Gun control and Mumbai
Remember the discussion (here and here) about the ineffective cops who confronted the very effective terrorists in Mumbai?
Not only were the terrorists probably well aware of the lack of training and poor equipment of the Mumbai forces. It seems likely that they also counted on the fact that India has a poorly-armed populace.
This piece in American Thinker by Abhijeet Singh describes gun ownership in India. It is edifying to learn that, although even Gandhi was in favor of having a clause in the constitution of the new state that would protect the right of the ordinary citizen to bear arms, when independence was granted in 1947 such a passage was absent.
The resultant laws controlling gun ownership in India, as well as the economics involved, have discouraged most of its law-abiding residents from owning firearms:
…[T]he Indian government has…used state policy to ensure that firearms and ammunition prices are probably some of the highest in the world. Domestic production of rifled firearms is a state monopoly, churning out crude products that are priced at 7 (or more) times their cost of production. Similarly domestic production of ammunition is a state monopoly with inconsistent supplies, poor quality, and very high prices. This combined with the fact that imports have been virtually banned since 1986 means that an ordinary snub nosed .357 Colt revolver will sell (legally) for a mind boggling US $20,000 or more.
A tight licensing regime combined with the high price of acquiring a legal gun has meant that very few Indians own weapons. Unsurprisingly these restrictions have also meant that there is a thriving black market for arms and ammunition, ensuring a steady supply to all manner of criminals…
The result of Indian gun ownership policy is exactly the opposite of what one would hope. It keeps guns out of the reach of the law-abiding citizen and makes acquiring one a simple thing for criminals.
Here’s another scene from Mumbai,an excellent illustration of the old saying “don’t bring a knife to a gunfight.” Only in this case, substitute “stone” for “knife”:
At the Jewish outreach centre, bystanders pelted the terrorists with stones in a vain attempt to ward off the attack, but had to retreat when the terrorists opened fire with automatic rifles.
Now it’s true that stones can be lethal, especially when hurled by a sizable crowd in sizable numbers. But the process takes time, and time is what a crowd facing terrorists armed with automatic weapons lacks.
Mumbai, unfortunately, is a microcosm of the problems to which bad gun laws inevitably lead. It’s a bit like the line from Yeats’ “The Second Coming:”
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Gun laws such as those in India ensure that “the best” will lack the weapons to defeat the “passionate intensity”—backed by firepower—of “the worst.”
[NOTE: There is research indicating that violent crime declines in states with concealed carry laws. But the evidence, and the researcher involved (John Lott), are so controversial that I refer you to this webpage if you want to immerse yourself in the pros and cons.]
“NOTE: There is research indicating that violent crime declines in states with concealed carry laws.”
It makes perfect sense to me…
Controversial ? Neo, you are confusing propaganda sponsored by sophists with findings made by people who have professional credentials and standing. Read John Lott’s books, to start. (He has a blog,BTW.) “Women and Guns” magazine is published in Buffalo. Contact them, too.
I have to say that the SMLE rifles used by the Mumbai police would have been perfectly adequate to deal with the terrorists if the police had training.
Carrying is the first step. Having the training to use the weapon effectively is the second. Possessing the willpower and determination to take another’s life is the intangible and critical third. Not everyone who carries and has some measure of training, to include cops and soldiers, can pull the trigger when required, as was discussed on the earlier thread. But without an armed citizenry, it remains an academic exercise.
Right now, everyone in India is a sheep, from a terrorist’s viewpoint. As long as guns remain out of reach of the vast majority of India’s citizens and the cops remain ineffective, terrorists attacking Indian targets can be reasonably certain that they will have the upper hand. They won’t have to worry about a civilian sheepdog with a CCP spoiling their fun.
I contrasted the police and citizenry’s response to the terrorists in mumbai to citizens in a similar situation in Northfield Minnesota in 1876 here.
The people aren’t dumb!
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/11/obama.gun.sales/
The citizenry is arming itself in the wake of Obama’s election. People obviously view his statements on the 2nd Admendment with much skepticism. I also think it’s a reaction to his statements about a “Civilian Nat. Security Force” It is just such a government sponsored “Brown Shirt” force that the Framers had in mind when putting in the 2nd. The best way to keep the power with the people is to have the people able to respond forcefully to such threats.
Several months ago in Orlando there were two incidents in the course of a week where a couple of guys pulled into a gas station and robbed people while they were fueling their cars and then SHOT them for no apparent reason. I am all for concealed carry laws. I also have no problem with requiring a gun safety course in order to purchase one.
I actually believe that MOST people of my generation would have no problem defending themselves – with lethal force if necessary. The foremost argument by most anti-gun people is the chance of some innocent person getting accidentally killed. Well that is happening in great numbers already.
In England (where I have many relatives) gangs were going out into the countryside villages and robbing and beating senior citizens. Of course private ownership of handguns in England has been illegal for years.
To me guns are equalizers. They give people of lesser size and strength the opportunity to stand up to what might otherwise be overpowering force.
Will some guns be sold (no matter what safeguards) to unstable individuals and/or those intent on doing severe mischief? Of course. But it seems to me that a large number of those people already have guns.
I don’t trust anything that Obama and his advisers/handlers have to say on this subject of the 2nd Amendment. Not a word. He has a history of voting for draconian restrictions on gun ownership in Illinois. He has a history of saying things on the campaign trail that contradict earlier statements made to more restricted groups of people across a variety of issues and topics.
In a word, Obama is cynical liar and cannot be trusted.
Regarding the very valid points made by “dane” above, I would like to suggest there is a similarity between William Blackstone’s observation some 2 centuries ago regarding the conviction of an innocent man, and the realization that when all citizens are armed then there will be at least one who will be inclined to abuse that right.
The quote:
“the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.”
William Blackstone / Commentaries on the Laws of England (1769)
I would hold that it’s similarly true that it’s better that all citizens are armed – or at least free to arm themselves as they see fit – than to disarm all citizens on the presumption that a miniscule percentage of the people will abuse that right to possess arms.
Punishing the occasional abuse of the right to arms by miscreants is far preferable to punishing every citizen for the deeds of the few – and worse, the very act of disarming the majority leads to the criminal element having a freer hand to do as he pleases as he’s not inclined to obey the law requiring him to disarm anyway!
As I see it, there are only two alternatives in protecting citizens from armed felons. Either you impose draconian gun control laws like Singapore, or you let any law-abiding citizen who wants to carry, carry.
In Singapore, all private gun ownership is strictly forbidden. Mere possession of a gun gets you 5-10 years plus minimum 6 strokes of the cane. And gun crime is indeed low. But here’s the probable reason why, in addition to tight border controls. If you use or just attempt to use a gun in the commission of a crime, it’s a mandatory–mandatory–death sentence. No plea bargains or judicial discretion. Your accomplices also get the long drop-sudden stop at Changi Prison. Quite an incentive I’d say to find another means of persuasion if you’re bound and determined to go on a crime spree.
In a small island state run by a single paternalistic political party that puts stability and economic growth over individual rights, this appears to work. In the U.S., I’d prefer to see more people properly trained people packin’. It makes a lot more sense than expecting criminals and terrorists to respect “gun-free zone” signs.
I believe the main reason why governments impose draconian gun restrictions is the one reason they will NOT speak in public about: they want The State to have a monopoly on armed force. They do not want The People to have the power to oppose the government.
It’s just a smokescreen when governments or Left parties want citizens to either be disarmed or face draconian restrictions “for their own good.” It won’t deter criminals, because the criminal element is going to get their guns on the black market. Everyone knows this, even the people who support severe gun restrictions. Only the most credulous believe this argument of the government being able to protect the people better than they can protect themselves.
Having said all of the above, I do think that for an armed citizenry to be a good thing the citizens themselves must be restrained, careful, and conservative people. They must be steeped in the ethic of the sanctity of life. And the reason why it ideally has to be so is the fact that pulling a gun out relies on the sound judgment of the one pulling the gun.
