Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[BrianH]

Reasons civilians shouldn't own nukes.

Exhibit "A"- Say someone with no prior criminal history (like the guy that massacred those poor little girls at the Amish school) and allow someone like that to acquire a nuke. Then this man decides to go nuts (as he did) and detonate the nuke.

Exhibit "B"- Let's allow civilians to buy nukes so that armed criminals and gangs can break into our homes and take them to hold the city,state,country,or world hostage.

Exhibit"C"- Let's keep nukes in our home so that your kid, instead of accidently shooting him/herself, will detonate a thermo-nuclear device, killing millions of people instantly.

I can see it now..."Hey, wanna check out my dad's nuclear weapon?"

I'm all for gun-rights and owning firearms...but nuclear weapons are a bit extreme. I'm sure the government has a patent for the nuclear weapon, therfore can restrict us from having it anyway. Just like you wouldn't give someone your golf-clubs if you didn't want to.

 

[Ravi]

For the record, I don't think we should own nukes. I just wonder where the line should be drawn on the types of weapons we are entitled to own.

Not sure about the patent thing. I think you can go online and find a recipe for making a nuke. NOT that I would EVER do such a thing.

 

[BrianH]

For the record, I don't think we should own nukes. I just wonder where the line should be drawn on the types of weapons we are entitled to own.

Not sure about the patent thing. I think you can go online and find a recipe for making a nuke. NOT that I would EVER do such a thing.

Oh ok...well I tried to post earlier in response to Loki saying he would be fine with everyone owning a nuke, but by the time I got around to checking again, I saw your post. So I couldn't help myself.

I agree about the patent thing, I'm not sure, but it sounded good. LOL

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre



Just for the record this isn't parsing I'm addressing your cogent points as best I can.

I'll defend my view of a violent revolution. The colonists rose up against their British rulers. They didn't sail to London and request independence. So, the colonists took up arms, fought the British and eventually got rid of them and founded a new nation. That's how revolutionaries act. So, your nation was born of revolution and not much different from any other revolutionary activities. It can be constrasted to the struggle between parliament and King Charles I in England. That wasn't a revolution so much as a civil war which ended with parliamentary control and the removal of the monarchy, substituted with a commonwealth, a form of republic.

Now, I'll take your point about not fearing government. So why is the 2nd Amendment interpreted as giving citizens the right to be armed in case they need to defend against the government? ?

That was the rationale behind the Second Amendment initially. Remember that our Democratic Republic was quite unique and still experimental when our Constitution was forged out of deeply introspective, thoughtful, and empassioned debates. Acceptance was not universal and scoundrels existed in the world then and now. The best defense against any enemy within or from without is to be prepared to face that enemy. To assume that no such enemy could ever materialize would be irresponsible as well as extreme folly. It is not our existing government that was or is feared then or now.

And to your question about governments not allowing citizens to possess firearms because they fear an uprising - I don't think so. If you control the military then you have the people - armed or unarmed - at a distinct disadvantage. But it's an interesting point. Again, the mistrust of government intrudes in your thinking.

But isn't it interesting that Marxist philosophy as carried out by Hitler and Lenin was to disarm the people in preparation for their more ambitious plans? When the people are allowed to keep their guns, it is a pretty good sign of mutual respect and cooperation between the people and their chosen leaders. Again it is not the existing government that concerns anybody, but the government that might replace the existing one.

As I said, revolutionaries act in much the same way through history. They rise up and topple, by arms, a dictatorial government or a single dictator. Didn't the American revolutionaries rise up under arms and take on an oppressive, tyrannical colonial government? That's the similarity I was getting at. Castro and his revolutionaries toppled, by arms, a dictator in Cuba.

No, there is no comparison. One war (the American Revolution) was fought to provide freedom to the people. The other (Cuba) was fought so that one dictator could wrest control of the people from another.

I can't help it if you see it as me looking down from my superior European nose. I'm Anglo-Irish-Australian and I don't have a superior European nose. Was my offence to be too frank?

No not too frank. Just observations of how semantics are sometimes perceived.

The Red Dawn scenario.

I made mention that the military wouldn't be used by a would-be American dictator. That was tried and failed when General Smedley Butler USMC refused to listen to the plotters who wanted to overthrow Roosevelt.

