When There Is No Second Amendment

[Minister_of_Information]

Let's not call us Red Dawners as if that cute little slice of liberal snark is anything but ad hominem; say rather Jeffersonians, or better yet Popular Sovereignists (an admittedly clumsy phrase) to the extent the idea that the people are armed because they are sovereign must be referred to by its constituency. But do not pretend that guerrilla tactics and history itself has been transcended by the novel powers of the modern state, as that is clearly bunk. And worse, it is smug bunk, intellectually lazy bunk, self serving bunk that is rooted in the spoiled naivete and incredulity of those who have never experienced hunger much less genuine hardship, so that they believe that hardship itself is a myth -- at least for them, where they live. It is Marie Antoinette's alleged aphorism "let them eat cake" rephrased with a smirk, nothing more. It is the corollary of the belief that freedom can be bought not with blood but with a couple of first class tickets to the Caribbean.

WOLVERINES
MOLON LABE

[MichiGator2002]

Hell, call us Red Dawners. That movie, original recipe, was pretty boss.

[VAg8r1]

Does the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for protection against tyranny also extend to organizations on the far left? When the Black Panthers decided to arm themselves to protect their community against the police whom they considered an occupying force, the California state legislature enacted the Mulford Act of 1967, which was signed by the conservative icon Ronald Reagan and endorsed by virtually every right of center organization prior to its enactment including the "who would have believed it" NRA. The law expressly prohibited the carry of loaded weapons. Although several pro-Second Amendment organizations have expressed their opposition to the law decades after enactment, there was virtually no contemporaneous opposition to the law. The Black Panthers exercising their Second Amendment Rights

[MichiGator2002]

What is that a picture of? Are those men effectively blockading a public building or some such? Because that wouldn't really be 2nd Amendment activity, it would be 1st Amendment activity... and probably not protected, at that. Or is your intent to try to argue that any and every use of a gun is a 2nd Amendment issue? That would be pretty absurd, though, so surely not?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...78205098_n.jpg

[CalSFGator]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Why are you changing the subject to nuclear weapons and other armaments of a nature not associated with personal defense? The discussion is about "assault" rifles. There's no need to move the goal posts around mid-discussion or try to confuse the issue.

Anyway, just because the government makes a determination regarding "need" doesn't mean anyone is morally obligated to abide by it.

That isn't moving the goalposts, that's right down the center. You say that assault rifles are personal protection and rocket launchers aren't, but that's your determination, not mine or anyone elses. This is the point of the whole exercise, to determine what right the government has to limit your arms. I assume you agree they have the right (and you are OK with it) to keep SAMs out of your possession, or tanks, even if you said you just wanted to defend your farm with it, correct? Once you understand that we as a society make a determination about what the right level is, you can somehow (maybe, with lots of fluids and an open mind) grasp how a reasonable person might think that line belongs on the other side of assault rifles.

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

So peaceful, law-abiding American citizens are terrorists? Or are you comparing them to terrorists?

Can you clarify for me?

How do I know who is who? A terrorist isn't a terrorist until he does something terroristy, and no longer becomes a peaceful, law-abiding citizen - he doesn't always announce it so we can duly come to his house and legally remove his guns under the "he is now a terrorist" rule.

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

If there's no bright line, how do you know the AR-15 isn't the dividing line between tyranny and non-tyranny?

You're not making any sense.

I am, it's just perhaps a little too thoughtful and non-bumber stickery for you. I don't know that the AR-15 isn't the dividing line, and neither do you. I suspect, using my reason and natural augury that it isn't, and believe that society can rationally make the determination that it isn't. It could be wrong, we could have been wrong when we made the determination that people couldn't have rocket launchers - maybe that was the dividing line. It's a fear I will somehow have the live with......

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

How do you know this? How do you know the future plans of the U.S. government?

Do you have any winning lottery numbers, by chance?

Wow, you really have a flare for the melodramatic. How do I know the U.S. government doesn't intend to become tyrannical?? Again, just forming an opinion based on rational sense. The government isn't a monolithic thing with "intentions". It's made up of egomaniacs and idiots that want to be in office for as long as possible, true - but obviously can't agree about anything. I think Obama, who you know doubt think wants to be a tyrant, just wants some marginal legacy, a la Reagan or FDR. I don't think he will be proposing a bill for a third term any time soon.

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Right. "We should, we should, we should". Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, Obama's fraudulent 2008 presidential campaign.

Tell me, how do you propose "we" go about these grandiose ideas of yours?

