A conservative case for an assault weapons ban

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Even Federal Law contradicts you: 10 USC § 311

Thanks for the reference, and I stand corrected - though the distinction is technical IMO. I don't think that either I nor the average guy at the gun show (both of whom are therefore members of the unorganized militia) are what keeps Obama from declaring martial law and cancelling the mid-terms - maybe in the dreams of the average guy at the gun show.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by Row6

Not that I object, but why am I holding to 4 paragraphs ?

Some people are created unequal, I guess.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by Row6

Hyperbolic much (bolded text)? So my posting on TH is exactly what the framers had in mind when defining the militia?

Batista was overthrown over 50 years ago and didn't have the US military to command.

The Taliban has a small piece of the US military in it's face and indeed, if we were willing to stay there forever - 1/2 way around the world - they would continue to have no chance.

Protests to the contrary, it is quite clear that in Cuba a few poorly equipped partisans were able to topple a regime enjoying the support of a modern, highly subsidized military apparatus provided by the United States, complete with air power, tanks, artillery, and machineguns of all varieties.

Row6, you should read up on counterinsurgency a bit. I used to have a pdf dealing with the US Army counterinsurguency doctrine laying around somewhere, I'll see if I can dig it up. But the key to any counterinsurgent campaign is placating and protecting the populace. Unless the counterinsurgent force can achieve something like 95% coverage with both missions and sustain it over time, the counterinsurgency will fail. Let's do some math: 1.5 million troops plus a few million law enforcement cannot possibly protect 95% of a populace of 300 million if the effort is actively contested by even 50,000 souls and their sympathizers. The battle is for the public imagination ("hearts and minds"), nothing more nothing less. When the public's confidence in the regime fails, the regime fails. If the viability of the insurgency is called into question by effective counterinsurgency by the regime, the insurgency will wither away and lose its popular support. It's quite similar to paper money, which is of course nothing more than an extremely useful figment based on public trust.

I realize that liberals like yourself usually imagine that the power and resources of the government is virtually unlimited -- perhaps even to the point of supposing that the government could have agents capable of monitoring everyone and keeping up with the necessary reprisals -- yet it is easy to demonstrate that a population cannot be governed without its complicity. When that complicity is gone or eroding due to the loss of confidence an insurgency brings, the situation becomes not unlike the little Dutch boy trying to find more fingers to put in the dike. It simply becomes impossible to manage the situation further, and gradually people realize that they are on their own. Consquently the government becomes less than a figment, it becomes an ignored figment, ripe to be replaced by some fresh effort to capture the population's urge to be ruled.

You should probably read up on the history of insurgency, and also Ghandi and Vaclav Havel if you are interested in understanding what I am talking about.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by Row6

Not that I object, but why am I holding to 4 paragraghs?

Once again you post a proposed Bill of Rights as opposed to the actual Bill of Rights. In the actual Bill of Rights the right to bear arms is qualified by the requirements of a militia which is elsewhere defined in the Constitution as being organized and under the control of the Congress and it's CIC, the President.

Wikipedia is not copyrighted material.

[MichiGator2002]

"A well-stocked cooler being necessary to the enjoyability of a good party, the right of the people to keep and bear beer shall not be infringed".

Row would tell you that sentence means you only have a right to beer so long as people enjoy having parties at which beer is served. There would be no right to beer consumed in private, were this language law, is what you are being told.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Protests to the contrary, it is quite clear that in Cuba a few poorly equipped partisans were able to topple a regime enjoying the support of a modern, highly subsidized military apparatus provided by the United States, complete with air power, tanks, artillery, and machineguns of all varieties.

