NRA Joins ACLU Lawsuit Against NSA

cold fjord writes with this excerpt from The Hill: "The National Rifle Association joined the American Civil Liberties Union's lawsuit on Wednesday to end the government's massive phone record collection program. In a brief filed in federal court, the NRA argues that the National Security Agency's database of phone records amounts to a 'national gun registry.' 'It would be absurd to think that the Congress would adopt and maintain a web of statutes intended to protect against the creation of a national gun registry, while simultaneously authorizing the FBI and the NSA to gather records that could effectively create just such a registry,' the group writes. ... In its filing, the gun-rights group claims that the NSA's database would allow the government to identify and track gun owners based on whether they've called gun stores, shooting ranges or the NRA. 'Under the government's reading of Section 215, the government could simply demand the periodic submission of all firearms dealers' transaction records, then centralize them in a database indexed by the buyers' names for later searching,' the NRA writes."

Comments

So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

When the NRA and ACLU both oppose something, you know it's bad for everyone.

Re:So it has come to this

[Nadaka]

I've actually donated to both organizations. Though the ACLU generally does much more good than the NRA.

Re:So it has come to this

[intermodal]

I was just thinking the same thing, and that I should have gotten into the coat business now that Hell is freezing over.

Re:So it has come to this

[ackthpt]

When the NRA and ACLU both oppose something, you know it's bad for everyone.

They both must be recoiling in disgust that they are both on the same side of something ... but while the ACLU pursues matters through leveraging law, the NRA advocates remedying government amok with a more pointed (or hollow pointed) approach. Fascinating.

So NRA people, why are you not attacking teh evil gummint with your 2nd amendment rights? I do not understand this using lawyers method, which is entirely contradictory to all this ballyhoo about needing guns, many and large.

I feel cheated.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Though the ACLU generally does much more good than the NRA.

Yes, because focusing on protecting one Constitutional right as opposed to picking and choosing when to protect or attack the others is evil.

Re:So it has come to this

[the_B0fh]

Evidence?

Re:So it has come to this

[93 Escort Wagon]

The NSA is probably better armed.

Re:So it has come to this

[NatasRevol]

Than the 5M or so NRA members?

Doubtful.

Re:So it has come to this

[mspohr]

5M NRA members with pea shooters are no match for the US Army (think big guns, tanks, helicopters, etc... you get the idea).
It's amusing to see NRA members boasting that they can "defend themselves against the guvmt"... good luck with that.

Re:So it has come to this

[RevSpaminator]

Dogs and cats living together in harmony. It surely is a sign of the end of times. :)

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

So you've never heard of the quagmire in Iraq?

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? When has the ACLU gone after guns? They're a CIVIL LIBERTIES group; one of the many civil liberties in America happens to be mentioned in the second amendment.

Re:So it has come to this

[clay_shooter]

but while the ACLU pursues matters through leveraging law, the NRA advocates remedying government amok with a more pointed (or hollow pointed) approach.

The NRA is a citizen funded organization that takes on legal issues through legislation and litigation. I haven't seen any evidence that backs up your assertion the NRA advocates for violent resolution of issues.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution (1996)

Re:So it has come to this

[jythie]

Actually, the ACLU ends up on the side of conservative groups quite frequently, esp on issues of religious freedom. It is rather rare for them to align with the NRA, but it happens more then people think. Sadly the ACLU is frequently brought up as a boogie man... a nice hypocritical 'we will take your money and briefs and lawyers in private, but in public we will claim you are destroying freedom' thing going on.

Re:So it has come to this

[interkin3tic]

It's more of a cultural divide than a ideological divide between the two. The ACLU really isn't pro gun control. Look at their wikipedia page. They've opposed several gun control measures based on privacy issues.

I know some gun rights advocates dislike them for their stated interpretation of the second amendment, but I really can't fathom how they get upset at that position. Nor can I understand how gun rights advocates get mad at them for not really working to uphold the second amendment. The NRA is a more powerful organization than the ACLU and exclusively concerns itself with the second amendment. The group to get mad at for picking and choosing amendments I think is the NRA, though I think the present story indicates how dumb it is to set up an adversarial relationship with other rights groups. It's us vs the government, not second amendment activists vs other amendment activists.

Anyway, it's sadly conservatives vs liberals, which is arguably dumber even than disagreeing about which amendments are most important. But on the bright side, it looks like maybe both are teaming up against big brother.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

You've been asleep... It's already a known fact that a number of government forces will aid the civilian uprising. Hell, in Egypt it was almost 100% compliance against the government from the military. There's been surveys out there that have adressed this issue and roughly a third of the US military said they would turn against the sitting government in a revolutionary situation and they've said this openly.
 
But you keep living in your fantasy land where those in the US military are nothing but mindless drones who follow every order no matter how rediculous it is. History is on my side, militaries do support the poeople. Maybe not 100% but you don't need 100% support.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Psychopath]

5M NRA members with pea shooters are no match for the US Army (think big guns, tanks, helicopters, etc... you get the idea).
It's amusing to see NRA members boasting that they can "defend themselves against the guvmt"... good luck with that.

Perhaps you have missed the several recent, bloody revolutions where well-armed governments were overthrown?

Re:So it has come to this

[ajs]

Are you asking for evidence of donation or of the ACLU doing far more good than the NRA? Both seem to be odd questions.

The NRA claims that protecting gun ownership protects civil rights by empowering the individual to defend themselves against the government (we'll ignore, for a moment that nothing could be further from the truth, and everyone in this nation, armed or not is a heartbeat away from a smart bomb at their breakfast table, or that you can be financially and socially ruined without ever having the opportunity to shoot back). Let's take the NRA's claim at face value and assume that they are 100% correct.

They still only defend the status quo. Having a gun doesn't undo the erosion of rights due to the corrosive influence of the re-election cycle in Washington. The ACLU seeks to actively move the line of civil rights back to where it started, and hopefully even a bit further through the courts and activism.

Now, the ACLU and the NRA happen to disagree over the interpretation of the 2nd amendment (FWIW, I think that was the stupidest call the ACLU ever made) but even when they disagree they're still nominally working toward the same goal (the ACLU isn't trying to prop up the gun industry, but I'm talking about implied goals, here), so it's pretty easy to judge which of them objectively makes the most progress...

Re:So it has come to this

[TimMartin6233]

The ACLU has argued an incredible number of cases in the Supreme Court and won a good number of them. Brown vs board of education, roe v wade, miranda, scopes, etc. I would put them on the "good" side of all of those cases but your opinion might differ.

Re:So it has come to this

[Waffle Iron]

So you've never heard of the quagmire in Iraq?

You're thinking about the NIEDA, not the NRA.

Re:So it has come to this

[NatasRevol]

Then why does the US military worry about China's over manned, under powered military?

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

The ACLU has argued an incredible number of cases in the Supreme Court and won a good number of them. Brown vs board of education, roe v wade, miranda, scopes, etc. I would put them on the "good" side of all of those cases but your opinion might differ.

I would put ACLU on the "good" side, but not good enough. Historically, their position has been that the Second Amendment does not deserve the protections due all the others.

If they dumped that single, grossly hypocritical position, I would support most of their efforts. (Though not all... there have been a few times when they backed ridiculous ideas in the name of "rights" that are nowhere to be found in the law or the Constitution.)

Re:So it has come to this

[Arker]

I havent donated to the NRA in decades. They are too soft on the second amendment. The fact that even they recognise this has gone too far speaks volumes.

Re:So it has come to this

[ackthpt]

but while the ACLU pursues matters through leveraging law, the NRA advocates remedying government amok with a more pointed (or hollow pointed) approach.

The NRA is a citizen funded organization that takes on legal issues through legislation and litigation. I haven't seen any evidence that backs up your assertion the NRA advocates for violent resolution of issues.

If the NRA does not use it's constitutional right to seek redress in this matter, I really and forced to wonder exactly what would the government need to be doing for them to actually dust off their rifles and defend their liberties. This isn't about gun owner rights, its about the government running amok.

This isn't the first time the US government has run amok. I keep having this feeling the 2nd amendment defence is all about collecting toys, collectors items, things to shoot Stop signs with, etc. and has nothing to do with confronting an unjust government.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems the militias in Iraq didn't do that bad against our superior force. See, tanks and aircraft don't maneuver that well in an urban environment which results in less armored vehicles and troops having to go on foot making them easy targets for guerrilla tactics, IEDs and the like. Should the populace seriously rise up in force the military will have two problems. Massive desertion and a guerrilla army far larger than the size of their force in a mostly urban environment unsuited for mechanized or armored assault.

I can only assume you never served since your grasp of standard tactics is lacking. Oh and those pea shooters? Most civilian rifles are large bore not little .22s and since the military would be attacking its own citizens they would have 0 reserves. Every soldier lost attacking citizens could not be replaced. Attrition in this case would win over time unless the military began large scale destruction of US cities which I highly doubt any senior officer would agree to do.

A single person or group has no chance but if a large number were to assemble and coordinate that is another matter entirely. There are all kinds of tactics and strategies in that scenario that could inflict quite heavy damage against an occupying force, which is what the military would become in that scenario.

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

"... but while the ACLU pursues matters through leveraging law, the NRA advocates remedying government amok with a more pointed (or hollow pointed) approach."

Absolute nonsense. The NRA is the biggest and richest lobbying organization in the United States. They fully advocate having and following reasonable laws.

It is true that many members of the NRA would have us use force against a government run amok, but it is also true that nearly all of them view that as an absolute last resort. Not the first, as you imply.

Re:So it has come to this

[orgelspieler]

Have you even looked at the cases the ACLU has fought? There's no attacking rights going on. They even supported Jerry Falwell, for fuck's sake. And that was AFTER Falwell said 9/11 was the ACLU's fault.

Re:So it has come to this

[Bodhammer]

What makes you think the US Military, Cops, Sheriffs, etc. would attack their own people? Just because Obama told them to? Have you heard of the "Oath Keepers"

Re:So it has come to this

[Nimey]

ACLU doesn't defend 2nd Amendment cases because their resources are limited and the NRA is there & well-funded for just that purpose. IMO that's eminently sensible.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for voicing my exact opinion... Had I mod points, I'd use them.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

"Historically, their position has been that the Second Amendment does not deserve the protections due all the others. "
"If they dumped that single, grossly hypocritical position"
You do know that all amendments are not equals, they are not sacred, and that people have the right to prefer some over others, right ? An amendment could even be canceled by a new amendments if enough people support it.
Or maybe you need a dictionary to lookup the definition of hypocritical.

Re:So it has come to this

[CanHasDIY]

5M NRA members with pea shooters are no match for the US Army (think big guns, tanks, helicopters, etc... you get the idea).

Circa 1770: a rag-tag group of poorly armed guerrilas fights and defeats the most powerful army/navy in the world

1979: Russian forces deploy to Afghanistan to take the region from the Mujahideen; 9 years and over 100,000 lives later, the Soviets withdraw without achieving their goal

2001: US forces invade Afghanistan to, allegedly, take out the Taliban government and Al Queda cells in the region. 12 years on, US troops begin to withdraw, even as the region becomes more unstable than prior to the invasion, and with Al Queda's numbers growing every day.

Point being, history is chock-full of inferior forces winning the day against insurmountable odds. Not to mention, all that fancy hardware means precisely dick when you're using it on A) your tax base, and B) the families of the guys/gals tasked with deploying said hardware.

Summation: anyone who thinks a new US Civil War would be a route for either side is a blistering fucking idiot.

Re:So it has come to this

[sycodon]

Many of the US Army soldiers are also members of the NRA.

Re:So it has come to this

[mspohr]

Kent State

Re:So it has come to this

[mspohr]

Like Syria?
Repression works... not all the time... but it works.
(... having second thoughts about replying to an anonymous psychopath...)

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok let's see.
Tunisia : the dictator fled after a few days of non-armed protests
Egypt : the army choose to take over the power (twice) to prevent a massacre and keep their privileges
Libya : without foreign intervention the rebels would either have lost, or still be at it
Syria : 2 years and a half, lots of defections from the army, and sadly Assad is still there
Yes, clearly you can fight a well armed government with pea shooters.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider the doublespeak inherent throughout the "progressive" Goliath's flowery self-representation:
       

The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

Now contrast that depiction with ACLU founder Roger Baldwin's candid vision:
       

I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.

from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/aclu_v_religious_liberty.html

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

The ACLU disagrees with your position on what the 2nd amendment means in the first place. Unlike you, I'm guessing, they don't agree that it was intended to protect individual gun ownership. This is the argument about the well-regulated militia verbiage in the amendment. Within the confines of how they interpret the 2nd amendment, the ACLU will go to great lengths to protect the rights they've recognized.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Overthrown by rebels covertly armed and aided by other governments.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Politics does indeed continue to make very strange bedfellows.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Just thought I'd mention that neither the law nor the Constitution contain a complete list of rights. Rather they contain the opposite.

Re:So it has come to this

[RabidReindeer]

... but while the ACLU pursues matters through leveraging law, the NRA advocates remedying government amok with a more pointed (or hollow pointed) approach.

There's a big difference between advocating and pursuing.

I continue to maintain that the position that the best way to protect your rights is BEFORE you get pushed to the point where you have to break out the arms caches. I know there are those who have wet dreams about being the backwoods guerilla patriots against the tank-and-drone forces of an overbearing US Government, but I'm not one of them. I'd rather order pizza delivery, pick up the UPS package with the latest electronic toy in it, and play with it, thanks to those who pursued instead of just advocating.

Talk, as they say, is cheap.

Re:So it has come to this

[RabidReindeer]

So you've never heard of the quagmire in Iraq?

You're thinking about the NIEDA, not the NRA.

And do YOU want to live in a quagmire?

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

"You do know that all amendments are not equals,"

When it comes to the first 10 amendments, I know no such thing. Because, in fact, it isn't true. All of the first 10 Amendments have equal status in law and in principle.

"... and that people have the right to prefer some over others, right"

Certainly. But that has nothing to do with my point.

The ACLU says this:

"The Second Amendment provides: "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." Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For more information, please read our statement on the Second Amendment."

And yet... political and legal history, including notes from our Founders as well as common law, all establish that this is simply not true. The right to bear arms -- as recently re-affirmed by the Supreme Court a couple of years ago -- is an INDIVIDUAL right. There is really no question as to this. It is made clear both by the historical record and the highest court in the land. Therefore, they base their position on a lie, and it IS hypocritical.

I did not say they had no right to take that position. What I stated was that it makes them hypocrites. It does.

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

"The ACLU disagrees with your position on what the 2nd amendment means in the first place. Unlike you, I'm guessing, they don't agree that it was intended to protect individual gun ownership."

They state as much in their FAQ on the subject. (See the FAQ link on the page linked to above.) But that has nothing to do with my point.

History and the Supreme Court BOTH say (SCOTUS said it in so many words in yet another ruling less than 2 years ago), that it is an INDIVIDUAL right. So they can take whatever position they like. My point was: that position is based on a lie, and maintaining that position makes them hypocrites.

Re:So it has come to this

[CanHasDIY]

If the NRA does not use it's constitutional right to seek redress in this matter, I really and forced to wonder exactly what would the government need to be doing for them to actually dust off their rifles and defend their liberties.

It's your right to, you know. To turn it around, if you cared about defending rights you'd be standing right next to them, instead of talking shit. Hell, even if some members got together and did something, I'm certain you and many others would join in with the government in demonizing them as "extremists" or some other such nonsense.

I keep having this feeling the 2nd amendment defence is all about collecting toys, collectors items, things to shoot Stop signs with, etc. and has nothing to do with confronting an unjust government.

Yea, yea, everyone's a critic.

Re:So it has come to this

[ackthpt]

"... but while the ACLU pursues matters through leveraging law, the NRA advocates remedying government amok with a more pointed (or hollow pointed) approach."

Absolute nonsense. The NRA is the biggest and richest lobbying organization in the United States. They fully advocate having and following reasonable laws.

It is true that many members of the NRA would have us use force against a government run amok, but it is also true that nearly all of them view that as an absolute last resort. Not the first, as you imply.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants - Thomas Jefferson.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

None of these are revolutions by citizens against their government

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Psychopath]

Like Syria?
Repression works... not all the time... but it works.
(... having second thoughts about replying to an anonymous psychopath...)

I was actually thinking of Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, and Egypt. That's four within the last three years.

Re:So it has come to this

[hutsell]

I've actually donated to both organizations. Though the ACLU generally does much more good than the NRA.

This is awesome vindication from a personal perspective. I've been an active, card carrying member of both the NRA and the ACLU for more than a decade and could never quite understand how most members of each organization could dislike each other so much. Although I never went out of the way to keep it a secret from either side, I had a tendency to avoid conflict with members when they would express their blanket dislike of the other organization — due to when it was known, I would get what I felt was undeserved hostility.

Occasionally I regret not taking a stronger stand and being a little more outspoken about my position, especially in light of recent events.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

You obliously don't know much about the military. There is this thing call Posse Comitatus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act. Then there is the large number of combat soiders who are NRA members. Then there is the fact that the oath that soliders take is to the consitution. You sould also note the difference between a lawful order and a non lawful one. If you thing for example the US Army would support the disarmement of the citizenery you have no clue as to what you are talking about.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. And the SCOTUS also said that money is speech and corporations are people.

I wouldn't take what SCOTUS say at its word lately.

Re:So it has come to this

[Daniel Dvorkin]

What makes you think the US Military, Cops, Sheriffs, etc. would attack their own people?

I was talking with a friend from Serbia about this a while back; for obvious reasons, he has a perspective on such matters that most Americans don't. I expressed my opinion that at least half, maybe more, of the US military would refuse to go along with an imposition of martial law against the US population, which would make such an action difficult or impossible. His answer gave me a lot of food for thought:

"When Milosevic cracked down, half the Army deserted overnight. Of those who were left, about half were too dumb to know what was going on, and the other half were the assholes, you know, the crazy ones who just wanted to kill people and they didn't care who. So Milosevic shipped the dumb ones off to border areas where they wouldn't get in the way, and then had the crazy ones go out and recruit more crazy ones, petty criminals and psychopaths who just didn't give a shit. And those were the ones who did the killing."

He was firmly of the opinion that the same thing would happen here. I really, really hope he's wrong ... but I can't say I'm as confident as I was before having that conversation.

Re:So it has come to this

[ackthpt]

... but while the ACLU pursues matters through leveraging law, the NRA advocates remedying government amok with a more pointed (or hollow pointed) approach.

There's a big difference between advocating and pursuing.

I continue to maintain that the position that the best way to protect your rights is BEFORE you get pushed to the point where you have to break out the arms caches. I know there are those who have wet dreams about being the backwoods guerilla patriots against the tank-and-drone forces of an overbearing US Government, but I'm not one of them. I'd rather order pizza delivery, pick up the UPS package with the latest electronic toy in it, and play with it, thanks to those who pursued instead of just advocating.

Talk, as they say, is cheap.

The NRA has made a very long and vocal habit of defending the rights of everyone to have their guns. Apparently trying to put a good scare into creeping government control of any and every other aspect of life hasn't deserved anything like Charlton Heston waving his gun around after the Columbine shootings and claiming they could have it when they pried it from his cold, dead hands.

Really, I think we're seeing the true colors here. The 2nd Amendment is really about collecting a lot of pointy bang-sticks.

Re:So it has come to this

[slick7]

Have you even looked at the cases the ACLU has fought? There's no attacking rights going on. They even supported Jerry Falwell, for fuck's sake. And that was AFTER Falwell said 9/11 was the ACLU's fault.

Jerry Falwell is God' fault.

Re:So it has come to this

[Jeremy Erwin]

I suggest a carefully planned assault on 39 6 25 N, 76 44 35 W. It's lightly guarded, despite the name.

Re:So it has come to this

[the_B0fh]

I was looking for evidence that:

Yes, because focusing on protecting one Constitutional right as opposed to picking and choosing when to protect or attack the others is evil.

though, upon re-reading, I see the AC was being sarcastic and not actually calling ACLU evil...

Re:So it has come to this

[mspohr]

Tunisa folded to a popular uprising, not guns. (see http://www.amazon.com/Why-Civil-Resistance-Works-Nonviolent/dp/0231156839 )
Libya rebels recruited bigger guns from NATO
Yemen ... US is still in charge with drones, etc.
Egypt - The military (the people with guns) threw out the government (twice).
Guns are persuasive.
Bigger guns / more guns win.

Re:So it has come to this

[narcc]

You're fight a losing battle. You can get them to look at the facts. You can't even get them to read past the word "militia".

You're not dealing with sane and rational people here. They're frightened -- absolutely terrified of any number of imaginary threats. They're looking for something to blame, and they're eager (practically desperate) to trade their rights for even the faintest illusion of security against it! It's sad, really. I'd pity them if they weren't also actively trying to erode the rights of other.

I'm still a strong supporter of the ACLU, despite their incompetent (or, as you suggest, hypocritical) position on the 2nd amendment. They do an awful lot of good.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Psychopath]

Tunisa folded to a popular uprising, not guns. (see http://www.amazon.com/Why-Civil-Resistance-Works-Nonviolent/dp/0231156839 )
Libya rebels recruited bigger guns from NATO
Yemen ... US is still in charge with drones, etc.
Egypt - The military (the people with guns) threw out the government (twice).
Guns are persuasive.
Bigger guns / more guns win.

Exactly how large do you think the US military is? Do you imagine there might be some conflict in their loyalties if a popular uprising were to occur, as has been demonstrated time and again elsewhere? Can you envision a scenario where the rest of the world would just wait and watch while not intervening one way or the other to further their own agendas? I'm not saying another American revolution is likely. It isn't. It's nearly unthinkable. But that's very different than possible.

Re:So it has come to this

[sjames]

The big weapons are impressive, but the U.S. Army can't really afford to bomb NYC (the banksters won't stand for it!) or LA. It's a boots on the ground urban warfare situation and we have a decade of evidence that small arms and a bunch of improvised explosives can make for an awfully big problem.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Cops are already attacking civilians. They see it as an 'us vs them' battle. Doesn't mean they'll necessarily start committing war atrocities, but the police will use violence in the name of the law.

If society starts undergoing collapse, the police and military forces will be the ones who are guaranteed food and shelter which will ensure a high level of loyalty.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite right. I didn't mean to imply the ACLU is evil, just that some consider the NRA to be so.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

and everyone in this nation, armed or not is a heartbeat away from a smart bomb at their breakfast table

Off topic I know, but I want to respond to that line of reasoning.

If government wants to oppress, it will prefer quiet methods where it deals with small numbers of dissidents at a time without risking mass rebellion. From bombs to troops, to armed police, to thugs with sticks, to group of men with badges, to even just one person with a cap on his head telling you to get in the transport truck -- at each level of disarmament, government is able to use quieter and cheaper methods of oppression. What an armed citizenry does is raise the stakes and take away some of those quiet options. Government is then forced to choose between civil governance or a level of violence that awakens the nation. It raises the financial cost of oppression, too. It's not a cure-all and not a guarantee, but it is one among a number of barriers against tyranny. Having grandparents who came from a country where a stray word could put you in jail, I personally think the more barriers the better.

Re:So it has come to this

[budgenator]

I figured somebody crossed the proton-pack streams.

Re:So it has come to this

[Dare nMc]

>My point was: that position is based on a lie, and maintaining that position makes them hypocrites.

Many of their positions are at odds, at how the SCOTUS has ruled in the past. Taking a position on what the constitution means, that differs with what the SCOTUS ruled, or on how meanings have changed in the last 250 years doesn't make it a "lie" or make them "hypocrites". And for the record I agree with your position on the second amendment, but I try to understand others positions and when I disagree with them to do so without resorting to name calling.

Re:So it has come to this

[budgenator]

Posse Comatiatus keeps the Army and Air Force out of that business by law; Navy and Marines stay out by regulation.

Re:So it has come to this

[ShanghaiBill]

ACLU doesn't defend 2nd Amendment cases because their resources are limited and the NRA is there & well-funded for just that purpose.

WRONG The ACLU does not defend 2nd Amendment rights because they do not believe it is an individual right. The believe it is a collective right of the states to have a national guard.

From www.aclu.org: the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right.

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants - Thomas Jefferson."

Jefferson was not a member of the NRA.

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

"Yes. And the SCOTUS also said that money is speech and corporations are people.

I wouldn't take what SCOTUS say at its word lately."

You make a good point. But on the other hand when SCOTUS, which in recent decades has shown a decidedly left-leaning "interpretation" of much of the Constitution, states unequivocally that it *IS* an individual right, then you can bet there is good reason for saying it.

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

I would agree with you except that I am not fighting a battle at all. Just making an observation.

For the record, ACLU has in fact recently started to realize the hypocrisy of their position, and change it. They even backed a couple of people in gun-possession cases.

While I do not believe this completely absolves them of their hypocrisy, it is a start.

And I agree: they do an awful lot of good. I'm just saying they could do better.

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

Many of their positions are at odds, at how the SCOTUS has ruled in the past. Taking a position on what the constitution means, that differs with what the SCOTUS ruled, or on how meanings have changed in the last 250 years doesn't make it a "lie"...

