balefire88

Very interesting. I did not know this. And as I have said before, since you have shown good information that gun control does not reduce gun crime, I am now leaning toward not getting rid of the 2nd amendment. Of course, I want to see even more analysis, as I've also read facts from the other side. Something for me to look up some day and delve into deeply.


So, basically if both sides has guns, then they can both committ massacres?
I point you to the Indian struggle for independance. There were many massacres, especially in the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. Please read up on it. It actually proves your point, but so what? Indians could have picked up guns and fought back, but they chose not to, atleast most of them. Non-violent civil disobediance is a way of life, and has been successful against men with guns. I also point you to the conflicts going on in Africa. There both sides have guns, neither side seems morally just after all the massacres committed by both sides. Guns aren't always the answer.


So because the bill of rights mentions nothing about these two mistakes, but was written soon after the Constituion, which does allow these two mistakes the bill of rights is clearly above any possible mistakes. I'm not saying they are mistakes, I love the bill of rights, I'm just saying they're not above reconsideration and rethinking, especially after 200 years.

dksuddeth

I wasn't referring to warfare, I was referring to things like ethnic cleansing and genocides.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5-million
Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. Then from 1929 to 1953,
approximately 20-millon dissidents were rounded up and killed.
In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13-million Jews,
gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a
shot in protest, were rounded up and killed.
In 1935, China established gun control. Subsequently, between 1948 and 1952, over
20-million dissidents were rounded up and killed.
In 1956, Cambodia enshrined gun control. In just two years (1975-1977) over one
million "educated" people were rounded up and killed.
In 1964, Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981, over 100,000 Mayan
Indians were rounded up and killed as a result of their inability to defend themselves.
In 1970, Uganda got gun control. Over the next nine years over 300,000 Christians
were rounded up and killed.
Over 56-million people have died because of gun control in the last century . .



well, heres the deal about the bill of rights. They were written as the debate between the federalists and the anti-federalists grew concerning a central government. They were initially not going to be written because the federalists said it would be assumed that all rights are inherently belonging to the people. As a compromise, they were written in to the constitution with the express purpose of declaring that these rights are pre-existing, with or without a constitution, and that no government body can ever take them away. Of course with the courts siding with the government as of late, the judicial tyranny has certainly whittled away at them, but they are supposed to be pre-existing or 'natural law' rights belonging to all people. To write them away or consider them outdated seems a foolish concept to me, and I believe that it would seem that way to them as well.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

balefire88

All right, let's say both sides in each of these struggles had guns. Would that have reduced the 56million casualties or increased it? You can't say either way, and neither can I. Genoice occurs when deep seated problems in that society erupt, and unfortunately, I dont know how to make it stop either. The Holocaust happened because Hitler found an easy scapegoat for all of Germany's problems following WWI, and anti-Semitism had always been a strong undercurrent among the Aryan races (is that it?). I don't know about the rest of the situations, but I've got a feelign you don't either. To say that both sides having guns would have gotten rid of such seroius problems is to trivialize the reasons for which holocausts happen.



I guess I dont see it as judicial tyranny, but forget that. I appreciate the right to free speech, I appreciate the right to a free press and all the other rights. I'm glad they wrote it in. I mentioned the federalist vs anti-federalist compromise earlier. That still does not mean that every one of those rights is necessary. It's not as if when you were born, you came with certain rights inscribed in your flesh, or imprinted in your brain. We reasoned these rights out to help make a stable soceity. So, now can we not reason that one of these rights isn't actually necessary now that times has changed, or that the cumulative effect of that right is negative to the soceity? Perhaps if they became necessary again, we'll have to fight for them. Feels liek we're jsut going aroudn in circles.

dksuddeth

Both sides having arms may have been war, or not. What did happen though, is that one side disarmed the other and then killed millions. All the incidents I posted though, are recent history. older history has many more and the founders knew this, thats one of the main reasons for the second amendment.


ok, hypothetically lets say we're now 'enlightened' as a society. we no longer need to keep and bear arms for our self defense. what happens if our government in the future decides that its too dangerous for us to have total freedom of speech or the right to privacy? We can no longer petition for redress of grievances? due process is too lengthy to proscribe justice so lets abandon the 5th and 6th amendments. When would it be time to fight and how?
"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." -- Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court, 2003

All of our rights are important and not to be abandoned. the 2nd is our guarantee of all the others.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

DEI37

You're right. However, what you COULD probably say is that fewer INNOCENTS would have died. Whether or not the number of casualties would have been reduced is up for debate, but I just don't think the same number innocents would have been slaughtered.

