What's So Hard to Understand About the Right to Bear Arms?

[JoeyB]

http://www.strike-the-root.com/91/alston/alston1.html

Great article to help you brush up on your pro-self defense arguments. Don't let the anarchistic writing deter you, anarchism as a theory is on the side of guns for personal protection. I'd recommend reading some more on the subject/philosophy for those serious about freedom and personal liberty .

But I digress. Here are some highlights, starting with a great Gandhi (that's not a typo) quote:

“Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”

~ Mohandas Gandhi, from An Autobiography

How could one disagree with Gandhi? Some other great quotes:

For the record, I think the Constitution is a fine document; however, one absolute fact about the Constitution should preclude any such discussion for our purposes here. That fact is: the portion of the U.S. Constitution referred to as The Bill of Rights is an exposition, not a bestowal. Whatever “well-organized militia” meant to someone in 1776 or to anyone this week is irrelevant since the clause is explaining what exists already, not what the document provides to a lucky citizen. One of two things is true: a human being has the right to protect and defend himself or he does not.

Either way, no rule or regulation can be expected to selectively arm a segment of society, while disarming another. As such, attempting to arm only a specific cadre of people—the police for example—cannot generate peace and tranquility. Why not? Those who care little about life and liberty care even less about rules.

Carrying a weapon also provides a prophylactic effect on those who might wish to infringe or act out violently. Police know this. When is the last time anyone heard of a madman entering a police station with plans of killing a bunch of people like [place name of psycho here] did at [place name of ostensible gun-free zone here]? People who are known-to-be, or even possibly might be, armed tend to scare psychos away, or at least give them a reason to rethink their lunacy.

Bottom Line: Arm and train the citizens in [place name of violent place here] on Wednesday and I bet violent crime will plummet to unheard of levels by Friday. Disarm every citizen on Wednesday and not only will every psycho within shouting distance be ready to take advantage of him by Friday, but his government will also be much more likely to infringe upon him as well.

What do you think?

 

[sig shooter]

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty." -- Adolf Hitler (H.R. Trevor-Roper, Hitler's Table Talks 1941-1944)


a person who does not trust the common man with arms is up to no good and should be tread as an enemy.

 

[JoeyB]

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty." -- Adolf Hitler (H.R. Trevor-Roper, Hitler's Table Talks 1941-1944)


a person who does not trust the common man with arms is up to no good and should be tread as an enemy.

You ever see that shirt with Hitler, Mao and Stalin on it with some quote like "Experts Agree, Gun Control Works". Haha, oh man.

 

[sig shooter]

You ever see that shirt with Hitler, Mao and Stalin on it with some quote like "Experts Agree, Gun Control Works". Haha, oh man.

i have it on my myspace page.

 

[hicksonj]

http://www.youtube.com/v/FUf-v8fluiU&hl=en&fs=1

 

[cekim]

What do you think?

I think its a combination of utopian/wishful thinking, fear of guns as a result of lack of exposure, political self interest and lastly a language barrier...

Take all the items prior to the language issue of misinterpreting the preamble "a well regulated militia" and you virtually guarantee a mis-reading of the 2nd amendment...

Those who grow up with guns around them and know how to handle them properly tend to think of them like power tools. Those who grow up without them around think of them as these magical things that could "just go off" at any moment...

Great story told to me by someone who grew up in a VERY rural area in the south - when his mother first got a TV (long after most people had), she would watch the news and hear all the guts and blood spilled over the whole nation each evening and started to worry that the world was coming to an end...

The reality shows otherwise, crime is roughly the same or lower per capita than any of the times we romanticize about in the past...

Even someone as close minded and agenda driven as Michael Moore correctly identified the media's influence on violence when he looked at the issue comparing Canada to the US's "culture of guns and violence"...

Of course that's where his logic and reason stopped - he went on to some absurd conclusion after that, but he correctly noted that comparing the evening news between two cities on opposite sides of the great lakes with very similar stats otherwise found people digesting a whole lot of violence from the evening news and failing to recognize that it represented the aggregation of violence from a wide geographic area (i.e. the whole world).