Correct. Their position on the matter has no bearing on the actual truth of the matter. I did not claim that it did.

The FACTS are what make it a lie. The idea that the right to bear arms is a "collective" right is a falsehood. The FACTS make it so, not their position.

Therefore: to take that position in the face of the demonstrable truth is to lie. If not to others, then to oneself.

Re:So it has come to this

[demonlapin]

I don't know why you were modded funny. The NRA is widely perceived in the gun rights community as far too willing to compromise.

Re:So it has come to this

[Jeremy Erwin]

Navy and Marines stay out by regulation.

Not if you believe the fevered mutterings about gold fringes on flags.

Re:So it has come to this

[computererds]

Why does no one seem to know that the ACLU does support firearm rights? The ACLU is pro Constitutional rights.

The ACLU filed amicus for the prosecution on Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago.

Breaking that down for you--the ACLU was on the same side as the NRA for only two cases to reach the Supreme Court (of the US) since 1939.

Re:So it has come to this

[Isaac-1]

The is pre-Vietnam thinking, what can a bunch of farmers with hundred year old flint locks do againt a modern military...

Also when it comes to those big guns the army has far fewer of them many people think, in the case of the M1 Abrams tank, about 9,000 have been built over the last 33 years, not all of those are in the U.S. or even still in service. Compare this to the number of current NRA members and you are talking hundreds to one, add to it all the NRA converts would have if hostility breaks out and as Stalin said quantity has a quality all its own.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think the the US Army, esp infuntry, and the 5M NRA members are a different set?

3/4 of the The infuntry and tankers I knew were 100% behind the NRA if they weren't card carrying members.

And I worked on Knox and Benning.

Re:So it has come to this

[ShanghaiBill]

The ACLU seeks to actively move the line of civil rights back to where it started

Fantastic! When will they bring back the slave markets?

Re:So it has come to this

[Sabriel]

Hmm. All of those actions involved the inferior forces being aided/supplied by foreign powers: in 1775, it was Europe, in 1979, it was the United States, in 2001, it was various countries in the Middle East.

Re:So it has come to this

[budgenator]

Kent State was a situation where professional provacatuers, hiding behind a human shield of real protesters, worn down the under-trained National Guardsmen by continuously attacking then with rocks and bottles.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

If they dumped that single, grossly hypocritical position, I would support most of their efforts. (Though not all... there have been a few times when they backed ridiculous ideas in the name of "rights" that are nowhere to be found in the law or the Constitution.)

So what do you do then? Oppose them? Ignore them?

Re:So it has come to this

[swillden]

I don't know why you were modded funny. The NRA is widely perceived in the gun rights community as far too willing to compromise.

I think that perception is largely wrong, too. It used to be that the NRA was eager to compromise, but they've toughened up quite a bit. Their stance these days is almost acceptable -- though they bear close watching to ensure they don't backslide.

Re:So it has come to this

[swillden]

Several local chapters of the ACLU have, however, taken on 2A cases, post-Heller.

Re:So it has come to this

[demonlapin]

Post-Heller, you're right. But that was a big part of the perception.

Re:So it has come to this

[ShanghaiBill]

Several local chapters of the ACLU have, however, taken on 2A cases, post-Heller.

That is very interesting. Do you have a citation? Because the ACLU website has this to say about D.C. vs Heller: The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment.

Re:So it has come to this

[khallow]

You do know that all amendments are not equals

I agree with Jane Q. Public. We know no such thing. I would include you in that number despite your insistence to the contrary.

But even if we grant your point, we still have to explain why the Second Amendment occupies the position it does. First, it's the Second Amendment not the oh, Twenty Third amendment. That meant people of the time considered it integral in some way to the formation of the US Constitution.

and that people have the right to prefer some over others

There is no such right. Else you get into situations where my interests unfairly trump yours. A person might feel he has more right to the money in your wallet than you do. That still doesn't mean that he has a right to express that preference by mugging you at gunpoint.

And the whole point of rights is to limit the actions of government. That includes a complete override of any preferences they might have. The federal government can't prefer the First Amendment over the Second. They aren't given that power.

An amendment could even be canceled by a new amendments if enough people support it.

And that is the only constitutional way to do so.

Or maybe you need a dictionary to lookup the definition of hypocritical.

' But of course. Disagreement with the mighty AC is inherently whatever bad label AC happens to think of that day.

Re:So it has come to this

[Darinbob]

I don't think history has said this unambiguously, or that the "founding fathers" supported the individual right (maybe a subset of them did). When it comes to anything in the constitution, there was no unanimous agreement amongst the founders. In the early 1800s during the first state court cases involving the 2nd amendment there were competing decisions regarding individual versus collective rights, so there were differences of opinions then even by people who had been of adult age during the revolution.

The "well regulated militia" was not put into the amendment by accident, and the meaning of "militia" was very well understood to be the civilians who could be called up to war, the idea of a standing army or voluntary army came about after the revolution. At the same time even for non-militia use, hunting was an essential part of life whereas today hunting is just a hobby. Plus the need for self defense in the sparsely populated colonies and frontier was important. So the second amendment, confusingly, is both about a militia and not about a militia. I think that the confusion could be intentional by the authors or a compromise.

The bill of rights were also initially intended to be limitations on federal power and they were not widely acknowledged to be limitations on the individual states. It was later with the 14th amendment that the bill of rights (the first 8 anyway) really began to be treated as limitations on the states themselves (it took some more court decisions though to cement this).

In other words; the pro-gun and anti-gun are both right and both wrong. This is not a black and white issue, and even in history it has been very murky. Certainly there was never any unanimity even by the constitution writers.

Re:So it has come to this

[khallow]

And the SCOTUS also said that money is speech and corporations are people.

SCOTUS has said no such thing. I assume you're referring to the Citizens United case. All that happened there was that the court ruled that a group of people had the same rights as individuals did while paying for political speech (which was regulated by unconstitutional law).

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. When I was in college and they sent postage paid donation envelopes, we used to tape them to bricks and mail them back with a note explaining that they will need it since if they get their way, they won't have any guns to stop the muggers. Funny thing is we put return addresses on the bricks, but they never came back. ACLU just paid.

Re:So it has come to this

[khallow]

And the end result was the dissolution of Yugoslavia, a country that was going to collapse anyway, and Milosevic's defeat. Not pretty, but it worked out.

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

"I don't think history has said this unambiguously, or that the "founding fathers" supported the individual right (maybe a subset of them did). When it comes to anything in the constitution, there was no unanimous agreement amongst the founders."

Then you are in error. Madison's notes from the Constitutional Convention in 1787 report that an individual right to bear arms was nearly unanimously supported. There may have been one exception. So we are talking about a support rate of over 98% (there were 55 delegates).

Further, that meaning was made crystal clear during the debates prior to ratification by the states. The INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms was guaranteed as a safeguard against a Federal army.

The "well regulated militia" was not put into the amendment by accident, and the meaning of "militia" was very well understood to be the civilians who could be called up to war, the idea of a standing army or voluntary army came about after the revolution.

I am sorely tempted to write "No shit, Sherlock." I did not claim it was accidental. But you appear to be ignoring the difference between "the militia" (which was well understood to be every able-bodied male between approximately 14 and 55, depending on who you asked) and a well-regulated militia. The "regular" militia, by definition, was not "well-regulated". The words "well-regulated" indicate a standing army.

"So the second amendment, confusingly, is both about a militia and not about a militia. I think that the confusion could be intentional by the authors or a compromise."

There is nothing in the least "confusing" about the Second Amendment, if you read it as originally intended. I repeat (because I wrote this in reply to someone else earlier):

The founders were terrified of the necessity for a standing army. They viewed it (as the historical record shows extremely clearly) as the single biggest threat to a democratic or republican government. After all... they had just fought a way against the army of their own government in order to gain their freedom. Yet they felt that had to have an army.

So: "A well-regulated militia" (i.e., a standing army), "being NECESSARY" (not desirable or in any way good) "to the security of a free state, the right of THE PEOPLE" (not the army) "to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Another repeat: "The People" shows up in various places in the Constitution. EVERY TIME, without fail, it clearly means you and me. Can you explain to me why, then, they would intend the same words here to mean something different? Do you think they were idiots, or that they garbled their words in this sole part of the document?

I think not.

This *IS* a black and white issue. It is about as black and white as they get.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope your not advocating for the collapse of the USA.

On second thoughts, maybe we should be...

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people always assume ALL the civilians will side together, and not that a large (majority even) would continue to support the troops/government?

Most people are sheep and will do what there told on tv or radio.

Re:So it has come to this

[swillden]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/jul/22/aclu-rethinking-second-amendment/

That article mentions a couple. You can find some more if you spend some time on Google.

Re:So it has come to this

[swillden]

They toughened up quite a bit before Heller, but, yes, Heller has given them a lot more confidence that the highest law of the land is in their favor. They were terrified of a stand-up fight before that... actually they were terrified of the Heller case and did everything they could to derail it, though they were glad to proclaim victory when the ruling came down.

Re:So it has come to this

[khallow]

I get the impression a fair number of people here would cheer if that happened. I doubt many of them live in the US, so they wouldn't be part of the clean up crew.

But let's look at the actual state of Yugoslavia at that point. It sounds like most of the government was either paralyzed into near complete inaction or running outside of the law with few repercussions. If the US gets to that point, then it probably ought to be discontinued.

Re:So it has come to this

[philip.paradis]

I'm a firm believer in individual gun rights, and therefore I am most assuredly not speaking against our shared core beliefs on this topic, but I believe that historical accuracy is critical when discussing these matters. The term "well regulated" does not imply a standing army. Instead, in the context of the language of the period, it means "disciplined" or "well trained."

Re:So it has come to this

[ShanghaiBill]

When I was in college and they sent postage paid donation envelopes, we used to tape them to bricks and mail them back ... ACLU just paid.

No they didn't. "Postage-Paid" envelopes don't work like that. The permit is only good for a single weight and class of postage. So if you taped the envelope to a brick, the local post office almost certainly just discarded the brick and envelope and charged nothing to the ACLU. So, other than wasting twenty seconds of some postal worker's time, your protest had no effect.

Re:So it has come to this

[Daniel Dvorkin]

If the US gets to that point, then it probably ought to be discontinued.

Probably true, but the discontinuation process will be pretty horrible for everyone who's around to see it.

Re:So it has come to this

[Taco Cowboy]

I've actually donated to both organizations. Though the ACLU generally does much more good than the NRA.

I am an American.

I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican.

But I am a card carrying member of both the ACLU and the NRA.

The only way forward for the United States of America - if it is to remain a country FREE OF TYRANNY - is for the Americans to stand up for OUR CONSTITUTION.

We should stop dividing ourselves into splinter groups (such as left vs right, pro-choice vs pro-life, republicrooks vs democrooks, ACLU vs NRA) and should instead VOICE OUT OUR DISPLEASURE AGAINST THE TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT WITH ONE VOICE.

It is now or never.

If we do not stand up now for our country, our children, and theirs, will suffer.

Re:So it has come to this

[Xest]

"I don't know why you were modded funny. The NRA is widely perceived in the gun rights community as far too willing to compromise."

Exactly, that's what's funny.

Re:So it has come to this

[Xest]

"Though not all... there have been a few times when they backed ridiculous ideas in the name of "rights" that are nowhere to be found in the law or the Constitution."

You're assuming that the law and constitution are the only valid definitions of civil liberties, they're not, which is why there's nothing hypocritical about their stance.

You're implying that your belief is the only correct one and universally so and hence everyone else must be wrong. They just have a different viewpoint to you that's all, it doesn't make theirs hypocritical, it just makes it different to yours.

It's like the smokers in the UK who complain about how their liberties have been taken away now they don't have the right to smoke in public buildings and demand that this infringement of civil liberties be reversed. Except, it's a fucking stupid argument because the implication is that the right to smoke is a liberty, but the right for non-smokers around them to breathe fresh air isn't. You may believe the right to bear arms trumps the right to live in peace free from the fear of gun violence because maybe gun violence isn't an issue where you are, but ask the parents of Newtown how they feel and I suspect they'll have a view that maybe their right to live free from fear of gun violence is actually more important than the right of others to bear arms.

Sometimes liberties conflict and then different people take different sides, neither side is necessarily wrong, but as to which side gets their way, well, that's ultimately what the polling station is for.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been a few times when they backed ridiculous ideas in the name of "rights" that are nowhere to be found in the law or the Constitution.)

How about the Bill of Rights?
9th amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Do you hold that opposing slavery was a "ridiculous idea" because it was a) legal at the time and b) not mentioned in the Constitution?

Re:So it has come to this

[Xest]

The problem is your argument is a classic appeal to authority fallacy - "SCOTUS said it so it must be true" is effectively the general outline of your argument.

There's no reason to suggest SCOTUS should be the one that gets to define what is and isn't a civil liberty, what about the people? what do polls say? what about the world in general?

If we use an arbitrary body, or even a small subset of people to define what is and isn't a civil liberty then you get the absurd scenario where in tribally administered Pakistan the right for women to vote isn't a civil liberties issue because the local tribal council says so. Obviously that's stupid because a civil liberty has to be universal - it can't be that race equality is only a civil liberty when it's an issue in the West, that's nonsense, it's an issue globally. Civil liberties are more universal than something that can be defined by a single person, or small group of people, or even a body like SCOTUS.

I wont pretend that it's easy to define civil liberties, they are themselves quite arbitrary, but that's why you can't call the ACLU hypocrites - their interpretation and position is well documented and defined. If they then didn't defend that position, then they'd be hypocrites, but as long as they stick to what they've said there is no hypocrisy. The ACLU makes it's determination on what their priorities should be and whilst you may disagree with that it's their right, and your right to disagree but without some grand definition of overruling civil liberties then you can't call them hypocrites, given that no such thing does, can or will exist then all you can say about them is they have a different view on civil liberties to you, no more, no less. The closest thing that makes any attempt (but is still far from perfect) is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that tries to pin down a bear minimum set of rights and liberties people should have.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. That's why the founders put it right between the 1st amendment, which protects individual rights, and the 3rd amendment, which protects individual rights. It's well known that the odd amendments protect individual rights, and the even amendments protect states' rights.

I'm glad that the NAACP is such a big proponent of states' rights.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the great things about the US is that we have a lot of crazy rednecks who will join with the army deserters (many of which will also be crazy rednecks) to fight the army and any allied government agents.

That said, if hostilities break out (and I pray they don't), I am moving my family to Canada post haste.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

I get the impression a fair number of people here would cheer if that happened. I doubt many of them live in the US, so they wouldn't be part of the clean up crew.

My impression is the opposite. I think a fair number of people around the world wants the US to keep going, even if they want it out of fear (i.e they fear a domino effect that would affect their countries) or malice (i.e they want to exploit the US)

I think most of the people urging and cheering for a collapse are those living in the US.

On one side you have the leftists and authoritarians who wants to bring down government and replace it with something more collectivist
On the other side you have the libertarians and anarchists who wants to bring down government and replace it with... well nothing

Maybe these two groups don't make up the majority of the US population (likewise, those outside the US advocating a collapse are a minority of all people around the world), but it's been said that you don't need a majority for a revolution.

Re:So it has come to this

[sabbede]

Hear hear!

Right and Left united against jackassery!

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

"The ACLU seeks to actively move the line of civil rights back to where it started, and hopefully even a bit further through the courts and activism." I have no problem with them pushing to equality but they often have a blatant disregard for coming to a sensible solution of protecting the rights of the majority while balancing out the minority.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

ACLU doesn't defend 2nd Amendment cases because their resources are limited and the NRA is there & well-funded for just that purpose. IMO that's eminently sensible.

No, they don't defend the 2nd amendment explicitly because they disagree with it. Their hypocrisy annoys me on that point, but I support the rest of what they do.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Until the day that an amendment removes the rights the second amendment affords, it's still the highest law of the land, and equal to all other clauses in the constitution.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to have missed the part of American history where we started this country with a handful of pea shooters against the most advanced military in the world at the time. A handful of guns and some idiots with bravado against a tank is nothing. However, a handful of guns and a couple of smart minds may just turn into a few casualties and a tank to use in future missions.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, so explain to me how to interpret "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" as meaning something OTHER than protecting the individual's right to gun ownership?

Re:So it has come to this

[couchslug]

"everyone in this nation, armed or not is a heartbeat away from a smart bomb at their breakfast table,"

There aren't nor will there ever be nearly enough smart bombs and there are very few aircraft to deliver them. Those aircraft have to get off the ground and land without getting plinked. Aircraft are actually quite tender and delicate (A-10 excepted).

Anyone with military experience, or who is awake, knows that the relatively tiny government forces (including the military, which would be split in a revolt) are dispersed and not sufficient to occupy the US. Iraq is tiny by comparison and keeping a lid on it was tough enough.

We need more "liberals" to arm themselves.

The refusal to own tools of power is just as much acceptance of the status quo as is the sheeplike support of the government by many firearms owners. If you won't kill for your freedom when necessary you deserve to be a slave because you volunteered by submission. Pacifism is weakness against Serious People, because they give no fuck about your childish moral example. (Ghandi worked against the effeminate British, but a serious opponent would simply have murdered him in prison.)

BTW as an NRA member, I WANT the NRA and gun industry to cooperate. It's a match made in heaven, and I support vendors who donate a percentage of profit to the NRA.

Re:So it has come to this

[couchslug]

The hypocritical ACLU position reflects their desire for control of a Federalis government to impose their will on all Americans.

That worked with the Civil Rights Act etc, but the ACLU swallowed the bait and as regard the Second Amendment is counter-revolutionary just as the NRA is often counter-revolutionary by its acceptance of every other status qou not Second Amendment related!

Re:So it has come to this

[CanHasDIY]

Precisely.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

No, a "well-regulated militia" is not "a standing army".
The "militia" is the whole of the populace that is capable of (and willing to) fight in the defense of their nation.
The phrase "well-regulated" means properly functioning (i.e.: properly trained and equipped).

In fact, the same letters which fully demonstrate that the 2nd was intended to guarantee an individual right *also* demonstrate that they *didn't* believe that a standing army was 'necessary', but rather an unnecessary, and avoidable evil.

Re:So it has come to this

[TheNastyInThePasty]

They don't. It just makes for good requests for additional funding.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Stopped reading when you made the retarded straw man statement about smart bombs. Go do some research to figure out why you're a fucking idiot for thinking that's a possibility. Then reassess your position.

Re:So it has come to this

[dywolf]

mod up.
in other words, in layman's terms, it should be read as "because a standing army is a needful evil for the nation to protect itself from outside threats, the people shall have the right to defense from that same standing standing army should it become necessary (again)."

Re:So it has come to this

[shutdown -p now]

It should be noted that ACLU state chapters may differ on this, and some actually do.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right

The ACLU is made up of lawyers. Legal professionals have a vested economic interest in having contradictions in the legal system. Excessive law, contradictory laws, inconsistent laws, confusing laws, scary laws: these all create demand for the services of the legal profession. Having hundreds or thousands of laws that contradict the simple words "may not be infringed" in the 2nd Amendment is simply one of the more blatant examples of this problem, which is also found in patent law, copyright law, contract law, tort law, property law, etc... (in short, most of the major areas of the US legal tradition). In ethics terms, the name for this problem is "conflict of interest". It's a bad thing.

In short, for any legal professional, while engaged in the practice of law, to take the position that the 2nd Amendment does not protect an individual right, as a reasonable person might suppose by reading the text of the Bill of Rights, is unethical practice of law.

  If the ACLU has in fact taken the position that the plethora of complex, confusing, and contradictory laws do not violate the 2nd Amendment, this says really bad things about the ethical integrity of the ACLU members and leadership.

One of the rights that can reasonably be asserted as arising under the 9th Amendment is the right to ethical practice of law. Thus, for any legal professional to take this position is a violation of the oath that person has taken to uphold the Bill of Rights.

As a matter of legal ethics, all the laws prohibiting or interfering with the right to keep and bear arms are illegal and enforcement of these laws is criminal. No legal professional can, acting as a judge, make a ruling to the contrary without themselves being engaged in unethical practice of law. No government official holding high office, such office requiring an oath to uphold the bill of rights, can take actions or make rulings to the contrary without violating that oath, which immediately and permanently disqualifies them from holding that (or any other) position of public trust and responsibility.

The Supreme Court can not make a ruling authorizing unethical practice of law, and thus any ruling which would allow the infringement of the 2nd Amendment is a violation of the oaths the Supreme Court justices swore as a precondition for holding office, as well as being unethical practice of law. Rights retained by the people under the 9th Amendment are by definition "retained by the people": they may not be stolen by the government in any way, shape, or form.

Note that this conclusion is independent of whether or not one believes an individual right to keep and bear arms makes sense. If reasonable limitations on this right are to be created, the only way this can be done that is consistent with legal ethics is through a new Amendment (even then, to be completely clear in an ethical sense, the development of the new Amendment would have to be done and controlled by people that are not legal professionals: simply continuing the current situation, with thousands of contradictory, confusing, and inconsistent laws, many of which interfere with other rights that can reasonably be asserted as being "retained by the people", would still involve ethics problems).

Unfortunately, unethical manipulation of the legal system to the benefit of the legal profession has become an enormous cash cow for that profession. Reversing this situation short of revolution will be difficult: if the system itself is broken, how can one hope to work within it to fix things? Writing to one's legislator seems pointless, when the legislator is themselves a member of the legal profession (and when the Bar Associations can make campaign contributions). Voting won't work when the choice is between two equally corrupt political parties, and when most of the candidates are legal professionals. Perhaps another massive Civil Rights movement is our only option short of another revolution.

Re:So it has come to this

[Reziac]

Which to my mind throws their ACLU's entire premise into a suspect light; how can you have civil liberties if you're prohibited from defending those liberties, and must rely on others to do so for you? (Not can, but must.)

Re:So it has come to this

[Larry_Dillon]

As a matter of policy they don't defend many 2d amendment cases because they do not believe (however misguidedly) that it's not an individual right.
As a practical matter, they don't take 2A cases because no 2A case, with merits, has ever failed to be defended, mostly by the NRA.
The NRA focuses on one amendment, the ACLU on the other nine. Also, the NRA's budget is bigger.

Re:So it has come to this

[Reziac]

I agree (tho Philip is right about the definition of "well-regulated"). And it occurs to me that were the 2nd Amendment allowed full scope and force, a great deal of what the ACLU decries and has moved to defend against would never have happened in the first place.

Re:So it has come to this

[Reziac]

I think that's an insighful interpretation, yep. Going into my Useful Quotes file. :)

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting "The People" is clear to you.

Many of the founding fathers owned slaves, which were not freed until Lincoln, so which "People" are you referring to, the free ones only??

Sorry, but the Constitution is clear as mud regarding some points, precisely because of definition of these terms has CHANGED.

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

"The problem is your argument is a classic appeal to authority fallacy - "SCOTUS said it so it must be true" is effectively the general outline of your argument."

No it isn't. The problem is that you did not properly understand my argument. Or perhaps you did not go back far enough to read the whole thing.

I gave historical evidence, which is subject to FACT-checking. There is no appeal to authority there. I also mentioned that the Supreme Court "said so", true. But I wasn't "appealing to their authority". If you real the actual rulings, you will see that they also relied on very solid historical evidence and legal principles (which are cited), in the making of that ruling.

So yes, I did say "the Supreme Court" said so. But I did not "appeal" to their "authority". They had very good and sound reasons for ruling as they did. Which you are perfectly capable of checking for yourself. Therefore it is not "appeal to authority".

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

"I'm a firm believer in individual gun rights, and therefore I am most assuredly not speaking against our shared core beliefs on this topic, but I believe that historical accuracy is critical when discussing these matters. The term "well regulated" does not imply a standing army. Instead, in the context of the language of the period, it means "disciplined" or "well trained.""

WHOOSH

I'm not trying to be insulting, but if you read what I wrote again, you will see that you missed the central point:

The general militia, by definition, consisted of "every man". By definition, the regular militia is not "well regulated". It is neither disciplined, OR well-trained.

And therefore, "a well-regulated militia" cannot refer to "every man". It refers to a standing army.

A great many historians are in agreement with me on this, and it also matches up with other parts of the historical record (as well as Madison's notes, as I mentioned before).

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

"in other words, in layman's terms, it should be read as "because a standing army is a needful evil for the nation to protect itself from outside threats, the people shall have the right to defense from that same standing standing army should it become necessary (again).""

Precisely.

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

"I agree (tho Philip is right about the definition of "well-regulated")."

Yes, I agree, Philip is right about the definition of "well-regulated". But what he, and you, missed is that it does not contradict what I was saying. It was in fact part of what I was saying.

The "regular" militia consisted of everybody. Every farm boy and field hand. The "regular" militia, therefore, was neither disciplined, or trained.

That is precisely WHY "well-regulated" means a standing army. Only a disciplined, well-trained army meets the definition of a "well-regulated" militia.

Do you see?