At the same time we Christians have a BIG problem amongst ourselves. We are very divided, theologically, over the whole issue of killing. The problem arises from a mistranslation of one of the Ten Commandments. Originally written in Hebrew, “Thou shalt not do murder” was translated by early Christians to read “Thou shalt not kill.” And ever since we have been riven with divisions over this command. To the point where it seems that in the mainline churches it seems that those who strongly favor a more pacifist stance now hold majority influence. It now is bearing disastrous fruit in the present context.
FredHjr,
While I’m aware of the mistranslation you speak of, I suspect the mindset you mention in the leadership of the mainstream churches is less a result of attempting to adhere to this mistranslation than it is a matter of simply using a convenient passage out of the bible to justify pacifist views, and the general holier than thou viewpoint that seem to usually come from those pacifist views.
Far be it from me to thump a bible (as anyone who knows me would attest!), but I would suggest the following for countering pacifist interpretations of the bible:
Luke 22:36
“Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”
One of the most passionate proponents of firearms freedom I ever met was a Sikh who had immigrated from the Punjab. He had many tales of the abuse perpetrated by India after Punjab voted to go to India rather than Pakistan. The one time I saw him without his turban was when he was wearing his NRA hat.
Robert A. Heinlein wrote that an armed society is a polite society. I wholeheartedly agree.
Without repeating too much of other’s comments, I’d like to add my $0.02…
As it relates to the situation in India specifically – if there was an armed citizenry – I feel that there would have been a good possibility that the casualties would have been greatly reduced – there are many examples of the armed citizens in the US stopping an active shooter scenario. Why didn’t the police stop the shooters? I don’t know all the specifics, however it certainly does point to the lack of training – which i don’t feel that it is specific to the police force in India – the same can be said of many of the police officers here in the US. Another, larger issue I feel that is of mindset. What I mean by that is even if you carry a firearm day in and day out, if you’re not a student of it, having made the commitment to being the best at its use that you can be at it, you’re failing yourself (and others around you). I guess another way of putting it is that there are too many people out there carrying a firearm (here in the US, and the Northeast, specifically) who are not well trained. I see this too often, along with the improper mindset to WIN at a gunfight – which ultimately goes back to training.
Now, regarding the (potential?) gun ban here in the US? That would suck. There are many examples of recent gun bans, here in the US as well as internationally, which failed to do what it was supposed to do – reduce crime. I think many have pointed out already that all these bans do is to take away firearms from legitimate law abiding folks and if nothing else, facilitate the wrong-doers’ wrong doings. At the end of the day, cosmetic features and magazine capacity do nothing to deter a determind individual from carrying out his/her intentions.
So, if any of you out there have a firearm out there and carry it – please, do me the favor and get some professional training.
respectfully submitted, please excuse the typos.
A week ago, I found this from The London Times, demonstrating that some Brits actually do have some common sense…
Think tank: If each of us carried a gun . . .
–
Analyses that only look at the benefits of widespread gun ownership without weighing the costs are unpersuasive.
Costs:
1. Making it much easier for terrorists to deliver firearms to the locations of attacks. Schools, public buildings, nightclubs, hotels, etc. currently use metal detectors to ensure no guns are brought into the area. If we are relying on the “armed populace” model of security, the law-abiding citizens entering schools, etc. will have to bring their sidearms with them. So metal detectors will be totally ineffective, as would any other measures aimed at creating no-gun zones. So we’d be trading the ability to prevent a terrorist attack for the ability to halt one that’s in progress. Not too smart.
2. Arms race and pre-emptive escalation. If criminals assume most potential victims are carrying semi-automatics, they’ll find ways to carry higher-caliber automatics or grenades or whatever it takes. As gun ownership advocates themselves argue, criminals will always find ways to get guns. So they will just as surely find ways to get bigger and better guns than their victims. See the drug war in Mexico if you want nearby examples.
Worse, if criminals know that simply threatening with a gun won’t work — since the victim may “draw” their own weapon — they’ll shoot first, then commit the robbery or whatever they had intended over the victim’s dead body.
3. The decay of civilized values. The cornerstone of civilization is the state’s exclusive right to use violence in cases outside direct self-defense. Granted, the laws governing gun use by private citizens limit use to direct self defense. Still, they inevitably erode the state’s monopoly on violence by taking away some of the state’s responsibility for keeping the public safe.
While the lethality of personal weapons will increase in a society with widespread gun use, the problem will escalate in another, worse way. As the state increasingly leaves it to individuals to protect themselves, those individuals will inevitably seek the efficiency of organization. Militias will form. Counter militias will form, most likely along ethnic lines. Police will become irrelevant as the rule of law gives way to rule of the gun.
4. Increased vulnerability of children below the legal age for carrying a gun. In a more heavily armed society, the unarmed are more, not less, vulnerable. Criminals adapt and thus, they’ll soon enough be targeting children, knowing they can’t be armed, even if they are lower value targets for robbery. Again, see Mexico for nearby examples.
5. The general de-emphasis of crime prevention and elimination of the root causes of crime in favor of dealing with crime after the fact.
It’s at least possible that the obvious benefits of a widely armed populace outweigh these costs. But if you’re going to advocate widespread gun ownership, you need to at least acknowledge the costs and explain why you think they are outweighed by the benefits.
Every single one of the above five points is deeply flawed. This surprised me because the thesis — “Analyses that only look at the benefits of widespread gun ownership without weighing the costs are unpersuasive” — is a very solid beginning.
But it’s too easy. I’ll leave the fisking to others.
As soon as I saw “root causes of crime” I knew what we are dealing with. We have seen this kind of thinking for several decades at least. Criminals are the victims of us capitalist pig dogs and are only fighting back.
The other points have nothing to do with the reasons why the Founders put the 2nd Amendment after the First. Primarily, the 2nd Amendment is to let citizens hold the government accountable for its violations of other rights enumerated and elaborated in the Constitution.
“Don” is an example of “homo urbanus” and not homo sapiens. Unfortunately, the country’s polity has shifted towards homo urbanus.
Don’s raison nombre deux is the kind of thinking behind how Joe Biden and his colleagues oppose strategic ballistic missile defense. They say it escalates the arms’ race and is an offensive weapon. So, we should fall back on a much scaled back version of MAD as the doctrine to deter regimes that are not susceptible to deterrence. These people believe if we dial it down then the enemy will dial it down too. Suicide is not a rational fall back position.
“If criminals assume most potential victims are carrying semi-automatics, they’ll find ways to carry higher-caliber automatics or grenades or whatever it takes.”
LOL. Last time I checked , a 9mm Semiautomatic handgun has a “higher caliber” than a 7.62mm AK-47 “assault Weapon”. But the lower caliber AK-47 would be a better weapon just because its longer barrel makes it a bit more accurate at mid distances and it packs a lot more punch. (more powder). Though I am not really a fan of AK-47s. Oh, and guess what. Those evil 5.56 mm M16/M4/AR-15, etc are technically “lower caliber” than a 9mm handgun. An M16 is basically a 22 caliber squirrel gun on steroids.
Then this guy keeps talking about Mexico? Mexico is the prime example of law abiding citizens being disarmed. Not to mention the effect of bribery on a culture and its laws.
It is not just my research that finds that right-to-carry laws reduce murder rates and violent crime. For some of the other research see this list.
Fred, it’s our old friend Bogey who’s the “homo urbanus”, not Don.
Basically, the root cause of crime is criminals. In every society, there are people who find it easier, more satisfying, more exciting, whatever, to prey on the fruits of others’ labors, through theft, fraud, racketeering, etc. In many cases, it doesn’t matter how well these people were toilet trained, or whether they were breast-fed or bottle fed, or whether their self-esteem was damaged because someone laughed at their haircut in school. They do it because they like it. Jails are full of ’em. A 175gr. SJHP between the headlights means there’s one less to live off the taxpayers, and then prey on them again once they’re released.