Row6, you should read up on counterinsurgency a bit. I used to have a pdf dealing with the US Army counterinsurguency doctrine laying around somewhere, I'll see if I can dig it up. But the key to any counterinsurgent campaign is placating and protecting the populace. Unless the counterinsurgent force can achieve something like 95% coverage with both missions and sustain it over time, the counterinsurgency will fail. Let's do some math: 1.5 million troops plus a few million law enforcement cannot possibly protect 95% of a populace of 300 million if the effort is actively contested by even 50,000 souls and their sympathizers. The battle is for the public imagination ("hearts and minds"), nothing more nothing less. When the public's confidence in the regime fails, the regime fails. If the viability of the insurgency is called into question by effective counterinsurgency by the regime, the insurgency will wither away and lose its popular support. It's quite similar to paper money, which is of course nothing more than an extremely useful figment based on public trust.

I realize that liberals like yourself usually imagine that the power and resources of the government is virtually unlimited -- perhaps even to the point of supposing that the government could have agents capable of monitoring everyone and keeping up with the necessary reprisals -- yet it is easy to demonstrate that a population cannot be governed without its complicity. When that complicity is gone or eroding due to the loss of confidence an insurgency brings, the situation becomes not unlike the little Dutch boy trying to find more fingers to put in the dike. It simply becomes impossible to manage the situation further, and gradually people realize that they are on their own. Consquently the government becomes less than a figment, it becomes an ignored figment, ripe to be replaced by some fresh effort to capture the population's urge to be ruled.

You should probably read up on the history of insurgency, and also Ghandi and Vaclav Havel if you are interested in understanding what I am talking about.

Maybe, but:

"The militias generally had acquitted themselves poorly during the major organized battles of the war and had been the subject of constant and bitter criticism. [107] At Guilford Courthouse, for instance, the Virginia and North Carolina militias broke and ran before sustaining a single casualty. The militias' American commander noted, "[t]hey had the most advantageous position I ever saw, and left without making scarcely the shadow of opposition." [108]

George Washington complained, "To place any dependence upon Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. If I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole; I should subscribe to the latter." [109] As Alexander Hamilton later observed, the exclusive dependence on the militia "had like to have cost us our independence . . . . The steady operation of war against a regular and disciplined army can only be successfully conducted by a force of the same kind."

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/fieldsandhardy.html

Ignoring the fact that our standing army is the result of a democratic system and under control of a democratically elected leaders is ignoring it's greatest strength. Any would be dictator would have to worry more about opposition from within other elected branches of our government and by a standing army manned by those similarly raised under centuries of democratic tradition before he would even consider some rag-tag - and in the era of satellites, etc., easily tracked - bands of unorganized and untrained citizens. Our strength is our governmental system, not the gun show crowd.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Wikipedia is not copyrighted material.

Ah hah! I'll use that.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by Row6

Maybe, but:

"The militias generally had acquitted themselves poorly during the major organized battles of the war and had been the subject of constant and bitter criticism. [107] At Guilford Courthouse, for instance, the Virginia and North Carolina militias broke and ran before sustaining a single casualty. The militias' American commander noted, "[t]hey had the most advantageous position I ever saw, and left without making scarcely the shadow of opposition." [108]

George Washington complained, "To place any dependence upon Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. If I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole; I should subscribe to the latter." [109] As Alexander Hamilton later observed, the exclusive dependence on the militia "had like to have cost us our independence . . . . The steady operation of war against a regular and disciplined army can only be successfully conducted by a force of the same kind."

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/fieldsandhardy.html

Ignoring the fact that our standing army is the result of a democratic system and under control of a democratically elected leaders is ignoring it's greatest strength. Any would be dictator would have to worry more about opposition from within other elected branches of our government and by a standing army manned by those similarly raised under centuries of democratic tradition before he would even consider some rag-tag - and in the era of satellites, etc., easily tracked - bands of unorganized and untrained citizens. Our strength is our governmental system, not the gun show crowd.

