1199:

The Second Amendment isn't murky. It simply doesn't state what the Kehoskies of the world would have it to state.

My post there is not license to ignore history or the opinions of some very smart guys in our history who happened to get in there first. It's a brief against sacramentalizing human artifacts, instruments, institutions and expressions--making some things holy or sacred is simply a way of changing what the debate should be about. So that you win as a matter of course. It's loading the dice. My post is specifically an argument against taking with certainty an instrument to be and to mean what it was never meant to be--you simply can't know enough to take this line. There's a difference between being open to being informed by predecessors and being bound to their interpretation--assuming you can know that definitively, and you can't

Still, with these factors, the US stand out as the one very rich country that have considerably higher homicide rate. most very rich country have around 1 murder per 100k give or take some, the US have about 5.

the US have 4.8 murder per 100k last year according to UNODC, amongst Western and Northern European country (everyone north east of France until Germany / Sweden / Finland) . the highest murder are .... Finland and Belgium both at a bit more than 2 (well there is also Liechtenstein but it had only 1 murder... it's small population obviously ruins any sample size.) everyone else is under 2.

yeah, the US demographic is certainly a negative in this regard, but on the other hand it's population density isn't as high as alot of those other places.

There are two factors about the US murder rate. Overall it's mostly high everywhere. But the populous states tend to be about at the same level. The rural states are the variants, with the Deep South states being really high, and the northern rural state being really low. The worst of the Deep South states have at least 5 times the murders of the northern rural states. Strange.

What's the murder rate, and the crime rate in general, in the South before and after Jim Crow?

One of the problems with the 2nd amendment is that if you could go back in time and poll each of the people who voted on the amendment, both congress and in state legislatures... you likely wouldn't get a majority to agree on what it meant.

Just like today.

I strongly suspect that was deliberate. The Second Amendment, written in a definitive way that guaranteed an individual right or written in a definitive way that rejected an individual right, likely would not have been ratified.

If the right to keep and bear arms was ambiguous or open to interpretation, there would have been a few localities that would have moved to restrict or ban the private possession of firearms back in 1792 or 1800 or 1810, in the years after the allegedly ambiguous Second Amendment was ratified. That this didn't happen is very strong evidence that gun ownership was, without a doubt, understood to be an individual right.

If only they had been armed to the teeth

1204:

So, now, what's constitutional is what's understood as happening extra-constitutionally at the time of the constitution only? Is that the only way to decide what's constitutional--no longer by what is said in the constitution?

Get thee to a nunnery, Kehoskie.

1146 : given that immediately after the Bill of Rights was ratified, the militia act was passed the following year (granted, it was the 2nd congress, but the people were largely the same), which stated that ALL able white men with property must report for duty WITH THEIR OWN weapon that must meet a certain standard. if there was no collectivist argument in the 2nd amendment, it would mean that the state is solely responsible for the raising of militias, so asking militia to come with their own weapon would have clearly been unconstitutional.

This makes no sense with regard to the individual right inherent in the Second Amendment. However, I would like to hear more about this idea that it's unconstitutional for the government to require citizens to purchase specific things.

As for Sammy's link re: wage stagnation, it's incredible to see the same people who argue for amnesty and clamor for even more low- and semi-skilled immigration complain about wage stagnation. (And it borders on comical that the word "immigration" didn't appear a single time in the sea of words Zonk posted in #1187, #1189, and #1191.)

What's the murder rate, and the crime rate in general, in the South before and after Jim Crow?

hmmm...

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/kycrime.htm

1965 : 5.3 murder per 100k

1970 : 11.1 murder per 100k

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/tncrime.htm

1965 : 5.9 murder per 100k
1974 : 13.4 murder per 100k

Yikes



though by 2011 it was down to 3.5 according to this. but Tennesse still 5.8

So, now, what's constitutional is what's understood as happening extra-constitutionally at the time of the constitution only? Is that the only way to decide what's constitutional--no longer by what is said in the constitution?

Obama wins reelection with 51 percent and we're told there's a consensus in support of his positions. Private gun ownership remained legal in 100 percent of the early United States for generations, and we're supposed to believe it was a legislative anomaly. Funny stuff, Morty.

This makes no sense with regard to the individual right inherent in the Second Amendment. However, I would like to hear more about this idea that it's unconstitutional for the government to require citizens to purchase specific things.

Like I said: there may be a individual rights aspect to the 2nd, but the militia act seem to suggest that the same folks also believed there was a strong collectivist aspect, aka that one of the main reason for the weapons to be kept was to raise militia for common defense organized mostly by the state.

HOWEVER, since nowadays there is pretty much no such thing as a state drafted militia, (national guards being professional, while the guys claiming to be militia are largely unregulated by any authority.) which begs the question then if half of the 2nd Amendment is basically not happening, why should the other half not be open to question as well? or why should we not advocate for the full restoration of it's application in earnest ?

If we want what is probably closer to a full interpetation of the early 2nd amendment, as I have argued several times, the Swiss model would be the closest thing to that in modern times.

A. everyone can own guns.

B. all adults must report for military / public service / training of some sort for a period and be subject to recalls when needed.

C. no unregulated militia, no black panthers, no crazy hillbilly nuts calling them self constitutional militia while often plotting overthrow of the government. They either need to register and follow the rules, or disband, or face the consequences.