“But the lower caliber AK-47 would be a better weapon just because its longer barrel makes it a bit more accurate at mid distances and it packs a lot more punch. (more powder). ”
I should have pointed out the extra powder also gives the projectile a higher velocity, which means it travels further than a slower velocity round would before dropping the same distance due to gravity.
I have to agree with Don – Bogey Man started out strong, however all 5 of his points seem rather flawed.
I have never heard of an instance where a metal detector has deterred a real ‘active shooter scenario’. I can think of a few instances where an armed (legally), responsible citizen was able to put a stop to an active shooter scenario. If nothing else, a metal detector or any other security checkpoint will become the initiation point of any violence of action.
“Arms escalation and pre-emptive escalation” – are you for real? If determined criminals had access to “higher caliber automatics” etc, they’d start with that. I’m going to assume (yes, I know. I may make an ass out of myself) that you’re taking in the context of India and an active shooter scenario. If criminals think that “simply threatening with a gun won’t work” — they’d pick a different target — not to mention it wouldn’t be an active shooter scenario, but more of a common street thug. And being a responsibly armed citizen, I try my best to not get myself in a situation where I may be threatened with a gun. Situational awareness is key here.
“The decay of civilized values” — absolutely. Without widespread legal gun ownership, violent crime rates generally tend to rise. Currently laws within the US governing gun use by private citizens are not limited to direct self defense — hunting and target shooting are both valid and approved uses of firearms. Even in a deadly force situation, the protection of an innocent third party is also a valid use of firearms in many states. The lethality of personal weapons will not change regardless of widespread gun use. The “lethality” is a function of caliber, velocity and shot placement. You’re probably thinking of mortality rate. Also, no state government has a good track record of “protecting” its citizens. But you can count on them to be there after the fact though.
Having said that, I am going to assume that you’re under the impression that most gun owners are an embittered bunch.
Children? How are they more vulnerable? They are already going to “gun free zones” which are targets. I’m not a parent, but if I were, I’m not going to rely on “the system” to keep my kids safe. If you do, you’re a fool. And again, Mexico — I don’t know what’s with you and that place, but if I was in Mexico, I’d hire competent EP personnel for my kids. What’s your kids’ (and your) life worth?
De-emphasis of crime prevention? That’s a good one. Since when did criminals watch crime prevention ads? I’m sure the prison system rehabilitates them too right? If they actually listened, the world would be a better place.
Sorry, your so-called costs aren’t really valid. And to Jon Baker — a 9mm vs. 7.62 x 39 — the AK round is technically a “higher caliber”, and so is a 5.56 / .223. A 9mm has a larger bullet diameter, but will not be considered “higher”. Caliber hierarchy is generally based on energy than size.
I think in general, people are mixing up gun control and concealed carry issues here. They are not synonymous. Glad to see John Lott here. Keep up the good work, John!
Respectfully submitted.
Making it much easier for terrorists to deliver firearms to the locations of attacks. Schools, public buildings, nightclubs, hotels, etc. currently use metal detectors to ensure no guns are brought into the area. If we are relying on the “armed populace” model of security, the law-abiding citizens entering schools, etc. will have to bring their sidearms with them. So metal detectors will be totally ineffective, as would any other measures aimed at creating no-gun zones. So we’d be trading the ability to prevent a terrorist attack for the ability to halt one that’s in progress. Not too smart.
If all persons are effectively prevented from carrying guns into a few select areas then all gun violence is prevented in those select areas and there is no need for the lawful citizen to be armed in those select areas.
But since it is impractical to have metal detectors on every corner and at every building entrance this policy cannot protect the lawful in most of their daily movements.
I am perfectly willing to forgo my weapon on occasional trips into secure gun-free zones(courthouses, police facilities, etc.) if metal detectors are in place and security is vigilant.
For the rest of my daily activities, representing 98% of my life, I will carry my 9 mil pistol, which is licensed by my state. BTW, my girlfriend, who is a Progressive on most issues, says my pistol makes her feel safer when we are together. She’s a Progressive but she’s not stupid.
Arms race and pre-emptive escalation. If criminals assume most potential victims are carrying semi-automatics, they’ll find ways to carry higher-caliber automatics or grenades or whatever it takes. As gun ownership advocates themselves argue, criminals will always find ways to get guns. So they will just as surely find ways to get bigger and better guns than their victims. See the drug war in Mexico if you want nearby examples.
Worse, if criminals know that simply threatening with a gun won’t work – since the victim may “draw” their own weapon – they’ll shoot first, then commit the robbery or whatever they had intended over the victim’s dead body.
As a practical matter the equation offered above is fatally flawed. If a criminal ‘gets the drop’ on a lawful citizen then no weapon, either bigger or better, will save the lawful citizen. The converse is also true: If a lawful citizen ‘gets the drop’ on a criminal then possession of a bigger gun will not help the criminal. It’s difficult to shoot someone if you are already dead.
Also, when committing crimes of gun violence the lawless depend very much on concealment of their weapons. To get much bigger or better than my carry weapon a criminal would have to be conspicuously burdened with a gun bag.
The writer also overlooks the fact that nearby bystanders may be armed and able to help.
The decay of civilized values. The cornerstone of civilization is the state’s exclusive right to use violence in cases outside direct self-defense. Granted, the laws governing gun use by private citizens limit use to direct self defense. Still, they inevitably erode the state’s monopoly on violence by taking away some of the state’s responsibility for keeping the public safe.
And WHY must the state have a “monopoly on violence,” even to the extent that the citizens are not permitted to defend themselves? This the writer never explains, except with the dubious assertion that self-defense leads to the “decay of civilized values,” which leads to the obvious implication that self-defense is somehow not “civilized.” It’s called ‘circular reasoning.’ Not defending yourself doesn’t prove you are uncivilized; it only proves you are an idiot.
While the lethality of personal weapons will increase in a society with widespread gun use,
Pure gobbledygook. The rankest nonsense. First of all the statement is so general as to be useless. Shouldn’t I WANT my weapon to be lethal? What’s the point of having a weapon if it’s harmless?
the problem will escalate in another, worse way. As the state increasingly leaves it to individuals to protect themselves, those individuals will inevitably seek the efficiency of organization. Militias will form. Counter militias will form, most likely along ethnic lines. Police will become irrelevant as the rule of law gives way to rule of the gun.
My state has had a concealed carry licensing system for years. So far I see no decrease in protection from the state, nor have any “militias” formed.
Increased vulnerability of children below the legal age for carrying a gun. In a more heavily armed society, the unarmed are more, not less, vulnerable. Criminals adapt and thus, they’ll soon enough be targeting children, knowing they can’t be armed, even if they are lower value targets for robbery. Again, see Mexico for nearby examples.
SAVE THE CHILDREN! Does the writer realize that a robber does not need a weapon in order to rob “children”? As for the older teenagers up to 21(the legal age to carry a concealed weapon), any potential robber in my city would do well to confine their robbing of young people to the high income neighborhoods. The young folks in the barrios in my city could very well end up robbing the robber.
I would have thought that it’s self-evident that there are root causes of crime that have nothing whatsoever to do with gun ownership.
Fred writes:
“Primarily, the 2nd Amendment is to let citizens hold the government accountable for its violations of other rights enumerated and elaborated in the Constitution.”
Are you suggesting that a civilian would be within their rights to shoot a police officer engaged in brutality?
Does the second amendment allow me to carry a shotgun to the Iraq War protest on the mall so if any cops get uppity I can give them both barrels?
If the federal government violates my 4th amendment rights by wiretapping my phone without prior cause does the 2nd amendment really give me the right to resort to firearms?
The second amendment was obviously written with a different place and time in mind. The wording is undeniable, even if the Supreme Court has recently done so. What, today, is a “well-regulated” militia?
Hunters? Obviously not.
Single homeowners? Nope.