Researching my memory banks (American history minor here) there was never any serious plot to overthrow the government, and there was never any serious constitutional breach. If there had been, some major heads would have rolled that never rolled. There was a great deal of displeasure at Roosevelt and the government as the Great Depression closed in on the nation and our resident facist sympathizers did plot to at least infiltrate enough of the government to exercise major influence. With or without General Butler, the plot would have been quickly thwarted once the media got into it.

Now, given the US military will protect the constitution and not obey the orders of a dictator or conspirators to a coup I don't see the armed civilian populace as being necessary to protect against the government or the military, so where that's put forward as an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment then I'll ask the appropriate questions.

The military can't be everywhere and, without a commander-in-chief to coordinate efforts, it would be largely disabled in efficiency for quite some time. That would not be unlike terrorist blowing up the local police station and destroying central communications. The people would be on their own to defend their lives and property until order could be restored. (Which is another reason for the populace to be armed.)

As far as the Red Dawn scenario goes, again, fantasy. Unless the US is suddenly weakened by a catastrophic event or series of events, it will not be invaded by a foreign power. If it was then the US military, the most powerful the world has seen, would dispatch the invaders. There's no need for an armed populace to see off the invaders. Apart from the logistical problems in organising the insurrection the insurrectionists would be in big trouble trying to fight an invasion force that defeated the might of the US military. I reckon the invaders would have to be from Mars to succeed. So, another rationale for the armed citizenry is debunked.

Why don't people just accept that they can have firearms and leave it at that? Why construct fantastic arguments that are so easily debunked

Sufficient strength to repel and punish an invasion is the very best defense against one. When the bulk of our armed forces are engaged elsewhere we could be at our most vulnerable. Except that any invading force knows they would not have only the uniformed military to deal with.

Why don't you just accept that there are valid reasons for our Second Amendment and it, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, is one reason we are a super power that is not feared by anybody and who would be looked to for help with defense by just about everybody else in the free world.

Given how many truly improbable scenarios have happened throughout world history, to be prepared is a really good idea. You should be glad that we are a nation of Boy Scouts and know that there are good reasons for us to be that.

 

[jillian]

You really believe that stuff?

Again... the Constitution says that if you rise up against the government, you're guilty of treason.... so how do the gun-lovers put that together with what they CLAIM is the justification for having guns (as unlikely an explanation as that may be).

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sorry mate, but the very purpose of the 2nd IS to ensure we have a militia. Or can't you read?

The militia is for defense of community, State and or Country. And again, just for you, the Militia, the untrained or poorly trained civilian has been the backbone of every American Army in every war up till Korea.

The Militia is to protect against foreign and domestic threats. That includes the potential for a tyrannical Government.

Just because YOUR country doesn't do that, believe that or operate that way, does not somehow equate to our's being the same.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentii

So once again, Mate, OUR 2nd Amendment is directly related to a desire by the Government to ensure the people are armed to be able to form MILITIAS. Militias for the purpose of defense or to be called up in case of war.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You really believe that stuff?

Again... the Constitution says that if you rise up against the government, you're guilty of treason.... so how do the gun-lovers put that together with what they CLAIM is the justification for having guns (as unlikely an explanation as that may be).

You can not be serious. Wait, yes you can, you haven proven your ignorance on the purpose and intent of the Constitution repeatedly the entire time I have been on this board.

If one wins a revolution, one is no longer a traitor. If one loses then sure enough you can and most likely will be labeled one. Using YOUR logic since our forefathers rebelled they were and are traitors to this day. Making us all traitors for not reverting to British rule. Remind me why we can travel to England and not be arrested and tried for Treason?

If a Government becomes Tyrannical one has a duty to revolt. Peacefully if possible, violently if peace does not work. Our forefathers believed that and there are numerous quotes of them saying JUST that, including in reference to a potential US Government becoming Tyrannical.

 

[jillian]

Blah blah blah blah blah.... *yawn*

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Blah blah blah blah blah.... *yawn*

Haven't a leg to stand on, I know, it is embarrassing Jillian, but it is ok, we all expected nothing less from your total lack of knowledge of our Government and Constitution. I might add you seem to be lacking in knowledge of US history as well.

 

[jillian]

No...again...

I don't play with you. Aren't you smart enough to figure that out? Or do you want to keep up the bullying posts?