So, people have a false perception of the world as more violent that it really is in comparison to past eras and they incorrectly assume it is because of all the guns (rather than the violent people)...

 

[seanc]

What I don't get is why is it SOOOO friggin difficult to understand that the Bill of Rights is an enumerated listing of restrictions on the government.

These are a codification of rights of the people of US, rights that are Supposed to be untouchable by the gov..

 

[JoeyB]

I think its a combination of utopian/wishful thinking, fear of guns as a result of lack of exposure, political self interest and lastly a language barrier...

So, people have a false perception of the world as more violent that it really is in comparison to past eras and they incorrectly assume it is because of all the guns (rather than the violent people)...

I agree. I just recently became a gun owner and (admittedly) I used to think negatively of guns (I've since learned better!). I never grew up around them or had friends who grew up with them. For me, and I suspect other, what it came down to was a fear of the unknown.

Prior to taking my course at GOAL I had never picked up a gun or took the time to learn about it. The more I became familiar the more I realized that most of the stuff I heard about guns growing up was not true. I think the same goes for most people.

On top of this, I think FEAR plays a huge part. Fear is a natural human trait, it helps us survive and make judgments on situations. But it can also be used against us and I think our politicians know this too well. They scare people into thinking guns are extremely dangerous in and of themselves.

It's too bad.

 

[JoeyB]

What I don't get is why is it SOOOO friggin difficult to understand that the Bill of Rights is an enumerated listing of restrictions on the government.

These are a codification of rights of the people of US, rights that are Supposed to be untouchable by the gov..

I guess it goes to show you that a piece of paper isn't enough to restrict government. A careful, objective study of government will show you that it is in its nature to continually grow, despite so called constitutional restrictions to the contrary.

 

[cekim]

I guess it goes to show you that a piece of paper isn't enough to restrict government. A careful, objective study of government will show you that it is in its nature to continually grow, despite so called constitutional restrictions to the contrary.

The pen is only mightier than the sword so long as you have both...

Keep only the pen and the next man with a sword will take it from you...

 

[Bill Nance]

What I don't get is why is it SOOOO friggin difficult to understand that the Bill of Rights is an enumerated listing of restrictions on the government.

These are a codification of rights of the people of US, rights that are Supposed to be untouchable by the gov..

It's not taught that way in schools anymore. They don't even require civics in Mass public schools. It's small wonder people think the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are granting US rights instead of granting Government, especially the feds, only a few rights with ALL the rest being reserved to the people and the states.

 

[seanc]

It's not taught that way in schools anymore. They don't even require civics in Mass public schools. It's small wonder people think the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are granting US rights instead of granting Government, especially the feds, only a few rights with ALL the rest being reserved to the people and the states.

Not a lot IS being taught in the schools these days,
well except how to put rubbers on bananas, teaching the greatness of being gay, and 2 months devoted to Black History month..
Oh, and of course Spanish..

It would seem that the tree Rs have been replaced by the 3 Ss..
Slavery, Sex and Spanish..

 

[JoeyB]

It's not taught that way in schools anymore. They don't even require civics in Mass public schools. It's small wonder people think the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are granting US rights instead of granting Government, especially the feds, only a few rights with ALL the rest being reserved to the people and the states.

I'd take it a step further and say it is not taught in schools for a reason. From the time you are 5 years old until you are 18 (or is it 16, doesn't matter) you are forced to attend school. Most people opt for public schools.

Public schools are financed by taxes, which are taken from people by government. So public schools are government run schools.

Curriculum is set at the government level or by government favored teachers unions. So it's no wonder that the things people need to know the most about government (how it always tramples on the human rights of others and is an institutionalized system of force) will not be taught in schools.

Plus, schools adopt a one size fits all strategy which causes a load of unintended consequences.

 

[MetalgodZ]

It's not taught that way in schools anymore. They don't even require civics in Mass public schools. It's small wonder people think the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are granting US rights instead of granting Government, especially the feds, only a few rights with ALL the rest being reserved to the people and the states.