We've been through this, Kehoskie. We've tried to educate you. You are not only incorrigible; you're ineducable. There has been restriction on guns since colonial days in America. Remember the Wyatt Earp/Bill Hickok examples that I and a number of others have brought to your attention. The use of guns has always been restricted in this country.

Can you read? Read the Second Amendment. Does that sound like a blanket endorsement of an absolute right? You may think there should be, or even that there is, an absolute right, but it is not in the constitution, if verbal expression means anything. And if it doesn't in this case, then why not in other cases--let's just admit the words don't mean anything. And then, again, you're still stuck with the problem of what does justify such an interpretation? How do you then interpret the meaning of the constitution as to other provisions?

You just can't be honest. You just want your way no matter how you get it.

Joe they had legit needs for firearms in those days society has evolved, the need for a gun now is not going to be life or death for us now where as then for most people it could be the difference between dinner and death.

HOWEVER, since nowadays there is pretty much no such thing as a state drafted militia, (national guards being professional, while the guys claiming to be militia are largely unregulated by any authority.) which begs the question then if half of the 2nd Amendment is basically not happening, why should the other half not be open to question as well? or why should we not advocate for the full restoration of it's application in earnest ?

Many if not most of the Founding Fathers were highly skeptical of a standing army. The subsequent creation and existence of the U.S.'s standing army not only doesn't argue against Second Amendment rights, but bolsters the argument for Second Amendment rights.

We've been through this, Kehoskie. We've tried to educate you. You are not only incorrigible; you're ineducable. There has been restriction on guns since colonial days in America. Remember the Wyatt Earp/Bill Hickok examples that I and a number of others have brought to your attention. The use of guns has always been restricted in this country.

Can you read? Read the Second Amendment. Does that sound like a blanket endorsement of an absolute right? You may think there should be, or even that there is, an absolute right, but it is not in the constitution, if verbal expression means anything. And if it doesn't in this case, then why not in other cases--let's just admit the words don't mean anything. And then, again, you're still stuck with the problem of what does justify such an interpretation? How do you then interpret the meaning of the constitution as to other provisions?

You just can't be honest. You just want your way no matter how you get it.

I sense Morty is inching closer to another of his classic breakdowns.

Anyway, Morty, I'm not going to keep going in circles with you. If you're such a Second Amendment scholar, you should have submitted an amicus brief in Heller or McDonald instead of hanging out here pretending to be a Founding Father.

(By the way, Wyatt Earp and Bill Hickok were born 59 and 48 years, respectively, after the Constitution was drafted, so you might want to stop using them as examples.)

***

Joe they had legit needs for firearms in those days society has evolved, the need for a gun now is not going to be life or death for us now where as then for most people it could be the difference between dinner and death.

Putting aside that much of the above is incorrect — people need guns for self-defense as much or more now than they did in 1789 — if that's what anti-gun people believe, then they should work to amend the Constitution rather than engaging in linguistic and legalistic flimflammery.

If the second amendment has become obsolete or no longer viable, that doesn't mean a second amendment type right can not be held to exist. It's just not a constitutional one. It's a mere statutory right and can be changed by statute.

I sense Morty is inching closer to another of his classic breakdowns.

You getting faster at hitting bottom. Just call me a drunk and vacate the premises.

Putting aside that much of the above is false — people need guns for self-defense as much or more now than they did in 1789 — if that's what anti-gun people believe, then they should work to amend the Constitution rather than engaging in linguistic and legalistic flimflammery.

It's not flimflammery of any sort to point out that you won't read and can't think.

Many if not most of the Founding Fathers were highly skeptical of a standing army. The subsequent creation and existence of the U.S.'s standing army not only doesn't argue against Second Amendment rights, but bolsters the argument for Second Amendment rights.

Most (like nearly all) of them were skeptical of a standing army that is correct, yet we have one today, shouldn't purest 2nd amendment folks argue for the dissolution of the US army and be replaced by drafted militia? the navy is constitutional, while the air force was obviously not for seen at that point so let's lump it in with the Navy for now, but the US army is obviously completely against the vision of the founding fathers, anyone can see that. so why aren't the pro-gun folks arguing for it's dissolution and a return to the draft?

Since I haven't heard any pro-gun groups argue for that, then why argue for the sanctity of an amendment that your conveniently overlooking half of?

I do not need a gun for self defense, odds are if they want to shoot me it's going to happen even if I had a gun on me when it happens.

If the second amendment has become obsolete or no longer viable, that doesn't mean a second amendment type right can not be held to exist. It's just not a constitutional one. It's a mere statutory right and can be changed by statute.

LOL. Is that how things work now? I know lefties like when judges just try to add or subtract from the Constitution on a whim, but that's really not how things are supposed to work in a constitutional republic.

***

Most (like nearly all) of them were skeptical of a standing army that is correct, yet we have one today, shouldn't purest 2nd amendment folks argue for the dissolution of the US army and be replaced by drafted militia? the navy is constitutional, while the air force was obviously not for seen at that point so let's lump it in with the Navy for now, but the US army is obviously completely against the vision of the founding fathers, anyone can see that. so why aren't the pro-gun folks arguing for it's dissolution and a return to the draft?

Since I haven't heard any pro-gun groups argue for that, then why argue for the sanctity of an amendment that your conveniently overlooking half of?

