Second Amendment Questioned 1471
dheera writes "Attorneys in Washington, DC question the scope of the Second Amendment in the first case in nearly 70 years, citing that the right to bear arms only applies to 'a well regulated militia.' 'We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms,' said Todd Kim, the District's solicitor general."
Your Rights ONLINE? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Your Rights ONLINE? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Your Rights ONLINE? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Your Rights ONLINE? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Your Rights ONLINE? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Your Rights ONLINE? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nerds see themselves as being part of an enlightened and well established subculture. To ignore every discussion which transcends the traditionally geeky however, would be paramount to calling that subculture stupid, out of touch with the world that influences their lives, in a word, unenlightened.
It is obvious from the popularity of /. articles concerning rights, freedom, politics, and how we've been Bushywhacked for the last six years, implies that nerds care deeply about these issues. It is easy for the enlightened to see that we live in a dangerous world: from terrorism to oppression, from bi0 weapons to outsourcing IT to India, from global warming to bad presidents, surveillance to CowboyNeal's evil twin.
The point is this: Nerds are smart, and when thy looked up from their code and saw the desperation of the world's people, they saw a world that needed their comments on Slashdot.
Re:Your Rights ONLINE? (Score:4, Insightful)
The hand written version does, the version ratified by the states does not. If the comma is to be taken as intended, then the militias have the right to bear arms, but common people don't. If the law is to be taken as written when ratified, then the common people do have the right to bear arms.
There is solid precident and writing to support either cause but I think it worth considering two pertinant facts.
- The democratic rule rose out of a fight against tyranny and the rights were to protect the people from the same problems the drafters of the bill of rights had experienced. The writers were probably very concerned to make sure that the common people always would have a way to fight the government should it exhibit symptoms of tyranny.
- The right to bear arms is grouped with other civil liberties and as such, if taken in context, can only be associated with the rights of the common man.
Funny, AC parent considers the topic to be intended as written and thus not correctly placed. The topic at hand is a debate on whether the amendment should be taken as written or not.If you had studied 1787 Common Law texts: (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two types of militia, civil milita (unorganized civilians bearing own arms) and state milita (national guard, state troopers, standing forces, whatever is organized for and paid (and bearing arms owned) by the state).
Well regulated meant only one, and possibly two things. You are reading "regulated" as in today's "regulations".
Regulated, in the 1787 terminology, refers to only one thing. "Disciplined and officered." No joke, a militia with a set structure, even if self organized, is a "well regulated militia". The irony is that the term can also be read to mean "well equiped, trained and supplied."
The ratification misdeeds do not even enter into it.
What I find ironic, is that you are all begging for scraps from the tables of lords and masters with loyalties to anyone but you. Washington DC is a crime capital under a declared "state of crime emergency" since July or August of 2006 (don't remember the exact date). And it isn't just guns, some british guy got knifed and killed in his own driveway, which makes the "protect yourself by staying home" or "don't go into the dangerous parts of DC after dark" completely idiotic.
Since most of you are socialist "democrats" or so called "liberals" (my how that term stopped meaning what it used to mean in Jefferson's day), perhaps this example comes closest to your hearts. Some time ago, in their home in Germantown (rich part of Wash, DC) Theresa Heinz Kerry got ROBBED while outside of their home. Yep, John Kerry's wife... the ketchup girl. Humorously, the news barely touched on it, presumably for fear that the properties there would stop soaring in price, and also that the DC 30year gun ban would go bust if even the big antigunners are being robbed at screwdriver point (making the gunban worthless, what next, piece of rock and treebranch ban?)
(Frankly, I didn't know there were any "safe" zones in that DC, I've watched drug deals and "hot merchandise" deals, going on within plain sight of police squad cars (and the cops within them), and it wasn't a sting, nobody got busted AND there were no headlines or sirens/lights the whole day I was there. I left severely perturbed by that sight. I called the cops about it, and got the run around, they took my statement and basically blew me off. Guess if shots weren't fired, or blood spilled, it wasn't worth their time, though how would "shots be fired" in a gun ban city?)
However, you are correct, the "founders" were two separate camps which are mistaught in history class, one was the rich fascistic overlords known as the "federalists" (a hijacking of the term that has stuck) and the other, the unprepared, populist/agrarian/Jeffersonian group, lead by the very vocal Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams, were the ANTI Federalists (of whom you may hear little or nothing in high school history and if you are fortunate, a tad smidgen from a libertarian professor in college, IF you are lucky). James Madison watered down the actual text, but the states all ratified the text THEY felt was necessary. Do some research while the National Archives are still available to the public. It might open everyone's eyes, especially since we're geeks, we're supposed to be libertarians at heart, seeking knowledge and truth, instead of being gimme gimme beggars and weaklings.
Would it be a painful thing for you to consider: (Score:4, Insightful)
By the way, I watch the gun news, since its an interesting "blindness" of our media as well as YOURS. They report "murders" like our "sudden school shooting spree" right before elections (interesting coincidence isn't it?) and it stopped as soon as democrats got elected.
Get serious fella, I checked the records of both men who did the "shootings" that lead to Rebecca Peters helping you ban your guns. They were both people who should've been behind bars, one even had a pages long record... but instead of prison, he was loose. Why?
I've been asking this question for ages. I ended up starting to read the NRA news, because at least they did research on the part you don't hear in the actual news "media". You know, that part where they searched the RECORDS of the criminals comitting CRIMES, and asking Why were they not behind bars where they belonged?!
I'm sure the gun ban freaks would love to ask THAT question. Otherwise expect to die by knife, and expect the news NOT to mention it... after all, it would rescind the gun bans.
But keep alive that socialist mentality. That way those of us who produce, have to produce for you people too. And I'm sick and tired of writing a check to feed you.
Maybe I'll quit at suck at the tit as well.
People are. (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at London. Now they got themselves a "knife amnesty", because criminals began using knives (naturally silenced, without need for sound suppressors). What is next? Tree branches and rocks are "causing" crushing blows to back of skulls? Steel pipe amnesty?
If you want to see, go to a gun show. Perfect example of well behaved people, go to self regulated gun ranges, I've been to them all to experience it. Strange that nobody dies, and the few accidents are some idiot who didn't bother to study on the proper usage of the gear he/she is handling.