Re:So it has come to this

[Rakarra]

"ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right"

The ACLU is made up of lawyers. Legal professionals have a vested economic interest in having contradictions in the legal system. Excessive law, contradictory laws, inconsistent laws, confusing laws, scary laws: these all create demand for the services of the legal profession.

As someone who is married to a lawyer... hell no, lawyers do not -like- contradictory or confusing or inconsistent laws. It creates uncertainty, uncertainty that they cannot rely on in the courtroom. Any inconsistency can just as easily be used against them, and a lawyer wants and needs -certainty-. Lack of certainty will drive lawyers away and lead them to not picking up cases.

Re:So it has come to this

[Rakarra]

You do know that all amendments are not equals, they are not sacred, and that people have the right to prefer some over others, right ? An amendment could even be canceled by a new amendments if enough people support it.

The only time to disregard an amendment is if another amendment counters it.
Otherwise, that's pretty close to sacred, yes.

Re:So it has come to this

[Xest]

But those reasons and that ruling is still their personal interpretation of history. It conflicts with history dating back further and it conflicts with the situation elsewhere. You're still suggesting that they're right based on their authority - effectively you're claiming that they're infallible and that their decision is correct because it is, which is a circular argument.

Did they consider all historical evidence or did they just check a subset that confirmed their bias? Are the legal principles even relevant if they were also selected for simply to reach the required ruling?

The point is at the end of the day that there is a sizeable, arguably even a majority of people in the US and world in general that would agree with the ACLU's decision on what constitutes the most important method of prtecting civil liberties in the face of the second amendment meaning the SCOTUS ruling is entirely irrelevant if their determination of it doesn't match the a majority of people's views on which rights take priority - the right to own a gun, or the right not to be surrounded by people with guns. Again, a Pakistani tribal council in tribal administered regions has determined that women do not get the vote, do not get the right to be free from rape, but that doesn't matter if it's generally accepted that those things are civil liberties - the Pakistani civil liberties union (or whoever) wouldn't be hypocrites for fighting for the vote for women or for freedom from rape just cos the tribal region's constitution says men having the right to rape women is a liberty, they'd just be fighting for a well accepted view on civil liberties.

Ultimately you still seem fixated on the view that the 2nd amendment is objectively an overriding civil liberty and that that's unquestionable. Do you think that or do you agree that that's just your opinion and many others think otherwise? that it's not a civil liberty that requires protection above others? If you can't agree that it's just your opinion (albeit one shared by millions of others including the SCOTUS judges) then that's okay it just means you're one of those dictatorial types so you inherently wont be capable of understanding the point in question.

Re:So it has come to this

[Xaedalus]

And those National Guardsmen executed the students. Undertrained or not, they were National Guardsmen who'd been through boot camp. They knew what and who they were pointing those guns at. And they still pulled the triggers.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

The second amendment just needs to be rewritten at this point. What a firearm was in the 18th century bears no resemblence to what we call a firearm now.

I doubt very many people would have objections to anybody being allowed to carry frontloaded single shot muskets. Which was really all the 2nd amendment allowed at that point in time.

People's opinions become more nuanced once you talk about current weaponry. Should people be allowed to carry grenades through elementary school in case the government comes after them? I suspect most people would say no.

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

"But those reasons and that ruling is still their personal interpretation of history."

NO.

Again you err, by mistaking EVIDENCE as "personal interpretation".

There is no point in pursuing this further. You are wrong. I don't feel like spending hours proving it to you, but you could spend a few minutes proving it to yourself, if you wanted to bother.

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

"The second amendment just needs to be rewritten at this point. What a firearm was in the 18th century bears no resemblence to what we call a firearm now."

That may be true, but it is 100% irrelevant.

The PURPOSE of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that THE PEOPLE had access to military grade arms! The reason being (as has gone before in this thread) that THE PEOPLE are guaranteed to have force sufficient to resist a military takeover.

In few words, THAT is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. If the military has laser sidearms, then the civilian populace has the right to own laser sidearms. And even if you don't know the historical arguments, the Supreme Court itself has agreed with me on this issue.

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

"The phrase "well-regulated" means properly functioning (i.e.: properly trained and equipped)."

Yes, it does mean, in part, "properly trained" (not "equipped", but that's irrelevant). But either you did not see the explanations in this thread as to WHY "properly trained" = "a standing army", or you are not capable of understanding it. I care not which; this argument has been made and shot down.

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

"I think that's an insighful interpretation, yep."

I would like to add one thing, however. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it is actually quite important.

That is: it is not "an interpretation", in the common sense, at all. It is, rather, a historical analysis of the original meaning.

Why that distinction is important is beyond the scope of this discussion. But important, it is.

---
"The first and governing maxim in the 'interpretation' of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it." -- James Wilson, Founding Father

Re:So it has come to this

[Reziac]

Yeah, because what's interpreted one way today could be interpreted another tomorrow. So... good sig.

Re:So it has come to this

[shutdown -p now]

Actually, there's no particular disagreement over whether the "founding fathers" believed in the individual right to carry arms (for self-defense etc). There's plenty of correspondence indicating this. The notion was so prevalent at their time that they didn't see the point of writing this into the amendment.

Remember that pretty much the entire Bill of Rights is a reaction to some real infringements of the rights enumerated therein - that's why it has such strange things as the Third. Hence why the focus of the Second is on militia; it's because this particular right - the right of armed citizens to organize in defense of their entire society - was seen as both crucial and recently threatened (by the British). Of course, the way it's actually written, the militia clause clarifies the primary purpose of the amendment, but does not actually restrict it, which is the standing judicial interpretation.

Personally, I'm all in favor of amending that part for clarity. At this point we don't really have a kind of militia that would require people to "keep and bear arms", and the main purpose to own a firearm is self-defense and recreation. Interestingly enough, some state constitutions - usually those written in late 19th century and after - recognize that, and reformulate their own 2A equivalent to emphasize self-defense and deemphasize militias. For example, in my state, WA:

"SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

This is much less ambiguous and closer to our current situation.

Re:So it has come to this

[shutdown -p now]

You might notice that they're called the American Civil Liberties Union, not American Constitutional Liberties Union. As such, their definition of what a "civil liberty" is, is entirely their own, and does not have to coincide with the Constitution. They happen to believe that there's no civil right to bear arms. I disagree, and so does the Constitution, but that does not make them hypocrites.

In any case, so long as they don't speak out against the individual interpretation of 2A (and, aside from their explanation on the website, they do not), I don't see any problem with them. We have plenty of single-issue 2A organizations. Between them and ACLU, all ground is covered.

Re:So it has come to this

[philip.paradis]

You're simply wrong on this, and thus you're making things more difficult for rights advocates who engage in honest debate on the topic. While the general militia was regarded to consist of every man, the ready militia did not predominantly consist of men whose primary occupation was soldiering; these were men who gathered on an intermittent basis for drill and readiness purposes, but held other full time occupations. There was, and is, no requirement or intended meaning of a standing army in the amendment verbiage, nor the writings of Madison as they pertain to this topic.

Again, in the context of the language of the period, the term "well regulated" meant "disciplined or well trained." Both discipline and training in combat maneuvers were, and still are routinely accomplished by groups of people who do not make the military their career. The term implies substantially different meaning in modern usage, as its most commonplace meaning in modern language alludes to laws and other statutory requirements. If you doubt this, please consult a linguist for further guidance. Additionally, please carefully review the information I provided once again.

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

"Yeah, because what's interpreted one way today could be interpreted another tomorrow. So... good sig."

Jeez... talk about WHOOSH. I hope you know how to swim.

Re:So it has come to this

[Reziac]

So then -- explain what you meant??

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

"You're simply wrong on this, and thus you're making things more difficult for rights advocates who engage in honest debate on the topic. While the general militia was regarded to consist of every man, the ready militia did not predominantly consist of men whose primary occupation was soldiering; these were men who gathered on an intermittent basis for drill and readiness purposes, but held other full time occupations. There was, and is, no requirement or intended meaning of a standing army in the amendment verbiage, nor the writings of Madison as they pertain to this topic."

NONE of this... not a single word... has any bearing whatsoever on what I was saying. I would thank you to take a step back and see where the misunderstanding is.

First, your bringing Madison into the subject simply proves that you did not understand what I was saying. I mentioned Madison only in the context that his notes of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 showed that the delegates "nearly" unanimously (there was apparently one curmudgeon or possibly as many as two) supported an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms, in defense of their homes, property, and country. This is not a matter of dispute; it is a matter of crystal clear historical record.

That the INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms -- if necessary, against their own government -- was guaranteed by the Constitution is also a matter of crystal clear historical record, from the debates surrounding State ratification of the Constitution. Again: this is not a matter of dispute for anyone with an IQ over about 60; if you can read and understand, you can read the historical record, still preserved on actual paper in actual ink.

The words "well-regulated militia" appear in the historical record in places other than the Constitution. I repeat: "the militia" was considered to be all males "of age" (i.e., between about 14 and 50 or 55). WE KNOW THIS.

BUT... "the general militia" was NOT a "well-regulated militia". To think that they were is an error of the first order. Not ony is it semantic nonsens, to construe the Second Amendment in that light contrasts markedly (one might even day drastically) with the records describing what the founders were trying to achieve.

Nice of you to say "you are wrong", but sadly, in order to have any weight you would have to show me actual evidence that I am wrong.

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

The sig.

There is a difference between "interpretation" of something, and evidence of what it actually meant.

"Interpretation" implies subjectivity: somebody's impression or opinion.

Evidence is far more solid... and if I may say so without causing confusion: not subject to "interpretation".

Re:So it has come to this

[Reziac]

So we're all in agreement, even if there was confusion during quick-and-dirty slashdot conversation.

Re:So it has come to this

[philip.paradis]

With this reply, you just agreed with everything I wrote in my last reply, aside from side-stepping the point that you erred when you previously claimed that a "well-regulated militia" is a "standing army." It is not a standing army, and the term "well regulated" still means "well disciplined or trained" in this context. Please go back and read (once again) everything I've written, along with the information found at the link I previously provided, in its entirety (I refuse to believe you've done that yet) and then get it through your head that a militia, well regulated or not, is not a standing army.

I want to take a moment here to say "thank you" for standing up for the right of individuals to own firearms. There are entirely too many people drinking the revisionist attitude Kool-Aid that believe our elected representatives somehow have the power to curtail our rights to firearms ownership. All the same, it is of absolutely critical importance that you refine your understanding of the key terminology that defines these rights, because there exists an unfortunately large number of people who will seize upon any such misunderstanding as an opportunity to paint you as too ignorant to be taken seriously in any debate on the rights we hold dear.

In short, this isn't about you and me. This is about much larger things. Thanks again for caring about our rights.

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

With this reply, you just agreed with everything I wrote in my last reply, aside from side-stepping the point that you erred when you previously claimed that a "well-regulated militia" is a "standing army."

You again show that you did not understand my arguments, because in fact I "sidestepped" nothing. Your point actually constituted part of my own point. I do not understand where your failure to see this is, but it is YOUR misunderstanding, not mine.

I did read the page you cited, and it makes not the slightest bit of difference. Example: "Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained. "

My point -- which I will repeat here because you still don't seem to get it -- is that the "general" militia, by definition, is NOT "well trained" or "disciplined". A "well-regulated" militia is one that, by your own argument, is disciplined and well-trained. So we are NOT in disagreement about the meaning of the phrase. The difference is that you do not seem to get that the "general" militia -- "everyman" -- is not well-regulated, and was no more so in those days than today. This "state of preparedness" comes from training that not everyone gets. You get that training in the military.

Re:So it has come to this

[philip.paradis]

This is just getting sad. Let's cut it off here as far as continued back-and-forth on /. goes; please send an email to pparadis@bitfieldlabs.com if you're interested in further discourse.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I have more faith in our somewhat spotty history on this topic. You really think you are heartbeat away from a smart bomb at your breakfast table? What would it look like if you were really paranoid?

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

The ACLU has decided that they have a better understanding than the Supreme Court, and some mental quirk which lets them believe that every other item in the Bill of Rights is an individual right, but the second amendment is somehow the right of someone, somewhere, authorized by someone else unspecified, has the right to keep and bear arms (but not you).

you know hell has frozen over

[halfEvilTech]

When the NRA, EFF, ACLU and the author of the [un]Patriot Act are all against it.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the NRA is there to keep the 2nd amendment strong. The ACLU is there to keep the first 10 amendments strong. It's really like the NRA focuses on a subset of the ACLU.

Not sure who's around to support the 26th amendment... kids these days probably wouldn't notice if it changed.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[i kan reed]

Not, especially. Even if the NRA prop up an industry by manipulating US politics, all 3 organizations share the stated goals of protecting citizens' rights.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Antipater]

"By your powers combined, I am Captain Lobbyist!"

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[i kan reed]

Actually, the ACLU does work outside of the bill of rights, they try to protect anything that could reasonably be called a civil liberty, like voting and running for public office as well.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Nadaka]

Actually... the ACLU does not defend the 2nd amendment. They view it as a right to form a militia, not as a right for private citizens to own firearms.

Now, the ACLU does a ton of other great stuff, but they are not perfect.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[amstrad]

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Quila]

Even if the NRA prop up an industry by manipulating US politics

You mean influences US politics on behalf of its millions of members, and millions more like-minded non-members. Kind of like the ACLU.

What you said is like saying the EFF only does what it does in order to prop up Internet services companies because they profit from a free and open Internet.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Jeremy Erwin]

Not sure who's around to support the 26th amendment... kids these days probably wouldn't notice if it changed.

The ACLU protects the "right" to vote-- but that's not actually in the constitution. Dreamy eyed liberals maintain that such a right is implied, but Conservatives know better.

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.

Bush v Gore, of course...

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[i kan reed]

The relevant bit is the absolute-fuckton of money they get for being a (according your the jist of your post) grassroots organization. It's pretty unreasonable.

I support following the 2nd amendment while it's in the constitution, but I don't believe it belongs there.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[GameboyRMH]

That would be a reasonable assessment if the EFF took positions contrary to that of most of its members but beneficial to the ISPs.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the ACLU's official stance on the 2nd Amendment is that it was a state right, not individual right.

This was actually a contentious decision internally, and I really wish they'd roll this back. The problem is that for some on the liberal left gun violence is perceived as anti-civil liberties, and gun restrictions as promoting less violent neighborhoods and thus promoting more liberties.

I'm a strong supporter of gun rights, personally. Although I must admit to myself that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was a protection afforded people *as* states (the debacle with the Articles of Confederation explains this history), the right wing SCOTUS has settled the matter once and for all, and I don't like the idea of rolling this back.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Krojack]

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Bill Fuckin' Murray? What are you doing on Slashdot?

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[redmid17]

The NRA isn't the lobbying organization for the gun manufacturers. That's the NSSF

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

The NRA isn't the lobbying organization for the gun manufacturers. That's the NSSF

Someone should alert the NRA of this...

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[lgw]

The ACLU has changed a bit on this. They've stopping irrationally refusing to defend the 2nd amendment, though change will be slow of course. I think they want to stop being seen as "some left wing thing" by many Americans.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[intermodal]

Be that as it may, you know when the author of the PATRIOT Act goes to the side these organizations are on, things have gotten bad in Washington...

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't think the 2nd amendment belongs in the constitution, you're an idiot.

It belongs there to allow the citizens, at the end of the day, to defend their other rights.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

The ACLU doesn't care about Amendments 2, 3, 7, 9, or 10.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Ksevio]

It's kind of a waste of resources for the ACLU to defend 2nd amendment cases. The NRA and other groups are eager to fill the gap whereas there are fewer groups for other civil liberties.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if the NRA prop up an industry by manipulating US politics

You mean influences US politics on behalf of its millions of members, and millions more like-minded non-members.

Those millions of dollars spent lobbying come in $25 at a time.

Unlike the opposition, there are no deep pocketed limousine liberals bankrolling the NRA.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[i kan reed]

Except that it wouldn't actually succeed at that, and we can plainly see through critical examination of numerous other countries that arms ownership has exactly zero relationship with rights actually possessed by the populace.

Most modern liberal democracies that protect individual freedom do so in conjunction with gun control. And many barbaric shitholes with extremely corrupt, poor governance have absolutely massive numbers of guns. One simply does not cause the other.

That's aside from the more practical argument that you couldn't even remotely take down an M1 with any of the weapons officially protected by the 2nd amendment.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[X0563511]

They view it as a right to form a militia, not as a right for private citizens to own firearms.

How can one interpret those as different things? A militia is exactly that - private citizens. If it's not composed of private citizens, it's an army and not a militia.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[i kan reed]

To be fair, the whole "outraged==paying attention" formula applied to the patriot act.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[SuricouRaven]

But that isn't what it says.

It says 'a well-regulated militia.' At most, it could be seen as making sure states have a local army sufficient to defend against any oppressive actions by the federal government - but it certainly isn't there to allow citizens or self-appointed groups of citizens to declare revolution if they feel oppressed.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[RoboRay]

If you don't have the right to personally enforce your own rights, you have no guaranteed rights. The Second Amendment is the difference between having rights and having privileges.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

How can one interpret those as different things? A militia is exactly that - private citizens. If it's not composed of private citizens, it's an army and not a militia.

Then what the hell is a "well regulated militia"? One guy regulating himself?

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[ackthpt]

Well, the NRA is there to keep the 2nd amendment strong. The ACLU is there to keep the first 10 amendments strong. It's really like the NRA focuses on a subset of the ACLU.

Not sure who's around to support the 26th amendment... kids these days probably wouldn't notice if it changed.

Don't you find it fascinating the one group favoring arming itself to the teeth for these sort of instances .. are following a peaceful course, much as the ACLU advocates?

I'm beginning to suspect the whole "right of the people to keep and bear arms" has been a scam all along.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[i kan reed]

"If I don't have the ability to take someone else's right to life, how can I do anything?!?!"

The notions of checks and balances, democracy, social contracts, rule of law, basic self-determination, all were impossible until the 16th century when someone exploded some lead down a metal tube.

Tell us more about how human nature depends on a specific piece of technology.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Charliemopps]

The 2nd amendment is THE civil liberty, second only to freedom of expression. It's what prevents the government from simply ignoring the constitution as we have a right to take up arms against them should they get out of hand. It's laughable that people still think the 2nd amendments about hunting or defense. It's about the ability of the citizens to take up arms against their government. Plain and simple.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[crakbone]

It's a lot easier to take the M1 out if your in it with the gun.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[i kan reed]

Yeah, you do that.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[erroneus]

It *IS* the right to form a militia. The trouble people have is understanding what a militia is and what it isn't. At the time of the writing, the meaning and intent of militia is pretty much everyone. In time of need, everyone should be expected to defend the land. WE ARE ALL MILITIA. I know it's a really foreign and stupid idea, but when you are faced with a 3rd amendment situation, you'll wish you were more prepared to exercise your 2nd.

And "well regulated" does not and did not mean "trained and doing practice drills." It means that your guns work... which implies that you are individually trained (usually by your friends or parents) and that you know how to keep your gun clean and ready.

Screw what you THINK the constitution means. Learn what it meant when they wrote it to understand what it means. "Gay" meant happy back then and you probably already know that. So why on earth does anyone think "militia" means a [government] organized military? What's more, even if it did mean a civilian organized military, why then hell aren't people screaming about such militia organizations being outlawed and put on terrorist lists?

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

But that isn't what it says.

It says 'a well-regulated militia.' At most, it could be seen as making sure states have a local army sufficient to defend against any oppressive actions by the federal government - but it certainly isn't there to allow citizens or self-appointed groups of citizens to declare revolution if they feel oppressed.

Language changes over time. 200+ years ago that meant a civilian populace well trained with weapons, as they had just overthrown the British government.

Unless, 20 years from now, you think they had the foresight to mean that we would need the right to graft ursine arms, complete with claws, to our shoulders.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[JesseMcDonald]

Then what ... is a "well regulated militia"? One guy regulating himself?

In the language of the time, it meant every able-bodied male of military age, with the training and supplies necessary to operate as an effective military force in time of need. There was no question of whether weapons were limited to the militia, because the militia was everyone deemed capable of using them.

In any case, the right is not restricted to the militia: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." "The people" is an even more all-inclusive term than "well regulated militia".

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

If that was the case, then it needn't be a personal right, but simply a right of people to form militias, thus being a state right. The Bill of Rightsoriginally never restricted states, only the federal government. So, for example, Virginia could have banned all guns if it wanted to.

As for your Freedom of Expression, you should know that up until about 1930 Free Speech could and was regularly abridged by state and federal governments. Have you never once questioned why states could suppress handing out pamphlets or public speaking? Cities used to pass laws which put people in jail for publicly discussing labor unions, and courts found it perfectly acceptable. Not a single court ever pushed back against prosecutions under the Alien & Sedition Act, not least of which was because didn't even yet have the power to declare laws unconstititional.

Your rationale has precisely no relationship to history whatsoever.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[lgw]

Sure, maybe, but taking that stance alienates a lot of people who might otherwise support the ACLU. They will likely get far more in new donations than it costs them for 2nd amendment defense, if they can attract more conservative donors (and for many conservatives, that's the only reason they don't like the ALCU these days).

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[T.E.D.]

Let's not be disinenuous. I think we all know that the NRA is quite a bit more than a meer club, and is in a whole different class than the ACLU.

The closest analog really is the ASL (anti-saloon league) from a century ago. This organization didn't meerly lobby for its point of view, but organized its members (small in number, but very zealous) to surgically target specific close congressional races with emotion-laden propaganda to take out any congressman in all but the safest wet districts who didn't brainlessly toe the current ASL line. The result was that nearly every elected representative lived in mortal fear of them, and Prohibition was put into the freaking Constitution, even though a majority of the country opposed it. They were practically a political terrorist organization.

Sound familar?

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

How does the ACLU count to ten? 1, 3, 4,5,6,7,8,9,10.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get that. When have you ever had to do that? Your parents? Their parents? Hell, even the Civil war wasn't about an individual taking arms against the government. Did you use some gun to prevent what some people take to be over-reaches by the NSA? If I read your statement at face value, the 2nd amendment guarantees some things that are obsolete, never used, and completely impotent.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

How can one interpret those as different things? A militia is exactly that - private citizens. If it's not composed of private citizens, it's an army and not a militia.

Then what the hell is a "well regulated militia"? One guy regulating himself?

It's olde tyme speak for "properly functioning" or "properly trained and equipped".

For example, the precision movement in old clocks was called the "regulator".

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

This must explain why every time the NRA compromises on a piece of gun regulation, it's invariably something that only affects imports.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[I'm New Around Here]

What's more, even if it did mean a civilian organized military, why then hell aren't people screaming about such militia organizations being outlawed and put on terrorist lists?

Because they just don't want people to have guns. It isn't about whether a group is actually "well regulated" within their own ranks, it is only about the fact that someone owns a gun, and they don't like that.

I think it's funny that they would fight to (mostly) preserve the other rights the Constitution guarantees us, but want that one to vanish.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

Enough! I get the point...

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Nidi62]

What a lot of people seem to ignore or forget is that a militia, by definition, is a group of people armed with their own personal weapons. So what the Second Amendment really says is "Because a trained and capable militia is necessary for the defense of the state, the people need to have access to and possess weapons so that they can fight in the even that the militia is called up". People want to focus on the first part of the Second Amendment and argue that it applies only to things like the National Guard(which is not a militia), but the first part is in truth only a justification for the second part, which is the crux of the Amendment.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Tailhook]

5 million dues-paying members. Better than 1.5% of the population of the US voluntarily buy an NRA membership. When you exclude organizations that have as their mandate establishing or protecting some government provided benefit there are damn few left with that level of direct citizen participation. To my mind that puts the NRA among the most legitimate pressure groups in existence.

This isn't some endowment funded outfit that claims to represent some part of the population. Millions pay to be counted. So the next time you feel that malcontent rage bubble up inside when your statist-in-chief fails to march the nation into the gun-free romper room, try to understand that they're facing people — large numbers of actual people — that think otherwise and put their names and their money behind their rights.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

It *IS* the right to form a militia. The trouble people have is understanding what a militia is and what it isn't. At the time of the writing, the meaning and intent of militia is pretty much everyone. In time of need, everyone should be expected to defend the land. WE ARE ALL MILITIA.

You kind of went over the edge there, missing one of those "teachable moments"... if you are in the US, male, and between 17 and 45 (which I imagine is many of us here)... then in fact you are part of the reserve militia, as codified by the Militia Act of 1903.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

All due respect, that's idiotic and ahistorical. If you arrogate to yourself the right to take up arms against the government, you're past the point of needing constitutional sanction.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Nadaka]

That is admittedly better than how the NRA counts to 10... 2.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Jeremy Erwin]

The ACLU does some work in opposing arbitration, which is the usual endrun around the seventh amendment-- "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re–examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

The ninth amendment is one of general utility: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.". However, it has served as foundation of the "right of privacy", which the ACLU does advocate for, and of course, it has been cited in legal arguments defending other civil rights.

