfall of many philosophers, when they discuss "freedom." To him freedom was too subjective, and was not the heart of the issue. The issue is sovereignty. Whether or not you *want* to leave is a matter of cost, and whether you wish to pay the cost of exit. Buchanan recognized that, and argued that the cost of exit ought to be minimized. But the bottom line was that once exit is removed as an option, the only option you have left short of violence is political voice. And yes, I know there's no place to go that's better than here, and I also know that emigration laws are set up to prevent or raise the cost of exit. But it's still a useful standard, with all those faults. The problems with "freedom" as a standard are much worse, and lead to some truly nonsensical results. The "Epicurean Falacy" for instance leads to the conclusion that slaves can be more free than their masters, because their expectations are lower. That not very helpful if your desire is to set standards of freedom. Sovereignty is more empirical.

Sorry if that rambles a bit.

 

[freewheeling]

Graystar:

The comment about Mason was sort of a joke. I'm at George Mason university. I know all about that wonderful fellow.

I'm using the term "terror state" to refer to a kind of oppression whose objective is murder on a mass scale, so it does not apply to King George no matter how much he tried to unjustly tax us. The first modern example of a Terror State, and the one that sets the standard, is France during the Reign of Terror. Hannah Arendt has some great books about how the world made a terrible wrong turn by adopting the perspectives of the French Revolution rather than the American Revolution.

Nothing establishes our rights. We simply have them.

OK, I won't quibble over that. But the concept of "rights" would not even have occured to tribal man, who also had no workable concept of individual identity, so it's something that developed over time. (First instance is attributed to the Stoics.) Whether it was an invention or discovery I will leave to others. But we don't realize rights without definitions, for which we are responsible, and that's what the Bill of Rights is about.

Just because a right isn’t enumerated doesn’t mean that we don’t possess it. That is what the Ninth Amendments says.

I'd buy that. And as I think you've already pointed out, rights aren't absolute either. Every right implies an obligation. Moreover there's J.S. Mill's concept that one persons right ends when he infringes on the rights of another. (Pretty complicated concept, that.)

That is why gun bans are unconstitutional. They are unconstitutional because they restrict a right but fail to protect any other rights.

Interesting. I'll have to mull that over for awhile. Thanks.