Even if you're right from a purely philosophical standpoint, none of the above has anything to do with the Second Amendment as written. The Second Amendment has no trigger clause in the event a standing army is formed, or in the event Second Amendment supporters change their minds about the existence of a professional military.

Kehoskie is like Homer Simpson in the King of the Hill episode, where he works out at the gime with Rainier Wolfcastle. He only acknowledges the constitution in bar form. Bet you can't grab any fat. I got some. No, not there. I got some, too. No, not there.

But I'm Mad Now!

I do not need a gun for self defense, odds are if they want to shoot me it's going to happen even if I had a gun on me when it happens.

Correction: You (apparently) do not want a gun for self-defense.

LOL. Is that how things work now?

That's how things have always worked, troglodyte. Evolve!

Even if you're right from a purely philosophical standpoint, none of the above has anything to do with the Second Amendment as written. The Second Amendment has no trigger clause in the event a standing army is formed, or in the event Second Amendment supporters change their minds about the existence of a professional military.

Ah, now all of a sudden, we leave what's happening around the time, and just concentrate on what the second amendment doesn't have. And what it doesn't have has meaning how?

That's how things have always worked, troglodyte. Evolve!

Really? Supreme Court jokes aside, a few people have gotten together and simply decided that Constitutional amendments were "obsolete or no longer viable" without bothering to amend the Constitution? That's really not "how things have always worked."

Ah, now all of a sudden, we leave what's happening around the time, and just concentrate on what the second amendment doesn't have. And what it doesn't have has meaning how?

"Rolling Wave" pointed out something that had nothing to do with the Second Amendment, and I pointed out it had nothing to do with the Second Amendment. As usual when you're involved, this is a "gotcha" that's missing the "gotcha" part.

but that's really not how things are supposed to work in a constitutional republic.

That's how things have worked since 1803 when Marbury v. Madison was decided.

Really? Supreme Court jokes aside, a few people have gotten together and simply decided that Constitutional amendments were "obsolete or no longer viable" without bothering to amend the Constitution? That's really not "how things have always worked."

Kehoskie, are you pretending that's not what you're doing?

That's how things have worked since 1803 when Marbury v. Madison was decided.

Not quite.

***

Kehoskie, are you pretending that's not what you're doing?

Why would I need to amend the Second Amendment of the Constitution? It's fine, as is.

Not quite.

Judicial review appears nowhere in Article III of the Constitution. Marshall simply said the court had that power.

"Rolling Wave" pointed out something that had nothing to do with the Second Amendment, and I pointed out it had nothing to do with the Second Amendment. As usual when you're involved, this is a "gotcha" that's missing the "gotcha" part.

What does the Second Amednment state--not what you think it means, but what does it read?

Why would I need to amend the Second Amendment of the Constitution? It's fine, as is.

>shrug> How would you know? Apparently, you've never read it.

If the right to keep and bear arms was ambiguous or open to interpretation, there would have been a few localities that would have moved to restrict or ban the private possession of firearms back in 1792 or 1800 or 1810, in the years after the allegedly ambiguous Second Amendment was ratified. That this didn't happen is very strong evidence that gun ownership was, without a doubt, understood to be an individual right.

They did. Laws were passed in Louisiana in 1803 that banned black freedmen from owning weapons. Those racist laws were more prevalent after Turner's Rebellion.

There was no individual right to bear arms. Some individuals owned arms, but that doesn't mean there was an implicit right. Some people own pets, but there is no right to own pets.

This has been pointed out to you before, but you are resistant to facts.

Many if not most of the Founding Fathers were highly skeptical of a standing army. The subsequent creation and existence of the U.S.'s standing army not only doesn't argue against Second Amendment rights, but bolsters the argument for Second Amendment rights.

The FF's skepticism is why they put in the bit about the well organized militia, intended to provide a more effective buffer against a standing army than some dudes with AR-15s. Which gets us back to the absence of those militias.

Also, individual states could certainly have banned guns within their borders before the passage of the 14th Amendment. Incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states did not and could not occur before that (and only occurred at a slow rate after that).

Judicial review appears nowhere in Article III of the Constitution. Marshall simply said the court had that power.

Ah, we can't read judicial review into Article III, which says, among other things, that "the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court... shall extend in all cases..." but we can ascertain from "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" an absolute personal right to bear arms? Um hmm.

Judicial review appears nowhere in Article III of the Constitution. Marshall simply said the court had that power.

The Second Amendment is part of the Constitution and is, by definition, "constitutional."

That's not the issue. The question is what does the Second Amendment mean?

I'm still waiting for you to respond to my questions.

They did. Laws were passed in Louisiana in 1803 that banned black freedmen from owning weapons. Those racist laws were more prevalent after Turner's Rebellion.

There was no individual right to bear arms. Some individuals owned arms, but that doesn't mean there was an implicit right. Some people own pets, but there is no right to own pets.

This has been pointed out to you before, but you are resistant to facts.

Funny stuff, Shipman. Blacks weren't fully seen as people in 1803, so your example — just like the goofy Australian gun buyback example you kept posting day after day — doesn't tell us much.

***

Also, individual states could certainly have banned guns within their borders before the passage of the 14th Amendment. Incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states did not and could not occur before that (and only occurred at a slow rate after that).

