Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Arachno-capitalist]

I thought the second amendment was quite clear.

Also, of all the crap-flinging between the two candidates, I can honestly say the most disturbing insight, for me, into mccain is his second amendment position on his webpage. It really looks like an "anything goes" kind of policy.http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/77636553-6337-4ecd-b170-49e1c07d2fbd.htm Not that I completely agree with Obama's position either.

[wombat]

OK

Nooo!

[Ben-San]

Oddly enough, it appears this exact topic is examined on Wikipedia, to which I'll refer you rather than summarizing other than to point out the ratifying sessions of the Constitution in the various states (and for the constitutions of the various states) were recorded for posterity, and the debates on the Second Amendment in particular are there for anyone to read. 

Out of that entire article, only the Sayoko Blodgett-Ford citation even begins to address the issue I'm raising, which is that "arms" in this case is not a weapon but a term derived from heraldry referring to insignia. Since there is only one line of Blodgett-Ford citation there, and it leads to a reference to documents to which I do not have access, I am afraid I cannot address it fairly. In all other cases, "bear arms" is used in a context which makes perfect sense, in some cases more sense, if used in the sense of "carry insignia/organize as an army". (And let me note, at risk of being accused of LFMery, whatever that might be, that Sayoko Blodgett-Ford is the kind of name that makes me feel like I'm living in the future.)

The article notes that there was a longstanding English right to own a gun, which I do not disagree with. I do not believe that the founding fathers would have wanted guns to be banned in the United States, I am simply noting that this is not the right they wrote into the US constitution (although one can make a case that it is impossible to effectively bear arms as a well-regulated militia without guns, thereby making it an implicitly defended right). The right they put into the constitution is another essential right to avoid the abuse of power. As the secular government's power derives from its access to military force, the freedom of the people is endangered if the military becomes a separate entity from the people. The Second Amendment guarantees (or would if the government bothered to implement it) the right of the people to participate in the defense of their homeland rather than have all military decisions and acts carried out by an organization solely and blindly loyal to those in power.

[AugustWest]

OK

I hereby retract my recommendation.  Kindly cease all efforts at obtaining a life and return to the board.


One of us... One of us....

[miles]

Only if the police and army also have muskets. You can't have much of a revolution when the man has vastly superior arms compared to the people.

Which reminds me, I have a question. For those who oppose gun control, where is the line drawn? I mean, Ben-San's interesting and enlightening argument aside, "bear arms" seems today to mean to own handguns and rifles. So, if the right is inviolable, why draw reasonable lines at all? Shouldn't people be able to arm themselves, cost permitting, with nuclear weapons?

[lprkn]

Well, if the gubmint's got'em, I need'em too! You know, in case they try to make my 7 year old get an abortion...or something.

I guess one of the main fears the fringe gun-types have is that they won't be able to protect themselves against a hostile government, and I get that. But, seriously, people just aren't realistic if they think that they could actually mount a viable revolution against a hostile government with the kind of muscle ours has. You can point to Iraq, but it helps that they have unexploded military grade ordnance basically everywhere. Bubba and his .30-06 may take out a couple of the guys jumping out of the black helicopters, but he won't really last that long. In the end, it's the amendments on the rest of the Bill of Rights that will protect you from government. Having a gun is just a nice fringe benefit, that (in my opinion) is Constitutionally protected.

You can have my fissile materials when you pry them from my glowing, irradiated fingers.

[Ben-San]

I believe the most sensible concern I've heard expressed is the concern that the present American government breaks down in one form or another, leaving America open to local military or paramilitary rule as well as foreign incursion. In such a situation, obviously having guns will help your voice be heard, but I don't think it's a sound argument for total deregulation as some people seem to think it is.

Incidentally, assuming such laws could be sufficiently enforced, my personal taste runs to making felonious the presence of guns in urban areas. I'm fine with hunters, I'm fine with defending yourself against coyotes and bears, but there is only one animal in the modern city which can be pragmatically hunted or deterred with a gun.

[Doc]

there is only one animal in the modern city which can be pragmatically hunted or deterred with a gun.

