Willravel

I'm familiar with all amendments. the 13th was ratified in 1865. Before then? Yeah, it would have been legal for me to own a black guy. So from 1787 to 1865, those 98 or so years, my right to own slaves would have been Constitutionally kosher (so long as he or she was black). Despite the clear declaration of conscience, in the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal, I could have had some poor soul picking fruit in my back yard for nothing.

The Constitution was written by men. All men are flawed. The Amendments are written by men. All men are flawed. Pretending that the Constitution or even BOR are perfect is ludicrous. We do our best to make it as fair as possible, OF COURSE, but blind adherence to the documents as gospel truth doesn't make one a patriot, it makes one a zealot.

j8ear

That's very stirring. I'm not sure that any of what you wrote is in dispute...certainly not by me. I think that makes what you offered a red herring.

Honestly...it is stirring. You haven't unfortunately answered most of my questions.

Let me try again:

Do you have a problem with the perscribed (sic) methods for "changing" the constitution?

What does "helping people" mean? Can that have limits?

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

Willravel

I was trying more to provide the context of what I was trying to communicate to dksuddeth.

Do I have a problem with the amendment process? Not specifically. I do take issue with the fact that so many bureaucrats have found their way into being representatives of the people, and as such pose a danger to the amendment process, but other than that, it seems reasonable.

Helping people is about allowing a reasonable amount of equality and fairness in government, while still allowing for a balance of freedom. I can't get more specific than that without discussing a specific situation.

pan6467

I have come to the conclusion that allowing people to own guns is our last hope. While I have tried to e optimistic about our government recent events have worried me to the point that perhaps armed revolution or protection is not as ludicrous as I once believed.

I see rich people building fortresses, I see a government corrupt, I see people who just don't seem to care, I see heightened possibilities of civil unrest here. I truly believe that having armed civilians and a population with weapons maybe our saving grace in these days ahead.

I hope and pray I am as wrong as can be. In fact I pray I have never been more wrong in my life.

I do know that I am learning about guns these days and plan to go to a range as soon as I can and practice my once decent shooting.

Gd I hope I am wrong but a dollar on the verge of collapse, a government so out of control, a press that seems to be so full with bias and yellow journalism that we no longer know what to believe, drugs in our water supplies, greedy assholes that get bonuses for laing people off and shipping jobs overseas, knowing our economy is holding on by only the belief of the people in the monetary system.... and that belief is fading fast, an educational system bankrupt and so horribly deficient that it is scary, a lazy society more worried about who got voted off American Idol than what is going on in government and the rights we are losing, a society drugged in many ways (Viagra, Wellburin, Xanax, Prozac, Ritilin, and on and on... "have a problem take a drug"), a generation that has no respect for their parents because we made spankings and true punishments (groundings, NO, etc.) crimes, but most of all a world that seems to be so topsy turvy and full of negative energy that even the most positive of people are losing it.

Perhaps, it is just me seeing this and I am living some weird surrealistic fantasy life in my mind.... but I am scared that I'm not, that what I am seeing is a society as we know it ready to crumble into anarchy and a weird socialistic/fascist oligarchy/dictatorship mix.

Please tell me I need help and I am crazy........ someone please tell me all I see and am worried about is in my mind and caused by all the drugs and gambling I did. Please.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

dksuddeth

wholeheartedly, absolutely, positively, 1,000% hell yes. The notion that rights are not absolute and subject to reasonable regulation is a 20th century creation that came about when, I believe, government found that it could not control people who were using rights to undermine policy objectives. Much in the same way that the incorporation doctrine 'magically' appeared after the 13th Amendment.

The document defines these terms quite adequately. vagueness is only brought in to play when people disagree with others having that much freedom that they can't be controlled.

free speech zones, for one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux When does search and seizure become "unreasonable" in the 4th Amendment?

when the police stop someone open carrying a handgun, just for open carrying a handgun, even though it's quite legal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux What is "just compensation" in the 5th Amendment?

current market value of the property, usually before the government body declared it 'blighted' or condemned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux Who defines a "speedy" trial in the 6th Amendment?

should be the defendant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux When is bail "excessive" in the 8th Amendment?

when it would leave the 'bailee' with no real property afterwards.

the perfect example of how rights became subject to 'reasonable regulation'. A term that is now subject to interpretation by the very entity designed to protect rights and is often twisted and manipulated in order to achieve a public policy objective. Rights went from unalienable to subjective because people want to contol other people.

so you destroy the constitution to create your better world.