I'm sure this makes for a fun debate at law schools, but the fact that such laws were enacted in zero percent of the country for generations after ratification tells us all we need to know about the late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century understanding both of the Second Amendment specifically and of people's natural rights to resist tyranny and act in self-defense generally.

Kehoskie, your ignorance is not a gift of God. How do you know that has anything to do with the Second Amendment? For that matter, why couldn't the amendment have the purpose of changing the culture? A law doesn't have to embody conventional belief.

Funny stuff, Shipman. Blacks weren't fully seen as people in 1803,

But, somehow, these non-humans in your mind had the right to attain their freedom through armed forces?

Can you ever be consistent for one moment?

Kehoskie, your ignorance is not a gift of God. How do you know that has anything to do with the Second Amendment? For that matter, why couldn't the amendment have the purpose of changing the culture? A law doesn't have to embody conventional belief.

The Founding Fathers were clear on the fact that "we the people" don't get our rights from the government. I know this concept is absolutely anathema to lefties, but it's plain as day in our founding document.

What...does...that...mean?

But, somehow, these non-humans in your mind had the right to attain their freedom through armed forces?

Can you ever be consistent for one moment?

LOL. As I was just saying in #1240 ...

The idea that slaves needed government permission to resist their oppressors is something only a liberal could post with a straight face.

(And, by the way, my position couldn't be more "consistent" when it comes to rights.)

The Founding Fathers were clear on the fact that "we the people" don't get our rights from the government. I know this concept is absolutely anathema to lefties, but it's plain as day in our founding document.

This is a curious argument coming from a guy who has no problems regulating personal firearms. The only difference between your position and those of most of lefties you hate is whether or not to place the ball on the 37 or 42 yard line.

The Founding Fathers were clear on the fact that "we the people" don't get our rights from the government. I know this concept is absolutely anathema to lefties, but it's plain as day in our founding document.

"GOD gave me my gold."
---John D. Rockefeller

"GOD gave me my Bushmaster."
---Joe Kehoskie

The first amendment states that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. Pretty much universal rights absolute language that, isn't it? Yet, freedom of speech has always been abridged and it still is. What does the Second Amendment state? Is it couched as absolute right like the First? You should ask yourself why it isn't and what as reader does that mean to you.

"GOD gave me my gold."
---John D. Rockefeller

"GOD gave me my Bushmaster."
---Joe Kehoskie

I prefer the oldie but goodie, "God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal."

What does the Second Amendment state? Is it couched as absolute right like the First? You should ask yourself why it isn't and what as reader does that mean to you?

Nobody has ever argued that the Second Amendment is absolute. But the whole, "If we can ban private ownership of suitcase nukes, we can ban private ownership of Glocks and shotguns" is a winning argument only in the minds of lefties.

Kehoskie,

I'm still waiting.

Waiting for what?

Godot. The last few pages do seem like a Beckett play.

Seems more like Waiting for Guffman.

1249:

(Who me? Where am I?) For you to read to me the text of the Second Amendment and tell me what you get from it? Try to keep up.

Nobody has ever argued that the Second Amendment is absolute.

Nobody has ever argued...absolute?

C'mon, you're not ashamed to come out with something like that?

So, you concede it isn't an absolute right. How do we then interpret it? What do we use to find its meaning and application? What is the frigging constitutional right then?

Just to be clear, those of the Founders who served in the army in the Revolution (e.g., Washington, Hamilton, Marshall) understood that the militia was worthless, and this lesson was reinforced by the War of 1812. That's why it died out in most places thereafter.

Funny stuff, Shipman. Blacks weren't fully seen as people in 1803, so your example — just like the goofy Australian gun buyback example you kept posting day after day — doesn't tell us much.

Freedmen, not slaves. That's the whole point of an individual right to bear arms. If you can deny citizens the right to bear arms, then there is no individual right to gun ownership.

So, you concede it isn't an absolute right. How do we then interpret it? What do we use to find its meaning and application? What is the frigging constitutional right then?

Why don't you re-read last month's thread and/or the earlier part of this thread and then let me know if anything remains unclear with regards to my position on the Second Amendment and/or one's natural right to act in self-defense? I've probably posted a hundred or more comments on guns since Newtown. I'd be happy to post another hundred, but only if we're covering new ground.

***

Freedmen, not slaves. That's the whole point of an individual right to bear arms. If you can deny citizens the right to bear arms, then there is no individual right to gun ownership.

There really was no such thing as a "freedman" before the Civil War; before 1865, emancipated slaves were "Free Negroes," but they certainly weren't anything resembling full citizens of the U.S.

Talk about chickening out.

The thing is, Kehoskie, you and I went through this, and then you went back to your same old dodges, and I'm calling you on then.

Follow the dialogue. Read to me the text of that amendment, then tell me what's left of the Second Amendment after what you've conceded, and why do you think that?

There really was no such thing as a "freedman" before the Civil War; before 1865, emancipated slaves were "Free Negroes," but they certainly weren't anything resembling full citizens of the U.S.

You shouldn't attempt to argue facts when you don't understand them.

I hate reruns.

Talk about chickening out.

Chickening out? I've put my name to hundreds of comments here re: guns. What's the point of having another 300-comment discussion when last month's 300-comment exchange still exists right here on the site? December's thread isn't very hard to find.

***

You shouldn't attempt to argue facts when you don't understand them.

Emancipated slaves in 1803 America were considered full citizens? Who knew?