I'm for gun rights, with gun control as needed. "As needed" from me, is defined pretty simply. I do NOT know what the current federal stipulations are, as I haven't done a lot of research, simply because I don't need to. If you're a convicted felon, have a violent history towards anyone for ANY reason, you don't get a gun...of any sort. I think an age limit would be a good thing...sort of. I should think that 18 or 21 would be a good age, but it's like the age for sexual behavior. While not required, I think that a gun safety course would be a VERY good thing, possibly even partially or wholly sponsored by the local or state government. Once completed, you'd get a card/certificate/ID number to say that you'd completed it.

I enjoy guns. I don't have many, but I do enjoy what I have, and do have plans to acquire a few more. I don't buy them for personal protection, either in the home, or otherwise, but for personal enjoyment, and hunting. That said, I wouldn't have a problem with personal protection use.

__________________
Generally speaking, if you were to get what you really deserve, you might be unpleasantly surprised.

balefire88

Honestly, I love your argument. It highlights the slippery slope of giving away rights in exchange for more security. It is one of the primary reasons I dislike the Patriot Act (let's not start a discussion on this, I'm sure there's been plenty). My feeling is that I would fight for every other right but the 2nd, and that is because I believe in non-violent protest. BUt it occured to me that I've never fought for anything. My grandfather did with non-violent protest, but I never have. Perhaps, some protest situations require an eye for an eye. I dont know, I'm not wise enough in the ways of the world. For now, my core set of beliefs is that I'm a pacifist. Perhaps being in a war zone changes you, forces you to become a fighter. If so, then I will admit I was wrong because I lived a life of peace. So, yes, I will agree that you have the right to fight for your right to bear arms. If you feel that is what we need to defend our freedoms, then you are correct. I won't fight to dismantle the 2nd amendment because no one has shown me conclusively that it hurts by increasing crime. But at the same time, being a pacifist, I wont fight for it either. That does put me on the slippery slope. But, believe me, if someone came to take away, for example, my 1st amendment rights or anyone else's, there is no chance I will ever give those up without fighting tooth and nail for them.

In conclusion, I believe in individual freedom, and am a pacifist. So you can go ahead and carry a gun, but I wont carry one. And if it turns out that guns were necessary to fight for the rest of rights and non-violence doesn't work, then I'll sincerely apologize, and pick up a gun myself.

dksuddeth

well said.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

The_Jazz

dksuddeth - I have to take issue with one of your examples. The Soviet Union did indeed ban gun ownership in 1929, but it was not universal and didn't apply to party members. The purges that you mentioned actually started well before 1929, and there were mass arrests of Whites (monarchists) and members and supporters of the Provisional Government as early as 1919 and lasted until 1924. The various purges of 1929 to 1953 were primarily aimed at party members, who were allowed the right by the 1924 constitution. Also the 20 million "dissidents" is a misleading statement since people arrested from 1934-37 were primarily loyal party members (up to that point anyway) with an estimated 7.5M arrested during that 4 years period and also includes the 1938-39 Army purge whose victims were most certainly armed. There's also the glaring omission that gun ownership in the early Soviet period was quite uncommon, especially among the eventual victims of the various purges who tended to be middle and upper class (in Soviet standards, not pre-Revolutionary Russian it's important to note).

Glaring errors like that make me doubt the rest of your statistics (or rather Geoff Metcalf's, who seems to be the basis for that post).

I agree that we all have and should continue to have the right to bear arms, but I am all for the invokation of the "well-regulated militia" portion of the amendment. I would like to see gun owners required to take training classes every few years and prove their accuracy on a range as well. Gun safes, trigger locks and other safety devices should be required to be used in every home where children are present, and armed parents should have to undergo special training on the dangers of kids and guns. You can own all the guns you like, but let's all be sure that you know how to safely operate and maintain them all.

I also think that there should be stiffer penalties for those who facilitate straw purchases and the like, but that's another discussion.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

dksuddeth

One would think that as a loyal party member, you wouldn't be arrested.....and once arrested, you could conceivably be called a dissident? Call it a glaring error all you like, the fact still remains that 20 million dissidents were killed after gun control was established. Of course, you're free to ignore or disavow any set of numbers at your choosing.
Most of the genocide statistics were reported “Death by ‘Gun Control’: The Human Cost of Victim
Disarmament, Aaron Zelman & Richard W. Stevens, 2001

Most states that issue licenses already require this.

I completely agree with gun safes, and not the puny little 50 pound kind, but the huge 400 pound hernia inducing honkers that are bolted to the floor. Trigger locks are useless. 31 of 32 models of gun locks tested by the government’s Consumer Product Safety Commission could be opened without the key.


I agree wholeheartedly, and I also agree on that being another discussion.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

The_Jazz

I don't think your logic holds up here. A "dissident" is "one who disagrees" (dictionary.com definition), and a loyal party member would by definition wouldn't disagree. In the 1930's Soviet Union (the height of the purges), the party members arrested were not aggitating for change. The accusations were for being part of various vast conspiracies linked to various higher-ups who were on their way out. To call the people arrested "dissidents" is just plain old wrong and is my basic problem with their inclusion in this list. The majority of the people arrested had the right to own guns, although they may or may not have exercised it. There are also numerous anecdotes of armed folks being arrested, General Zhukov for one. I'm sorry, but you've got a square peg and a round hole here. The folks arrested weren't dissidents (although the survivors may have been years later [and even then probably not]), and they were more likely to be armed than those not arrested.