This is similar to why I'm against hand guns and similar weapons, basically if something is only good for killing people and we are still as a society against killing people, let's not have that thing. Yeah I know 'only the criminals will have guns' but come on, if they're hard to get then they're not going to be in the hands of the crackheads breaking into your place to steal your tv.
As far as being able to stand up to the government I really doubt that's a practical reality and frankly there are a lot of other options to prevent that outcome so you don't need to just stockpile weapons and wait for it to happen. Whether it's the rapture or the rise of a totalitarian government or the complete failure of fiat currency (wait a sec..) some days it seems like you folks in the US of A are always just waiting for the world to end.

[theinevitable]

I mean, i think it is because we are a country which was founded after a violent revolution.

also, it is pretty realistic to assume that a government will eventually fail in some spectacular way. especially one as big, spread out, and world-power-y as ours.

[Ben-San]

I mean, i think it is because we are a country which was founded after a violent revolution.

Pretty much all of them are. It's just a question of how long ago.

[jaydub]

Yeah I know 'only the criminals will have guns' but come on, if they're hard to get then they're not going to be in the hands of the crackheads breaking into your place to steal your tv.

Washington D.C. had the most confiscatory gun laws possible, yet plenty of people still got murdered by criminals using guns.  The argument would be that if we somehow swept up all the guns, and made it illegal for anyone to have them (such as in European countries) that then the criminals couldn't get them (although, oddly, we've done the same with fireworks in most States and they still flood in through smuggling from Mexico).  Basically, it comes down to a balance of power - if you create a gradient of power people will work, legally or illegally, to put themselves at the top of that gradient.  With guns, in my opinion, having everyone well educated on their use, sufficiently responsible to possess them, and free to either have them or not, minimizes the gradient that could exist.  There is some deterrence to initiation of crime if a thug knows he could face an armed homeowner by breaking in.  There is a measure of security that comes from knowing you have the means & legal clearance to deal with someone breaking into your house.  And, fundamentally, there is a relationship between the people and the government that the government exists at the will of the people, not that the people exist to serve the government.  Guns are symbolic of that power - if gun possession is the domain only of those in government, the relationship shifts towards the people being servants.

[lprkn]

Nice discussion people. I like hearing these viewpoints because they balance out the other ones I get at places where I can actually talk about hunting, woodcraft, reloading and general handgun and riflery. There's hella schism amongst those viewpoints, enough to warrant close looks.

Ben-San, if your feelings got hurt because I kicked you I hope you've moved on. Comparing me to a magical black man always give me warm fuzzies, so you and I got that going for us, regardless.

Dude, talk away. I like these things. I am a member of Uncle Sam's gun club, after all.

[Arachno-capitalist]

Washington D.C. had the most confiscatory gun laws possible, yet plenty of people still got murdered by criminals using guns.  

New York City is the same way. There is basically a express road from Virginia to New York City made for guns and straw purchases. I can buy a boat load of guns here that would immediately triple in value once I get to NYC. ( I should call my partners about this idea here...)

[Ben-San]

Nice discussion people. I like hearing these viewpoints because they balance out the other ones I get at places where I can actually talk about hunting, woodcraft, reloading and general handgun and riflery. There's hella schism amongst those viewpoints, enough to warrant close looks.

Ben-San, if your feelings got hurt because I kicked you I hope you've moved on. Comparing me to a magical black man always give me warm fuzzies, so you and I got that going for us, regardless.

Dan, go fuck yourself.

Sincerely, Ben.

[Ben-San]

Sorry to make you reduce your intellect like that there, bubby.

You want to keep the red-ass have fun with it.

Okay, let me spell this out for you in terms you might be capable of comprehending.

You did the discursive equivalent of saying "Hey! I caught your mom last night fuck*ng a goat," flipping the middle finger straight up in the middle of my face, kicking my shin and walking away laughing.

I called you on it.

You said "No, you don't understand! I'm MORGAN fuck*ng FREEMAN, I'm _allowed_ to do that. Because, see, it makes you a better person. You put a citation in your next post, see? God, I am such a _genius_ for figuring out to be an asshole to a guy on the Internet."

I decided, maybe you didn't know what a colossal douchebag you were being since we come from different circumstances. So I explained, in detail, what you had done to offend me.

You said "Awesome, I'm Morgan Freeman!"

I figure at this point any level of discourse above "go fuck yourself" is pretty clearly wasted on you.