Slashdot Mirror
FISA Court Sides With ACLU Against Administration
jamie caught a breaking news story this evening: the secret FISA Court has ordered the Bush administration to respond by August 31 to an ACLU request for orders and legal papers discussing the scope of the government's authority to engage in the secret wiretapping of Americans. The ACLU's press release calls it an "unprecedented order."
Well, you could join the ACLU and the NRA -- the latter will handle your 2nd Amendment rights, and the former will handle the rest.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Also, and something that's not been adequately explained to me, but where is the line? M-16s OK? What about RPGs? AA Missiles? Nukes? There's either a line that most people can get behind, and shut your griping, or it's all in or all out. Make up your minds.
It's an interesting question. The Miller standard of juriprudence, resulting from the last time the Supreme Court considered the Second Amendment, restricted individuals from owning sawed-off shotguns. Their rationale was that such weapons would not be applicable in a militia-like setting, and thus weren't covered by the Second Amendment. That has the effect of answering the usual "b...b...but what about nukes?" objection, but it doesn't explain why anyone is allowed to own any type of non-military weapon such as a common shotgun.
It's a stupid-ass Amendment written by drooling illiterates, as far as you can tell by reading it. It ought to be rewritten to explicitly endorse a right to self-defense of an individual's life and property with weapons suited for use by individuals.
The ACLU's position, on the other hand, is that it was really meant to apply to the government anyway... which is both historically-ignorant and just plain nuts.
Pretty much agreed.
The wording could be better. I prefer a blanket "right of defense" in the bill of rights rather than the right to bear arms. Of course, the 9th amendment protects the right of defense, but most politicians rely on the Robert Bork theory of the 9th amendment.
Personally I believe the second amendment is what allows the citizens to overthrow the government should it become a tyranny, but the ACLU's position is along the same line as the Supreme Court's, and it is certainly a reasonable position.
True, I could join both organizations, but it just feels like I'm paying to bet on both sides in a dog fight. In the past, the NRA has endorsed socially-conservative positions that annoy me as much as the hyper-liberal Katrina "tribunal" lameness.
We are not the EU. We're still a sovereign nation and we'll handle our internal shit ourselves.
Exactly, except that in your example, the KKK would be pro-gun control organization. (Look up the history of gun control and you'll see what I mean. It was intended to keep weapons out of the hands of former slaves.)
Maybe I'm ignorant, but I don't recall the ACLU acting against the 2nd Amendment, nor do I recall the NRA acting against the other Amendments (unspecified "socially-conservative positions" notwithstanding). Therefore, I don't see the problem with supporting both.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
You mean: "but it doesn't explain why anyone is **constitutionally guaranteed the right** to own any type of non-military weapon such as a common shotgun."
The constitution doesn't often take away rights; if there isn't a law on the books disallowing shotguns, a strict interpretation of the constitution under Miller would *disallow* shotguns, it would just *allow* states/congress to disallow shotguns.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
There's nothing vague about it, when interpreted in the context and era in which it was written. A hint: "well-regulated" had nothing to do with government regulations.
The only hole in that argument that I can think of is that it requires believing the US military would USE those sorts of weapons against American citizens on American soil. Since the US military has in the past flat out REFUSED to be deployed on US soil, I have a hard time believing they'd use those sorts of weapons, restricting the discussion to personal weapons anyway.
Given the events of the past 5 years or so though, this argument seems far less convincing... all the Fed need do is accuse a whole state of being 'terrorists' or whatever and a part of me can believe they'd allow that to justify almost any atrocity against Americans..
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
They're wrong. The Second Amendment is about defending ourselves from our own government, they're dead-on about that. I disagree that it is solely about States being the only entities in need of protection from an errant central government. The reality is, we individual citizens might just as well find ourselves in conflict with our State governments. What makes them so especially trustworthy, compared to the Federal Government? That's a fiction in itself. The Founders wanted us, the Citizens of these United States, to be something more than sheep.
We like to think our governments (any of them) will never need replacing, and that we'll never need violent defense from them, but history is against us on that score. This article outlines how a proper defensive posture made by a well-armed civilian population can deter violence and save lives. That's something else that was very clearly understood by the people who fought the War for Independence, and eventually created our system of government.
This dangerous idea that individual citizens (who, are a collective in their own right, regardless of any State's desire to formally organize them into some Militia) have no legitimate use for deadly force is disingenuous at best. That's not even counting the value of firearms when it comes to defending ourselves from each other! No, the Second Amendment is in need of no polish or other adjustments. It serves the purpose for which it was intended very well, and truly our need of it is greater now than at any point in our history. Our government is rapidly extending its powers without much regard for the checks and balances the Founders put in place for us, and at some point, it may go too far. If we allow ourselves to be made defenseless by believing that it can't happen here, we may well come to regret our complacency.
