quote:In a 5-4 decision, the high court determined that Americans have the right to own guns for self-defense as well as hunting.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That's all well and good, but limited reasonable gun control isn't a bad thing. I'm not talking about prying guns out of people's hand, but making it harder for people who should not have guns to get them.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Cheers.
I still won't be getting a gun. But it's nice to know I have the option.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I believe there are many rulings saying that the government may regulate how a right is used. What it can't do is regulate the right away entirely. So "reasonable gun control" won't be affected by this ruling, if I understand correctly. What will be affected is outright bans, as existed in some cities.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Great. Lets see if we can get the shooting death numbers even higher in Chicago.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah that was my reaction to this too, kate.
I disagree with the decision. I think it was a bad call, but I'm not at all surprised.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I tried to be cutting edge and make my own topic since I didn' tsee this one, but the second post was a link here. Oh well.
I want to write a long post outlining the historical context of the 2nd Ammendment and the mentality of the Framers in 1791 and contrast that to the present situation, but alas, no time.
To be quick, as far as I'm concerned, the 2nd Ammendment of 1791 holds little to no bearing in the present case. That's not to say it isn't still applicable in general and doesn't belong in the Constitution. But the reason for its inclusion in the Constitution and therefore what the Framers meant for us by including it in the Constituion holds little to no applicability to handgun ban in D.C. The more I think about it, the more ludicrous it seems to equate the two.
Historical context aside, I still think it's a poor decision, but not necessarily a wrong one.
And now, work calls.
[ June 26, 2008, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Dr Strangelove ]
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Dude the Kings were here in Chicago Gangbangers are scary.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Can you give that Fox News link again, please, Strangelove? I didn't get a chance to read it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I want to write a long post outlining the historical context of the 2nd Ammendment and the mentality of the Framers in 1791 and contrast that to the present situation, but alas, no time.
I have a post in the first page of Dag's thread on this same topic that you might want to take a look at. I could have gone much further into detail on it but didn't really have time when I wrote it. I'd be curious to see what you might add or have to say on the subject.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Great. Lets see if we can get the shooting death numbers even higher in Chicago.
I don't understand this stance. It seems to me that the criminals who would want guns to use for murder or for crime would already have guns, whether they could get them legally or not.
Am I wrong? (Completely possible. )
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
No, Javert, you're not wrong.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: Can you give that Fox News link again, please, Strangelove? I didn't get a chance to read it.
Here ya go. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's my understanding that in a majority of murders that are committed, the victim knew the attacker. It's not all roving street gangs and carjackers.
Frankly for me the silly part of the decision is the whole 'guns for self defense and hunting are sacrosanct' thing. It's not like anyone is going to buy a gun, and when asked what his intentions are, he's going to say "Well I want to murder this guy next door to me, and maybe knock over a fruit stand." I wonder how many weapons used to commit gun crimes were purchased legally, and I'm willing to bet that the answer is really quite high. Trying to set aside a special use for which they are legal just strikes me as utterly silly.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Javert, some people who might not otherwise be able to get guns are going to have an easier time of it. I think it is likely that not everyone who has criminal tendancies (or someday will have criminal tendancies) already has a gun. And I think that having a gun is likely to exacerbate situations into shootings where, had a gun not been so readily available, those situations wouldn't end up with shootings.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
The second amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
What that really says is that the ABILITY to form a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, for that purpose should the need arise, shall not be infringed.
George Bush is already stomping all over the Constitution and our rights, if it wasn't for term limits, I have no doubt that the citizens would essential be powerless against the government.
I have always contended that by adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, the founding fathers created and empowered a new branch of government - THE PEOPLE.
The Bill of Rights insures that even in the direst and most oppressive of times, the people will always have power over government.
What the Bill of Right says, in its entirety, is that the government does not have the power to take power away from the citizens who elected them. The power of a free state should lie in the hands of the people, not in the hands of money grubbing self-serving power-brokers. Though without a doubt those self-serving money-grubbing power-brokers would like to do anything and everything they can to enhance their own power, and limit the power of anyone with the potential to threaten them.
You heard it here first.
steve/bluewizard
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
In Britain right now, where gun ownership is extremely limited, they are having an epidemic of knife-related crime. People seem to find a way of hurting other people.
Saying that guns should be banned because they are arguably more lethal than knives doesn't work unless you want to also ban knives because they are more lethal than forks. We can stop banning things once everything that is left is blunt and/or squishy.
No item which has a reasonable and historical non-criminal use, including self defense, should be banned merely on the basis of it's potential misuse.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: Saying that guns should be banned because they are arguably more lethal than knives doesn't work unless you want to also ban knives because they are more lethal than forks.
Yes, but odds are you can't kill as many people as quickly with a knife as you can with an AK47. Much as I disapprove of many of the issues associated with the handgun ban in Britian (I still think it was overly extreme - and yes, the bad guys still have guns), I have to admit that there hasn't yet been another school shooting massacre in the UK since Dunblane.
There are pros and cons.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I think that the point that KoM made is true....this doesn't mean everyone can go buy a gun at Wal-Mart with no strings attached. Reasonable limits are still allowed, and I have no issue with that.
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Saying that guns should be banned because they are arguably more lethal than knives doesn't work unless you want to also ban knives because they are more lethal than forks.
Meet the straw man guys......or perhaps we should just say "welcome back" to him.
Considering how lethal an item can be IS a valid concern, and SHOULD have a MAJOR impact on if regulations should apply to it. When you consider how many forks are used to kill other people, it isn't a fair comparison.
And pretending it is only reduces the strength of your arguments rather than increasing them.
Keep in mind that I agree with the decision, although it concerns me, and I still disagree with your example. It is rather ludicrous, actually.
[ June 26, 2008, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
What? No conservatives screaming about the court "legislating from the bench"?
Imagine that. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You've got to admit, on the face of it, the constitution does appear to explicitly protect the right to own firearms more than, say, the right to privacy.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I wonder how many weapons used to commit gun crimes were purchased legally, and I'm willing to bet that the answer is really quite high. Trying to set aside a special use for which they are legal just strikes me as utterly silly.
Well... I don't have numbers on hand, but my suspicion is that a lot of guns used in gun crimes were once purchased legally- that is to say, they were stolen from their original owners, and possibly changed hands a few times in between. Both sides get a little vague on the point, but my suspicion is that there aren't huge numbers of weapons being illegally imported into the country and subsequently used in crimes. What would be the point, when they're so readily available in pawn shops and general merchandise stores?
What bothers me about the ruling (aside from the fact that the ruling split completely along partisan political lines) is that D.C.'s law was a handgun ban. Most handguns aren't used for hunting, and the notion that less portable and concealable weapons were apparently not covered by the ban was not considered sufficient availability of "arms" to cover the Second Amendment right.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: You've got to admit, on the face of it, the constitution does appear to explicitly protect the right to own firearms more than, say, the right to privacy.
True, but then, at the time of the framing the right to bear arms was probably also enough to ensure a typical landowner's right to privacy. Not so much these days.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Meet the straw man guys...