While I am not a member of the "gungho" culture, I must say I admire the ones that practice what they preach within that culture (they carry, they're safe, they're responsible, and very few have had "accidents" or committed a crime with them... and worth learning from... unlike the geeks of today, who let those in power tell them what to use, and how to use it, including their bodies.)
Right to Bear Arms (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps consider the intentions of the framers. Thomas Jefferson said that "a little revolution now and then is a good thing" [wikiquote.org], and the "shot heard 'round the world" was in defense of a private cache of arms about to be confiscated by the British.
Jefferson, at least, saw revolution as another check against the government and weapons as a way to enable the citizenry to do this.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There, now I've tied in second ammendment rights to your rights online. You can thank me later. Now, continuing on with the discussion....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
US DOJ says (Score:5, Informative)
Re:US DOJ says (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:US DOJ says (Score:4, Informative)
Re:US DOJ says (Score:5, Informative)
That statement is flat out ignorant. The DC handgun ban was passed by the democratically elected government of the city at a time when the population was over 75% black. It was passed as an attempt to keep people from killing each other when DC was still one of the most violent cities in the nation and has nothing to do with Jim Crow.
Re:US DOJ says (Score:5, Informative)
I call BS. In this year's rankings [morganquitno.com], DC is #19, behind cities like Memphis, Trenton, and Kansas City. DC has improved greatly since the handgun ban was passed.
As for the murder rate - it definitely does not drop immediately once you cross the border. I'll grant you that the Virginia border takes you into reasonable areas for the most part, but if you go across the Maryland border into PG County, don't tell me that you're going somewhere safe. Frankly, much of the blight is being pushed out of DC into VA and MD due simply to the increasing cost of downtown real-estate. Ten years ago I would never have considered living in Southwest, but now the area is undergoing massive investment, and in my time living there I never had any problems.
Re:US DOJ says (Score:4, Interesting)
4 Washington, DC
5 Philadelphia, PA 6 Dallas, TX 7 Nashville, TN 8 Charlotte, NC 9 Columbus, OH 10 Houston, TXRe:US DOJ says (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, and before women got the vote we didn't have the threat of nuclear war.
Logical fallacy: post hoc ergo propter hoc
Just because one thing happens after another thing does not mean the second thing was caused by the first.
Re:US DOJ says (Score:5, Insightful)
What are you trying to say?
It seems like you are trying to say that the crime rate would be lower if nobody had guns. If that is what you are trying to say, either you are intentionally putting forth a bad argument, or you're stupid.
We have two sets of data: Data when it was legal to own handguns on both sides of the river, and data when it was legal to own a gun on only the low-crime side of the river.
The high-crime side of the river had high crime in both circumstances. At best, with the data you're using in your argument, you can argue that taking away legal handguns didn't make a difference.
That's the big problem with the gun debate. There are very few people involved capable of a rational argument. They know what side they are on, and emotionally, irrationally argue in support of their position, summarily dismissing any information that does not help their cause, while seizing on any bit that seems to support it, no matter how flawed.
Re:US DOJ says (Score:4, Insightful)
There are two issues:
A. Does a government restriction on gun ownership, trade, etc. reduce violence?
B. Is the ability to own, carry, trade, manufacture, modify, and transport firearms an important right?
Not surprisingly, this makes for 3 types of people:
(1) People who don't care much about (A), and want government bans or restrictions.
(2) People who don't care much about (A), and don't want government bans or restrictions.
(3) People who can be swayed by (A).
I am the second type of person. I think these rights are important, and I am willing to pay the costs in terms of risk, if increased risk exists.
However, I am rational enough to realize that question (A) is an empirical one, and the answer is different in different situations. I personally think that in the U.S., (A) is false overall. However, even if results show that (A) is true, I would not support bans or restrictions.
I also don't buy for a second the idea that the Second Amendment is meant for anyone other than private citizens. The Second Amendment says "the right of the people" not "the right of the militia". The Constitution is very important, and if you value the other rights listed, you will not dilute the Second Amendment right. If you feel strongly against it, the only way to change it without destroying the Constitution is to Amend the Constitution to repeal the Second Amendment. I'd rather that happened than giving judges the power to re-interpret the Constitution to say whatever they want it to say.
The Second Amendment is actually written more strongly than the First. The First Amendment merely prohibits Congress, and only with the 14th does it really have as much power as it does.
Re:US DOJ says (Score:4, Interesting)
For example, Long Island, NY is a very anti-gun place. Very few Long Islanders hunt, and gun enthusiasts are few and far between. The typical Long Islander will only encounter a gun during a crime, and so, guns carry a very negative opinion. The prevailing view on LI is, if it makes us safer, we don't need guns.
On the other hand, Denver, CO is a very pro-gun place. Hunting is popular, and many gun enthusiasts live there. The typical Coloradian has been exposed to guns in friendly social settings, and so, they do not carry as negative a stigma. The prevailing view in CO is, the 2nd Amendment is an innate right, granted to man by the Creator directly.
I think the best one-liner on gun laws is as follows: if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. However, I know from experience that anti-gun voters will roll their eyes at that little gem.
To them I say: consider marijuanna. Marijuanna has been illegal throughout my entire lifetime (born 1980) and yet, I have known casual marijuanna smokers in Colorado and in Long Island. They are criminals, each and every one of them, but they are not persuaded by the law. Some cite cultural or spiritual reasons, others simply like it, but they all agree: bugger off with your rules, this is what FREEDOM is all about.
As my grandpappy used to say: true freedom is the freedom to make mistakes.
- Zaphod (100% pro-2nd Amendment, despite the fact I've never used a firearm)
Re:US DOJ says (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Safety from fellow citizens, and
2. Safety from the government.
Neither of those are, at their heart, rights, nor are either of those the basis for a right. Both of those are still empirical questions, and nothing more. Does freedom of speech increase or decrease the incidence of spontaneous combustion? It doesn't matter, freedom of speech is a right.
The basis for the right to bear arms is the right to defend yourself. If you depend on the government for all of your safety, then the rest of your rights are meaningless. Consider this: if the government doesn't like you, and you depend on the government for your safety, all they have to do is stop making you safe from people that can harm you. They may release people from prison, or not put someone in prison that they should. Or they just might make it a well-known fact that they will not protect you, and wait for non-governmental citizens to have their way with you.
