Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

First, no government ever legalizes insurrection, so the idea that the 2nd is there to provide arms for the next revolution is ludicrous. Second, the Constitution is not necessary to make private gun ownership possible, as it was all the years prior to the Heller ruling. The only change that removing the 2nd as justification will make is in the area of regulation. And yes, at some point, gun ownership will be much more regulated than it is now. As a law-abiding gun owner, this should not affect you, unless you consider a bit of "i" dotting and "t" crossing is a huge imposition.

Dotting "i's" and crossing "t's" isn't a big deal to me. BTW, the 2nd Amendment remaining written as it is and legally in place isn't a big deal to me either. BTW, I don't expect much of a change as far as my future ability to legally obtain an assualt rifle either.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Did you read the article? The point Wills made then, and continues to make today, is that the Standard Model, that justified the 2nd as an individual right, is intellecually dishonest based on any reasonable standard, historical or otherwise. At some point, that will be the reason a future SCOTUS will reverse the current stance.

Let us consider what Alexander Hamilton had to say about the right to keep an bear arms in Federalist Number 29. Understand that at this point the Federalists are arguing that the Constitution will only have the powers explicitly delegated to it and nowhere is Congress given the right to disarm the people.

The project of disciplining all of the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day or even a week that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the yeomanry and other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises or evolutions as often as necessary, to acquire them the degree of perfection necessary to intitle them to the character of well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country to an amount which, calculating among the present numbers of people, would not fall short of the whole expence of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor an industry to so considerable extent would be unwise; and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this not be neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

But though the scheme of disciplining the must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is matter of the utmost importance that a well digested plan should soon as possible be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corp of moderate size as will really fit it for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan it will be possible to have an excellent body of well trained militia ready to take to the field should the defense of the State should require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments; but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens little if at all inferior in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens. This appears to me to be the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army; the best possible security against it, if it should exist.

It is pretty obvious that Hamilton expected the population at large to be armed with the arms and equipment that any infantryman would be issued. It is also clear that he saw this as check against a tyrannical government. It could be that his was a unique opinion but I know from reading the writing of other framers that this is not so. Knowing how set you are about the issue it will also be useful to see what Congress did shortly after ratification. The Militia Act of 1792 specifies how the militia is to armed. If that act were passed today I imagine the specification for firearms would require a rifle that uses 5.56 NATO cartridges, using a box magazine holding at least twenty rounds and enough magazines for a minimum of 210 rounds.

In all of this discussion you will note that Hamilton gave not the slightest though about disarming the population, it was assumed that they would be armed. The Second Amendment was added later to make sure that the already existing right would not be infringed later. When I want to find out what the framers were thinking I have found that reading what they wrote is much more useful than Wills. There are plenty of historians that say Lincoln went to war to end slavery but actually reading what the man wrote tells me otherwise, he actually tried to preserve the institution. Yes, I did read his article and it is a load of crap.

Try reading this and then perhaps you will understand why government and the gun control crowd are not trusted.

Originally Posted by Galen

Let us consider what Alexander Hamilton had to say about the right to keep an bear arms in Federalist Number 29. Understand that at this point the Federalists are arguing that the Constitution will only have the powers explicitly delegated to it and nowhere is Congress given the right to disarm the people.

OK, but that particular paper predated the actual Constitution, to say nothing of the Amendments to it. It's not much of an argument for the 2nd - and is on the long list of arguments from that era that Wills addressed and debunked in his paper.

Originally Posted by Galen

Try reading this and then perhaps you will understand why government and the gun control crowd are not trusted.

Was it passed? No. Was it even given a serious hearing? Again, no. If you want to argue about nefarious proposals put forth, there is a wealth of material to draw on, and much of it on the other side of the political spectrum. After all. the anti-abortion zealots have actually passed some of their over-the-top legislation. That doesn't make it my business to argue that shouldn't get a hearing.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

OK, but that particular paper predated the actual Constitution, to say nothing of the Amendments to it. It's not much of an argument for the 2nd - and is on the long list of arguments from that era that Wills addressed and debunked in his paper.