I think slippery slope is what you were going for. If it were a strawman, then you wouldn't have followed with your point that the relative lethality was a valid justification.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: In Britain right now, where gun ownership is extremely limited, they are having an epidemic of knife-related crime. People seem to find a way of hurting other people.
Saying that guns should be banned because they are arguably more lethal than knives doesn't work unless you want to also ban knives because they are more lethal than forks. We can stop banning things once everything that is left is blunt and/or squishy.
No item which has a reasonable and historical non-criminal use, including self defense, should be banned merely on the basis of it's potential misuse.
I would agree with this if it could be demonstrated that the numbers of knife related murders are equal to the number of gun related murders observed. It also bugs me that no reliable study observing the number of crimes prevented by gun owners exists.
I think hatrackers fall all along the stances between absolute gun control and absolute gun freedom.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I think people who are really in favor of no guns *must* have absolute faith that our established system of government provides total and complete protection against tyranny and oppression from said government against the people.
To make the argument that things are different now than when the Bill of Rights was written so the people don't need weapons certainly underlines the belief that Americans are exempt from the possibility of corrupt and tyrannical government.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Meet the straw man guys...
I think slippery slope is what you were going for. If it were a strawman, then you wouldn't have followed with your point that the relative lethality was a valid justification.
No...
The straw man was you making an argument that no one else was making....that knives were lethal as well in relation to forks, and that meant they had to be banned as well.... and presenting it as a valid rational against bans on guns. You staked a claim on the slippery slope, to be sure...but you also advanced an argument that no one else mentioned or agreed with, and then refuted it, claiming your refutation invalidated the whole argument.
No one else made that argument, yet you tried to link it to gun control, then refuted your own argument and claimed that also meant a gun ban was refuted.
Classic straw man ....putting forth an argument no one else believes, then refuting your own weak argument and attempting to link it to other, far more valid points.
Not that there isn't a slippery slope element there as well......and I was the one arguing against it. Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:you also advanced an argument that no one else mentioned or agreed with, and then refuted it, claiming your refutation invalidated the whole argument.
Not at all. I never claimed anyone was making any such argument. I said that *if* the argument against handguns (vs, for instance knives) was one of relative lethality (and you agreed that *this* was a valid argument so that alone can't be a straw man), then you should extend that argument to other objects. It's a deductive progression. It may be a wrong one, or a logically flawed one, but it's not a straw man fallacy because I simply proposed a conclusion for an argument which you've already acknowledged to be valid.
I have not proposed that banning knives is actually an argument that anyone has put forth.
As long as we're playing "name that fallacy", what I was really doing there was reductio ad absurdum, which isn't strictly a fallacy to begin with.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I found MeganMcArdle'sposition(s) on this topic to pretty much mirror mine. I particularly like the points she makes regarding guns as a feminist issue (the only weapon/self-defense tool that puts women on an equal playing field with men. And the post on gun statistics is great.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: You've got to admit, on the face of it, the constitution does appear to explicitly protect the right to own firearms more than, say, the right to privacy.
I wouldn't automatically agree with that.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
Saying that guns should be banned because they are arguably more lethal than knives doesn't work unless you want to also ban knives because they are more lethal than forks. We can stop banning things once everything that is left is blunt and/or squishy.
No item which has a reasonable and historical non-criminal use, including self defense, should be banned merely on the basis of it's potential misuse.
Reductio ad absudum, Matt. The fact remains that the intended uses of firearms are different from those of knives. I just wish that those who site the 2nd ammendment would care to acknowledge that that it doesn't specify the types of arms required to maintain a militia. I think the right is important, but I don't think its limitation is dangerous.
I also don't think that weapons are banned on the basis of potential misuse, considering that their misuse is common, and a matter of public knowledge. If we can recognize that certain weapons are specifically designed or marketed for illegitimate purposes, I don't see a problem with banning them.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
I find it scary that it was 5-4.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
pffh gun thread here we go.
DC is a veritable island of isolated gun ban in a sea of readily available guns. The gun ban didn't keep criminals from getting them easily. it just penalized and criminalized otherwise law-abiding citizens for owning them. It had very questionable benefit, and very little impact on crime other than probably just making DC criminals a bit bolder.
Even if a person is anti-gun, and I'm not, they have to realize that pandora's box is open. 90% of the gun laws we have in this country are just a waste of money. Gun laws are incapable of doing what they set out to do. The bans are (or rather, in the case of the DC gun ban, were) propping up the wrong people.
The DC gun ban is gone. Good riddance. I am amused at how Anthony Kennedy is pretty on top of the world right now in terms of effective power. Woo. Also oh god please let's not do the knife comparison gun debate.
quote:I think hatrackers fall all along the stances between absolute gun control and absolute gun freedom.
Make All Guns Illegal Always guys are unsurprising but is there really even one person here who falls into the category of Decriminalize Miniguns And Rocket Launchers?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Make All Guns Illegal Always guys are unsurprising but is there really even one person here who falls into the category of Decriminalize Miniguns And Rocket Launchers?
Why yes, I myself believe that well regulate militias should be permitted to train with those sorts of firearms.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: I just wish that those who site the 2nd ammendment would care to acknowledge that that it doesn't specify the types of arms required to maintain a militia.
Lots of those who cite the 2nd amendment do acknowledge that. See, for example, Scalia's opinion in Heller.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: I think people who are really in favor of no guns *must* have absolute faith that our established system of government provides total and complete protection against tyranny and oppression from said government against the people.
To make the argument that things are different now than when the Bill of Rights was written so the people don't need weapons certainly underlines the belief that Americans are exempt from the possibility of corrupt and tyrannical government.
I was hoping for a response to this--those of you who are for gun bans, is this truly the way you feel?
quote: But all the talk about greater freedoms for gun owners doesn't begin to explain what the ruling means in Chicago, which has seen a recent spate of gun violence.
Nine people were killed in 36 shootings during one weekend this spring. The next week, five people were found shot to death inside a South Side home.
Chicago Public Schools officials say 27 students have been killed by gunfire since September.
Pamela Bosley lost her 18-year-old son two years ago, when a bullet struck him as he helped a fellow student unload instruments outside a South Side Church.
"If you didn't have the guns, we'd still have our children," she said.
Annette Nance-Holt, whose 16-year-old son was killed on a city bus last spring when someone sprayed bullets inside it, was livid with the court's decision.
"I'm still trying to figure out who we are more in love with, our children or our guns," she said. "It's crazy. I'm safer being a deer knowing people are hunting you."
The mere fact that these criminals committed these crimes when such a ban was already in existence really doesn't lend any support to the idea that the ban is doing any good at all. To use a cliche, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.
I find the idea insulting that I must love guns more than my child because I happen to be in favor of upholding our constitutional right to bear arms. I happen to not have complete faith that our government provides complete protection from those that would deny us our basic human rights and freedoms. This fact is certainly made clear by the erosion of our personal freedoms in bills such as the Patriot Act. I also do not have faith that our police force is adequate protection from home invasion and violent criminals--simply because they can't be everywhere at once.