Think if you're a black person in the deep south a few decades ago. Perhaps everyone knows that the government won't arrest someone for hurting or stealing from black people. It's a form of passive punishment, and it's very real. It's happened in a million forms throughout history, and the founders knew that. It's a way of passing the buck saying "we didn't kill him" when they just didn't provide the protections necessary such that he wouldn't be killed.
You can't stop all forms of passive punishment by governments, but allowing citizens to defend themselves closes an important loophole.
Re:US DOJ says (Score:4, Informative)
All you have to do is consider why the states would need such an amendment in the first place. There is no need for the Second to preform that task as the Tenth already does so:
Furthermore, the creation of state "militias" can be handled under Article I, Section 10:
And now some quotes on the subject:
No free man shall be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson, Proposal for a Virginia Bill of Rights, 1776
To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.
"Letters from the Federal Farmer" (Pamphlet, 1788)
The great object is that ever man be armed.
Patrick Henry
Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Federal Constitution
The people are confirmed by the next article in the right to keep and bear their private arms.
Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 (describing Madison's proposal for a Bill of Rights)
We have found no historical evidence that the Second Amendment was intended to convey
militia power to the states, limit the federal government's power to maintain a standing
army, or applies only to members of a select militia while on active duty.
All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies
to and protects individual Americans. We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or
not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training.
We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the
Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals,
including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military
service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol
involved here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons and are not of the general
kind or type excluded by Miller. However, because of our holding that section 922(g)(8), as
applied to Emerson, does not infringe his individual rights under the Second Amendment
we will not now further elaborate as to the exact scope of all Second Amendment rights.
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:cq6jSE2-picJ:
In light of the proceeding, please pray tell how people with your world view invent this collective right hogwash. There is no evidence from the time period suggesting it, there is no way to correctly read the sentence that will support it. So please, tossing aside for a moment the relative crime statistics involved, what is the basis of your logic? Are you aware of some super secret Federalist paper that says: "Oh yeah, that Second amendment thing doesn't really mean what it says. It really means something totally different and inconsistent with the language of the rest of the Constitution. Feel free to ignore it at will."
Re:US DOJ says (Score:4, Informative)
"Crime is at 20-year lows in the county," Lt. Col. Charles K. Peters pointed out, even though the population is soaring. The county's homicide rate was the lowest in the nation last year among the 30 largest jurisdictions. "Hopefully no one feels the need to carry a gun, lawfully or unlawfully," Peters said. "But there's no question it is lawful to carry a gun on the street. So we've had to ensure that all of our officers are updated on the nuances of Virginia law that allow citizens to carry firearms in public places."
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50
Causation, not necessarily... but definitely correlation.
Re:NAACP and guns (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, one should. One would see countries like Switzerland and Israel where people have easy access to guns, and a murder rate much lower than in the U.S.
We Americans stab and bludgeon each other to death more than most other nations commit total muders.
In the U.S. firearms are used in only 71% of murders [usdoj.gov]. With a base homicide of 5.6 per 100,000 people [disastercenter.com], that give 1.6 non-gun murders per 100,000.
According to stats here [guncite.com] (a bit old, admittedly), that's more than the total muder rate in Denmakr, Austria, Switerland, France, England, Belgium, Japan, Sweden, Germany, Norway, New Zeland, Ierland, the Netherland, Spain, Greece, or Kuwait.
If all guns disappeared from the U.S. tomorrow, and we pretended that guns were never used defensively and that people wouldn't turn to other methods of killing each other, the U.S. would still have about two and half times the murder rate of Japan (0.62/100,000).
Our problem with violence does not rest in our guns.
Re:NAACP and guns (Score:4, Informative)
If you're going down that road, you'd better also look at the number of "incidents" in which the use (typically, brandishing) of a firearm prevented someone from getting harmed. Speaking as someone for whom that has been personally helpful, I can tell you it's a very meaningful aspect of the issue. You would also want to take into account places like Australia, which have seen a jump in good old fashioned beatings and knifings since the confiscatory gun ban there took place some years back.
But I don't give a rat's ass about the overall stats. I've used my gun, without killing anyone, to protect my family from a violent person. I won't bother with the details here unless it's worth getting into - but you can google for some stats on self defense, deterrence, and related issues. It's much more significant than your comment would imply that you know.
Re:NAACP and guns (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like, if torture worked (which it doesn't), I would not support torture.
Some folks think safety is more important than liberty. I disagree with them. I think that liberty is more important than safety, although I don't even agree that it has to be one or the other.
Re:NAACP and guns (Score:5, Insightful)
We could all roll around in bubbles with cameras recording our every move, and I'm sure that would make this a safer society, but that would be...horrible.
Re:NAACP and guns (Score:5, Insightful)
The government only licenses cars and drivers for use on public roads. I can go out and buy any vehicle I want, and as long as I only use it on private property, the government doesn't care. I don't need brake lights, airbags or anything else the government requires, as long as I only use the vehicle on private property. It is once I take it onto public roads that the government cares.
This should be true for guns as well. What I do on my private property on my business, as long as I don't endanger people around me. So in a residential neighborhood I should be able to keep any firearm I like, but not discharge them (as it poses a danger to those around me). However, if I am out in the middle of nowhere (again on private property) I should be able to discharge any firearm I like. However, if I want to carry a loaded weapon with me in public, the state government should be able.
In my state this is true. If I wanted to carry a concealed handgun, I would have to pass a background check, go through a safety course and pass a test. In addition, once I was issued a license I would be subject to a stricter set of rules when carrying the weapon.
Re:US DOJ says (Score:4, Insightful)
It isn't? The "people" in the Fourth Amendment has been construed by the US Supreme Court to mean the class lawfully and voluntarily in the US and part of the national community. US v. Verdugo-Urquidez. I have no idea who the Framers would be referring to as "the people" if not the citizens of the United States.
US DOJ is the EXECUTIVE, not JUDICIAL, branch (Score:3, Insightful)
The United States Department of Justice says that the 2nd amendment is an individual right
The United Stated Department of Justice also says that the Patriot Act is legal and a wonderful, necessary tool.