The language of the Second Amendment clearly supposes an individual right that already existed. This is consistent with the idea that the Constitution is a narrow grant of very specific powers. The Federalist Papers were from the side of the ratification debate in favor of the Constitution and as such give a clear window into what power was granted to the federal government. The Federalist Papers were published in newspapers as a way of gathering public support and so give a very good idea as to how the public thought about such issues. It should also be noted that the Anti-Federalists are a big part of the reason for the Bill of Rights. The Federalists had no problem with the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, they just felt that it was unnecessary and supported adding a Bill of Rights in order to get the Constitution ratified. The individual right to keep and bear arms, equivalent to the infantry, was a pretty non-controversial idea at the time of ratification.

As for the Militia Act of 1792, there were two versions put before Congress, and the second, longer version, passed both houses and was signed into law. The equipment list is still in it and so it is valid evidence of the right of the individual to military arms, certainly those suitable for an infantryman.

Originally Posted by Galen

The language of the Second Amendment clearly supposes an individual right that already existed. This is consistent with the idea that the Constitution is a narrow grant of very specific powers. The Federalist Papers were from the side of the ratification debate in favor of the Constitution and as such give a clear window into what power was granted to the federal government. The Federalist Papers were published in newspapers as a way of gathering public support and so give a very good idea as to how the public thought about such issues. It should also be noted that the Anti-Federalists are a big part of the reason for the Bill of Rights. The Federalists had no problem with the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, they just felt that it was unnecessary and supported adding a Bill of Rights in order to get the Constitution ratified. The individual right to keep and bear arms, equivalent to the infantry, was a pretty non-controversial idea at the time of ratification.

As for the Militia Act of 1792, there were two versions put before Congress, and the second, longer version, passed both houses and was signed into law. The equipment list is still in it and so it is valid evidence of the right of the individual to military arms, certainly those suitable for an infantryman.

I fail to see how an individual right is manifest as a militia, and so do most people not already wedded to personalizing the 2^nd.

Militias are organized military units, by definition. One of the inherent traits of a military unit is a chain of command and the existence of a command authority. A self-appointed command authority is indistinguishable from a mob boss or a gang leader, which implies that the unit must be sanctioned by a government or by God, if it is to be legitimate in the Constitutional sense of the term.

In which case, you are either arguing for an oxymoron, you are OK with the rule of the mob, or you are marching in God’s army. So which is it?

You can't argue with people like Galen. They are fanatics.

This is an emotional issue, and I'm sorry that it divides me from some people here. On the other hand, there was never any hope of agreement between me and the likes of Galen.

Guns is one of the dividing issues of the nation, and it may be one reason for us to separate. Ultimately there may be no compromise. Either we continue to be a shootem up society, and call that "part of the American fabric," or we become civilized like other more-advanced countries. Once again, as with the issue of libertarian economics that Galen the Obtuse also champions, it is a stark choice: move forward, or move backward. There are people who post here from both camps.

I am with the forward camp.

There's a good program on Frontline right now on Newtown. Interestingly it was the place where the firearms industry started, and a sports shooting foundation is still located there.

I'm not talking about laws now. But the only real solution is for more Americans to realize that they don't need guns. I constantly hear about concerned people who still say they own guns. Why? The first thing such people can do for their country, is turn in their guns, and never own them again. Why do they need them? For home protection? For hunting? For target shooting?


Target shooting is "fun." There are other and better ways to have "fun."

For hunting? In this day and age? Let the animals live. They are sentient beings like us. There's no need to condemn hunters. It's just time for them to move forward now. Go to the grocery store instead. Be a vegetarian.

Home protection? There are dozens of better ways. Home protection with a gun is more dangerous than being without one.


The cost of holding these ridiculous notions about why you need a gun, is thousands of lives a year, like those in Newtown. And a thousand more, even since then. Thousands more to come. The price for this "fun" and illusory "protection" is too high.