The tenth amendment-- "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"-- is a hard one to directly defend from a civil liberties perspective, as states can violate the civil liberties of those unlucky enough to live within their borders. The fourteenth amendment (which is loved by the ACLU) can blunt this impact, though.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

Your definition makes no sense. In any event, both armies and militias require government approval. Here's a clause from Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, enumerating Congressional powers:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Thus, the Second Amendment was quite clearly intended to prevent Congress from using its regulatory authority to _prevent_ States from establishing a militia--to protect itself from insurrection, especially insurrection by slaves.

Today we have a strong free market bias, but the debates at the constitutional convention were about what the Congress could prohibit, not how it could protect liberties. For example, could Congress limit textiles imports? Remember, this was the age of mercantilism, and the idea that you'd want to restrict certain behaviors for long term gain was predominant. Almost everything in the early days was about how and when the federal government could restrict state powers, because it was assume that states were sovereign governments in their own right. The new federal system created very thorny legal questions because it granted the federal government many more powers than it had under the Articles of Confederation.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[X0563511]

... and let's not forget that the whole point of the amendment is to make sure that citizens can defend the country if the government is not able to, as well as resist the government if necessary.

This threat is basically the final enforcement option of the constitution. Without something like that, it might as well have been written on toilet paper.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[intermodal]

Agreed.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Jeremy Erwin]

It belongs there to allow the citizens, at the end of the day, to defend their other rights.

Or alternatively, to usurp the state's monopoly on violence, and destroy the basis of the liberal state.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[I'm New Around Here]

Because populaces never overthrew oppressive governments while carrying swords, spears, or pitchforks.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[AlphaWolf_HK]

You may as well call this a wasted effort then. One group is fighting this, so why does the other need to get involved?

The ACLU has been very much just the lawyer arm of the democratic party, for good or bad. When you look at their history, if it is a civil liberty that the democratic party doesn't want, then the ACLU doesn't defend it.

The best indicator of this would be the copyright trolls. Hollywood basically owns the democratic party, and the ACLU doesn't seem to do much of anything about censorship that comes from the **AA.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Jane Q. Public]

"Not, especially. Even if the NRA prop up an industry by manipulating US politics, all 3 organizations share the stated goals of protecting citizens' rights."

And what industry would that be?

Gun manufacturers make a hell of a lot more money supplying the military than they do selling arms to civilians. Yet you don't see the NRA advocating war.

I think your assertion is disproven. Or at least, there is very, very strong evidence against it.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, when you figure it out, you should be well qualified for this job!

"The senior software engineer should have some experience within well-regulated industries and have experience handling multiple projects simultaneously."

http://www.mcs-consulting.com.au/i-t-and-t-jobs/senior-software-engineer-c--cplusplus---safety-critical-systems/51562

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[orgelspieler]

As long as they don't fuck with the 21st Amendment, I'll be fine.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

The second amendment is the most irrelevant and unimportant right however you cut it. The military is to big for pure citizen revolt to be relevant. The truth is what really matters in the situation of open government revolt or serious unrest is the various affiliation and followings of various military leaders and soldiers. Also at that point the constitution is irrelevant, and so is the right for citizens to have firearms.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Jane Q. Public]

"The notions of checks and balances, democracy, social contracts, rule of law, basic self-determination, all were impossible until the 16th century when someone exploded some lead down a metal tube."

Yes, pretty much. Your sarcasm is lost in a sea of facts.

"Tell us more about how human nature depends on a specific piece of technology."

It isn't about "a piece of technology". It's about human rights, and a basic principle. If you don't have a RIGHT to defend yourself, you don't have any real rights. Period. History has shown that to us that over, and over, and over again... so many times, it's a wonder that it has to be repeated to you.

Would you rather have us repeat that history? You go ahead, and good luck with that. I'll take a pass on that.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

In any case, the right is not restricted to the militia: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." "The people" is an even more all-inclusive term than "well regulated militia".

A big problem with that interpretation is that it means half the text of the amendment is completely unnecessary and can be removed. You end up with the only unnecessary text in the entire constitution and all of its amendments.

The "language of the time" argument isn't really a good one either - you can find experts to defend a lot of different interpretations of it.

I think it was just as confusing then as it is now. No full agreement on how broad the right should be amongst the people who wrote it. Final wording satisfied everyone, but it was vague enough that the different sides were able to interpret it how they wanted to.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[ackthpt]

The problem I have with the NRA and 2nd Amendment people who totally buy into this Militia thing is this: Who is calling the ... ahem ... shots? Who is in command of these militias? By what authority?

Anyone who thinks the United States is civilised, hold onto your hats, if it did come down to militias you better believe there will be score settling and such which would make the Middle East look like a controlled situation in comparison.

The people who drew the colonists together were well off and educated. Who would be doing that these days? Just the implication of that should scare the heck out of any rational citizen.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

"but it certainly isn't there to allow citizens or self-appointed groups of citizens to declare revolution if they feel oppressed."

      As defined by the creation of the United States, yes it does!!

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[AlphaWolf_HK]

In the early days, some states (I know New York was one of them) didn't have federal elections. Instead they voted for their state government, and then the state government would pick representatives, senators, and presidential electors when it came time for federal elections.

So yeah, technically when it comes to matters of the federal election, the individual states have the right to make their own call about (for example) who can vote and who can't.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

A big problem with that interpretation is that most of the people who voted to ratify it understood the language such that they agreed with the GP's interpretation.

Lrn to historical context.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Zak3056]

That is admittedly better than how the NRA counts to 10... 2.

You do grasp that the National Rifle Association has a rather more narrowly defined mission than the American Civil Liberties Union, right?

I've never understood comments like yours--the NRA defends other civil liberties incidental to the exercise of the 2nd (for example, their support of Citizens United was an instance of supporting the first amendment as a means of supporting the second). The ACLU is supposed to stand for ALL civil liberties. It self describes itself thusly: The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country. It's lack of support--indeed, it's hostility toward-- the second amendment is in complete opposition to its stated goals (largely because of its identification as a "right wing" issue).

I don't like some of the things that the ACLU does, but in general I see them as a force for "good." The reason I won't support them is their hypocrisy on this issue. The reasoning they use to claim the 2nd amendment is a "collective right" can be applied to any other right enjoyed by "the people," and that's downright dangerous.

Please note, that I don't believe the ACLU needs to be out there defending gun rights cases--given their broad mission, I don't think this would be the best use of their resources. But a simple statement along the lines of, "we support the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and refer those seeking our assistance to one of the many single issue organizations in this area" would go a long way toward bringing gun owners back into the fold.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, when you figure it out, you should be well qualified for this job!

"The senior software engineer should have some experience within well-regulated industries and have experience handling multiple projects simultaneously."

http://www.mcs-consulting.com.au/i-t-and-t-jobs/senior-software-engineer-c--cplusplus---safety-critical-systems/51562

You know you're an idiot, don't you?

You're deliberately conflating the meanings of "regulated". One is to control according to rule, principle, or law. The other is to maintain proper functioning.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sure, maybe"

      There's no 'sure, maybe' about it. The second amendment exists to make sure government behaves, obviously it isn't working so well for the public any longer with the government lying about its meaning and outright violating it left and right.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Jane Q. Public]

If you are going to argue, you should at least learn something about what the hell you're arguing about.

"That's aside from the more practical argument that you couldn't even remotely take down an M1 with any of the weapons officially protected by the 2nd amendment."

First off, the M1 was a rifle used during the 2nd World War. Second, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Second Amendment was specifically intended to safeguard the CIVILIAN ownership of military-grade arms. That was the entire purpose behind it.

So, FYI: someone today with a perfectly legal, semi-automatic, civilian-owned AR-15 style rifle, would in fact enjoy a great advantage over anyone wielding a .30-caliber M1 carbine. It's a decent weapon but the ballistics just aren't that great.

But if by chance you meant M4, you're still wrong. For several reasons: first, with the exception of full-auto fire, the identical weapon is available to civilians all over the United States. (The AR-15 and its variants, like the M4, is in fact the most popular SPORTING rifle in the United States today.) And full-auto fire (or "burst mode") just isn't much advantage, if at all, in the vast majority of situations.

Not to mention that there are vastly many MORE of them in civilian hands than in military hands.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Nadaka]

The thing is, the ACLU does not consider the right to bear arms to BE a civil liberties. They are wrong about that, but within the context of that perspective they are not ignoring it.

Citizens United? WTF. Corporations are not people, supporting Citizens United actually harms the liberties of actual people.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying you're against the 18th amendment???

You know, that would be fun to put on the news... take a survey to find out the percentage of people that say that they are in favor of the 18th amendment.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[msmonroe]

Yeah Holy crap we're living in the "End of Days", soon we're gonna be all dead!

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Jane Q. Public]

"But that isn't what it says.

It says 'a well-regulated militia.' At most, it could be seen as making sure states have a local army sufficient to defend against any oppressive actions by the federal government - but it certainly isn't there to allow citizens or self-appointed groups of citizens to declare revolution if they feel oppressed."

This has been one of the most common myths about the Second Amendment. And it's as understandable as it is wrong.

The key words are "well-regulated". A well-regulated militia is a standing army. The necessity of having a standing army WAS THE REASON civilians are guaranteed the right to arms... to fight off that standing army if need be. After all, this is what the founders most feared. They had just waged a war against their own government's standing army, to win their freedom. They wanted to guarantee that if it happened again, The People would win. Again.

So looking at it from that perspective, the wording actually makes sense: "A well-regulated militia" (a standing army) "being NECESSARY to the security of a free state" (we might not like it but we must have one), "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"The People" is used elsewhere in the Constitution. Every time, it means you and me. Not some police or military force. There is no other place in the Constitution where the founders garbled their words. The only reasonable conclusion, then, is that "the people" referred to in the Second Amendment are you, and me.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

The 2nd amendment is THE civil liberty, second only to freedom of expression. It's what prevents the government from simply ignoring the constitution as we have a right to take up arms against them should they get out of hand. It's laughable that people still think the 2nd amendments about hunting or defense. It's about the ability of the citizens to take up arms against their government. Plain and simple.

Given that the goverment often ignores the constitution, and gun ownership is high, it's laughable to think that gun ownership has an effect on government.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Jane Q. Public]

"It's kind of a waste of resources for the ACLU to defend 2nd amendment cases. "

It's hypocritical of them to NOT defend 2nd Amendment cases.

The ACLU's stated purpose is to defend Constitutional rights. If they pick and choose what rights they want to defend at any given time, they aren't doing what their charter says they exist for.

Period.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't make me laugh, you really believe that shit ? Man, and I make fun of people that believe in god.
Thank god the blacks had guns to reclaim their rights.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[HighOrbit]

Then what the hell is a "well regulated militia"? One guy regulating himself?

Not an armed mob. With officers, discipline, and lawful activities.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, just maybe, people should stop trying to interpret what the holy gods meant at the time they wrote it, and instead think about what it should be in today's world, which kinda changed a bit.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Zak3056]

>Citizens United? WTF. Corporations are not people, supporting Citizens United actually harms the liberties of actual people.

I agree corporations are not people. That said, people MUST have the same rights when acting together as they do when they are acting separately, and that's where "corporate speech" comes in.

Example: You, I, and several thousand of our closest friends oppose the police state that has been building for the last twelve years. We decide we want to tell the world about our opposition and outrage by placing a full page ad in the New York Times. Of course, you, nor I, nor my neighbors Alice and Bob can afford to buy that kind of ad space, so we get together to do so--everybody chips in, say, ten bucks a piece. In order to keep everything straight (who's given their ten bucks, when did we pay the NYT and how much? Did we have any money left over? What are we going to do with it?) we have a corporate entity "The PATRIOT Act Fucking Sucks, Inc." to act in all of our names.

Would you suggest that our corporation should not enjoy all of the protections of the first amendment?

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[gman003]

Many positions of the NRA are clearly those of gun manufacturers, not gun owners. For instance, they oppose manufacturer liability for injuries caused by defective firearms - cases of "my gun exploded because it wasn't made right", not "I shot myself like a dumbass so I'm going to sue Smith & Wesson because my lawyer thinks we can get a lot of money". Does that sound like a gun owners' organization?

The NRA may protect gun ownership, but only because manufacturers want to protect their customer base.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

it could be seen as making sure states have a local army sufficient to defend against any oppressive actions by the federal government - but it certainly isn't there to allow citizens or self-appointed groups of citizens to declare revolution if they feel oppressed.

What is the difference?
The militia will always think that they are defending themselves against an oppressive government and the government will always see them as unruly citizens unjustly trying to declare revolution.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

I so wish I had mod points to apply to this post.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

The 2nd amendment is pointless.

The things needed to revolt against an oppressive government is the right to assembly and free speech. Those are things that actually threaten the government.
A couple of dudes with guns aren't a threat to the government. You can just label them as domestic terrorists and take them out.
An organized but unarmed population, now that is a thing that governments fear.

Once you have decided to get rid of the government you are by pretty much any definition a traitor and/or terrorist and with a modern tools you can make pretty effective weapons and bombs if necessary. Look at the makerbot guns for example, remove the artificial limit of making them entirely out of plastic and add a metal barrel to them. Considering how simple the Kalashnikov design is I wouldn't be surprised if one could crank out pretty reasonable assault rifles without much work.

The 2nd amendment is just a red herring that makes it possible for the government to infringe on the amendments that actually would make it possible to organize an effective revolt against the government.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Asymmetric warfare has been waged successfully numerous times throughout history, and the more weapons the general populace holds, the higher the chances of success.

The M1 would be rather useless in a civil war today anyways - it already is mostly useless in the war on terror as well. I used to serve in an armored unit by the way, and tank crews know very well that if they run into infantry, especially in an urban environment, they're fucked. This isn't command and conquer where you simply order your tank to run over the bad guy. It's actually rather trivial for dismounted units to disable tanks (that scene from Saving Private Ryan comes to mind, though today there are easier methods.) A well aimed bullet inside of the turret is good enough to disable that component. It still has a 50 cal and m240 at its disposal at this point, but for the remainder of the battle it isn't the devastatingly destructive force it was built to be.

The most effective weapon I think they would have in a civil war would be the same one that is the most effective in the war on terror: the drones. Drones have by and large replaced the M1. However unlike in the middle east, there are a lot more tools here that could be useful against those drones, and it would be quite a bit more difficult to determine friend from foe as well, which is critical for the success of a drone campaign.

In the end what would be required for pacification of any grassroots revolution is to take political control over the dissidents. That will be very hard to do if all of them are carrying small arms. Imagine sending police walking uniformed into a known hostile neighborhood, knocking on doors arresting people...yeah. And killing all of the dissidents wouldn't really win you any favors, especially if your goal is to have a functional economy afterwards.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

*woosh*

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Jeremy Erwin]

OK.

There are three approaches.

1. We could adopt an originalist approach-- states would usurp the right to vote, and we would feel proud that the greats states were finally asserting the dignity incumbent upon such glorious institutions.
2. We could adopt a formalist approach and amend the various constitutions so that the right to vote was explicitly protected, when the states try the originalist scenario.
3. We could stop worrying about dangerous formalisms, and raise holy hell when states even think of usurpation.

Currently, we're in approach 3, but approach 2 might prove necessary as many states have shown that they have no respect for the franchise. Approach One is for authoritarian assholes, but such people do exist.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[dcollins]

"...it meant every able-bodied male of military age..."

This definition of militia as every "free able-bodied white male citizen" was set by Congressional action in the Second Militia Act of 1792. So by referring to this definition, one accepts that Congress has the legislative power to expand or restrict those who count as being in the militia, as it sees fit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

Re: you know hell has frozen over

[Quila]

You have been listening to the lying anti-gun crowd instead of the facts that rights supporters could have given you.

The law specifically exempts actual product defects from immunity.

What it does do is protect the industry from nuisance suits by people who say the illegal use of their product is the responsibility of the manufacturer. Imagine if Chevy were sued for every drunk driving injury involving a Chevy. That's what the law stopped.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[DriedClexler]

It *is* sadly familiar to hear someone call a group "terrorist" for using the democratic process to pass their agenda.

Re: you know hell has frozen over

[Quila]

As far as lobbying and lawsuits go, NRA is a single-issue version of the ACLU, necessary because he ACLU has chosen to not recognize that one amendment.

Not that the NRA does great on that. They're a little too willing to accede to the rights-violators' demands. The GOA is better in this.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[drinkypoo]

So, FYI: someone today with a perfectly legal, semi-automatic, civilian-owned AR-15 style rifle, would in fact enjoy a great advantage over anyone wielding a .30-caliber M1 carbine. It's a decent weapon but the ballistics just aren't that great.

Hence the M1 Garand, and the .30-06 round. The ballistics are great. For a long, long way. And you can get them as military surplus, and the ammo for them too. It's pretty decent ammo, though you're not allowed to use it a lot of places as it will attract a magnet. And the rifle is often considered to be one of the greatest of all time, and a synthetic stock to bring it into the modern age as far as weight is concerned is not exceptionally expensive.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh the whole thing
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.

Do you see that little comma after state? I know it is small in size but it is very big in importance. As to your wild assertion about reveolution no it doesn't say that nor have I ever seen any statement from the NRA calling for a revolution. You like most progressive have a view and the facts well they don't mattter when they conflict with your view.

And no I am not a bible thumping, conservative.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[drinkypoo]

Maybe, just maybe, people should stop trying to interpret what the holy gods meant at the time they wrote it, and instead think about what it should be in today's world, which kinda changed a bit.

We do think about these things. That's why we insist that force should reside with The People. The founding fathers knew that standing armies were injurious to freedom, so they wrote laws which made them unnecessary; but they did not outright ban them in the case that they might become necessary for the national defense. Sadly, that means we got them anyway, and as it turns out, they were right about the effects of standing militaries on freedom, which in turn is why some of us still support the second amendment to the constitution of these United States of America.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Kaenneth]

If I had to register for the draft (Selective Service); I should be able to possess appropriate weapons.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Nadaka]

The problem is that Corporations are given a right that people do not have. Very large personal donations must be disclosed and are a matter of public record. Very large corporate donations are anonymous. You see the difference here? And in the case of corporate donations, they are not a group coming together for a common political purpose, but are instead thrust together for varied economic purposes.

If a corporation donates to a political cause anonymously... The shareholders can not vote their outrage at board meetings. The shareholders can not dump their stock. The employees can not quit their jobs. Their customers can not boycott their products. It allows a very small minority within the corporation to spend the money of other people for political cause without repercussion. This specifically disenfranchises the political and economic freedom of multitudes of individuals in very real ways.

Money is not speech and corporations are not people. Citizens United is an abomination.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

If you actualy read the militia act of the time you will see it list what each man (at the time it was only men, not trying to be sexist.) had to have in that list is a bayonet which is stricly a weapon of war not for hunting.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[drinkypoo]

The thing is, the ACLU does not consider the right to bear arms to BE a civil liberties. They are wrong about that, but within the context of that perspective they are not ignoring it.

The more you study this issue the more you have to conclude that the right was intended to rest with the people, and not with the federal government; indeed, it is the very purpose of the second amendment to make standing armies unnecessary. Therefore, you can only come to the conclusion that the second amendment is not a civil liberty through willful ignorance, and it's usually safe to assume that someone who will lie to themselves for their own convenience on one issue will go ahead and apply the technique liberally.

That doesn't mean I'm anti-ACLU, but it does mean that I take every statement about protecting our rights with a grain of salt.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[JesseMcDonald]

The existence of the militia, and the definition I used, predate the Constitution, much less the Second Militia Act of 1792. See the history of militia in the United States: "[The term "militia"] has historically been used to describe all able-bodied men who are not members of the Army or Navy (Uniformed Services)."

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[X0563511]

All that says is that the government has a responsibility to make sure there are militias and that they are properly equipped and trained. It says nothing about them being an army instead of a militia.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

Please excuse me for /gently/ straw manning you...

So in your world view, a group of citizens -- organizing to vote in a block on a single issue they feel strongly about... is a terrorist organization?

I do not think that word means what you think it means...

But seriously, where the hell DO you draw the line in collective action? There's a lot of issues I feel strongly about. A lot for which I'm willing to vote /against/ a candidate. My issues are not the same as yours.

You say the majority of the country opposed it -- but... that's kind of not relevant.

The fact of the matter is we're not a democracy, we're a constitutional republic with a senate. Whether that's /just/ is a different issue. I'd rather not trade the tyranny of the majority for the potential (and real) tyranny of the senate and constitutional amendment ratification process....

For all the problems of prohibition (and they were very real), this appears to be a relatively rare problem in the scope of our democratic history -- that was undone in relatively short time.

The two party system may be a greater menace... but you know, as a card carrying member of the NRA and a donor to the ACLU and EFF... I'll take the NRA voting anyone who votes against gun rights out.

Next I will vote against anyone who votes against the remainder of the bill of rights.

Next I will vote against anyone who votes against the general interests of liberty.

Next I will vote against anyone who votes for state mandated DRM and cryptographic back doors.

And if there's anyone left, I'll start looking at economic issues...

But seriously, who are you to call... campaigning... terrorism?

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[RoboRay]

Thank you so much for supporting my position so well...

Of course all those notions of checks and balances, democracy, social contracts, rule of law and basic self-determination all existed prior to the common availability of firearms.

The practice of those notions, unfortunately, was extraordinarily rare until firearms put the weak on equal standing with the strong. We have all those things today, things to be proud of, in great part due to guns.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[jsepeta]

The NRA's main purpose is to keep it legal for white men to own guns to shoot black men, pure and simple. Their work allows all men to kill all men. It's a dumb organization with a hateful, harmful purpose and lots of wrong has been done thanks to their efforts.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

Cute that you think that a revolution would be prevented by making such an insurrection 'illegal'.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[sjames]

When written, the 'militia' was defined as every able bodied male citizen.

Well regulated was more akin to practiced than controlled.

So, they were saying it was necessary for every able bodied male citizen to be good with a gun. In light of changing times, I'd say that now extends to women as well.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to add some substance to your statement, the militia is actually codified in federal law: 10 USC 311

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Jane Q. Public]

"Hence the M1 Garand, and the .30-06 round"

THAT much is true. I made an invalid assumption: that he meant the carbine, and not the Garand.

The .30-06 is indeed a respectable round.

You may be interested to know that while they are legal to own domestically, President Obama signed an executive order prohibiting the re-importation of U.S.-made Garands that were sold overseas.

There is no rational explanation for his actions. The only explanations I have been able to think of so far have been (1) he just doesn't like guns and so jumped at any opportunity to limit them, or (2) he is TRYING to make political enemies.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Zak3056]

You do make some excellent points--especially about people who ostensibly own the company not having any visibility into what the people who (allegedly) work for them are spending their money on. I'd argue, though, that this is a job for the shareholders to solve by demanding policies be set (and voting for same) and with oversight. The company is their property, if ti's being mismanaged, it's up to them to fix it. With regard to anonymity... I find this a hard question in general. While I see your point, I think anonymity can be a VERY important tool, especially when you're supporting something unpopular--especially something unpopular with authority. Either way this one falls, though, the rules should be the same for individuals and corporate entities. I don't think Citizens United says otherwise, but feel free to contradict me.

I agree that corporate entities should not have rights that people do not have, though I'm wondering what you're talking about here... if it's the "ACME, Inc hired goons to bust heads, and also poisoned ten thousand people. They will pay a ten thousand dollar fine, but admit to wrong doing," thing, then I agree this is an abomination, but it's NOT related to Citizens United. Can you offer some examples of what you're talking about?

As far as "economic, not political" I see this as a meaningless distinction. While I agree the obvious intent of the 1st amendment is political, it is NOT limited to political speech (else, banning something like pornography is a slam dunk. I think you and I would both agree, though, that this is NOT a result we would like to see, because it opens the door to further restrictions on things we do care about).

"Money is not speech." Well, maybe, but it sure makes a great amplifier so people can hear what you have to say. In my above example WRT the New York Times, money effectively IS speech. You have to BUY access to the medium. Before the internet, you literally COULD NOT get your message out to a broad audience without money. These days, it's easier (unless Facebook, Twitter, etc don't like what you have to say) but should the availability of those channels make it harder to access others? I'd argue no.

In the end, though, I come down to a simple difference between you and I that means that we will never reach common ground on this subject. Your position (forgive me if I am putting words in your mouth--feel free to correct me) is that the evils of corporate speech--and there ARE many evils that have, are, and WILL be done in the future--outweigh the good to the point that restrictions are a must. My position is that the good and potential good outweigh the evils (and also that the first amendment is on my side) and therefore restrictions are abhorrent.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Jeremy Erwin]

Not really. We freely speak of politics because there's a first amendment, not because the government supposedly fears us. When was the last time there was an insurrection?

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[LynnwoodRooster]

I suggest you review DC v Heller, and understand that the 2nd Amendment isn't just about the people defending themselves against the Government, but that it "protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves". Self-defense, including against other people - not just Governments.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[LynnwoodRooster]

That happened a few years ago, it was a little Supreme Court case called District of Columbia v. Heller and the Court found that the 2nd Amendment also exists to allow individuals to protect themselves (self-defense).