This RIGHT HERE is the core of the current problem. Most of the small number that understand the huge difference between a the Bill of Rights which enumerates rights, as opposed to a bill which grants them, do not agree with the concept.

Forget the "sense of entitlement" that's so often spoken of, forget the (supposed) "gay indoctrination", and the (IMO utter crap) ESL programs. The biggest threat to liberty is not terrorism, gay marriage, foreign language, or any other of the many hot-button issues that we hear about daily.

It is a widespread, pervasive, fundamental misunderstanding of rights.

Without a major shift in education of children (and many adults) to address this misunderstanding, I don't see any improvement forthcoming.

 

[Bill Nance]

I'd take it a step further and say it is not taught in schools for a reason. From the time you are 5 years old until you are 18 (or is it 16, doesn't matter) you are forced to attend school. Most people opt for public schools.

Public schools are financed by taxes, which are taken from people by government. So public schools are government run schools.

Curriculum is set at the government level or by government favored teachers unions. So it's no wonder that the things people need to know the most about government (how it always tramples on the human rights of others and is an institutionalized system of force) will not be taught in schools.

Plus, schools adopt a one size fits all strategy which causes a load of unintended consequences.

Well when I learned civics wasn't taught in Mass. schools I was flabbergasted. My daughter is 21, so she's a recent HS grad in California. They had to take civics in 5th grade, a portion in 8th grade and a required government class in H.S. Not a particularly good public HS either.

I'm not much for conspiracy theories, but given what I know about Mass. I wouldn't be surprised if it WAS intentional.

 

[cekim]

Well when I learned civics wasn't taught in Mass. schools I was flabbergasted. My daughter is 21, so she's a recent HS grad in California. They had to take civics in 5th grade, a portion in 8th grade and a required government class in H.S. Not a particularly good public HS either.

I'm not much for conspiracy theories, but given what I know about Mass. I wouldn't be surprised if it WAS intentional.

Yeah, but if they did teach it, how "objective" do you think it would be?

I'm sure it would be more of the party line BS they get throughout the rest of their teaching:

- Socialism is good
- The civil war was all about slavery
- Lincoln liberated the slaves
- Hamilton wasn't an ass
etc...

The problem now is we are 2 maybe 3 generations into the brainwashing that is our socialist public school system. Even the parents could be bothered to educate their kids outside of school - they'd feed them the same line of crap they get from the media now...

 

[JoeyB]

Yeah, but if they did teach it, how "objective" do you think it would be?

I'm sure it would be more of the party line BS they get throughout the rest of their teaching:

- Socialism is good
- The civil war was all about slavery
- Lincoln liberated the slaves
- Hamilton wasn't an ass
etc...

The problem now is we are 2 maybe 3 generations into the brainwashing that is our socialist public school system. Even the parents could be bothered to educate their kids outside of school - they'd feed them the same line of crap they get from the media now...

Exactly, I should have clarified for Bill Nance. I'm not into conspiracy theories either. But it's like a government investigation: a government appointment committee investigates the government. How objective are they going to be. It's a huge conflict of interest. The same thing applies to learning the truth about government in a government run school.

It's the nature of the beast. It teaches kids to obey and get in line with the group. It does not commend individuality. It frowns upon it. School is a place were kids usually get their first dose of authority and learn that in order to get by you OBEY authority.

I hear you cekim,about the party line:

- free markets caused the great depression
- FDR saved the country from depression
- name your war...there was no lie(s) that got us into it

Pretty sickening.

 

[RKG]

These are a codification of rights of the people of US, rights that are Supposed to be untouchable by the gov..

"Untouchable?" To any extent?

Consider this. A fellow was once a co-employee, someone you supervised and, unfortunately, had to fire for incompetence. He has a grudge. So he publishes a bunch of letters in the newspaper and other places, stating that when you were 14 you raped three girls, that when you were 16 you murdered someone and got away with it, and when you go to Jamaica on vacation each year, you stock up on crack cocaine.