Considered narrowly, I tend to agree with your context-free quotes from Washington. It is true that militia (understood as local folk mustered for action within a particular territory) have always failed to be very able as line infantry (unless "well regulated", which originally denoted disciplined and drilled as well as regulated by law), yet the history of partisan warfare proves that militia can be used to great military effect. Washington's contemporaries in the South, chief among them General Francis "The Swamp Fox" Marion, proved to be quite a thorn in the British side during the revolutionary war, and his entire force was militia. And to the extent militia remain in the field, they become much more proficient in combat over time. You can see this in the partisan activities of Forrest and Mosby in the Civil War as well. It should also be noted that a great number of American civilians have served in the military themselves, many of them in lengthy careers that included extensive combat. Perhaps my experience is skewed by my residence in the deep south, but it has been my observation that veterans are numbered among the most diehard supporters of the idea that the Second Amendment and the people's militia are an indispensable bulwark of liberty. Indeed, were there to be an insurrection against tyranny, it is likely that these veterans would serve as a skeleton -- and probably in large measure as the spear point -- for the rest of the force.

But these details ignore your larger argument, which is that our system of government guarantees that tyranny is impossible (and therefore the people's militia is irrelevant...). In response I would simply direct you to the history of every other republican or democratic society that has ever existed. Republican forms are simply that, forms: ideas that are as malleable as the men who profess them. Rome had a republic, too, and the early imperators carefully maintained those republican forms until the people were accustomed to slavery and then they were gradually discarded. I don't think an armed citizenry was ever an afterthought to the founders. It may be that there is precious little risk of tyranny at present (or it may not...), but it cannot be doubted that tyranny is a possible outcome of any government, eventually -- which makes guarding against it not only important, but essential. Man will always govern to the extent of his power, but the power of an armed people to resist tyrannical rule is a check upon the imagination of a potential despot. A fly in his ointment that will have to be removed before the rest of his plans can be realized. And that is always going to be a problem.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- said by some founder or other

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Considered narrowly, I tend to agree with your context-free quotes from Washington. It is true that militia (understood as local folk mustered for action within a particular territory) have always failed to be very able as line infantry (unless "well regulated", which originally denoted disciplined and drilled as well as regulated by law), yet the history of partisan warfare proves that militia can be used to great military effect. Washington's contemporaries in the South, chief among them General Francis "The Swamp Fox" Marion, proved to be quite a thorn in the British side during the revolutionary war, and his entire force was militia. And to the extent militia remain in the field, they become much more proficient in combat over time. You can see this in the partisan activities of Forrest and Mosby in the Civil War as well. It should also be noted that a great number of American civilians have served in the military themselves, many of them in lengthy careers that included extensive combat. Perhaps my experience is skewed by my residence in the deep south, but it has been my observation that veterans are numbered among the most diehard supporters of the idea that the Second Amendment and the people's militia are an indispensable bulwark of liberty. Indeed, were there to be an insurrection against tyranny, it is likely that these veterans would serve as a skeleton -- and probably in large measure as the spear point -- for the rest of the force.

But these details ignore your larger argument, which is that our system of government guarantees that tyranny is impossible (and therefore the people's militia is irrelevant...). In response I would simply direct you to the history of every other republican or democratic society that has ever existed. Republican forms are simply that, forms: ideas that are as malleable as the men who profess them. Rome had a republic, too, and the early imperators carefully maintained those republican forms until the people were accustomed to slavery and then they were gradually discarded. I don't think an armed citizenry was ever an afterthought to the founders. It may be that there is precious little risk of tyranny at present (or it may not...), but it cannot be doubted that tyranny is a possible outcome of any government, eventually -- which makes guarding against it not only important, but essential. Man will always govern to the extent of his power, but the power of an armed people to resist tyrannical rule is a check upon the imagination of a potential despot. A fly in his ointment that will have to be removed before the rest of his plans can be realized. And that is always going to be a problem.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- said by some founder or other

There are very few things that are not by definition supernatural that I think are impossible, and a return to tyranny in the US is not in that category. It is also possible that a disorganized militia will someday save us from that. I don't happen to think either is likely as things are now and an educated and committed citizenry is more important for our survival as a free people than armed individuals. The latter may be more of a threat to life and limb - whether as lone nutcases or as semi-organized mobs - than a benefit. To see them as a benefit one has to assume they will be guided by high principles of democracy rather than delusional paranoids motivated by racial or other fundamentalist sentiment. Both could happen at the same time of course, since unity of purpose wouldn't be guaranteed in times of turmoil, and indeed that may be the more likely assumption.