I wish I had more to add to this thread, but others have made my arguement for me and probably said it better than I could hope to. Sorry for the threadjack, but I've spent the last 16 years studying this particular topic (as an amature). Please resume your previously scheduled debate.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

dksuddeth

I'm confused, the last 16 years studying the russian revolution or gun control and the second amendment?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

The_Jazz

No, Russian and Soviet history in general. My disertation was on the role of the 1905 revolution, WWI and WWII played in the reforms by Nicholas II and Stalin. With that came a lot of study of the 1939 Army Purge and the release of many of the officers once things got really bad in late 41 and early 42 as well as the release from the gulag of others to take part in the war effort. Yes, I know I'm a nerd.

I just dabble in gun control and the second amendment.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

dksuddeth

awesome. I may have some questions to ask then.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

smooth

I don't know why you keep referencing the "founders" or "framers" intent.
First of all, our constitution was made through a lengthy process of collaberation and compromise. There was no fundamental agreement among everyone on what was ultimately penned. It simply doesn't make any sense to quote the thoughts or musings of one or three drafters and call it good or representative of what the ratifying body believed in.

Secondly, your statement that the bill of rights didn't include women and blacks misses the point. The language and thought behind the language excludes women and blacks. Any man or person mentioned should be understood literally, as it was when it was written. Person's, for the purposes of the constitution, were property owning males. Women weren't included, couldn't own property, couldn't vote (until 1920 with the 19th amendment). Blacks weren't persons either, instead defined, codified within the constitution itself, as 3/5ths a person. None of your commentary excusing the fact that the "founding fathers" didn't conceive of women and blacks as having any of the "natural rights" you claim they codified holds up to historical scrutiny.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

flstf

The problem with our government regulating gun owners is that often they will regulate them out of existence. These are the very people we have the right to bear arms to protect ourselves against.

dksuddeth

I keep referencing the founders and framers because MOST of them, not just one or three, debated and understood the natural right of a person to own and carry their own arms for defending the state as well as themselves and their family.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

The_Jazz

So in lieu of having any sort of standard of safety or compentency for licensed gun owners, you'd do away with standards altogether so that no one is regulated? Based on your reply to what I wrote, that's the best that I can paraphrase it. That seems awful irresponsible (which is my main point anyway) - did I misunderstand? Are the areas of regulation that I proposed acceptable or not?

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

dksuddeth

That would all depend upon the type of regulation being imposed. For instance, Blagojevich wanted to raise the 'fee' for a firearm owners card from $5 to $500 dollars, effectively making it near impossible for anyone in the lower income brackets to own firearms. Even in Texas, I think the $140 is too much.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

flstf

I don't think we should be required to take tests in order to exercise our constitutional rights, including the right to bear arms. Who knows what nonsense our current crop of polititians will come up with.

Next thing you know they will test us for language proficiency before allowing us to engage in free speech.

dksuddeth

I tend to agree. Can you imagine taking a test, issued by the government, where you cannot express a free thought unless you pass it?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

The_Jazz

I agree that Blagojevich's $500 puts an undue burden on the lower income brackets to own a gun. There's a line here, but I don't know where it is. I would say that $140 is below the line and $500 is above it - that's the best that I can pinpoint it. I'm assuming that this amount would be due no more than every 5-10 years or even for a lifetime permit, to be renewed occassionally.

As far as the other items go, dksuddeth, you seemed to agree with definition of "well regulated militia" that I put forward in Post #49, and now it seems like you've flipflopped. Has something changed, or did I misread something?

As for whether or not state testing is a good thing or not, remember that you're already tested on your proficiency in driving, and I seem to recall several instances of both of you (dksuddeth and host) mentioning in previous threads that cars cause more deaths annually than guns. States test for all sort of professional proficiency, and there's the sticky point that the Amendment itself call for a "well regulated" militia. Your fears of Big Brother aside, what's the objection? There is no such provision for free speach or religion in the 1st Amendment, so I don't see how you can try to draw the two together since the Amendment says what it says. It seems to me that the framers pretty clearly wanted the states to make sure that gun owners knew one end of the gun from the other, and requiring a basic skills and safety test doesn't seem onerous to me at all.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

dksuddeth

You may have assumed that I agreed completely with you. I agree that we are all the 'militia'. I agree that we should all be 'well-regulated', in so far as we all know which end is the dangerous end, how to hit what we aim at, and when to use it properly. We should also be 'well-regulated' in that most of us have knowledge of military matters and that those who did not volunteer for military service, relegate themselves to the lower ranks in the 'militia'. I sort of agree on the licensing part but feel that it goes too far and suggests that we have to 'buy' our rights instead or having them naturally. As Barry Goldwater said, "A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.". If we start allowing the government to 'test' us to see if we are worthy enough to exercise our rights, we give them the open door to take them away.

