Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Why do people need assault rifles?

Why do people need assault rifles? (Page 5)
Thread Tools
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2013, 05:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
So just the secret service guarding the president (and party (I mean group, not the Democratic party)), not for congress?
They're available to anyone, but require a special security license to get the armaments. Federal agencies are exempt from requiring that license, they just have to fill out the requisite papers.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2013, 05:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
Good luck with those if you lose the right to defend yourself. I think the folks who set up the country understood that free speech and self-defense were necessary, but not sufficient, for those three.
Agreed. A person who cannot defend their home or family is not "free".
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2013, 05:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
They're available to anyone, but require a special security license to get the armaments. Federal agencies are exempt from requiring that license, they just have to fill out the requisite papers.
What are available? Gatling guns? Or Secret Service escort?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2013, 06:07 PM
 
An available option is a Browning M2 "street sweeper". Who can get SS protection? Anyone the president wants to protect, via royal decree, err, I mean executive order.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2013, 10:13 PM
 
Valerie Jarret, for example has a SS detail.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2013, 12:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Agreed. A person who cannot defend their home or family is not "free".
They aren't regardless.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2013, 01:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
They aren't regardless.
It isn't an all-or-nothing deal, never has been.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2013, 01:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
It isn't an all-or-nothing deal, never has been.
So then unless you relate the word to something, it's pretty much void of meaning, or at least is highly subjective, huh?

Would you say that ridiculously expensive individual health care plans does not equate to freedom?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2013, 03:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So then unless you relate the word to something, it's pretty much void of meaning, or at least is highly subjective, huh?

Would you say that ridiculously expensive individual health care plans does not equate to freedom?
Perfect freedom isn't any more possible than perfect peace or perfect justice.

Not being required to have a ridiculously expensive individual health care plan could be.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2013, 10:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Agreed. A person who cannot defend their home or family is not "free".
A person who doesn't need to is more free than one who does.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2013, 10:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
A person who doesn't need to is more free than one who does.
Indeed, but there isn't anyone like that.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2013, 04:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Indeed, but there isn't anyone like that.
Not in a country where everyone has a gun, no.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
cgc
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2013, 04:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I have to ask:

Why do you need/want 6 pistols?

Does it bother you at all that your daughters boyfriend carries a gun? Is that a factor in why she needs one too?



It continues to baffle me that people keep talking about "law abiding gun owners" in the same breath as mental illness. Mentally ill people aren't thinking about what the law is and whether they should break it or not, they're mentally ill!
Also, this whole 'don't punish the law abiding majority' line is a bit silly. If you handed out any kind of weapons to the populace, be it a grenade each, a pack of C4 each or a small nuke each, most of them wouldn't blow up their fellow citizens, yet these items remain more restricted than guns.
Regarding "handing out weapons", what do you think about automobiles? According to the US Census Bureau, there were 10.8 million automobile fatalities in 2009. In 2008, the US Census Bureau says there were 2.473 million gun fatalities.

Banning "high capacity magazines" isn't a fix action as anyone who's shot anything with a magazine knows you can carry a lot of them and swap them out in less than three seconds and keep shooting...or just carry several weapons. This isn't a "gun problem" it's a societal problem. Our society is "sick" for lack of a better term. I see much more benefit in longer waiting periods for gun buyers, more extensive background checks, mandatory gun safety training (e.g. like we do prior to getting a driver's license) and mental reviews (but then we're getting into a HIPAA-rights issue),. This looks better but it's still not addressing the real underlying issue of mentally unstable people grabbing a weapon and storming into a school.

How about a law where you cannot sell a gun by itself...it must be sold with a gun-lock added to the pre-sales checks and mandatory gun safety training?

The problem I see is politicians want to look like they're doing something but if they don't address the root cause it's wasted effort and money. The Second Amendment needs to be respected as well...even though I'm not a gun owner I don't want to see any rights eroded due to Executive Order or fear mongering. We need to take a few months and be serious about fixing this.