[wargunfan]

The fact of the matter is that the people are not going to be disarmed. They will not allow such a thing to be carried out without such a resistance as to make the attempt futile and deadly. With a government capable of creating and sustaining an abomination such as the Patriot Act and enforcing it with extra legal means, no right thinking person should docilely surrender their last means of resistance to tyranny. We owe a debt of honor to each other to retain the means to resist and overthrow the establishment of tyrannical rule over the people. Many thousands of our veterans have witnessed first hand the results of rule by force and terror and I am confident that they will stand with the people in the defense of liberty. To date the government has not exercised its worst tools of oppression in any noticeable numbers. We have no way of knowing which citizens may be locked away in the dungeons of military bases here and abroad. I want very much to trust my government but that trust diminishes in direct proportion to its efforts to disarm us. The government must also demonstrate its trust in the people by allowing the law abiding to live peacefully without fear of confiscation of their legal arms and by not creating criminals out of citizens by legislative fiat. Let those who fear arms work to remove the criminal, the unstable and the insane among us from access to weapons and leave the armed, law abiding citizen the hell alone.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

The fact of the matter is that the people are not going to be disarmed. They will not allow such a thing to be carried out without such a resistance as to make the attempt futile and deadly. With a government capable of creating and sustaining an abomination such as the Patriot Act and enforcing it with extra legal means, no right thinking person should docilely surrender their last means of resistance to tyranny. We owe a debt of honor to each other to retain the means to resist and overthrow the establishment of tyrannical rule over the people. Many thousands of our veterans have witnessed first hand the results of rule by force and terror and I am confident that they will stand with the people in the defense of liberty. To date the government has not exercised its worst tools of oppression in any noticeable numbers. We have no way of knowing which citizens may be locked away in the dungeons of military bases here and abroad. I want very much to trust my government but that trust diminishes in direct proportion to its efforts to disarm us. The government must also demonstrate its trust in the people by allowing the law abiding to live peacefully without fear of confiscation of their legal arms and by not creating criminals out of citizens by legislative fiat. Let those who fear arms work to remove the criminal, the unstable and the insane among us from access to weapons and leave the armed, law abiding citizen the hell alone.

The founders have made it extremely clear in the matter of giving up rights to the government. We are so stupid as a people for letting our central government become such a beast.

"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

[Row6]

Originally Posted by OaktownGator

You've got two primary issues addressed in your post:
1. There was debate on the issue of militias and the right to bear arms as most likely there was debate on all aspects of the proposed govt. That is to be expected, is it not? Just as there was debate about freedom of religion. But John Adams represente the exception in his position, and that exception was rooted in protecting the land owning elite... now that we were free from King George, he didn't want anybody messing with his stuff. Luckily the overwhelming majority of leaders saw a bigger picture than just protecting their piece of the pie, from the "huddled masses".

Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Franklin, Paine, et al, represented the prevailing sentiment at the highest levels and that was very clear.

2. Locally organized (disorganized?) militia composed of every able bodied man will be rendered largely ineffective to be used as an army in a pure military sense because there are too many people who don't understand WTF they're doing. Fair enough. So we had to rethink how

and how we organize wrt formal applications of militias.

But neither does that point obviate the need for ALL able bodied men to have the right to bear arms, in order to guarantee the freedom and security of our nation... which was expressed repeatedly and clearly from the outset by our most famous and respected leaders.

If the meaning of the 2nd amendment was as clear cut as you claim why wasn't the wording. The reason is that this was an already ancient concept with several layers of meaning and implied application. It was in effect written in code using terms then understood and packing meaning now lost and archaic. On the latter point, the fact that the militia has been addressed by legislation twice in 200+ years, though it received at least 3 mentions in the constitution, and has no current meaning except in discussions of the 2nd amendment. We can argue original intent all day long - and we do - but keep in mind that parts of that intent had to do with now archaic distinctions between militia control by parliament vs kings and rights of land owners. Should we all by the program to know the players, or figure out what is best in our free democracy in our times?