 

[Diuretic]

Foxfyre, it's sometimes difficult for me to make subtle points in the forums for a couple of reasons. One, it has to be said, is my own inability or lack of knowledge; another is the limitation of the medium, although being able to exchange ideas assymetrically across huge distances is great (I sometimes think there's a nice little research question for someone looking at the educational aspects of forums use - seriously, heck I might even do it myself!). Bearing those points in mind I'll do my best to address your points.

Firstly, the US as a nation of Boy Scouts. No. The US, like any other nation, has never hesitated to protect its foreign and domestic interests. And it has done so both surreptitiously and overtly and it has done so using diplomatic means and it has done so using force - both covert and overt. I'm not putting a moral slant on this observation, just stating what’s known. Let me make it clear that other nations, throughout history, have done exactly the same and most with far more brutality. The British have a benign reputation now but a look at their imperialist history will reveal some incredible bloodthirstiness. One action that comes to mind is the treatment of the mutineers in the Sepoy Mutiny where mutineers were strapped to the muzzles of cannons and the cannons fired. No-one has to look far for more examples. The US is a neo-colonial power, unlike the British Empire which seized countries for resources, the US has sought to protect and project its economic interests by assisting its corporations. A quick look at the recent history of Honduras makes my point. And while I can’t prove it I maintain that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was carried out to benefit oil companies. So, I don’t accept the view of the US as a benign power. That doesn’t accord with reality.

To your other points.

Your point about the origins of the 2nd Amendment, yes I understand them and given the state of the infant nation, it makes perfect sense. While I’m not well versed in the Federalist Papers I have read some and I am reading an analysis of them (periodically, it’s actually hard going for me) and I agree that the debates were intellectual (startlingly intellectual, they were well educated men) and intense. I think the current (here at least) debate over the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is an interesting example of the struggle between those who advocate a strict interpretation of the constitution and those who see it as being interpreted in a contemporary context. As an aside it’s also interesting because it outlines the limitations of a written constitution as opposed to a constitution that is composed of various sources, such as in Britain or here in my own country. Hah, that might provoke yet another thread, but that would be a good discussion too.

I’m not sure if Hitler followed Marx, I thought that he despised the communists. That’s not to say the younger Hitler may have perhaps dabbled but Nazi Germany definitely wasn’t run along Marxist lines. But I seem to remember that after Hitler came to power he disarmed German Jews, not Germans in toto, but I’ll be corrected on that of course. Lenin, not sure. All I remember is that the Bolshevik Revolution continued for quite some time. I don’t remember a wholesale seizure of firearms but again, corrections always welcome.

On revolution. The aim of revolution is to forcibly overthrow an existing regime and replace it with another. The nature of the replacement regime is irrelevant to the fact that revolution is the tool used for a rapid change of regime.

On the would-be fascists and Butler. I think they would have failed too. Interestingly enough in Britain in the 1930s Moseley, the British fascist, was having more success than the anti-Roosevelt conspirators, in the British aristocracy there was much sympathy for him.

On the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights. I really don’t have an argument with it. I’m only interested in the 2nd Amendment in terms of constitutional interpretation. I think the reasons for the status of the US as superpower are myriad. I think that status was gained post WWII when the sun actually did set on the British Empire. The journey of the US towards that status was enhanced by a wealth of natural resources available and a political and economic system that prized individual (and individual corporate) initiative. The cultural emphasis on freedom no doubt facilitated this.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No...again...

I don't play with you. Aren't you smart enough to figure that out? Or do you want to keep up the bullying posts?

You post I respond. Don't like it? Quit posting ignorant crap devoid of reality and fact. Your knowledge of our Government and the Constitution is so abysmal as to be frightening.

I notice you can't seem to tell me why Britain doesn't arrest us all for treason. Just like you can not explain why militias around the world do in fact work as intended.

And then there is your ignorant claim the 2nd has nothing to do with militias and protecting the country.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre, it's sometimes difficult for me to make subtle points in the forums for a couple of reasons. One, it has to be said, is my own inability or lack of knowledge; another is the limitation of the medium, although being able to exchange ideas assymetrically across huge distances is great (I sometimes think there's a nice little research question for someone looking at the educational aspects of forums use - seriously, heck I might even do it myself!). Bearing those points in mind I'll do my best to address your points.