I am not content to sit and believe that somebody else, as in government or the police, is going to protect me. I am not a gun-happy or violent person. I am not a member of the NRA. I have never personally fired a gun, although it is on my list of things to learn to do. I absolutely respect that guns have potential for great harm and, as such, need to be treated with great care, respect, and knowledge. I think that the solution to gun accidents is gun education. I believe it is telling that many, if not all, of killing sprees involving guns occur in so-called "gun-free" zones. I think gun owners need to know how to operate all functions of their guns with great ease--so that it is second nature in the dark. I think that people who are afraid of guns shouldn't use them, unless they can get training to overcome that fear. I think you should never point a gun at someone unless you intend to shoot them. (I'm not impressed by people who point a gun just to "scare" a criminal away--yes, you can point it at a criminal and not fire right away to give them a chance to run--but you absolutely must be resolved to pull the trigger if you have to. Otherwise, you're putting yourself in an even more dangerous situation where your gun can be taken from you.)
I think the potential for misuse, accidents, and gun crime are not valid reasons for banning guns. I am happy about this decision, but am not happy about the small margin of victory.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I just wish that those who site the 2nd ammendment would care to acknowledge that that it doesn't specify the types of arms required to maintain a militia. I think the right is important, but I don't think its limitation is dangerous.
Except the 2nd Amendment isn't about the right of the militia to bear arms. It's about the rights of the people.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Because a militia is necessary, and because the colonists had just spent a long war fighting against a militia, they sought to make sure that the people (which is distinct from the militia) still had the right to keep and bear arms in case the militia ever had to be fought again.
Granted, I'm no Constitutional scholar. But that's the way it looks to me.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Lyr, that post was amazing. I bow to your superior patience and devotion to constructing meaningful posts . I want to just copy and paste it and call it a day. But, I did make some claims which I'll try to explain on my own. But man ... you really do have my admiration for putting that much work into a post.
I wrote a nice, lengthy paper a few semesters ago dealing with the standing army controversy, so that's where I'm drawing most of my thoughts from, though you'll have to excuse my lack of citations. More or less, I see the 2nd Ammendment in light of the failure of the Articles of Confederation. To paint a simplistic picture of the American situation, prior to and during the rebellion, American's were somewhat idealistic. They believed, as a result of their oppression at the hands of England, that there was an inherent love of virtue (read as selflessness and propriety) in the people and an inherent love of power (read as selfishness and tyranny) in the government. This ideology was the basis of the Articles of Confederation (again, excuse my simplicity).
Unfortunately, things didn't quite go as planned. People weren't quite as virtuous as originally thought, and this led to a lot of problems (see Madison's "Vices of the American Political System", written in 1787). This manifested itself partly in the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion, but the trend towards "licentiousness" and, for lack of a better word, anarchy, was disturbingly prevalent in the post-independence, pre-constitution days.
So what were the founding fathers to do? On one hand they had the ever-present evil of tyrannical governments, but on the other they had this unfortunate reality that "the people", when left to themselves, screwed things up. Essentially, there was virtue in the people, but left unchecked it became licentiousness, and there was power to check that anarchy in the government, but left unchecked that became tyranny.
Yes, this all pretty fundamental, but think about the 2nd Amendment in this context. They needed something which limited both the tyrannical leanings of the government and the anarchical leanings of the people, because both were just as much of a danger to their fragile republic. Given that, they came up with the 2nd Amendment, and I believe they did a darn good job of it. The nuances of the wording have been discussed here and in that other thread enough that I won't be able to add anything new, so I won't even try .
To me at least, knowing that the Framers were actively desiring limits to be put both on the people and on the government in terms of "the right to bear arms" puts a different spin on the situation, almost dictating a necessity for a both/and mindset rather than an either/or. And this is where yesterday's decision stops making sense to me. I said in my previous post that I didn't think the 2nd Amendment was applicable, and I guess I stand by that to some degree because I don't think the Amendment is meant to speak about an individual's right. But in the sense that yesterday's case is speaking about people and government in general, it seems that D.C's handgun ban, Constitutionally speaking, was pretty sound. Keep in mind, I'm in no way a lawyer or even remotely aware of the legal mumbo jumbo (no offense Dag) other than what I read in that other thread. I'm basing my view on the fact that the ban simultaneously worked against the licentiousness of people while not infringing upon either the individuals or the peoples ability to own some manner of "arms". That's not to say the ban was the best thing in the world or even necessarily "right". Arguments can be made that a ban was unnecessary or not useful or whatever. But whether it was effective, ineffective, "right" or "wrong", it doesn't seem to me that the ban is in contradiction to the 2nd Amendment.
But, on a deeper level, the decision was just overall a crappy one to have to make within the framework of the 2nd Amendment. As I said before, the 2nd Amendment is good and vital to the foundation of our nation. It's not outdated or outanything. There are definitely still very important and necessary uses for interpreting it. This just was not one of them. And even if it was, I think the wrong decision was made, since as far as I can tell, the ban was Constitutional. But that's not the point. If these sorts of situations are going to be a big issue in the future, there probably should be another amendment somewhere along the line. I don't know what it would be or whether or not it would be possible. But that's my two cents.
.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
The problem with gun bans though is that it is rather unrealistic to expect that we can rid our country of guns. We have open borders. Lets just say that our governments were able to rid all Americans - legal, law abiding citizens and the criminals - of their guns. Well the next day Joe Schmoe can walk across the border b/w Arizona and Mexico and obtain a few handguns for his criminal buddies, walk back across the next day and distribute them or sell them. He and his cronies could do this several times and continue selling them to the criminal element. It is impossible to completely rid this country of guns. Therefore doesn't it seem prudent to allow the law abiding citizens to own a weapon of equal power to utilize if needed in self defense? I personally don't own a gun and have only gone shooting with my brothers once. I have no plans to own a gun but I also don't want to take that right away from someone that feels the need to own one. In an ideal world we wouldn't need to own guns but we left the ideal world eons ago.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Javert, the colonists were the militia. They didn't fight the militia, they fought the King's Army, or as often, mercenaries hired by the King.
-Bok
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Javert, the colonists were the militia. They didn't fight the militia, they fought the King's Army, or as often, mercenaries hired by the King.
-Bok
Then why does the language change? Why doesn't it say "the rights of the militia to hold arms" instead of "the people"?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Even Barack Obama, a longtime advocate of gun control -- but also a one-time professor of constitutional law -- has said he believes the amendment confers an individual right to gun ownership.
Does anyone know if this is true and, if so, where the complete statement on it is?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:From Katarain: I was hoping for a response to this--those of you who are for gun bans, is this truly the way you feel?
Is there anyone here who is for a TOTAL ban on ALL guns? I've never actually met anyone that wanted to round up all the guns and destroy them. Personally I'm for regulated gun ownership. I think having a gun in your home safely locked away is fine. I think you should have to take a gun safety class before you can get a license, I think you shouldn't be able to have one of you're a violent offender, and I don't think you should be able to carry them on you in public.
quote:From Javert: Then why does the language change? Why doesn't it say "the rights of the militia to hold arms" instead of "the people"?
Because a militia, by its very nature, is made up of "the people."
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: and I don't think you should be able to carry them on you in public.