...but my first paragraph shows we really should be doing more about automobile safety...unfortunately, the Democrats don't have an agenda vesus "automobile rights", only gun rights (and fossil fuels) but that's a topic for another rant.
"Like a midget at a urinal, I was going to have to stay on my toes." Frank Drebin, Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2013, 04:43 PM
 
Self-driving cars will eventually eliminate nearly all traffic injuries. There will be no self-shooting guns though... unless.... robocop?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2013, 04:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Not in a country where everyone has a gun, no.
Anywhere
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2013, 04:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
A person who doesn't need to is more free than one who does.
It's the people who aren't as free who need the means to increase their freedom levels the most. (Innocent) poor people who live in poor crime-ridden neighborhoods, whose police coverage is underfunded and overextended and not likely to save them in the event of crime, are the ones who need the ability to protect their own lives and property more than people like Shaddim (no offense mate). Unfortunately they are the ones who will be hit the hardest by heavy-handed measures to fight a "war on guns."
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2013, 05:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
Well put!

There is a belief, commonly held among those who really don't understand U.S. law, that the second amendment exists to empower the average American citizen against the tyranny of his own government.

It's not true.

This particular argument was invented long after the Bill of Rights was written.

A quick review of history, in particular of Shay's Rebellion (1786) and George Washington's reaction to it, which greatly influenced the Constitutional Convention, will explain what they meant by a well-armed militia. Washington himself led state militias in 1794 to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

The Second Amendment was written in order to promote the security of the young country by putting down revolution, not promoting it.

And, of course, there are all those other words in the Constitution.

• if the second amendment were intended to allow us to revolt, why does Article 3, Section 3 include "levying war" against the United States as one of the definitions of treason?

• Why does Article 4, Section 4 guarantee that the Federal Government will protect every state of the union "against domestic violence"?

In fact, the Supreme Court's most conservative members have ruled that the Federal Government can restrict gun ownership, especially the kinds of weapons that would be necessary to fight a modern revolution.

Put simply, it is counter-intuitive, ahistorical, and completely out of context to argue that we have guns in order to protect us from our own government.

Nevertheless, regardless of how dumb the argument is, the language remains, and therefore we must contend with the reality that Americans have a right to own guns.
Here's my dummy take.

There was a fundamental change in individual rights after the Civil War and the passing of the 14th Amendment. Previous to that, individual states could do things we'd consider insane now. There were state churches. An individual state could abridge your freedom of speech. An individual state could take your guns. An individual state could say it's okay you're a slave.

Now, I'll fully admit this was the context under which the 2nd Amendment was written. It was meant to stop the Federal government from infringing on individual state militia.

I ask whether these state militias were meant to (among other things) be a check on the power of the Federal government? The answer seems to be unequivocally "yes". I'm almost positive I can dig up some Federalist Paper quotes to that effect.

This relates directly to the clauses in the Constitution you bring up. Considering the amount of discussion which went on about State vs. Federal authority, as well as revolutionary grounds upon which the Constitution was created, are those clauses aimed at outlawing revolution? If so, it strikes me as a decidedly poor choice to then let each state have its own army.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2013, 10:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Anywhere
Actually there are plenty of places if you think about it. They're getting rarer but there are still places where residents can leave their doors unlocked without needing to worry.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2013, 01:50 AM
 
ebuddy, thanks for the well-argued posts- this is the type of discussion that leads to intelligent solutions. I may not agree with you on everything, but I value this reply because it leads to more food for thought.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Crudely, all able-bodied men were considered militia and were not only granted the right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights (necessary for ratification), but were expected to in the Virginia delegate prior for example. As such, the people were the militia.
I don't disagree with this at all- in other posts, I've pointed out that the various militias were the nation's only means of defense for several years- so of course it was necessary to ensure that those men had access to arms. This explains the prefatory clause in the Amendment.

However, you are correct: even though the reasons for passing the Amendment have long since become irrelevant, the operative clause states that Americans have the right to bear arms.

But the Constitution does not give anyone the right to overturn itself: there is no escape hatch for those who want to follow some of its laws, but not others, even if they believe they are fighting tyranny.



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Revolution and treason can be arbitrary.

