Yes. Keep in mind that this Amendment was written by our founding fathers after having to break away from England. They were committed to creating a nation governed by the people, and for the people. The provision was one means of ensuring that the government was answerable to the people, not the other way around. It is also relevant to conditions in which the infrastructure breaks down, temporarily or permanently, such as due to weather, other natural disasters, or enemy attacks.
I don't fear the government, just some people in it. But the Constitution allows us to vote the bastards out if we don't like them. If tyrants take over the government and throw the Constitution in the trash, well, they throw that right to bear arms in the trash, too. (Don't worry; I know that's kind of a silly statement.) I grew up in Canada, and there's a fair bit more government interference in people's lives there than there is here in the USA. So I don't feel a lack of freedom here - I didn't in Canada, either, for that matter. It does make me wonder, sometimes, at how fearful Americans seem to be of their own government. I don't get it, frankly.
First thing to understand is that a government is a natural thing. A government is the natural power structure that arises out of a group of individuals. Now, as a natural system, it has a natural order to its growth, and also to its demise. Socrates knew this thousands of years ago. I believe that America is an oligarchy, more than a democracy. In an oligarchy: • People break the law for money. • All seek wealth and leave virtue behind. • The rich are honored and cultivated. • Virtues are neglected and shunned. • Men love trade, materialism and money. Sound familiar? So here's what happens in an oligarchy: • Rulers are elected because of material success: who would pick the richest sailor to navigate the ship rather than the most able and knowledgeable about navigating? • Two classes—rich and poor— are united and afraid of war. • The fondness of money makes citizens unwilling to pay taxes, thus leaving the state in disrepair. • Homeless people wander the streets—ruined but alive and angry. Crime increases and more measures are needed to stop crime, more freedoms are curtailed. As more freedoms are lost and more inequalities are apparent, the need for freedom increases. As the rich make more and more decisions based upon their own personal welfare, more cries for justice and equality are heard and a democracy is born. And Socrates was saying this stuff 400 years before Jesus was born. Makes ya think. ~ J. J.
I didn't say that alternative is better. All I said was that they were butchered anyway. Your argument rests on the premise that allowing/encouraging civilians to be armed makes for a safer society, and I'm saying that the Warsaw example that you introduced actually works against you. That's a juvenile way to look at it. You may have a weapon to protect yourself, sure, but so will your potential opponents. And maybe these potential opponents are more skilled than you are, or maybe they shoot you in the back. Maybe you get into a gun fight with some other gungho macho-man and accidentally kill 30 innocent civilians. I just don't see what good could come of making more guns available to more people. Making it easier for disturbed or damaged individuals to obtain weapons they otherwise might not have had access to would make our society less safe, in my opinion. I think that the problem is that a lot of people here don't understand just how complex the government system is. They seem to believe the government is comprised of a handful of rich friends who meet in an undisclosed location and control everything from corporate profits to medical breakthroughs.
I would again suggest you actually look at the history and effectiveness of guerilla warfare. If you aren't impressed by WWII, try the Vietnam War. Also consider whether or not the government really wants to bomb its own cities, its own people - thus destroying needed resources and adding even more "insurgents" to the mix. I think the fighting spirit of Americans is greatly under-appreciated. Unfortunately, I think that's balanced by their disbelief when it comes to how power hungry people in government really are.
The Vietnam People's Army was well-equipped. They had troops, tanks, artillery, etc. On the other hand, the guerrilla fighters of South Vietnam were backed by US forces. Without US backing, I'm willing to bet that the war would have been much, much shorter. I've seen a few documentaries on the Vietnam War (just watched one last month actually), and while I admit guerrilla warfare and tactics are impressive, in the end, it's civilians vs. a trained army. And I'm not convinced guerrilla warfare would be as effective against the world's most powerful military. As for governments bombing their own cities/people, there are a few examples of this, including Sudan, Syria, and Burma. There is enough evidence that these 3 regimes (that I know of) actually committed these bombings. I don't see any reason why the US government would do this, but I suppose it could happen.
