Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[Diuretic]

I'm pretty sure that in England up until the time of Cromwell there was no regular standing army. I believe it was Cromwell who formed the New Model Army. It seems that the times maketh the army.

 

[LOki]

Wearing a uniform or being a criminal? You're doing a disservice to my argument and to the military and to the police (not necessarily in that order).

Nope. This is your argument: that by dint of being in the military, a police officer or a criminal--and for no other reason--the need for bearing a fully automatic weapon is neccessary.

Being in the military is not "wearing a uniform". It's far more than "wearing a uniform".

I never stated otherwise.

What separates the civilian from the solider is a sense of duty. The duty of the military is to defend the state, the polity and all parts of it, from domestic and foreign enemies. That is a duty.

You're saying that having a "sense of duty" is what makes keeping and bearing fully automatic weapons neccessary?

The civilian has no duty except to him or herself.

That's still a sense of duty.

Ah, I see--when you say "state", you mean "government." You're saying that the soldier has a duty to defend the government, and the civilian has a duty to protect himself. Fine.

That's still a sense of duty, Diuretic.

The military needs fully automatic weapons to carry out that duty.

Stipulated.

Yet civilians have their own duty, thus according to you own argument, the "need" for fully automatic weapons; and if they have to defend themselves against soldiers, they most certainly need fully automatic weapons, as you have alredy stipulated that soldiers have them for their purposes.

Any military (or non-military) aggressor against the state is met by the military of the state, not a bunch of untrained but highly armed civilians.

Who meets a domestic military aggressor? Would they also not "need" fully automatic weapons to facilitate their "sense of duty?"

Being in the military is a vocation, a voluntary service to country in the understanding that, if required, one's life will be laid down as part of that duty. That is not "wearing a uniform".

Yeah, it is--as long as your soldier's duty is only to defend the government, that's all it is. I guess I'm not really the one doing the disservice to the military.

While there exists a military there is no need for a civilian to have a fully automatic weapon because the civilian can't displace the soldier.

It's not about displacing the soldier. And as long as there exists a military with fully automatic weapons, there is need for civilians to have fully automatic weapons, because no one else will be there to defend them should an oppressive domestic government send soldiers against it's civilian populace.

The other argument, about civilian police, I was at pains to point out was primarily for counter-terrorist operations by specialised units. General duties civilian police don't need to have fully automatic weapons. If offenders with fully automatic weapons have to be confronted then the specialist unit I referred to can be called in.

And if a civilian faces a criminal with a fully automatic weapon, wouldn't they also need one?

While the police are in a position to defend domestic interests from terrorism or from criminals armed with fully automatic weapons then the civilian, again untrained in these duties, doesn't need a fully automatic weapon.

So, only if a civilian is <b>trained</b> to defend himself (his "sense of duty" as you refer to it) does he "need" a fully automatic weapon when facing anybody else with a fully automatic weaopn--otherwise, should a civilian (or civilians) be facing an aggressor (or aggressors) that possess fully automatic weapons; provided the civilian is untrained, the civilian does not need fully automatic weapons.

You're just brilliant. BRAVO!

 

[Diuretic]

Ouch, look at all that parsing.

Do you ever look at the essence of an argument? Or are you simply going to slice and dice until finally it becomes a task without meaning?

I'll try to address what you've written here but if you could come up with a cogent response that didn't rely on excessive parsing it would be a lot more productive.

On edit - no, I can't be bothered. I just read through and I can see you are simply not addressing the argument, just cherry-picking and really that's not very satisfying.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ouch, look at all that parsing.

Do you ever look at the essence of an argument? Or are you simply going to slice and dice until finally it becomes a task without meaning?

I'll try to address what you've written here but if you could come up with a cogent response that didn't rely on excessive parsing it would be a lot more productive.

On edit - no, I can't be bothered. I just read through and I can see you are simply not addressing the argument, just cherry-picking and really that's not very satisfying.

BULLSHIT. Your argument fails miserably since IN THE US we believe in a MILITIA. A Militia by definition is citizens not professional soldiers. Our Second Amendment ensures that the individual and the State have the right to be armed and form MILITIAS and those MILITIAS are for the direct purpose of defending the State or community FROM enemies both foreign AND Domestic.

Now try again to change the parameters to something else, since your argument can not work unless you pretend none of the above counts.

Our founding fathers fully understood that the very Government they created could one day turn on the people. They allowed for the citizenry to always be armed in case that event unfolded.