The Department of Justice is part of the executive branch. It's not their job to "interpret" law or the constitution. It is their job to execute the law of the land. Did you flunk middle school and high school history/civics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powe r s_under_the_United_States_
Re:US DOJ is the EXECUTIVE, not JUDICIAL, branch (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, and the other half is people like you who want to take away everyone else's *rights* because you're scared of what they might do with that right. As is usually the case, that fear is irrational. You have absolutely nothing to fear from 99.9999% of *legal* gun owners. Yet you're so afraid of what people who own guns *illegally* might do to you, you'd rather just ban guns altogether (as if that is a solution to the problem of people being able to obtain guns illegally), and you don't care if you destroy a Constitutional right in order to do it.
It's funny how the anti-gun crowd pretends that they're just trying to interpret the Constitution, and only wish to apply it the way it was meant to be applied. In reality, if you *really* want to know how the 2nd Amendment was intended, you don't have to look very far. Read some of the writings of the people who actually *wrote* the damn thing, and it's obvious. They state explicitly that *individuals* need to be able to own guns. But of course you don't really care how it was intended. That's just a show you put on so that people will think your argument is based on the Constitution, rather than trying to destroy the Constitution.
In reality, you don't give a rat's ass about the Constitution as a whole. You just want to cherry-pick the parts *you* think are important and discard the rest. And you're sick of hearing everyone heap praise and reverence on the "Founding Fathers" because you think you're smarter than they are, and besides times have changed, etc, etc. It's people like YOU that this country needs to guard against, because in your supreme arrogance, you're willing to destroy the very foundation of our freedom. (not that thousands of people just like you haven't already done so to a large degree. sigh.)
Re:US DOJ is the EXECUTIVE, not JUDICIAL, branch (Score:5, Interesting)
--
Cheers, Gene
Re:US DOJ is the EXECUTIVE, not JUDICIAL, branch (Score:4, Informative)
In case you want the current federal definition of "militia", go look it up in 10 USC 311 - it's probably not what you think it is.
Re:US DOJ is the EXECUTIVE, not JUDICIAL, branch (Score:5, Insightful)
The President takes an Oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution.
You say that it is not the executive branch's job to interpret the Constitution.
But would you rather have someone protecting the Constitution who THINKS about what they are doing, or someone being an automaton?
Because if THEY don't interpret it, how are they to protect it? Follow someone else's interpretation?
Now - please show me in the Constitution itself (the supreme law of the US) where exactly it says the Supreme court has sole authority to interpret the Constitution?
Guess what. You won't find it. They assumed that authority for themselves in Marbury.
PS: Anyone reading the above as a defense of the current POTUS or his administration quite plainly isn't reading the same things I wrote
Re:US DOJ is the EXECUTIVE, not JUDICIAL, branch (Score:4, Insightful)
Just so you don't confuse anyone: The fact that such advisory opinions can be "admitted in a court of law as evidence of reliance that a person believed they were acting within the law" is only relevant for the (very few) crimes that explicitly require knowledge of the law as part of their mental state.
Re:US DOJ says (Score:5, Informative)
That's interesting because it's apparently wrong. Morton Grove [wikipedia.org], Illinois banned hand guns in 1981 and the ban withstood a constitutional challenge in the case of Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove.
Re:US DOJ says (Score:5, Informative)
Re:US DOJ says (Score:4, Insightful)
From my cold dead hands (Score:3, Insightful)
I have '666' in my NRA membership number.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:From my cold dead hands (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:From my cold dead hands (Score:5, Insightful)
There's nothing magical or extraordinarily high tech about automatic weapons and rockets. If it really came down to a full on Civil War in the USA, I'm sure a few facilities could ramp up to produce the things under the radar. There are drug labs all over the place now, and look how efficient we've been at taking care of those.
Of course, all that may be unnecessarily complicated. There are plenty of international weapons manufacturers that would love to sell to the American public, and getting those products across the largely unprotected/unwatched US borders would probably be trivial.
In short, if it gets that bad, the weapons will show.
Re:From my cold dead hands (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know about you, but my High School Chemistry class had an entire segment on what household chemicals could be used to create very nasty poisons and explosives. Most of it was geared towards "don't EVER mix these two chemicals", but was followed up with "because if you mix 2 parts this, with 1 part that, stir, drain, separate and then let sit, you'll have a nice plastique".
Fully-automatic weapons are over rated and usually very inaccurate. SEMI automatic can be very useful, though.
Re:From my cold dead hands (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely. But combat-capable civilians outnumber soldiers and police in our country by at least fifty to one. That tends to even the odds a bit.
To quote (from memory) a German commander on the Easter front during WWII: "Each of our tanks could beat five of theirs. We kept meeting six."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How many tanks do you and your neighbors own?
Re:From my cold dead hands (Score:5, Insightful)
The US Army does not have enough tanks to cover the contry. If it actually came down to it, you would not have a tank in your neighborhood, but your friendly local cop at your door. And him I can defend against.
Re:From my cold dead hands (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:From my cold dead hands (Score:5, Insightful)
A foot is a good weapon to take on ants, but you must be careful not to anger too many of them or your foot will be useless.
Re:From my cold dead hands (Score:5, Insightful)
How many tanks do you and your neighbors own?
Doesn't matter, for multiple reasons:
Tanks are good for three things: (1) fighting other tanks, (2) smashing through enemy lines to create breaches that can be exploited by infantry and (3) looking scary to unorganized mobs.
Similarly, much of the rest of the US military's advanced technology, particularly aircraft, isn't useful in scenarios where the enemy is mixed in with non-combatants or is just plain hard to find. Consider the fighting in Iraq, and the trouble the US military has with those insurgents, in spite of the fact that the opposition forces there are truly tiny.
Finally, I'll just note that whenever this topic comes up, and a bunch of slashdotters declaim the worthlessness of early 20th-century small arms against modern military forces, I have never, ever found anyone among them that claims any military or even police experience. Find me an Air Force pilot, or an Army tanker, or a Marine attack helicopter pilot who argues that hunting rifles, handguns and IEDs couldn't be used to mount an effective insurgency because their hi-tech weapons are just too powerful. Seriously, ask some people who know something about war what they think, and you'll get a very different point of view.
Re:From my cold dead hands (Score:4, Informative)
Precisely. Many geeks with an opinion, few geeks with military experience. Here's one that's been in both camps (Army and Pocket Protector camps, respectively) My $0.25, before taxes:
Re: High-tech advantages removing the usefulness of rifles.