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[LynnwoodRooster]

"...it meant every able-bodied male of military age..."

This definition of militia as every "free able-bodied white male citizen" was set by Congressional action in the Second Militia Act of 1792. So by referring to this definition, one accepts that Congress has the legislative power to expand or restrict those who count as being in the militia, as it sees fit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

Then Congress should do so; it cannot arbitrarily restrict ownership of firearms as that would be depriving militia members of their right to bear arms...

Of course, there is also that whole DC v Heller thing that kind of makes it a personal right, not just a militia right, and then McDonald v Chicago that incorporated the right to individuals (beyond the reach of States)...

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh it's so much worse than that:

1). Jenny McCarthy now believes in vaccines;
2). Julian Assange hires himself out to any interested secret service for consulting services;
3). Lindsay Lohan has become a peaceful vegan Buddhist;

!

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Sabriel]

"attract a magnet"?

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Major Blud]

"That's aside from the more practical argument that you couldn't even remotely take down an M1 with any of the weapons officially protected by the 2nd amendment."

Try telling that to these guys:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietcong

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically, an M1 is a weapon officially protected by the 2nd amendment. They are simply too expensive for most people to own, even for sporting purposes.

Since at the time it was written, America presumed the militia to be every able-bodied person capable of bearing arms in defense of the state, the arms protected are any device with a military purpose. Obviously, the writers of the amendment did not anticipate main battle tanks, aircraft carriers, fighter/bombers, nerve agents, and nuclear weapons. It might have been clearer to say that the government may not possess any weapon that it denies by law to its citizens and permanent residents.

There is nothing particularly magical about wearing a uniform that makes someone better able to handle the responsibility of carrying powerful weapons. The important function that the military actually serves is to not to keep those weapons out of the hands of incompetents and psychotics, but to keep them disarmed until they are all under a sergeant's direct supervision.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

I never said that militias equal armies, I merely argued that the distinction is inconsequential here. An army in the language of the Constitution is a professional standing army maintained during times of peace for potentially aggressive purposes. Militias are not standing, but they're still organized and maintained by governments. Every man with a gun is not part of some ethereal, universal militia. Certainly that wasn't the case at the time of the passing of the Constitution.

Also, in many passages of the Constitution "people" means "state". Why? Because the "people" were represented by _their_ states, which existed only by their authority. This is why it was so controversial to have some Congressional representatives chosen directly by popular election. Many people argued it was superfluous and senseless, because "the people" were already represented by their constituted states.

FWIW, SCOTUS deftly circumvented this whole problem using a traditional legal rule for reading documents. Under their reading of the 2nd Amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is an unambiguous prohibition on its face. Being unambiguous, there is no need to consult the antecedent preamble, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state."

Under Anglo-American law, preambles (aka precatory clauses) don't usually count. "Because my nephew loved me so much, I give him $10,000,000 from my estate." The court doesn't _care_ whether the nephew actually loved his aunt. if the niece came into court with evidence that the nephew hated his aunt, the court would toss her out. "Because my nephew loved me so much" is like an annotation in a programming language. It doesn't mean anything semantically, it's just there for a meta-analysis of the program. Likewise, "A well regulated militias being necessary to the security of a free state" doesn't even need to be interpreted. This is also why SCOTUS stubbornly refuses to give any substance to the phrase "To Promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts".

There are exceptions for when preambles matter, like when the rule it precedes is ambiguous, then you can look to the preamble to help figure out the meaning of the rule. But without the ambiguity or some other exception, courts just ignore it. Another way around it is to disagree that it's a preamble, but in this case SCOTUS didn't take that route because it's stupid to try to argue that the language defines a personal, and not state, right.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Nadaka]

If there was any good in "free corporate speech", it would not involve anonymity that compromises the political and economic liberty of real people.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[aardvarkjoe]

It's kind of a waste of resources for the ACLU to defend 2nd amendment cases. The NRA and other groups are eager to fill the gap whereas there are fewer groups for other civil liberties.

That would make sense if the ACLU claimed a position in support of the Second Amendment, but had a policy of not taking cases related to it. In reality, though, they have an official position that opposes the Second Amendment.

They're certainly entitled to take that position, but it does mean that they don't live up to their mission to "defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States."

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

The most recent large scale civilian use of arms against a corrupt government on us soil would have been 1946 The Battle of Athens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Ksevio]

In reality they have limited resources so they have to pick and choose which cases they take. Would it be better for more cases to be brought because gun rights groups are jumping in to help or fewer because the ACLU is devoting more resources to 2nd amendment cases over less popular 5th amendment cases?

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[khallow]

It's worth noting that you'd be a more effective soldier in the event of a draft, if you are already accustomed to using fire arms, both actually firing them and maintaining them properly.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

Aaaaah, so the Second Amendment is the right to own a firearm so that you may shoot your family, or have an intruder take the firearm and use it against you. Gotcha.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[MikeBabcock]

The right to bear arms is meaningless without the ability to effectively use them against your oppressors.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[drinkypoo]

"attract a magnet"?

It's the way it's written in the regulations. I didn't make this shit up.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[T.E.D.]

Please excuse me for /gently/ straw manning you...

Correct, you did indeed proceed to build yourself a strawman.

So in your world view, a group of citizens -- organizing to vote in a block on a single issue they feel strongly about... is a terrorist organization?

This is incorrect. I said no such thing. You may want to get out a dictionary and look up the word "practically". It means "nearly but not quite". Which is another way of saying the ASL was not a terrorist oganization.

But you did a nice job on that strawman over there. I don't think he's getting up from that.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[T.E.D.]

So in your world view, a group of citizens -- organizing to vote in a block on a single issue they feel strongly about... is a terrorist organization?

Just looking over this again, I can't get over how profoundly you have missed my point. This is nothing whatsoever like what I said. It isn't even in the same universe.

The ASL was not a simple group of people voting in a block in every election. There indeed is nothing unusual about that. However, such groups' power is very diffuse, and they rarely get much done via the ballot box. If that's all they were, nobody would be talking about them today. What they did instead it target specific elections and just pour resources into them, including emotion-laden propaganda (emotions are far harder to counter than reason), and true believers from out of the district to supply more campaigning manpower and money that anybody could hope to compete with based on local resources alone. As a result, they could (and would) basically end the career of any politician they felt like at any time.

So where they got their power from was not from any true heft of their position at the ballot box, but by instilling fear in elected representatives. Was it legal? Sure. Was there anything really wrong with any of the ASL's individual campaign actions? Not really. Was it the overall effect democratic?Majority rule? Not even close.

The ASL's power came from fear of being specifically targeted, not from any concern about their popular support of their position. That isn't terrorisim. But a minority ruling a majority by fear of being personally targeted is certianly something similar to that.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

The ACLU focus on their area which is anything that is apart to the second amendment. They will leave that niche specifically to the NRA who is supremely concerned about the second amendment. This is known as delegation of responsibility and is effective in helping people save effort by not duplicating it.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Quila]

"Well-regulated" in this time and context ment trained and capable, not under the control of an authority under regulations.

"Security of a free state" means security of a free country of the people. That's as in free as opposed to oppressed by their government.

The militia is of the people, as opposed to one formed by the government as a standing army. Remember, these are people who considered a standing army to be the "bane of liberty," so it is not likely they wanted to put so much power there.

"A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen" James Madison. He envisioned that half a million people rising up with their own arms to fight could not be conquered by any army. Half a million doesn't seem like much now, but he said that when the country only had a population of about four million.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Quila]

What they did instead it target specific elections and just pour resources into them, including emotion-laden propaganda (emotions are far harder to counter than reason),

That sounds what the billionaire-funded, NYC-based MAIG is doing for the Colorado recall elections right now. The recall effort itself is organized and mostly funded within the state, but most of the defense of these politicians is coming from out of state.

In fact, the Democrat strategy guide for pushing gun control specifically states to use emotions to push the agenda.

#1: ALWAYS FOCUS ON EMOTIONAL AND VALUE-DRIVEN ARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE, NOT THE POLITICAL FOOD FIGHT IN WASHINGTON OR WONKY STATISTICS.

Their biggest tool is high-profile shootings. Here are their policies on how to handle those:

There can be a tendency to adopt a quiet âoewait and seeâ attitude when a high-profile gun violence incident happens. The truth is, the most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak.

Does this mean they plan to use emotions over facts of the case? What about the facts?

So, the smartest thing to do is avoid linking our message and arguments to any one set of partially-revealed facts. We shouldnâ(TM)t assume the facts. But, we also shouldnâ(TM)t argue ourselves into inaction while we await clarity about details. The clearest course is to advance our core message about preventing gun violence independent of facts that may shift on us over time.

Walk on the bodies of the dead to advance the cause, but don't let the facts of the case get in your way. No wonder they listed the Boston bomber as a victim of gun violence.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[X0563511]

Well no wonder our law is so fucked up...

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to be in the camp that thought a "well-regulated militia" was the important qualifier in the 2nd amendment. But that argument seems to have been lost. I now think if you support the 2nd amendment as written you have to support all people having the right to own ANY arms they want. I think 90% of even the NRA would deny proven psychopaths from owning bazookas, howitzers, etc. So the question is how to limit what is allowed by the 2nd amendment. One way would be to say that when the founding fathers said "arms" they meant muzzle-loading rifles but I bet that wouldn't fly nowadays. The only real way to fix the 2nd amendment is to write a new amendment with better language. Until that is done, the 2nd amendment will always be under attack, and correctly so in my opinion.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the best way to oppose the 2nd amendment is to fully support it and say government has no right to limit anyone owning any type of armament.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[hibiki_r]

The freedom to take arms against the government is one that is impossible to take away, but it's one where you will get shot at for exercising. Putting it in a constitution is silly. If all you mean is that it supposed to make it easier to raise against the government, then the current implementation is insufficient, as most things that would be useful against an army are illegal anyway. RPGs, mines, actual assault rifles... all illegal.

Since I do not see people rising against the government because they can't buy RPGs, my interpretation is that all this people that keep talking about the importance of the second amendment to protect themselves from the government just have no interest in defending their own rights at all.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[shutdown -p now]

The relevant bit is the absolute-fuckton of money they get for being a (according your the jist of your post) grassroots organization. It's pretty unreasonable.

IIRC, the people who dug out their accounting books have found out that more than half of their funding comes from member dues and individual donations. You may consider the people who donate so much to them unreasonable - or perhaps the fact that so many people are willing to do so unreasonable - but I don't see what this has to do with them being or not being grassroots.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[T.E.D.]

That sounds what the billionaire-funded, NYC-based MAIG is doing for the Colorado recall elections right now.

If you are talking about Bloomburg's group, yes that is exactly what he's trying to do. You have it exactly. He's essentially borrowing the same pressure tactics the NRA has been using for decades, but attempting to employ them from the other side of the issue.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Quila]

He's essentially borrowing the same pressure tactics the NRA has been using for decades, but attempting to employ them from the other side of the issue.

Except instead of being a multimillion member organization with massive grassroots support, he has a top-down, billionaire-driven anti-rights campaign. Former member mayors have even come out to say that they were duped into membership, and MAIG tried to bribe them to stay when they were resigning.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[redmid17]

Retard alert

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[redmid17]

Retard Alert

Between the two organizations

[i kan reed]

You actually get coverage of the entire bill of rights. The ACLU defends most of the bill of rights, and the NRA spends its inexplicably much more massive budget on defending the remaining half of the second amendment.

Re:Between the two organizations

[Nadaka]

Inexplicably? The 2nd amendment is the only amendment affecting the profitability of a single specific industry. There is money in gun sales... Not so much in the other amendments.

Re:Between the two organizations

[geekoid]

No, it defends the last 1/3 while ignoring the rest of the sentences. Someone should teach them how to read a 18th century sentence splice.

Re:Between the two organizations

[x0]

Inexplicably? The 2nd amendment is the only amendment affecting the profitability of a single specific industry. There is money in gun sales... Not so much in the other amendments.

Obviously, no one sells books...

Re:Between the two organizations

[i kan reed]

I'm pretty sure that the barracks manufacturing industry whole-heartedly supports the third amendment.

Re:Between the two organizations

[Anonymous Coward]

Inexplicably? The 2nd amendment is the only amendment affecting the profitability of a single specific industry. There is money in gun sales... Not so much in the other amendments.

how about the argument p0rn = Freedom of speech

Re:Between the two organizations

[CanHasDIY]

No, it defends the last 1/3 while ignoring the rest of the sentences. Someone should teach them how to read a 18th century sentence splice.

Get on it then.

Re:Between the two organizations

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, no money at all in journalism. Must be some other reason why all those news organizations also filed briefs?

Civilian arms industry in the US is $10b/year, tiny overall. Now add the military side into that and you are talking real money. That part doesn't much care for the bill of rights though.

Re:Between the two organizations

[ColdWetDog]

The ACLU, however, has a someone different take on the 2cd Amendment (surprise). Their official position is that the ACLU supports state militias rather than an individual gun right.

That said, the NRA's position here seems something of a reach. There theory sees to be that if the US government can spy on and collect all communications, then they have de facto created a $whatever watch database. The $whatever in this case being guns. This could be expanded to $whatever = stamps, radios, dildos and Hello Kitty paraphernalia.

This gives the government the power of regulating pretty much anything ever mentioned in electronic communications. Personally, I'm not so worried. They have enough trouble rounding up pressure cooker aficionados, much less Hello Kitty perverts.

Re:Between the two organizations

[whoever57]

No, it defends the last 1/3 while ignoring the rest of the sentences.

Which is pretty much what the Supremes did when upholding the last extension of copyright.

Re:Between the two organizations

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't make more money books that exercises free speech compared to books that follow government regulation.

And those who sells books are too busy to get rid of the first sale doctrine anyway.

Re:Between the two organizations

[Narcocide]

The problem you're not foreseeing is what happens when they run out of actual criminals to hunt down and have created a giant, profitable industry on spying. That database that can be used to track down every single person who is a $whatever turns into a motive with a universal applicator. Who could possibly protect that much power from misuse? Its already been demonstrated that they can not.

Re:Between the two organizations

[hsmith]

Liberalism, where in plain english you can't decipher the 2nd amendment - but you can find a right to abortion and free healthcare in the constitution. Brilliant!

Re:Between the two organizations

[Bartles]

Or newspapers, websites, movies, religion, or legal assistance.

Re:Between the two organizations

[i kan reed]

Both of those come from not being a shithead that wants to see people suffer, and not the bill-of-rights.

Re:Between the two organizations

[CanHasDIY]

...the NRA spends its inexplicably much more massive budget...

It's not inexplicable; ~5,000,000 members, each paying ~$35/yr in dues; that's ~$175,000,000/yr, not including donations.

How many members does the ACLU have, and what are the dues?

Re:Between the two organizations

[Em Adespoton]

The problem you're not foreseeing is what happens when they run out of actual criminals to hunt down and have created a giant, profitable industry on spying. That database that can be used to track down every single person who is a $whatever turns into a motive with a universal applicator. Who could possibly protect that much power from misuse? Its already been demonstrated that they can not.

Indeed. What prevents NSA from eventually turning this over to the DHS' PreCrime unit?

"I'm sorry sir, anyone with access to that information who participated in those activities statistically could not help but committing a crime."

"OK, so why aren't YOU in jail?"

"I work for the government."

Re:Between the two organizations

[CanHasDIY]

How many members does the ACLU have, and what are the dues?

Per the ACLU website - membership is somewhere around 500,000, and there are no dues, only memberships.

FWIW.

Re:Between the two organizations

[CanHasDIY]

"only memberships" == "only donations"

probably ought to stop while I'm behind...

Re:Between the two organizations

[brainboyz]

You're misinterpreting their stance. Their stance is that the way Section 215 is being read to allow government agencies to demand "business records" (aka the phone routing records) would also feasibly allow them to go to gun stores and demand the transaction log that all gun stores are required to keep. Thus, while they wouldn't be directly tracking guns it would allow them to rebuild a list of who has what firearms and doing so is specifically against another part of the law.

Re:Between the two organizations

[crakbone]

Really, who would be worried about the a government that could do a quick search and find every Jew based on browsing history and email? /sarcasm off The government building profiles on it's citizens has been abused many times in history and will continue to be. It should not be given the power to do so.

Re: Between the two organizations

[Anonymous Coward]

if only there were some way to amend the constitution...

Re:Between the two organizations

[clay_shooter]

Inexplicably? The 2nd amendment is the only amendment affecting the profitability of a single specific industry. There is money in gun sales... Not so much in the other amendments.

The NRA is member funded. The NSSF is industry funded. Most NRA members don't care about exports. NSSF members do. During the Clinton Administration , some of the firearms companies signed agreements with Clinton. Gun purchasers , NRA members, boycotted them until they deals were undone. NRA member goals do not always align with the "gun industry" goals. Gun owner lobbying isn't like smoker or fuel lobbying. Smaller gun companies are often gun enthusiast created so large segments of the industry are small companies. The same cannot be said for big tobacco or big oil.

Re:Between the two organizations

[peragrin]

health care is in the constitution . How can you be happy, and enjoy liberty when you are sick and too poor for a doctor. Considering since the average health care cost for a personal health insurance without the backing of a company starts at $1500 a month with a $5000 deductible(I got this as an actual quote between jobs) before they start providing assistance. Something needed to be done. Obama instead of coming up with a plan that wouldn't stand a chance, used the Republicans own plan that they dust off whenever a Democrat talks about fixing the system since at least Nixon. That is the reason why the Republican's don't have any other ideas the Obama used the their only ones.

Abortion is a choice and the rights of freedom of choice are already well established. what gets me and is seldom talked about in "red" states where they fight abortion. not only have the highest rates of abortion, but also teenage pregnancy. If those states would only accept things like planning for parenthood and actually talking to their kids about sex would those numbers go down. Ignoring the topic and saying abstinence is best while true ignores teenage hormones.

Re:Between the two organizations

[I'm New Around Here]

Scenario: A female college student goes to a party, has consensual sex with a guy, gets pregnant from it, and wants to abort the fetus.

If I oppose the last part, how am I wanting the woman to suffer?
What is the suffering of living with the consequences of her actions?
Why isn't the better solution not willingly engaging in activities that cause her suffering?

Without straying from this particular scenario, what is your best response?

Re:Between the two organizations

[Anonymous Coward]

About half a million members, plus the Democratic National Committee, 50-57 state democratic committees, 535 campaign committees, every member of every union (by proxy).

What groups did I forget?

Re:Between the two organizations

[darkshadow]

1st Amendment and the church of scientology?

Re:Between the two organizations

[jp_452]

Actually, someone should teach you the difference between a dependent clause and an independent clause:

http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/03/13/greenslade.htm

Re:Between the two organizations

[Anonymous Coward]

Or newspapers, websites, movies, religion, or legal assistance.

Let me FTFY:

Or propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, or unholding injustice.

All of those industries function just fine in a totalitarian state. The USSR had a movie industry. Nazi Germany had newspapers and religion.

Re:Between the two organizations

[Anonymous Coward]

Inexplicably? The 2nd amendment is the only amendment affecting the profitability of a single specific industry. There is money in gun sales... Not so much in the other amendments.

WRONG

18th and 21st Amendments also affect a single industry.

Not to give your "argument" against the 2nd Amendment any creedence whatsoever. The industries a natural right affects are totally irrelevant to the existence of that right.

I just wanted to point out that you're not only misguided, you're absolutely factually incorrect to boot.

Re: Between the two organizations

[Anonymous Coward]

There will commonly be a lifetime of suffering for the unwanted child. If I was the fetus, I would have preferred for you to kill me.

I'm sympathetic to anti-abortion arguments. Abortion is an act of violence following an act of irresponsibility, no doubt about it. I'm just pointing out the flaw in that particular argument, that its the child who pays far more than the mother.

Re:Between the two organizations

[Bartles]

The USSR had a state movie industry for sure. Which had such a large impact in the world of cinema that I can recall the names of precisely zero Soviet film titles. Only the State prospers in a totalitarian society, not industry.

Re:Between the two organizations

[istartedi]

Inexplicably? The 2nd amendment is the only amendment affecting the profitability of a single specific industry. There is money in gun sales... Not so much in the other amendments.

Obviously, no one sells books...

I'll drink to that. No I won't. Yes I will.

Re:Between the two organizations

[Jade_Wayfarer]

There will be more people suffering if you'll ban the abortion. First - she may always opt for the illegal abortion, which is dangerous to health and, God forbid, may deprive the State of its taxes. Oh, wait, taxes are evil, my bad. Anyway it is a path to greater suffering, for sure.

Even if she keeps her baby, there are several options - she loses her chance to get better education and better job - suffering. Plus she will always project her frustration on the baby itself, and the child would likely to be raised with the great sense of guilt, which will only create problems for him/her later in life - suffering. Young mother brings great drama and pain to the lives of her parents, her partner and his parents (of course, if he ever admits that responsibility, but rumors would float nonetheless) - suffering. Imagine he would like to, say, nominate in Congress or even run for the President later in his life - opposing party would gladly sniff out this fact about him - normal political process.

But no, of course, let's help several people destroy their lives, while we all happily sing "Every sperm is sacred" by Monty Python. Jolly good.

Re:Between the two organizations

[Jade_Wayfarer]

Ahem, they already did. The question is "what could be possibly done about it", and "done" not meaning "we said to them that they can't do it and they promised us that they won't, so there".

Re:Between the two organizations

[dkf]

If I oppose the last part, how am I wanting the woman to suffer?

The principal reason for keeping abortion legal is that it allows it to be regulated, keeping it as safe as possible. Make it illegal and it will still happen (there's abundant evidence to substantiate this claim from both history and other places in the world) but more people will die from it because organised crime will be deeply involved. You cannot regulate things that you make illegal.

Re:Between the two organizations

[dwpro]

It's fairly easy to cherry pick scenarios in most "rights" we assume where the outcome is not what those defending it would prefer; for instance, the right to bear arms and accidental discharges killing children or right to free speech spreading hateful ideas. This hardly negates the underpinnings on why the rights are important, or why they exist in the first place.

I think the most interesting twist on your scenario would be if the would-be mother was strickened with a horrible disease that would cause unbearable pain, and wanted to euthanize herself. Does society have the right to to tell an individual he or she _must_ endure agonizing pain for the sake of another? To what extent does it have this right?

Re:Between the two organizations

[Anonymous Coward]

This hardly negates the underpinnings on why the rights are important, or why they exist in the first place.

I disagree. If rights are so important, then it should be held to great rigor, lest we go down the slippery slope and everything becomes a "right"

I'm of the George Carlin camp that there are actually NO rights, only privileges. Including the so called rights derived from the Constitution or Bill of Rights or whatever piece of paper you bring up.

Don't get me wrong. Those privileges are wonderful and worth defending, but they are not rights, and as such losing them isn't injustice. It's not fair, but as the saying goes - life isn't fair.

Re:Between the two organizations

[david_thornley]

Abortion is a medical procedure, and the Supreme Court ruled that people have a right to have the government not interfere too much with their medical care. I'm not real fond of the decision, although I do believe in strong abortion rights. I think this should have been left to the political process.

There is no right to free health care in the Constitution, but that doesn't stop the Feds from being able to tax and spend for the general welfare. Social Security isn't in the Constitution either, but I have a legal right to it when I get old enough.

The Enemy of my Enemy is my....

[Anonymous Coward]

Friend?

Re:The Enemy of my Enemy is my....

[1729]

There are a lot of us who support both the ACLU and pro-2A organizations. I'm not a fan of the NRA specifically, but I support several gun-rights groups (including the Second Amendment Foundation and the Calguns Foundation) as well as the ACLU and EFF.

Re:The Enemy of my Enemy is my....

[CanHasDIY]

Same here; I do not typically defend the NRA, except against bigotted gun haters (who I would argue with anyway).

Any group that defends civil liberties, even liberties I don't necessarily agree with, is worth supporting.

Re:The Enemy of my Enemy is my....

[Anonymous Coward]

No. (ACLU = Cop Hating Pedophiles ) + (NRA = Impotent Cop Killers) == American Terrorists

This just in:

[geekoid]

The NRA continues to be a bunch of paranoid loons.

Re:This just in:

[Mitchell314]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, assuming it's not traveling westward at a sufficiently high speed.

Re:This just in:

[i kan reed]

While I think the logic of "If you look carefully at the massive way the NSA is trodding over US Citizens' rights, you see a possible way they might stop someone from owning a gun, in a very abstract way!" is absurd, there's not anything wrong with opposing excessive wiretapping.

Re:This just in:

[ColdWetDog]

The NRA continues to be a bunch of paranoid loons.

But sometimes they really are after you.

Re:This just in:

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because YOU are not paranoid. Does not mean 'they' are not out to get you.

captcha:paranoia (awesomeness)

Re:This just in:

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to Greenpeace, which can't even get any decent press these days.

Re:This just in:

[i kan reed]

Yes, but when they're after you, they aren't after your stupid guns. The reasoning they give still manages to be absurd in the face of obvious abuse of people's rights.