 

[Diuretic]

BULLSHIT. Your argument fails miserably since IN THE US we believe in a MILITIA. A Militia by definition is citizens not professional soldiers. Our Second Amendment ensures that the individual and the State have the right to be armed and form MILITIAS and those MILITIAS are for the direct purpose of defending the State or community FROM enemies both foreign AND Domestic.

Now try again to change the parameters to something else, since your argument can not work unless you pretend none of the above counts.

Our founding fathers fully understood that the very Government they created could one day turn on the people. They allowed for the citizenry to always be armed in case that event unfolded.

I don't give at toss what you believe in in the US, that's your business. Nowhere did I reference the 2nd Amendment.

I don't give a toss about your definition of the militia or Minutemen or having a frigging machine gun in your home. That's your business and I don't particularly care about it.

Why the hell you get so explosive about it is beyond me. It's a totally ambiguous piece of legislation. Way back when it might have made sense in context but in a highly advanced society the whole concept of a militia is, well, sort of amateurish.

I don't suppose you can see the irony but you have the most powerful military the world has ever seen and some of you have this fetish about a militia and people having machine guns just in case your government does you over.

You just don't get how it looks do you?

You have to have firearms to defend yourselves against your own government, a government that commands the most powerful military the world has ever seen. Are you with me? Uh, here's a clue, when it comes to gummint and military against the ordinary folks, the ordinary folks lose.

Now though, tell me, is the US military, sworn to defend the Constitution, imbued with a sense of duty, going to turn on the citizenry because the president says so? Are they? Do you think so? Do you really, really think so?

Idaho beckons, you better get your shootin' irons and head up there and grab some land.

Jeez sometimes I wonder.

 

[Dr Grump]

I don't give at toss what you believe in in the US, that's your business. Nowhere did I reference the 2nd Amendment.

I don't give a toss about your definition of the militia or Minutemen or having a frigging machine gun in your home. That's your business and I don't particularly care about it.

Why the hell you get so explosive about it is beyond me. It's a totally ambiguous piece of legislation. Way back when it might have made sense in context but in a highly advanced society the whole concept of a militia is, well, sort of amateurish.

I don't suppose you can see the irony but you have the most powerful military the world has ever seen and some of you have this fetish about a militia and people having machine guns just in case your government does you over.

You just don't get how it looks do you?

You have to have firearms to defend yourselves against your own government, a government that commands the most powerful military the world has ever seen. Are you with me? Uh, here's a clue, when it comes to gummint and military against the ordinary folks, the ordinary folks lose.

Now though, tell me, is the US military, sworn to defend the Constitution, imbued with a sense of duty, going to turn on the citizenry because the president says so? Are they? Do you think so? Do you really, really think so?

Idaho beckons, you better get your shootin' irons and head up there and grab some land.

Jeez sometimes I wonder.

Seriously?? I don't think the right-wing gun nuts will ever get it....

 

[LOki]

Ouch, look at all that parsing.

You mean the close attention I pay to each of your points? Or is the "ouch" for the way I critically pointed out the problems with each of yout points?

Do you ever look at the essence of an argument? Or are you simply going to slice and dice until finally it becomes a task without meaning?

I didn't slice your argument, and it's essence is patently clear: "Need" is a function of "sense of duty" and/or "training."

I'll try to address what you've written here but if you could come up with a cogent response that didn't rely on excessive parsing it would be a lot more productive.

My cogent responses do not rely upon parsing to any extent--your argument, however, is a gold mine of dumb whose every nugget of dumb should be illuminated upon fully.

On edit - no, I can't be bothered. I just read through and I can see you are simply not addressing the argument, just cherry-picking and really that's not very satisfying.

There is no cherry picking involved. I took great pains to address each and every point you made, leaving nothing out--the very thing you're complaing about. Make up your mind.

 

[Foxfyre]

Diuretic writes

I don't suppose you can see the irony but you have the most powerful military the world has ever seen and some of you have this fetish about a militia and people having machine guns just in case your government does you over.

You just don't get how it looks do you?

You have to have firearms to defend yourselves against your own government, a government that commands the most powerful military the world has ever seen. Are you with me? Uh, here's a clue, when it comes to gummint and military against the ordinary folks, the ordinary folks lose.

How it looks to people who don't understand the concept of a government like ours versus those who have given their freedoms and souls over to a more socialist society? We don't really care.