Are you not reading at all? First of all, we all say, we should - just as you say we should be allowed to keep our guns, so stop being so petty. How do we go about cuttuing defense spending, repealing the patriot act and signing into ICC jurisdiction? Is that a real question, or those weren't specific enough for you?

[CalSFGator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Let's not call us Red Dawners as if that cute little slice of liberal snark is anything but ad hominem; say rather Jeffersonians, or better yet Popular Sovereignists (an admittedly clumsy phrase) to the extent the idea that the people are armed because they are sovereign must be referred to by its constituency. But do not pretend that guerrilla tactics and history itself has been transcended by the novel powers of the modern state, as that is clearly bunk. And worse, it is smug bunk, intellectually lazy bunk, self serving bunk that is rooted in the spoiled naivete and incredulity of those who have never experienced hunger much less genuine hardship, so that they believe that hardship itself is a myth -- at least for them, where they live. It is Marie Antoinette's alleged aphorism "let them eat cake" rephrased with a smirk, nothing more. It is the corollary of the belief that freedom can be bought not with blood but with a couple of first class tickets to the Caribbean.

WOLVERINES
MOLON LABE

But, Red Dawners is so much more accurate. As effete, francophilic Jefferson would be duly creeped out by the AR-15 crowd of modern America. You say bunk a lot, but I am not sure what your actual point is. I didn't say history was transcended, though I suppose it is by definition, at least for an instant at every moment. Ignoring that. No one thinks the government is our best friend or that individual sovereignty isn't important, but it doesn't take much to notice at some point that the guys that play with assault rifles on the weekends may talk a grand game on the interwebs, but they aren't heroic Spartan Kings, most of them just like guns and that's it. The funny thing about your discussion above, is you are right, part of this is the result of complacency, and a society grown fat on its own success - but I would say that creates the Red Dawners more than the rational liberals that may take the other side of this argument. It's the Red Dawners that worry more about government tyranny than lack of healthcare, marginal tax rates that usually don't affect them, rather than closing the wealth gap. They are bored and often ungrateful of just how good things are for them, so they create barbarians at the gate, a kind of solution.

[VAg8r1]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

What is that a picture of? Are those men effectively blockading a public building or some such? Because that wouldn't really be 2nd Amendment activity, it would be 1st Amendment activity... and probably not protected, at that. Or is your intent to try to argue that any and every use of a gun is a 2nd Amendment issue? That would be pretty absurd, though, so surely not?

The picture is one of armed Black Panthers demonstrating against the Mulford Amendment. It's my position that the Second Amendment is intended to protect the right to individual firearm ownership for personal protection, not as a vehicle to overthrow a perceived tyrannical government. In Heller, the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment right to individual ownership to firearms while reaffirming that the right was not unlimited. If one buys the argument that the Second Amendment is intended to ensure that citizens can arm themselves against a potentially tyrannical government, it would follow that individual ownership of shoulder-fired surface to air missiles such as Stingers should be legal since the government would undoubtedly use helicopters to suppress a potential rebellion. Similarly, the ownership of RPGs or similar weapons would be legal since the government would also use armored vehicles to suppress a rebellion. Interestingly, Articles I and II of the Constitution expressly provide for the federalization of state militias to suppress insurrections. Article I expressly provides that Congress shall have the power to "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"; The main point I was trying to make by using the Black Panther example is that what constitutes a tyranny is subjective. The purpose of the Second Amendment is not to authorized armed extremists to foment insurrections against the government because they may not approve of certain policies or perceive that they are victims of persecution. There is a peaceful vehicle to change the government of the Us; it's called the electoral process. Similarly, laws as well as acts of government officials can always be challenged through the court system.

[MichiGator2002]

They worry about tyranny more than the state of healthcare, because ultimately the goal of the latter will require an exercise in the former.

They care more about tax rates than the "wealth gap" because frankly aren't venal and dim enough to just assume that the "wealth gap" is actually a problem or that, if it is, that it is one the government has authority to work on (it is a low place for adults to even just assume with no ther details one person having more wealth than another is a bad thing, a low and filthy place).