I wish I could offer you some promising words to allay your fears, but I can't. what you fear is happening is truly happening and it is only a matter of time before chaos ensues. People will then have to make a choice between freedom and liberty or life under martial law. Unfortunately, I see most people in this country responding to the fearmongering and will not only reject freedom, but outright demand the dictatorship presented to 'feel safe'.

__________________
"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."

Willravel

Read your response in the context of slavery. Have you seen the Constitution? Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons "all other persons," meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit," meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.

This was the work of the original framers and owning a slave was Constitutionally protected. It was a right. Of course from the Southern perspective (to paraphrase you) rights went from unalienable to subjective because people in the North want to control people in the South.

So either you must admit that you are okay with the idea that the framers made mistakes and were fallible (and thus the Constitution isn't always perfect), or you have to admit that you support slavery.
"Destroy the Constitution"? Is it in your capacity not to exaggerate or make appeals to emotion?

Baraka_Guru

Aren't "amendments" changes? Does this mean the constitution already destroyed?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

j8ear

Fair enough.
Why not use the process, or at least not advocate side stepping the process to achieve your stated gun control goals?
How about DC's unconstitutional handgun ban. I'm curious about your notion of "helping people" in this situation.

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

Willravel

I'm not sure what a gun control amendment would look like. What would be better? Maybe the Supreme Court actually makes a clear decision about the Second Amendment instead of dancing around it or avoiding it.
No one is helped by having a ban on guns in DC, while West Virginia, only a few miles away, has some of the most lax gun laws in the country. It was doomed to fail.

dksuddeth

Are we looking at the SAME constitution?

Is this how you justify backdooring the constitution? by warping reality and blurring your vision? Back then, slaves were considered 'property', therefore, people had a 'right' to own them. Property and persons were two totally seperate entities, so i'm finding it difficult, near impossible, to understand why you are confusing the two.

EVERYBODY is fallible, including the founders/framers, so I greatly resent your intimation that I support slavery...especially since you can't seem to understand that while WE agree that the constitution has never and will never be perfect, that WE can't agree that there is a LEGAL and PROPER way to amend it instead of saying 'fuck the constitution, my way is the right way'.

I call it like I see it will. If you can't do something the correct way, you fudge it til it turns out the way you want it, hence you destroy the constitution. If it can overlooked in one instance, why can't it be done for all instances? Why even have it?

so, in essence, what you're really saying is that you KNOW making laws banning handguns does nothing, because CRIMINALS will just ignore them, so you want to remove EVERYBODIES rights for the shortcomings of a few.

__________________
"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."

dc_dux

dk...not withstanding your definitions of such terms as "unreasonable", "speedy", "excessive", etc, the Constitution, by intent of the framers or not, is vague in many of its articles and amendments and subject to interpretation.

The framers were wise enough to include a process for adjudication and not just a process for amendment.

Neither process will please all of the people all of the time, but far better than no Constitution at all.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

Backdooring? It's our patriotic duty as free American patriots to defend the liberty of not being shot by people. And you've still not addressed the fact that SLAVERY was in the original CONSTITUTION. That "right" had to be taken away by the backdooring of the Constitution by Abraham Lincoln. A PATRIOT.
That's how IT starts! When some people hate freedom and our peaceful way of life and decide that it's time to take an antiquated Amendment way out of context and say 'fuck peace and happiness and the AMERICAN DREAM' because they want to have a gun, they are manipulating the Constitution in order to have a gun and put people in danger.
So you think it's okay to bathe the Bill of Right in the blood of all of the innocent people that have died to to firearms? Doesn't that give you PAUSE?
So in essence what you're saying is that you KNOW that CRIMINALS should be allowed to have guns so that they can commit CRIMES against EVERYBODY?


Can we stop with this exaggerated and nonsensical way of posting? It's not getting anyone anywhere, and it damages the discussion. Using buzz phrases intended to evoke an emotional response (such as "destroy the constitution") that really have nothing to do with anything, while kinda funny, doesn't belong in respectful discourse.

dksuddeth

yes, backdooring. Meaning that you can't make the changes you want according to the legally prescribed methods in the constitution, so you ignore them and appoint a group of people to power that will.