Well, I've studied the VN war for some time, and the VC operated on a totally different scale from the regular Army - kinda hard to hide tanks and heavy artillery in villages - and were a much bigger problem for the US/SVN. And again, if you look at any guerilla warfare (such as in the Middle East) you'll see that short of bombing the heck out of suspected strongholds and then facing massive rebuilding, they're extremely hard to deal with.
I hear this a lot, but my response to the issue also bothers people. If that is your belief, fine, we're still a free America. But then live by your decision. Right now, nothing is threatening us. I'm relaxed having coffee and doing some work, and due to the time, my guess is your day is winding down. But imagine if we were at some form of creative writing symposium, and some armed whack-job burst in. While I have a CCW permit, I am not a sworn officer, a soldier or even a working mercenary. By a simple and accurate definition, I'm a husband. Beyond that, I have no duties to society. Once the whack-job's intentions were clear--and I walk in "condition yellow" in gatherings--my personal firearm would be in one hand, and my wife in the other and we'd be making our way to the nearest exit. (Edit: And I have no duty to fire a single shot). When I debate this issue, say, at my gym, most liberals are somewhat shocked to find out they are not part of my safety plan. I remind them, I am not a sworn officer. I have chosen a plan for my security, and if I demand my freedoms, then you get to choose yours. Besides, I'm not going to die for you. Truth be told, I would not want your fate. While my wife and I are safely in the parking lot--either by a quick escape or by killing our attacker--your outcome is not so rosy. At best, you'll be kneeling in your own urine begging a mad man to spare your life. And frankly, that's as it should be. If you will not support me in my choices, then its disingenuous for you to assume you automatically hold a space on my lifeboat. And BTW, people always harp about "training," and my CCW class trainer (a cop of 30 years) recommended I do just this very thing. I'm not the cavalry. Use your cell phone, call the law. Good luck.
I think that the answer will be found in a marriage of firearms and computer technology, which will allow for legal gun owners to continue owning guns, and limit the access that unauthorized users have to guns. Either fingerprint scanners or RFID chips will need to be built into guns moving forward. Older guns lacking those features should be exchanged or bought by local police departments. I also think that every gun purchase -- private or commercial -- should be subject to a background check which includes a check of medical records to determine that the purchaser is not being treated for mental illnesses like paranoid schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. I'm against banning "assault weapons", because the term gets thrown around so willy-nilly that the only thing it means anymore is "scary-looking rifle". By some definitions I've seen, the .22 I learned to shoot on at nine years old is an assault weapon. I reject that sort of grab-bag treatment of weapons. Indeed, I'm against any new limitations on weapons themselves. In short, I think the answer lies not in stricter regulation of guns, but in using technology to ensure that they are only owned and used by sane people.
If the US had only been fighting the VC, the result would have been different. But the VC was backed by North Vietnam and the Soviet Union. If US civilians ever did fight a war against the government, they would have to be backed by another country to even stand a chance. According to Wikipedia, an estimate for the number of VC military deaths is about 250,000 (the total deaths for the North Vietnam army and the VC is a little over 1 million). Compare that to the ~60,000 US military deaths or MIA (the total deaths for the US and South Vietnam was ~310,000). The VC was made up of largely untrained fighters, and you can see it in the numbers. IIRC, most of the bombings by the US were done in the north, so I'm guessing only a small percentage of those VC deaths can be attributed to bombings. Again, I agree that guerrilla warfare is effective. But the Taliban and al-Qaeda have training camps and may possibly be backed by government officials. Military service isn't mandatory in the US, and I wonder how many US gun owners have military training. Like I said before, it's civilians vs. the military. To sort of bring the discussion back to the original point of the thread, I'll end by saying this. I'm not against guns. I own one. But I don't believe having assault weapons is going to make much of a difference should the government decide to attack its own citizens.