[Minister_of_Information]

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, proposed the Bill of Rights to the 1st Congress with the following statement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ptive_proposal

First. That there be prefixed to the constitution a declaration That all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from the people. [...]

That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution. [...]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

For basic information about the background, contemporaneous understanding, and subsequent interpretation of the Second Amendment please check out the wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...ion_background

Blackstone's influential interpretation of the right to arms under the 1689 English Bill of Rights:

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

The founders believed that the right to arms was a natural, individual, and inalienable right. This right can be enumerated or left unspoken but it can be neither enacted nor abolished.

People who think a popular revolution cannot overthrow a tyrannical government with a modern army should look no further than the Cuban revolution. Yet I often hear from leftists that Castro's revolution is somehow 'different' in some undefinable way. Due to the scale of effort involved, government always rules via the complicity -- either voluntary or coerced by terror -- of its populace. 1.5 million soldiers simply cannot oppress any substantial fraction of a population of 300 million. The laws of insurgency do not allow it, even if we suppose that the soldiers of the US Army are willing to be instruments of tyranny.

As for the legitimacy of concerns about the potential tyranny of the Federal government, one need look no further than Ruby Ridge and Lon Horiuchi. Power breeds arrogance, which engenders contempt. An armed populace is the only long term check on a tyrannical regime: man desiring to rule as far as his power extends, the man with power in his hands must know that there are things that the people simply won't tolerate, and that they have the power to compel him.

As for the legitimacy of assault weapons: they serve a militia purpose. Suppressive or covering fire is a tactical element of many modern infantry manuevers, i.e., fire and movement, bounding, etc. I think a limitation on magazine size is constitutional to an extent (it has been enacted in the past, after all), but I personally have some problems with getting rid of all weapons with sufficient firepower and capacity to enable these tactics. I think the M1 Garand (8 round semiautomatic high powered rifle able to be rapidly reloaded by clip) is probably my line in the sand: laws that would make that rifle illegal strike me as unconstitutional. I believe that the people are entitled to arms with basic tactical utility that is generally similar if not identical to the individual weapons carried by the armed forces. This does not mean fully automatic and I do not include crew served weapons at any level, but I do think the citizenry should have access to arms that allow them to function as members of a militia group employing basic unsupported modern infantry maneuvers.

Yes, the function of guns is to kill. But their purpose is often more refined, whether for subsistence or sport, or in the case of militia (paramilitary) weapons, to deter and if necessary to repel any assault upon our liberty, from any source. The true purpose of militia arms is to ensure that they are never needed. And I think they've served that purpose quite well over the past 235 years.

[OaktownGator]

Originally Posted by Row6

If the meaning of the 2nd amendment was as clear cut as you claim why wasn't the wording. The reason is that this was an already ancient concept with several layers of meaning and implied application. It was in effect written in code using terms then understood and packing meaning now lost and archaic. On the latter point, the fact that the militia has been addressed by legislation twice in 200+ years, though it received at least 3 mentions in the constitution, and has no current meaning except in discussions of the 2nd amendment. We can argue original intent all day long - and we do - but keep in mind that parts of that intent had to do with now archaic distinctions between militia control by parliament vs kings and rights of land owners. Should we all by the program to know the players, or figure out what is best in our free democracy in our times?

MOI's last post did a great job of addressing two issues in my mind:

1. Original intent, and why that intent is timeless. It applies today as it did then, even if we would be well advised to take careful consideration on what level of power the average citizen should be legally armed with.

2. Addressing the level of power, wrt "assault weapons". I think he outlines a reasonable line in the sand for that type of weapon, although I have not spent a great deal of thought on that line in the sand.... and there's a wide range of arms that could be considered.