Why don't you re-read last month's thread and/or the earlier part of this thread and then let me know if anything remains unclear with regards to my position on the Second Amendment and/or one's natural right to act in self-defense? I've probably posted a hundred or more comments on guns since Newtown. I'd be happy to post another hundred, but only if we're covering new ground.

No need. I just wanted to re-establish the fact that you have no problems imposing limitations on the Second Amendment without actually amending or removing the Second Amendment.

1259:

Yes, but look at this way. You can always change the channel. I hear Matlock's coming up.

Chickening out? I've put my name to hundreds of comments here re: guns. What's the point of having another 300-comment discussion when last month's 300-comment exchange still exists right here on the site? December's thread isn't very hard to find.

What's the point of you making the same old empty bloviating assertions? Yet, you do.

Answer the questions.

No need. I just wanted to re-establish the fact that you have no problems imposing limitations on the Second Amendment without actually amending or removing the Second Amendment.

Which limitations have I imposed? The Second Amendment doesn't contemplate private possession of suitcases nukes or anti-aircraft missiles, and to say so is to admit the obvious rather than to "impose a limitation."

What do Lefties and lawyers having the audacity to expound on law have to do with it? (Have the same objections as to doctors and medicine, engineers and bridge-building, English teachers and grammar?) Deal with the substance of what is said? Quit with the misdirection and the "scatting" from one ad hominem accusation/insinuation to another.

The Second Amendment doesn't contemplate private possession of suitcases nukes or anti-aircraft missiles, and to say so is to admit the obvious rather than to "impose a limitation."

What does it contemplate, O Folk Jurist. What does the Second Amendment mean and how do you know it?

Which limitations have I imposed? The Second Amendment doesn't contemplate private possession of suitcases nukes or anti-aircraft missiles, and to say so is to admit the obvious rather than to "impose a limitation."

Hey, you're the one that wants to ban automatic assault rifles, fascist pig.

What does it contemplate, O Folk Jurist. What does the Second Amendment mean and how do you know it?

The Second Amendment provides for people to "keep and bear" firearms in self-defense and to resist tyranny. I "know it" because people* in 100 percent of the post-ratification U.S. were legally allowed to keep and bear firearms, including old and/or disabled people (and women) who couldn't and wouldn't remotely have been considered members of a "collective rights" militia.


(* "People" sometimes, but not always, included blacks. The fact it didn't always include blacks doesn't render the overall point null and void.)

The two parts of your statement don't naturally follow sans explanation. They don't compute.

What does the Second Amendment state? How do you get an absolute right to "keep and bear" arms from that text, taking that text as a whole? Why would you read what it actually states to mean what you say? I mean, the NRA didn't for decades. Why didn't it state what you say if that's what it means? And if you are going outside the text to give meaning to only part of the words in the text, what about the other words? Why don't they matter?

And, then, why can't we do that with all the damn language in the Constitution? What counter-first-impression-plain-language-readings can we come up with?

As an aside: why do you think that the government's allowing people to keep and bear guns means that can't later disallow it (by statutory law) if the amendment is not absolute?

If it's not absolute, why does just your understanding of it matter more than someone else's reasoned interpretation?

Morty, the Second Amendment is one sentence long and was written in plain English for a population that had a relatively low literacy rate (~70 percent). Your hysterical ramblings and attempts at lawyering are entertaining but not very persuasive.

If a "reasoned" interpretation could have yielded a gun ban, it seems likely that at least one gun ban would have been attempted or even implemented somewhere in the original 13 states. There wasn't unanimous agreement about much back then, so the fact that no such gun bans were passed probably tells us all we need to know about how the people of 1792 and 1800 America "interpreted" the Second Amendment. To the extent there was a debate about gun rights in 1792 America, it was akin to the debate in 2013 America about the Earth being round — i.e., there wasn't much of one.

As an aside: why do you think that the government's allowing people to keep and bear guns means that can't later disallow it (by statutory law) if the amendment is not absolute?

There you go again, back to people only having rights as long as a benevolent government allows it. Crazy stuff.

It's disappointing to read that Hoffa is more than likely to be in a field in michigan. The endzone of the meadowlands was always more entertaining.

The Second Amendment provides for people to "keep and bear" firearms in self-defense and to resist tyranny. I "know it" because people* in 100 percent of the post-ratification U.S. were legally allowed to keep and bear firearms, including old and/or disabled people (and women) who couldn't and wouldn't remotely have been considered members of a "collective rights" militia.

And who has talked of banning all guns really? yet throughout those history, most states have had some laws that restrict how you can own those guns to some extend and unlike what some pro-gun folks seem to be imagining, it wasn't just guns, the first serious judicial debate on "concealed weapons" was on a sword cane it .. along with long dagger / dirks were banned from conceal carry in many places for a long time.

Meanwhile, for a long time also, most states have banned folks with criminal records from owning guns as well. which begs the question, which part of the Constitution says that folks after being released from their terms will have diminished rights?

my problem is the general logical inconsistency of the pro-gun argument. let's point this out.

A. right to self defense : the problem is, there are a pretty large number of non-gun owning countries out there that isn't exactly having huge murder rate and / or all their women and children being budged in and raped. in fact, a good number of them are considerably safer by most measurable stats, and those same places often happen to be countries that are most similar to the US in terms of GDP per capita and other rights.