They essentially are just "other words of the Constitution" without regard for the overarching fact that the Federal Government serves at the consent of and in the public trust. When it does not, definitions of treason will vary...
There are two issues here, one of the rights defined by the Constitution, and one of political philosophy. Many gun advocates tend to use the former in order to justify ignoring the latter.

From an overarching, political-philosophy point of view, you're right, and plenty of the founders would agree with you- the definitions of "treason" and "revolution," philosophically speaking, depend on who's doing the defining.

But you have elided the difference between a fine principle and the actual, stated law as written by those founders. They clearly defined treason in the articles I cited: if you take up arms against the government, whether federal or state, you are a traitor, and the government has the Constitutional right to hunt you down and kill you.

If someone doesn't like the direction that the Constitution has taken in its historical development, they certainly may try to overthrow the society it has created. But in doing so, they are violating that same Constitution, even if they claim to be upholding the principles they believe it represents.

The bottom line for those who wish to quote Jefferson et al. is: if you wish to fight tyranny, by all means take up arms- if you are successful, you will then be able to write a better constitution to replace the one that failed you.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2013, 03:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
There was a fundamental change in individual rights after the Civil War and the passing of the 14th Amendment. Previous to that, individual states could do things we'd consider insane now. There were state churches. An individual state could abridge your freedom of speech. An individual state could take your guns. An individual state could say it's okay you're a slave.
Yes, you're right- there's no question that our understanding of rights changed over time, but that's the point, isn't it? That is, the Constitution grows and changes with the society it has created- the 14th Amendment came after a particularly nasty 'discussion' involving states' rights and federal rights, and most importantly, it clarified issues that the Constitution had not up until that point, including whether the states had the right to revolt: turns out they don't.

I think we're seeing a similar issue with the Second Amendment, where the original intention-preserving the militias needed to defend the country at the time- has become irrelevant, leaving us with a right whose boundaries have yet to be fixed.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
I ask whether these state militias were meant to (among other things) be a check on the power of the Federal government? The answer seems to be unequivocally "yes". I'm almost positive I can dig up some Federalist Paper quotes to that effect.
I'm not so sure about this one- you might be better off checking out the Anti-Federalist arguments, such as #28, #29, and #74. Those are the guys who opposed the Constitution (and the Second Amendment) on the grounds that it would lead to tyranny: some wanted no standing army; others wanted no Federal control of the militias- and some didn't even trust militias.

The Federalist Papers are pretty clear that the militias were intended to defend against invasion and to put down civil unrest. As Hamilton wrote in #29, "The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy"

However, the phrase you're looking for would probably be in Federalist 46, where Madison takes up the question of a tyranny created by the accumulation of power over time, an idea he considered laughably unrealistic. Nevertheless, he wrote that even if we suppose a Federal Government could sneak up on us (an idea based in "delirious jealousy" and "counterfeit zeal" as opposed to "true patriotism"), the army would be vastly outnumbered by the state militias.

But Madison reiterates that the argument itself is insulting to the American people: [I]"Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it."[/I

So, a check on the Federal Government? Not really: for Hamilton and Madison, the only checks necessary were the wide and varied powers held by individuals and states, and the constant changes produced by the representative system.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2013, 11:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
But the Constitution does not give anyone the right to overturn itself: there is no escape hatch for those who want to follow some of its laws, but not others, even if they believe they are fighting tyranny.
"Escape hatch" is the wrong expectation. There is no escape hatch for people like MLK to break the law in order to protest it. But importantly, our system was designed to allow people to do what is not allowed, if they believe in their cause strongly enough to suffer the legal consequences. Protesters still go to jail, knowingly, in order to support their cause. Likewise, revolutionaries get hanged, knowingly, in order to support their cause as well. "I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country," remember that? The point is to allow the ability to overturn itself, not the blessing to do it. It's not supposed to be easy to do. If the Whisky Rebellion had had the support of enough people to fight off George Washington, the idea is that this would be a referendum on the uprising's merit. It's like a regular kind of vote, but weighted by how strongly people believe in it, because they have to risk their lives in order to cast their ballot. It's not the kind of referendum one would want to call very often, nor should it be, but it's also not the kind of referendum we want to prevent from ever happening again by destroying the means for doing so.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2013, 11:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
I think we're seeing a similar issue with the Second Amendment, where the original intention-preserving the militias needed to defend the country at the time- has become irrelevant, leaving us with a right whose boundaries have yet to be fixed.
The bill of rights was set up in such a way that we don't have to guess when the time has come for which rights have become irrelevant. We know when the time is because a constitutional amendment garners enough public support to get itself passed, that's when the time is. That gun control supporters know full well that that support isn't here, otherwise they wouldn't be so conspicuously silent on the proposal of a new amendment, tells us the time of irrelevancy of this right is still pending.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2013, 01:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Indeed, but there isn't anyone like that.