Re:This just in:

[Derec01]

While paranoia of an individual applied to everyone around him can be absurd, when you apply paranoia to a large governmental organization that will exist longer than you or I, I prefer to think of it as testing edge cases.

Regardless of whether you think there should be a registry or not, I don't think it's absurd to imagine that given an NSA database, creating one becomes simply an algorithmic problem with the data you have (among a huge number of similar "Why don't we use this data to...." eventualities).

Re:This just in:

[Derec01]

They could be after guns eventually. The NRA isn't stating the entire purpose of the data storage is to create a gun registry. They just believe that among the myriad possible abuses of such data are ones that conflict with their mission statement. I can't see faulting them for this; advocacy organizations can usually only spend money on issues related to their cause.

Re:This just in:

[Derekloffin]

Well, I'm not so sure. Although it is wholly illogical, there is a common issue of human perception that having X associated with Y when you view X negatively, makes Y seem negative as well. I must admit, that the NRA's case is so... sloppy, it kinda makes me feel like the whole issue is likewise overblown, even though it isn't.

Re:This just in:

[gangien]

they aren't after your stupid guns

I guess you weren't paying attention this last year.

Obama I believe just signed an executive order which, affects exported/imported firearms. You are being naive, they are constantly after all of our rights, including our 2nd amendment.

PS "they" isn't any specific group or person. It is our government and society at large.

Re:This just in:

[i kan reed]

Well, some people have the impressive ability to overblow anything.

Re:This just in:

[i kan reed]

"which affected"
Even your own dumb example uses weasel words that mean nothing. I'm familiar with the "antique international firearm resale" loophole that changed enforcement procedure, and it has as much to do with preventing firearm ownership as sales tax does.

Re:This just in:

[msauve]

"they aren't after your stupid guns."

Depends on who you mean by "they."

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here.

- Sen. Diane Feinstein, February 5, 1995

Confiscation could be an option...mandatory sale to the state could be an option

- NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo, December 20, 2012

Re:This just in:

[i kan reed]

Yeah, you sure can edit those to hide the context of those to pretend it's about all guns. Nice use of the ellipsis there, and with no link back to an original source.

A+ for effort!

Re:This just in:

[msauve]

Are you implying those quotes are somehow not about guns? If so, you're an idiot.

Re:This just in:

[I'm New Around Here]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, ...

But a clock that loses one second a day is much more useful to us.

Re:This just in:

[i kan reed]

They're about a specific class of gun, that hasn't been constitutionally ruled to be protected by the 2nd amendment. Intentionally being misleading then saying "aha, but now I will misinterpret what you said to show you as an idiot" isn't being reasonable.

Re:This just in:

[gangien]

"the price of freedom is eternal vigilance"

But I'm guessing you're just a troll.

Re:This just in:

[Anonymous Coward]

Feinstein's comment was about a specific class of gun, alright; anything that expels a projectile out of a barrel by action of a combustion process, after all, she fails to see the primary distinction between evil 'assault weapons', and 'conventional firearms' is 99.999% cosmetic.

that hasn't been constitutionally ruled to be protected by the 2nd amendment

See US vs Miller.

Re:This just in:

[Anonymous Coward]

Here you go!

Discussing why the 1994 act only prohibited the manufacture or import of assault weapons, instead of the possession and sale of them, Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vzEw5kVPFEwJ:ibgwww.colorado.edu/~wilsonsm/feinstein.ps

Re:This just in:

[Zak3056]

They're about a specific class of gun, that hasn't been constitutionally ruled to be protected by the 2nd amendment. Intentionally being misleading then saying "aha, but now I will misinterpret what you said to show you as an idiot" isn't being reasonable.

So they're not "after your stupid guns" they're just after some of your stupid guns? I think this falls into the category of distinction without difference.

Re:This just in:

[Just Another Poster]

Considering that this "specific class" is constantly being redefined to be ever-more stringent, I would say that the original assessments by the previous posters are correct.

Re:This just in:

[No Tears In The End]

Yeah, you sure can edit those to hide the context of those to pretend it's about all guns. Nice use of the ellipsis there, and with no link back to an original source.

A+ for effort!

How about video?

She said it.

SHE is after our guns. SHE admitted. WE know it. YOU are either lying or ignorant.

And Here's a source for Cuomo's statement.

Yes. He was looking at confiscation or forced sale, which is just compensated confiscation.

NTITE

Re:This just in:

[No Tears In The End]

They're about a specific class of gun

That doesn't make a difference. They're mine and no matter what the justification for wanting to take them away, you can't then claim that no one is after our guns. They and you clearly are.

NTITE

Re:This just in:

[Anonymous Coward]

He's suggested you've cherry picked your quotes to prove that the gubmint wants your guns so they can oppress you, and he's right.

At no point do you supply us the link to the sources. For all we know, they could be about taking vehicles from people with speeding convictions, fruit from children, or even people who harbour known felons.

Sources, please, and be quick about it.

Re:This just in:

[ae1294]

The NRA continues to be a bunch of paranoid loons.

How can you say that with what we know now 100%???? The NSA's own puppet court found that the NSA was violating the Constitution regularly and in a manner that was willful... It seems to me, as much as I might not like to admit it, the NRA was right to worry. But now you will come back and will say small arms mean nothing... that's bullshit. When a snipper shoots a cop beating some peaceful protester I guarantee you his buddies will think twice about what they are doing... We are not there yet and I pray it doesn't happen but think about it. Peaceful protest is great but without any fear in those using force it means nothing...

Re:This just in:

[Anonymous Coward]

When a snipper shoots a cop beating some peaceful protester I guarantee you his buddies will think twice about what they are doing

Naive. What actually happens is that the cops will find a few violent protesters, beat those, and blame it on the peaceful protesters. "Their" friends have clearly shown their movement as a whole cannot conduct themselves civilly, thus justifying the cops in using force.

That sniper of your scenario would not be sniping. Instead, he/she would be sitting at home watching the media reporting those dirty hippie protesters getting all violent. That non-sniper would be the one who thinks twice about supporting another whipper snapper protest.

Re:This just in:

[ae1294]

When a snipper shoots a cop beating some peaceful protester I guarantee you his buddies will think twice about what they are doing

Naive. What actually happens is that the cops will find a few violent protesters, beat those, and blame it on the peaceful protesters. "Their" friends have clearly shown their movement as a whole cannot conduct themselves civilly, thus justifying the cops in using force.

That sniper of your scenario would not be sniping. Instead, he/she would be sitting at home watching the media reporting those dirty hippie protesters getting all violent. That non-sniper would be the one who thinks twice about supporting another whipper snapper protest.

I agree... right now... Did you miss the part where I said I hope it doesn't come to that. I was talking about full-on revolution. When a good chunk of the nation whats real change. Most are happy now but not by very much. That will change if things keep going the way they are. How many more crashes before people get sick of it? As it is now people are starving in the US, children go to school with no breakfast and it's not because of their parents being deadbeats it's because so many don't earn a living wage or have been out of work for years. At one time it only took one person to support an atomic family in the US. Now it takes two and a lot are still not making it. Why? we have more stuff but it's all cheaper. Except food which most of you probably haven't noticed. The size or price of all food has gone up 50%. I notice because I got jack for money. You see those ad's for air delight chocolate trying to sell you less and make more profit? Air holes doesn't make chocolate taste better as far as I'm concerned.

Regardless of poor people you really can't have rule of law (love how the pres is always using that phase BTW) when the government doesn't follow its own laws. You don't have any basis to govern except I have big stick will wack you over head if you no work hard. And people get fucking sick of it. You fucking know that. Most of you have worked for people that sooner or later made you say fuck it. Well this is the same except much worse because you can't escape your gov like you can your job.

Regardless people don't like watching cops beat people. Now like you said if it happened today not so good but it would still instill fear in police making them even worse than they are now but it wouldn't help the protesters. What would help is if they would grab the people breaking windows and take their masks off and take a picture of there face. It's a known police tactic when they are sick of a protest. They send in one of there own and try and get the protesters to act out if that doesn't work then they do it themselves. If Protesters garbed them and took pictures/video that would stop that shit fast... It would be legal to do as far as I know. They are engaging in a crime and a citizen can stop a crime in progress. I know this because I ran a business and had people try and steal shit. I held down several jack-offs who tried to have me arrested for assault/sued after. The cops/judges always said whelp tough luck. A number of the cops said "I'd have beat the shit out of you more myself, you got caught on video you know that right?"

Funds are being cut from all social programs. We already see what cutting the Mental Health programs has caused, it just takes a little time before you get effects like insane people shooting up movie theaters dressed like the fucking joker. You know another is right around the corner right? There is no place to put these people anymore. Meds cost money. Mentally ill can't work. You know how hard it is to find your way across town to apply for help for meds? I do and the pharm companies only give out shit they can't sell. I tried to do it both ways but then it takes time. Time you don't fucking have. Do you know how much I get in disability? $710.00 a month... Does that sounds good? I paid into the system, owned a small business, ran it

This headline needs more acronyms....

[Anonymous Coward]

ASAP!

Sic semper tyrannis

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Such tracking is exactly the kind of thing the King of England would have used against the Founding Fathers, and would have been banned by them after the Revolution, which would have been very much less likely with "metadata" gathering and tracking of who called whom, whether it be gun shops or other supporting people.

Saying "metadata" isn't protected is the biggest fraud in recent history. We must continue backing the government away from building the tools of tyranny. It makes no difference that they "use it wisely" currently. Don't let it get started at all.

This is for the weak-minded who get upset over "absolutism". Go read the Bill of Rights.

Re:Sic semper tyrannis

[i kan reed]

Since you asked me to read the bill of rights again...

Yeah, see, there's this part about well-regulated militias that the word "metadata" might be pertinent to. I'm actually angry at you for giving such a crappy argument in support of an action I support myself. Stop making me look stupid.

Re:Sic semper tyrannis

[CrimsonAvenger]

there's this part about well-regulated militia

Read the Militia Act sometime. You might be unaware that you're a member.

Re:Sic semper tyrannis

[GameboyRMH]

The idea that they "use it wisely" is very questionable based on what's leaked out so far.

Re:Sic semper tyrannis

[Anonymous Coward]

You give the Founding Fathers too much credit. Don't forget that at the time we broke our bonds to the King of England, we were also usurping his powers and granting them to individual state legislatures.

The Founding Fathers were very wary of hamstringing states. The colonial states were democracies, afterall, and though they were aware of the concept of tyranny of the majority, at the end of the day they desired states to have wide latitude to address their internal problems.

The lofty rhetoric regarding rights was possible only because it was inconsequential. They were debating a new Federal government which, at the time, had almost no place in the individual lives of American citizens. The Federal government was tremendously smaller and less involved. The Bill of Rights didn't even restrict state behavior. Massachusetts had an official state religion until almost mid-century. Slavery still existed. You have to look at the history in context before you start applying your modern ideals to their circumstances.

Re:Sic semper tyrannis

[swamp boy]

This part?

"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia"

Re:Sic semper tyrannis

[i kan reed]

You mean the Militias that literally can trace their existence to today in the form of the National Guard? I'm pretty sure I'm not a member of the national guard.

Re:Sic semper tyrannis

[Overzeetop]

But that would mean your right to bear arms terminates at age 45, and if you were listed as an exception.

Gun rights start at birth and end when they pry your weapon from your cold dead hands. Or so I've been told.

Re:Sic semper tyrannis

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US, I thought all young men upon turning 18 were required to go to the post office to sign up for the draft. I went down and did it in any event, albeit 15 years ago.

If I put my name in a hat to one day possibly be called upon to go to war, I think that counts as militia... independent of the Militia Act.

Re:Sic semper tyrannis

[RoboRay]

You definitely need to read it. Swamp boy should be able to give you a good link, since he's quoting it.

Re:Sic semper tyrannis

[lowtekk]

Not to wade too far off into this morass, but the US Code (10 USC Â 311) defines two classes of militia: (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia areâ" (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. The unorganized militia consists of a large swath of the US population.

Re:Sic semper tyrannis

[i kan reed]

Yay, so sexist tripe, that's how you know it's a fundamental human right, when it arbitrarily starts sorting humans into categories based on age and gender to see if they qualify.

So self-evident.

Re:Sic semper tyrannis

[Zcar]

Which, grammatically, isn't explanatory not operative. The operative part of the 2nd Amendment is, in full, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In modern construction and words (based on Supreme Court decisions, specifically Heller and Miller) the full amendment would be something like, "Because a well-trained militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of individuals to keep and bear arms of military usefulness shall not be infringed." The first clause only explains why it's not be infringed; it doesn't impose a limit upon it.

Well, Miller did somewhat limit it based on the militia clause, by saying a firearm which wasn't demonstrated to be militarily useful was not protected, implying that if it had been demonstrated to be militarily useful it would be protected. So, under Miller, an assault rifle (obviously of military usefulness) would be protected but maybe not a break action shotgun. It's an odd case, at any rate, since Miller had died before it reached the Court and his side didn't argue before the Court.

Re:Sic semper tyrannis

[JesseMcDonald]

But that would mean your right to bear arms terminates at age 45, and if you were listed as an exception.

No, it wouldn't, because it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not just the militia.

Re:Sic semper tyrannis

[Zcar]

Should probably add I don't think anyone really takes Miller too seriously; it's not a clear opinion in either direction.

Re:Sic semper tyrannis

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You still maintain your vitriol, even when your argument falls apart. You must be a fun person to hang out with!

Re:Sic semper tyrannis

[sjames]

No, it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. One chief reason is due to the necessity of a well regulated militia. Formal enrollment in that militia gives some idea of the intended scope of the term, but after 45 you remain one of the people. As an aside, people who age out are likely good instructors. Further, they would constitute an emergency reserve.

Re:Sic semper tyrannis

[Anonymous Coward]

They take it serious enough that the NFA, and 1986's Hughes amendment is upheld because of this ruling.

Re:Sic semper tyrannis

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Their concern about another layer of government growing was a valid concern. If there's one conclusion from history, that is it. For better or for worse, Europe's new federal government is growing in power much faster than Washington did.

Re:Sic semper tyrannis

[Chrontius]

Interestingly, the M79 of proven military relevance is an overgrown break-action shotgun, and the military is investigating 12ga grenades. I'd suggest that the combination is enough to earn them Miller protection, whether or not they're often used as such yet.

Re:Sic semper tyrannis

[Zcar]

For one, Miller was an NFA case dealing with short barreled shotguns which upheld the NFA. But, contrary to gun control advocate's wishes, the ruling really didn't hinge at all on the collective vs. individual right debate; the only real discussion in it had to do with the type of firearm and whether that type was protected. Had the Court subscribed to the view it was a collective right related to actual militia service the Second Amendment examination would have ended with the determination that Miller was not a member of a the organized militia and wasn't carrying the shotgun pursuant to militia duty. Examining the firearm and not the person suggests they view it as an individual right.

The Heller opinion actually contains a pretty good discussion of what Miller is and is not and a number of peculiarities surrounding it.

Re:Sic semper tyrannis

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that is says arms. Not firearms or pole-arms or any such limiting clauses. This means that technically everything from stone knives up to tactical nuclear weapons is allowable. Think about it.

Re:Sic semper tyrannis

[Anonymous Coward]

Except Miller is rather problematic.since if you read the end of the section in that link:

Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling. Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision was rendered.

So, while not meaningless, without anyone present for the defense that ruling may be trivially overturned. Does mean any firearm with a military purpose is covered by the 2nd Amendment.

NRA spokeman quote

[Sponge Bath]

Pew! Pew! Pew!

Kinda batshit of the NRA

[themushroom]

But in this instance it's for the common good. Serandpity on that. :)

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[Sponge Bath]

I serandpity the fool!

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[erroneus]

I'm a non-gun owner but I recognize and understand the value and the importance of the right. And ironically, the moment I no longer have the legal right to own a gun is the very moment I will seek to own one. I see gun ownership as a natural right, not a legal one. The right to defend one's self is a natural right and I will exercise it when I feel the need to. (I am lucky. I have never needed to. But I'm not foolish enough to think I will NEVER need to. And yes, I know I am actually making the argument that I need to buy a gun NOW, but that's another talk.)

What I find more threatening than not owning a gun is that people KNOW I do not own a gun or don't have one with me at the moment. I will NEVER eat at Denny's again knowing that they are a "gun free kill zone." It's disgusting and obvious that making it an offense to carry in a Denny's makes everyone within MUCH more vulnerable to attack by criminals who don't care about the signs on the doors. I know why they do it -- because a bunch of frightened idiots might feel uncomfortable eating in such places. Trouble is, you only need to google "denny's gun free zone" to find a long list of news stories about Denny's restaurants being robbed at gunpoint and people getting shot and killed by actual criminals. (There is also the occasional story about an illegal gun carrier thwarting a crime in Denny's.)

Let's all agree that having guns is dangerous. (The discussion that follows that agreement should be about how dangerous it actually is and then we'll start making car and driver analogies.) But here's the thing I can't get past. When people have good reason to believe that large groups of people are unarmed, there's quite certainly a much higher chance that such locations will be exploited by criminals...usually criminals with guns. That makes anti-gun law and policy FAR more dangerous than gun ownership... far more dangerous to the very [civilian/pedestrian] people who think they want anti-gun legislation and policy.

When I think "V" I think victory. Seems most people are more comfortable with "V" for victimhood.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[RevSpaminator]

ALL our rights should be viewed as human rights and not just a legal technicality. (Yes, even the rights of the accused)

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[jythie]

Ahm.... actually, the chance of a personal conflict in such a venue escalating to violence and shooting is generally a greater (though less dramatic) risk then then a robber coming in and shooting people. It does not get the same attention since it speaks to a different narrative thus there is no simple search to find the cases, but talking to cops generally pans it out as more frequent.

Thus it could be argued that it is the 'scared idiots' who feel the need to be armed so they can heroically stand up to assailants that are the dangers, and other patrons deciding they do not want to run that risk.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[erroneus]

You just made an admittedly unsubstantiated claim that the opposite of my substantiated claim is true? Are you seriously making that kind of argument? An imaginary argument that you think people who legally carry weapons routinely escalate disagreements into assaults with deadly weapons?! And that it can't be as easily searched because the news doesn't report on those incidents?! Quite possibly the second worst argument ever... the first being "nuh-uh!"

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[Anonymous Coward]

As a gun owner and member of the NRA - if I could hug you I would -

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[Jane Q. Public]

"I see gun ownership as a natural right, not a legal one."

It *IS* a so-called "natural right", and not a legal one.

The Constitution does not "grant" rights. It acknowledges the pre-existence of rights due every human being, which the government may not infringe. There is a very big difference.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[Jane Q. Public]

"Ahm.... actually, the chance of a personal conflict in such a venue escalating to violence and shooting is generally a greater (though less dramatic) risk then then a robber coming in and shooting people. It does not get the same attention since it speaks to a different narrative thus there is no simple search to find the cases, but talking to cops generally pans it out as more frequent."

What cops are you talking to? The ones I've spoken to over the years ALL supported the Second Amendment.

"Thus it could be argued that it is the 'scared idiots' who feel the need to be armed so they can heroically stand up to assailants that are the dangers, and other patrons deciding they do not want to run that risk."

It certainly could be argued, but I've never heard or seen anyone argue it with actual facts and figures to back it up.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[Bodhammer]

Honey Bunny: [about to rob a diner] I love you, Pumpkin.
Pumpkin: I love you, Honey Bunny.
Pumpkin: [Standing up with a gun] All right, everybody be cool, this is a robbery!
Honey Bunny: Any of you fucking pricks move, and I'll execute every motherfucking last one of ya!

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[CanHasDIY]

(There is also the occasional story about an illegal gun carrier thwarting a crime in Denny's.)

It's not illegal, it's against Denny's policy. The only way a legal gun-bearer could be breaking the law in this circumstance would be if the Denny's asked them to leave and they refused; even then, it's simple trespassing. Of course, if we were talking about a courthouse or other government building it would be a different story.

Always remember, someone putting up a sign doesn't create law.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[sjames]

So the anecdotes are immune to search, don't show up on the news (even though the news loves them some gun violence stories), but is nevertheless true because unspecified cops get the general impression that it's true?

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[XStylus]

Can't tell if trolling, or just redneck.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's all agree that having guns is dangerous. (The discussion that follows that agreement should be about how dangerous it actually is and then we'll start making car and driver analogies.) But here's the thing I can't get past. When people have good reason to believe that large groups of people are unarmed, there's quite certainly a much higher chance that such locations will be exploited by criminals...usually criminals with guns.

Like the entire populations of Canada, Japan, and most other countries on this planet?

Am I, as a Canadian, being exploited by criminals more often because I can't carry (concealed or not)? What do the statistics say about crime in Canada and the US?

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a non-gun owner but I recognize and understand the value and the importance of the right.

Up to this point I haven't, but the NSA sure is doing its best to convert me into a 2nd-Amendment advocate.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[prehistoricman5]

I see gun ownership as a natural right, not a legal one.

When you say things like that I can see exactly why Bentham called natural rights "nonsense on stilts." Guns have not always existed and so therefore your argument is flawed right there. The right to gun ownership is conferred through the second amendment of the Constitution so therefore it is a legal right.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[erroneus]

The right to own a gun is an extension of the right to self preservation. If the threat of guns could be nulified in ways other than the threat of counter-attack, then you might be right. But since the most effective individual means of self-defense is a personally owned firearm, the right to own a gun is a specific instance of the natural right to self defense and self preservation.

The constitution is a document which limits government. As another commenter clarified previously, the constitution does not grant rights, it limits what the government can do. The right to bear arms is a natural right under the constitution.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[drinkypoo]

What cops are you talking to? The ones I've spoken to over the years ALL supported the Second Amendment.

Many cops do not believe in guns in the hands of citizens... because they think they're part of the military when in fact they are citizens with slightly more empowerment.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[chihowa]

Well, the Constitution describes the right to bear arms, not guns (though guns are arms, so his argument is fine). We've had arms of one sort or another since the beginning of our history.

Also, the ninth and tenth amendments make it clear that the Constitution isn't granting rights to the citizens, but delegating powers to the government.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[cervesaebraciator]

Of course, if we were talking about a courthouse or other government building it would be a different story.

In some places. In the Commonwealth of Kentucky and at least 10 other states (according to an article in the Lexington Herald-[Mis]Leader) it's legal to pack directly in the state Capitol.

Re: Kinda batshit of the NRA

[Anonymous Coward]

In Florida if you have a concealed carry permit if the establishment has a sign saying no carrying of guns it is illegal for you to conceal carry. Also, in Florida open carry in public is illegal.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[Jane Q. Public]

"Many cops do not believe in guns in the hands of citizens... because they think they're part of the military when in fact they are citizens with slightly more empowerment."

And yet most police organizations have historically sided solidly with the NRA on firearms issues.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[prehistoricman5]

If I transport you back in time and drop you in the middle of some cavemen and Ug decides he wants to kill you he will not hand you a club to defend yourself with first; he will simply bash your skull in. Rights are a societal concept. For example I believe that all people have the right to be treated equally. While many would agree with me, that "right" is in fact a relatively modern invention.

Also if the Constitution simply codified natural rights and the right to own a gun was an extension of the right to self defense then gun laws today would be much more strict. There are many legal firearms today that are obviously meant to serve a much more offensive purpose. The whole Bill of Rights was designed with one purpose in mind - to keep government tyranny in check.

As for your idea that guns are the best self-defense tool, read this: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[Isaac-1]

You answer your own question, in countries where it is illegal to have a gun anywhere in public you get an equal concentration of people that are unarmed everywhere. In the U.S. when you have gun free ZONES that makes everyone in them unarmed easy victims for criminals. Take it from the violent criminals point of view, you intend armed robbery against someone and accept that you may have to hurt or kill them to reach your goal. Would you rather pick a place where your victim may be armed or where you know they willl not be. And where the only armed people are uniformed law enforcement that can be easily spotted at a great distance.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[Anonymous Coward]

In the U.S. when you have gun free ZONES that makes everyone in them unarmed easy victims for criminals.

Nice FUD, do you have any statistical correlation to back this up?

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[Anonymous Coward]

When people have good reason to believe that large groups of people are unarmed, there's quite certainly a much higher chance that such locations will be exploited by criminals...usually criminals with guns. That makes anti-gun law and policy FAR more dangerous than gun ownership... far more dangerous to the very [civilian/pedestrian] people who think they want anti-gun legislation and policy.

Your assumption is wrong if you scale it to apply to countries. I don't have any actual statistics on hand, but I do remember seeing that you're much less likely to be a victim of random gun violence in Canada (and most first-world countries) than the US, for example.

Too much of this discussion assumes that the world is divided into criminals who want to shoot people, and the "good guys". Even a "good guy" with a gun is dangerous if he/she is careless, starts suffering from certain mental illnesses, has an anger management issue, etc. Also, guns stolen from "good guys" are not a trivial problem. Generally speaking, the more guns in your society, the more likely there will be gun violence.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[Anonymous Coward]

Is a jury trial for any civil case exceeding $10 a "natural right"? It's listed in the Bill of Rights, and interestingly to this day only applies for federal cases, the Supreme Court refusing to apply civil jury requirements against states and state laws.