Very little of the Founding Father's wisdom is as anachronistic as people think (we believe we are somehow fundamentally superior to our forebears but we're not) and if you look at many of the failings of our culture and legal system today, it is usually because we decided to ignore that wisdom.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I can see you've never been to my old neighborhood. Mortars & heavy artillery are necessities for defense against the roach infestation...
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Have you considered DDT? I hear it's highly effective, if you can find it.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
People should have any weapon they can afford. The weapons aren't there to keep Joe Criminal out of my house, they're there to keep The Man out of my house.
People should be allowed to buy nukes. If the law was open like that, I don't think there'd be nukes. What's the point of inventing something like that if I could win the Lotto and drunkenly nuke Texas? The Germans were developing nukes but the US would've been forced to step in and STOP the development, not encourage it.
If American people had heavy arms, the government would be forced to be a bit nicer. No point in the ATF firebombing the Branch Davidians, if those kooks could've responded with heavy weaponry.
At this point though, it's too late. Soylent green is people.
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
We didn't have a "nuclear ordnance race" during the cold war and the 2nd amendment doesn't restrict anything to "personal" (or "defense" for that matter).
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Who defines 'weapons suited for use by individuals'?
Leave the definitition to the government, we'll all be packin Nerf guns.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
It's also highly against the law.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Actually, US v. Miller said the Court had been presented no evidence that a short-barrel shotgun was useful to a militia, so they couldn't rule that it was. If that sounds like a cop-out, it was. But, no one showed up to argue for the defendant, so the government was free to present their case without opposition.
I recently read a very interesting article that explains a great deal about the back story surrounding the decision: the defendants, the district judge, the public defender, and the Supreme Court justice that authored the ruling.
The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller
The author's conclusion: the entire episode was a set-up to 'validate' the National Firearms Act of 1934 with a precedent. But the ruling was not exactly a shining example of clear writing, leaving us to scratch our heads over its effect on subsequent gun control legislation.
It's a stupid-ass Amendment written by drooling illiterates, as far as you can tell by reading it.
It was written and re-written by the House and the Senate at the time, starting with proposals by James Madison that he derived from the constitutions of the states in the US at the time. More interesting, the Senate specifically rejected a proposal to add the clause "for the common defense" (which was in a few state constitutions at the time). If original intent counts for anything, this would conclusively reject the notion of a collective right:
The Second Amendment and the Historiography of the Bill of Rights
But, they were hardly illiterate. They just had a different perspective that you have today. One of the key words even had a different meaning that you associate with it today: "regulated" meant "properly functioning", rather than "constrained by government laws".
You just gotta love the spin...
i on.billofrights.html#amendmentii
Let's look at what the 2nd amendment does say...
"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/constitut
Militias are a thing of the past. The closest thing we have today is the National Guard and they aren't allowed to take their weapons home now are they? The whole idea behind the 2nd Amendment is to protect the State in case of invasion or other insurrection. It has nothing what-so-ever to do with protecting home, property, or any other personal use.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
One other point; it is very unfortunate that many people do not understand the English language as well as you do. My understanding is good, but even I have had a difficult time understanding the structure of the amendment. Thank you for clearing that up for me.
You obviously don't know Captain Splendid... :D
(Just kidding, Captain!)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Until you have to defend yourself against an aggressive government. I'm a nutjob when it comes to this, but I believe that you should be able to own any weapon, including nuclear/chemical/biological weapons.
The people you'll have to defend yourself against will have them (Your government) so why not give them a reason to NOT use them by having your own?
This is probably what keeps me from getting people to listen to FreeTalkLive...
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Since the US military has in the past flat out REFUSED to be deployed on US soil, I have a hard time believing they'd use those sorts of weapons, restricting the discussion to personal weapons anyway.
Military decisions set no binding precedents.
Your assumption that a "well regulated militia" means an armed force under the control of the current government rather than an armed force dedicated to maintaining a free state is a poor one.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Some good points there. I do, however, stand by my accusation of illiteracy, because the framers could have saved us all so much trouble if they'd just killed a couple of blatantly-unnecessary commas. :)
Obviously. What in the world made you think I was claiming such a thing? I'm just saying the military is loath to use its power against Americans.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
Congratulations, you've gotten the Constitution and common sense so wrong that you've broken the country and helped kill millions of people.
Millions of people? I don't think so, friend. A well-armed populace isn't enough to accomplish such a feat. History demonstrates that you need a well-armed government for that.