Target shooters or other sportsmen? Obviously not.
A well-regulated militia would be the National Guard or somesuch group subject to all the checks and balances of a democratic society.
Any armed group set up to protect us from government would have to be outside the Constitution.
I’m surprised that so many right-wingers offer such nutty arguments for gun ownership that so obviously contradict common sense when there is a perfectly sound, simple libertarian argument readily at hand.
The government simply has no right to dictate what sort of weapons individuals can have. If I like a 6 inch knife instead of a three-inch one, that’ s my choice in a free society.
Certainly, society has a compelling interest in some limit on weaponry. Nuclear devices, for example, are simply too great of a threat, so that, on balance, we really have no sane choice but to ban them for individual.
But there is a clear, compelling argument that handguns, for example, can be used responsibly by individual and, therefore, the state simply hasn’t the rightful power to deny them to citizens.
I think it says a lot that so many right-wingers do not avail themselves of that simple, persuasive argument. Instead, they resort to all manner of absurd mobius logic about guns making us safer or keeping the government at bay etc. I get a sense that’s because libertarian ideas are actually their nemesis.
Bogey Man,
There are so many mistakes in what you’ve posted that I’ll not bother to go point by point – though I’m sure somebody will. You really ought to be embarrassed.
Instead, I’ll just point out 2 of the more egregious false statements you’ve just made.
First, the National Guard is most emphatically NOT the “militia” envisioned in the 2nd Amendment.
I’d suggest a thorough reading of the pertinent US Supreme Court cases as well as a reading of US History is in order before you announce such misconceptions as “fact” – which most emphatically was not the case here.
Unlike past decades where such falsehoods could be stated with a straight face to a credulous public who assumed *experts* were right, vast amounts of scholarly study have been expended to ferret out exactly what was meant at the time the 2nd Amendment was written – and your assertion that the National Guard is the *militia* falls flat on all counts when compared to actual facts.
Second, the argument of “escalation”.
You seem to be saying that if a terrorist suspects their potential victims are armed with handguns or whatever then they will procure larger weapons in turn as they “escalate” the violence.
This kind of logic flies in the face of what happened in India, where citizens who had through years of legislative effort ALREADY had been disarmed were slaughtered by terrorists carrying select fire assault weapons and hand grenades.
Geez, if the citizens had been armed would the terrorists have shown up instead driving tanks as a means of “escalating” the violence even further?!?!?
Your assertion is not logical – and the rest of your *points* are even more flawed in their logic.
The following question could be posed to anyone opposed to private firearms ownership and legal carry options (concealed or open) … do you think any of the the people being shot at, or hunted down in Bombay or Virginia Tech had these thoughts:
“I’m glad no one else has a gun!”
“I’m glad I don’t have a gun!”
Bogey’s arguments re. the National Guard are in error. The national guard is NOT the militia as conceived by the Founders. And the reason why that is the case is because the National Guard is only nominally under the command of each respective governor. The federal government trains, assigns, and details Guardsmen as requested from a sitting governor. Once the federal government seized control, it effectively ends all possibility for armed rebellion by the Guard.
The 2nd Amendment was intended as a check on government, not a facilitator of it. Otherwise, how would the Constitution have force? WE are the ultimate guardians of that contract we have with each other. It starts off with “We the People…” We loan to the government powers to protect us and our rights. When the government fails in that duty we have to enforce the contract. Federal judges cannot do that. In fact, the record of federal judges in protecting the integrity of this contract/compact is mediocre, at best.
WE must not allow socialist homo urbanus to forever constrain our ability to rebel against tyranny. Those who hold the view that we must be disarmed are without question our enemies. Those are weighty words, but I mean every single letter of it. The 2nd Amendment is the only thing that stands between our liberty and our serfdom. These are harsh words, and they are meant to be. I would say these things to every single person I used to associate with on the Left many years ago. If they would speak of disarming me and of censoring my speech and my ideas there would be no more inkling of any mercy left in my heart for them if it came to rebellion. They would get no quarter from me, and I would ask for none.
Bogey’s blowing smoke. It’s speculation, as if the thing has never been tried.
But it has, and the results are not as he suggests they would be.
So. Real world experience? Bogey’s speculation?
Boy, that’s a poser.
FredHjr, I think you have a reasonable point about the importance the Framers placed on limiting the ability of the government to disarm the population, and you are positively Jeffersonian in your expectation that the tree of Liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Nevertheless, it is irresponsible to talk about rebellion. (I also think Jefferson was way overrated.) We are very far from such a scenario, and people like Old Boggy will not understand what you are talking about. You are saying that you will do what is required to maintain your liberty; and from what you have experienced, you believe that there are people who are driven by their ideology to deprive people of their liberties.
So far, the Supreme Court is defending the Second Amendment as guaranteeing a personal right against government action. I don’t think that talk about rebellion is going to help convince enough voters to win elections, and that is the thing to be working on if you fear the effects of the ambitious Left.
Bogey Man asks:
Are you suggesting that a civilian would be within their rights to shoot a police officer engaged in brutality?
Yes, to save their own life or that of another.
Does the second amendment allow me to carry a shotgun to the Iraq War protest on the mall so if any cops get uppity I can give them both barrels?
Yes, if there is a reasonable expectation that by “uppity” you mean something like live firing into the crowd. When I was a child, the Panthers carried shotguns around Oakland for a very similar purpose.
If the federal government violates my 4th amendment rights by wiretapping my phone without prior cause does the 2nd amendment really give me the right to resort to firearms?
Wrong Amendment. But if they come to take your phone away in violation of the 1st and use deadly force in the attempt, then yes.
The overwhelming majority of legal gun owners in this country go about their lives without any incident of violence directed at their fellow human beings. We buy our guns/rifles/pistols for all sorts of reasons. Chiefly: hunting, home defense, hobby collecting, shooting at ranges to enhance our skills, etc. And yes, a fair number of us buy them in order to be available if we need to depose the government. We hope this never has to happen. Really. Honestly. We would prefer that serious political matters be resolved without breach of the Constitution.
Overwhelmingly, we are NRA members. We see a clear need for this organization, given the proclivities of the Left, which wants to disarm us any way they can. None of their arguments hold water. We know it, and I suspect even they know it (but they have to try). The Left fears an armed citizenry for obvious reasons. In every society where the Left has taken power it has moved to disarm the people. Once that is achieved, you cannot stop them from taking everything from us “for the common good” or The State, whatever…
Criminals and totalitarians fear an armed citizenry. If you do not understand why, then I’m wasting my time trying to bring you up to speed.
“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.[8]”
The word’s are clear enough.
It’s about the security of the state.
Doesn’t say anything about the security of individuals.
I don’t think it’s very well written, actually. There is some wiggle room about “well-regulated” but it’s undeniable that we’re talking about organized groups and protecting the state.
I didn’t say the National Guard is the militia envisioned by the founders. I said it would be considered one. I don’t think they envisioned at all — just one more reason the amendment should be amended.
The words are clear enough, as you say. But you don’t grok it too well. Note it’s an “Amendment”. This means it doesn’t stand alone. It is a necessary provision for the security of a free state, not just a state, as you have it; a free state as described elsewhere, i.e. a state composed of free people. A Militia, well-regulated, refers to that peculiar creation of free peoples: a collective as defined by the individuals within it, formed for the security and protection thereof. The Founders were not anarchists. They knew as all free peoples know that they must stand together, and be well-regulated about it (i.e. rules, command, a common purpose set by referendum) when their liberties are under threat. They also knew that this is the right of free peoples as they define themselves. They could not be compelled to first ask the Governor for permission.
This is where big-L Liberals get heated. This naturally leads to informal militias that form in the backwoods and get bad press. But there’s nothing wrong with them so long as they don’t hurt anybody, rob banks, stop paying taxes. They would serve a valuable function of government death squads were running around. They aren’t, of course, so the militias generally and up looking silly. But free men have the right to look silly. They’d better or my next trip to Burning Man is going to be kind of dull.