The only "natural rights" enumerated by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence was life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He cribbed from John Locke, who listed them as life, liberty, and property.

Arguably, the Bill of Rights lists rights that are necessary for a democracy to protect natural rights. More practically, they simply list some rights that some people thought prudent in order to protect natural rights. There are undoubtedly natural rights which aren't protected by the Bill of Rights, either directly or indirectly.

But "natural rights" is a fiction. Like the idea of justice, fairness, or even Jesus. It's a solid fiction, but a fiction nonetheless, unless you can find what natural biological phenomenon dictates them.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[Anonymous Coward]

I will NEVER eat at Denny's again knowing that they are a "gun free kill zone."

Do you really need an excuse not to eat at Denny's?

Re: Kinda batshit of the NRA

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on state law. Mississippi has an "enhanced carry" system for those who have undergone a training course, so I can carry everywhere except police/jail/prison facilities, courtrooms in session, "places of nuisance" (aka brothels or illegal gambling dens), and federal facilities. Anywhere else, it is at most trespassing.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[Darinbob]

No, they're granted. Yes there are parts of the constitution that talk about inalienable rights but it does not list which ones are or are not (the bill of rights were added later). At the same time, those are only words. I know, I know, cover your ears so you don't hear the heresy.

Either this is a document written by mere humans who are just making stuff up, or this is a sacred document that is only recording pre-existing mystical truths, or a mixture of both. Explain in a non-mystical way how pre-existing rights come to be. Pre-existing to what? Before one particular government, or before all governments that ever existed? How does one scientifically determine which rights are pre-existing and which ones are not?

The constitution is a self-imposed restriction on power (or imposed by the people, but the government is chosen by the people so the difference is slight). In the past, limitations on a government's power were imposed from elsewhere (ie, aristocracy and their armies imposing limitations on the king). The constittution is a contract only and part of that contract are clauses that respect the rights of individuals and states. The flowerly language included in the constitution does not mean that the rights are pre-existing or divinely granted.

Especially for someone who is not in the US and not a citizen of the US, it is absurd to consider the US constitution as "special" and superior to all other constitutions, or that it is unique in being divinely inspired.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get these "natural" rights. Please explain. I imagine the situation where you are dropped of in a jungle. As there is nobody to force anything, you are in a natural state, and can then think of what rights you have. Turns out, you have the right to do whatever the hell you want. What you don't have is some innate right to own anything. If someone bigger/stronger/smarter/luckier comes along and takes it from you he has it now. He can also stop you from breathing, so you don't really have the right to breathe.

I know that sounds completely mad, but I really don't get the so called "natural" rights. Native americans had the right to roam whereever they pleased, the right to fish and hunt anywhere they pleased, breathe the air anywhere they pleased. They considered them innate natural rights. Then the US government took those rights away. The right to own land trumps native americans right to roam free. Considering that, how can ownership be a right? That "right" is backed up by government weapons. Or in some cases by your own. If native americans had had more weapons, you might now have the right to go anywhere you please, as private property would sound a ridiculous idea.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[Chrontius]

That just means Erroneus iswellnot erroneous on the issue.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[Anonymous Coward]

I will NEVER eat at Denny's again knowing that they are a "gun free kill zone."

Really? I can think of many other reasons:

1) shitty food
2) shitty service
3) their usual clientele

And if Denny's are robbed a lot it has more to do with:
1) they're open 24 hours
2) they're usually not in the best of locations.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[Anonymous Coward]

Every human being, being more equal than others sometimes when it was written.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are considered "natural" and not "granted", is because of the idea of a right itself. If rights were "granted", then it would mean they could be taken away.

A privilege can be taken away, certainly. But you don't have the privilege of freedom of speech, because it can't be taken away. Hence the word "right".

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[jythie]

*shrug* watching the local police blotter I saw far more cases of escalation resulting in a shooting then robbery.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[jythie]

Who said I am not supporting the second amendment?

That is what tends to annoy me about the NRA, unless you believe a very black and white view of things you are somehow "against the second amendment".

You can be in favor of gun rights AND acknowledge problems at the same time.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[jythie]

The news loves specific types of gun violence that meet high profile narratives. This kind of background 'random college kids get into a fight at restaurant, shooting occurs' or 'drunk white idiot in bar punches other drunk white idiot, escalates to shooting' rarely even makes local news unless some reporter is bored and watching the police logs. Common stuff tends to get ignored, unusual events that play into a marketable fear get hyped up.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[CanHasDIY]

Of course, if we were talking about a courthouse or other government building it would be a different story.

In some places. In the Commonwealth of Kentucky and at least 10 other states (according to an article in the Lexington Herald-[Mis]Leader) it's legal to pack directly in the state Capitol.

And some people try and say that Southerners are all a bunch of ass-backward rednecks... that sounds like a pretty damn progressive policy to me!

Missouri may be following suit soon, if the legislature overturns the governer's veto of H.B. 436, which would make it a crime to enforce, "all federal acts that infringe on a Missouri citizens' rights under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution."

Damn but I love living in the Midwest!

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[erroneus]

My assumption is correct due to [multi-]cultural situations. It is pure hubris to assume all human cultures are the same. This is easily demonstrable in European countries who have opened their borders to immigrants of more violent nations. Especially look to Sweden and England where violence is reaching scales which the police simply cannot manage. Police and emergency people simply cannot react to situations in these "exclusionary zones."

"Guns" themselves are not the problem -- it is the people. "Gun violence" is not special. There is just violence. The tool used is almost inconsequential. I say almost because if the tool is a knife, it is far riskier to the defender. Guns are far safer for defenders of aggression because it enables distance between them and the aggressors and decreases the chance that the weapon will be used against them.

One of the biggest and most prevailing problems of "gun control" advocates is that they don't know the first thing about guns themselves beyond what they learn from Hollywood.

It's fun to say "more guns = more gun violence" which is "basically" true. But then you open up other problems where "the weak are victimized by the strong and/or by numbers." There are too many ways to hurt and kill people. Guns are just one and still the BEST way for the weak and individual to defend themselves.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[Si]

If the robbery followed the shooting, someone wasn't doing their job.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[sjames]

Actually, those sorts of stories make the news all the time. They love stories about how some innocent third party was minding their own business and suddenly bullets were flying.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[dywolf]

they are naturally existing because they are by definition necessary and required to be a free man.
when they are lacking or absent or taken away you are no longer free.
that is why they are natural.

And the bill of rights is not a list of the ONLY rights we have. rememeber, the founders went back and forth over even having it.

Some worried that people would do as you are, and think its a list of hte only rights we have and that they are granted by the governement, not inehrent, and in so doing you negate the entire concept of government as an abstract of the people and turn it into a seperate entity from the people. the other side.

other worried that without some minimum set of rights spelled out in concrete it would be far too easy to violate what people at that time considered natural and inalienable rights, to take them away, change them, interpret them unjustly, etc.

the bill of rights as it came to be, and including the 9th and 10th amendemtns, was a compromise: it spells out some specific rights, sets them in stone, but at the same time notes that it is not an exhaustive or complete list of ALL the rights of a free man.

(and somehow your uniformed and ignorant diatribe turned into an attack on religion, as if the USC is a religious document...what's up with that?)

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[Reziac]

I believe this study came out of Florida after concealed carry became legal there; you can probably find it easily enough -- the gist was that tho lawful carrying of weapons had greatly increased, there were NO resulting cases of either escalations or shootings.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[Anonymous Coward]

WRONG WRONG WRONG.

The amendments specify right granted based upon the "natural rights" (i.e. the right to be free) confirmed in the Constitution. The right to free speech is not a "natural right" as you can't go around yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater, it's a GRANTED right, so long as you don't trample on others rights.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[Darinbob]

My issue is with treating the whole thing like a sacred document which many people do. Maybe not explicitly but there's a lot of similarity with people pointing to it as the ultimate authority in the same way that some people point to Bible verses. Or they refer to the intentions of the founding fathers in the same way that others point to the words of prophets, and then expect that to end all debate. This is not a diatribe against religion, but about attributing religious qualities to the constitution or to rights. And if you look around the US there are indeed many people who will explicitly say that the constittution is divinely inspired and that the rights enumerated within it are divinely created. Even for those who don't go that far, it's certainly a matter of faith to proclaim that the constitution is superior to that of all other countries, which is commonly done.

I'm not disagreeing with the bill of rights. I'm strongly in favor of rights and expanding rights. I just find it strange that level of mysticism sometimes applied to it.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[david_thornley]

I would presume various Denny's have been frequently robbed. I would presume the same about any fast-food restaurant open late or all-night gas station or convenience store. Do you have evidence that shows that a Denny's is more likely to be robbed than any similar establishment that doesn't post gun restrictions? Lists of individual incidents from an obviously biased search doesn't constitute reasonable evidence.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[cervesaebraciator]

And, you know, it's funny how the gallery at the Capitol doesn't turn into a shooting gallery as some might predict. Of course, it'd be stupid to open fire with the security guards about and who knows how many armed lawmakers. As a teacher at a public university, I wish my institution did not prohibit carrying, inasmuch as I feel responsible for the well-being of my students.

As for being ass-backward, there is certainly some of that here. But I don't think it because of the quality of the people--who are as good and as bad as anywhere else in the country. What's ass-backward about the place is all the corruption. One almost wonders if this isn't the reason the politicians want to be able to carry.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[CanHasDIY]

And, you know, it's funny how the gallery at the Capitol doesn't turn into a shooting gallery as some might predict. Of course, it'd be stupid to open fire with the security guards about and who knows how many armed lawmakers. As a teacher at a public university, I wish my institution did not prohibit carrying, inasmuch as I feel responsible for the well-being of my students.

I hear that; I was working for a university when the VA Tech shooting happened; We (the IT Department) petitioned the board to allow us to either carry on campus, or have an armory somewhere in the school (most of the IT staff were former military). Needless to say, we were not taken very seriously.

As for being ass-backward, there is certainly some of that here. But I don't think it because of the quality of the people--who are as good and as bad as anywhere else in the country. What's ass-backward about the place is all the corruption. One almost wonders if this isn't the reason the politicians want to be able to carry.

Well, maybe we'll get lucky, and they'll use the ruling to bring back Congressional duels.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[jwhitener]

*I own guns

I don't buy the argument that everyone being armed is going to be inherently safer than banning all guns and occasionally dealing with a criminal element.

You can push the argument to extremes on both sides and it becomes clearer to me. Lets say that any citizen is allowed any weapon. Machine guns, grenades, whatever. After all, one of the main arguments in favor of the 2nd amendment, is that it isn't just about personal defense, it is about defense against the government's standing army.

So anything the army has, people can have. So now 1 crazy person can get his hands on a bomb or tank or fighter jet. The resulting massacre would be horrible.

Lets go to the other extreme: all weaponry is banned. Now you are still going to have that 1 crazy person or 1 criminal who will violate the law and obtain a gun or make a bomb, but the chances of it being military grade, or highly effective, are much lower. In fact, just obtaining a gun will become harder and harder over time as guns wear out or are confiscated.

So overall, you will have less deaths if you banned weapons from a society. However, that is zero comfort to the handfuls of people that are killed and unable to defend themselves.

Lovecraft had it right

[kruach aum]

"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."

Re:Lovecraft had it right

[lightknight]

Or it won't matter...you need to have an ego in order for it to be crushed by such revelations, to become so mad. If you are already aware of your position and velocity in the Universe, being told it is the equivalent of being told that it's a nice day outside...it's something said that has as little or as much meaning as the listener ascribes to it.

You've been told to want that your life has meaning, and that it is a meaning that you will understand, etc., etc. So your ego fights to understand something that is probably far too large for it to understand...like a baby trying to swallow or eat a watermelon. And yet, you are determined not to give up...because you've been taught that giving up is quitting, and that quitting is the opposite of winning, and that it is better to be a winner than a quitter...

Re:Lovecraft had it right

[wrackspurt]

Beautifully written but ignorance isn't bliss. Somewhere about 35 thousand years ago our brains had the equivalent to a big bang moment and we a became symbol making and symbol manipulating species. Today K. Popper's adage that we are a species who can let our hypothesis die in our stead is suggestive of a future dense with information. Rational, empirical information will be our mental atmosphere and we'll thrive in it.

T. W. Deacon the American anthropologist suggests in one of his University of Berkeley lectures that we can metaphorically be seen as something akin to beavers who by building dams make an environment they evolve in. Our constructed environment is a symbolic representation of our universe. I think we'll evolve to live in a dense information environment we'll become consummately adapted to and fulfilled in.

Re:Lovecraft had it right

[timepilot]

This is my new favorite non-funny comment.

Re:Lovecraft had it right

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you're already doing your best to hide from reality :)

Reality is a monster with very sharp teeth dancing about and feeding gleefully at whim, its actions affect you in every moment of existence but it cares nothing for you even when it eventually kills you.

You can quit all you want or go mad or disappear into deeper fantasy: reality remains and the only thing lost is you. Don't worry too much about that, we're all lost and as Lovecraft pointed out: it's a survival mechanism.

Would you believe it was possible to have your eyes violently gouged out while you're awake and then later imply you do not know why it's so dark? Right now a small Chinese boy defends his sanity through such a denial and nobody can blame him for it.

One can fight and try to change reality a little to your liking. A hundred thousand generations and more of humanity has tried their best and the pinnacle so far was “western” civilization of which the former USA was stalwart and guarantor but now that has been thrown away in many different manners both in the US and elsewhere. This means the structure has reverted and will continue to revert to something far more basic and a totalitarian hated and despised USA is just among the first ramifications of this. If we're lucky it implodes soon enough and places like China, Russia, South Korea, Japan, India and South America survive more or less unharmed but those of us in the rest of the world are either already out of luck or heading for it at great speed on an autobahn of good intentions.

Doesn't matter what or which side you identify with: such a situation makes and requires violence as a necessity and only comparatively trivial questions such as who (everyone?), where (everywhere?), how many (everyone?), how long (forever?), and when (now?) remains.

What is already known is that everyone has lost.

Sad times, not interesting ones.

It has happened before

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

The NRA and ACLU were joint petitioners to the Clinton Administration trying to restrain a patter of abuses by Federal law enforcement. (Clinton ignored them).

Re:It has happened before

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess they will be ignored once again...

Re:It has happened before

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you be more specific? '... a patter of abuses by Federal law enforcement' doesn't really help very much in deciphering what you are referring to.

Re:It has happened before

[sycodon]

One very disturbing trend is the use of heavily armed SWAT teams to carry out actions related to civil and not criminal investigations.

Just the other day the EPA sent a SWAT team to check on the water quality at several small gold mining operations in Alaska.

Of course, Ruby Ridge and Waco will always be examples of out of control Feds.

Re:It has happened before

[interkin3tic]

More recently:

In 2006, the ACLU of Washington State joined with a pro-gun rights organization, the Second Amendment Foundation, and prevailed in a lawsuit against the North Central Regional Library District (NCRL) in Washington for its policy of refusing to disable restrictions upon an adult patron's request. Library patrons attempting to access pro-gun web sites were blocked, and the library refused to remove the blocks...

In light of the Supreme Court's Heller decision recognizing that the Constitution protects an individual right to bear arms, ACLU of Nevada took a position of supporting "the individual's right to bear arms subject to constitutionally permissible regulations" and pledged to "defend this right as it defends other constitutional rights".[298] Since 2008, the ACLU has increasingly assisted gun owners recover firearms that have been seized illegally by law enforcement.

wiki Even more relevant and recently, they opposed creating a national database of background checks this year, evidently because of medical information.

Re:It has happened before

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, if more people asserted their second amendment rights, the police would learn not to send SWAT teams....

Re:It has happened before

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly the overuse of SWAT teams is not restricted to Federal law enforcement.

Re:It has happened before

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of Private sector corruption aka pinkertons. public vs private police 21th century!

Re:It has happened before

[Deflagro]

Not long ago, here in Austin, a cop followed up on a lead regarding a robbery suspect at his apartment. The cop knocked on the door, heard the person inside bolt the door shut and then the cop called in the SWAT team.
One guy was holed away in his apartment and they call in SWAT. They ended up using tear gas to get him out. Welcome to Amerika.

Re:It has happened before

[Anonymous Coward]

That looks more like a First Amendment issue than a Second to me.

Re:It has happened before

[Reziac]

There have been at least a few cases of SWAT operations against people who've committed the 'crime' of owning too many animals.

Re:It has happened before

[interkin3tic]

Does it matter? My point is the ACLU and NRA aren't in opposition to each other, and it's not shocking that they'd be on the same side of something. The ACLU doesn't hate guns.

Re:It has happened before

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the EPA was wrong, but so is your argument.

The team was comprised of FBI, EPA and other agencies. They were armed and used body armor, which was wrong, but it wasn't just the EPA. Lets lay the blame at the door of the FBI, where it probably belongs (I'm sure they wanted to be armed and do the body armor thing - it's the only real way to get promoted within the FBI).

Re:It has happened before

[ejasons]

Well, since the first thing that SWAT teams seem to do is to shoot the animals, that might be an effective tact...

Hallelujah!

[Anonymous Coward]

I was wondering when the NRA would figure out that the NSA can generate a gun registry list in what, about 30 seconds?

Doesn't the NRA already collect names?

[StuartHankins]

If the NRA already collects names, who's to say they don't share them with the government already, willingly or unwillingly? Seems like a pretty easy nut to crack... and oh boy they have a lot of nuts in that org.

Re:Doesn't the NRA already collect names?

[Anonymous Coward]

They have never had any shootings at their meetings, or gun shows, that seems to only happen in gun free zones.

Re:Doesn't the NRA already collect names?

[CanHasDIY]

If the NRA already collects names, who's to say they don't share them with the government already, willingly or unwillingly? Seems like a pretty easy nut to crack... and oh boy they have a lot of nuts in that org.

Any way you can say the same thing without coming off as a biased asshole?

Maybe you should try attending a meeting sometime. you know, actually meet some of your neighbors, whom you readily write off as "nuts," and get to know them?

Re:Doesn't the NRA already collect names?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you mean intentional shootings. People accidentally shoot each other at gun shows quite regularly.

Re:Doesn't the NRA already collect names?

[LateArthurDent]

If the NRA already collects names, who's to say they don't share them with the government already, willingly or unwillingly? Seems like a pretty easy nut to crack... and oh boy they have a lot of nuts in that org.

I don't own a gun, but I'm a member of the NRA. And the ACLU. There are many people who own guns and are not members of the NRA. So clearly having a list of NRA members isn't the same as having a list of gun owners. Not that I'd approve of the government getting that list either, but I know that if they think they want it, they'll get it.

Basically, I support any organization that protects our rights. So even though I've never gone hunting, and I don't find shooting in the range THAT fun (I've only done it three times), I still support the NRA. And although I also support the ACLU, they seem to want to skip protecting that one right, so I can't ignore the NRA. It's definitely nice to see them working together.

Re:Doesn't the NRA already collect names?

[crakbone]

Define "quite regularly".

Re:Doesn't the NRA already collect names?

[StuartHankins]

Have you never heard of Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent? Have you never heard of the NRA's position on guns in schools ( http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/02/nra-school-security-hutchinson/2045565/ ), or their recommendations on building indoor gun ranges for children? ( http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/08/1978921/nra-youth-magazine-home-shooting-ranges/ )

Perhaps, sir, you should consider coming out from under that rock before calling people names.

Re:Doesn't the NRA already collect names?

[StuartHankins]

True, the lists are not the same, but I think (based on limited research I just did) that it's reasonable to say most gun owners are NRA members.

I'm a gun owner and strongly anti-NRA. I support strong background checks, gun restrictions (caliber, rate of fire, and magazine capacity), and closing the private sales loophole (iow, requiring background checks in all situations). I do not advocate hunting except in certain circumstances (and I don't eat meat anymore which is part of that) or teaching children to shoot. Teenagers start to become old enough and responsible enough for that.

The NRA tends to think of guns as the solution to a lot of problems, which means now you have new problems. I also do not share the thinking that our guns would be sufficient to fight off the government. "Well-regulated" is very important to me.

My other responses on this thread give a couple of NRA policy examples... making a home shooting range for children as well as trying to arm schoolteachers. Both would be funny if The Onion wrote them. The fact that Americans really want these things is frightening.

Re:Doesn't the NRA already collect names?

[StuartHankins]

Exactly. Or at their clinics or at any of their other functions. I'm shocked, I tell you!

If only they were armed... oh wait.

And then stuff like this is just so wrong you have to wonder if anybody is in control of their mental faculties at the NRA. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/03/1961871/after-child-shooting-nra-conference-peddles-guns-for-kids/

Re:Doesn't the NRA already collect names?

[Anonymous Coward]

But, but, the NRA seems to be saying that you can easily build a gun registry simply using the phone metadata. If what you say is true, then not all people that call the NRA have a gun !!! Next thing you know, you'll tell me some people have guns and never call the NRA. But that can't be, else what the NRA is saying would be full of shit.

Re:Doesn't the NRA already collect names?

[CanHasDIY]

Have you never heard of Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent?

Yes. Point? Both are American citizens with the right to express their opinions, just like you, regardless of what other people think. Maybe you're just jealous that the Nuge is successful enough to be able to say whatever he wants without major repercussion.

Have you never heard of the NRA's position on guns in schools ( http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/02/nra-school-security-hutchinson/2045565/ [usatoday.com] )

Yes, and personally I find the concept a much better idea than the government's "run and hide" strategy that turns kids and teachers into easy prey. Taking into account the fact that this statement from the NRA is a direct response to anti-gun nutters like you who screamed bloody murder when it was suggested to station armed police officers in schools, what's so nutty about training school faculty and staff to defend themselves and their charges? What alternative strategy would you recommend?

their recommendations on building indoor gun ranges for children? ( http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/08/1978921/nra-youth-magazine-home-shooting-ranges/

Well, for starters, I don't think a thinkprogress.org article that references other thinkprogress.org articles as supporting material is going to be all that accurate and unbiased when reporting a story about an organization they've deemed "the enemy."

Then there's the fact that, if you actually read it, the article is referring to indoor shooting ranges for bb guns, not combustion rifles. That you did not mention this very important aspect makes me wonder - did you not read the article you cited, or are you still being a biased asshole?

I'll leave the determination up to the reader.

Re:Doesn't the NRA already collect names?

[LateArthurDent]

I'm a gun owner and strongly anti-NRA. I support strong background checks, gun restrictions (caliber, rate of fire, and magazine capacity), and closing the private sales loophole (iow, requiring background checks in all situations).

I'm not sure what you mean by strong background checks (the government does some background checks for security clearances that requires interviewing friends and acquaintances. Not only are they expensive as hell, which makes them impractical, but they're also overly intrusive for the purpose at hand). I would support checking for a criminal record. I would also agree with requiring such a check on private sales if it was easy and cheap for any private citizen to request this information prior to a sale.

I do not advocate hunting except in certain circumstances (and I don't eat meat anymore which is part of that).

I understand your argument emotionally, which is why I don't hunt. I couldn't really go through with killing an animal and seeing it die. That said, there are two things which I understand: first, hunting is a more humane way of acquiring meat than supermarket shopping. At least the animals you hunt had a free life until you decided you were hungry. Animals raised to be slaughtered are raised in horrible conditions with no space to even walk. Second, in certain areas where certain animals have no natural predators, their numbers must be controlled. So I consider regulated seasonable hunting to be actually quite good and in some cases necessary.

or teaching children to shoot. Teenagers start to become old enough and responsible enough for that

I think that's a parenting decision, not a government one. I do, however, support prosecuting the parents for negligence in cases of accidents caused by children with guns due to either insufficient supervision (if you're going to teach your child to shoot a gun, you better be watching them very closely) or no supervision (you should be responsible for locking your guns away where children can't get to them).

The NRA tends to think of guns as the solution to a lot of problems, which means now you have new problems. I also do not share the thinking that our guns would be sufficient to fight off the government.

No argument from me. If the ACLU didn't completely ignore gun rights, I could stop supporting the NRA and their more extreme segment.

"Well-regulated" is very important to me.

Well, the complete quote is "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.".

How I personally interpret this, and I'm fully aware it's a controversial issue and my interpretation isn't the only one, is that it's a two-part statement. The first one is the justification, that a well-regulated militia is necessary. The second is the restriction upon the government: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It doesn't say, "the right of the militia," it says the "the right of the people." The way I see it, the reasoning was that the more people we have with guns, and trained to use them, the easiest it is to just draft people to form said well-regulated militia in a hurry if it becomes necessary to defend your country from an invasion.

Not that I personally see the reasoning as important. I don't think the founding fathers were some type of gods who were always right about everything. I do think it should be difficult to change the law of the land. If as a people we decide that the second amendment is no longer relevant in today's world, and government should have the right to to restrict the right of people to bear arms after all, then pass an amendment nullifying it. There's a process in place to do that. If there's not enough support to do it, then it shouldn't be changed.