None of what you have proffered will change mindset. The one common factor in the mass killings is the demographic of the nut. Usually a socially inept loaner, a kid who is bullied, untreated and then set off by something. In most cases, it's a video game. If you have no real power in society, then impervious characters like those in Halo can all too quickly become problem solvers. There are so many hoops I have to jump through to own a firearm, including the NICS check, that it's ridiculous. But any idiot can buy a video game, without ID or proof of age, and wall himself off in his mom's basement downing Red Bull until he cracks. You not only need an ID for guns, but also for cigarettes, liquor and even men's magazines. But we have to get this video trash under control. You might need a firearm for defense, but no one needs a video game. Each game should have a serial number like a firearm, and if some smarmy salesman sells a game to a minor who kills somebody, we will then have a remedy to charge that salesman with felony murder. One or two of those trials and parents will get back to knowing what their kids are doing, like they always should have. Heck, if there was only a five day waiting period on games most of the problems would disappear anyway. Freedom of speech is not absolute. Video games are toys, and they are not needed. Most are junk, and we should ban them, anyway. Germany banned Wolfenstein 3D, and the sky didn't fall.
Wasn't that Aristotle? That sounds more like The Politics than anything we know of Socrates, which actually isn't very much. All of our knowledge of Socrates comes from Plato and Xenophones, both of whom are not entirely trustworthy for different reasons. I do know Socrates wasn't a big fan of democracy because he thought it lead to self-deceptions. As it turned out he had better reasons not to like it too! Besides, Noam Chomsky said America is not a democracy in I can't remember which book, and sets out a really great argument about it. I wish I could remember which now. :redface: A very good argument could be made for the U.S. not being a true democracy, just as it's not a truly capitalist system.
I find the video game argument flawed, the concept more akin to accusing Marijuana of being a gateway drug for potential addicts and alcoholics. If that were truly the case, we'd have hundreds, if not millions, of people committing mass murder, just as we would have millions of people sniffing or shooting heroin. Coming from a generation who has spent a lot of time playing video games, both MMORPG and First-Person Shooters, and, speaking for myself, since I've spent many hours heavily involed in both types, I have not once felt the need to carry out, to re-create scenarios, or an urge to shoot someone--ever. Though your opinion may involve the taking away of such things, mine differs. Why not do away with books? Let's go Montag on ourselves and burn them all. Hasn't radical sentiments and propoganda and subversion and all kinds of vicious encouragements showed up in written word over the years? Think of all the violence that has been portrayed through words, or the arts rather. While we're at it, let's just do away with the arts, anything that depicts violenece. For the arsonist that burned an entire city block must have been influenced by Bradbury. What a loon, he was. Running around the streets shouting, "I'm Montag. No, Beatty! Hear me roar!"
No one has asked you to. This is one of your problems...stick to the topic. Also, your Warsaw example works against you again. Those who attacked the Nazis could have escaped with their weapons and families the way you intend to, no? Right, because you'll be the only one with enough foresight, and enough slickness, to escape. And the attacker will always be alone, and will always be dumber than you are (at this point, I doubt that that's even possible). Thanks for your value judgments, grampaw.
I've been debating with myself whether to join this or not. There are a number of issues in play, here, and the emotion with which the subject was introduced - with reference to the Holocaust - is not conducive to a reasoned discussion. But there are a couple of points that I think need to be made, so I will give it a try. To begin with, while some of the Founders believed, as Jefferson is famously quoted, that "the tree of liberty must sometimes be watered with blood", the crafters of the Constitution understood that an organized society cannot function that way. At the same time, they had just become the first colony to break away from the mother country in history. Their only reference point was the manner in which governments of the time maintained power over the people - they used a standing army to maintain internal order as well as external defense and wars of conquest. Note that the American colonists never objected to the presence of troops in their settlements until after the French and Indian War (aka. Seven Years War) had been won in 1763. As James Madison made clear in his writings, the concern at the time was how to protect the nation's security without endangering individual liberty? How to avoid having a standing army? The answer they arrived at was that the citizenry should be armed so as to serve as a national militia, thereby eliminating the need for a standing army. Which is why the Second Amendment begins with the phrase (the one opponents of regulation militantly ignore): "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the protection of a free state..." The Amendment does not and never was intended