Remove the 1st and 3rd commas of the quoted Amendment and it comes through loud and clear. This amounts to an amendment of a sort, in terms of 18th vs 21st century styles of writing. I agree it is not well written by modern standards. Just don’t confuse a militia made up of free people under threat with a paramilitary force directed to maintain order.
Correction since I can’t delete the comment and repost a corrected version:
“They would serve a valuable function IF government death squads were running around.”
“a fair number of us buy them in order to be available if we need to depose the government.”
Do tell, Fred. Are you a member of a well-regulated militia? A poorly regulated one?
Or are you planning on taking down the government all by yourself?
What, no militia? Hmmm. Are you assuming that when the government becomes intolerable, one is going to form spontaneously?
And these guns you have, you think they’re any match for cluster bombs? Tanks? .50 caliber machine guns?
If you can envision a scenario in which your personal firearms prevent the U.S. government from getting nasty, please, do tell us about it.
The second amendment is a flimsy fig leaf for individual gun rights. The NRA has turned it into some kind of weird shibboleth for gun-rights absolutist, but the text of the amendment just doesn’t bear that out.
I favor some limited gun rights, myself, but certainly not on the basis of the second amendment. Rather, the right to own a gun is no different from the right to own an automobile. It requires no specific law, as it is simply part of being a free person.
Still, the community, via the democratic process, also has the right to set limits on firearms, just like it has the right to set some limits on the kinds of automobiles one can own.
The real debate is over which kind of firearms contribute more to enabling criminal behavior than to deterring it and on how best to keep those weapons out of criminal hands.
“which kind of firearms contribute more to enabling criminal behavior”? Like firearms are responsible for the behavior of criminals? Please elaborate. I don’t get an overwhelming urge to shoot up some schoolkids just because I have an AK-47 in my hands.
Handguns don’t compel crime, but they certainly enable it.
Imagine trying to rob a bank with knife. Impossible.
Clearly, firearms enable bank robbery and facilitate all manner of other robberies as well.
No one is saying guns cause crime, but that they facilitate it and, in some cases, enable it.
Silly.
Old Boggy,
Surely you should be going back to Heller as the latest word on this debate and a reasonable point of departure.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Hmm, looks like boggy is a graduate of the Joe Biden school of debate.
Forget facts, just make it up as you go and hope nobody calls you on it!
(“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.[8]”
The word’s are clear enough.
It’s about the security of the state.
Doesn’t say anything about the security of individuals.)
You talk about “secure of individuals”, yet completely ignore – and it has to be willful here – “the people” specifically referred to the amendment.
The phrase “the people” has a specific meaning when used in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights – in seeking to obfuscate that meaning to get the end result you want in the case of the 2nd Amendment, you end up weakening that meaning in all other references.
A very stupid and naive thing to do.
And ironic as well, considering that today is Bill of Rights day. 217 years ago today those Amendments were adopted….
People like Bogey are CLASSIC Leftists who say that “democratic” processes should decide whether or not I can own a gun and what kind. Their real reasons have nothing to do with public safety and they know that the criminals are not legal gun owners. You can argue that point with them until the cows come home, because you are not ever going to convince them to accede to the correct understanding of the 2nd Amendment.
Why?
Because their real reasons have nothing to do with their stated reasons. They won’t come clean with those, because once they do they are outed for the totalitarian swine they are.
And that is why this country is NOT a democracy. It is a Constitutional republic. There is a reason for that. Democracies can take away your rights. The majority can impose an unjust will on the minority. The nation’s founders know this, which is why they set up the three branches of government and enshrined a Constitution that has a Bill of Rights. They define where government may not go, and if it goes there it loses its legitimacy.
The Gramscian Marxists want to change the United States into a democracy. It’s the only non-violent way they can change it. If it remains a Constitutional republic they cannot achieve their aims. That is why Barack Obama, in his radio interview back in 2001, lamented the fact of the Constitution defining “negative” rights. It does not achieve the kind of socialist utopia he wants.
Insolent people like Bogey must never be allowed to have their way with us. They aim to make us all into a polity of socialist homo urbanus.
Handguns don’t compel crime, but they certainly enable it.
Imagine trying to rob a bank with knife. Impossible.
Clearly, firearms enable bank robbery and facilitate all manner of other robberies as well.
No one is saying guns cause crime, but that they facilitate it and, in some cases, enable it.
Silly.
What’s silly is people like you who believe a law abiding citizen with a gun will suddenly now start robbing banks.
Imagine trying to rob a bank with knife. Impossible.
Only a sheep fit only for the knife of the serial killer thinks up stuff like that.
You think it impossible to rob a bank with a knife? Such is the state of this society that it produces people like you. Nothing but meat for the predators.
Thanks Oblio, you make a very good point.
It’s a bit silly of me not to use Heller as the basis for discussion of these issues.
Justice Stevens destroys the Scalia majority’s interpretation of the amendment far more thoroughly and efficiently than I ever could.
I will report on the details of that here later, but know that the fact that the Supreme Court misruled on this doesn’t make me want to stock up on cop-killer bullets and carve Scalia’s name in them.
The real enemy to Bogey are the silly Americans that want to protect themselves from murderers, serial killers, terrorists, and rapists.
The real enemy is never the killers of Mumbai. Oh no, the real enemies are much closer than that, to those like Bogey.
Are you suggesting that a civilian would be within their rights to shoot a police officer engaged in brutality?
Somewhere down here in the South a squad of police broke into a criminal’s house and the point police officer got shot and killed as he made the entry into the house. The killer was an old grandmother aged woman who just happened to be in a house different from the one the cops were given a tips on.
You see, the cops had, without warrant, illegally broken into the home of a citizen and one of them died for that mistake.
Both the police and people like Bogey would feel much safer if they knew the population was disarmed. This way, they could abuse their powers however much they wish without any fear of retribution or consequence.
If they would speak of disarming me and of censoring my speech and my ideas there would be no more inkling of any mercy left in my heart for them if it came to rebellion. They would get no quarter from me, and I would ask for none.
Jeffersonians believe the First Amendment is the most critical while Jacksonians believe that without the Second Amendment, the First Amendment would be dust upon the winds.
I doubt Bogey has ever felt a scintilla of guilt over the people that have died under his policies. He could always justify them with the excuse that more crimes are prevented then caused. Stay the course, he thinks. Things will get better. Like hell.
So we’d be trading the ability to prevent a terrorist attack for the ability to halt one that’s in progress. Not too smart.
As if metal detectors can “prevent” an attack. Such is the imagination of those not versed in the science of violence.
Still, on the topic of violence, there was an interesting TED speech on the subject.
Link
I highly recommend it for some background thoughts on this subject.
3. The decay of civilized values. The cornerstone of civilization is the state’s exclusive right to use violence in cases outside direct self-defense.
No, that’s not the cornerstone of civilization.
Fundamental world view conflict here. No wonder people fight so much in America. They can’t even agree what the color red is these days.
Still, they inevitably erode the state’s monopoly on violence by taking away some of the state’s responsibility for keeping the public safe.
Nowhere did the Constitution give the US government a “monopoly on violence”. All rights not given to the government is reserved for the states or the people, respectively. IF states cannot create militias to protect their people, and they cannot because we are now a federal system not a confederation, then the people have that power, as they always did under the Constitutional system.
Those against Iraq have an interesting explanation to make concerning how the government has no right to use force against our external enemies but has every right to monopolize force when used internally against us.
It is true that the government’s role in maintaining domestic tranquility and defending against external threats can be taken to mean some interesting things. Which is why the Bill of Rights is there. TO clarify some things, obviously.
While the lethality of personal weapons will increase in a society with widespread gun use, the problem will escalate in another, worse way.
Somehow common sense men and women are to believe that individuals will start owning nukes and blowing up their neighbors on this slippery slope, compared to the not so hypothetical example of governments disarming the people and then slaughtering them.