B. in defense against tyranny : there are plenty of tyranny that banned guns and then fell internally, there are also tyranny that didn't ban guns, unlike what the Alex Jones of the world may rant on about. Mao actually didn't take away the guns, if anything it was the other way around, he kept giving away guns during the culture revolution ,which resulted in some of the most insane incidents of this insane period, such as one skrimish where two different factions leveled parts of a major city and the total casualty was over 1000. meanwhile, Hitler also didn't ban guns, except against the Jews, which as you noted previously, it was because they didn't see them as human, just as the south state didn't see blacks as human back then.


There is a logical argument and then there is a practical argument, those things are seperate, but note entirely, since at times illogical arguments are being used for or against practical arguments as well.

my problem is the general logical inconsistency of the pro-gun argument. let's point this out.

A. right to self defense : the problem is, there are a pretty large number of non-gun owning countries out there that isn't exactly having huge murder rate and / or all their women and children being budged in and raped. in fact, a good number of them are considerably safer by most measurable stats, and those same places often happen to be countries that are most similar to the US in terms of GDP per capita and other rights.

This is missing the "inconsistency" it purported to expose, although it might be hidden among all the straw men. But anyway, among other reasons, it's likely that some other countries are safer for reasons of culture, not because of the absence of firearms.

B. in defense against tyranny : there are plenty of tyranny that banned guns and then fell internally, there are also tyranny that didn't ban guns, unlike what the Alex Jones of the world may rant on about. Mao actually didn't take away the guns, if anything it was the other way around, he kept giving away guns during the culture revolution ,which resulted in some of the most insane incidents of this insane period, such as one skrimish where two different factions leveled parts of a major city and the total casualty was over 1000. meanwhile, Hitler also didn't ban guns, except against the Jews, which as you noted previously, it was because they didn't see them as human, just as the south state didn't see blacks as human back then.

You tried this one before but the list of per capita gun ownership you presented was self-defeating. It's not a coincidence that some of the least-free nations on Earth — Cuba, North Korea, Iran — have little or no private ownership of firearms. (And the Hitler example was ludicrous. "Hitler didn't ban ownership of guns — just among the people he wanted to exterminate." Come on.)

The notion that the extent to which a country's general population is armed has even the slightest influence on the prevention of tyranny is utter fantasy.

Basically, there are two widely separated way that a government can remain standing. The first way is to be legitimate (and not tyrannical). The second is to be brutal. The governments that fall lie in between those two extremes.

The current state of affairs in every first-world country (including the U.S.) and in quite a few other countries is that a large enough majority of the people believe the government is legitimate so as to make insurrection exceedingly unlikely. (Of course the opinion that the current president/prime minister/whoever is a nincompoop whose policies are leading the country to ruination is always widespread, sometimes even in that leader's own party. But that's not the same thing at all.)

But if a ruler doesn't own that belief in legitimacy, then he has to be brutal. Most modern states command an apparatus of force - usually the military - that could utterly squash any dissent or opposition, provided those with the weapons are willing to be brutal. The governments that fall are the ones that are either unwilling or unable to be sufficiently brutal.

To put down the Tien An Men Square protests in 1989, the Chinese government found enough units of the army who were willing to be brutal. And of course they were the army - they had tanks and there was no standing against them.

In the 1991 Soviet coup against Gorbachev, the army was not willing to be brutal on behalf of the coup leaders, and the people standing around Yeltsin were not squashed. It isn't that the army didn't have the power - it's that they weren't willing to use it. And the armament, or lack thereof, of the people at the parliament building was not an issue.

Let's look at the Arab Spring.

In Tunisia, the general population was almost completely disarmed - but the uprising nonetheless toppled the long time leader. The army and police were not willing to be brutal on his behalf.

In Egypt, the general population has very few weapons, and the army is large and capable. But the army was not willing to be brutal, at least not on behalf of Mubarak. Actually the army was an independent actor, seeking to preserve its own position and willing to shed Mubarak to do so. Of course, the full story has not yet played out. But what would happen if the general population were better armed right now? That might result in more attacks by Muslim gangs directed at Coptic Christians. In other words, more arms might abet tyranny more than prevent it.

In Libya, the army wasn't very capable and wasn't very organized. A significant portion of that army was loyal to Gaddafi and willing to be brutal on his behalf - but that very brutality drove some others to defection. The result was civil war, with the primary source of armament for the rebels being the very army they were fighting against. That's the rule for rebellion - the better armed your adversary, the more weapons you stand to obtain. Some outside interference tipped the balance in the civil war, and Gaddafi fell. And absolutely none of this has anything to do with how well armed Libyan civilians were before the rebellion happened.

In Syria, Assad's government is well-armed and quite willing to be brutal. But they're also rooted in a religious and ethnic minority, and it's hard for that minority to be the whole army. There is a civil war now raging, with the outcome not yet clear (although it doesn't look good for Assad). As in Libya, the most important sources of armament for the rebellion are defections from, or thefts from, the Syrian army itself. (There are also some arms being brought in from outside.) By and large, this civil war is not being decided by who has semi-auto carbines; weapons a lot heavier than that are in play.

The notion that the extent to which a country's general population is armed has even the slightest influence on the prevention of tyranny is utter fantasy.

To believe that, one must believe it's a total coincidence that the populations of Cuba, Iran, and North Korea have been disarmed.