Why?
I mean, assuming the person meets all your other criteria, why shouldn't they be allowed to carry in public? Certainly there should be specific requirements for carrying in public...the type of holster, use of a saftey, things like that.
And if they don't meet all your other criteria, are they really going to care if it's illegal?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Why?
Because bystanders could get hit. I can only imagine the disaster VA Tech could have been if half the students had been running around with guns. I think it's just as likely that innocents would've been hurt by vigilantes or by cops mistaking the vigilantes for the criminal in just as many numbers as were hurt the other way around.
Do you know the numbers on officers who are killed with their own guns? It's mind boggling. We need fewer guns on the street, not more.
quote:And if they don't meet all your other criteria, are they really going to care if it's illegal?
That's a horrible argument. Why bother trying to tax people that are really good at tax evasion? Why bother having a drinking age if kids are going to find a way around it and drink anyway? Is your argument really that something should be legal just because people who break the law are going to do it regardless of legality? Lots of people speed, should we not have speed limits?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Javert, the colonists were the militia. They didn't fight the militia, they fought the King's Army, or as often, mercenaries hired by the King.
-Bok
Then why does the language change? Why doesn't it say "the rights of the militia to hold arms" instead of "the people"?
That's a good question. One that's been the subject of many a constitutional law/history student I'm sure.
You are also misreading it. The first clause says a militia is necessary for a free state, not that it is a threat. That is, it is a good thing. In light of the Revolutionary War, I think one can understand why the Framers might have thought as much.
-Bok
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Why?
Because bystanders could get hit. I can only imagine the disaster VA Tech could have been if half the students had been running around with guns. I think it's just as likely that innocents would've been hurt by vigilantes or by cops mistaking the vigilantes for the criminal in just as many numbers as were hurt the other way around.
Do you know the numbers on officers who are killed with their own guns? It's mind boggling. We need fewer guns on the street, not more.
quote:And if they don't meet all your other criteria, are they really going to care if it's illegal?
That's a horrible argument. Why bother trying to tax people that are really good at tax evasion? Why bother having a drinking age if kids are going to find a way around it and drink anyway? Is your argument really that something should be legal just because people who break the law are going to do it regardless of legality? Lots of people speed, should we not have speed limits?
Couldn't the knowledge that a lot of people may be holding guns actually hinder others from committing crimes?
Even if they weren't carrying, if everyone in a bank could legally carry a concealed firearm, would you attempt to rob it not knowing how many of them might have a gun?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If I can legally enter a bank with a firearm, I'm going to make sure I have 15 armed friends with me, and then I'm going to mow down everyone else there before I proceed to rob the bank. After all, there's no risk to bringing the guns in, and knowing the others might be carrying, I want to minimize the risk so they have to go.
You're not protecting anything. You're ratcheting up the body count.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If I understand correctly, militias (militia?, militiae?) were local organizations of citizen/soldiers. People for whom soldiering was not their profession. Militias were used for local defense against invaders or oppressors.
I think that if we were really being true to what the framers had in mind, states and even cities and towns would have their own militiae - their own little armies.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If I can legally enter a bank with a firearm, I'm going to make sure I have 15 armed friends with me, and then I'm going to mow down everyone else there before I proceed to rob the bank. After all, there's no risk to bringing the guns in, and knowing the others might be carrying, I want to minimize the risk so they have to go.
You're not protecting anything. You're ratcheting up the body count.
Well, you seem to assume the average criminal with a gun will just kill people will-nilly. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
I assume the average criminal with a gun just wants the money and will prefer not to shoot or be shot. Thus, if the possibility of shooting or getting shot goes up, they will not rob that place.
I don't know how to tell which of us may be right.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
If anyone at anytime could be carrying a gun, I would live a much more fearful life. I really don't trust my fellow citizens that much.
I don't know in the bank situation, but I know that in California, the three strike laws leads to the third crime usually being more violent and more likely to escalate. The more desperate a criminal is, the stupider.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:And if they don't meet all your other criteria, are they really going to care if it's illegal?
That's a horrible argument. Why bother trying to tax people that are really good at tax evasion? Why bother having a drinking age if kids are going to find a way around it and drink anyway? Is your argument really that something should be legal just because people who break the law are going to do it regardless of legality? Lots of people speed, should we not have speed limits?
No taxes... no drinking age... no speed limits? Why, Lyrhawn, you're a man after my libertarian heart!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If I understand correctly, militias (militia?, militiae?) were local organizations of citizen/soldiers. People for whom soldiering was not their profession. Militias were used for local defense against invaders or oppressors.
I think that if we were really being true to what the framers had in mind, states and even cities and towns would have their own militiae - their own little armies.
If you mean in American history then the best example is the use of a militia during the Revolutionary War, since they did the majority of the heavy lifting in the early years of the war (and throughout) and it was right after that war that the Framers designed the Constitution.
Militia units back then were locally organized and chose their own officers, which they liked because often their officers were chosen because they were more lax in their rulemaking and enforcing. As such, militias were often without a lot of order with a few notable exceptions, like Nathaniel Greene's Rhode Islanders.
But the militias didn't just operate locally. The force that fought Bunker Hill, the Siege of Boston, the defense of New York, the battle of Princeton and all the battles in the first coiple years of the were was basically an army of New Englanders. Units generally signed up for a one or two year term of service and left precisely on time, only to be replaced by new units. So you'd get a unite of Pennsylvania Riflemen that'd come in to replace a unit of Connecticut Rangers and on and on it went. It wasn't until later in the war that a regular army was constructed, which Washington himself favored due to his utter disdain for the disorderly conduct of the militia.
The Civil War often organized units locally too. Regiments would form locally, say in a single city, pulling in men from a 50-100 mile radius who'd form into maybe a 1K to 2.5K man regiment, who'd be organized into a marger brigade. They were actually regular army, but they organized locally. But there were city and county wide militias in the Civil War too.
It's the job of state governments to organize and regular militias. This was formalized in the Militia Act of 1792, which gave responsibility of organizing militias to state governments, where all able bodied white men between 18 and 45 were ordered to report for twice yearly training, and were expected to bring their own weapons and a small amount of supplies as well. The Act also gave power to the president to fedaralize the militia as necessary to defend the United States from rebellion and invasion. Basically it was designed to fight against foreign invasion like the British, from the Indians, and in case any group, state government or federal body were to rebel and break the laws of the United States.
It was an act to make their weapons of uniform type, and a subsequent act passed with it defined and broadened the powers the President had to call them forth and direct them to enforce the law, and then later to call out other state militias to enter other states and enforce the law.
The Militia Act of 1862 said that black men could also serve, as well as freed slaves. It also allowed for all of them to receive the same pay that regular army soldiers received so long as they were serving.
The Militia Act of 1903 more or less did away with militias as they had been known for the previous 100 years and turned them into more of a reserve army. As far as I'm concerned, if a state were to try and form a local militia but was told they couldn't by the Federal government as a result of the MA of 1903, I'd say the state would have a good case in the court for violation of states' rights.