Firstly, the US as a nation of Boy Scouts. No. The US, like any other nation, has never hesitated to protect its foreign and domestic interests. And it has done so both surreptitiously and overtly and it has done so using diplomatic means and it has done so using force - both covert and overt. I'm not putting a moral slant on this observation, just stating what’s known. Let me make it clear that other nations, throughout history, have done exactly the same and most with far more brutality. The British have a benign reputation now but a look at their imperialist history will reveal some incredible bloodthirstiness. One action that comes to mind is the treatment of the mutineers in the Sepoy Mutiny where mutineers were strapped to the muzzles of cannons and the cannons fired. No-one has to look far for more examples. The US is a neo-colonial power, unlike the British Empire which seized countries for resources, the US has sought to protect and project its economic interests by assisting its corporations. A quick look at the recent history of Honduras makes my point. And while I can’t prove it I maintain that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was carried out to benefit oil companies. So, I don’t accept the view of the US as a benign power. That doesn’t accord with reality.

To your other points.

Your point about the origins of the 2nd Amendment, yes I understand them and given the state of the infant nation, it makes perfect sense. While I’m not well versed in the Federalist Papers I have read some and I am reading an analysis of them (periodically, it’s actually hard going for me) and I agree that the debates were intellectual (startlingly intellectual, they were well educated men) and intense. I think the current (here at least) debate over the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is an interesting example of the struggle between those who advocate a strict interpretation of the constitution and those who see it as being interpreted in a contemporary context. As an aside it’s also interesting because it outlines the limitations of a written constitution as opposed to a constitution that is composed of various sources, such as in Britain or here in my own country. Hah, that might provoke yet another thread, but that would be a good discussion too.

I’m not sure if Hitler followed Marx, I thought that he despised the communists. That’s not to say the younger Hitler may have perhaps dabbled but Nazi Germany definitely wasn’t run along Marxist lines. But I seem to remember that after Hitler came to power he disarmed German Jews, not Germans in toto, but I’ll be corrected on that of course. Lenin, not sure. All I remember is that the Bolshevik Revolution continued for quite some time. I don’t remember a wholesale seizure of firearms but again, corrections always welcome.

On revolution. The aim of revolution is to forcibly overthrow an existing regime and replace it with another. The nature of the replacement regime is irrelevant to the fact that revolution is the tool used for a rapid change of regime.

On the would-be fascists and Butler. I think they would have failed too. Interestingly enough in Britain in the 1930s Moseley, the British fascist, was having more success than the anti-Roosevelt conspirators, in the British aristocracy there was much sympathy for him.

On the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights. I really don’t have an argument with it. I’m only interested in the 2nd Amendment in terms of constitutional interpretation. I think the reasons for the status of the US as superpower are myriad. I think that status was gained post WWII when the sun actually did set on the British Empire. The journey of the US towards that status was enhanced by a wealth of natural resources available and a political and economic system that prized individual (and individual corporate) initiative. The cultural emphasis on freedom no doubt facilitated this.

I understand well the nature of subtleties and the difficulty of using them in this medium. Without being able to see the other's arched eyebrow, knowing smile, body posture, or hear inflections in the voice, the best intended prose can be completely misunderstood by another. That's probably why I stay in hot water so much of the time on these forums because even knowing that, I tend to write as I would say it with advantage of the body language and voice inflections.

So......let's agree to be friends and to give each other the benefit of the doubt and at least a chance to clarify if one of us says something that sounds completely outrageous to another. (I'm not gonna guarantee that all my stuff will sound good no matter how much I try to clean it up though. )

The Boy Scout was a metaphor related to the idea of being prepared (the Boy Scout motto) for whatever a citizen militia or the military might have to face no matter how far fetched a threat might seem. (Of course a Boy Scout is also trustworthy, loyal, helpful, freindly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent, all of which we would like to think are virtues of our country however much we sometimes don't manage to obtain them.)

I agree with your definition of revolution. I just don't agree that the American revolution was anything similar to the Cuban revolution(s).