Driving is not a right, it's a priviledge. Therefore, testing is appropriate. We are all guaranteed the right to travel freely, so if I wanted to walk or ride a horse, nobody can legally stop me. Now, in regards to the 'militia' part of the amendment, all that says is that we the people are the militia, necessary to the security of a free state and our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We don't answer to the government in militia matters (unorganized) although we can work in concert with them. The government is our servant, not our master. Firearms proficiency and the 2nd amendment should inherently be considered a duty to all free peoples. We've let a tyrannical and oppressive government take over that duty and shirked it ourselves.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

rainheart

(This post is long but I hope you take your time to read this)

Yet giving the state a monopoly of violence is even worse than giving the average unsophisticated citizen weapons. Given the history of things that led to the american revolution, the founding fathers must have recognized this. Also as samcol pointed out- due process is supposed to be guaranteed before you strip away liberties and even when you do it's supposed to be on an individual basis, not the entire population.

This is perhaps an unpredictable consequence of technological advance. While weapons with more higher destructive yields like machine guns, tanks, high-explosives, mechanized weaponry, and the all mighty WMDs are incredibly destructive, they cannot and must not be used to heighten state power to a critical level, past which the state can use these newly developed weapons to keep its opponents (and that includes its own citizens) in check, to avert any shift in power. While it may be reasonable to defend from foreign invaders, it is very twisted to protect yourself from your own citizens. Effectively, gun-control is de-facto security of the state from it's citizens, meant to undermine the constitution. This of course is impossible for the average person to accept, simple reason being because the average person is still too stupid to comprehend what makes a bad deal.

If what dksuddeth says is true about the $200 fee for automatic weapons ownership, then I believe the correct classification for this act is called "extortion".

I know it's hard for some people to accept this, but even justified acts can be wrong- and it's ESPECIALLY important to make sure that people who justify an action are doing it for the right reasons and not the wrong ones, and that those 'right reasons' will actually work when applied. Given the current track record I can't say I sympathize too much with the forces behind gun-control.

The entire idea of disallowing citizens from owning automatic weapons for example is effectively to create a rift in firepower between two groups- imagine if the only thing a group had to defend itself with were slingshots and the other group had crossbows- guess who'd win? Now just add the fact that the group with crossbows is MUCH better organized, disciplined, and easily controlled by leaders than the group with slingshots.

Unfortunately it's quite possible (and not that far-fetched if you spend some time looking into it) that constitutional re-interpertation can easily be constitutional mis-interpertation, specifically designed as a part of a strategy to maintain power.

I would personally submit that the constitution and bill of rights were both intended to be vague AND precise- vague so that they can apply broadly, and precise so that there is no mistake about their intentions. However, the constitution was meant to be interperted in the same spirit as it was written- a free society built on the foundations of a government that serves its people, instead of people serving their government, or a government that serves business interests- which may not necessarily be true capitalistic ventures with the advent of public relations, perception management, and marketing industries.

Overall, the aim of the second amendment is to promote a free society in which the people have the means to resist their government if the government usurpation of power gets out of hand. An armed resistance is the last resort to a government that is out of sync with it's people, however this was the sort of contingency planning that the founding fathers apparently employed.

Although pragmatism is quite fitting in almost any endeavour, the logical conclusion of Mr. Stephenson's answer means that if I got together with a group of friends to infiltrate the government and have people in place to allow me to use hacking tools as protected under the second amendment, I have the right to do so. I don't believe this holds any water, and I don't believe saying it's a matter of pragmatism really says much.

What always strikes me as absurd about this analogy is you conclude that because you don't believe you should have a nuclear weapon, that it's okay to allow the state to have it. Do you trust yourself less than you trust the state? And if the state breaks your trust, what will you do to defend yourself after having given them all your power?

I like to call this little phenomenon as the fatal flaw of stalinism, whereby it was believed that because businesses which had an unequal degree of influence over the people of a nation, then it was okay to hand all that influence to a centralized government. Little did the people know- the government is run by other people, too, and those people are not necessarily better than you or me.

Popular views (read: corporate media approved ignorance) amongst the general population over the second amendment is another basic affirmation that language is the first and ultimate frontier to developing a totalitarian government. "Reinterpertation" is used as a means to deceive the average proletarian into believing that it is in their best interest to give up the means by which their freedoms are defended. A government does not keep it's people free- the people keep themselves free. And a government, though intended as an apparatus to entrench the freedom of all it's people, is historically used as an apparatus to bestow special rights to a privileged class.