(Oh, and if I manage to buy, build, or otherwise acquire my own personal nuclear arsenal, it'll be amusing to see you try to take it away under force of law, legitimately or otherwise.)
Selective reading, Doc. I said that if all the weapons were available for anyone who could afford them, then weapons like nukes wouldn't have been made.
My belief on the 2nd Amendment is that it's there to keep the gub'mint in place. That obviously didn't work so no use crying over spilt milk. It's supposed to be a deterrent to the government going crazy, not an excuse. It'd be a much better world without weapons.
In my dream world we all get along. My fetish isn't guns, it's Terri Garr in latex. Thanks for asking.
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
Yeah.. I know. Thus the last part of my post. I'm aware that much of what we once held.. dear? is no longer true.
That's very upsetting.
For a long time I made the same mistake that most Americans make: believing that "it can't happen here." I no longer have any certainty of that.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
By "well regulated" they mean well trained and competent.
The leading cause of death in the 20th century was government (WWI, WWII, the Ukraine & Stalin, China and the cultural purges, etc. etc. etc.)
Looks like this century will be no different.
(When I was playing NationStates, the government of my nation of Altair was explicitly banned by its constitution from possessing firearms, but the citizens were allowed to have backyard tactical nukes if they could afford them, and by the rules Altair had one of the most prosperous economies in the game).
Intelligent and well educated citizens ought to be able to possess weapons up to (and beyond) tactical nuclear weapons. History has proven that they'll make better decisions about using them than governments have been.
If you wish to mod me down, please adopt an Iraqi orphan from the US invasion of Iraq. Thanks.
The right isn't actually very vague at all, if you understand how to read and interpret sentence structure the way it was used at the time in those sorts of documents. If you do it becomes clear that it is both a singular and collective right, not one or the other.
As RAH said, "an armed society is a polite society" and that sounds OK with me and I certainly wouldn't have a problem with a neighbor having a rocket launcher in his back yard, but I wouldn't screw around with his wife behind his back either.
"Much as I like the second amendment, some people are going to have to learn that the right to bear arms is a little vague, and could do with a little polish after 200 years of wear and tear." I agree. Back then it took 20-30 seconds to fire a rifle and reload (no knowledge on pistols). Now 5 seconds per shot is reasonable if you are using a modern gun that does not have the word "automatic" in its title.
Are you fucking kidding me? That has NOTHING, let me repeat NOTHING, to do with what we are talking about. How does this get modded up?
The best explanation I've seen was in "The Constitution, a Biography", where the concept of the militia is explained as a duty equivalent to the duty of Jury Duty. Historically it fits pretty well.
Also the most frustrating since no militia has been enjoined in that fashion since pretty much immediately after the war itself. As written in the 2nd amendment, a militia is pretty much anachronistic, and we don't have *any* equivalent to it today.
Seems to me we can blame Washington. No - not that one, George Washington, who lost his taste for the militia about the time some people decided they didn't like the laws written by that duly elected congress and thought they should rebel against it.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
I didn't use to like MAD, but now I do. It's really scary that nearly all of the US Presidential candidates are willing to use nukes in a preemptive strike. That's wrong.
"Hey Fred! Have you seen you seen my new XS3402 Tactical Nuclear Missile launcher? Bring a six pack over and I'll show it to you."
>>"Also, and something that's not been adequately explained to me, but where is the line? M-16s OK? What about RPGs? AA Missiles? >>Nukes? There's either a line that most people can get behind, and shut your griping, or it's all in or all out. Make up your >>minds."
:)
An interesting point. I think we can agree that everyone is safest when we can all kill each other equally. This applies to the armed robber in the neighborhood of the guy with the shotgun by his bed as well as two countries who have nukes. Peace through assured mutual destruction. Now THAT'S what the founding fathers had in mind!....kind of. Of course this idea presupposes an interest in self preservation. That could prove unfortunate...especially in the case of the nuke owned by the private citizen.
Oh well, the sun's gonna die in 6 billion years anyway! -hey that's a good idea for a signatre
It's actually exceptionally simple. To Bear means to carry, so any weapon one person can carry can never be made illegal to own or carry. In modern armaments, this means weapons such as the AK-47, the M-16, BAR, Thompson SMG, Uzi, M-249 SAW, M-203 grenade launcher, LAW rocket, etc. If the average infrantry soldier would carry it, then it's useful to the militia. End of story. Otherwise, the well regulated militia is pretty well screwed. At least that's what the court rulings seem to say for the most part, although they usually seem to find some "narrow exception" to the rule depending on what the defendant is accused of posessing....