As I have said, I don't think confiscation is the way. If America does decide to start getting more civilized, it will have to be a gradual process, conducted in a civilized way, including tightening up the laws, until a consensus is reached. It is already happening, since gun ownership is declining.

Just realize that you don't need a gun. Enough with the silly endless arguments. Just do it. Enough is enough.

I know that unilateral disarmament is a bit extreme. But protection with guns should be done by paid professionals.

I have some sympathy with having some arms at schools. But arming teachers is just another ridiculous notion propagated by the gun nuts. Teachers might let down their guard and leave a gun unattended. Students might take it away from him or her. The teacher might even go crazy and start shooting. Some armed guards might deter at least some of the mad shooters. Leave it to professionals. I think metal detectors are justified. We still need police too. When we are a civilized society, they can go without guns. Right now, they are outgunned.

Video games is another issue. I think playing video games is fun and requires skill and coordination. Knocking things down is part of the game. But many video games go over the top. Bloody massacres being portrayed is not necessary. Gamers don't need to commit virtual mass murder. Some regulation might be a good idea. I am less sure about this one than about the need to regulate and ban some kinds of guns and who can have them and sell them.

There's talk about mental health. More can be done. But in a society like ours that is somewhat crazy and challenging to live in, some people are going to freak out. There's no justification for allowing them to have weapons of mass destruction.

One thing we can do to reduce violence in our society is to end the drug war. America has an obsessive lack of fear of guns, and an obsessive fear of drugs. This should be reversed. Drug offenders need treatment, not prison.

And the final thing that contributes to gun violence is poverty. But here the economic libertarians like Galen and the gun nuts like Galen are in the same camp. The results are poverty and violence. We need to reverse Reaganomics, and get back on the path to equality and a rising middle class. Let loose the charming actor, and put aside the libertarian economics. Shootem-up ghettoes are not acceptable in a civilized society.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I fail to see how an individual right is manifest as a militia, and so do most people not already wedded to personalizing the 2^nd.

It has been a while since Eric the Obtuse has demonstrated his complete and utter lack of knowledge. It is painfully obvious that you have never read what the framers of the Constitution actually wrote. There is also the matter of that link describing the history of the right to keep and bear arms that you failed to read. The language of the Second Amendment that refers to the people, which in all of the other amendments refers to the excercise of an individual right. Simple logic should tell you that you can't have an armed people unless individuals. Unfortunately, logic is completely beyond your abilities.

There is also the little matter of the battles of Lexington and Concord being fought over the confiscation of arms and resulting in the start of the American Revolution. You might want to contemplate that in the light of the recent surge in ammunition sales. I have had people who have never owned firearms before asking about what they should get and where to practice. This is not something I would normally expect in the People's Republic of Portland and they are youngsters. You would also do well to consider what that means.

Obama has managed to become the greatest gun salesman ever. At least he managed to create some jobs for once.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But protection with guns should be done by paid professionals.

You mean like this guy.



Just fills me with confidence in the professionals you so revere. This was just stupidity, we haven't got to the corruption and brutality issues yet.

The only accidental discharges in the local gun club has been by the police. They keep them around because that way when the liberals whine about the gun club to the cops they get ignored since the cops need it to train and they already know what is going on. You think that when they buy a house they would check out the neighborhood and notice the gun club that had been there since the forties, curiously they don't.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I know that unilateral disarmament is a bit extreme. But protection with guns should be done by paid professionals.

I have some sympathy with having some arms at schools. But arming teachers is just another ridiculous notion propagated by the gun nuts. Teachers might let down their guard and leave a gun unattended. Students might take it away from him or her. The teacher might even go crazy and start shooting. Some armed guards might deter at least some of the mad shooters. Leave it to professionals. I think metal detectors are justified. We still need police too. When we are a civilized society, they can go without guns. Right now, they are outgunned.

Metal detectors stop almost all small, deadly, concealable weapons. Maybe not bombs and poisons, but those themselves are more obviously dangerous to the possessor. Metal detectors also stop such objects as coins, car keys, wristwatches, and some ballpoint pens.

Video games is another issue. I think playing video games is fun and requires skill and coordination. Knocking things down is part of the game. But many video games go over the top. Bloody massacres being portrayed is not necessary. Gamers don't need to commit virtual mass murder. Some regulation might be a good idea. I am less sure about this one than about the need to regulate and ban some kinds of guns and who can have them and sell them.

War of course is the ultimate violence, but even it has a sense of unreality, especially if done in a historical context. Did people suddenly become militarists upon reading from Caesar's Commentaries? Trouble comes when the 'ultraviolence' becomes replicable in contemporary life. Firearms make it possible to shoot recklessly into the house neighboring the residence of a rival gang.

There's talk about mental health. More can be done. But in a society like ours that is somewhat crazy and challenging to live in, some people are going to freak out. There's no justification for allowing them to have weapons of mass destruction.

Our public treatment of mental health has largely become detox and palliative treatment of senile dementia, which is necessary but far from adequate for people whose mental problems have no connection to neither drugs, alcohol, nor senile dementia. Is there such treatment of paranoid delusions? "Crazy with a paintbrush" and "crazy with a firearm" have differences in consequences -- Vincent van Gogh and Jared Laughner.

One thing we can do to reduce violence in our society is to end the drug war. America has an obsessive lack of fear of guns, and an obsessive fear of drugs. This should be reversed. Drug offenders need treatment, not prison.

The British have the right idea -- supply the addict's drugs in a clinical setting free of charge. The profit motive for creating addicts disappears because the government literally out-competes the pushers. The addict can get treatment, and is wise to avoid criminal acts that might jeopardize his access to a bodily need.

And the final thing that contributes to gun violence is poverty. But here the economic libertarians like Galen and the gun nuts like Galen are in the same camp. The results are poverty and violence. We need to reverse Reaganomics, and get back on the path to equality and a rising middle class. Let loose the charming actor, and put aside the libertarian economics. Shootem-up ghettoes are not acceptable in a civilized society.

The generational cycle may just force America to become more equitable with more widespread and better opportunities. The 'libertarian' position on economics is compatible with the intensification of elite power, brutal management, and even peonage that mock the concept of freedom. The freedom to whip a slave implies that someone has the duty to submit to a whipping. If we deny the 'right' to traffic in heroin or child pornography, then whey can't we regulate firearms?

As for video and video games -- parents need to control access. Do they lock up R-rated videos? Such films as A Clockwork Orange, Bonnie and Clyde, and Unforgiven are cinematic masterpieces... but they are R-rated and should not be shown to children except in the presence of a competent adult. (Just think of the R-rating that Steven Spielberg insisted upon for Schindler's List). Movie ratings are one of the oldest and clear-cut. It's not so clear with video games as there is no obvious control.

Parents must control the electronic entertainments available to their kids. That means they must control what gets into the home as recorded music or video or cable transmissions. If parents want pay-per-view porn, then let them have parental locks with unguessable passwords. They must monitor purchases and downloads -- and check the history on internet. (It would be a good idea to have times without video, entertainments -- no TV, no video games, and no computer use so that kids can recognize that such are not necessities. For some religious believers that could correspond to a 'day of rest'.

The PBS programs tonight, especially the second one, suggested that it works to have more people report to more people in authority about behavior patterns that are known to lead to violence.

I also wonder about our psychopathic ideology problem in America. It is not that any shooters or killers have particular ideologies. It is a climate of opinion that discourages the learning of virtue.

I earlier watched the first program on this subject, which was a Nova episode. They did not find any consistent pattern in the brain that coincides with violent people, but being science-oriented, they insisted that they are getting closer to such a diagnosis (even though it remains far away). And they continued to speak in terms of "it must be nurture or nature, or a combination of the two." In other words, genetics, or environment. As long as Darwin would approve, it's OK for scientists to consider it; in other words. But the climate of opinion which this predominant meme or ideology creates in our society, is mechanical explanations; as if humans were automatic creatures. Explain a cause, and you understand the effect that follows. Press a button and something happens.

There is no room in this conception for learning virtue. Virtue is the opposite of automatic behavior. It requires consciously choosing a better course of action instead of being ruled by your automatic impulse. It means being aware of automatic patterns, and thus cutting them off. Propagating the notion that humans have no such ability, by searching for automatic causes rather than asking and helping people to learn to make better choices, adds to the climate of violence.

Being smarter about people, was the course that the second program tonight recommended. Just locking people up after the fact is not smart. Looking inside peoples' brains doesn't seem very smart to me either. It is putting the cart before the horse. It is asking the wake to drive the ship.

Perhaps the opposite psychopathic ideology is libertarian economics. In this case, people are expected to depend on their individual free will for everything. Government is nothing but an agent of control and tyranny. Paying taxes is theft at gunpoint. Income taxes are slave labor. Government programs foster dependency.

And the interesting thing is that some people (I won't name those who post here) believe in both of these psychopathic ideologies. That is hard for me to comprehend, but then I guess I should not wonder that people who hold irrational ideologies, might not be very consistent in their thinking in general. And I don't even need to mention here the harm that authoritarian fundamentalist religion does to many Americans in their way of looking at reality.

It is not that there aren't some grains of truth in these 3 ways of thinking. The issue is the dogmatic extreme it is so often taken to in this country (and perhaps nowhere else). Those who hold to libertarian economics apparently put too much emphasis on what they call virtue; individual freedom. They don't understand that humans are not individuals; that there is no "freedom" without government and society; that we DO and SHOULD depend on others to some extent. They don't recognize that virtue is also 1. compassion for others, 2. living under and respecting the law, and 3. contributing to society, and recognizing what society contributes to you.

A balance between individual liberty and intervention is needed to solve the problem of violence, especially when it concerns mentally ill young men with access to weapons. I think people will need to hold their ideologies a bit more loosely to allow this to happen.

Possible explanation; a warrior gene that meets a pathological environment.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/criminal-minds.html

A warrior gene makes one unusually aggressive for the milieu. In a benign environment that might be the unusually-aggressive player of Scrabble or chess -- or the leading trader in the pit. It was necessary for the hunter-gatherer community for fending off predatory animals or for winning territorial squabbles. It was also good for hunting prey that would be the protein for the tribe. Not everyone had to have it, but someone had to have it if the community were to survive. It was also good for endogamy -- the warriors often came back with wives from neighboring villages.

If it went wrong it became criminal. It often murdered (bad for the reputation of the community), robbed, and raped (enough said). The community could never fully repress it, but it could train and direct it. A very lax community that ignores the inherent dangers and opportunities of having the warrior in its midst can churn out brigands, gangsters, and serial or mass killers.

So put it to good use or expect the worst. America has millions -- the poor -- that it neglects until one of them does a huge outrage. Media that offer the lowest common denominator of entertainment and poor forrnal education bring out the worst in the warrior personality.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Someone involved with drugs who maintains involvement with them may eventually commits crimes that can't be treated leniently in the legal system -- violent crimes for drug money, felony larceny, and dealing drugs. It may be that white druggies get away with more before getting caught. Unequal treatment before the law, as in having better attorneys than the public defenders?

Gun charges? It could be that urban gangs deal with fellow non-whites and figure that any white gun trafficker would sell out the gang members if caught dealing guns. If non-whites are the vast majority of members of urban gangs who have no lawful use for firearms and are prohibited from owning them for statutory reasons, then they don't have the race card.

I know well that the people most likely to be convicted of gun offenses under any new legislation are non-white. I also know what lives and bodily integrity are most likely to be saved (add crippling injuries to deaths). Do the crime, do the time.

You seem to be missing the point - and that is, that while non-whites are only somewhat overrepresented among drug convicts, they are morbidly overrepresented among gun convicts.

Also, groups like the NAACP are guilty of gross hypocrisy for stridently advocating ever more morbidly racist gun laws while constantly railing against the only somewhat racist drug laws. And I know why: They're still stuck in that stereotypical time warp, of which Bernie Goetz is the poster child; they figure that unless the Second Amendment is pretty much dismantled, any middle-aged white nerd who thinks some young black dude is so much as looking at him crooked is going to pull out a gun and open fire.

Convicted felon in possession of a firearm? Don't ask my heart to bleed.

In the states with the strictest gun-control laws, one does not have to be a convicted felon to be charged with PDW.

I do not know the Plaxico Burress case. White-collar offenders typically get more lenient treatment than violent blue-collar offenders. Kozlowski was convicted heavily of sales tax fraud for making a big taxable purchase and covering it up by taking delivery in New Hampshire (which does not charge sales taxes) and then transferring the item quickly to New York.

States generally don't enforce sales taxes so rigidly unless the item in question is large (cars are obvious enough) -- or in the case of Dennis Kozlowski, a pricey artwork. But, yes, Kozlowski is the sort of person that states like to go after -- an arrogant SOB who treats others badly.

Plaxico Burress brought a gun with him to a Manhattan nightclub - and comically shot himself in the leg in a stairwell; and an extremely similar situation has just come up, also involving an NFL player and also in New York City, this time with Tampa Bay Buccaneers defensive end Da'Quan Bowers, who rather obviously wasn't planning to stick up the liquor store on the corner, given his multi-million-dollar annual salary. Yet he faces as much as 15 years in prison if convicted.

Why if I saw Da'Quan Bowers walking toward me on the sidewalk on Van Ness Avenue in San Francisco (a six-lane thoroughfare that is actually part of U.S. Highway 101), I would run across to the other side so fast that I would surely get hit by oncoming traffic (obvious sarcasm).

Citizens with guns:

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...-jewelry-shop/

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...den-grove.html

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...charm-edition/

http://www.wisn.com/news/south-east-...z/-/index.html

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xi6...-gunpoint_news

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuhKCiY-lu0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlC8vBLEJBI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fV4Xqt62pf8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F71qUtDlNu4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6Ps1ZC1-Qw


http://seeingredaz.wordpress.com/201...tops-intruder/

http://www.examiner.com/article/14-y...tting-siblings

http://myfox8.com/2012/02/24/boy-gra...stops-burglar/

http://www.kens5.com/news/San-Antoni...190132341.html

...I don't think there are any repeats. It's hard to tell. There are so many...

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...Militias are organized military units, by definition. One of the inherent traits of a military unit is a chain of command and the existence of a command authority...

-Actually, no. The militia was every free male of a certain age (16-60, since amended to 18-45 by the Militia Act of 1792 and the Dick Act of 1903). The militia was (and is) simply the draft pool. You are confusing the militia with volunteer militia units (e.g., the Philadelphia City Light Horse Troop).

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...One of the inherent traits of a military unit is a chain of command and the existence of a command authority. A self-appointed command authority is indistinguishable from a mob boss or a gang leader, which implies that the unit must be sanctioned by a government or by God, if it is to be legitimate in the Constitutional sense of the term...

-Ethan Allan.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Every reference you list refers to a miltary applicaton of "the right to keep and bear arms". That agrees with the analysis by historian Garry Wills on the subject. In other words, this is not a citizen's right, it's a State's right. On that basis, I' m fine with it.

...and...

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Did you read the article? The point Wills made then, and continues to make today, is that the Standard Model, that justified the 2nd as an individual right, is intellecually dishonest based on any reasonable standard, historical or otherwise. At some point, that will be the reason a future SCOTUS will reverse the current stance.

First, for some reason, you missed the references to self-defense in those state bill of rights.

Second, what Gary Wills seems to have missed about the relevance of England's 1688 Bill of Rights is the common thinking of the time.

BTW, it's a little sloppy to leave out the replies to Wills, don't you think?

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...s-an-exchange/

As for overthrowing a tyrannical government, Wills is correct that the right comes from the natural right to overthrow a tyrannical government, not from the proceeding (non-tyrannical) government's declarations, but he can't get it through his head that the the point of the 2nd Amendment is to facilitate that rebellion by leaving weapons in place for that possibility. Sheesh. It also gives people a litmus test: When the government trys to disarm the people, that's your warning.

As for the self-defence issue you overlooked:

1) I already pointed out:
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. 1777 ....

Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. 1790


...self-defence was specifically recognized as an individual right at the time.

2) Every time "the people" are mentioned in the body of the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights, it is always defined as an individual right, not a state right.


After going through any number of linguistic gymnastics to show that the 2nd Amendment didn't protect a right that 99% of the sane population of the time recognized as a right, Gary Wills then goes through additional linguistic gymnastics to explain why the 2nd Amendment is the magical exception to the definition of "people". He is either intellectually dishonest, or maybe it just never occured to him. He never even tries to answer it in his replies. It certainly never occured to you. Liberals aren't very good at seeing the inconsistencies in their thinking. Oh well. That's why the Gary Wills types lost at the SCOTUS.

Try again!

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Actually, no. The militia was every free male of a certain age (16-60, since amended to 18-45 by the Militia Act of 1792 and the Dick Act of 1903). The militia was (and is) simply the draft pool. You are confusing the militia with volunteer militia units (e.g., the Philadelphia City Light Horse Troop).

Even a superficial reading the Militia Acts of 1792, the ones most closely linked to the bill of rights, shows that the organizing doctrine of the militias was defined as irregualr military forces subject to the authority of the President (1^st Act) and consisting of all the men between 18 and 45, with specific requirements they were to meet in arming themselves (2^nd Act).

That doesn’t sound like a draft pool. It sounds like a standby force.

Originally Posted by JDG …

Second, what Gary Wills seems to have missed about the relevance of England's 1688 Bill of Rights is the common thinking of the time.

BTW, it's a little sloppy to leave out the replies to Wills, don't you think?

As an expert in the field, it’s a bit disingenuous to assume that Wills article can be dismissed because of a few negative comments. Wills article is a response to the Standard model, which he finds both inadequate and self-serving.

Originally Posted by JDG …

As for overthrowing a tyrannical government, Wills is correct that the right comes from the natural right to overthrow a tyrannical government, not from the proceeding (non-tyrannical) government's declarations, but he can't get it through his head that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to facilitate that rebellion by leaving weapons in place for that possibility. Sheesh. It also gives people a litmus test: When the government tries to disarm the people, that's your warning.

No government anywhere at any time empowers anyone or any group to overthrow it. This is absolute nonsense, but it does meet one of the criteria of nihilistic political thought so highly favored by your generation. We’ll see how that plays in 10 years or so, when your age group is fully in power.

Originally Posted by JDG …

2) Every time "the people" are mentioned in the body of the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights, it is always defined as an individual right, not a state right.


After going through any number of linguistic gymnastics to show that the 2nd Amendment didn't protect a right that 99% of the sane population of the time recognized as a right, Gary Wills then goes through additional linguistic gymnastics to explain why the 2nd Amendment is the magical exception to the definition of "people". He is either intellectually dishonest, or maybe it just never occurred to him. He never even tries to answer it in his replies. It certainly never occurred to you. Liberals aren't very good at seeing the inconsistencies in their thinking. Oh well. That's why the Gary Wills types lost at the SCOTUS.

Try again!

Actually, Wills’ arguments are fully supported by a large number of fellow historians and legal scholars. Even Scalia accepts limitations to the Standard model. In any case, the court has not been this reactionary since the time of the railroad courts in the late 1800s. Many rulings from that time have been overturned as simply wrong, and I suspect the same will happen to the rulings from this court.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Actually, Wills’ arguments are fully supported by a large number of fellow historians and legal scholars. Even Scalia accepts limitations to the Standard model. In any case, the court has not been this reactionary since the time of the railroad courts in the late 1800s. Many rulings from that time have been overturned as simply wrong, and I suspect the same will happen to the rulings from this court.

I would note that the late 1800s courts were pushing a Jim Crow version of the Constitution. The Federal Government had no police powers. Only states could protect the Rights of the People. This essentially nullified the Black Republican amendments passed just after the Civil War. This meant, among other things, that labor unions marching picket lines did not have a right to keep and bear arms, thus Pinkerton and the cops were given the upper hand. Also, blacks in the south didn't have a right to keep and bear arms.

The Thurgood Marshall NAACP spent a good part of the early 20th Century restoring the Bill of Rights. The Jim Crow courts proposed that none of the first ten amendments guaranteed individual rights, not just the 2nd. The recent ruling that the 2nd guarantees an individual right was not an aberration. It was a continuation of a trend that ran for over a century.

This is not to say that the current court isn't conservative. It is divided. It's unstable. It is as political in creatively reinterpreting the constitution as the Jim Crow courts were.

But the late 1800s rulings were worse than the recent ones.

CNN reports Package addressed to sheriff could have caused 'major explosion'

I have often repeated in this thread and elsewhere that I see no spiral of violence. For once, I'm going to hedge that.

In Texas there have been several cases recently where prosecutors and assistants have been murdered. Now it has spread to a controversial Arizona sheriff.

This isn't conservative vs liberal violence. I don't see it as the beginning of a Red / Blue civil war. It isn't clear exactly what it is, yet. Racists, drug lords or somebody has decided to shoot southern law enforcement officials? Normally, the cops make a point of going after anyone who shoots a cop. That's a big no no, and they'd like to keep it that way. I suspect they cops will push back hard.

Still, if criminal or fringe groups start using terrorist tactics against the cops, this could become problematic.

It might be related to the near war in Mexico, Latin and South America between the drug lords and the cops. There, powerful drug cartels have sometimes been able to attack and intimidate the legitimate governments. Up until now, this used to stop at the border. It doesn't feel like the drug kingpins have consciously changed policy, but it might not be healthy in the southern states to be considered a racist law enforcement officer.

Transnational gangs? Starting to attack gov't officials in the USA? That might give this 4T a distinctive flavor.

Violence against officers has been on the rise through the 4T. The more recent gang activity portion is new, but the overall reality is that as the US's institutions have shown themselves to be weak and unjust, increased violence against it's most public representatives has likewise increased.

Nobody has posted on the bombs killing two and injuring dozens at the Boston Marathon today. Okay, I'll start. What the #$)(_% is going on?!

The only thing that comes to mind is that it's Patriots' Day (observed). The Oklahoma City bombing was on Patriots' Day (the actual day), April 19, 1995.

Originally Posted by Earl and Mooch

The only thing that comes to mind is that it's Patriots' Day (observed). The Oklahoma City bombing was on Patriots' Day (the actual day), April 19, 1995.

The typical IED is a design created by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Thus far, groups deploying such devices have been either in the Al Qaida camp or the camp more overtly allied with Iran (Hammas, Hezb'allah, etc). No doubt the FBI, DHS and DoD are studying this with great care. The CiC has stated justice will be served. I think there is a good chance that will occur.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

The typical IED is a design created by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Thus far, groups deploying such devices have been either in the Al Qaida camp or the camp more overtly allied with Iran (Hammas, Hezb'allah, etc). No doubt the FBI, DHS and DoD are studying this with great care. The CiC has stated justice will be served. I think there is a good chance that will occur.

I think he's gonna tread lightly if Hammas or Hezb'allah turn out to be involved and The North Koreans acting crazy and threatening war again.