Militias were locally grown, generally showed up a couple times a year for regular training and picked their own officers. Most men at the time were already pretty handy with a gun, with the majority of them having either used a gun previously or even grew up using a gun. I think a modern version of what they had back then would be something much closer to what the Swiss have today.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Right. My point being that we had the right to bear arms because many, if not most, able-bodied men were part of locally organized forces. A protection against invaders or an opressive central government.
This bears little relationship to circumstances today.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Who gets to decide if the central government is being oppressive?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If I can legally enter a bank with a firearm, I'm going to make sure I have 15 armed friends with me, and then I'm going to mow down everyone else there before I proceed to rob the bank. After all, there's no risk to bringing the guns in, and knowing the others might be carrying, I want to minimize the risk so they have to go.
That's silly. Most bank robbers don't go into it with the idea of killing people. This isn't Pulp Fiction; they want to get money and get out. If it's guaranteed to be a bloodbath, most bank robberies simply won't happen.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Who gets to decide if the central government is being oppressive?
Me!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If I understand correctly, militias (militia?, militiae?) were local organizations of citizen/soldiers. People for whom soldiering was not their profession. Militias were used for local defense against invaders or oppressors.
I think that if we were really being true to what the framers had in mind, states and even cities and towns would have their own militiae - their own little armies.
We can't. Because the government controls our ability to arm ourselves. Any good oppressive government is going to prevent the people from having the means to do anything about the oppression. That was the whole reason for the second amendment; to guarantee that no such oppressive government could come into being. I guess they hadn't reckoned on apathy.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: quote:Even Barack Obama, a longtime advocate of gun control -- but also a one-time professor of constitutional law -- has said he believes the amendment confers an individual right to gun ownership.
Does anyone know if this is true and, if so, where the complete statement on it is?
I can't find the entire text of the speech, but this give some context.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
In all honesty, I think the notion that an armed populace would have a chance against a modern military is pretty much a fantasy, even if you could get a large number to agree that armed insurrection against a tyrannical government was a necessity.
And recent news overseas should make clear that to whatever tiny extent it might not be a fantasy, guns would not be the weapon of choice.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If I can legally enter a bank with a firearm, I'm going to make sure I have 15 armed friends with me, and then I'm going to mow down everyone else there before I proceed to rob the bank. After all, there's no risk to bringing the guns in, and knowing the others might be carrying, I want to minimize the risk so they have to go.
Outlaw minivans! They facilitate mass-getaways! Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Who gets to decide if the central government is being oppressive?
Theoretically? State governments I suppose. But I'd settle for Dag if they give up that responsibility.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If I can legally enter a bank with a firearm, I'm going to make sure I have 15 armed friends with me, and then I'm going to mow down everyone else there before I proceed to rob the bank. After all, there's no risk to bringing the guns in, and knowing the others might be carrying, I want to minimize the risk so they have to go.
That's silly. Most bank robbers don't go into it with the idea of killing people. This isn't Pulp Fiction; they want to get money and get out. If it's guaranteed to be a bloodbath, most bank robberies simply won't happen.
Well frankly I don't think bank robberies really take place that often anyway, but if you're desperate enough to rob a bank, and you KNOW you're entering a place that's armed to the teeth not just with guards but with regular people who don't have the discipline armed guards are expected to have, you're either going to not bother, or you're going to go in guns blazing, Old West style. Regardless, I think instead of people not committing crimes for fear of an armed populace, we're going to have a lot more situations solved with shootings, and a lot more crimes rapidly escalating.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: In all honesty, I think the notion that an armed populace would have a chance against a modern military is pretty much a fantasy, even if you could get a large number to agree that armed insurrection against a tyrannical government was a necessity.
And recent news overseas should make clear that to whatever tiny extent it might not be a fantasy, guns would not be the weapon of choice.
Really? THAT is what you take out of Iraq? There's a 150 million men in this country, and if it really came down to it, I don't think it'd be hard for them all to find their way to a gun. Against them would be an army of a few million, at best. That assumes that every soldier in the active military and National Guard would fight against their families, and their countrymen if push came to shove, and I think that's taking a lot for granted.
It would take a drastic shift from where we are now to get to that, but if it did, I think the Founders had the right idea in talking about the multitudes that'd be arrayed against the standing army. It might be a hard fight, but I think the standing army would get ground down.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: If anyone at anytime could be carrying a gun, I would live a much more fearful life. I really don't trust my fellow citizens that much.
I hate to break it to you, but anyone at anytime could be carrying a gun.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Really? THAT is what you take out of Iraq? There's a 150 million men in this country, and if it really came down to it, I don't think it'd be hard for them all to find their way to a gun. Against them would be an army of a few million, at best. That assumes that every soldier in the active military and National Guard would fight against their families, and their countrymen if push came to shove, and I think that's taking a lot for granted.
It would take a drastic shift from where we are now to get to that, but if it did, I think the Founders had the right idea in talking about the multitudes that'd be arrayed against the standing army. It might be a hard fight, but I think the standing army would get ground down.
Yes, one hundred and fifty million armed people with guns would be nearly impossible for the military to take on.
But I do not for a single moment believe that you would ever get one hundred and fifty million Americans to agree on something to the point that they were willing to personally unite and take up arms over it.
You might, in a really bad situation, get a couple of million who were willing to engage in a really effective harrassment campaign, but again, guns would not be the most effective weapons in such a campaign.
Further, there's absolutely no way an American militia of millions suddenly pops up one day, united and ready to fight. It starts up slowly, and the earliest members don't end up fighting the conventional military; they fight conventional police forces and intelligence agencies. And their efforts most likely aren't a boon to recruitment: supporters of their cause lose their jobs, someone has a family member who ends up in jail, someone else knows an innocent who was killed by a loose cannon.
And then there's the possibility of non-infantry armament being turned on this militia, which is pretty frightening to think about. The sort of enemy that could actually unite multiple millions of Americans to take up arms in their own country is quite likely the kind of enemy that would use cluster bombs or worse on their own population... Which also makes the most lethal firearms seem rather tame by comparison.
In 1776, according to one source, the total U.S. population was 2,527,450. There was no rapid mass communication, little by way of organized intelligence, and little precedent of intelligence operations performing espionage on their own citizens. The enemy that the militia was facing largely had to travel by sail to engage or receive reinforcements. In relative terms, war and the actions that conceived and delivered it occurred in slow motion.
We live in a very different world, and I do think the idea of a citizen militia beating an organized government-run military (and intelligence, and police) force by conventional methods is naive.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:We live in a very different world, and I do think the idea of a citizen militia beating an organized government-run military (and intelligence, and police) force by conventional methods is naive.
Tell that to the North Vietnamese, Sterling.
Yes, I'm aware it's not a perfect fit. But your core assumption-that technology and proficiency would make such a war unwinnable-that's what's naive.
Of course you also gloss over the part where the military would hardly be united against the populace.
quote:...someone else knows an innocent who was killed by a loose cannon.
Your agenda is showing. Or would the citizens with the guns be the only ones alienating people?
quote:But I do not for a single moment believe that you would ever get one hundred and fifty million Americans to agree on something to the point that they were willing to personally unite and take up arms over it.