I feel like death on a soda cracker.
Most insightful! Thanks.
I'd just like to point out the gun ownership is compulsory in Switzerland (as all adults males are automatically part of the national guard). They don't have our crime rates, to be sure. Violent crime has far less to do with gun ownership than with poor education and widespread poverty.
I'd also like to point out that one of the jobs of the militia is to protect the citizens from all threats, foreign and domestic. The government is potentially one of those domestic threats. It hasn't got so bad yet, and of course armed rebellion is always the last choice... but if you take that choice away, when you need it, you're screwed.
One definition the American Heritage Dictionary gives for militia is as follows:
...
militia
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=militia
Looking at that definition and the 2nd amendment my feeling is the Founding Fathers were in favor of my right to own a gun. Granted I am not a lawyer or even much of a historian but given their tendency of leaning towards more freedom rather than less, and the fact that they knew better than anyone on Slashdot that an unjust government sometimes has to be forcibly overthrown, it seems that they were in favor of citizens being able to legally own guns.
I will agree with you that they most likely were not concerned about protecting home or property, but more so with protecting liberty.
Don't worry, the gub'mint will protect you from criminals. And if you try to do so yourself, you go to jail.
I'm SURE that's what the founding fathers intended.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
See http://merit.jink.org/. Sigh.
I have been trolled, hope I have a nice day.
Much as I like the second amendment, some people are going to have to learn that the right to bear arms is a little fucking vague, and could do with a little polish after 200 years of wear and tear.
Vague? I thought it was pretty self-explanatory: 'The people' need as much firepower as would be necessary to ward off an army sent by the federal government. The founders differed on the specifics, but they all agreed on that.
John Adams said it should be a militia run by the STATES.
Somewhere back in the early 1900's, someone decided that 'militia' meant 'National Guard'. At the time, this seemed alright, because the Nat'l guards were run by the states. Ike Eisenhower, however, decided that the notion of states having rights was just too scary for the ever-expanding federal government to deal with, so the feds took control. Now, we have much of our supposed 'well regulated militia' in Iraq.
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.
A lot of people think that guns are for hunting. The NRA actually gives a negative rating to candidates who are 'too pro gun' (look at Ron Paul's rating). If guns were only for sport, I'd say it'd be woefully irresponsible for them to be legal.
Guns are not for sport, however, they're first and foremost for killing other human beings when they are screwing around. Since people continue to screw around, it should be apparently obvious that guns are still necessary. Does anyone actually think they're going to give us our rights back willingly?
Latewire
I think MM was saying that "the military *WAS* loath to use its power against Americans."
"Past performance is no guarantee of future results" and all.
And freedom of the press does not apply to the internet because you are not printing anything. Be very careful nitpicking the bill of rights with bad semantic arguments.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."
Militias are a thing of the past.
So is a free state.
captcha: obituary
Well a few things:
First, if the second amendment is in need of fixing, then that's what needs to be done as in the Constitution needs to be amended. I actually think part of our problems with the trampling on the other amendments starts there. Many people who are staunch defenders of other amendments are willing to look the other way or even endorse when someone skirts around the law and steps on the second. Well, is the Constitution the supreme law of the land, to which all others must conform, or isn't it? Can't have it both ways. Thus if fixing is what it needs then that needs to be the focus. We've amended the Constitution 16 times since it became a major force (the first 10 happened quickly after it), including an amendment that canceled an earlier one, we can do it again.
Second, the line was pretty clear, at least back when it was written and widely applied: An armament was a personal weapon such that the military might use. So in those days that'd be a musket. However it wouldn't be a field piece (colonial artillery). So today it would be things like M-16s, but not tanks and such. As another poster pointed out, there's a difference between arms and ordinance.
That's why the ACLU's position is rather inconsistent. They claim to be, and generally are, what you'd call "strict Constitutionalists" meaning that they hold the Constitution above all other law and think that it needs to be enforced. They are the kind of people who will look at an elected representative proposing a hate speech bill and say "What part of 'Shall make no law' can't you understand?" However when it comes to gun laws they just kinda stare at their feet and avoid the question. That's rather inconsistent. It's ok to circumvent the second amendment using TAX law (which is how it has been done many times in the past) but don't you dare touch the rest? How does that figure? I mean I can give a convincing argument for allowing violations, or even getting rid of, ANY amendment. That doesn't mean that's a road we want to walk down.