There are plenty of people even in this country that can live in perfect safety without owning a gun.

Not everybody needs to be a cowboy.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2013, 02:05 PM
 
"A person who doesn't think they need to own a gun thinks they are more free than someone who thinks they do need to thinks they are"?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2013, 05:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by cgc View Post
Regarding "handing out weapons", what do you think about automobiles? According to the US Census Bureau, there were 10.8 million automobile fatalities in 2009. In 2008, the US Census Bureau says there were 2.473 million gun fatalities.

...but my first paragraph shows we really should be doing more about automobile safety...unfortunately, the Democrats don't have an agenda vesus "automobile rights", only gun rights (and fossil fuels) but that's a topic for another rant.
I don't know how you came up with those numbers, but they're fantastically overblown! In fact, there were about 31,000 handgun fatalities, and 17,000 of those were suicides. That's less than one tenth of one percent of the population.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2013, 09:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
ebuddy, thanks for the well-argued posts- this is the type of discussion that leads to intelligent solutions. I may not agree with you on everything, but I value this reply because it leads to more food for thought.


I don't disagree with this at all- in other posts, I've pointed out that the various militias were the nation's only means of defense for several years- so of course it was necessary to ensure that those men had access to arms. This explains the prefatory clause in the Amendment.
Embedded within the prefatory clause is the statement; "... being necessary to the security of a free State". It's important to understand the distinction between the branches of military as indicated in the Constitution. In the Constitution are provisions for standing up land and naval forces (standing army), and a militia specifically to be administered by the enumerated States and culled from the people of that State, being necessary to secure that State from hostility up to and including the standing army. In other words, it wasn't an argument that came up well after the Bill of Rights had been written; it permeated civil doctrine predating the US Constitution, was clearly articulated in the enumerated States' Constitutions, found in floor debates over the Second Amendment, and was a necessary addition, by the letter, for ratification. The Bill of Rights were a necessary package of safeguards to individual liberty and in no case are they predicated on membership in any formal, Federalized organization. This of course would be most counterintuitive.

If I recall correctly, one Justice put that if this were the case, the 2nd Amendment would read; "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances shall not be infringed."

However, you are correct: even though the reasons for passing the Amendment have long since become irrelevant, the operative clause states that Americans have the right to bear arms.
Whether it is relevant or not is subjective. As long as we function as humans under the confines of human nature, such a notion will never be entirely irrelevant. It is the year 2013 and there are multiple militias fighting standing armies as we type.

But the Constitution does not give anyone the right to overturn itself: there is no escape hatch for those who want to follow some of its laws, but not others, even if they believe they are fighting tyranny.
The right to "overturn itself" was built into the checks and balances of the system through the document that governs it. A House at odds with a Senate at odds with an Executive at odds with a Legislative; all serving as checks against the other. The militia, among other purposes of course, were clearly perceived as a check against the standing army, affirmed in the citations we discussed earlier including the preceding documents, floor debates, and States' Constitutions predating and following the drafting of the Bill of Rights. Distasteful, but true. If at such time the collective determines that the government has run amok and is perceived a direct affront to individual liberties, the people may or may not be culled, with the weapons they're able to keep and bear, into a war against it. Believe me -- God forbid any such horrific development and I would plea for sanity to prevail, but the fact of the matter is that too often it does not. Better that I would maintain the insurance policy that may facilitate, in some small part, to a reluctance of the centralized authority than to have nothing for any number of circumstances that may warrant protection in their absence.