to exist to provide a means of organized rebellion. The notion of a national militia was not a radical idea at the time. Many of Spain's colonies - Cuba, for example - utilized regulated militias to protect their colonies from attacks by pirates and foreign countries because they could not maintain full armies everywhere. And since the US was a frontier society, fighting an ongoing war of attrition with the native peoples and relying on personal arms to provide sustenance, it made sense. It is also important to remember that the nation was one of relatively few people in a strictly agrarian economy facing a seemingly limitless supply of land. In addition to the work of people like James Madison and the other crafters of the Constitution, it is helpful to consider the decisions of John Marshall in the early years of the Supreme Court, beginning with Marbury v. Madison, which began the process of defining that the Court could and could not do. Again, it is clear that Marshall also knew he was building a framework of government meant to last. And its basis was to be the rule of law. We are no longer an agrarian society with a limitless supply of land. We are highly industrialized, easily exploited and live in far greater concentrations than the founders ever could have imagined. Reliance on militia for national defense is no longer an option, and I know of no responsible individual who would advocate disbanding the armed forces in favor of militia. Instead we rely on military power rendered subservient to civil power (in Jefferson's words). So, the premise upon which the original right to bear arms was based no longer exists. However, in the meantime, we have come to accept that the right to bear arms also means the right to personal defense of one's home (Heller v. DC, McDonald v. Chicago) and we accept that there are legitimate recreational purposes to which certain limited arms may be put. We have also developed the notion that no individual rights are absolute. As John F. Kennedy once said, "Let each man choose his own course, as long as that course doesn't interfere with the course of others." As Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in Schenck v. US, the right to free speech does not extend to someone who shouts "Fire!" in a crowded theater. In that same case, the Supreme Court established the standard for allowable restraint of free speech, that which poses a "clear and present danger". Certainly, one can apply that same standard to the discussion about gun rights. I would object to the OP's initial characterization of the gun control debate as "considering whether to disarm ourselves". We are doing no such thing, and it is this kind of hyperbole that makes a rational discussion of the issue so difficult. What we are looking for is a way to remove the "clear and present danger" from the current situation, which is caused by the easy availability of large-capacity rapid-fire "assault-type" weapons which are not of a type necessary for so-called recreational shooting nor practical for home defense (as Ronald Reagan pointed out, none of these requires an AK-47). The danger these weapons pose to the general public has been well-documented, from Colombine to Virginia Tech to Newtown. Yes, the perpetrators in each of these infamous cases was mentally unstable. But since it is impossible to pre-screen every single mentally ill person to prevent him from wreaking havoc, and since the very purpose of a society - any society - is to protect itself, we not only have a right, we have a duty to restrict the availability of these weapons to those who have a legitimate need for them - the military and police, operating under the control and direction of a duly elected democratic government with institutionalized checks and balances. The reference to the Holocaust in the OP was spurrious and pejorative. In our entire history, we have been a free, self governing people, one in which government has become a protector of rights rather than a threat to rights. Individual liberty is a part of our national culture (even though the boundaries and extent of those liberties is often the subject of debate - as they should be). Germany in the 1930s could not make any such claim. Moreover, the kind of institutionalized persecution that had its logical conclusion in the Holocaust would be anathema here. Finally, the opponents of gun regulation stridently point to themselves as "law-abiding citizens", yet the notion of the right to bear arms as a protection against some dimly-imagined totalitarian governmental crackdown reveals that, at heart, what they desire is not to be law-abiding but rather to be able, upon their own determination, to take the law into their own hands. Yes, I know, it would only be in the last extremity, but once the premise is granted, who's to say what any individual will determine to be the last extremity? And how many innocent deaths might result? The truth is, that given the nature and structure of our democratic system, a fascist coup d'etat (Fletcher Knebel's "Seven Days In May") or Communist takeover (Allan Drury's "Come Nineveh, Come Tyre") would be virtually impossible. As for a populist rebellion, I believe the last one of those was Shay's Rebellion, which predated the Constitution. In other words, the presence of these rapid fire assault weapons poses a far greater immediate danger than some dimly imagined coup, and our lawmakers owe it to the citizenry to establish meaningful limitations that protect the public while maintaining legitimate rights to bear arms.