How it looks to us is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It looks to us like a society that sees unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the foundation of our government, and puts the faith of securing and preserving those rights firmly in the hands of the people.

It looks to us like the people are the government. It looks to us like a people with the ability to make life totally and utterly miserable for rogues that would presume to take away those rights. Is that likely in the United States? No. Is it unthinkable? Given changing fortunes of societies within the prism of historical perspective, it would be foolish to think such a thing impossible. It could even be effected with something as simple as a wrongheaded immigration policy.

Could the people fight off the combined power of a U.S. military? Nope. But they wouldn't have to. That military isn't big enough to target all 300 million of us simultaneously, and our military is also us. Professional soldiers yes, but also citizens committed under oath to defend the Constitution and serve the people--employees of the government, but not the government. Anybody who thinks a rogue government could turn all of those citizen soldiers against the people would be certifiably insane.

Given how helpless the people of Great Britain or the Netherlands or Germany or--pick another country--would be if say a radical fundamentalist Islamic majority rose up to overthrow the existing government and impose Sharia Law, the United States is in no such danger essentially because we do not hand over our care and comfort to the government to provide.

You were doing very well providing useful pro and con perspective to the debate until you let out what very much appears to be an anti-American, European snobbish arrogance. Do you not know how that looks to us?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ah, as usual, dismissing an argument because you do not like the fact it doesn't agree with you.

Get another line , this one is old and used up.

When you can actually address the questions put to you, please let me know.

At this point, I'm asking you for the answer to 1+1 and you're responding with "green!"

 

[M14 Shooter]

I did use the purposes of the various firearms to make my point but primarily I was using the concept of necessity.

Well...
If we have firearms because we need to kill people, what argument is there that we do not then need the most effective means of doing so?

Note that you dont need to go into a discussion regarding the use of a 200kt nuclear weapon to drive oof would-be carjackers, et al.

 

[manifold]

you think that's what the 2nd amendment's for? lol... if that were the case, treason wouldn't be the only crime defined in the Constitution, not to mention, the absurdity of the entire concept of a bunch of militia types fighting off the US military.

That is precisely what the 2nd Amendment is for. The fact that it is a laughing matter to you, today, doesn't change that one iota.

PS: It was also once considered absurd that a bunch of militia types could fight off the forces of the mighty British Empire.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is precisely what the 2nd Amendment is for. The fact that it is a laughing matter to you, today, doesn't change that one iota.

Gotta love this one...

...not to mention, the absurdity of the entire concept of a bunch of militia types fighting off the US military...

If this isnt possible, how then did we lose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

[manifold]

So, what are the chances?

Slim in the US, slim in Australia. Slim in the US because your political and legal system, with its checks and balances and its (barely alive but still there) doctrine of the separation of powers makes it extremely difficult for tyranny to appear. As well you have a military that has a sworn duty to the constitution and not to an individual or a power base. Slim in Australia or similar reasons except that our military is officially loyal to the Crown and not the politicians in parliament. I have faith in your military and in ours not to behave like, say, the Zimbabwe military, under the control of the dictator Mugabe.

However slim the chance may be, it is slimmer still and less likely to grow if the citizenry is known to possess armaments to defend themselves.

 

[Ravi]

Gotta love this one...



If this isnt possible, how then did we lose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Maybe you can answer the question. If the government has nukes does that mean individuals should have nukes? If not, why not.

 

[manifold]

Maybe you can answer the question. If the government has nukes does that mean individuals should have nukes? If not, why not.

Is the government not made up of individuals?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Maybe you can answer the question. If the government has nukes does that mean individuals should have nukes? If not, why not.

The term "arms" as used in the 2nd amendment, does not include nukes.
For further reference, please see my blog.

 

[Ravi]

Is the government not made up of individuals?

Is that supposed to be an answer?

 

[Ravi]

The term "arms" as used in the 2nd amendment, does not include nukes.
For further reference, please see my blog.

Nukes aren't arms? Puh-lease

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nukes aren't arms? Puh-lease

Quote me:
For further reference, see by blog.

If you would like to argue against the position I take there and above, please do so.

That is, tell me how I am wrong.

 

[manifold]

Is that supposed to be an answer?

Yes.

The entire debate distinguishing between "the people" and "individuals" seems pretty silly to me. The idea that groups of people retain rights that individual members do not is as unAmerican as it gets.