So that's why some of us have such a problem with it. Especially since they use some fallacious logic. The "collective right" or "national guard" thing is often tried, but not only does that misinterpret the language of the Constitution is clearly misinterprets the intent (one has only to read other writings by the people who wrote and signed the Constitution to see that). The national guard argument is clearly a false one, given that they are part of the Army (as evidence by their service in Iraq). Well fallacious reasoning like that is precisely how one can arrive at other shit like having "enemy combatants" that don't get the protection of any court. Most abuses don't start out as something blatantly against the law, it is a twisting and misinterpretation of existing law. "Well the Geneva Convention only protects enemy soldiers in uniform and they aren't US citizens on US soil so..." and so on. It's clearly not what was intended, but you can twist words to try and justify it.
Thus it is a problem in the ACLU's position. I could see them saying "Look we 100% support the second amendment and the efforts of people like the NRA to fight infringements of it, however because they devote their resources to it we are going to leave it alone for the most part." Instead they take a weasel path and try to pass it off as something that doesn't apply to individuals (which is rather odd given that the other amendments are directly targeted at individual rights). It more or less seems to many that they are in fact against it, but just unwilling to state it.
Thus some have a real problem supporting the ACLU. They see them as only for certain freedoms, which isn't consistent with their mission.
Switzerland also makes military membership and training mandatory. If every American were required to spend 1-2 years before age 25 in a military service (or other national service, but all including weapons training), we might find out whether we can handle guns. As it is, we should at least require people who hold gun licenses to demonstrate proficiency before letting them think they can just shoot wildly when they get excited enough to pull a trigger.
If you think an armed rebellion would stand up for more than a week against government forces, you don't know anything about what happened to all the various armed rebellion groups in the 1960s-80s that the government utterly destroyed. And you don't understand what power Bush now has with his unrestricted domestic spying operations.
--
make install -not war
1. The justice department published a document that very clearly describes how the 2nd ammendment is an individual right.
2. You are (intentionally or not) misreading the statement. "A tasty pizza, being necessary to make me happy, the right of the people to keep and bear sardines shall not be infringed". That doesn't mean that sardines are only usable on a pizza. It means that a tasty pizza is important, and that it keeps me happy.
3. In the Parker case, recently heard in the DC federal appeals court, it was decided that the 2nd is an individual right.
4. Militias are alive and well, as state defence forces (www.sgaus.org).
5. The NG is not a militia. The law that creates the NG specifically states that the NG is not a militia.
6. Most states have law that indicates that there is organized and unorganized militia. Federal law indicates that there is organized and unorganized militia. It's still on the books, and it's still valid.
7. If you don't like it, try and change it. But first, educate yourself on it.
Ah, but the Second Amendment to the US Constitution:
The interesting point being the "well regulated militia". While I realize that militia in the 18th century included mostly firearms, people and horses, artillery was used frequently and effectively. So the founding fathers wanted the states to be able to defend themselves (basically against the nascent federal government) using all available weapons and tactics but put the "well regulated" phrase in to separate themselves from an unruly armed mob.
To me (and others) it means the National Guard. And we should give those folks everything short of nukes.....
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
You, as an individual, do not constitute a State. Even a group of individuals do not constitute a State. Only a majority can constitute a State and only with the approval of the people in that State. They do this by electing a representative government and allowing those representatives the power to enforce the will of the people. Since the only recognized State is the government, my "assumption" is a fact. Sorry you don't like reality. Even if you were able to get the State of Jan-Wren Ryel recognized, it would then be a constituted government. In short, no matter how you look at it, government == State.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
They saw no need to differentiate arms that were from those that were not useful to these tasks, since there weren't really any that weren't suitable at the time.
Nukes and biological weapons are suitable for offensive wars and MADD only with a possible exception for tactical nukes. (oh, and they are also good for terrorism, genocide and other crimes!) and chemical weapons have limited use in defense. OTOH tanks, fighter jets, machine guns, grenades, artillery, etc. are useful and should be permitted under the second amendment.
That said, since the second amendment has not been updated to reflect this, nukes should be legal until the second amendment is updated - the law is the law. And it should be updated, not ignored. Anyone who has ever really studied the history knows that the 'collective rights' theory of the second amendment is a recent invention. (yes, I studied it for a paper in school, and yes the ACLU is wrong on this.)
T
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
Yup, well regulated, as in a well regulated watch.
I read this as "Because the security if a free state is so important, and because we need to make sure folks can be assembled to protect it (from any threat, internal or external), we need to make sure that folks are familiar with how to use guns".