If that's the case, then your argument is really flawed. More than 150 million Americans own and peacefully use firearms. A handful commit crimes. However, since the Columbine shooting, authorities are doing more to study things like bullying, the kids' computer (usually full of heavy metal music and bizarre visuals) and the presence of video games. This "easy access" to firearms is a red herring. You have to be 21 to legally purchase a firearm, so that means the guns are stolen or sold by the same kind of dealer that pedals drugs. If you have to pry open your parent's gun safe with a crowbar, that's not easy access. It's felony theft. When it comes to serious shootings, it's GIGO. My use of firearms goes back almost four decades, as do the habits of my friends. Yet unstable kids go off the trolley in a matter of months. The idea of violent videos just needs some ressonable controls that don't really effect any innocent kid. The kid shows ID, the salesman has three days to contact his parents, just as I have to wait three days for a NICS check. There's probably some form of serial number on the game for sales purposes, and any violence can be tracked. We authorize the kid to have the game, like NICS clears me, the parents know what he's playing, and the authorities are alerted to any pending mental condition. And big deal, the kid has to wait three whole days to play a silly game. In the meantime, the potential mass murderers are identified and start getting treatment before they do something serious. Win, win. It's a game. I diversion. A time waster. If all of them were seized nothing would happen, except fewer shootings. If people feel it's an invasion of enumerated rights, they have the same remedy every other American has--that being petitioning their state and national Supreme Court.
I'm sorry Tourist but you lost me when you argued that the guns don't cause the shootings, then proceeded to say that a video game can. On one hand you keep saying that these people are mentally unstable and it doesn't matter if they have a gun or not, and then you say that a game causes shootings. Your argument is seriously flawed. You can't have it both ways. Which inanimate object causes shootings? Guns or video games? We just had a guy here in Syracuse attack his family with a hammer and a butcher-knife. He was like 60 years old and he didn't own a TV, so I don't see the connection. Also, ED, I appreciate your stance on this matter but I ask you to answer a few things: Do you at least agree that governments have a habit of eroding freedoms, rather than stripping them all at once? It's happened. Even Thomas Jefferson said, "The natural progress of things is for Government to gain ground and for Liberty to yield." and Frederick Douglas said, "Find out just what the people will submit to and you will have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." Just like it is inscribed on the National Archives building, 'Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Liberty." What makes you think the government will stop at 'assault' weapons? Do you realize that the currently proposed 'assault' weapons ban, wouldn't have made any of the recent shootings not happen? No, they desire to ban ALL guns. That is their end goal. They won't do it all at once, but slowly, so they don't have a full-scale revolution on their hands. Every day our freedoms are trimmed, until eventually we all look around and realize that we are slaves. This has been proven time and time again throughout history, and our founding fathers saw it happening. The question is... Who will be vigilant, and who will lay down to be enslaved?
I once read a quote which said democracy in the US would not fall due to violent overthrow or outside forces - we would vote it out. The more I see of both Republicans and Democrats voting to invade our private lives and dictate our behavior, the more I see this happening. Am I ready to grab my guns (of which I have several) and head for the hills? No. But I'm not ready to sit back and say "It can't happen here" either.
I'm saying that violent video games set off the mentally unstable and they steal weapons--over and over. Yikes, "The Joker" hit the Colorado theater with legally purchased firearms. Imagine what's going to happen in the future if we create another generation of losers and bizarre entertainment. Clamp down now and over time the video industry will fade. A video game is just that, a game. It's not necessary. Yet it's the major factor in mass shootings. You don't need video games, but if you have to permit them, then let's find out something about the folks who abuse them. Look, if you have nothing to hide, and it saves lives, what's wrong with a waiting period and backgound check? My guess is an ancillary issue will pop up. There are going to be a bunch of shocked parents who find out just what's in these games. We need a reasonable dialog on this problem before it gets any worse. Right now we're living through the "cluster issue." There were lots of these guys sitting dormant, but just as troubled. And just like in the case of teen suicides, one happens and a bunch follow. Track the games. Notify the parents. Do background checks. Identify the troubled kids. We can do this now with very little time, money or additional bureaucracy. My concealed carry permit cost 37 dollars. Ask some of the parents of the murdered kids if they'd pay 37 dollars to identify potential killers on the edge.
Yes, JJ, your posts on this thread were interesting enough to prompt me to start reading Robert Michels last night. I appreciate the thought provoking posts. Thanks for sharing!