It's nice that some militaries were "not willing to be brutal" in the face of protests, but it's a foolish population that blindly assumes such restraint will be the norm.

It's nice that some militaries were "not willing to be brutal" in the face of protests, but it's a foolish population that blindly assumes such restraint will be the norm.

Is has nothing to do with blind assumption, and it has nothing to do with what is the norm; in fact, brutality is all too common in the world. It's that how far the forces of order are willing to go determines the outcome. And the first to shoot at a cop or soldier is the first to die.

Is has nothing to do with blind assumption, and it has nothing to do with what is the norm; in fact, brutality is all too common in the world. It's that how far the forces of order are willing to go determines the outcome. And the first to shoot at a cop or soldier is the first to die.

"How far the forces of order are willing to go" is often determined by how many guns are held by the opposition.

It's not hard to be a brutal dictator in a place where none of your opposition is armed.

The Founding Fathers were clear on the fact that "we the people" don't get our rights from the government. I know this concept is absolutely anathema to lefties, but it's plain as day in our founding document.

The Catholic church has been very clear on the fact that beavers are fish. It doesn't make it so.

Most've us are middle-aged white collar men, so we're used to being able to commit more or less any crime we want without legal repercussions.

The Catholic church has been very clear on the fact that beavers are fish. It doesn't make it so.

Did you make up these gems yourself or did you find them elsewhere?

Did you make up these gems yourself or did you find them elsewhere?

So you're saying beavers are fish?

You can't really plagarize comebacks to weird statements. Someone arguing rights don't come from government is too rare and silly to distribute counterarguments. Why would you?

It's not hard to be a brutal dictator in a place where none of your opposition is armed.

I think his examples lead to the conclusion that "It's not hard to be a brutal dictator in a place where you have the loyalty of a competent army". It does seem hard to be a brutal dictator in a place where very little of your opposition is armed but the powers of repression (ie. the Organized Army) isn't willing to be brutal for you. To bring it back to an earlier discussion this is where Gandhi and Mandela's tactics fit in. If you can, through non-violent resistance, seize the moral high ground and take away the willingness of the state's muscle (the Army) to implement its will then you've won.

Non-violent civil disobedience isn't always the answer, but in these cases it can be an extremely effective tool in taking the crucial weapon out of the oppressing government's hands. Where that's possible it's far, far more effective than arming individual citizens. Where it's not possible arming individual citizens might be a better option, but usually just in a "well we're probably all going to die here, but it's better than the status quo" kind of way.

It's not a coincidence that some of the least-free nations on Earth — Cuba, North Korea, Iran — have little or no private ownership of firearms.

It is interesting that you pose those examples, because I would say they argue the opposite. Take Iran. It is a classic example of a people's militia overthrowing a government, except in this case we don't care for the ideology of that militia, which leads us to downplay their role. The Basij, a volunteer paramilitary militia, open to all men and women 18 to 45 -- the very definition of a "well-regulated militia" -- is in fact one of the main pillars of the Iranian government. Its role in the Iran-Iraq war is analogous to the role of the colonial Militia in the Revolutionary War -- a major fighting force, with regular armed units as stiffener. The current size of the Basij is a matter of some dispute -- the Iranian government claims 13.5 million, independent observers much less -- but in any case, it numbers in the millions. But it's ideologically inconvenient for those arguing that an armed populace results in freedom and liberty.

The slogan "a country with 20 million youths must have 20 million riflemen or a military with 20 million soldiers; such a country will never be destroyed." was coined by that noted firearms enthusiast the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

If a "reasoned" interpretation could have yielded a gun ban, it seems likely that at least one gun ban would have been attempted or even implemented somewhere in the original 13 states.

Why? Claiming something that didn't happen as support is pretty darn weak. Which is even assuming there were no bans in the first years of our country, which I don't know to be true.

To believe that, one must believe it's a total coincidence that the populations of Cuba, Iran, and North Korea have been disarmed.

Country (guns per 100 residents) World rank in 2007
North Korea (.6) 164
Cuba (4.8) 104
Iran (7.3) 79

To believe that, one must believe it's a total coincidence that the populations of Japan, India, and England and Wales have been disarmed.

Country (guns per 100 residents) World rank in 2007
Japan (.6) 164
India (4.2) 110
England and Wales (6.2) 88

Source
Cherry pick much Joe?

I was just reading up on the timeline of the 1991 coup against Gorbachev. Early on (after the coup planners had somehow neglected to arrest Yeltsin), one tank battalion commander who was already in Moscow came the "White House" (Russian parliament building) and declared his loyalty to Russia (and Yeltsin) rather than the Soviet Union. And Yeltsin was famously shown on television standing on top of one of those tanks, speaking. So, when Yeltsin and the "Russia" crowd received word that the coup planners had ordered a military attack, what did they do with the tanks they had (that could perhaps have fought back)? They sent them away. The actual defense of the parliament building was makeshift and largely unarmed - things like blocking streets and tunnels with buses and trucks. A few "Russia" defenders were killed tying to do things like cover the observation slits of an infantry fighting vehicle. No soldiers in the attacking force were killed. Ultimately the attack failed because its commanders, who were already arguing among themselves about the propriety of their orders, called it off. They had more than enough firepower available to destroy that one battalion of tanks, and indeed had those tanks fired on the attackers and killed some of them, that might well have been what happened.