Hrm, which do I choose to fear more, a hypothetical situation that has never happened in human history or a situation that always happens in human history when a population is disarmed…
Militias will form. Counter militias will form, most likely along ethnic lines. Police will become irrelevant as the rule of law gives way to rule of the gun.
Ethnic lines like the Left’s identity politics con game? Oh those we can ignore, or so Bogey would have us believe.
Increased vulnerability of children below the legal age for carrying a gun. In a more heavily armed society, the unarmed are more, not less, vulnerable. Criminals adapt and thus, they’ll soon enough be targeting children, knowing they can’t be armed, even if they are lower value targets for robbery. Again, see Mexico for nearby examples.
In a more heavily armed African society, certainly. In a more heavily armed Code Pink society, most definitely. In a more heavily armed society run by the Bogeys of the world, almost assuredly. In an American society built upon honor, duty, and the rule of law? Most definitely not.
. Arms race and pre-emptive escalation. If criminals assume most potential victims are carrying semi-automatics, they’ll find ways to carry higher-caliber automatics or grenades or whatever it takes.
If criminals had the balls to sign up for a war, they’d sell their services as mercenaries to the UN peacekeeper force. At least then they would get cheap sex without the threat of getting killed by us.
As gun ownership advocates themselves argue, criminals will always find ways to get guns. So they will just as surely find ways to get bigger and better guns than their victims.
Criminals have a self-preservation instinct. Something BOgey doesn’t understand, just he thinks of us as sheep that can be led to the slaughter at his whim. Well, that’s not entirely true.
Worse, if criminals know that simply threatening with a gun won’t work – since the victim may “draw” their own weapon – they’ll shoot first, then commit the robbery or whatever they had intended over the victim’s dead body.
True, which is why criminals often pick on women, since they won’t fight back. Which means criminals will go looking for easier prey, like you Bogey.
Given a choice between a victim that is armed and a victim that isn’t, the criminals will go after the unarmed victims first. That way, he won’t have to shoot and make a nuisance of himself.
These types of murder rampages happened in Iraq, the Wild West, and places like Georgia. Eventually the local citizens get tired of it, get together and goes out to kill the criminals. The army of nations are just a bigger macroscopic scale of a posse. Given that criminals are less than 5% of the population, that tends to mean the criminals are rather out numbered, no matter how big their weapons are.
. Making it much easier for terrorists to deliver firearms to the locations of attacks. Schools, public buildings, nightclubs, hotels, etc. currently use metal detectors to ensure no guns are brought into the area.
Bogey thinks that metal detectors would prevent a Mumbai attack. Very funny, Bogey.
“Deliver firearms” to the locations of attacks. Hehe. They don’t need to deliver anything. They carry it with them, in their air. Which obviously means to people like BOgey that we need metal detectors on our street lights !
bogeyman,
“Justice Stevens destroys the Scalia majority’s interpretation of the amendment far more thoroughly and efficiently than I ever could.”
Plenty of analysis out there that refutes Stevens’ arguments – and besides, he WAS on the losing side of the argument. He destroyed nothing and only regurgitated what you wanted to believe. Fortunately, a majority of the justices decided to discount his arguments.
It does seem however that you are taking the position that the argument is not really settled. Almost like you want the issue re-argued.
Hmmmm, what other old court cases could we apply this standard to (don’t like the outcome, keeping taking cases up until you have a friendly court that rules the way you like!).
How about some old abortion decisions……?
The left needs to be extremely careful what tactics they wish to pursue in achieving their goals, as these same tactics can just as easily be used against their own causes later!
None of your points amount to intelligent analysis.
Most bank robberies are done with a note. No weapon involved, just a threat.
Bogy, you are a serious tool.
By the way, google knife bank robbery:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=knife+bank+robbery&aq=f&oq=
I got an idea, Scottie. If I strip you of your free will and make you a cog in the machine, this would then eliminate any evil or crimes you would do, since free will facilitates crime and evil. How say you, care to become a cog in the machine, Scottie?
Ymarsakar,
Much to the lament of many people who have known me throughout my life – I’ve never been someone content to be a cog in the machine.
Perhaps you should make this offer to Lil boggy? They seem pretty easily led, and generally just appear to puke up what they’ve been told to believe and not exhibit any original thinking skills.
Quick question:
Does the second amendment, like all the others, apply to every citizen?
Lil boggy,
Sounds like a simple question, but it’s not.
The Founders were well versed in the concept of Natural Law. Natural Law holds that one has a right to defend one’s own life, and as such the means to accomplish this were considered a natural right and the citizen could procure whatever weapons they could afford.
As such, as long as a citizen was in good standing there were no prohibitions on a private citizen possessing arms of any sort. Private citizens could – and did – purchase any and all weapons up to and including cannons.
Before anyone laughs, remember that piracy in that era was common and privately owned merchant ships were often armed by their owners.
The laws that came into being later prohibiting certain things seem to have been more relegated to prohibiting certain behaviour rather than prohibiting a certain weapon.
For instance, many states outlawed dueling, but the dueling pistols themselves were commonly owned and quite legal.
Interestingly enough, they considered it proper to carry weapons openly, and concealed weapons were considered the recourse of the criminal.
As such, laws were passed prohibiting concealed carry – especially of knives – but the knives themselves were not prohibited.
Today’s sensibilities have turned such that modern society prefers that weapons be concealed and not carried openly, as was done through most of the nation’s history.
Again, this is a matter of behaviour – not a prohibition on a specific weapon based on technicalities.
While some states have limited how one may carry a weapon, fortunately, I live in a state wherein “open carry” is legal, and furthermore for those more delicate social circumstances I may find myself in I also have a permit to carry a weapon concealed.
It was also quite common for a convicted criminal who had served his prison time to own a weapon without any negative legal ramifications.
While it is obviously non-sensical to say a criminal confined to a prison had a right to a weapon, after he had served his time all of his rights appear to have been assumed to have been restored except where the US Constitution would have stated clearly otherwise.
That position seems to have been the status quo up until the FDR era.
While modern state and federal law strips a felon of the right to own a gun, there IS a procedure that would allow for the restoration of that right to ex-cons who had fulfilled their sentence and returned to society. This was written into the 1968 Gun Control Act.
However, my understanding is that the ATF program that handles such activities has been deliberately defunded by Congress for many years and therefore no felons may have their rights to own a gun restored at this time because the process has no money to actually process the applications and no personnel to administer the application.
While states vary, and I don’t live in this particular state, here’s a link to a fairly accurate description of the situation as it now stands:
http://harrislawoffice.com/content/areas_of_practice/tennessee_firearms/restorations.htm
If, on the other hand, you are referring to the suitability of an individual to serve in a militia and how the 2nd Amendment relates to all individuals, then I would say that the right to possess arms is still retained by the citizen regardless due to the aforementioned natural right concept.
As was pointed out I believe in Heller, the purpose of the right listed in the 2nd Amendment was only one possible purpose and did not list all purposes for which a citizen may rightfully own a weapon.
As such, the right to arms to defend oneself applies whether one is a male of militia eligibility age and fitness, or whether one is a 90 pound female living alone.
The only limitation I would entertain regarding a law abiding citizen in good standing would be an age limitation, in that there is clearly a maturity issue that has to be considered – but even then it was not uncommon in the 18th century for younger children to be familiar with firearms and how to use them responsibly.
So, considering that single exception, I would say that anyone who is considered legally responsible for themselves should likewise be legally considered eligible to exercise the right to possess arms for their own self defense.
So, all in all, I would have to say that the 2nd Amendment generally applies to all, with certain obvious mitigating factors that I have listed – one of which simply living long enough addresses, and the other for which there IS a legal process of restoration even though it is not funded at this time.
Very good point, Scottie. The framers believed natural law conveyed the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. It simply wasn’t a question for them.