You cannot show a constitutional right to slavery because it did not exist. The reason slavery was possible was because slaves were considered PROPERTY. how many times must you read that to understand it?

'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' seems to be a damn fine indicator that there is actually a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, so how is that 'out of context'?

strawman and irrelevant to the question asked.

non-sensical.


well will, when you advocate ignoring the supreme law of the land and the law on how to amend it, you're advocating the destruction of the constitution....excuse me, just the parts you don't like.

__________________
"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."

Willravel

I can't believe you responded to the insane exaggerated and nonsensical arguments I posted to illustrate that things were getting off track. And then you hit us with "supreme law of the land" and "destruction of the constitution".

Frosstbyte

Is this the same respectful discourse in which we assert that because someone supports gun control, they also support slavery? Just want to be clear on that.

In any event, there's really no question that the 2nd Amendment, as written, has about as much place in modern society as the 3rd Amendment, which is to say that it doesn't have any place and cannot be read in a way that makes sense. Everyone (including the Supreme Court) is fully aware of the fact that there's no way to amend it through the formal process to clarify either a collective or individual right because we don't have anything close to enough support in either one direction or the other. So we dance around the issue, and we're likely to do so until we either have some seriously ballsy Supreme Court justices or a great deal more agreement on how we feel about guns in this country.

I don't really think either is likely.

As a historical side note, the Emancipation Proclamation had no legal effect. Lincoln, whatever he might have been, had the same impact on abolition as Woodrow Wilson had on giving women the right to vote. Slavery was abolished in the United States by the passage of the 13th amendment, not by executive order.

Lebell

Umm, are you making this up? Because lots of folks have NO problem with the wording of the second in terms of modern society when you consider that the militia is defined as including ALL men in the irregular militia.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Baraka_Guru

willravel, I thought you had lost it, but then I remembered you never use allcaps unless you're demonstrating something.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dksuddeth

which is why any place that has strict laws outlawing guns have such low crime rates. anyway, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting or crime, it's about the PEOPLE remaining free and soveriegn and ensuring the government stays its servant. Something i'm sure alot of people in here loathe and ridicule because they believe that people can't handle freedom.

__________________
"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."

Willravel

Actually, that was my first attempt at mimicking the posting style, but it was too subtle.
Well put.

Thank you for illustrating exactly how not to convince anyone of anything, ever.

You know that Bush uses similar language in his speeches, right? About people who "hate freedom" and how Iraq is about "freedom and democracy". He says those things because he can't possible defend his positions so he tries to rely on people being distracted by charged words and phrases. There's not really much content.

dksuddeth

The difference between Bush and myself is that he is out to take your freedom and feeds you bullshit doing it. I'm trying to help you keep your freedom and showing you the truth and reasons why.
Hell will, just listening to Bush blather and get away with it should be enough reason for ALL people to want to ensure we have guns.

__________________
"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."

Willravel

Well first off if Bush threatened me, I'd probably just laugh. I don't need a gun to defend myself from a retarded person. Even if he hauled me off to Gitmo, I get along really well with military people (just ask Crompsin).
/kidding

The point I'm trying desperately to make is that your message is riddled with the same bizarre language. "...can't handle freedom"? I mean you can't possibly think that makes sense. Yes, I realize that you and Bush don't have the same agenda, but you seem to be using similar language. Doesn't that make you think at all? I mean, could you stop? I don't think there's anyone who "can't handle freedom", because you're using too broad a definition of freedom. If you would have said, "people can't handle the freedom of having a lot of guns in the hands of the public", that might have made more sense, though even then the use of freedom isn't quite right.

Can you just say what you mean without making these grandiose, dksuddeth vs. the freedom-haters soap box proclamations? I've had gun debates with other members (longbough comes to mind) where neither party resorts to Bushisms. They tend to go well.

dc_dux

In fact, the federal appellate courts have been split on the "individual" vs "collective" rights interpretation with more leaning towards the 2nd amendment providing a collective right of the "state" to arm its militia or at best, a limited right of indiviuals to bear arms as active members of the "state" militia.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Frosstbyte

I think there is little doubt, also, that the framers intended militia to mean just that, as they were a newly founded frontier nation which had won its independence based on irregular militias. The problem is that, rightly, that definition makes no sense anymore. We don't have colonial militias that preserve order and security.