England and Wales (6.2) 88

To be fair it's only that high because it includes the Welsh, which frankly nobody should.

EDIT: to clarify I actually have no idea if the Welsh own more guns than the English.

2nd EDIT: I actually think the Welsh should be included in more things! Wales is probably my 3rd favourite place in the world, most Welsh people I've met are awesome, and I even have some Welsh ancestry! But other than that I stand by my racial insult.

To be fair it's only that high because it includes the Welsh, which frankly nobody should.

"Welsh people, what are they for?"

So, apparently "Sandy Hook Truthers" is now a thing...

So, apparently "Sandy Hook Truthers" is now a thing...

Oh it was a thing about 10 seconds after the news broke.

We've discussed Lance Armstrong off and on in PED threads before. Reports are that in his two episode interview with Oprah he's admitted to everything. And is evidently going to go further. Naming people in the cycling establishment and people on the US Postal team management.

We've discussed Lance Armstrong off and on in PED threads before. Reports are that in his two episode interview with Oprah he's admitted to everything. And is evidently going to go further. Naming people in the cycling establishment and people on the US Postal team management.

If Christ is going to hang he's going to take the whole lot of them with him.

We've discussed Lance Armstrong off and on in PED threads before. Reports are that in his two episode interview with Oprah he's admitted to everything. And is evidently going to go further. Naming people in the cycling establishment and people on the US Postal team management.

And it couldn't happen to a nicer sport.

So many cyclers have been busted for doping that there aren't too many names Armstrong can give without them going "we know that." It's a farce. Go back and retroactively award Tour de France titles to clean racers. It's not easy.

House Republicans plan to huddle at a golf resort in Williamsburg, Va., later this week for a private conference to talk strategy for 2013, but before they depart, Democrats will send them on their way with a "suggested agenda"—one that mocks the new class.

“We have a few suggestions for House Republicans that might make their next month a little bit easier," said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesman Jesse Ferguson, his tongue firmly in cheek.

The DCCC, the official party organization tasked with electing Democrats to the House, will blast out this taunting list later today:

Suggested House Republican Retreat Agenda Items
•Have breakfast paid for by lobbyists
•How to stop talking about “legitimate rape” and insulting women
•Science 101
•Creating tax breaks and tax shelters for millionaire campaign donors
•Math course on counting to 218 votes
•A primer on the stock market crash of 1929 and how you could be responsible for the next one.
•Coup d’etat prevention and planning
•Trust falls
•Big-picture thinking
•Practice interacting with women and minority voters
•How to increase our approval ratings: What root canals, traffic jams, cockroaches and head lice are doing right
•Remedial hurricane recovery
•Your inner Tea Party and you
•Have dinner paid for by lobbyists

Looks like the Hagel kabuki is in endgame, finally - "On Tuesday, Schumer dashed Republican hopes by announcing his intention to support Hagel for the Pentagon’s top job."

link

The Second Amendment isn't murky.

The Second Amendment was murky at the time of passage, and it's certainly murky over two hundred years later. It's not clearly written at all.

Think of how trivial it would be to write that same amendment with the same general words in a way that fairly clearly defined the right as individual ("The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, especially since a well-regulated militia's is necessary to maintain a free state.") or in a way that clearly defined the right as solely collective/militia ("As a well-regulated militia is necessary to maintain a free state, the right of the people to bear arms in the service of such organizations shall not be infringed.")

I don't think the ambiguity was accidental or incompetent. It was political; an amendment that both sides could view as supporting their interpretation was necessary for ratification.

So many cyclers have been busted for doping that there aren't too many names Armstrong can give without them going "we know that." It's a farce. Go back and retroactively award Tour de France titles to clean racers. It's not easy.

Doping in cycling is so prevalent and so pervasive that there is a single, simple test you can run from your home to decided if a rider is doping.

Did he win?

I don't think the ambiguity was accidental or incompetent. It was political; an amendment that both sides could view as supporting their interpretation was necessary for ratification.

True, but a lot of people fail to understand what "well regulated" meant in the language of the writing.

Doping in cycling is so prevalent and so pervasive that there is a single, simple test you can run from your home to decided if a rider is doping.

Did he win?

That test has too many false negatives. I prefer the "Did he compete?", even though it might have false positives.

But it's ideologically inconvenient for those arguing that an armed populace results in freedom and liberty.

I wouldn't say that an armed populace results in freedom and liberty. I would say that an armed populace is a check on government power. Sometimes that will replace one government with an even worse one.

Your argument about brutality is definitely though-provoking, but I think an armed populace pushes the line of "what needs to be done to get things done" higher. That means that you need the support of the army for more brutal actions if you wish to repress an armed population than if you wish to repress an unarmed population. That's really the point. If the folks in Ruby Ridge don't have guns, the government just quietly strongarms a witness into testifying, and there's no noise to bring it to public attention. Those soldiers don't have engage in the moral calculation of "is this level of force justified" and can trample on the rights of the citizens without having to be particularly brutal.

Imagine an international epidemic, like a superflu. A government might want to quarantine infected people until they die, to prevent the spread of the disease. If there are no citizens with guns, this happens pretty easily; there's no way to effectively resist. If the citizens are armed, and every attempt to lock people in zones results in a brutal firefight, that may no longer be a viable option.