[helix139]

Originally Posted by VAg8r1

The picture is one of armed Black Panthers demonstrating against the Mulford Amendment. It's my position that the Second Amendment is intended to protect the right to individual firearm ownership for personal protection, not as a vehicle to overthrow a perceived tyrannical government. In Heller, the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment right to individual ownership to firearms while reaffirming that the right was not unlimited. If one buys the argument that the Second Amendment is intended to ensure that citizens can arm themselves against a potentially tyrannical government, it would follow that individual ownership of shoulder-fired surface to air missiles such as Stingers should be legal since the government would undoubtedly use helicopters to suppress a potential rebellion. Similarly, the ownership of RPGs or similar weapons would be legal since the government would also use armored vehicles to suppress a rebellion. Interestingly, Articles I and II of the Constitution expressly provide for the federalization of state militias to suppress insurrections. Article I expressly provides that Congress shall have the power to "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"; The main point I was trying to make by using the Black Panther example is that what constitutes a tyranny is subjective. The purpose of the Second Amendment is not to authorized armed extremists to foment insurrections against the government because they may not approve of certain policies or perceive that they are victims of persecution. There is a peaceful vehicle to change the government of the Us; it's called the electoral process. Similarly, laws as well as acts of government officials can always be challenged through the court system.

Those who wrote the second amendment would disagree that the second amendment is not there as a deterrent to and a defense from tyranny. There is overwhelming evidence to back that up.

As far as the limits to the second amendment, strict scrutiny applies, and there is a clear 3 part test for that. Clearly, banning explosives and destructive devices such as stingers and RPGs meet the strict scrutiny test as their restriction is narrowly tailored, uses the least restrictive means (they aren't truly banned, but there are significant hoops to jump through), and there is a compelling government interest (use, storage, and disposal of explosives presents a significant danger to large numbers of people)

[MichiGator2002]

The second amendment is absolutely written with a mind toward government tyranny, just as the third obviously is. It has other manifestations and implications as well. But it doesn't follow that all such activity in opposition to perceived tyranny is or will be presumptively lawful. So there is really no contradiction between those black panther thugs, dapper as they may be, lawfully "keeping and bearing arms" and other laws that say "yeah, but not so much with brandishing them on the steps of public buildings in a manner clearly designed to intimidate". This is pretty basic stuff conceptually, even a afternoon long seminar on the first amendment would make it intuitive that the existence of the underlying right doesn't simultaneously sanction every possible exercise of that right. No reason any who grasps that shouldn't grasp this.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by CalSFGator

But, Red Dawners is so much more accurate. As effete, francophilic Jefferson would be duly creeped out by the AR-15 crowd of modern America. You say bunk a lot, but I am not sure what your actual point is. I didn't say history was transcended, though I suppose it is by definition, at least for an instant at every moment. Ignoring that. No one thinks the government is our best friend or that individual sovereignty isn't important, but it doesn't take much to notice at some point that the guys that play with assault rifles on the weekends may talk a grand game on the interwebs, but they aren't heroic Spartan Kings, most of them just like guns and that's it. The funny thing about your discussion above, is you are right, part of this is the result of complacency, and a society grown fat on its own success - but I would say that creates the Red Dawners more than the rational liberals that may take the other side of this argument. It's the Red Dawners that worry more about government tyranny than lack of healthcare, marginal tax rates that usually don't affect them, rather than closing the wealth gap. They are bored and often ungrateful of just how good things are for them, so they create barbarians at the gate, a kind of solution.

Though they are by definition paramilitary -- or "militia" -- arms, popular sovereignty does not turn upon the legality of AR15s. But neither does public safety, as is amply demonstrated with statistics: and all things considered popular sovereignty must outweigh public safety. Yes we are all spoiled children of the enlightened if contested founding of our nation, and by that ancient blood libation the freedom that has become the basis of our prosperity and consequent decadence. Yet amidst these suspect and decadent motivations, it is plainly observable that one side of the debate takes the arming of the public against tyranny quite seriously and the other does not. I will let others judge whom has less in common with the founders.

Speaking of the founders, yes it is true that Jefferson was an aristocratic admirer of the revolution in France. That revolution which turned upon popular effervescence and wrath; barricades manned by sansculottes shouldering long-hidden but carefully preserved arms; cannon towed clanking down cobbled streets by ragamuffins holding pikes; despotic fortress-prisons of a mighty but insolvent imperial power taken down by the dirty fingers of the starving and penniless, stone by stone by stone. There too I will let others judge what Jefferson might say concerning his sympathies in the current debate.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Those of you that say "common sense" gun regulations are necessary, you might want to apply this test.

The fundamental right to free speech can and is regulated. But the regulations must pass a pretty high constitutional hurdle.

The fundamental right to bear arms is also currently regulated. But as we have seen, the hurdle must be higher than say, the "right" to own an automobile.

This also applies for the right to vote

So, if you want your government to enact some new "common sense" regulation, try and apply something similar to the rights to vote and free speech. If doing so makes you uncomfortable in those cases, then it should also make you uncomfortable with respect to guns.

For example, since in many states the right to vote is restricted for convicted felons. A convicted felon cannot vote. Since this is true is it reasonable to require a background check and ID for a person to be able to register to vote?