Inherent in that it is not saying "In orer to protect the current state of government", it explicitly says "free state", and combined with the other writings of the founders, it explicitly provides for self protection against the government, as well as anything else that could destabilize a free government (roving gangs of thugs enforcing their own laws, criminals, etc)
I don't have the reference handy, but the original proposal written by Madison that became the second amendment clears up most of the misunderstanding. He used 'nation' not state. And it is perfectly clear that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." is the part that is the law. The rest just gives the reason for it. Oh, and 'militia' just means 'all the people'. The national guard is what would at the time been called a select militia, with no real distinction from a regular army. Not what they had in mind as the militia.
T
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
I.e. Americans need not apply. Surely you will agree that people who continuously elect those governments you consider so incapable of handling weapons can not be considered "intelligent and well educated", right?
We're all born with nothing.
If you die in debt, you're ahead.
We need a better protection of our limited natural entitlement gun ownership that recognizes that it's more of a privilege, like a driver's license, than any kind of natural exercise of the human powers with which we are created.
Fine. I actually don't disagree with that basic premise, which is that too many guns are in the hands of unqualified people. Explicitly restricting ownership of weapons to people who can demonstrate that they are qualified to wield them really doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
The thing is, though, if you went back to 1790 with that argument, you'd be laughed out of town. The people who started this country were nothing like you, for better or worse. They would never have dreamed of questioning the self-defense rights borne by a citizen of a free state... and while my opinions on the subject are much closer to theirs than yours are, I doubt I'd have much more luck at getting a qualification clause added to the Second Amendment.
And, of course, the devil's in the details. I think I pointed out in another post that the KKK is really America's original gun-control advocacy group. If "qualified" ever comes to mean "not having a skin color, sexual orientation, or political opinion that I don't like," then the idea won't sound so great, will it?
At the end of the day, traditional ("paleo-liberal") gun-control legislation really does run counter to the intentions that were widely expressed by the authors of the Constitution. True, they mangled the phrasing of the Second Amendment almost beyond recognition, but we don't really have to look very far to understand what they meant.
If you want the Second Amendment changed so that it reflects your views, I'd encourage you to study the legal process for doing so, and to participate in that process. Given your other posts on the subject, I doubt I'd agree with the language you'd prefer to replace the current version of the Second Amendment with, but at least we could debate it on its merits at that point. You could finally stop trying to justify legislative and judicial end runs around the plainly-understood spirit of the Constitution.
Basically, it comes down to this. Either respect the document and the process that maintains it, or admit that you don't, and maybe find someplace better suited to your personal ideology.
Because even with all of these admirably-phallic guns the rest of us are supposedly toting, we won't shoot you for trying to leave.
We need a better protection of our limited natural entitlement gun ownership that recognizes that it's more of a privilege, like a driver's license, than any kind of natural exercise of the human powers with which we are created.
I'm going to address the second part of your statement first. The right to self-defense is in itself a natural human right, and quite possibly the most important one. Without the right to self-determination (freedom to protect yourself from coercion), how can one have the right to Life, Liberty, or the Pursuit of Happiness? If self-defense is a natural right, then so must be the right to bear arms - sometimes a gun is simply the only tool that will get the job done. Don't believe me? Just ask the police, or the military.
I recognize that the police and military do exist (in theory) to protect the citizenry; however, that doesn't address the issue that they have no obligation to the individual, nor that there are times where they simply cannot arrive in time. Furthermore, it is often the police and the military one most needs protection from. As a personal example, I have had a police offer pull out a knife, and threaten to shoot me unless I consented to an illegal search. He indicated that all he had to do was say I pulled the knife on him (he called it his "throwdown knife"), and he wouldn't face reprisal. Had several other police officers not arrived at that time, I would have consented. Ultimately, rights matter little when one is dead.
A gun in my hand wouldn't have helped much in my particular circumstance. On the other hand, an armed populace provides an obstacle to tyranny, and a deterrent to unjust rule through force. Having seen some of the weapons possessed by my fellow citizens in Wyoming, I can't help but feel sorry for any force stupid enough to try to conquer by force.
As for the line about gun ownership being a privilege, rather than a right - the point of the right to bear arms is to protect ourselves as citizens (by definition, the well-regulated militia) against the military (the well-regulated army). The very nature of licensing requires oversight, and ultimately enforcement, being done by the government. Do you not see the problem with giving the government the right to regulate the only thing that ultimately protects citizens from it?
As for the line about "And since a well-supplied militia is not necessary to the free state in which we live, unless you also think we should disband the standing army and stop buying it weapons, the basis of the noninfringement is gone.", you couldn't be further from the truth.