It is all false, of course, but even falsehoods stick to some degree if repeated enough. Finally, you are called into the boss's office one day and told that, while we don't believe any of this crap, of course, the Company just can't afford to keep someone on whom the public believes is guilty of all of this stuff.

You're ripped and, after consulting with eminent counsel, you sue the miscreant for slander. He responds with the First Amendment as a defense: "I can say anything I want and my right to do so is untouchable." Should his motion to dismiss be granted?

While the lawsuit is pending, this same dude, with nothing other to do with his time, goes down to the Berry and buys a 2" with the serial number filed off. He uses this to exercise his right of street welfare in a liquor store, and in the process shoots and kills the proprietor and three customers. He is, of course, arrested and, equally of course, released on bail.

The next day he moves into the house next to yours, which is vacant on account of a mortgage foreclosure. For the next week, each morning he gives you the lethal look, though saying nothing. On the seventh day, he goes down to the PD and applies for an LTC-A. When the Chief displays his dubiousness, this fellow says, "Hey, Chief, you have to issue the license, because my right is untouchable."

Should the license be granted?

 

[Bill Nance]

Yeah, but if they did teach it, how "objective" do you think it would be?

I'm sure it would be more of the party line BS they get throughout the rest of their teaching:

- Socialism is good
- The civil war was all about slavery
- Lincoln liberated the slaves
- Hamilton wasn't an ass
etc...

The problem now is we are 2 maybe 3 generations into the brainwashing that is our socialist public school system. Even the parents could be bothered to educate their kids outside of school - they'd feed them the same line of crap they get from the media now...

I'm gonna disagree -sort of-
And this might make an interesting thread all by itself.
People I know who call themselves "liberal" (I don't because I think it's a largely meaningless word) are all in favor of the constitution EXCEPT for the 2nd amendment.

On the other hand I can point to just as many examples of "conservative" (another largely meaningless term) who have no trouble ignoring the 1st, 4th, 5th and 10th amendments.

If we could all get together and just agree on the constitution even when OUR ox is gored, we might be getting real progress. -just a thought.

 

[MetalgodZ]

RKG, I understand what you're saying. Both you and seanc are right...but you're using different terms.

First, to straighten the words out, let's define untouchable in two ways:
inalienable:

adjective not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.

unlimited:

–adjective 1. not limited; unrestricted; unconfined: unlimited trade.
2. boundless; infinite; vast: the unlimited skies.
3. without any qualification or exception; unconditional

In the context of the 1st Amendment portion of your hypothetical, the Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress has passed no law limiting your ex-co-employee's free speech. The lawsuit filed is a civil tort intended not to protect you from damages, but to attempt to compensate you for damage done to your wallet and your reputation. Said ex-co-employee's right to free speech is inalienable, but not unlimited.

The 2nd Amendment, on the other hand, states

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In the context of your story, the license SHOULD be a moot point, since a license is acknowledgement of a privelege -

a special entitlement or immunity granted by a government or other authority to a restricted group.

The right is also inalienable in theory, but it's restricted constantly.

 

[cekim]

On the other hand I can point to just as many examples of "conservative" (another largely meaningless term) who have no trouble ignoring the 1st, 4th, 5th and 10th amendments.

This is the problem a lot of "Conservatives" (aka disenfranchised Republicans) have these days is there are plenty of us who believe in the entire constitution - warts and all...

Unfortunately, the party leadership got into bed with some unsavory "folks" (I really hate that word) who agreed on some of the biggies and we unfortunately overlooked the other baggage that came with them. That would be the completely insane economic logic of the current Republicrat party...

Regardless of all of that the schools are preaching a socialist, pacifist, environmental extremist message. They are also trying so hard to keep the bottom 30% of the class up to speed that they are slowing down the top 50%...

It is so pervasive, that I honestly don't think they realize it... On the bright side, it has led to some wonderful conversations with my daughters where I break down the issues and present them the opposing views (including those I don't agree with) and as much as possible let them realize what makes sense...

However, I know there are plenty of parents not doing this... So, they get the propaganda soaked version of history (if they even make it to the 20th century in history class - which they often don't) and nothing to counter it...