There are two issues here, one of the rights defined by the Constitution, and one of political philosophy. Many gun advocates tend to use the former in order to justify ignoring the latter.
I don't know if I understand what you mean, raleur. They're using the former (rights defined by the Constitution) to justify ignoring political philosophy? Otherwise, the crafting of the Constitution, by design, included elements from any number of political philosophies and you can no more divorce yourself of those principles than you can begin to define Constitutional rights, let alone interpret them later on.

From an overarching, political-philosophy point of view, you're right, and plenty of the founders would agree with you- the definitions of "treason" and "revolution," philosophically speaking, depend on who's doing the defining.

But you have elided the difference between a fine principle and the actual, stated law as written by those founders. They clearly defined treason in the articles I cited: if you take up arms against the government, whether federal or state, you are a traitor, and the government has the Constitutional right to hunt you down and kill you.
Good point and this is why I say you cannot pluck singular Articles out of the Constitution; the part in question affording government protections being used to define the whole in error. I hope I've not given you the impression that the relationship doesn't work both ways. Of course -- better that the government maintain an insurance policy that may facilitate, in some small part, to a reluctance of the masses than to have nothing for any number of circumstances that may warrant protection for us all. It's supposed to work this way. The only way for a government to grant itself this insurance (other than by sword) is through the same Constitution and it follows you would find language within it that express this protection for them.

To be clear, I'm a strong and proud proponent of the standing armies of the US. For all I know, the government would be the "good guys" and my own State militias would be the "bad guys" -- that doesn't matter. What matters is maintaining the personal right to protect my individual liberties as granted by the spirit and letter of Constitutional law.

If someone doesn't like the direction that the Constitution has taken in its historical development, they certainly may try to overthrow the society it has created. But in doing so, they are violating that same Constitution, even if they claim to be upholding the principles they believe it represents.
Historically, it is when infringements transcend exhaustive legalistic review into fundamental, unalienable aspects of being that the people would dare lay down their lives against them. At such a point in the US, I would have to guess that the Constitution had already been wholesale abandoned one way or the other.

The bottom line for those who wish to quote Jefferson et al. is: if you wish to fight tyranny, by all means take up arms- if you are successful, you will then be able to write a better constitution to replace the one that failed you.
The Constitution may not have been what failed us and the side of virtue might be the one that defends it.
ebuddy
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2013, 01:21 AM
 
Another great post, ebuddy; forgive me for not responding to every point with the thoroughness it deserves, but I'm afraid our responses are already getting too long. Anyway, here are the questions that seem most relevant to me:

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The right to "overturn itself" was built into the checks and balances of the system through the document that governs it. A House at odds with a Senate at odds with an Executive at odds with a Legislative; all serving as checks against the other. The militia, among other purposes of course, were clearly perceived as a check against the standing army, affirmed in the citations we discussed earlier including the preceding documents, floor debates, and States' Constitutions predating and following the drafting of the Bill of Rights.
This is all true, but I think it misses my point, which is that taking up arms against the government, be it state or federal, is not built into the Constitution. Militias were considered a check held by the states against a federally-controlled army, but nowhere does this right pass to individuals; in fact, it is clearly forbidden in Article 3 Section 3.

This has been clearly upheld by the Supreme Court for over a century, usually in clear distinction against the right to bear arms: while citizens have the right to bear arms, they have no right whatsoever to use those arms against the government, be it state or federal.

One therefore cannot argue that the Constitution permits citizens to bear arms as a check against the government.

However, it is certainly possible to argue that some of the philosophical principles that led to the drafting of the Constitution require citizens to revolt:

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
If at such time the collective determines that the government has run amok and is perceived a direct affront to individual liberties, the people may or may not be culled, with the weapons they're able to keep and bear, into a war against it.
Again, the difference we're arguing over is the distinction between a general political philosophy and the specifics of the U.S. Constitution.