The right of militia to do so, however, was a keen issue in those days and one that required an amendment to the Constitutions to uphold, the framers felt.
As Scottie acknowledges:
“The right to possess arms is still retained by the citizen regardless due to the aforementioned natural right concept.”
And I would agree. The right to own a gun emerges from the broadest concept of individual liberty inherent in natural law, not from the second amendment.
The second amendment is about militia, just like it says, not about individuals.
As Stevens points out in his dissent, the existence of local militia was an existential issue for the founders. Its inclusion in the second amendment was no accident of semantics.
Stevens also points out that several State constitutions included specific references to individual gun ownership rights. The framers used these texts in formulating the second amendment and deliberately chose not to refer to individuals, but to militia.
And, as Scottie also acknowledges, no one wants the second amendment to apply to all American citizens. Even the nuttiest of gun nuts acknowledges that firm controls must be put on who is allowed to own and use firearms and what kinds of firearms can be owned or used.
Gun rights are limited in a number of ways and reasonable debate should focus on what limits are reasonable, not on whether the state has any right to set those limits.
Lil boggy,
While your agreement with me is encouraging (yes, they can be taught!), you do go more than just a bit too far in stating a position for me that “no one wants the second amendment to apply to all American citizens.”
I never said such a thing.
I only elaborated on the current status quo regarding convicted felons and children – and even stated that there were legitimate paths in place that would mitigate even one of those restrictions if Congress were to simply authorize funding for that purpose.
I have no problem with someone convicted of a non-violent crime such as tax evasion serving their prison sentence and then having their rights to possess arms restored upon completion of their sentence.
If they are non-violent, with no criminal history other than what was just mentioned, and a technicality ridden law is what they got into trouble over, I don’t see them as a threat to society – but they should at least be able to defend themselves and their families once they return to society.
Yes, even convicted felons do have families.
That’s why there was provision placed in the ’68 GCA, for those very types of circumstances.
Should a person in such a circumstance be limited to screaming into a phone for the police if an armed intruder is breaking into their home to deal harm to them or their family?
I also would disagree on the statement that the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias.
As Heller ruled, such is not the case, and as has been previously cited by the Supreme Court in the past, the phrase “the people” is the same entity as when cited elsewhere within the US Constitution as well as the Bill of Rights.
There were not one, but two purposes in the 2nd Amendment. One purpose was to preserve the state militia system as a counterbalance to federal military forces.
The other purpose was to provide the states the means to raise militias as a counterbalance to federal power by specifically restricting the powers of the federal government to *infringe* upon the right to keep and bear arms by the citizenry.
Combined with the various state constitutions that likewise recognized that right, it’s pretty safe to say they considered it a general right of the individual – as was ruled in Heller.
By maintaining the ability of the citizenry to be armed, the state was able to maintain a ready pool of militia if circumstances ever required.
Now, before you go on about how it is then only a restriction on the federal government then to regulate arms and that the states are free to regulate them into extinction, keep in mind that such a view point would mean that all federal laws and regulations on the possession of arms of any type could then be argued as unconstitutional.
Furthermore, you have plenty of states that do not have “assault weapons” bans, ammo restrictions, and even allow the private possession of full automatic machine guns without the massive bloodshed the gun control nuts claim will occur. While I can criticize California’s ideas of gun control, those laws are a problem for California to deal with internally as long as they don’t try to impose the same kinds of laws on my own state.
Another point to be made that undermines the *federal government can’t regulate but the state can* argument is incorporation via the 14th Amendment.
This is the amendment that allows free speech rights, for instance, to be enforced against state restrictions even though originally the Founders may have considered the 1st Amendment to only restrict the power of the federal government regarding free speech.
So, even IF the Founders had envisioned the Bill of Rights to only be restrictions on the powers of the federal government, the 14th Amendment can be argued to have extended the protections afforded in the Bill of Rights down to the state level and providing similar restrictions on state powers after the amendment’s passage.
To date, that argument has not yet been made – but it seems every other portion of the Bill of Rights has generally be considered to be “incorporated” at this time and there is some solid scholarship in favor of incorporation regarding the matter.
It’s kind of ironic, actually, that the reason Heller made it to the Supreme Court, and the reason that gun rights activists can count Heller as a victory, is because gun control activists made the situation in DC so bad that it was like they were begging to be sued – and then mis-stepped every inch of the way at opportunities they could have taken to keep the USSC from ruling on the matter and thereby maintaining at least some of the egregious laws they had been enforcing.
As it was, they went all or nothing – and generally wound up with nothing.
So, it will be interesting to see how you proceed with your particular point of view….
“One purpose was to preserve the state militia system as a counterbalance to federal military forces.
“The other purpose was to provide the states the means to raise militias as a counterbalance to federal power by specifically restricting the powers of the federal government to *infringe* upon the right to keep and bear arms by the citizenry.
Exactly. Neither purpose was for individuals to be able to hunt or to defend themselves as individuals.
Just like the amendment says, it’s about a well-regulated militia.
I predict the Heller decision will be discarded forthwith once the balance changes on the court to favor stricter interpretations of the constitution.
It is to be expected from people of Bogey’s character that power must ultimately rest with and be monopolized by the state. Whether it is militias, secret police squads, or government forces, all power must rest with the state, so sayeth Bogey.
The framers believed natural law conveyed the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. It simply wasn’t a question for them.
The right of militia to do so, however, was a keen issue in those days and one that required an amendment to the Constitutions to uphold, the framers felt.
Bogey’s setting up traps for you, Scottie.
He knows it is easier to try to tackle the real holes in his arguments here.
I never said such a thing.
You didn’t have to ,Scottie. Why do you think Bogey asked you a question instead of addressing my comments or the others up above? Cause his question could set up an answer from you, which Bogey had already calculated some way in order to manipulate to support his point even before you had answered. So obviously, it wouldn’t have mattered “what you said”, Scottie.
If we look at the older Miller decision, we see that the purpose (in the view of the Miller court) of the 2nd was to protect militia weapons, but individually owned militia weapons. That’s to say, the 2nd is in fact an individual right, but the purpose of that right is a collective good.
However, Miller carries the implication that a S&W Ladysmith revolver could be banned, but a M-249 Squad Automatic Weapon couldn’t.
Not likely. All nine justices agreed that the 2nd protected an individual right. The departure point was whether the DC ban violated that right. That’s to say, since DC still allowed shotguns and rifles (unloaded and locked up), was the ban on handguns a violation?
Since the 2nd protects an individual right to own guns,and that’s not in dispute, it isn’t hard to extend that to arms for personal protection as opposed to only militia duty. Personal protection is generally considered a right in and of itself anyway.
Ah lil booger, I mean boggy, I mean…whatever….
You betray your inclinations.
Out of all that I wrote, you cherry picked two statements and place them out of context in order to get the meaning you so desperately desired.
Poor effort on your part.
Even though supposedly quoting me, you completely left out a very important qualifying statement. Allow me to provide the complete thought:
“There were not one, but two purposes in the 2nd Amendment. One purpose was to preserve the state militia system as a counterbalance to federal military forces.
The other purpose was to provide the states the means to raise militias as a counterbalance to federal power by specifically restricting the powers of the federal government to *infringe* upon the right to keep and bear arms by the citizenry.
Combined with the various state constitutions that likewise recognized that right, it’s pretty safe to say they considered it a general right of the individual – as was ruled in Heller.
By maintaining the ability of the citizenry to be armed, the state was able to maintain a ready pool of militia if circumstances ever required.”
As usual, you completely missed the most basic point – namely that an armed citizenry was the ONLY means that would fulfil the requirements sought through the 2nd Amendment.
Let me see if I can put this more bluntly for you.
The states wanted a balance against the military power of the federal government.
That balance was determined to be available via state militias.
State militias are dependent upon the privately armed citizenry.
As was noted in Miller vs. US, that citizenry was fully expected to show up bearing THEIR OWN WEAPONS when called upon by the state.
