"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.
"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).""
"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).
"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".
"Partially true, but not universally so. The problem is more that technical staff speaks in terms of technical risks, while upper management thinks in terms of business risk, and the two are not obviously aligned."
Balls.
If your upper IT management is not also business-savvy, you have the wrong people.
I have run into this personally, and also seen colleagues go through it. It tends to go something like this:
IT: "Mr. Manager, sir: the login system I inherited from my predecessor stores passwords in plain text. This is unacceptable, because it puts the company at risk of liability should we ever be hacked."
Manager: "Haha. Who would bother to hack us?"
IT: "You never know. That's the problem. But in the unlikely event that we ARE hacked, we could be liable because the system is not properly secured."
Manager: "How much will that cost?"
IT: "Mmmmm.... let's see. 40 man-hours to make the code changes system-wide, and 20 man-hours to roll out the database changes. Part of that is to set up a system to send out a mailer to all the users to change their passwords, pages to handle that, and to deal with the traffic that will generate. Say, roughly, $8000 realistically, over a period of two weeks."
Manager: "Haha. Not bloody likely."
IT: "But the company could be liable for millions."
"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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
"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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
"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.
"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.
"... 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.
"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.
"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.
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.)
Slashdot Mirror
"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?
"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.
"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).
"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".
"The studies detailed how much climate change may have impacted specific events.
There are plenty of *other* studies that examine human impact on climate change."
But they ALL rely on the same assumption, just as you did: that "climate change" is human-caused.
No, it is not indisputable. No, it is not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
"Partially true, but not universally so. The problem is more that technical staff speaks in terms of technical risks, while upper management thinks in terms of business risk, and the two are not obviously aligned."
Balls.
If your upper IT management is not also business-savvy, you have the wrong people.
I have run into this personally, and also seen colleagues go through it. It tends to go something like this:
IT: "Mr. Manager, sir: the login system I inherited from my predecessor stores passwords in plain text. This is unacceptable, because it puts the company at risk of liability should we ever be hacked."
Manager: "Haha. Who would bother to hack us?"
IT: "You never know. That's the problem. But in the unlikely event that we ARE hacked, we could be liable because the system is not properly secured."
Manager: "How much will that cost?"
IT: "Mmmmm.... let's see. 40 man-hours to make the code changes system-wide, and 20 man-hours to roll out the database changes. Part of that is to set up a system to send out a mailer to all the users to change their passwords, pages to handle that, and to deal with the traffic that will generate. Say, roughly, $8000 realistically, over a period of two weeks."
Manager: "Haha. Not bloody likely."
IT: "But the company could be liable for millions."
Manager: "It's simply not a problem. Go away."
"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.
"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.
.30-06 is indeed a respectable round.
The
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.
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.
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.
"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.
"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.
"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.
"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.
"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.
"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.
"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.
"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.
.30-caliber M1 carbine. It's a decent weapon but the ballistics just aren't that great.
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
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.
"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.
"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.
"... 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.
"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.
"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.
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.)
Yeah, because bank regulation has worked out so well for us in the past decade, it would certainly address Paypal's "scum" factor.
What has happened in the last decade has been mis-regulation and de-regulation. So that isn't a valid argument for no regulation.