You can rant all you want about how irregular militias are essential to protect us from the tyranny of government, and that's a wonderful notion, but the reality of the situation is that "irregular" militias barely exist on a national scale and certainly do not rise to the level of "being necessary to ensure the security of a free State." It's an antiquated use of the word militia combined with one of the worst phrased sections of the whole Constitution.

My point is that the 2nd Amendment, in and of itself, has horrible syntax at best and is anachronistic at worst. The way it's worded provides equally bad support for either a collective or an individual right all revolving around whatever the hell you want to make "well regulated militia" mean. I'm not saying your reading isn't a valid one, but it's hardly a clear, authoritative one and I think it's unlikely that either the country through the amendment process or the Supreme Court will ratify either that one or the alternative any time soon.

Lebell

I don't need to "rant" at all about it nor do I need to agree with you.

The Japanese were very concerned about invading the US and finding a gun behind every tree. Every modern dictator has been very concerned with controlling private gun ownership from Hitler to Stalin to Mao.

So I don't think history is on your side in this discussion.

I do agree that the phrasing of the second sucks and I look forward to the upcoming ruling.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Willravel

There was also a time when we all needed spears or we wouldn't have meat, but that time has also passed. Our methods have evolved.

pan6467

I agree with this, we seem to have a select group that would feel okay, perhaps even giddy, if the rights of others went by the wayside and they could feel more comfortable and happy in their lives.

There are choices people make, if you do not own a gun and believe they are dangerous, who are you to take another's right to own one away? As long as they aren't convicted felons or have severe psyche issues, why should you care? Criminals will get guns, no matter what, our entire country's history shows that. Why should law abiding citizens not be allowed to own a gun? Who are you to demand someone else's right be infringed upon, deleted or interpreted in a way only your side approves of? Even law abiding citizens in every other aspect will still get guns, what you are you going to imprison everyone who owns or buys a gun? You think the War on Drugs has been a money pit?????? A war on guns would laugh at the chump change spent on any other war we have ever had.

If someone says something you do not like to hear, who are you to demand he have no right to say it, or to demand he get fired? Why not just turn the channel? What gives you the right to not allow the man/woman to say it? Nothing in this world would make me happier than a law that would silence Farrakhan, Limbaugh, Robertson, Falwell, Sharpton and so on..... but in doing so 2 problems arise: 1) I don't truly silence them they just go underground and create more problems than if I had let them have their say.... 2) someone may someday decide they do not like what I have to say and silence me.

I just don't understand how in the freest country this Earth has ever known and all the great things we could accomplish, people would rather waste time and money trying to stamp out other's rights because "they" don't feel anyone should have that right because "they" are more educated, civilized, etc.

Screw you and your self righteous indignations..... Millions have worn the uniforms that protect those rights you want to destroy...... Millions have died to insure we keep those rights, and millions of law abiding citizens enjoy those rights, who the fuck are you to decide to take them away?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

debaser

Damn well said, Pan.

__________________

Frosstbyte

While that's a good point Pan, the entire problem with the 2nd Amendment as I've tried to outline in this thread is that it does a very poor job saying exactly what right it intends to confer on anyone. I'm not SURE that the framers intended to allow every individual to own a handgun for personal protection. I'm not SURE that they didn't. I personally think that they meant to immortalize and protect the process that they used to usurp British control over the colonies and that that process is both beyond meaningless 200 some years later.

Which says nothing for the fact that the vast majority of guns owned in this country are not owned or used with even the slightest thought towards local communities protecting themselves from a tyrannical federal government. I think there's a lot of merit to that right, given our history, but I don't think it's in any way the same as allowing people to have guns limited only by "reasonable restrictions."

loquitur

Preliminary disclaimer: I don't care much about guns one way or the other. It's not an issue that gets me excited. That said, however, there has been an increasing amount of research that shows gun control legislation originated in the second half of the 19th century as an effort to ensure that newly freed blacks couldn't get firearms. Here are two academic law review articles, one from Georgetown Law Review and one from Chicago-Kent Law Review.