Tanks are nasty on the battlefield. They are great death dealers at a distance. They are less so in urban environments (MOUT - Military Operations Urban Terrain). Why? Well, buildings are a great place to rain down anti-armor weapons upon the thankless tankers below. Fscking lovely....
Hence, the need for screening infanty, and infantry is susceptable to rifle fire (slightly mitigated by improvements in modern body armour). That and armor crews sight lines are reduced due to buildings, being bottled up and hatches down cuts down on your visibility, etcetera.
Helo flyboys are gas hungry pigs with insane downtime to perform maintenance, and the same applies to the jet jockeys. Performing a full-scale civil war? Take them out on the airstrip during downtime. That will help to degrade air advantage.
Ok. So, you cordon off the cities with tanks and dig out the insurgents using infantry. I heard an Iraqi recently comment on this strategy, something to the effect of: "You like apples? How do you like them apples?". Yeah, it's a smashing good time routing out people in urban environments, really. Helos and jets are good only to drop munitions and bugger off, so their value there is limited.
The current MBT employed by the US is a fuel hungry monster, and oddly enough, the fastest and easiest way to reduce tanks battlefield advantages is to attack the logistical support lines. Last time I checked, fuel tanker trucks ain't heavily armoured....
If you can't run the tank, you are now seriously exposed to your friend, the infantry/partisan/terrorist/freedom-fighter. High-tech advantage? It's gone buy-bye. And the same logistical weakness faced by tanks is just as bad for the flyboys. So, you're down to fighting man-to-man, the old fashioned way. Rifles, mortars, arty...all the fun stuff.
So, even if the US split right down the middle in the event of Civil War, there are more legs than there are high-tech toys. Take Iraq and multiply the insurgents by a factor of 100, and imagine how well "counter-insurgency" operations would go. It wouldn't be pretty.
So, yes, armor, helicopters, and what-not are great, but remember only one thing: Infantry holds the ground. Everyone else, they're there to support them.
And all infantry needs to be effective, is a rifle. And, oh yeah, the people you'll be fighting will look like you, sound like you and have the same cultural background as you. Have fun determining which side they are on....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Red Dawn (Score:3, Funny)
You obviously haven't seen "Red Dawn". Wolverriiiiine!!!!
Iraq is a good example of this (Score:4, Funny)
Re:From my cold dead hands (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Shootings are only one part of the spectrum in domestic violence. Like point one, why should guns be any more regulated than say, hammers, in this regard?
3. Accidentally killing a person whom you suspected of breaking into your home is a tragedy. But really, how often does this happen? And on the other side of that coin: civilians shoot more bad guys with guns every year than cops. Plus, they're five times more likely to be correct about the good/bad status of the shot person.
I think you've presented the classic case of the Paternal Government, the one that defaults to being everyone's best protection against themselves. You are giving up your rights for the belief that you are more secure.
Re:From my cold dead hands (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:From my cold dead hands (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:From my cold dead hands (Score:5, Informative)
Yea, good luck with that. See, the military is already prepared for that answer. If you refuse a direct order in the field -- and make no mistake, when they come for you, it won't be in an office meeting -- you get shot on the spot.
That is one of the most ignorant and ill-informed things I have read in this thread. The truth is that from basic training onward US military personnel are taught that it is *their duty* to disobey illegal orders. Illegal orders include but are not limited to attacking non-combatants. An officer who threatens to shoot a soldier who refuses to follow an illegal order can be immediately relieved and taken in custody, even by a subordinate.
Now to preempt more nonsense hypotheticals you might counter with, reality is that officers survive combat due to the men in their command, not in spite of them. Any officer who acts that way towards his men is suicidal. The men not only heavily outnumber the officer but the men are more heavily armed and practiced. The men, not the officer, are the trigger squeezers. The officer in the read-map-use-radio-call-in-airstike'er. The men don't even have to pull the trigger or roll the grenade themselves, it *has* been done more simply by saluting an officer in the field.
Re:From my cold dead hands (Score:4, Insightful)
This is based on your own extensive military experience, is it?
I thought not.
Let me tell you what would really happen to an officer who shot a man for disobeying an order which most of his men thought wrong and of questionable legality:
He'd become a casualty. Probably not right away, but soon. Battlefields are dangerous places and deadly accidents happen with great regularity, especially to those who are perceived to be a greater risk than the enemy.
What's far more *likely* to happen is that the officer would be fully aware that his men are going to be uncomfortable with the order, and in fact he's likely to be at least as uncomfortable with it as they are. Officers are, on average, better educated than the men they lead, and are encouraged to think more deeply about the issues and are more directly responsible for determining what is right and wrong. ALL soldiers are responsible for evaluating the legality and correctness of the orders they're given, but the burden is much heavier on the leaders. A maxim of military leadership is "Never give an order that won't be obeyed". Why? Because giving such an order has no effect other than to undermine your authority to give any orders.
Given that, what would such an officer actually do, given that his orders require him to give an order that he doesn't like and which his men may well refuse to obey? First he's going to look for any alternative that allows him to accomplish his mission without giving that order. Failing to find any, he may or may not give the order, but if he does and finds it refused, he'll most likely have the man or men who refused the order arrested. Not shot, arrested. Then, at the court martial, when the men say that they refused the order because they could not in good conscience carry it out, the officers of the court will consider very carefully whether or not the order was correct. If they decide it was, the soldier on trial might be executed, though it's more likely that he would just be imprisoned. If this was an isolated case, that would be the end of it. If the refusal were widespread, however, the military leadership would get the message that their forces cannot be used in this way. They would inform the commander in chief that the military was unable to accomplish the mission rather than risk widespread mutiny.
Re:From my cold dead hands (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, this should be cute. (Score:5, Informative)
That being said, the 2nd amendment is the _only_ place in the Bill of Rights where "the people" are defined as a collective body, rather than individuals. And even then, only in the 9th Circuit's realm.
I've allways wondered about this ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Organized, regulated groups.. (Score:4, Funny)
Excellent! (Score:5, Funny)
This is a great subject for debate on Slashdot. I look forward to getting this issue settled, once and for all!