You might think I'm an ass for quoting and disputing every single post I disagree with, but the truth is I get irritated to bits everytime I feel that someone is being cheated of their rights. You might think it's a bit pompous of me to believe that I am 100% right, but that's not actually true and I do make many mistakes, however I have thus far never ran into any conclusive and undisputable evidence that would allow me to believe that current interpertations of the second amendment and the current trajectory gun-control legislation is taking is the right way.

All that said, this is getting tiresome so I'm going to skip ahead to the last few segments of this discussion and see if I have anything more to contribute...

Now this is funny

If american society is anything like canadian society, then yes. The test is called university preperatory english class. Considering that every student hoping to enter university over here HAS to pass grade 12 university prep english, and considering that in english class (and I can attest to this from personal experience/disgust) the first things we were taught is not to question what we are given to read but rather try to prove WHY it was true (rather than if it actually was), and considering that english class is not actually english class as much as it is the study of literature, then you can see how there is already something of a "test" issued by the government where you cannot express free thought unless you pass it.

smooth

dksuddeth,

when you make replies like the one you gave me, it makes me pause and wonder whether we should continue discussing larger, abstract ideals before making sure we've got the facts/premises correct.

I know your view on how the constitution was drafted, and the values underpinning it, are popular in the mythology of our nation (and the use of "myth" doesn't necessarily imply non-factual), but let's start from point one:

how many framers do you think were involved in drafting the 2nd amendment?
how many people did it take to ratify it?

what kind of connections can you objectively make between the people who wrote a particular phrase (the "framers") and those who passed it into law (the "ratifiers")?
that is, assuming you are correct that "MOST" framers believed what you attributed to them, does that necessarily imply that the ratifiers believed it, as well.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

The_Jazz

For the record, the Bill of Rights had to pass through the same requirements as any other amendment(s) to the Constitution. Generally speaking, the States ratified the BoR at the same time as they did the Constitution. The "ratifiers" were the same folks who ratified the Constitution and did NOT include "the people" but rather their elected officials in the various state legistatures.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

dksuddeth

If the framers/founders/ratifiers/anyone else submitted that the individual man did NOT have an individual and god given right to keep and bear arms, i've not ever seen the quote or statement in any of the historical documents. Not the virginia bill of rights debates, the federalist papers, or the constitution convention. In fact, in the entire time I have studied/read/debated about the original intent of the founders concerning the constitution and the bill of rights, nowhere have I ever even heard of someone declaring that there is no individual god given right to bear arms and that it only applies to state sponsored/organized/maintained militias. If there is, it's a secret thats been very well kept.

If, as you infer, that throughout the years of debate that the second amendment was referred to as an individual right but the 'ratifiers' considered it otherwise, I've seen no proof of that either and without any proof of that specific belief, it would be beyond extremely difficult to accept that the representatives of the people played that kind of a joke upon them.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

smooth

I see your response as an elaborate way of not answering my questions.
You've moved from acceptance of the premises to your argument, immediately, without positioning ourselves at a meeting point.

For example, I am going to describe to you a different framework of understanding of how the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, came to be decided upon but only after we can make sure we have the same vision of how the process itself works.

How many people do you think "framed" the Bill of Rights, or just specifically the 2nd amendment?
How many people ratified it?

What connections do you know of that explicitly link the thoughts and motivations of the "framers" to the "ratifiers"?


See, none of what I'm about to lay out is going to make much sense, or make any difference to your perspective, if you think that 2, 3, 7, or even 20 people "framed" the Bill of Rights around a table. Or that, when you read excerpts from a larger discussion, such as the "federalist papers," that you would have the entire spectrum of viewpoints or the intent of the people writing out their arguments.

In your response, and it doesn't seem like you're going to give me much more of your same argument, albeit in a slightly different worded version that you've been using this entire discussion, you melded the "founders" into the "framers" into the "ratifiers", as if they were a homogenous group of people with similar interests.

Regardless of the historical accuracy of how you view these old men sitting around talking and writing, I would still argue that you have no basis to judge their "intent." For example, while one may write of a God-given right to bear arms, where in history would one come up with such an idea? They certainly had no right in other nation-states. Yet, the heartthrob of such a sentiment would have come from Continental Europe. And I suggest that philosophers like Locke would have been the seedling of such a notion. Or, more accurately, that man had a God-given right to certain modes of interaction, and the people arguing for individual ownership of weapons would see their mode of relation as a means of securing individual liberties. But certainly not that each and every person on the planet was bestowed by a deity with a right and obligation to be armed with a weapon, despite what they wrote.

And this notion of political expediency, of saying things to constituents that make sense to them, is not a modern invention. So your idea that the ratifiers were playing a joke on their constituency or else your proposition must be held true, that they believed in the arguments layed out on Congress' floor, is flawed at its inception as an either-or logical fallacy. Other options exist, namely that the ratifiers were reacting to a particular political and social climate.