Of course. It has even happened here. That's the reason for checks and balances. Any government, being a creation of human intellect, is doomed to imperfection. However, I look around at some of the alternatives and I'm satisfied that our imperfect system has been less imperfect than most. It's also instructive to remember that the best known examples of that erosion have tended to be forcefully renounced in our national memory - the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans during World War II and the Red scare of the '50s being the most glaring examples. And, up to and including his time, that was the only way he knew of governments to be. But that was before nearly 240 years of the American Experiment (as James MacGregor Burns calls it). It is instructive to note that in the time since Jefferson's death, government has been an instrument to free slaves and end the institution of slavery, to allow former slaves and their descendants to vote, to extend the right to vote to the 50% of the population to whom it has been denied for more than 100 years, to protect workers' rights to organize, students' right to protest, restrict government's scope in what it may censor and what it may not, protect people from the liberty-destroying grasp of discrimination, be it based on race, gender, religion, disability or, most recently, sexual orientation. Absolutely. I could not agree more. The question is, what form is that vigilance to take? I don't recall there being crossed AR-15s on the National Archives next to that inscription. I, personally, maintain my vigilance by keeping myself fully informed on the issues that are important to me, keeping track of how my various elected officials vote on such issues, and raising my voice and my pen (or keyboard) in protest when they do not and visiting them on occasion. Over the years, I have found it an effective way to protect my rights and to prevent the encroachment of those rights by others. I also vote in every single election. I do not own a firearm. Never have. To begin with, "government" is not a single, monolithic entity, as the last two decades all too clearly show. Are there some within government who want to go further? Probably. Will they succeed? No. Checks and balances again. I would even hazard a guess that the bill Sen. Feinstein is pushing (which appears to have the best chance of passing) will not pass without some revision. Actually, as I pointed out above, that has not been our history, our history has been quite the opposite. And it shows that the citizenry has more than enough power to protect its rights without resorting to armed insurrection.
...and what was the main, over-arching principle behind all of that? Equality. Such a nice-sounding term that the uninformed masses love to get behind and vote for. But does not equality have limits? Isn't the person who works hard and earns money unequal with the sluggard? Absolutely. Which is why we have progressed to social equality, where a benevolent government seeks to 'balance' everything. The rich must become equal with the poor. The right must become equal with the wrong. And the son must become equal with the father. As Hemingway said, "All things truly wicked start from innocence." In 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote: Who would argue that America is not turning into a country where men would prefer all people to be on welfare, than to have a divided country of weak and powerful? But in the end America will get exactly what the people want, and that may turn out to be complete submission to a gigantic government. I hope I'm not around to see that day.
Videos games are not to blame here. There are examples of mass shootings before video games were even available. There was an article in the Washington Post about finding a link between video games and mass shootings. They found no correlation between the two. If we blame video games, we're eventually going to blame movies, music, and even literature. After all, there are some extremely violent books out there.
seriously flawed premise: if the jews in the Kraków Ghetto had been armed, they would have survived reality: even if every man, woman and child had been armed with a pistol or rifle or shotgun, they still would have stood no chance against an entire army with tanks, grenades, howitzers and the like, since the jews were sitting ducks in a walled-in firing range... besides the fact that they were under siege with no way to escape and the germans only had to wait till they all died of starvation... or were at least too weak from lack of food and water to use their weapons! this silly argument is akin to the one some offer in re if the slaves had owned guns, they wouldn't have had to stay slaves... what's nonsensically ignored is the fact that those who were enslaved in the south had no way to obtain weapons in sufficient number, and/or keep them from being discovered by their owners... and the even more relevant fact that american slaves had no leader such as toussaint l'ouverture, who, with the help of spain and france, led haitian slaves to revolt against their owners in a bloodbath that eventually resulted in haitian independence...
This is drifting away from the meaning and purpose of the right to bear arms (and the need to balance that right with the rights of the general populace to be safe), one based on history and the law. But since you asked, yes, equality has limits. So does power. So, for that matter, does the rule of law, which is why the law and its application is an iterative process, one in which our approach must be inherently Hegelian. Careful, JJ. For all you know, the "sluggard" might not be lazy, (s)he may just be ill-prepared. Or overworked. Or underpaid.