Certainly it is a well-accepted principle that people have the right to overturn their government if they believe it falls into tyranny. But the Constitution does not permit the citizens of the U.S. that right, let alone guarantee it.

Put simply: we may have a moral right to take up arms against the government, but we do not have a Constitutional right to do so.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I don't know if I understand what you mean, raleur. They're using the former (rights defined by the Constitution) to justify ignoring political philosophy?
Sorry for the confusion. I hope I was able to explain this a little better in my comments above.

The short answer is yes: the Constitution itself rejects quite a few principles developed from political philosophy, and the history of our nation is very much the continued assertion of several of those principles at the expense of rejecting others. We need look no further than past debates about states' rights, slavery, suffrage, taxation, and several others to see that this is true.

This is also true of Jefferson's often cherry-picked phrase that "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing." A fine principle, but we must note that the people who actually wrote the Constitution completely rejected the idea in Article 1, Section 8 by providing for a militia to put down insurrections.

I hope this has clarified the point I wish to make: anyone who takes up arms against the government has breached the public trust and violated the Constitution. Those people may in fact be upholding the most sacred principles that the Constitution was intended to preserve, and if so, then their rebellion will be morally justified. But in the instant they pull the trigger, they will have cast the Constitution aside.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2013, 03:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
I hope this has clarified the point I wish to make: anyone who takes up arms against the government has breached the public trust and violated the Constitution. Those people may in fact be upholding the most sacred principles that the Constitution was intended to preserve, and if so, then their rebellion will be morally justified. But in the instant they pull the trigger, they will have cast the Constitution aside.
I'd say it would be impossible to justify armed insurrection against our government if they're respecting the Constitution. There's no excuse for terrorism in a democracy.

I think if the government casts the Constitution aside, you can't throw stones at the people violating those principles in order to preserve it.


(Sorry for the hit-and-run. Still way too involved in Baldur's Gate)
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2013, 04:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'd say it would be impossible to justify armed insurrection against our government if they're respecting the Constitution. There's no excuse for terrorism in a democracy.

I think if the government casts the Constitution aside, you can't throw stones at the people violating those principles in order to preserve it.
Correct, if the government respects the Constitution, there's no reason. Insurrection would only be justifiable if the government violates the Constitution (like infringing our right to free speech, or hampering our right to keep and bear arms)...

(Sorry for the hit-and-run. Still way too involved in Baldur's Gate)
(Which one? The remake?)
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2013, 04:44 AM
 
The new one, but it's not a remake. It's on the BG2 engine, so it adds all the kits (and appropriate loot) from that, as well as a few new NPCs, but it's otherwise it's the exact same game in all it's 2nd Edition glory.

It is the iPad port, which is something of a struggle in terms of the buggy implementation, but not so much effort I'd rather play on a different platform.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2013, 05:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
...hampering our right to keep and bear arms)...
Seems to me they are allowed to hamper it, as long as they don't remove it entirely.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2013, 07:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Seems to me they are allowed to hamper it, as long as they don't remove it entirely.
Not according to recent USSC comments.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2013, 08:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Seems to me they are allowed to hamper it, as long as they don't remove it entirely infringe it.
(FTFY)

What gives them the grounds to hamper it?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2013, 08:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
This is all true, but I think it misses my point, which is that taking up arms against the government, be it state or federal, is not built into the Constitution. Militias were considered a check held by the states against a federally-controlled army, but nowhere does this right pass to individuals; in fact, it is clearly forbidden in Article 3 Section 3.
There is no militia without the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. That's really the point, is clearly indicated in the Constitution, and affirmed twice in the past 5 years. There is no right in the Bill of Rights that requires membership in any formal, federalized organization and there is literally zero to substantiate this claim. IMO, the crux of your argument began to break down with each of the individual points you've offered to support it such as the point that the militia as a check against the standing army was a notion that came up well after the writing of the Bill of Rights. In fact, this idea and these individual protections, among others, were instrumental in the drafting of a Constitution that could be ratified by the enumerated States.