So you tell me what version of men sitting around debating you envision, and I'll state mine, and we can consult a history book, and then move from there. Only after we agree on an accurate version of the process of drafting and ratifying can we move to discussions/debates of who thought what at a precise moment (and discuss the difficulties of doing so). But perhaps this is a good opportunity to interject and remind you what was mentioned earlier, about women and slaves, and why using their notions of how the world worked as a basis for ours can be flawed and perhaps disasterous. First and foremost is the contradiction between the belief that all humans have an inalieable right to exist in a particular mode, yet the limitation of such rights to certain classes of people in society. That very question is a huge hurdle you have to address if you are to continue hinging your basis of support for our rights as a process stemming from a natural birthright, from somewhere external to society. For, as much as I respect the people who founded this nation, nothing could be further from the truth that the notions of rights and what rights humans obtain, are not socially constructed. I would suspect above all else that they would suspect such a thing and so that must be addressed as well when constructing a theory of how our rights were initially codified.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

dksuddeth

unless you missed the_jazz's post completely, he answered that question.
lets hear it.

why would that be relevant?

see above, jazz answered it. MOST of those that framed also ratified. The exceptions come to the states where there would be some more added.


[QUOTE=smooth]See, none of what I'm about to lay out is going to make much sense, or make any difference to your perspective, if you think that 2, 3, 7, or even 20 people "framed" the Bill of Rights around a table. Or that, when you read excerpts from a larger discussion, such as the "federalist papers," that you would have the entire spectrum of viewpoints or the intent of the people writing out their arguments.

In your response, and it doesn't seem like you're going to give me much more of your same argument, albeit in a slightly different worded version that you've been using this entire discussion, you melded the "founders" into the "framers" into the "ratifiers", as if they were a homogenous group of people with similar interests.[QUOTE=smooth]again, there are many references to these 'framers' discussing an individual right, but I've NEVER come across one that denies it.

Their 'intent' comes from the recordings of the debates. It's very plain in the writings. The whole idea of creating 'the US' is to make a country where 'god given' rights were protected and defended. It certainly applied to all individuals, as they saw it.

so, you're saying that they talked a good game, but like all politicians showed with one hand and gave with the other?

I envision a large group of people discussing the advantages and disadvantages of having a large central government and these same individuals trying to limit the powers of this central government while still maintaining the rights and freedoms of 'the people'. As far as women and slaves not having these 'rights', yes, thats true that at the beginning this was not conceived of. Time told a different story though and we amended the constitution accordingly. Your statement of nothing could be further from the truth that the notions of rights and what rights humans obtain, are not socially constructed. I would suspect above all else that they would suspect such a thing and so that must be addressed as well when constructing a theory of how our rights were initially codified. please explain this better. What i'm seeing is that you're saying 'rights' were constructed only as society changed, instead of them believing that rights were a divine gift.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

smooth

The reason why my questions are relevant is that the quotes you have of people arguing a certain perspective, that private ownership is a God-given right, is not representative of the debate that occurred.

People often cite a few prominent people they learned in civics class and tack on an "etc." when entering these discussions as proof or evidence that the "founding fathers" or "framers" of our nation thought a paritcular way.

You haven't answered my question because, frankly, you can't.
The_Jazz didn't answer my question, and in fact, appeared to me to be pontification.
At no point did I suggest that common persons had any say in the legistlative process, a strawman he "rebutted." It's obvious that ratification of the Bill of Rights would follow the same process as other amendments, but that's not what I asked.

I asked what your view of the process was.

Not to mention, he's wrong, which is why I initiated this trajectory in the discussion. The Bill of Rights was ratified 4 years after the Constitution was completed, and 2 years after it was already in action. That's hardly the same time and a problem for those of you conflating the "framers" and the "ratifiers"

What of the "founders?" Are you referring to the people who drafted the Constitution or the people who wrote our nation's first document 10 years before (after a year and a half of debate)? So now you've got a good 15 years between the "founding" of this nation and the hallowed Bill of Rights presenting a serious problem for those of you conflating the founders with the framers with the ratifiers.

and you haven't even bothered to address the people who didn't sign any of these documents. Or even the representatives who refused to ratify them.

a problem in these kinds of debates occurs when people refer back to a homogenous group of hallowed men, fuzzy as the details surrounding their relations to one another are, and speculate as to what "they" might or might not have intended when they set out to write political documents.

without bothering to scrape the factoids or the social and political climate surrounding these various men people will continue to make broad inductive leaps of logic that fail undre scrutiny. I already brought up the poin that God didn't give anyone the right to bear arms,; in so far as God is mentioned in our nation's early documents it's not in reference to specific rights, but rather to the natural right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Where exactly in your numerous studies of this subject have you seen people arguing for a God-given right to bear arms? The Declaration of Independence, btw, has no legal bearing on anything legal or social in this nation--it's merely a polemic against the English colonialists. The debates on the inclusion of the right to bear arms centered around the importance of securing the existence of a budding nation-state, weighed against the dangers of a standing national army. Where are you deriving the notion that the people who ratified the Constitution had the standpoint that the document they were signing derived its legitimacy from God rather than themselves? In fact, you might wonder to yourself why one would need to codify "natural rights?" Surely God-given, readily apparent rights wouldn't need to be written out, debated upon, and voted into existence?