You wouldn't need that many people.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There are several governments around the world that have been toppled or forced into power sharing agreements by armed insurgencies in the past decade or two.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Further, there's absolutely no way an American militia of millions suddenly pops up one day, united and ready to fight. It starts up slowly, and the earliest members don't end up fighting the conventional military; they fight conventional police forces and intelligence agencies. And their efforts most likely aren't a boon to recruitment: supporters of their cause lose their jobs, someone has a family member who ends up in jail, someone else knows an innocent who was killed by a loose cannon.
You're stringing together a nice set of assumptions, but I don't see what you're basing them on. Any and all of the things you say in that quote are not givens, they're hypothetically possible given a specific set of circumstances.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:We live in a very different world, and I do think the idea of a citizen militia beating an organized government-run military (and intelligence, and police) force by conventional methods is naive.
Tell that to the North Vietnamese, Sterling.
Yes, I'm aware it's not a perfect fit. But your core assumption-that technology and proficiency would make such a war unwinnable-that's what's naive.
Of course you also gloss over the part where the military would hardly be united against the populace.
I believe it would have to become a very open and clear revolution before most of the military would rethink their loyalties, and such a thing forming is unlikely from the outset. Until you have such a thing, you don't have a Great Rebellion, you have the Weather Underground. Or the Montana Militia.
As far as Vietnam, that's a poor fit indeed. It wasn't the South Vietnamese government that was in posession of a modern military, but the U.S.... Who didn't need to be outgunned as much as outlasted.
quote:Your agenda is showing. Or would the citizens with the guns be the only ones alienating people?
I have an agenda now? How interesting.
It's reasonable to assume that citizens with guns would be in the majority of alienating incidents that came to light and remained under media scrutiny. The current media climate is very hungry for the access that comes with riding shotgun in tanks, squad guns, and helicopters, and very shy of any sort of reporting that seems sympathetic to agents that could be labelled terrorists.
I also note that intelligence operations have infiltrated groups to discredit them with the public in the past.
Perhaps the media conditions will change somewhere down the road. I hope they do.
quote:You wouldn't need that many people.
No, but that was the number listed, so that's what I was working off of. How many untrained people would be necessary to have a snowball's chance against the American military (and any allies they might be able to call upon?) Four million? Six?
If you're assuming that a blanket of bodies willing to die for a cause are going to be effective in rallying sympathy and support, perhaps the tactics of protest ought to be what is considered rather than the tactics of violent resistance. (Or to put it another way, I'll see Vietnam, and check you India and South Africa.)
If you're assuming that the military will schism or revolt, then it's military, not civilian weaponry that will probably be responsible for the majority portion of the force brought to bear.
And if you're looking at a long, bloody, drawn-out struggle where issues of supplies and munitions and cost-per-kill come into effect, again, you'd be wise to look into weapons other than firearms.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: There are several governments around the world that have been toppled or forced into power sharing agreements by armed insurgencies in the past decade or two.
I'm sure this is so. How many relied primarily on citizens armed with firearms?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You're stringing together a nice set of assumptions, but I don't see what you're basing them on. Any and all of the things you say in that quote are not givens, they're hypothetically possible given a specific set of circumstances.
The whole idea of a new American civil revolution is entirely hypothetical; what can I do other than string assumptions? But it's also true that revolutions do not spring up overnight, and that the U.S. is possibly better poised than in just about any time in its past to crush an internal insurgency before it got past the "stirrings of unrest" stage.
Just to make this easier to discuss, let's look at some assumptions.
1. An American militia composed of millions of armed members is not going to spring up immediately.
It is extremely difficult for me to imagine otherwise, barring perhaps an easily-decapitated central leadership that manages to communicate for an extended time in secrecy.
2. The earliest members don't end up fighting the military; their encounters are with the police and intelligence agencies.
Most of the recent examples of groups in the U.S. that saw themselves as violent adversaries of the government seem to bear this out.
3. Their efforts aren't a boon to recruitment...
This, admittedly, is more speculative, but I base it on what I've seen in demonstrations and the like. The WTO demonstrations, for example, were very effective at the time... But they also resulted in a very effective police response to future protests, and the effects of that have been highly demoralizing for many groups.
The status quo is a hard rock to budge, and a lot of people come to the plate eager to find blame with those who seek to move it.
[ June 28, 2008, 06:25 AM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There's no rule that says they'd use only firearms. I'm not sure what you're driving at there.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: There's no rule that says they'd use only firearms. I'm not sure what you're driving at there.
I suppose, in a nutshell, it's: Is the notion of a firearm-enabled citizen militia springing up to cast off the yoke of tyranny realistic, here and now? Or is it a pleasant daydream born out of stories of Minutemen and Paul Revere, and reinforced by hundreds of echoing stories of brave and plucky common men beating the odds and securing freedom?
And if a strong case can be made for the latter, does it really belong on the table of a serious discussion on the right to own firearms?
I know a fair number of gun-owners; most of them are reasonable, intelligent, and responsible people. And I think most of them could come up with sounder arguments for their personal right to bear arms.
But then, I also suspect most of them would support some gun control measures as well.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Actually, if we had a situation where any military other than the Coast Guard or the National Guard are facing their own countrymen in battle, our soldiers would have to question a few things. Like the fact that other than those two branches they aren't legally allowed to do police work in this country. If you're sending in the Marines, you're either doing it illegally or you've declared war on America. I think the soldiers might notice that and have a problem with it.
As for the bank thing, we'd have our own rules not allowing guns, even if it were legal. We want the robbers in and out quickly to reduce injury more than we want not to be robbed. Besides, we're pretty confident in our training and cameras. The cops will find them later.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sterling,
quote:I believe it would have to become a very open and clear revolution before most of the military would rethink their loyalties, and such a thing forming is unlikely from the outset. Until you have such a thing, you don't have a Great Rebellion, you have the Weather Underground. Or the Montana Militia.
As far as Vietnam, that's a poor fit indeed. It wasn't the South Vietnamese government that was in posession of a modern military, but the U.S.... Who didn't need to be outgunned as much as outlasted.
As for the Montana Militia, back when it was bigger news, there were quite a few people involved in the situation that were already conflicted about it.
Why do you think 'outgunned as much as outlasted' wouldn't apply in some sort of armed insurgency within the USA? I'll tell you one thing, times have changed: Americans are sick to death of even the casualties in Iraq right now-just our military casualties, which (as far as wars go anyway) have been quite low. And most Americans don't seem to care much about the civilian casualties, the direct and indirect ones.
How quickly do you think Americans would grow sick of it when it was American casualties on both sides of the barrel, and all the collateral damage was American civilian casualties as well?
I'll tell you: pretty damn quick. Our government could not sustain such a campaign for any length of time. Even if it could, I have more reason to believe our military wouldn't go along with it forever than you do to think they would.
quote:
It's reasonable to assume that citizens with guns would be in the majority of alienating incidents that came to light and remained under media scrutiny. The current media climate is very hungry for the access that comes with riding shotgun in tanks, squad guns, and helicopters, and very shy of any sort of reporting that seems sympathetic to agents that could be labelled terrorists.