Then there is the discussion about what the framers of the 14th Amendment thought they were accomplishing. As you probably know, the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 to ensure that newly freed blacks would get full rights of citizenship and that Southern states couldn't re-enslave them under pretense (an effort that pretty much failed, as Jim Crow got institutionalized.) Jonathan Adler over at the Volokh Conspiracy (one of the law-related sites I really enjoy; it's a collection of law professors with libertarianish views) quotes this tidbit that I thought was fascinating: This has implications in terms of the 14th Amendment's intent to incorporate the bill of rights, which didn't actually happen for decades afterwards, but also speaks to what the understanding of the 2nd Amendment was in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was passed to force the states to recognize federal rights. Interesting, eh?

pan6467

I would agree with that last paragraph if we were a stable country, with far less crime. However, we aren't. We are a country very fractionalized and very different in many ways. I aired my fears somewhere above and I feel gun ownership is what allows us to keep the government in check to some degree.

I also believe a man/woman has every right to protect their property and self, by any means necessary. If a man comes in to my home to rape my wife or steal things that I have worked hard for, I should have the right to own a gun to protect my domain.

The problem we have is not the guns that are legally owned, the problem we have are the guns illegally gotten, the gangs, the militants and the overall nutjobs that get them illegally. We cannot in anyway stop those guns from being gotten.

We are in horrible financial times and history shows that in times like these crime increases greatly. With city police forces and county sheriffs working massive caseloads and their funding in a majority of places being cut, it is more and more a necessity for us to find ways to protect ourselves. Taking guns away allows us to be sitting ducks for those criminals, nutjobs and so on that have gotten their guns illegally.

So to make laws taking guns away from the lawful citizens would make no sense, it would in fact create more problems, the government would see an opportunity to jump in and take more rights away and in a very short time we would have a total dictatorship.

Did the founding fathers foresee us having the types of guns we have available now? I seriously doubt it.

But in he same vain, do I think they would frown on people owning guns to protect self, family, property and so on? I seriously doubt that.

My belief is that our founding fathers would accept gun ownership as a necessary evil. Necessary to protect the people.

I do not know 1 gun owner that does not treat their gun(s) with utmost respect. They know firsthand the danger and they take extreme caution and care to make sure their gun(s) are not going to hurt anyone accidentally.

Maybe when times are better financially, we are more stable and less fractionalized as a country and people are more willing to compromise with one another in this country and abroad, we can talk about gun control and perhaps work on something acceptable to the many.

Until those conditions are met, I think discussions of gun control are nice to have philosophically, but to truly try to put into place are unrealistic and meant solely as a self righteous, feel good about "how wonderful and civilized a person I am" and have no true care about the nation or others as a whole.

Truly ask yourself, if you are for gun control, what are you going to do about those illegally purchased? How are you going to get all the guns owned legally, let alone the illegal ones? How many trillions are you willing to spend to get those legal guns?

But most importantly ask yourself if you have an intruder at 2 AM and you hear your kids/wife/husband whomever screaming for help, wouldn't you want to have something to protect them with?

Do you truly trust your government enough to believe that if the citizens weren't freely armed they would maintain the representative democracy?

But most of all, as long as the neighbor to your left or right doesn't go shooting aimlessly and waving his gun around in his yard as a toy, why do you care if he has a gun, carefully stored and locked?

I have no idea who in my neighborhood owns a gun and it is none of my business to know, but I am sure a few do.... probably many more than I would ever think do. And for the most part, I don't think any are going to start some shooting spree in the neighborhood.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

dksuddeth

Pan, I have to disagree with you. The founding documents of our nation all point to one very specific thing....that is that 'the people', meaning you and I, are the soveriegn rulers of our nation. The government was created to protect our rights and liberties, but that the government was not to be trusted completely with that responsibility, therefore it was up to the people to ensure that they would ALWAYS be in control. More people willing to fight and be better armed than any governments standing army. The founders didn't care what technology would have wrought, just so that the people would always be stronger than any standing army.

__________________
"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."

MuadDib

I disagree, it's not that the founders didn't care so much, as Pan said, they did not anticipate it. Nor did they have to or should they have had to. I agree that there is certainly room for restriction, especially considering the development of modern weaponry. However, I also agree that the Second Amendment ensures an individual right to bear arms and that that right is there to protect those individuals from their government should tyranny emerge. Problem is, in the modern world, the kind of arms necessary towards that end are unacceptable in the hands of individuals. What SCOTUS really needs to address here, and I hope they do, is what level of restriction on arms is acceptable under the Constitution.