Your explanation about slaves and women not being conceived of as imbued with these same rights was appreciated, but unfortunately fell flat on the basis that they weren't, as you put it, not conceived of but rather explicitly written out from possessing such rights. If one were to be consistent in one's argument about "original intent" one would need to adhere to the original intent that slaves and women not possess the same rights as propertied men. Or one would have to acknowledge that the passage of more amendments loosens this concept of original intent and allows for changing sentiment and social values of a particular nation-state.

Let's say, oh what, 39 people signed the Constitution...how many quotes do you have that our rights are bestowed from God?

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

smooth

I would prefer not to double post, but I worry that my next response would become lost in the shuffle if I attach it to the above...

The statement you asked me to elaborate, and subsequently paraphrased, means that the notion of individual rights was understood and articulated within a specific social context. It's absolutely correct to claim that prior to a specific period in time and a particular branch of philosophy that the notion of individual rights in Western Europe was simply unimaginable. I don't want to go into how that relates to the discussion at hand, other than to state that any statesman was aware that his writings, debating points, and positions on a particular topic were subject to, and interpenetrated by, the social context within which he operated.

In short, I wouldn't put too much stock in the "beliefs" of politicians caught between an illiterate, rowdy bunch of farmers roaming the countryside, in need of the rule of law rather than rule of the king, and a state-sponsered religion and its adherents they just broke themselves away from as derived from what they said and wrote to the people paying attention to them.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

dksuddeth

Smooth, correct me if i'm wrong, but you seem to be attempting to make the claim that the half dozen different people I quoted as 'framers', declaring that all freemen have the natural right to bear arms, is the opposite of what those who 'ratified' the constitution and later ratified the first ten amendments specifically protecting individual rights was nothing but a sham presented to the 'rowdy farmers' making them believe they had these rights, when in fact that is not the case.

Is this what you are attempting to say?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

"(T)he foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; ...the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained..." George Washington, First Inaugural, April 30 1789

"Can the liberties of a nation be sure when we remove their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people, that these liberties are a gift from God? Thomas Jefferson

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

The_Jazz

Smooth, please reread what was posted. I answered a direct question with a direct answer. How many people ratified it? The members of the legislatures who ratified the Constitution at the same time. If you want actual numbers, I suppose that I could try to find the actual head count from all 13 state legislatures, but to call my answer a "strawman" is a little insulting, especially when it didn't come down on either side of the issue. My answer clarified a particular point of history that you didn't seem to know. How in the world is that pontification?

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

roachboy

the intent question is a problem.
you cannot determine it. not really: generally claims about intent are nothing more than projection.
the sources of the problem are obvious enough: 1) that the constitution is written and so made up of sentences that exceed the intent of the writers--they are not unrelated to intent, but intent dissolves into that which exceeds it. a banal example--an email or this post--you can read it and speculate about my intent in writing it, but you have no way of knowing whether your speculations link to anything. you can generate an interpretation of what is written that would be informed by a project of delimiting intent, but the result is still an interpretation that would be evaluated as any other interpretation would be--as such it s a move within the interpretive game, not a meta-move that puts a stop to that game on the basis of claims presumed definitive.

second: in the particular case of the constitution, the material that you would have to have recourse to in order to make any claim about intent at all is sporadic/incomplete--and this deliberately. you would think that there would be more complete and detailed accounts of the processes of fabrication had the intent been to route interpretations of the document through the intent of the framers themselves. it would seem to me that any move rooted in the (untenable, absurd) notion of "original intent" woudl effectively raise the proceedings of the consitutional convention to the status of meta-law. that is not and was not the way in which the american system of law has functioned since 1787. it is a wholesale reworking of the tradition, passed off as an attempt to rescue it.

and since all claims concerning intent are projections at one level or another, claims about intent are nothing more than moves in the game of political power as it currently exists. as such, teh criteria for evaluating such claims are not the content of the arguments but the politics of the folk who make them. because the claims are nothing more than a device elaborated as a function of a conflict over power.

another way: legal language is an aspect of normal language and changes along with it. like it or not. you can't simply wish this away. reverting to claims concerning the "precision and vagueness" of the constitution is simply a recapitulation of the same arguments about intent at another level.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dksuddeth