Given the existence of the standing army we have, the well-regulated militia is more important than ever. The United States government is the most formidable military force known to man, and it needs checks and balances more than ever. The U.S. government has shown they don't care enough to secure our voting against outside. The legislative branch routinely pass laws incompatible with the constitution, and the judicial branch fails to keep them in check (commerce clause, anyone?). The executive branch (by their own admission) considers both to be an obstacle to their rule. The president (through executive orders and "signing statements") routinely takes action with the force of law and disregards it when it stands in his way.
Given all that, the only real check left on the government is that if they get egregious enough in their behavior, the people can rise up and overthrow them, or at the very least make it impossible for them to continue on their present path. The citizenry is quite capable of disrupting supply lines, cutting off money, bombing troop locations, roadside explosives, etc. It may be considered "terrorism", but it's fundamentally how a well-regulated militia deals with a well-regulated army. Our military does so well in Iraq - it would be much harder here, when it's necessary to preserve infrastructure, demolishing large areas isn't nearly as viable
Not for lack of trying.
A Human Right
So, join the ACLU once, and join the NRA twice. The second
membership will cancel your ACLU membership in the gun arena.
emt 377 emt 4
The DDT ban isn't enforced with nearly as much vigor as the ban on private artillery.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Vague? I thought it was pretty self-explanatory: 'The people' need as much firepower as would be necessary to ward off an army sent by the federal government. The founders differed on the specifics, but they all agreed on that.
Wow, you read all that into it? It obviously isn't self-explanatory if nothing in that sentence comes close to what you said.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
Come to my range and you'll see guys who were never in the military who shoot like you wouldn't believe! http://uspsa.org/
You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Bravo! A cogent post on the subject!
Read up on the history of privately owned artillery. It's pretty clear the Founders' intent was in the context of that kind of arms ownership in private hands.
Also be aware that the Constitution does not grant rights. The IInd amendment, the whole BoR, and the whole Constitution is written in terms of what the governnment is or is not allowed to do. If it isn't in there as a function of government, it isn't legitimate.
Explicitly in the IXth and Xth Amendments, it is stated that nothing about the Constitution limits or enumerates your rights. You have rights. Period. The Founders understood it is not the government's role to "grant" rights. That is something kings do.
I wrote parts of this stuff
The emphasis is more on "Free" than on "State".
From m-w.com, the first definition of "State" that's at all relevant. We could argue semantics of a state, but I don't think it's necessary:
5a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign
Certainly "Government" != "State" -- They are two quite distinct concepts. A Government is at least a property of, and at best is a tool of a State.
Based on the definition above, you need at least two things to be a state:
1) A body of people, and
2) A government (the property of political organization).
The government is the political organization of those people.
The plain text of the Law (the Second Amendment) reserves the right to bear arms specifically to the People, and not to the State, or the Congress, or anyone else (including "the Militia").
I believe that, regardless of whether it's more trouble than it's worth in today's civilization, the *intent* of the Second Amendment was to provide the possibility of organizing a Militia. The Militia is needed to protect the Freedom of the State (which is primarily comprised of people, not a government). The thing that the Freedom of the State needs protection from is The Government.
She ate the spider to catch the fly...
Funny that you mention the commas, because different versions of the 2nd Amendment have as many as 3 commas in it. The original copies of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights were written by hand, and there were apparently at least some style differences among them.
However, I believe the "official" version contains only a single comma.
Intelligent and well educated citizens ought to be able to possess weapons up to (and beyond) tactical nuclear weapons.
I'm glad you added the brackets. Otherwise I would have DEMANDED that I be given the right to store Tsar Bomba in my back yard, but this time with a uranium taint, not a lead one.
It's been a long time.
Thanks for the wustl link.
I remember reading part of the U.S. code that defines an age-defined subset of the male citizen population as the "unorganized militia", while an "organized militia" would be the formal state militia and the military itself is what it is. It's not difficult to think of "militia" as referring to the portion of the populace capable of bearing arms. And since the purpose of the second amendment is to create "a well-regulated militia", which is necessary for "the security of a free state", it's also fair to read that as meaning that the militia be "well-regulated"--i.e. kept regular by having all of them be armed, not just the ones who were organized by the state. This was before "regulated" meant "micromanaged by bureaucrats".
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
There are four separate implicit subject-predicate pairs in the single sentence, separated neatly by commas (at least the Fathers had that much sense). While the first two and last two make sense as single clauses, the entire sentence itself is flawed. Is it saying that (a) A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a state, or is it saying (b) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms [exclude comma] shall not be infringed? If you're following, you see that the question itself is flawed: you cannot divide this sentence as such. It does not constitute a well formed clause - the first and second halves cannot simply be two separate clauses separated by parenthetical comma, as such reasoning would invalidate much else of the Constitution, and that's not what's at question. If it was, we would immediately invalidate the entire document - read it, every 5 words there's a potential parenthetical statement to have an argument about. Socrates' field day.