Here's a great report by the Attorney General about his department's conclusions on the issue. I agree almost entirely with their findings:

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

dksuddeth

so, what you're saying is that is that the 2nd Amendment is so that people can protect themselves against tyranny, but to do so would require that the people have weapons equal to the government, and that even the founders, most notably george washington and thomas jefferson, agreed that the people should be equally as armed as the government, but they couldn't and shouldn't have imagined machine guns and therefore it shouldn't apply anymore?

__________________
"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."

Willravel

DK, you have chastised me when I brought up the right to bear nuclear weapons, saying that it is a red herring or strawman, but isn't that the logical conclusion to "weapons equal to the government"? The government has nuclear weapons.

samcol

Yes, another handgun carry/firearm debate gets de-railed into citizens carrying nuclear warheads. I love it.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

dksuddeth

Will, if I thought that even for one second, the government would use a nuclear weapon on its own soil, against american citizens, then yes....we'd have the right to arm ourselves with nuclear weapons. Logically, and in reality, the government not only could not do that, but would not do that. Not only would it be total political anhilation to do so, current laws regarding the release of nuclear weapons make it so that it is practically impossible to do so.

Now, one would also think that the government would NEVER use military hardware against its citizens, but we already know that they have in the past and there is no reason not to think that they wouldn't in the future, so you have to ask yourself, who do you think is the sovereign ruling body of america? Is it the people or is it the body of government? If it's the people, how do they do that without being equal to the standing army? If it's the government, how do they manage that when the constitution plainly states that it's the people?

well, you knew it was only a matter of time anyway as most gun control proponents have to have a latch on the idea that weapons can/must be regulated.

__________________
"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."

Willravel

I would have thought it legally impossible to spy on Americans 10 years ago, too. That aside, I'll still take your thought to it's logical conclusions. What could our government (police, paramilitary, military) theoretically use against it's citizens? Tanks, attack helicopters, mortar fire, missiles, EM or microwave weapons, cluster bombs... I mean this is a long and scary list. Do you think anything I just named should be realistically released to the public?
I've already discussed how I believe that a people under militaristic, tyrannical rule would defend themselves: bombing campaigns. The US military is basically useless against guerilla tactics being carried out from within a civilian population. When it comes to traditional warfare, the US is second to none. It makes no sense to attempt to go toe to toe with the military industrial complex face to face. Bombing supply routes, bombing production facilities, and hitting small patrols is how you do it.

dksuddeth

if you don't trust the government, why would you want their hands to be the only ones with them? Also, why would you want to place 'bombing campaigns only' restrictions on us? wouldn't it be more advantageous to have us equally armed in the first place?

__________________
"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."

Willravel

It's not a restriction, it's the only viable option.

Again, the US is the fucking tits when it comes to conventional warfare. If the US military and us populace were equally armed, the military would wipe the fucking floor with us without breaking a sweat... even if every man woman and child were taught how to properly operate a gun. We (the angry populace) would be decimated, and THEN the bombing campaigns would begin against military targets by us. Why not skip the part where tens of thousands to millions die? It's madly cheap and easy to build bombs. I'd say it's easier to make bombs than it is to take a course on how to shoot, seeing as how one can build a bomb without any classes easily.

It's not about being advantageous, but rather pragmatic. In this highly hypothetical situation, the goals would be:
1) Disrupt the aggressors' ability to wage war.
2) Keep civilian deaths to an absolute minimum by not giving the aggressors civilian targets.
3) "Hearts and minds" with those who were apathetic.
etc.

The idea of directly challenging any well trained and organized military force won't work.

samcol

You forget about all the 'upsets' in military history. Just look at the most recent war in Iraq. We have them out manned out gunned etc. It really doesn't matter if you think a populace can or cannot beat an army. That's not relevant to restricting the right to bear arms.

Just because you don't think the people can't win, doesn't mean we shouldn't be armed.

Also, you have to understand the military is made of 'THE PEOPLE.' Direct orders to kill countrymen will not be followed by our military universally.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.