I think both Hitler and Lenin were definitely grandchildren of Karl Marx. Both admired Marx greatly. They took pure Marxism in different directions, however, with Hitler going the facist route and Lenin/Stalin the totalitarian communist route, both of which resulted in the deaths of millions upon millions of innocent people. If the US government should fall to a similar regime, that regime might eventually be able to bring in sufficient military force to subdue the people, but they would pay dearly for it here because in every hamlet they would be facing AK47s, M-16s, Colt 45s, high powered deer rifles, 10-guage shotguns, an occasional elephant gun as well as various kinds of explosives courtesy of miners, construction crews, fire departments, etc. and enough experience from retired military to use them to maximum advantage. If prudence called for temporary surrender, you can guarantee that most of such weaponsry would be well hidden until an effective uprising could be organized and executed.

I think oil was defnitely one of motive for invading Iraq. Saddam Hussein had already demontrated designs on taking his neighbor's oil fields, and the idea of a huge chunk of the world's oil reserves in the hands of somebody like him was not pleasant to contemplate. Oil after all is the fuel of democracy, prosperity, independence, and self defense for all of the free world and nobody should be afforded the power to withhold it for the purpose of bringing the free world to its knees.

I think part of the motive was in fact self defense both for U.S. interests and Israel's interests as virtually everybody thought Hussein had that WMD and would use it. And I think part of the motive was humanitarian because we knew how much the Iraqi people were suffering under 12 years of sanctions with a leader who didn't care whether they suffered or not.

I'm quite sure it didn't go as anticipated and our leaders would surely like to have a lot of do-overs now with hindsight. But I do not question the motives of our leaders for doing it.

 

[Diuretic]

This is where I usually stick my (metaphorical) foot right in it when I write, "that was a good read", because it sounds so patronising when it's not meant to be. So, good read <------ non-patronising version.

In the course of some work I'm doing I came across a site which has some interesting (I mightn't agree with it all but it's interesting) information. The author/owner isn't just a keyboard warrior. This was an interesting piece:

http://www.friesian.com/machiav.htm

The author is a libertarian so knowing that might help before reading. Anyway I found it very informative.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is where I usually stick my (metaphorical) foot right in it when I write, "that was a good read", because it sounds so patronising when it's not meant to be. So, good read <------ non-patronising version.

In the course of some work I'm doing I came across a site which has some interesting (I mightn't agree with it all but it's interesting) information. The author/owner isn't just a keyboard warrior. This was an interesting piece:

http://www.friesian.com/machiav.htm

The author is a libertarian so knowing that might help before reading. Anyway I found it very informative.

No. It was not intended to be patronizing. Sigh.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ya know Diuretic I am still waiting to see you take Jillian to task. Well actually I am not, I am aware you have no intention of doing anything remotely like that.

Now let's wait for the " what? I never saw it." excuse.

 

[Diuretic]

No. It was not intended to be patronizing. Sigh.

Sorry Foxfyre, miscommunication - I was referring to my remarks, not your post. I can sometimes seem patronising when I don't meant to be and I appreciated reading your post.

 

[Diuretic]

Ya know Diuretic I am still waiting to see you take Jillian to task. Well actually I am not, I am aware you have no intention of doing anything remotely like that.

Now let's wait for the " what? I never saw it." excuse.

Mindreader?

So, what's the problem? What has jillian posted that will cause me to leap up and down (metaphorically)? Hey I was hanging in there like Sgt Rock for a while there, keeping up with my own posts and responses was keeping me occupied.

Tell me though, how DO you manage to get that sneering tone in your posts? It's a good trick.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Mindreader?

So, what's the problem? What has jillian posted that will cause me to leap up and down (metaphorically)? Hey I was hanging in there like Sgt Rock for a while there, keeping up with my own posts and responses was keeping me occupied.

Tell me though, how DO you manage to get that sneering tone in your posts? It's a good trick.

Yup deflect, just as I supposed you would. Your not worth the effort to once again point out your hypocrisy. Go back and read it yourself. But do us all the favor of not pretending you actually DO take to task others of your ilk.

Now play the wounded wrongly and whine about not being given a chance. Wax poetic about how I have denied you the information to prove me wrong.

 

[Diuretic]

Yup deflect, just as I supposed you would. Your not worth the effort to once again point out your hypocrisy. Go back and read it yourself. But do us all the favor of not pretending you actually DO take to task others of your ilk.

Now play the wounded wrongly and whine about not being given a chance. Wax poetic about how I have denied you the information to prove me wrong.

To be blunt, I don't give a rat's