It follows logically then that an armed citizenry was what was envisioned by the Founders when the amendment was written.
When you state the following:
“Neither purpose was for individuals to be able to hunt or to defend themselves as individuals.”
You ignore what I said in my original response to your question:
“As was pointed out I believe in Heller, the purpose of the right listed in the 2nd Amendment was only one possible purpose and did not list all purposes for which a citizen may rightfully own a weapon.
As such, the right to arms to defend oneself applies whether one is a male of militia eligibility age and fitness, or whether one is a 90 pound female living alone.”
Those purposes were seen as being just as legitimate a reason for possessing a weapon as being part of a militia was a valid reason – and that armed citizenry, based upon such legitimate reasons for possessing weapons, was the basis for the *militia* envisioned in the 2nd Amendment.
You really should try reading some history books occasionally.
Ymarsakar,
LOL…I’m not too worried about lil booger, his grasp of facts is rather tenuous.
It’s interesting to speculate what would happen were the USSC to grant his fantasy and “reverse” the Heller decision.
Of course if that were to happen, the only way to accomplish that would be to state that there is in fact no individual right.
If THAT were to happen and idiots tried to ram through their agenda over the people who believe in the individual right, then lil boggyboy would have an opportunity to see what a real revolution would look like….I don’t think he’d really like it at that point.
Neither would I for that matter, but it would certainly settle the question of why the Founders felt the need to recognize the right to bear arms in a most elegant – though most likely very bloody – example.
One major problem I feel, is ol booger doesn’t really countenance that there is a sizable portion of the population that would violently resist such a government overreach.
He probably believes deep in his heart that everyone would just roll over and do as they are told….after all, that’s probably his inclination when he’s told to do something.
One more thing I noticed while going back through this conversation – it seems people keep referring to *rights* in the context of government power.
Just wanted to point out that the various levels of government do not have *rights*, only power that has been delegated to them by the people.
So, people have *rights*, government has *power*, but government – at least in this country, supposedly – only has the power that has been delegated to that government by the people.
Just thought I’d clarify at least where I’m coming from in the conversation….
Miller actually references Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. (2 Hump.) 154 (1840).
Miller:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blusvmiller.htm
Aymette:
http://www.guncite.com/court/state/21tn154.html
Read Aymette. It makes the case that it is an individual right to own arms suitable for militia duty. I think Aymette/Miller is flawed in allowing the banning of arms for personal defense, and hence Heller is the better decision.
However, Aymette/Miller have the clear conclusion that banning “assault weapons” or machine guns is unconstitutional. Stevens poked at that, implying that an individual right would protect machine guns, but the majority opinion layed out an argument that suggests MGs can be banned while recognizing the 2nd as an individual right.
Don writes:
“Since the 2nd protects an individual right to own guns,and that’s not in dispute, it isn’t hard to extend that to arms for personal protection as opposed to only militia duty. Personal protection is generally considered a right in and of itself anyway.”
Exactly.
The second amendment protects individual rights to ”keep and bear arms” for use in the context of a militia, NOT for personal protection.
This is what Stevens and the other dissenters argued and why the ruling is likely to be overturned sooner or later.
I would agree that there is a natural right to self-defense as well as a natural right to possess firearms. But the second amendment wasn’t written to insure those rights and simply does not apply to them. As technology increases the lethality of sidearms, the issue is going to get tougher and tougher for the NRA to defend using culture-war resentments.
Booger,
Wrong again…soo soo wrong. At this point it’s obvious it’s not a matter of ignorance on your part.
Did you even READ the ruling that you are so obtusely critical of?
You are claiming that the 2nd Amendment only applies to militia, and even go so far as to claim that it does not protect and individual right – yet here is what the court actually ruled:
“1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
Regarding the plain language of the amendment, here is what the court ruled:
“(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.”
Regarding what the average citizen would have thought the amendment meant, and what various states would have interpreted it to mean:
“(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment.”
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.”
But hey, rather than accept what the court and legal scholars have all determined to be the case, as well as the mountains of evidence that clearly supports this interpretation, and even the words of the Founding Fathers on the matter, perhaps we should just accept booger’s propaganda on the matter….not!
Scottie, If you’ll read my comments a little more carefully, you’ll see that they referred to the dissenting opinions of Justice Stevens and others, who I happen to agree with.
My view is that the Supreme Court majority got it wrong in this case, and I’ve explained why.
As Stevens explains, the fact that numerous state constitutions and nascent versions of the second amendment referred to the individual rights is evidence that the Second Amendment was NOT intended to protect those rights.
You acknowledge:
“three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.”
By your own admission, those proposals were REJECTED in favor of a second amendment that does not unequivocally refer to an individual right to bear arms. That is neither accident nor coincidence. We always assume full deliberation on the drafting of constitutional amendments. They left unequivocal references to individual rights out of the second amendment because they didn’t want them there.
As you know, Supreme Court rulings have been reversed in the past and so this one will be. I would wager in our lifetimes if not in the next 10 years. (We need one or two justices appointed by someone of a more centrist political persuasion.)
Boggy,
If the 2nd Amendment did not refer to an individual right then the clause “right of the people to keep and bear arms” would make absolutely no sense in the context of the amendment.
Your assertion that there is no reference to an individual right is thereby bogus – it’s pretty explicit in the wording itself. The references I quote, and then you quoted in turn, were specifically used to buttress the argument that it was considered an individual right, so you lose once again.
Stevens was in the losing camp. His theories regarding the 2nd Amendment have been considered and determined to have no merit by a majority of the justices.
Get over it. Heller is now binding precedent, and the right of the people (there’s that phrase again…) to possess arms has been affirmed.
Scottie, your arguing a tautology. You say, essentially, that because the second amendment must recognize an individual right, it does. My argument is one of nuance. The amendment recognizes an individual right to bear arms only for the purpose of participating in a militia. Hunting isn’t mentioned, nor is individual self-defense.
I believe the latter were deliberately not mentioned.
Vigilantism was a grave threat to Early America and the framers were careful to rule it out. Hollywood has made the concept popular in some demographics today, unfortunately.
boggy,
That which is plainly worded and easily understood you claim means something entirely different from what 99 out of 100 people would say it means.
Indeed, you claim it to mean the exact opposite!
As has been stated before, and was elaborated upon by the Supreme Court, you have 2 clauses in the amendment.
The latter clause stands alone, and requires no qualification. The right to arms can be for any legitimate reason – and those reasons can include self defense and hunting and numerous other activities – there was no need at the time of ratification and there is no need now to list every single reason one may desire to possess arms.
To put a finer point on such an approach, they even included the 9th Amendment:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The preceeding clause of the amendment cannot stand alone and requires the second clause to make sense of it. That clause can only make sense in the environment of an armed citizenry.
In short, the Founders clearly desired an armed citizenry for the purposes of militia, but on the other hand the people clearly wanted their right to keep and bear arms written into the BOR as a protection against a strong federal government attempting to confiscate their arms – which was one of the actions of the British that ignited the Revolution itself.
The result of cramming two different thoughts into a single amendment was to state two concepts, the first listed concept was reliant upon the second listed concept for it’s very existence, but the second listed concept was not reliant at all upon the first listed concept and could stand alone.
The former colonists wanted their right in this case enumerated, the states in general wanted to retain power over their militias, and the result was an amendment that combined the two concepts into a single amendment.
For someone so enamored of nuance, you certainly seem to be having a difficult time understanding such a simple concept.
What remaining gun freedoms we have are also under immediate threat! See http://abhijeetsingh.com/blog/archive/2010-01-06/SUMMARY_OF_WHAT_THE_HOME_MINIS
While most of us expected the government to somewhat ease restrictions, in the wake of the Mumbai attack… they seem to have taken a completely opposite view (why am I not surprised) and are now seeking to directly target gun owners in stead of criminals/ terrorists.
Cheers!
Abhijeet