This has been clearly upheld by the Supreme Court for over a century, usually in clear distinction against the right to bear arms: while citizens have the right to bear arms, they have no right whatsoever to use those arms against the government, be it state or federal.
Of course not, like I mentioned before; checks and balances. It merely follows that you'd find language in the Constitution that would also protect the new government or there would be no balance, but this does not preclude the right of the individual to keep and bear arms as the militia / we the people / a counter-balance... aka -- a check -- necessary for the security of a free State.

One therefore cannot argue that the Constitution permits citizens to bear arms as a check against the government.
The Constitution doesn't "permit" them to bear arms as a check against the government, it acknowledges their right to keep and bear arms as necessary for the security of a Free State. To argue exclusively that this right is a check against the government would be lame as it would not include a wealth of other reasons why the right should be maintained as I have. It wasn't until I was challenged on this piece that it became our focus.

However, it is certainly possible to argue that some of the philosophical principles that led to the drafting of the Constitution require citizens to revolt:
This might be moving the goalposts a bit as I would never advocate a "trigger" for necessary revolt and so far as I know, no one is arguing that citizens are required to revolt.

Again, the difference we're arguing over is the distinction between a general political philosophy and the specifics of the U.S. Constitution.
Actually, that's not the difference I'm arguing over as the letter of the law is pretty clear and has been affirmed twice in the past 5 years. The only political philosophy in the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, are those that guarantee protections for individuals and there's no reason to predicate these guarantees on membership in any formal, federalized organization.

Certainly it is a well-accepted principle that people have the right to overturn their government if they believe it falls into tyranny. But the Constitution does not permit the citizens of the U.S. that right, let alone guarantee it.
IMO, you're looking at this the wrong way. The Constitution also does not guarantee it will not oppress the people. What it did was acknowledge conflicting rights just as it created conflicting branches of government; for checks and balances. Again, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee your right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, it guarantees your right to keep and bear arms.

Put simply: we may have a moral right to take up arms against the government, but we do not have a Constitutional right to do so.
Had the 2nd Amendment not been written, there would be no option to exercise this moral right. That's the point.

The short answer is yes: the Constitution itself rejects quite a few principles developed from political philosophy, and the history of our nation is very much the continued assertion of several of those principles at the expense of rejecting others. We need look no further than past debates about states' rights, slavery, suffrage, taxation, and several others to see that this is true.
If this is an argument to Amend the Constitution, there is a process for that and to Uncle's point from earlier -- I don't see anyone really arguing from that premise as much as trying to redefine the principles within it for expediencies sake in debate. Thankfully, the letter of the law as written was clear enough that it has been repeatedly upheld by the Judicial branch of government. Again, a Legislative branch comprised of a House and Senate at odds, at odds with an Executive, at odds with the Judicial. Checks and balances. It is to avoid the unthinkable.

This is also true of Jefferson's often cherry-picked phrase that "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing." A fine principle, but we must note that the people who actually wrote the Constitution completely rejected the idea in Article 1, Section 8 by providing for a militia to put down insurrections.
But that wasn't the only reason for maintaining a militia.

I hope this has clarified the point I wish to make: anyone who takes up arms against the government has breached the public trust and violated the Constitution. Those people may in fact be upholding the most sacred principles that the Constitution was intended to preserve, and if so, then their rebellion will be morally justified. But in the instant they pull the trigger, they will have cast the Constitution aside.
Again, I maintain that at such time the collective takes up arms against the standing army -- the Constitution will have already been wholesale abandoned one way or another. One means of securing a free State is allowing the people to keep and bear arms. It is not to encourage or grant the unthinkable, it is to avoid the unthinkable by a series of built-in checks that would foster the environment of compromise and peace.
ebuddy
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2013, 09:12 AM
 
Why do people "NEED" to express their opinions to others?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2013, 09:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
(FTFY)

What gives them the grounds to hamper it?

Well apart from the unimaginably terrible arms that have been developed since it was written, it is a bit vague.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RablPaIREkk
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2013, 02:05 AM
 
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2013, 02:42 AM
 

So your point is that regular civilians should be trained to supplement the police?