So why the grammatical ambiguity? It's not as it seems: Punctuation is quite an important part of English grammar. Commas separate partial ideas, while periods end whole ideas, and a paragraph ends a series of ideas or facts. The Second Amendment, like all the other enumerations on the Bill of Rights and the following amendments, is only ideas, and contains no facts. The Second Amendment was such a powerful statement that it commanded an entire paragraph on its own sentence - and just like all the others, was meant to be understood as a simple syllogism, or so the Framers envisioned. Don't take it lightly: Our right to shoot our guns off is only preceded by our right to shoot our mouths off.
Therefore, we must have a Militia, it must be well regulated, and citizens must be allowed to have guns if they so choose - and this is all because we must secure our free State. Against tyranny and oppression. [Oh, wait? What?] But the expanded clause does have a crux, it has a because. If you want to attack the Second Amendment, that's what you go for: Will these measures secure our free State?
The rest of this amicus curiae is left as an exercise to the reader.
It so turns out that unless you're a member of the National Guard or something called the "naval militia", you're in what's called the "unorganized militia". But you're still in the militia. This is good--this means that, if there's some sort of horrible security threat, part of being a good citizen and being a member of the militia is to use physical force to preserve a free state. The passengers on Flight 93 did this, for instance. (This is also the same way that the Constitution allows for conscription--while the federal government does not have the power of committing people to involuntary labor, it does have the power to "call up the militia" and form them into an organized military. That doesn't just mean the National Guard. The basic idea, of course, is that citizens have a basic duty to defend the state and the society they live in.)
Now, "well regulated" didn't mean "micromanaged by bureaucrats" back in the heyday of The Constitution. It was a common phrase, and seemed to mean "in good working order"--this usage is attested in the OED well around the era. Indirect citation, check the OED on me if you don't believe it..
The whole idea was that, by protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, we would have a well-regulated militia--i.e. the subset of the population capable of defending a free state would be capable of doing so. Even as late as World War II, people in coastal areas discussed how they would defend their county from the Japanese if need be.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
As opposed to crew-operated weapons, like artillery or anti-aircraft guns or atom bombs. A rifle is easily suitable for use by individuals, in fact, I'm not sure how else it could be suitably used.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Oh really? When you get called up for jury duty, the government sends you a notice and you show up and do your duty. When you get called up for militia duty, the government sends you a draft notice and you are enlisted in the Army of the United States (as opposed to the United States Army, as a matter of fact.) What did you think those parts in the Constitution enabling Congress to call up the militia meant?
Also, the militia is supposed to call itself up in some emergencies. At least that's the legal definition for the scenario in the gripping 1980's drama, Red Dawn. Or, although they did it without guns, what happened on Flight 93.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Honestly, insurgents in Iraq are doing a decent job with homemade bombs and AK-47's. The Viet Cong did a good job with AK-47's and the ingenuity to stick spikes into the ground. We don't have much to worry about, since our rifles are a fair bit more accurate than the AK-47's.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Well now, I actually agree with the second amendment. The only problem is, when the NRA gets in bed with the administration because the Democrat bogeymen will take away their guns, it automatically means that gun-owners will never really USE this right in the way it was meant. The current administration has shown every intention of abridging EVERY right they can get their hands on. Except the gun clause. And that's good enough for the gunmen. Weird.
You can still shoot people with shotguns, although less on the battlefield and more in the streets. Nonetheless, in the words of a man who later became an honorary American citizen, "we shall fight them in the streets".
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
And, more to the point of the amendment itself, well-armed.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Again, that's all well and good, but there isn't even a hint of any of that in the 2nd amendment.
If you want your own personal arbitrary distinction, great, but don't suggest that it is somehow the line when it is really just your line.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Dude, Terri Garr is getting rancid nowadays.
Hope that latex comes with a zip-lock.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
As I understand it, having heard it a while back from a generally insightful poster on Usenet, the US was not meant to have a federally controlled standing army. Instead, the individual states were responsible for maintaining their armies, and only in case of invasion or pursuit of foreign interests should the army be temporarily placed under federal control.
He then continued on to state that the federal army, essentially unconstitutional, has been in place since about WWII. I remember looking it up back then, and agreeing, but I'm not sure where to find references at this point.
I keep hearing the purpose of the second amendment is to provide citizens with the means to protect themselves against state oppression. If you ever have to go up against the military, you're going to want something heavy.
Entirely missing the parent's point. The military training is for teaching the people to handle guns responsibly. Marksmanship skills are a side benefit.