So, in regards to constitutional interpretation when you try to determine 'original intent', why can't one look at the recorded notes of the virginia convention and the federalist papers? would that not satisfy 'original intent' if there intent is plainly stated?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

April 19

1775 The American Revolution begins

At about 5 a.m., 700 British troops, on a mission to capture Patriot leaders and seize a Patriot arsenal, march into Lexington to find 77 armed minutemen under Captain John Parker waiting for them on the town's common green. British Major John Pitcairn ordered the outnumbered Patriots to disperse, and after a moment's hesitation the Americans began to drift off the green. Suddenly, the "shot heard around the world" was fired from an undetermined gun, and a cloud of musket smoke soon covered the green. When the brief Battle of Lexington ended, eight Americans lay dead or dying and 10 others were wounded. Only one British soldier was injured, but the American Revolution had begun.

1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising begins

In Warsaw, Poland, Nazi forces attempting to clear out the city's Jewish ghetto are met by gunfire from Jewish resistance fighters, and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising begins.

Shortly after the German occupation of Poland began, the Nazis forced the city's Jewish citizens into a "ghetto" surrounded by barbwire and armed SS guards. The Warsaw ghetto occupied an area of less than two square miles but soon held almost 500,000 Jews in deplorable conditions. Disease and starvation killed thousands every month, and beginning in July 1942, 6,000 Jews per day were transferred to the Treblinka concentration camp. Although the Nazis assured the remaining Jews that their relatives and friends were being sent to work camps, word soon reached the ghetto that deportation to the camp meant extermination. An underground resistance group was established in the ghetto--the Jewish Combat Organization (ZOB)--and limited arms were acquired at great cost.

1993 Branch Davidian compound burns

At Mount Carmel in Waco, Texas, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) launches a tear-gas assault on the Branch Davidian compound, ending a tense 51-day standoff between the federal government and an armed religious cult. By the end of the day, the compound was burned to the ground, and some 80 Branch Davidians, including 22 children, had perished in the inferno.

1995 Truck bomb explodes in Oklahoma City

Just after 9 a.m., a massive truck bomb explodes outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The blast collapsed the north face of the nine-story building, instantly killing more than 100 people and trapping dozens more in the rubble. Emergency crews raced to Oklahoma City from across the country, and when the rescue effort finally ended two weeks later the death toll stood at 168 people killed, including 19 young children who were in the building's day-care center at the time of the blast.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

The_Jazz

Dksuddeth - what's the point of that post? I mean, so what? Drake sank the Spanish fleet at Harbor in 1587, the folks in Baltimore rioted in support of the Confederacy in 1861 and the Bay of Pigs invasion ended. Why not include those as well? They all involve guns (I assume that the riot was put down by the Army). What in the world does the OK City bombing and the Waco raid have to do with the 2nd Amendment?

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

dksuddeth

the point was that we're here talking about the constitution and the meaning of the second amendment on the same day that the revolutionary war was started, the ghetto uprising, the waco massacre about unpaid taxes on automatic weapons. All having to do with the right to bear arms.
probably shouldn't have posted the murrah building bombing though. my bad.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

The_Jazz

I get the referrence to the Revolutionary War, and I'll even very grudgingly accept the Branch Davidians, although I think that there were a lot more issues in play than the 2nd Amendments.

Last I checked, the Polish Jews weren't afforded 2nd Amendment rights before, during or after the Uprising. How is the Ghetto Uprising any different than the Great Uprising in Palestine on the same date 7 years later except that it better fits into your scheme on what 2nd Amendment rights should be. For that matter, why not point to the Vietnam Veterans Against the War protests that started today in 1971? It has about as much relavence, and it at least involves Americans who would be afforded the right in question.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

roachboy

dk: no, it wouldn't.
not in the way you would prefer.

besides, if you want to play the intent game, why are there so few documents, and such incomplete documentation, concerning the constitutional convention itself if the idea was to generate a future situation in which the proceedings would be set up as THE regulative interpretive framework within which the constitutional system itself operated? my understanding is that the idea at the time was that the proceedings NOT be used in the way you propose. the idea was that what mattered was the document as frame for the unfolding/development/interpretation of law--which necessarily involves an unfolding/development/interpretation of the frame.
the partial records of the convention, the federalist papers ARE NOT LAW.
i hope that is clear enough.

your position on this is simply untenable conceptually, untenable methodologically, and what is more undesirable legally and politically.

what it seems to me you really want to do is throw out the entire american common law system and replace it with a version of the civil law tradition--but the fetishism of the constitution around which this desire seems to hinge prevents you from saying as much. so you go for a parallel type of system that you can pretend is consistent with what exists. it isnt. yours is a radical position, one that is connected to a politics that you are not particularly forthcoming about, except when it comes to guns. even then, you prefer to present your positions on guns as if they were not embedded in a wider context. this makes little sense to me, but that's fine.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite