Originally Posted by Sanford

Today I spotted a bumper sticker that read:

"I WANT TO BE IRRATIONALLY EXUBERANT AGAIN"

:lol:

As an agnostic leaning toward atheist, let me say AMEN to that!

Stonewall,

Your analysis of the reason for the McKinney defeat does not address the Barr defeat as well. There were Democrat cross overs there. However many republicans crossed over to defeat McKinney, the primary showed that she could not energize her base. Her base is the same base that the Gore campaign energized so well in 2000. Her base is the one that Daschle and Gephardt try to energize when they make their abortive attacks on Bush43 (and from which they scamper when the poll data comes out). So the McKinney defeat is a sign of the national mood...how the left wing of the Democratic party is demoralized.

As for Barr, he was in a new district and almost literally shot himself in the foot a few weeks ago at the NRA meeting.

However, you've posted how Rove is jettisoning the religious right. Barr's defeat might be a sign that the religious right is demoralized as well. His base may not have turned out, but i don't have the data for that. If so, it is another indication that the national mood is moving to the center from both extremes.

Unfortunately for your hopes, Bush occupies the center now.

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Yes, those numbers from McKinney's race are pretty amazing, and I suppose it's likely that a lot of Republicans crossed over to vote for Majette. How many of those same people are going to switch back to the GOP in the fall? Maybe they'll just stay home now that they've accomplished their goal.

Several of the right-wing talk shows have been after her for years, and went into high gear after 9/11. At the very top of the list is Neal Boortz out of Atlanta, who advocated massive Republican cross-over voting. I guess he got his wish.

Originally Posted by ... and then Kiff '61

I looked at the numbers for the Barr/Linder race; only 84,538 people voted in that one as opposed to 117,670 in the McKinney/Majette district.

None of the anti-McKinney dynamic here, for obvious reasons.

Amen to that!!

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Tailing on Mr. Saari's post:


"Most people are conservative in the wrong way. They accept whatever they?re used to as the natural order of things. They have no sense that the world really went radically wrong somewhere, and is still going further wrong."


"After two world wars, countless smaller wars, mass murders, religious and racial persecution, several species of tyranny, punishing taxation, erosions of ancient liberties, debasement of money, and state-sponsored moral decadence, you?d think modern man would have drawn certain lessons about the modern state. All of us ought to talk about the state the way the Jews talk about Hitler."


"We are inured to the kind of government our ancestors would have recognized as tyrannical; they crossed oceans to get away from it, and it has grown up here."


"When you feel at home in a world that has gone wrong, you?ve gone wrong too."


"The tyrant really wants your soul...but you don?t have to yield it to him. That?s the one private property he can?t take away from you.



Confessions of a Reactionary Utopian

March 27, 2001
by Joseph Sobran

www.sobran.com/columns/010327.shtml

Originally Posted by monoghan

Stonewall,

... Unfortunately for your hopes, Bush occupies the center now.

It's hard to characterize a pseudo-monarchy as being in the center, unless you are speaking allegorically. If so, then I'd have to argue that George II is actually peripheral, IMHO.

We've been trying to decide whether we're 3T or 4T, well here's a sign that we've gone back - the return of a very iconoclastic comedy group that diappeared with the 2T: The Firesign Theater.

What this means and why now is the question. The group appears right on form, taking-on Bush-II in much the same vein they attacked Nixon. For the uninitiated, their comedy is oblilque and full of obscure references. Full appreciation requires either a huge resevoir of personal knowledge or being willing to do a little research.

Maybe the Millies need this as a culture reference. If so, then it's a 4T sign.

Originally Posted by monoghan

Stonewall,

Your analysis of the reason for the McKinney defeat does not address the Barr defeat as well. There were Democrat cross overs there. However many republicans crossed over to defeat McKinney, the primary showed that she could not energize her base. Her base is the same base that the Gore campaign energized so well in 2000. Her base is the one that Daschle and Gephardt try to energize when they make their abortive attacks on Bush43 (and from which they scamper when the poll data comes out). So the McKinney defeat is a sign of the national mood...how the left wing of the Democratic party is demoralized.

One nit to pick. I suspect that Majette, as a moderate African-American Democrat, is probably much more acceptable as an alternative to McKinney, then a conservative such as Bush. Thus, many of the Gore "base" joined the GOP in voting for Majette. Certainly Jewish voters, an important part of the Democratic base, voted en masse for Majette, and perhaps more importantly, raised tons of money for her campaign.

If McKinney had been running against Barr, its impossible to know what would have happened. A McKinney defeat in that circumstance would certainly make a louder statement. :o

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Tristan, are you saying that you oppose the feigned Iraqi invasion or are you throwing yourself in with the "right-wing nuts"? Also, didn't you say that you would ban even caffeine in line with "zero tolerance on drugs"? :wink:

I am throwing myself into the right wing nuts of my nation.

Hehe. I thought that One Nation Party or whatever it is was your "right-wing nut" party. Where do they stand on all this, the "WOT," etc.?

Originally Posted by monoghan

Stonewall,

Your analysis of the reason for the McKinney defeat does not address the Barr defeat as well. There were Democrat cross overs there. However many republicans crossed over to defeat McKinney, the primary showed that she could not energize her base.

Her base was there. That is what her total is. Her total alone is a big number. But nearly every Republican in the district voted in the Democratic primary to compound her opponent's total and that defeated her. It's pretty straightforward.

Unfortunately for your hopes, Bush occupies the center now.

That is where these Bush people have always been. That's nothing new at all, discounting all the propaganda. They stand for absolutely nothing but their own personal power and aggrandizement, and they will tell any lie necessary to get the upper hand. That's always been true in the past. It'll always be true in the future.

Originally Posted by David '47

Originally Posted by monoghan

Stonewall,

... Unfortunately for your hopes, Bush occupies the center now.

It's hard to characterize a pseudo-monarchy as being in the center, unless you are speaking allegorically. If so, then I'd have to argue that George II is actually peripheral, IMHO.

The problem lies with the limited application of a linear politcal scale. I started thinking in terms of the two-dimensional grid a long time ago. We can draw a line across the center of a diamond and authoritarian consolidation lies on one side and libertarian decentralization on the other. The Bush people are firmly in the authoritarian half of the diamond but they are more center than right (within that authoritarian half). The true center in the authoritarian half divides neo-cons and neo-liberals (Third Wayers) directly such that the neo-cons are more centrist than the Bush mercantilists (while still being clearly authoritarian, of course). But the Bush mercantilists ride that mercantilism/neo-con (fascist) cusp trying to pick up as many voters in the middle and on the left as possible.

So the Bush mercantilists are both authoritarian and center-right. Contrast this with libertarians who are basically center-right as well but are solidly in the opposing anti-authoritarian side of the diamond.

Stonewall,

A few minor nits.

As to the McKinney base, there are lots of reports that South Dekalb county did not turn out for her as expected.

On your two dimensional scale. You are more accurate than the linear scale that is commonly used, particularly by the media. On the linear scale, the media paints republicans as 'far right' or right wingers. Bush's moves have precluded the ability of the media to do that to Bush.

Your statements about the Bush family doing anything for power are reminiscent of the criticisms of FDR. He, too, ran in 32 on a platform of a balanced budget and lower taxes and also presided over the biggest expansion of federal power until....the Patriot Act?

I believe David compared Bush to Buchanan. If Bush does not go into Iraq, and soon, he will be Buchanan. I tend to believe this "patience" bit is disinformation such as the D-Day "landing at Calais."

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by David '47

Originally Posted by monoghan

Stonewall,

... Unfortunately for your hopes, Bush occupies the center now.

It's hard to characterize a pseudo-monarchy as being in the center, unless you are speaking allegorically. If so, then I'd have to argue that George II is actually peripheral, IMHO.

The problem lies with the limited application of a linear politcal scale. I started thinking in terms of the two-dimensional grid a long time ago.

Why feel the need to be constrained by two dimensions. Physicists are working in 11 dimension space, of course visual aids are a bit tough. Personally, I think any ideological divide is suitable as a axis. Here are four I consider reasonable, with your two included in the four:

1. Communitarian v oligarchic, with the extremes being socialists and plutocrats
2. Libertarian v authoritarian, with the extremes being anarchists and autocrats
3. Religous v secular, with the extremes being theocrats and radical humanists
4. Isolationist v internationalist, with the extremes being xenophobes and one-worlders (for lack of a better title)

There is no reason to assume that any of these axes correlates with any other. You can have anarcho-syndicalists that are highly religous but xenophobic, authoritarian socialists that are religous one-worlders, or any other combination. I haven't found one that is impossible.

If you then use a number-based rating system to assign level of affiliation to each axis, you can avoid having a graphical nightmare to solve. If you select a +/- scale with zero in the centere, you'll end-up with a four-dimensional vector that can be converted to "ideological intensity" using the Pythagorean Theorem. The extreme values can even be different for different axes, if you think one characteristic is less or more important.

Then, you can perform a simple analysis to determine how close or far two people are ideologically. Subtract vector "A" from vector "B", use our old buddy Pythagoras, and the answer will be the magnitude of ideological difference.

BTW, I think all four of these axes are important, and there can be others I've missed. It shows how seemingly odd couples end-up supporting similar causes, while hating each intensely most of the time.

And I leave it those who enjoy turning something like this into a survey to find an impartial way of assigning vectors to all those interested in being analyzed.

Originally Posted by David '47

Why feel the need to be constrained by two dimensions. Physicists are working in 11 dimension space, of course visual aids are a bit tough. Personally, I think any ideological divide is suitable as a axis. Here are four I consider reasonable, with your two included in the four:

1. Communitarian v oligarchic, with the extremes being socialists and plutocrats
2. Libertarian v authoritarian, with the extremes being anarchists and autocrats
3. Religous v secular, with the extremes being theocrats and radical humanists
4. Isolationist v internationalist, with the extremes being xenophobes and one-worlders (for lack of a better title)

There is no reason to assume that any of these axes correlates with any other. You can have anarcho-syndicalists that are highly religous but xenophobic, authoritarian socialists that are religous one-worlders, or any other combination. I haven't found one that is impossible.

I sympathize with the need for multiple dimensions. I think of it in terms of multiple sets of values. One person might be strongly centered on his religion. Another might view the world in terms of military contest, seeking dominance for his country. A third might view economics as the central set of values, and be driven towards profits. Another might value scientific truth, and get involved in a search for knowledge, the ability to manipulate the world. Yet another might be centered on class struggle.

I have found it difficult to impossible - and definitely not cost effective - to convert someone from one value set to another. One does not attempt to dissuade someone that the Bible is literally true. One does not attempt to convince someone with an ecological perspective that military dominance is and ought to be the one central and primary factor in human existence.

I suspect that an assumption that all value systems have an opposite - that each value set caps an axis through an origin at neutral - might be misleading. If someone is devoutly religious, and I happen to be an absolute atheist, does this imply that we are at opposite ends of extremes, that we can never be any closer to one another than twice the distance between either of us and the center? If our positions were exactly identical in every other axis, does the difference between a religious person and a secular humanist of necessity imply incompatibility? Can people never be closer than their greatest difference?

While this might be a subtle point, a premise that each set of values has an opposite might be divisive and 3Tish. It implies that whatever I am, there exist others that are my exact opposite. We are going to disagree with one another, and nothing is going to get done.

An axis based system also implies and encourages a straw man deadlock. Because I believe something, and someone disagrees, it is too easy to throw the disagreer into the dustbin of 'the opposition.' If I am liberal, and someone disagrees, does this raise the specter of a liberal's stereotypes of how awful conservatives are? Do I end up repeating ritual arguments against conservatives rather than listening to the other person's wants, needs and beliefs?

I would prefer, in search of consensus, to assume that each set of values has some validity. There are some military threats that must be contained. There are some economic problems that must be resolved. There are some ecological concerns that cannot be ignored. There are some immoral acts which must be prevented. Each perspective can contribute to a new set of values, the hypothetical consensus that supposedly appears in a Fourth Turning. We might spend less time fighting against our opposites, more time acknowledging the truth behind other's values, in return for their assistance in addressing problems we think important.

Though this may be too abstract to be overly helpful.

Bob Butler: I agree totally with your brief and pointed critique of the catagorization grids being used to pigeon hole political and cultural views. I too believe that in order to begin to arrive at consensous we must explore other methods of discussion and dialogue. The issues are too serious for us to have the luxury of abstract polemic. Even for those of us who think that we remain in 3T it is probably a good idea to start behaving as if it is 4T.

Originally Posted by David '47

one-worlders (for lack of a better title)

Globalists, perhaps?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by David '47

Why feel the need to be constrained by two dimensions. Physicists are working in 11 dimension space, of course visual aids are a bit tough. Personally, I think any ideological divide is suitable as a axis. Here are four I consider reasonable, with your two included in the four:

1. Communitarian v oligarchic, with the extremes being socialists and plutocrats
2. Libertarian v authoritarian, with the extremes being anarchists and autocrats
3. Religous v secular, with the extremes being theocrats and radical humanists
4. Isolationist v internationalist, with the extremes being xenophobes and one-worlders (for lack of a better title)

There is no reason to assume that any of these axes correlates with any other. You can have anarcho-syndicalists that are highly religous but xenophobic, authoritarian socialists that are religous one-worlders, or any other combination. I haven't found one that is impossible.

I sympathize with the need for multiple dimensions. I think of it in terms of multiple sets of values. One person might be strongly centered on his religion. Another might view the world in terms of military contest, seeking dominance for his country. A third might view economics as the central set of values, and be driven towards profits. Another might value scientific truth, and get involved in a search for knowledge, the ability to manipulate the world. Yet another might be centered on class struggle.

I have found it difficult to impossible - and definitely not cost effective - to convert someone from one value set to another. One does not attempt to dissuade someone that the Bible is literally true. One does not attempt to convince someone with an ecological perspective that military dominance is and ought to be the one central and primary factor in human existence.

I think you are either misunderstanding the intent or being a bit hyperbolic. The purpose here is not to start arguments or even to pigeonhole anyone. It's an attempt, possibly a poor attempt, at adding objectivity to somethin inherently subjective. it's intended to be a measuring system, pure and simple. Why measure? To provide information and enhance understanding.

I suspect that an assumption that all value systems have an opposite - that each value set caps an axis through an origin at neutral - might be misleading. If someone is devoutly religious, and I happen to be an absolute atheist, does this imply that we are at opposite ends of extremes, that we can never be any closer to one another than twice the distance between either of us and the center? If our positions were exactly identical in every other axis, does the difference between a religious person and a secular humanist of necessity imply incompatibility? Can people never be closer than their greatest difference?

While this might be a subtle point, a premise that each set of values has an opposite might be divisive and 3Tish. It implies that whatever I am, there exist others that are my exact opposite. We are going to disagree with one another, and nothing is going to get done.

An axis based system also implies and encourages a straw man deadlock. Because I believe something, and someone disagrees, it is too easy to throw the disagreer into the dustbin of 'the opposition.' If I am liberal, and someone disagrees, does this raise the specter of a liberal's stereotypes of how awful conservatives are? Do I end up repeating ritual arguments against conservatives rather than listening to the other person's wants, needs and beliefs?

It helps to know where we can agree, and where disagreement is inevitable. You don't need to change someone to ally with them, if there's mutual interest. I have many born-again Christian friends, but they know I'm not a good candidate for conversion. We avoid those topics, unless we want to argue for the fun of it. On other topics we agree and cooperate well.

I would prefer, in search of consensus, to assume that each set of values has some validity. There are some military threats that must be contained. There are some economic problems that must be resolved. There are some ecological concerns that cannot be ignored. There are some immoral acts which must be prevented. Each perspective can contribute to a new set of values, the hypothetical consensus that supposedly appears in a Fourth Turning. We might spend less time fighting against our opposites, more time acknowledging the truth behind other's values, in return for their assistance in addressing problems we think important.

Then perhaps I missed a very imporatnt axis: ideologue v pragmatist. Actually, that may be the most important in a 4T, since it tells you who will bend to accomplish goals and who will stand against all odds. Both characteristics are needed. The Gray Chanpion certainly falls in the second class, and almost all the Heros in the first.

Though this may be too abstract to be overly helpful.

No, not at all. I still find the objective approach valuable, but I can agree that subject being evaluated doesn't readily lend itself to objectivity. Luckily, Stonewall and I are just pursuing this for intellectual enjoyment. I would make a lousy Freud, in any case.

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Originally Posted by David '47

one-worlders (for lack of a better title)

Globalists, perhaps?

Sounds good. Now, you have to make the survey.

Bob:

Actually, the material you posted did not address the points I was making. I fully agree that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right, within the context of a militia (and not just a militia on active duty but at all times), to keep and bear arms. However, I insist that the interpretation, and particularly the emphasis and purpose, asserted by gun-rights advocates in this country is wrong-headed.

Put simply: the Second Amendment does not protect the right of individuals to own and employ hunting rifles, target rifles, handguns, shotguns, or any of the other arms commonly advocated by the NRA and other gun-rights advocates.

On the other hand, the Second Amendment does protect the right of individuals to "keep and bear" (whether or not they also "own") military-grade assault rifles, hand grenades, land mines, tanks, machine guns, attack helicopters, mortars, artillery pieces, and combat aircraft. (I've probably left quite a few types of hardware off the list, but you get the idea.)

An armed populace is required for an effective militia, but in addition, the arms kept by that armed populace must be militarily useful. It would be quite pointless and suicidal to throw together a militia armed with deer rifles and .38 caliber revolvers and 12-guage shotguns, and send it into battle against a modern force of infantry. The arms kept by Americans at the time the Constitution was ratified were generally equivalent to those in use by soldiers, or could be made so by the addition of a bayonet. Arms in common possession today, however, cannot compete with military arms.

In short, what I'm saying is that the Second Amendment guarantees a right that we are generally unwilling -- that the NRA itself is unwilling -- to recognize as a practical matter. It is unenforced, it is unpracticed, and it is effectively dead.

Originally Posted by David '47

Why feel the need to be constrained by two dimensions. Physicists are working in 11 dimension space, of course visual aids are a bit tough. Personally, I think any ideological divide is suitable as a axis.

Of course, you are absolutely right. I consider additional dimensions as well from time to time. But there is always the problem of communicating a model to others such that it has any utility. The move from two dimensions to three alienates most of the portion of the population which does not think visually. The move from three to four alienates most of the visual thinkers. I remain open to added dimensions but have not yet accepted that any of the additional axes are as significant as the initial two.

Let me consider your axes and get back to you.

And regarding the evisceration of the court by amendment, I doubt you could get the Congress to act or even 50% of the states to go along. It would be more likely that the public would react at the polls. I'll wager that Rehnquist fears that most of all.

They did react at the polls. Part of the reason for Reagan's landslides in '80 and '84 (not the only reason) was irritation on the part of some against a perceived lunacy that had infected the courts, and especially the SCOTUS.

Today, you're right, no Amendment would be remotely likely. But in the late 2T, that was another matter. Tempers kept ratcheting higher with every controversial decision, and in some quarters there was a going sense that the SCOTUS was totally out of control. Rehnquist's fears were at least somewhat well founded, IMO, since the courts in general and the SCOTUS are, inherently, the weakest branch of government.

The president commands the military and law enforcement. Congress controls the money. The SCOTUS, ultimately, derives its power from the respect (albeit often grudging and irritated) respect of the public. That's their only real power. If the public perceive the SCOTUS as too far out of line, their power suddenly weakens relative to the executive and legislative branches.

Justice Brennan (arguably one of the worst offenders in this error) used to boast that "five votes can do anything". In legal theory, that might be true. In practice, the more the SCOTUS tried to impose artificial consensus on issues where none existed, the more irritated and angry people became. The attitude Brennan displayed in that little quote was a big part of the problem.

The SCOTUS is simply not equipped to settle issues that seriously divide the public on moral, religious, and cultural grounds. When it's tried to do so in U.S. history, it's usually ended badly or at best as farce.

All in the Family?

Is the generation gap alive and well in the Bush family?


http://leboutillier.blogspot.com/200....html#80426964

Originally Posted by David '47

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by David '47

• If "1" is true, and "2" is unlimited, then a small but active minority can block any attempt to change or repeal the 2nd, if they wish. The NRA is a lot of things, but sensible and rational are not on the list. With the rabid "gun nut" culture they perpetuate, I would expect 2nd to be inviolate - and so would most others.

I would hope - in fact RELY on the SCOTUS applying Jackson's Razor: "The Consitution is not a suicide pact". Of course, you can never be sure.

The NRA is what is because it is a grass-roots organization, and as such it is exceptional today. It's also one of the more responsible advocacy groups in the business. As for the 'gun nut' culture, as popularly defined, I'm going to let you in on basic secret the media hates: it doesn't exist.

If you say so, but living in a very gun-friendly state gives me real pause. I have otherwise sensible coworkers and acquaintences that own light artillery (yes, that's REAL artillery) and so called long range target rifles (actually 50 caliber machine guns modified for use as military sniper rifles). All of these folks find this perfectly OK, even when asked why their neighbors should not feel uncomfortable living next to a small military armory. They are offended that anyone should ask, but totally fail to understand that others can and probably should feel useasy if not fearful.

By that logic, people should dread the presence of police, since they carry weapons. The fear of guns in this country is fundamentally irrational, in that it isn't based on real assessment of risk, but on a gut feeling.

If these gun owners are 'otherwise sensible', as you put it, then there probably isn't any reason to fear. Every technological device is dangerous, and it would be equally logical to be afraid because your neighbor owns a car (that could be used as a deadly weapon), or has a house full of cleaing chemicals (you can make a nasty bomb with those).

We live, every day of our lives, surrouded by armed humans, armed with cars, trucks, electrical devices, cooking utensils, assorted legal and deadly poisons, etc. The machines that surround us are potentially deadly, yet most people never even give it a thought. The fear of gun owners that has been rather artificially and deliberately stoked up over the last 30 years is an irrational fear.

The 'gun culture', as defined by the popular media, is supposed to consist of badly educated, unintelligent and dangerous fools who long to shoot government officers, shoot foreigners, and who hate blacks, beat their wives, and who think the Bible is true. Of all that, the last one is probably true of a higher percentage of gun owners than the national population overall. The rest of it is nonsensical garbage.

But it's useful garbage to the gun controllers, so they peddle the lie eagerly, to the point that I sometimes think they are starting to believe it themselves.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68 continues

The 'suicide pact' clause is an excellent argument AGAINST gun control. And yes, the 2nd is just as important and off-limits as the 1rst or any of the others (none of them are as safe as they should be!)!

Then you're OK with the unrestricted ownership of weapons only suitable for armed insurrection. [/i]

Of course. By your logic, one could demand of a collector of books of military history why he should be allowed to do so. After all, what are the chances that he'll need the knowledge? Who's he going to fight?

Incidentally, if the gun controllers do win, they won't stop there, since the impulse to control is insatiable. My guess is that down the road, if they succeed this time, they will try to restrict knowledge to those who have a 'need' for it. Sound paranoid? So did the idea that gun ownership was somehow suspicious or strange 100 years ago.

No object or machine is bad in itself, the danger lies in the intention, and it's up to those who distrust gun owners to prove bad intentions.

Do you think you'll be needing them? If so, who's threatening you, or are the big game REALLY BIG where you hunt?

I am under no obligation to justify such ownership, if I do own such devices, any more than I am under obligation to explain why I bought 50 cars, assuming I had the money to do so. That's the point. It's the gun control advocates who are trying to interfere in MY personal concerns, not vice versa. They are free to refuse to own weapons. They are not entitled to a say in whether I can own such.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Bob:

Actually, the material you posted did not address the points I was making. I fully agree that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right, within the context of a militia (and not just a militia on active duty but at all times), to keep and bear arms. However, I insist that the interpretation, and particularly the emphasis and purpose, asserted by gun-rights advocates in this country is wrong-headed.

Put simply: the Second Amendment does not protect the right of individuals to own and employ hunting rifles, target rifles, handguns, shotguns, or any of the other arms commonly advocated by the NRA and other gun-rights advocates.

On the other hand, the Second Amendment does protect the right of individuals to "keep and bear" (whether or not they also "own") military-grade assault rifles, hand grenades, land mines, tanks, machine guns, attack helicopters, mortars, artillery pieces, and combat aircraft. (I've probably left quite a few types of hardware off the list, but you get the idea.)

An armed populace is required for an effective militia, but in addition, the arms kept by that armed populace must be militarily useful. It would be quite pointless and suicidal to throw together a militia armed with deer rifles and .38 caliber revolvers and 12-guage shotguns, and send it into battle against a modern force of infantry. The arms kept by Americans at the time the Constitution was ratified were generally equivalent to those in use by soldiers, or could be made so by the addition of a bayonet. Arms in common possession today, however, cannot compete with military arms.

In short, what I'm saying is that the Second Amendment guarantees a right that we are generally unwilling -- that the NRA itself is unwilling -- to recognize as a practical matter. It is unenforced, it is unpracticed, and it is effectively dead.

Brian

I pretty much agree with your reading of what the founding fathers intended. Many Standard Model academics also agree. Obviously, this agreement is not at all the law being enforced. Still, the 2nd is not dead. Let me try a not at all simple review of a patient in critical condition, on life support.

As I see it, there are three major questions to be resolved regarding the 2nd Amendment. I'd like to echo your "simply" but the legal questions are not simple. There are many many varied opinions. I suspect that we would come to an agreement if we sat down and talked it out for a bit, but the differences in legal circles are much larger than the differences between us. Three questions...

Who is protected by the right? The state's rights crowd will contend that the National Guard is protected. The "standard model" crowd contends that "The People" are protected, that is adult citizens, mentally stable, not felons, not under restraining orders, and I'm likely missing a few other restrictions. I firmly believe the founding fathers would agree with the standard model folk. You and I seem to agree. The Supreme Court is ambiguous on this matter. (The Miller case can be read several ways.) Several mid 20th Century lower court cases support the states right interpretation, while the recent Emerson case, Dubya's administration and most modern scholarship is with the "standard model." The gun control people will claim Emerson is a rogue case, unique in the entire history of the United States. The 2nd Amendment people have the well documented words of the founding fathers on their side. I'm with the latter.

Second question, does the federal right to bear arms over ride state laws? It was clearly the intent of the authors of the XIVth Amendment that former slaves would have the right to keep and bear arms. However, Jim Crow Supreme Court precedents effectively nullified the XIVth amendment. Currently, the 2nd Amendment is not held to protect the people from state laws. However, throughout the 20th Century, most of the Bill of Rights has been held to apply to the states. It seems possible that once an individual right interpretation of the 2nd has been firmly established, someone will try to apply the "Standard model" to the states. This question has not been addressed by the courts since just after the reconstruction, when the Jim Crow precedents nullified the federal government's ability to enforce the Bill of Rights. The Jim Crow precedents have been thoroughly trashed by the NAACP and ACLU. The old 19th century Jim Crow legal theory is long gone, but none of the cases overturning Jim Crow had anything to do with the 2nd Amendment. Thus, while the founding fathers, the standard model academics, me (and I suspect you too) would disagree with current court precedent, currently state and local governments believe they have the power to suppress the right to keep and bear arms. (See Washington DC, for a famous example.) Gun Control people will also argue that as the 2nd only protects the National Guard, the XIVth Amendment is insignificant.

The third question is what arms are protected. During the Prohibition, Congress passed a law taxing Thomson sub machine guns and sawed off shot guns. The US v Miller case upheld this law, which required people to carry proof that the tax was paid when they carried these weapons. This law was based on the power to collect funds, not the commerce clause. (This was part of the FBI's tactic of arresting gangsters for tax evasion. At the time, the notion that the federal government had few police powers was still taken seriously.) US v Miller upheld the tax. They also suggested that one has the right to keep and bear arms which have something to do with the normal function of a militia, but one does not have a right to keep and bear arms particularly oriented towards criminal abuse, such as a sawed off shotgun or Thomson submachine gun. Fast forward to the next millennium. The NRA, the Bush Administration and others embrace this aspect of US v Miller, and claim the government has the power to regulate or ban weapons criminals will tend to abuse. They will suggest the Thomson submachine gun - specifically listed by Miller as an weapon abusable by criminals - is an assault rifle. Thus, modern assault rifles can be banned. (Miller was written before the US army started using Thomsons in combat.) Others, such as yourself, will emphasize that the founding fathers intended the right to keep and bear military weapons. The Thomson became a military weapon. Where does one draw the line? One possible line is with crew served weapons. We can keep and bear individual weapons, but not crew served weapons, which were never owned by colonial militia. (This line is suggested by Miller, and embraced by Emerson.) Another possible line is set by Miller, which suggests that sawed of shotguns, submachine guns, easily concealed Saturday night specials and similar abusable weapons can be regulated or banned. A third line, "shall not be infringed" would suggest that the government has absolutely no business regulating what arms we can or can not keep and bear. There are people arguing for all of these lines and more. The line drawn by Miller seems to have more momentum than most, but my reading of the intent of the founders suggests that at minimum assault rifles and grenades ought to be protected, all the arms of a modern light infantry soldier. Yes, arguably we have a right to keep and bear nukes. No, with the possible exception of Miller, you will not find clear rulings in the courts.

Clear as mud? Mind you, the above is my understanding of many disagreements. I would like to see the 2nd Amendment rewritten. The above is just too confused. While it is very arguable that the people should have light weapons suitable for self defense and sporting purposes, perhaps weapons suitable to repelling invasions are no longer needed by the People. Emerson has opened the door for question one. Questions two and three are still very much confused, subject to honest disagreement among political activists, academics and judges. While there is considerable agreement in academic circles on the 'standard model,' there is a huge gap between the academic community and the precedents currently being enforced by the courts. It would be quicker and easier to rewrite the amendment than to get the court system to clarify all of the above issues, except passing an amendment on these issues is impossible.

Converting the polar opposite is more likely than turning the moderate into a true believer. Eric Hoffer's book showed that Saul becoming Paul was not uncommon or a miracle, just as some of the best Nazis had been communists. If someone is susceptible to extreme beliefs, then the opposite might just work as well.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Bob:

An armed populace is required for an effective militia, but in addition, the arms kept by that armed populace must be militarily useful. It would be quite pointless and suicidal to throw together a militia armed with deer rifles and .38 caliber revolvers and 12-guage shotguns, and send it into battle against a modern force of infantry. The arms kept by Americans at the time the Constitution was ratified were generally equivalent to those in use by soldiers, or could be made so by the addition of a bayonet. Arms in common possession today, however, cannot compete with military arms.
.

Gun ownership was quite rare in revoultionary times, they were expensive and inaccurate outside the military arena. Knives, Swords, Clubs, Crossbows and Hatchets were the weapons of choice for anyone below the Rich.