How well did that work for Trayvon Martin?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2013, 10:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So your point is that regular civilians should be trained to supplement the police?

How well did that work for Trayvon Martin?
Or Amadou Diallo?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2013, 11:31 AM
 
or Vicki Weaver?
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2013, 12:53 PM
 
There were two or three school shootings reported yesterday. I don't think a link posting pissing match solves anything.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2013, 01:32 PM
 
The one thing not being mentioned when citing self defence (or the much more common defence of property) is that there is still a loss of life occurring.

This is especially important when considering the mental health angle. We have some pro-gun people saying that the answer is to improve the mental health system but they still want their guns to shoot crazies with. This is basically stating that you are ok with killing people who you acknowledge are unwell and not in a fit state to know what they are doing.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2013, 02:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
The one thing not being mentioned when citing self defence (or the much more common defence of property) is that there is still a loss of life occurring.

This is especially important when considering the mental health angle. We have some pro-gun people saying that the answer is to improve the mental health system but they still want their guns to shoot crazies with. This is basically stating that you are ok with killing people who you acknowledge are unwell and not in a fit state to know what they are doing.
No it's more like still wanting their car airbags even though they're not the slightest bit "ok with" any of the circumstances that would result in the airbag ever being used. Every effort should be made to prevent needing airbags and guns for self defense, but that is no justification for not also keeping the airbags and guns ready for use at a moment's notice.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2013, 05:58 PM
 
Seriously .... WTF do these "examples" have to do with the issue at hand? Namely ... "assault rifles"? Nobody ... I repeat NOBODY ... is talking about completely disarming the American populace. Well nobody except paranoid wingnuts like Alex Jones.

OAW
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2013, 06:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Seriously .... WTF do these "examples" have to do with the issue at hand? Namely ... "assault rifles"? Nobody ... I repeat NOBODY ... is talking about completely disarming the American populace. Well nobody except paranoid wingnuts like Alex Jones.

OAW
More to this point, when was the last time someone needed/used an AR-15 for personal protection? I'll answer: NEVER. A handgun or shotgun does the job just fine.

Why do people need assault weapons? They don't. But they sure are fun to shoot.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2013, 06:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
More to this point, when was the last time someone needed/used an AR-15 for personal protection? I'll answer: NEVER. A handgun or shotgun does the job just fine.

Why do people need assault weapons? They don't. But they sure are fun to shoot.
Gun Control: 15-Year-Old Defends Sister From Burglars With AR-15 Rifle
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2013, 06:32 PM
 
I love how the article has this as a main caption photo ....



.... and then at the end of the article it says this ....

[The person in the featured image is not related to this story]
Think that might have something to do with the fact that weapon in the image is NOT what we are talking about here?

In any event, as Mrjinglesusa stated ... a handgun or a shotgun would do the job just fine. Especially a shotgun.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2013, 06:36 PM
 
The firearm the boy used was an AR-15, it was said that an AR-15 has never been used in defense. The statement was false. Would a shotgun or handgun have worked as well? Most likely, but I wasn't there.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2013, 07:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
The firearm the boy used was an AR-15, it was said that an AR-15 has never been used in defense.

Who said that? It was said that an assault weapon was never needed for self defence with the very obvious explicit implication that a handgun or shotgun would have sufficed therefore eliminating the need. Citing a case where one was used just proves that someone had one and used it. Not that they needed to use it over something else.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2013, 07:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
More to this point, when was the last time someone needed/used an AR-15 for personal protection? I'll answer: NEVER. A handgun or shotgun does the job just fine.

Why do people need assault weapons? They don't. But they sure are fun to shoot.
It's not about needs it's about rights. Rights are most important when they protect the people we (collectively) disagree with, not the people we agree with. If it only protects the popular folks and we turn a blind eye whenever it's convenient, then it's not a right. The 1st protects bigots, the 4th protects murderers, the 5th protects mobsters. Why shouldn't the 2nd protect spree killers?

If we want to update the 2nd, there's a perfectly clear path to doing so. Undermining that path is undermining all constitutional freedoms.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:48 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2