This comes about two centuries too late, no ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Military vs. Sporting use (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is fine...except that if the ruling entity--or those on its payroll--is the only one with weapons of war, then the 2nd amendment doesn't mean diddly to the commoners. Why do we have the "bill of rights," anyhow? It certainly isn't there to protect the rights of the rulers over their subjects. The 2nd amendment is meaningless unless it guarantees the right of private citizens to "keep and carry arms wherever they [go]" (quoth the majority in Dred Scott, horrified that blacks would be able to "keep and carry arms wherever they went" if they were recognized as citizens).
Basic English, please (Score:5, Insightful)
The 2nd Amendment states a right (keep and bear arms) that cannot be infringed. That's it -- no infringement, period. The introductory phrase states a reason for stating this right, but "shall not be infringed" is an absolute. Note it doesn't grant the right; it considers that right, along with "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" and others to be inherent, above government powers, and says the government will not infringe on them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course if we combine your view of an absolute right with originalist interpretation of the Constitution you only have a right to a musket but not a modern rifle. I don't see how an expansive (to modern weapons) absolute interpretation could not include nukes.
The reason your argument
Re:Basic English, please (Score:4, Insightful)
Now you're catching on!
Where in the Second Amendment does it make any mention whatsoever of limitations about the type of arms? Answer: it doesn't. Therefore, any form of armament was allowed then, and any form of armament is allowed now.
Colonial Militia... (Score:5, Insightful)
Personal safety (Score:5, Informative)
Just reading about the case history behind this makes me spitting mad. It takes a stong constitution to even read that entire compilation.
Everyone has the right to defend their safety. In my eyes, everyone has the responsibility to defend their safety.
well regulated (Score:5, Interesting)
In the phrase "A well regulated militia" regulated = equipped.
The idea was that in the event of tyranny or invasion the people could form up and defend themselves. We are guaranteed the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. To pursue life one must be able to defend it. That is why we are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms.
By now I would have expected the noise about gun control to die down. It's a losing issue for democrats, and gun ownership may well be the only thing that recently stopped the USA from falling into fascist totalitarianism.
Well duh! (Score:3, Insightful)
My proposal (Score:4, Interesting)
I think solves the underlying problem nicely. Firearms are a problem in major urban centers but not a big problem in rural states. Each state crafts its own rules. There will be states with tight rules and loose ones.
Constitutionally Consistency (Score:5, Insightful)
If the meaning of "The People" is changed to indicate a state right, ALL our rights will be lost. Suddenly, speech, religion, assembly, redress, etc, will be State rights and everything that makes this country worthwhile will go into the shitter.
If the government can abuse a law, eventually the government will abuse a law. Maybe not right away, but a few years down the road it will happen. A good example of this is the seizing of property without due process. At first they were seizing property of convicted drug dealers. Then they started seizing the property of unconvicted drug dealers. After getting away with this obvious violation of the Constitution, they started seizing property of people with the thinnest thread of a connection to drugs, e.g. a guy had his car seized because his passenger had a joint in his possession.
Context (Score:5, Informative)
The first Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792, which said, in part:
So you see, militia was only meant to restrict who possessed firearms on a basis of race and sex, not based on military service.
-Peter
People can't read, especially lawyers... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've noticed there has been a trend to re-structure the sentence of the 2nd Ammendment and interpret it on the basis of a "well regulated militia" and then equate this to the National Guard and thus declare the 2nd Ammendment fullfilled.
This is incorrect, and is not what is said above. There are two aspects to the above statement.
1) that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free stae
2) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
What we have is a stacking of concepts. A militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Militias draw from the people, both arms and manpower. Therefore, it is necessary for the people to retain the right to bear arms or there is no means to call up a militia.
If you remove the right to bear arms from U.S. citizens then you have no means to call up and organize a militia. You will have a bunch of unarmed men unable to defend their country. This is well understood within the context of the Constitution being written. A simple test can be done to express such.
Apply both interpretations, which one would fit and fulfill the needs of the time. If we apply the traditional interpretation everything fits. However, if we apply the re-interpretation you find yourself in a place in which the American Revolution would never have existed. Let' remove all guns from ownership by the colonials. The only guns are now owned and in the hands of the British Army and the regulated militias under the British. The colonials now are completely unarmed facing both the regulars of the British Army and the militias under the British.
Clearly there is no way that this was the intention of the authors of the Constitution. And if the courts ever decided to re-interpret such ammendments it is the right of every arms bearing American and the duty of every U.S. soldier (if you've ever served you swore an oath to protect this country from powers both foreign and domestic) to kill those judges and remove that segment of government from power.
The 2nd ammendment is our assurety against tyranny. It is the last and final line in our "checks and balances" within the government.
- Saj
Some statistics... (Score:5, Informative)
These numbers are all from the CDC.
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.h tml [cdc.gov]
My queries are for the years 1999-2002 (all they have), the entire U.S., all races, both sexes, all ages. (four year totals)
Unintentional death by falling : 57,760
Unintentional Pedestrian deaths: 24,079
Unintentional Drowning : 13,739
Unintentional death by burning : 13,642
Unintentional Firearms deaths : 3,164
Unintentional Bicyclist deaths : 3,099
You can also break it down by age range. If we're worried about the teen years, we can look at ages 12-18. (four year totals)
Unintentional Pedestrian deaths: 1,561
Unintentional Drowning : 1,495
Unintentional Firearms deaths : 494
Unintentional Bicyclist deaths : 453
Unintentional death by burning : 423
Unintentional death by falling : 306
Younger still, ages 1-11: (four year totals)
Unintentional Pedestrian deaths: 2,118
Unintentional Drowning : 2,870
Unintentional death by burning : 1,920
Unintentional Bicyclist deaths : 371
Unintentional death by falling : 292
Unintentional Firearms deaths : 164
Accident-wise, young kids have a lot more to worry about than guns. And teenagers are almost as likely to die on their bicycles. God forbid they're bicycling to the swimming pool... or even worse, *walking* to the swimming pool ... but yes, there are gun accidents.
Non-accidental deaths:
It's interesting to note that more than half of violent deaths attributed to firearms are suicide. Whenever you read an article in the media that mentions the number of gun deaths it's a good bet that they're including suicides.
Now I, personally, don't mind if people kill themselves. More power to them. I do agree that that there is a lower barrier to entry when using a gun and understand that depressed people might not be the best people to own guns, but gun control isn't really the solution to depression.
So, anyway, taking out suicides leaves us with:
As compared to
So, more people are definitely intentionally killed by guns than by any other single cause, roughly 11K people per year.