Yes, you do have an agenda-as illustrated by the contortions you're going through here. It's not reasonable to assume what you're saying because, unlike in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war would be going on here-in the land of cell phones and Internet and cell-phone cameras, no less. It's a great deal easier to control the news when you're often in charge of where and how reporters move about.
quote:No, but that was the number listed, so that's what I was working off of. How many untrained people would be necessary to have a snowball's chance against the American military (and any allies they might be able to call upon?) Four million? Six?
If you're assuming that a blanket of bodies willing to die for a cause are going to be effective in rallying sympathy and support, perhaps the tactics of protest ought to be what is considered rather than the tactics of violent resistance. (Or to put it another way, I'll see Vietnam, and check you India and South Africa.)
If you're assuming that the military will schism or revolt, then it's military, not civilian weaponry that will probably be responsible for the majority portion of the force brought to bear.
And if you're looking at a long, bloody, drawn-out struggle where issues of supplies and munitions and cost-per-kill come into effect, again, you'd be wise to look into weapons other than firearms.
Just what allies do you imagine the American military would be able to call upon in such a situation, anyway? Britain? That's about the only reliable possibility, and even that's a stretch.
India hardly works as a good example, simply because the British largely weren't willing to enforce their desire at the barrel of a gun, at least not on the entire country. Which is a different situation than the hypothetical you're discussing.
As for using other weapons...well, heck: show me a revolution, insurgency, guerilla effort, whatever, that used only bombs. I'll wait.
quote: This, admittedly, is more speculative, but I base it on what I've seen in demonstrations and the like. The WTO demonstrations, for example, were very effective at the time... But they also resulted in a very effective police response to future protests, and the effects of that have been highly demoralizing for many groups.
The trouble with the WTO demonstrations is that they weren't as powerful or had as much popular support as the kind of thing we're talking about.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
They're only a firearm-only militia until they take over a few national guard armories (and that's assuming the armories don't just come over right away).
Then they're a force armed as well as or better than any other insurgency.
And, as pointed out, such insurgencies have toppled governments in the past few decades, even ones with fairly effective armies. Granted, the US military is in a class of its own, but I doubt the full might of the US military would or could be brought to bear on a large internal uprising.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
National Guard units would be interesting in such a hypothetical. If a few thousand of their neighbors marched on the base and tried to take it by force, I have a hard time imagining the locals would fire on them and mow them down to protect the equipment. They'd either join forces with them or get out of their way. If they join forces, suddenly the "insurgency" has tanks, helicopters and an air force. If they were to actually fire, well, then they can't go home again.
quote:I suppose, in a nutshell, it's: Is the notion of a firearm-enabled citizen militia springing up to cast off the yoke of tyranny realistic, here and now? Or is it a pleasant daydream born out of stories of Minutemen and Paul Revere, and reinforced by hundreds of echoing stories of brave and plucky common men beating the odds and securing freedom?
This hypothetical presupposes that there is no such force already in place. The Framers had in mind that the militia force would be trained and ready to be called up if necessary to defend against enemies foreign or domestic. They wouldn't form out of thin air, they'd already be there. That's the problem with the Militia Act of 1903 in my opinion. It's effectively ended this practice.
There's a lot of talk lately of national service, really of public service. The ideas bouncing around are that kids just out of high school should spend their summers or even whole years working to better their communities. I think everyone should have to go through a minimum of training starting their junior year of high school and into their first year of college, give or take. It'd be local, say county wide, and they'd have to report, they'd be given basic training in ordering, drilling, weapons training, and they'd elect officers. Then they go about their lives, and once a year, like jury duty, they'd have to report, pass a basic test to make sure they're up to date, and then go about their business. It wouldn't take that much time, and really I don't even think it'd take that much money compared to what we spend on national defense, but I think it fills the spirit of the second amendment.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Why do you think 'outgunned as much as outlasted' wouldn't apply in some sort of armed insurgency within the USA?
Because I believe that fatigue would apply on an equal or nearly equal level on both sides of such a conflict. As militia members don't necessarily come into a conflict with the same degree of mental preparedness or discipline as professional soldiers, the temptation to return to one's home and believe that things aren't bad enough to be worth it could be very strong. Especially if the government they had taken up arms against offered amnesty.
quote: I'll tell you one thing, times have changed: Americans are sick to death of even the casualties in Iraq right now-just our military casualties, which (as far as wars go anyway) have been quite low. And most Americans don't seem to care much about the civilian casualties, the direct and indirect ones.
How quickly do you think Americans would grow sick of it when it was American casualties on both sides of the barrel, and all the collateral damage was American civilian casualties as well?
And how would they respond to growing sick of it? Protest? Taking up arms themselves? Crossing the borders and hoping that things would resolve themselves in their absence?
quote:Yes, you do have an agenda-as illustrated by the contortions you're going through here.
Not looking on the situation as optimistically as you do is not the same thing as "having an agenda". If you have something more specific in mind, be so good as to spell it out so I can flat-out deny it. This mysterious agenda of mine has me mystified.
quote: It's not reasonable to assume what you're saying because, unlike in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war would be going on here-in the land of cell phones and Internet and cell-phone cameras, no less. It's a great deal easier to control the news when you're often in charge of where and how reporters move about.
How much actual news do you see that originated from amateurs with cell phones and camcorders?
Occasionally, there's a piece, yes. It's how some of the more dramatic and horrifying footage of 9/11 was captured.
But large portions of the professional journalistic media seem very willing to trade autonomy for safety, and that is the case wherever they're reporting in dangerous surroundings, at home or abroad.
The amateurs suffer from a few major difficulties: one, they're particularly easy to surpress. By way of example, there were reports of amateurs with cameras at a protest around a hotel where President Bush was staying in Portland who simply had their cameras taken away from them; there have been similar reports of people having their recording equipment taken just for recording the police. Two, it is difficult for them to get an audience- there's a glut of amateur content right now, most of it dross or entertainment-related. And three, the very lack of credentials and the unprofessional quality of amateurs' work leaves open the possibility of staged events or "fake" reporters posting propoganda pieces.
There's an increasing sense that protesters get restricted far away from the events that they're protesting, and that media people who ask questions viewed as hostileloseaccess to public figures and end up being scooped by their rivals.
quote:Just what allies do you imagine the American military would be able to call upon in such a situation, anyway? Britain? That's about the only reliable possibility, and even that's a stretch.
Without adding more specifics to a hypothetical scenario, it's very hard to speculate. But I will note there are numerous emerging powers that own an enormous amount of the U.S. debt and would most certainly have a vested stake in the swift return of a stable U.S. government.
quote:India hardly works as a good example, simply because the British largely weren't willing to enforce their desire at the barrel of a gun, at least not on the entire country. Which is a different situation than the hypothetical you're discussing.
If you're working off of the assumption that the military would be significantly conflicted in bringing force to bear against citizenry, then the situation isn't necessarily all that different.
quote:As for using other weapons...well, heck: show me a revolution, insurgency, guerilla effort, whatever, that used only bombs. I'll wait.