[oragator1]

Originally Posted by surfn1080

The city of Chicago would disagree...

A single city passing a gun control measure is essentially meaningless when they are surrounded on all sides by places to get them, in a country that is saturated with them and manufacturers everywhere to buy from - it's like thinking a city that bans porn can keep it out. It's an all or nothing thing, which is what Australia did and why it has had some success.

[bluelang]

Plz link info on the popular movement to repeal or replace the 2nd amendment. Tks.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by CalSFGator

That isn't moving the goalposts, that's right down the center. You say that assault rifles are personal protection and rocket launchers aren't, but that's your determination, not mine or anyone elses. This is the point of the whole exercise, to determine what right the government has to limit your arms. I assume you agree they have the right (and you are OK with it) to keep SAMs out of your possession, or tanks, even if you said you just wanted to defend your farm with it, correct? Once you understand that we as a society make a determination about what the right level is, you can somehow (maybe, with lots of fluids and an open mind) grasp how a reasonable person might think that line belongs on the other side of assault rifles.

Rocket launchers, SAMs, tanks, fighter jets, and nuclear weapons can't be compared to "assault" rifles because they can't be reasonably used without creating immense amounts of splash damage. That's their purpose and design. They are meant to cause massive amounts of damage to men and machinery on a battlefield. To use one against a human attacker in a non-battlefield arena is to put everyone else around you in danger. So while they can be used in a somewhat precise manner, they can't be used without endangering the lives and private property of others.

"Assault" rifles, on the other hand, can be used in a precision manner for personal defense purposes without creating unwanted splash damage. It's an apples-oranges comparison, and to compare them directly is intellectually disingenuous on your part.

How do I know who is who? A terrorist isn't a terrorist until he does something terroristy, and no longer becomes a peaceful, law-abiding citizen - he doesn't always announce it so we can duly come to his house and legally remove his guns under the "he is now a terrorist" rule.

That's great, but under the classic definition of 'terrorism', the U.S. government would have be considered the most prolific purveyor of terrorism in the world:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/...of-terror.html

So when are you going to start arguing to disarm the U.S. government?

I am, it's just perhaps a little too thoughtful and non-bumber stickery for you. I don't know that the AR-15 isn't the dividing line, and neither do you. I suspect, using my reason and natural augury that it isn't, and believe that society can rationally make the determination that it isn't. It could be wrong, we could have been wrong when we made the determination that people couldn't have rocket launchers - maybe that was the dividing line. It's a fear I will somehow have the live with......

As you would say, society isn't a monolithic thing with the ability for "rational thought". Society is a collection of individuals. Unfortunately for your little gun grabber fantasies, many of the individuals that comprise American society have already determined that personal ownership of "assault" rifles *is* the dividing line, and there's really not a whole lot you can do about it other than to continue whining about it on college football message boards.

Wow, you really have a flare for the melodramatic. How do I know the U.S. government doesn't intend to become tyrannical?? Again, just forming an opinion based on rational sense. The government isn't a monolithic thing with "intentions".

So the U.S. government that George W. Bush presided over, didn't intend, for instance, to attack Iraq in early 2003? That wasn't an "intention"?

Then how did it all come about? By accident?

It's made up of egomaniacs and idiots that want to be in office for as long as possible, true - but obviously can't agree about anything. I think Obama, who you know doubt think wants to be a tyrant, just wants some marginal legacy, a la Reagan or FDR. I don't think he will be proposing a bill for a third term any time soon.

Sure, this is true if you believe politicians are ultimately calling the shots. This is a nice fantasy to have, but it's not altogether realistic.

The fact of the matter is, politicians are completely dependent on corporations to finance their expensive political campaigns and provide favorable media coverage to get elected. This dependence puts politicians on the wrong end of the master-servant equation. This, in reality, means it's corporations and the wealthy interests behind them that are calling the shots. It can be no other way. That's how the system works.

Are you not reading at all? First of all, we all say, we should - just as you say we should be allowed to keep our guns, so stop being so petty. How do we go about cuttuing defense spending, repealing the patriot act and signing into ICC jurisdiction? Is that a real question, or those weren't specific enough for you?

Yes, it's a real question. Is there a reason you can't answer it?

Tell me, how do you think the people of this country can get the Patriot Act repealed? Voting for a "hope and change" Democrat didn't seem to work, so what do you think will work?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by oragator1

It's an all or nothing thing, which is what Australia did and why it has had some success.

This obviously depends on how you define "success". If "success" means making the common people of a nation completely defenseless against criminals and their own government, then yes, Australia has had some success with their gun control efforts.