But...
How many times are guns used defensively? Since defensive gun use isn't something that is reported (like an offensive gun use is), numbers are harder to find. Here is the page I have bookmarked with the only numbers I've ever seen. (refers to Gary Kleck's survey and a DOJ-sponsored study, and has a table of the results of 13 other surveys). (Gary Kleck is a criminologist at FSU - and, no, he's not an NRA member. http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/p/faculty-gary-klec k.php [fsu.edu])
Summary: Kleck thinks defensive gun use happens 2.5M times per year, other surveys listed range between 770K and 3.6M. The DOJ study thinks it's 1.5M times per year.
Let's aim low and go with 1M defensive uses per year. The question posed at the book club was "when does the ratio become w
Retards on the Hill (Score:4, Interesting)
But lets pretend, just for a second.
If what they claim is true, then by definition:
See the problem? Every male above the age of 18 is registered with Selective Service and is therefore a member of the militia of the U.S., by whichever definition you wish to use for the word.
So in effect, even if what they were claiming were true, which it's clearly not, then they are simply arguing that women cannot own guns! That's the only people who their claim would effect.
Actually, that's not true. If their claim were true, then it would be unconstitutional to prohibit convicts from owning a firearm, because they are still part of the Selective Service regardless of their legal status, and "the right...shall not be infringed." Honestly, that means it's unconstitutional for the courts to restrict their right to bear arms, even with the correct interpretation of the amendment. Strictly reading the letter of the Constitution, you can take away their right to breathe, before you can forbid them from carrying a firearm, even while they are encarcerated. But even bending it a little, as soon as they are released, they, by Constitutional right, should be permitted^H^H^Hhave the unrevokable right to purchase a gun from the closest pawnshop, should they wish. And, in fact, for just that reason, they are able to "restore" their right after any parole time they might still be serving.
If they disallow gun ownership I'll move to the co (Score:4, Insightful)
As far as I'm concerned, guns are the only remaining guarantee of democratic rights that citizens of this country still have. Guns are a great equalizer of power between those in power and those without.
Guns guns guns (Score:4, Insightful)
PenGun
The Peace Arch
What if the founders hadn't been armed? (Score:4, Insightful)
2. Iraq is a vivid demonstration of the effectiveness of armed citizen resistance. The Iraqi people are better armed than us.
I strongly support liberal social programs, but when it comes to certain essential personal freedoms I find they are hypocritical cowards.
Western liberals have developed a false sense of security through years of living under impotent administrations permitting open dissent and demonstration. They take this for granted, believing their disssent and peaceful demonstration have secured their rights.
In reality, we are always one election cycle away from tyranny.
Bush is no tyrant (*shock*, but hey, this is Slashdot). In fact he's downright moderate compared to some past wartime administrations. But if you doubt the difference a single election cycle can make, look no further than the 2000 elections. Had a statewide recount been conducted in Florida - had all the votes been counted - the world today would be a very different place.
Think long and hard before you give up the guaranteer of your liberty. Once you have, it is too late.
US Constitution, version 2.0 (Score:5, Insightful)
Because smart people can't agree on even the most basic intentions of the constitution's authors. Do people have a right to arms or not? What kinds of arms? It there a right to privacy or not? Even from the government? It is NOT CLEAR. And it won't EVER get any clearer.
Some people say that is the beauty of the document, it's flexibility and ability to be reinterpreted.
I say bullshit. I don't want to hear about *implied* rights. Spell it out clearly, in contemporary english, with no spin. We don't live in the dark ages, we can examine the ideas of the past and use what is useful.
I think we need to update the language of the constitution. Maybe we need a constitutional convention every 10 or 20 years as Jefferson suggested, to carefully clarify the language. Baby steps.
And do we want to add new rights? Should there be a right to euthanasia, a basic job, basic health care, an abortion, basic shelter, a basic education, porn? How about freedom FROM religion? We seem to *effectively* have some of these rights, but not literally. Why not?
Would someone please get Richard Stallman on this? And Linus Tovalds?
What?!@ (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? How do you come to this conclusion?
I would think that assholes behind the wheel of the giant SUVs provide me with more terror and misery than anything else I can think of off hand. In fact, I get quite a bit of amusement out of shooting computers with my gun, not feelings of terror. Maybe the computers I shoot feel terror?
Re:Thank God for that (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a sign of how backwards we are in non-technological matters that our society considers it right and proper for everyone to be able to carry a device designed to kill other people.
Close, but not quite. Our society considers it right and proper for everyone to carry a device designed to defend against other people killing us.
You're right... (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right, it shows he's smarter than the average person, because he's able to understand that an object can have more than one function.
By definition, if you have two guys with guns, and one is defending himself, the other one is trying to kill him.
If everyone was running around only using guns to defend themselves, we wouldn't need guns to defend ourselves now, would we?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A pull of a trigger sounds so easy .. and physically, it is.
It's not the physical action being easy which is the deciding factor.
It's the will to kill that is the deciding factor.
And regarding "a few hundred meters", I submit that those who have mastered the rifle to such a degree would b
Re:Thank God for that (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. The reason the rates increase so much, is because the actual numbers are so low.
Gun Death Rates per Nation [medicinenet.com]
If you're trying to be honest about the statistics, avoid harping too much about relative increases in rates - that's like bragging about your brother growing richer faster at a rate faster than Bill Gates.
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is, the "Founding Fathers" thought differently from each other. Arguably, that's why the 2nd Amendment is so vague in the first place. (Mind you, "vague" in this place means "absolutely clear", except that there are two diametrically opposed sides who each feel that it absolutely and clearly supports their point of view.)
So I a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Now is the time to define. . . (Score:5, Informative)
Not necessarily.
Think of what the country would be like if you had no local police or state police; you are also in a country that includes other nations (Indians) some of them hostile.
One of the most important functions of a militia would be to provide for local security and peace.
We have to be careful about attributing modern viewpoints to the founders, or pretending they all thought the same way. None of them subscribed to libertarianism as we know it, although some (Jefferson) were closer than others (Adams). It isn't that they didn't believe in individual liberty -- they did. But they also had a stronger attachement than we do in the idea of community liberty.