And in how many of those insurgencies were the insurgents able to get a hold of firearms despite strict gun laws?
Much of the violence precipitated by the IRA in Northern Ireland was bomb related, but there certainly was gun violence as well- despite gun ownership needing to be run through local police chiefs.
There's no question that a gun is a useful tool of violence. But the fact remains that a citizen with a gun- especially a handgun- is not a match for a modern soldier. Or even several citizens, barring training and leadership that enables them to work together effectively. Which brings up Lyrhawn's point, which I'll get to in a moment.
quote:The trouble with the WTO demonstrations is that they weren't as powerful or had as much popular support as the kind of thing we're talking about.
Most estimates state that there were at least 40,000 people in Seattle for the WTO protests, and they brought business to a standstill. What definition of "powerful" or "having popular support" are we using?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: There's a lot of talk lately of national service, really of public service. The ideas bouncing around are that kids just out of high school should spend their summers or even whole years working to better their communities. I think everyone should have to go through a minimum of training starting their junior year of high school and into their first year of college, give or take. It'd be local, say county wide, and they'd have to report, they'd be given basic training in ordering, drilling, weapons training, and they'd elect officers. Then they go about their lives, and once a year, like jury duty, they'd have to report, pass a basic test to make sure they're up to date, and then go about their business. It wouldn't take that much time, and really I don't even think it'd take that much money compared to what we spend on national defense, but I think it fills the spirit of the second amendment.
Interesting... I certainly can imagine such a group being effective. My major question then would be how would one insure such a group maintain their independence from the government they might be called upon to unseat?
That I say "under the current circumstances I don't believe a citizens militia could be raised that would stand a chance against the organized military" doesn't rule out the possibility that circumstances could be changed.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
How do we make the reality of a forced period of service with our notions of freedom of choice? Wouldn't "requiring" such actions violate the very spirit of what we want our country to represent?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
No more than a draft would.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:My major question then would be how would one insure such a group maintain their independence from the government they might be called upon to unseat?
It was never intended for these groups to be totally independent. They're meant to be organized, regulated and maintained by state governments. There'd have to be a separate but powerful movement to rewrite some of the militia laws at the federal level, and a push to get states to take up the slack that's been there for the last 100 years. But this is a local matter, not a national one. States provide guidelines, local municipalities get into the details. If everyone is a part of it, and everyone votes a certain way but the government doesn't comply, then you've already got your democratic basis for action and those same people are already organized to resist. That's what the framers intended.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: How do we make the reality of a forced period of service with our notions of freedom of choice? Wouldn't "requiring" such actions violate the very spirit of what we want our country to represent?
The cat is already out of the bag on that one. Most states already require you to go to school until a certain age before you can drop out. All men still have to register for selective service. You still have to show up for jury duty. There are already a lot of ways where you are forced to perform some service before getting the benefits of citizenship. It's the price we pay for an ordered, lawful and free society.
Besides, I'm not talking about forced service like the Isrealis have. It's not like you'd be an active member of the military. You wouldn't even be an active member of the Guard. It'd be like Diet Boot Camp, just to teach the basics. If push comes to shove, say that you have to do it in order to be eligible for state tuition assistance. It'd be far from the first time we made something mandatory in order to earn benefits. That way choice is still there, and it's incentivized.
I wouldn't agree with say a mandatory full two years of military service. That I do think clashes with our ideas on freedom of choice. But this isn't nearly the same thing, and I think it fits right in with all the other things we consider okay to force people to do.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
We have militias nowadays. They're called police departments, sheriff's departments, and state national guards.
Btw, the Northern Ireland example is rather more complicated. Firearms were (are) commonly held by people in the countryside throughout the area. I'm not sure of exact legal status, but many weapons in England are effectively grandfathered in, having been long held on the farm or whatnot. Pseudolegal at worst.
Of course, a number of weapons were also acquired illegally.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:We have militias nowadays. They're called police departments, sheriff's departments, and state national guards.
Comparatively? That's up for debate. Literally? They certainly aren't the same thing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would say that, by far, most of the IRA arms cache was illegal. Smuggled in and hidden. Possession of firearms by Irish Republicans was severely punished.
And very little progress was made in NI until the Republicans started to get political when Bobby Sands ran for Parliament. Bobby Sands was, incidentally in jail on the charge of possession of a firearm.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
We are never going to have a militia quite like what militias were when the Constitution was written. A part time national guard member is about the closest I could imagine: an armed citizen with a normal life who periodically trains to protect and defend the country. That's almost exactly the definition of what a militia has been for thousands of years.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The devil is in the details. The National Guard serves as a backup force for the Army, not as the kind of local militia that the Framers imagined.
Comparatively, I think you could probably successfully make that arguement. Literally no, they aren't the same. The further you get into the details, the further away from each other the two definitions get. It's only when you broadly define it like that that it looks the same.
I don't see why we can't have something similar. The Swiss do it well enough. At the moment I'm not particularly worried, because there isn't any situation I can think of that's nearly plausible that involves us being invaded, and I think it's farfetched to believe that anytime soon we'll need to rebel against a tyrannical Executive. However if we're going to permanantly confirm this new reality, then I think we should amend the second amendment to reflect that. Otherwise we're apparently dealing with outdated definitions and practices.
Read up on the organizational structure of the Guard and how they are integrated into the Army. For all intents and purposes, they are far more regular army than they are militia.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I am not at all clear on what the difference between 'backup force for the Army' and 'local militia that the Framers imagined' is.
For instance, citizen militias in the Framers' time were quickly organized into units that supported, or even became, units of the revolutionary armies. So I see no reason the national guard as frequently being used to back up the army as completely compatible.
Also, that is far from the national guard's only role, and there are several situations that regularly arise where the national guard is the primary responder, not the army, particularly related to disasters. In fact, excepting the recent period with Afghanistan and Iraq, I believe far more of the national guard's efforts have been spent in this fashion. This seems extremely compatible with ideas about militias as being local responders in contrast to the army.
I am familiar with the organizational structure of the guard, and your statements do not make much sense to me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
They're regular army. They get the same equipment, the same training, they're fitted into the same command structure and everything. They go overseas to fight just like regular army units. And for that matter their numbers are tiny compared to what the framers intended.
quote:In fact, excepting the recent period with Afghanistan and Iraq, I believe far more of the national guard's efforts have been spent in this fashion.
While Afghanistan and Iraq have been the conflicts with the highest percentage of Guard units as a total of the whole military force, in fact every war of the 20th century has had huge numbers of Guard soldiers fighting overseas.
Thankfully Congress overturned the law recently that said the President has overriding authority of the Guard over the governors.
quote:For instance, citizen militias in the Framers' time were quickly organized into units that supported, or even became, units of the revolutionary armies.
The difference is between an army of the people and an army of the government. I don't think you can make the argument anymore that the Guard is an army of the people. They've been brought under direct Federal control over the last 100 years, and ever increasingly in the past couple years especially.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
. I want to just copy and paste it and call it a day. But, I did make some claims which I'll try to explain on my own. But man ... you really do have my admiration for putting that much work into a post.![[Cool]](cool.gif)
.