What I do believe in is sta

Re:Doesn't the NRA already collect names?

[No Tears In The End]

But, but, the NRA seems to be saying that you can easily build a gun registry simply using the phone metadata. If what you say is true, then not all people that call the NRA have a gun !!! Next thing you know, you'll tell me some people have guns and never call the NRA.

Then you don't understand the argument.

It's not just the NRA, it's gun stores, gun clubs, gun ranges and other gun owners. If you were to take a look at everyone who called a gun store, gun club, target range and known gun collectors over the past 5 years, you'd have a pretty good idea of who owns guns in the country. That's the creation of a backdoor registry and since creation of a registry is already forbidden under federal law, the NRA's point is a salient one.

The NSA can retain metadata until the political winds shift enough to allow the creation of such a registry.

NTITE

Re:Doesn't the NRA already collect names?

[swillden]

I think (based on limited research I just did) that it's reasonable to say most gun owners are NRA members.

There are approximately 4 million NRA members and approximately 80 million gun owners.

I'm a gun owner and strongly anti-NRA. I support strong background checks, gun restrictions (caliber, rate of fire, and magazine capacity), and closing the private sales loophole (iow, requiring background checks in all situations).

Why? Do you have any evidence that any of those things reduce crime? Not feelings or theories, evidence.

I do not advocate hunting except in certain circumstances (and I don't eat meat anymore which is part of that) or teaching children to shoot.

Not teaching children to shoot is a very bad idea, especially if you have a gun in the house. Keeping the guns away from the kids makes them mysterious and attractive, and also means that when the kids finally manage to get hold of one they don't know how to handle it safely. I've never, ever seen a news story about a kid who'd been shooting regularly accidentally shooting himself or a friend. It's always the kids who haven't handled guns.

Kids are very capable of understanding what guns are and how to use them, and of properly respecting them. Give them a little safety education and take them shooting. It'll make them safer... and they'll have fun and it's a great bonding opportunity.

...trying to arm schoolteachers. Both would be funny...

Why is that? What is it that you expect to happen if schoolteachers are armed? And why has it not happened in the decade that Utah schoolteachers have been armed?

Re:Doesn't the NRA already collect names?

[david_thornley]

The problem with arming the schools is that it is likely to cause more gun deaths. If you're holding a gun and are on guard duty, you'll likely shoot at anything that looks particularly threatening. In some cases, this will turn out to be somebody doing something otherwise harmless. The shooting will be investigated, the guard will be cleared if it looks like the guard saw a likely threat, and the incident will be largely forgotten, except by friends and family of the deceased. That's the danger of having armed guards in a real situation, and it does happen.

There's also the question of how many people get shot in school shootings, and whether the resources needed to keep at least one guard on duty at all times in a hundred thousand schools could be better applied. Or the question of what it does to student's perceptions, needing an armed guard around.

I could be wrong, but right now I think that stationing armed guards, or arming staff, is a big overreaction to the actual threat. Worse, it causes the perception of imminent danger, and contributes to the paranoia spreading around that will give up all sorts of liberties in exchange for a little perceived security.

Re:Doesn't the NRA already collect names?

[CanHasDIY]

The problem with arming the schools is that it is likely to cause more gun deaths.

The problem with such statements is that they are entirely controvertible and not based on any factual data. FWIW, when I was in high school we had an armed police officer stationed on campus, and not a single incident of gun violence.

If you're holding a gun and are on guard duty, you'll likely shoot at anything that looks particularly threatening.

Where the hell do you get your information from? Movies and video games? The fact is, if your assumption here was correct, we wouldn't be able to go 4 hours without a news report of an armed guard shooting some innocent-but-suspicious-looking person.

I'm guessing you don't have a lot of experience or training with firearms?

The shooting will be investigated, the guard will be cleared if it looks like the guard saw a likely threat, and the incident will be largely forgotten, except by friends and family of the deceased. That's the danger of having armed guards in a real situation, and it does happen.

Citation needed, then.

There's also the question of how many people get shot in school shootings, and whether the resources needed to keep at least one guard on duty at all times in a hundred thousand schools could be better applied.

OK, so do you have a better idea? I'm all ears.

I could be wrong, but right now I think that stationing armed guards, or arming staff, is a big overreaction to the actual threat. Worse, it causes the perception of imminent danger, and contributes to the paranoia spreading around that will give up all sorts of liberties in exchange for a little perceived security.

That I cannot disagree with, but again, what's the alternative? Teaching kids about guns from an early age, so they understand what the tool is, what it's used for, and how to avoid becoming a victim?

Hey, now, that's not such a bad idea...

Re:Doesn't the NRA already collect names?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Nuge" got out of fighting in Vietnam by pissing and shitting himself for a month to create the impression that he was a crazy person when appearing before the draft board. He is a coward and an asshole.

Re:Doesn't the NRA already collect names?

[felrom]

... trying to arm schoolteachers. Both would be funny if The Onion wrote them. The fact that Americans really want these things is frightening.

Don't think of it as "trying to arm school teachers." The NRA never suggested that you start a program of shoving a gun into every (or even any) school teacher's hands and forcing them to carry it. What was advocated was allowing teachers to volunteer to do it, and allowing schools to establish their own requirements for training, securing weapons, etc.

In Texas where I live, the law wouldn't need to be changed to do this. Individual school districts would simply need to give specific teachers permission to carry a gun on campus, and everything would be legal.

My wife has been a public school teacher for 7 years, and a concealed carry license holder for 5 years. She enjoys shooting as much as I do, which is to say, a LOT. We go shooting regularly, and she carries a concealed weapon every day, and would have no hesitation to carry it into her classroom and lock it up with her purse, were she allowed to (currently she has to leave the gun in her car when she gets to work).

People like her are the ones the NRA is talking about when they say we should allow teachers to be armed at school.

Re:Doesn't the NRA already collect names?

[CanHasDIY]

"The Nuge" got out of fighting in Vietnam by pissing and shitting himself for a month to create the impression that he was a crazy person when appearing before the draft board. He is a coward and an asshole.

I see... so, when it's convenient to your cause, he's a nutjob, but when it's not, he's 'a coward and an asshole.'

This is why I don't take politicians too seriously - they're mercurial with an agenda.

The NRA's full of wack-jobs & gets worse each

[BUL2294]

...but they do have a valid point with this one. Right or wrong, Congress has forbidden state & Federal agencies (e.g. FBI, ATF, etc.) from putting together a list of gun owners. Period. It wouldn't take any stretch of the imagination to realize that the "government" (NSA, FBI, ATF, etc.) would have 99% of the gun owners' phone numbers out there simply by querying for phone numbers of gun shops, ranges, etc. All it would take is for an NSA snoop to do a simple SQL query "WHERE phone_num in ('222-333-4444', '333-444-5555', '444-555-6666', ...)" and they have such a list.

The NSA's phone snooping does offer the ability to create such a de facto list... Sure, there could be some false-positives (e.g. the non-gun-owning wife of the gun store shop's owner) and some false-negatives (e.g. the militia man who doesn't own a phone or have access to "thar Intar-webs"), but I can't see it not being 98-99% accurate...

Now the conservative Congress-critters who voted to keep the NSA snooping but who are also financed by the NRA are likely to change their minds...

A well regulated Militia

[Anonymous Coward]

lol, more like the exact opposite--a decentralised bunch of paranoid fucks and criminals

a long time coming

[slashmydots]

This isn't exactly a new opinion for NRA members. A little over a year ago my grandpa's brother told me he always pays cash for bullets and anything resembling ammo at hardware and sporting goods stores just in case the government has some secret database or something. He's pretty level headed and he even said if he didn't have the cash, he'd pay credit and not really care. It was just something there was a rumor to do and it sounded true-ish. Well surprise, here's the NSA. CC companies don't typically have line items on a single purchase charge but who says the mega chain stores don't hand over the CC name and items purchased? Considering they do that for meth lab stuff and fertilizer already, it's not a stretch.

Yep

[Anonymous Coward]

And I have no doubt government goons would be talking in their office to each other saying things like "we can store it, we just can't use it"; at some point they will use it, and they will already be setup for it.

Re:The NRA's full of wack-jobs & gets worse ea

[i kan reed]

Yes, but what's awful, is that somehow possibly knowing how people used the 2nd amendment rights is worse or more worth stopping than knowing precisely how everyone uses their 1st amendment rights.

Ludicrous Argument From An Effective Lobbyist

[organgtool]

In a brief filed in federal court, the NRA argues that the National Security Agency's database of phone records amounts to a 'national gun registry

This may be the most ludicrous argument I have ever heard. With that said, the NRA is extremely effective at forcing themselves onto the legislative system and repeatedly gang-banging it until they're raw and left shooting only puffs of dust. With support like that, it might almost be possible to get the current amount of unconstitutional spying scaled back.

Re:Ludicrous Argument From An Effective Lobbyist

[CanHasDIY]

In a brief filed in federal court, the NRA argues that the National Security Agency's database of phone records amounts to a 'national gun registry

This may be the most ludicrous argument I have ever heard.

More ludicrous than the NSA supporters argument of, "we must sacrifice our freedoms to protect our freedoms?"

With that said, the NRA is extremely effective at forcing themselves onto the legislative system and repeatedly gang-banging it until they're raw and left shooting only puffs of dust. With support like that, it might almost be possible to get the current amount of unconstitutional spying scaled back.

Then why are you bitching? A win is a win, right?

Re:Ludicrous Argument From An Effective Lobbyist

[larry bagina]

The NRA also like the attach themselves to lawsuits that are going to be successful. (It helps raise their average and helps with fundraising.) The ACLU's arguments are strong -- much stronger than the NRA's. I hope that's a good sign for the ACLU's case.

Re:Ludicrous Argument From An Effective Lobbyist

[NonSequor]

It is ludicrous, but it's also kind of brilliant. The NSA is arguing that they can use correlations to figure out what data they can snoop in. However that is also an admission of technical capability to determine other kinds of correlations. And it is in fact illegal for the government to build a gun ownership database. The NSA would have to argue that they cant figure out who gun owners are with their data. They cant just argue that they don't do that, they have to argue that they can't do that.

It's technically correct... The best kind of correct.

Re:Ludicrous Argument From An Effective Lobbyist

[Anonymous Coward]

"we must sacrifice our freedoms to protect our freedoms" is not the argument. The argument is that we must sacrifice some freedom's--anonymity, privacy--to retain others--life, freedom of movement.

The argument per se isn't false, it's the premise that's wrong. There's a false dichotomy between preventing terrorism and giving up anonymity and privacy.

In actuality, generally speaking we don't even need to prevent much terrorism at all in order to maintain our existing security, given how few lives terrorism directly effects in this country, even including 9/11. But the counter-argument is that one kind of liberty is freedom from fear, and people are irrationally afraid of terrorism--fear is its function, afterall.

Wow, how time flies ...

[Krishnoid]

So ... there's a new Debian release coming up?

Re:Wow, how time flies ...

[rubycodez]

yes, a new fork for gun enthusiasts. the default shell will be 2.75inch. the "tap" command will send a SIGTERM, "doubletap" a SIGKILL. on boot, the magloader will load, charge and fire a kernel off. The arsenal manager will get ammoboxes from the ammodumps.

Re:The NRA's full of wack-jobs & gets worse ea

[JWW]

Um. I think what the NRA and the ACLU are saying here is that its the SAME.

Compton and Long Beach together

[belgo]

... now you know you in trouble. Seriously though, how do you even get these two to talk to each other, let alone be co-plaintiffs?

Re:Compton and Long Beach together

[Anonymous Coward]

To anyone who believes these two to be strange bedfellows consider this: Just who do you think the NSA is really spying on? International Terrorists?

Right...

Re:The NRA's full of wack-jobs & gets worse ea

[i kan reed]

And I'd submit that it isn't. At an abstract level, one is a debate worth having, and the other is a clear and direct infringement of rights.

The 2nd amendment gets placed on this unholy altar where not only is the right to keep and bear arms protected, but the right to do so with absolutely no limitation is.

And they are suing why?

[Ronin Developer]

If I had the means, I could build a starship and flew to some other galaxy. But, it doesn't mean because I had the means that I actually did it.

The NSA has the means to collect a lot of information. Does it mean they built an illegal gun registry?

I suspect this case will be thrown out due to no proof such a thing actually exists and is just theoretical.

Re:And they are suing why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The NSA has the means to collect a lot of information. Does it mean they built an illegal gun registry?"

      Maybe they wouldn't, but the ATF would or any government agency looking for their bad boy/behavior of the month.

any list of citizens is also a list of gun owners

[Anonymous Coward]

lists of property owners

lists of voters

lists of dog owners

lists of municipal water customers

these can all be used to identify gun owners just as easily as any list made by the NSA

maybe they should all be unconstitutional?

thats just too many acronyms

[ClassicASP]

Great. YAL. Somebody please call CALA. Will VOIP come into question? Will the 2A be discussed? TMI People! I gtg. L8R

Um, no, they can't legally create a gun database

[Anonymous Coward]

'Under the government's reading of Section 215, the government could simply demand the periodic submission of all firearms dealers' transaction records, then centralize them in a database indexed by the buyers' names for later searching,' the NRA writes.

This is almost certainly not anyone's correct reading of the section. The rules for the NSA don't allow them to keep records on domestic communication, which would exclude most of what would allow them to build a gun owner registry. Enforcement of the existing laws may be an issue; the FISC may be understaffed, incompetent, or just making huge mistakes, but the legal underpinnings of the FISA actually take this sort of thing into account. See: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/716942-exhibit-b.html#document/p3/a106756

I'm just saying there are already legal protections against this. The NSA has already admitted that, and the FISA is explicit in not allowing domestic surveillance without a warrant. People overstepped, let's hold them accountable, but the level of fear-mongering has long exceeded the actual problem.

I doubt call records are needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly call records are not necessarily needed to at least build a pretty detailed list of US gun owners. From what I have heard the national background check system has been abused for years, illegally maintaining records that by law should be destroyed. Basically, if you've bought a gun through a gun store in the last decade there's probably a record sitting in a government database somewhere with your name, address, SS, serial number, make and model out there somewhere. Even if a court ordered them "destroyed" I'd highly suspect that they would do what most local police do when ordered to "destroy" files, they simply mark it in some way to let personnel know "you can't "officially" use these, but feel free to thumb through them "unofficially""

Re:This HL needs more TLAs....

[I'm New Around Here]

ftfy

Wow, that's screwed up

[holophrastic]

I must say, I really do find your checks and balances system of government hilarious. So you can't stop a government-funded association from spying on you directly -- even in a democracy -- but you can stop them from accidentally discovering one particular piece of data that someone once said shouldn't be collected.

Interesting. Screwed up, but interesting.

Re:The NRA's full of wack-jobs & gets worse ea

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress has forbidden state & Federal agencies (e.g. FBI, ATF, etc.) from putting together a list of gun owners. Period.

What exactly are you referring to? Wouldn't prohibiting lists of gun owners make it impossible to regulate guns? Gun regulation is a stipulation of the 2nd Amendment. I think you're making shit up again, BUL2294. Please don't do that.

better vs best

[harvey the nerd]

Depends on whether the ACLU client was on top beating your brains out on the pavement before you invoke your 2nd amendment rites and rights...

Giant Leap

[b4upoo]

Simply calling a gun store or a practice range or even a gun manufacturer even in combination does not indicate gun ownership. One obvious example are charity workers who phone everyone that they can or salesmen that sell to the business market. There are times when being pro-active rapidly turns into pro-idiotic.
              The recent fuss over the Zimmerman-Martin incident demonstrates that perfectly. How many of us heard that Mr. Zimmerman profiled Martin? Yet profiling is normally perfectly legal. For example when an employer interviews people all he is doing is profiling them. We also heard the word chased tossed around. Mr. Zimmerman never chased anyone. He simply followed at a distance which allowed him to view Martin in a dark area. He never confronted Martin either. In other words 100% of what Mr. Zimmerman did was well within the law. On the other hand Martin committed a felony when he attacked Mr. Zimmerman. So we now have a bankrupt Mr. Zimmerman. We also have lost tax dollars on a kangaroo court trial that was political in nature. We have had civil suits against Mr. Zimmerman. Yet the Martin family has not been sued and since they have claimed wrong doing on the part of Mr. Zimmerman they should have their socks sued off of their feet. This type of nonsense is what happens when so-called activists stir the pot in the wrong direction. The issue was never race. One real issue was gun ownership and Mr.Zimmerman was targeted by the black community as well as the anti gun lunatics. I can not imagine a person who deserves to be killed more than a youth who assaults others in the night.

Re:The NRA's full of wack-jobs & gets worse ea

[crakbone]

Mainly because it's that backup plan, the Hail Mary, The "I really don't want to do this but enough is enough". It's there in case the States no longer agree with the Federal Government. If it's eroded before then it's not worth anything.

The NRA is all powerful, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

not even the NRA can defeat the NSA.

Halfway misleading article and summary

[Jiro]

The summary's accurately summarizing a halfway misleading article here.

According to the first half, the NRA thinks that the NSA's database is equivalent to a national gun registry.

According to the second half, the NRA thinks that the NSA's argument for its database would justify creating a national gun registry, not that the NSA is creating one.

If you read the actual court brief, it's a lot closer to the second than to the first.

Re:Halfway misleading article and summary

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I think the argument is that the database the NSA has assembled already is a de-facto gun-owner registry, as a subset of the whole database. Meaning that it is not just as bad as such a registry, but WORSE, because it is also a de-facto religion registry, and publisher registry, and activist registry, and a registry of any number of subsets of the entire populace associated by the exercise of a particular right. The NRA is complaining about gun-owner registry specifically because that is in their political territory.

If it can be used to identify terrorist cells by the pattern of their social associations, it can as easily identify any other group. The math does not discriminate, and there is no ethical human oversight to prevent it from being used for nefarious purposes. Due to the secrecy, there isn't even any ethical human oversight to dissuade future abuses by punishing past abuses.

They also sued the Chicago housing projects.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Quite some time back the people administering the low-income (and gang-ridden) housing projects in south Chicago decided to search all the units for guns. The NRA and the ACLU sued (successfully) to block this unwarranted search of the residents' homes.

Simple math poindexter

[TiggertheMad]

The number of violent criminals with guns is vastly dwarfed by the number of really stupid, careless, and honest people with guns. Therefore, I am scared of the latter, and not the former and advocate gun bans. Guns don't kill people, careless idiots kill people.

Re:Simple math poindexter

[Anonymous Coward]

Your logic is pretty stupid. Sure, careless people with guns *is* a problem, but by the actual numbers, criminals using guns to hurt or kill people is a much larger problem than some redneck dope not knowing how to use and store his firearm safely. Accidental shootings are dwarfed by intentional shootings done as part of a crime.

Re:Simple math poindexter

[Sabriel]

s/guns/cars.

Re:Simple math poindexter

[erroneus]

Please don't live in an area with both gun control and a natural disaster. In the US, where both of those coincide, armed gangs looting, robbing and raping are an expectation, not merely a possibility. Look to New York to see what happened.

US Constitution 0; US Gov 1

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck to the NRA and the ACLU. My bet though is that Americans' big brother overlords will crush them just like they crush people from every other country they don't like.

Yeah...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you think the military is so busy working on automated combat systems (drones robots, etc), and cyber-superiority?

Hint: You don't need 2/3s or even 1/3 of the armed forces if you have enough parts and technicians to keep the automated systems going.

And if you ensure only the loyalists know how they work....

Tell that to...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Zulus :)

The NRA has their own national gun registry

[capsfan100]

The NRA is no stranger to Big Data: http://www.buzzfeed.com/stevefriess/how-the-nra-built-a-massive-secret-database-of-gun-owners?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews

Re:The NRA's full of wack-jobs & gets worse ea

[Chrontius]

I would suggest that gun owners have a long memory, and have at least four times risen to the call - no, taken the bait - and when the loyal opposition said "Okay, we'll be happy if you compromise away this, and won't ask you for anything else" they went there. Well, if one side continues to compromise and the other gives no ground, that's not compromise, that's abuse. Compromise involves each side giving something up. When gun owners gave up grenades and machine guns, you'd be reasonable to have expected gun banners to have called it a fair trade and mission accomplished.

They didn't.

That was 1986; in 1994, the Assault Weapons Bill was passed, which had very little to do with "assault rifles" (a term of the art - a type of light machine gun banned since 1934) and a great deal to do with scary black rifles with good ergonomics. When a mouse is designed to avoid repetitive stress injuries, it's a great thing that everyone should buy and employers can be legally compelled to provide to injured employees, but when a gun's designed to avoid placing the same kind of stresses upon its user it's banned.

Unless you are able to afford a $30,000 English double-rifle made by master gunsmiths and artisans based on your personal measurements that were taken while you flew overseas. Anyone who wants to adjust an off-the-rack gun to fit them like a cheap suit is just screwed, however.

Brilliant opportunity

[jandersen]

Lawsuit? Why miss the opportunity for combining a bit of fun and innocent entertainment with something that would benefit us all?

What we do is, arrange a shoot-out between NRA and NSA, where each side brings to bear everything they've got. It'll have to be in a place removed from any centre of civilisation and culture, so put them on the lawn outside the White House. Behold the simple beauty of genius!

Why does the NRA do nothing about the other rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the NRA on the first, fourth and seventh amendments? They *say* that they care about them and the second is to make sure of the entirety of the constitution, but I don't see them ANYWHERE campaigning against the insertion of church into state ("In God We Trust" on the banknote, etc).

No, the NRA don't care about the rights at all.

They just want their guns.

Ah, fake history channel.

[Anonymous Coward]

Circa 1770, the USA's under-trained forces were losing HEAVILY to the better trained British troops.

FRANCE (yes, those "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", how I'd love to hear the French Foreign Minister say on telly "We would love to join in on the attack on Syria with the USA but we're cheese-eating surrender monkeys, so we decided to forget about it instead. Good luck guys!") put trained troops that quashed most of the British forces at the time and held up the British Navy in operations. Without France, you would have SERIOUSLY lost. Just ask Canada how badly you do in wars.

No it wasn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

Millitia NEVER meant "every able bodied male".

Every able bodied male COULD APPLY to join, but then again, they could join regular army too.

Re:No it wasn't.

[sjames]

Sorry, you're incorrect.

Did your knee block your view?

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to have rushed to defame someone without having read their post.

The prohibition WAS NOT WANTED by the majority, but were forced to be passed by the minority by their threats of political unrest and action.

Democracy is not about the minority getting their own way.

Not even if you're part of that minority.

Re:Did your knee block your view?

[DriedClexler]

It *was wanted* by the people casting the actual *votes*. You can't run democracy to work on telepathy!

And, to the extent that Prohibition violated people's constitutional rights, they actually (as is atypical) had the constitution changed.

Not what I'd call "terrorism".

Easy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the second amendment?

The British Empire was trying to disarm the american settlers from europe.

Moreover, the NRA and apparently you think that you have the RIGHT to have arms. YOU DO NOT. Read the constitution, "For the safety of the state, an armed millitia...".

Join the National Guard. Create a State Guard and join that.

You have the RIGHT to do that and be armed in the pursuit of that goal.

You DO NOT have the right to carry a gun around because you're a wimp.

Re:Easy.

[khallow]

Moreover, the NRA and apparently you think that you have the RIGHT to have arms. YOU DO NOT. Read the constitution, "For the safety of the state, an armed millitia...".

Here's the real Second Amendment:

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.

There's no question there of a right to bear arms. They didn't say a "militia" or the "National Guard" had the right to keep and bear arms, they said "the people" had that right. Further, the first part of the amendment is clearly an explanation.

I find interesting both that you failed to quote the relevant part of the amendment in question and that you misquoted the bit you did bother to quote. What is "safe" for a state depends on what sort of state it is. Starving a few million Ukrainians to death might have been "safe" for the USSR back in the 1930s, but it wasn't for the people who died.

Suppose the amendment had said, "Because tigers are bad, the right of the people to carry tiger-repelling rocks will not be abridged." Does the amendment no longer apply, if someone decides tigers aren't bad or thinks the whole amendment is based on a particularly bad logical fallacy? Not as I see it.

NRA & ACLU Suing NSA

[Transaction7]

The respective merits of the ACLU and the NRA is not the point. The point is that they have come together across a wide ideological gulf to challenge the NSA's outrageous grab of our private communications. Now the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau claims some unidentified right, duty and power to grab all of our credit and debit card transactions, too. We had and thought we had won this fight in the nineties but the NSA and other government agencies, backed by administrations of both political parties, neither of which, or their candidates, give a Continental hoot for the rights of individuals or the Fourth Amendment or the "blessings of liberty," have demonstrated that, instead of "tak[ing] care that the Constitution and laws be faithfully executed," have proceeded to destroy the foundations of what made this country. Thought Police, 1984, Brave New World, the Beast of Revelation, here we come. If we're not there yet, "you can sure see it [the destruction of our liberties' from here.