It's interesting to read about the operation of militias in the Revolution. They operated in a primitive democratic way, choosing their leaders from the respected men of the community; nor did those leaders excercise autocratic powers. When not actually in battle, matters of strategy and tactics were debated and even voted upon. This practice infuriated Washington at first, who saw it as undisciplined. However he adjusted his style of command to this, and was a better commander because of it. The lessons he learned from this also helped him form an effective working relationship with the Continental Congress (Adams was particularly nettlesome), an example which was very important in the development of the US Constitution.
In any case, militias were not mobs or random collections of individuals. They were the defensive organ of the community. It is not that they had no discipline, they had a different kind of discipline, one of community responsibility, reputation, and mutual reliance.
Community liberty is not incompatible with individual liberty, but sometimes they do conflict, especially when the more influential in the community are able to claim greater protection. In the late 19th century, the national guard was used against strikers in Andrew Carnegie's steel mills.
The right of private firearm ownership is not, in my opinion, not directly covered by the Second Amendment, which I believe is about the right of communities to arm themselves. Most quotations from the founders that are used to support private firearm ownership are more accurately read in that light.
However, that doesn't mean it is not protected by the Bill of Rights. After all, there is constitutional right of privacy that can be asserted against the government, even though the legal concept of privacy did not exist at the time. The right to privacy is implicit in the third, fourth, fifth and fourteenth amendemnts. The fact that this is implicit makes it no less enforceable, because of the ninth amendment.
Personal firearm ownership is implicit in the second amendment. That it cannot be taken away unreasonably is implicit in the due process clause of the fifth amendment. That this implicit right has equal force as other rights is established in the ninth.
Re:Now is the time to define. . . (Score:4, Interesting)
I find most vocal gun rights advocates leave out the "well regulated militia" clause if the second amendment. I've always been amazed at how poorly that amendment parses. My reading is the same as yours - citizens may have firearms so that they mey function as part of an organized "militia," or protective group. All of the functions which militias performed two hundred years ago have been taken over by standing govenrmental bodies. In fact, the writing most likely applies to the state national guards - you don't get much more of a well-regulated militia than that.
I still believe in the right to own firearms, and have owned several in my lifetime, though none in operational condition at the moment, but I don't agree that the constitution gives the sweeping endorsement it once did.
I'm sure there will be those who ignore reality and say that without personal firearms we are at the mercy of the federal government. I've got bad news for them - there isn't a consumer-led army in the world that could take over the US govenrment, on US soil, defended by the US military. (That is, of course, ignoring the possibility that most/all of the military turns against the CIC and standing legislatures - but then we woouldbe fighting with the military, not against it.)
What really angers me.... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's saying that you don't have to comply with the will over the democratically elected government. It's saying that if you don't like the law, yu're going to become a terrorist. That you would rather just become a terrorist than elect people who are going to protect your rights in the first place.
The people who scream bloody murder about the government taking away the guns they need to protect their rights from the government tend to the VERY SAME PEOPLE who ELECT OFFICIALS WHO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS!
How many times have you heard someone say "We need guns to protect our rights!" and then say "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear!"
How about instead of letting people say "Elect me, and I won't take away your guns!", you elect people who say "Elect me, and I'll repeal the Patriot Act!"
People who argue that they need guns to protect their rights from the government are just gun nuts. The 'protect us from the government' argument is a red herring. If their RIGHTS were really what is important to them, they'd vote for people who wanted to protect their rights instead of people who wanted to protect their guns.
But that's not what happens. Search you without a warrant? Listen in to your phone calls? Arrest and detain you, even if you're a US citizen, without access to courts or a lawyer? Torture people? Sure, we'll reelect that guy, as long as he promises we can keep our guns!
Using the right to bear arms to protect your rights is useless if you're willing to trade away all your other rights just to keep your gun. Then what are you protecting?
Re:What really angers me.... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that's like saying you don't have to comply with the will of a tyrannical government (democratic or otherwise). It is because these people recognize individual sovereignty and know that the government has no natural sovereignty or power.
No, it's like saying if someone is going to tread on you, you're going to defend yourself. You do realize the difference between attacking civilian targets to influence policy and defending yourself against agents of a tyrannical government, right? For instance, right or wrong, crazy or sane, the Montana Freemen were not terrorists.
Please show me an elected official who hasn't increased government power at the expense of our rights. Since many people vote on a host of issues and often feel dis-empowered to vote for someone who truly represents them (perhaps a third party) your argument isn't particularly compelling. In fact, if anything, it supports the idea that we need our guns to keep our rights.
From my mouth? Never. Please don't conflate the small, but voracious neo-con movement with true conservatism as it relates to the power of the government.
The guy I voted for said both. In fact, that's why he got my vote.
Your position simply makes no sense to me. You seem to be frightened of ignorant mobs but perfectly willing to let those mobs take away your gun before they tear you apart. I completely agree that people should vote out the people who fail to preserve our rights (and have an integral position). I share your anger at those who would take away our rights or empower the same. However, I fail to see why we should give away yet another right just because we've failed to protect others.
Re:Now is the time to define. . . (Score:5, Informative)
What we should be asking is "WHY?" Why does the government want an unarmed population? The founding fathers made it clear that the purpose of our government was to protect rights. They also warn about modifications to the 2nd amendment.
"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." - Thomas Jefferson
"[H]owever weak our country may be, I hope we shall never sacrifice our liberties." - Alexander Hamilton
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that
"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution." -Thomas Jefferson
Gun confiscation leads to a loss of freedom, increased crime, and the government moving to the left. This has already happened in England and Australia. After Great Britain banned most guns in 1997, making armed self-defense punishable as murder, violence skyrocketed because criminals know that law abiding citizens have been disarmed. Armed crime rose 10% in 1998. The Sunday Times of London reported on the new black market in guns: "Up to 3 million illegal guns are in circulation in Britain, leading to a rise in drive-by shootings and gangland-style execution." There has been such a heavy increase in the use of knives for violent attacks that new laws have been passed giving police the power to search anyone for knives in designated areas.
Where are we going? Who is taking us there? Should we be kicking and screaming?
Now is the time to define "the left" (Score:4, Informative)
you quote and quote from Jefferson, and then demonize the left [wikipedia.org]? Have you the brain worms!?
His ideal world [wikipedia.org] was a communist anarchy, for crying out loud.
Re:It is already defined! (Score:4, Informative)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl ?title=10&sec=311 [findlaw.com]
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.