 

[JoeyB]

If we could all get together and just agree on the constitution even when OUR ox is gored, we might be getting real progress. -just a thought.

Liberal and conservative are so far removed from their original meanings that they hold very little water today.

People shouldn't have to agree on anything. Just get rid of government all together as it is the biggest violator of human rights on the planet.

Congress has passed no law limiting your ex-co-employee's free speech. The lawsuit filed is a civil tort intended not to protect you from damages, but to attempt to compensate you for damage done to your wallet and your reputation. Said ex-co-employee's right to free speech is inalienable, but not unlimited.

Libel and slander laws are restrictions on free speech. That guy's hypothetical was one sided. The guy who is being verbally abused has just as much a "right" to defend his ground and refute those claims. He can write to the editor, put up posters around town, etc. to defend himself.

Arguing in the context of government makes everything confusing.

 

[MetalgodZ]

Libel and slander laws are restrictions on free speech. That guy's hypothetical was one sided. The guy who is being verbally abused has just as much a "right" to defend his ground and refute those claims. He can write to the editor, put up posters around town, etc. to defend himself.

I disagree for two reasons...
First, looking at the Amendment literally - I'm not aware of a federal libel or slander law, and state laws are not passed by Congress.
Second, more abstractly - State libel and slander laws do not abridge free speech, but provide for an injured party to obtain compensation for damage done...much the same as a wrongful death suit provides a method for the family of a murder/negligent homicide/manslaughter victim to obtain compensation for damage done by someone improperly exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.

Arguing in the context of government makes everything confusing.

This...This, I can agree with.

 

[Bill Nance]

Just get rid of government all together as it is the biggest violator of human rights on the planet.

Um sure. Meanwhile back here on planet Earth...

We have government for a very simple reason: Anarchy sucks even more than government.

 

[MetalgodZ]

Um sure. Meanwhile back here on planet Earth...

We have government for a very simple reason: Anarchy sucks even more than government.

Only marginally less so, though, sometimes.

 

[JoeyB]

I disagree for two reasons... First, looking at the Amendment literally - I'm not aware of a federal libel or slander law, and state laws are not passed by Congress. Second, more abstractly - State libel and slander laws do not abridge free speech, but provide for an injured party to obtain compensation for damage done...much the same as a wrongful death suit provides a method for the family of a murder/negligent homicide/manslaughter victim to obtain compensation for damage done by someone improperly exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.

The entire structure of a government is coercive because that's its nature so I don't really care that much about Amendments. Here's my reasoning for why libel and slander restrict free speech - summarizing Murray Rothbard. What those laws do (and you are correct that they are at the state level) is essentially argue that one's reputation is a "property right." But that is illogical because a reputation cannot be owned as it is a subjective feeling or attitudes of other people. Reputations fluctuate in accordance to the populations feelings and attitudes. Because of this speech attacking someone's reputation should not be subject to restriction or legal penalty. Above that, if you do have these such laws, you essentially limited the speech of poorer people. Because it would be costly to take one to court if you sued for libel, the affluent are able to use the justice system to their advantage because a less affluent person could not pay up to fight the suit. You removed these laws and it gives all classes of people free speech. Libel and slander are immoral though, I'll give you that. Lastly, just because I used classes doesn't mean I'm a socialist or Marxist. Please don't jump to conclusion

Um sure. Meanwhile back here on planet Earth... We have government for a very simple reason: Anarchy sucks even more than government.

I can tell that you haven't given serious, objective thought to the theory of Anarchism, nicely summed up by this quote: "Anarchism is grounded in a rather definite social-psychological hypothesis: that forceful, graceful and intelligent behaviour occurs only when there is an uncoerced and direct response to the physical and social environment; that in most human affairs, more harm than good results from compulsion, top-down direction, bureaucratic planning, pre-ordained curricula, jails, conscription, states." It also believes in the non-aggression principle, defined as being against the initiation of violence unless in self-defense. It's a well thought out theory that isn't at all utopian like the theory of government.

 

[Bob P]

Yeah, but if they did teach it, how "objective" do you think it would be?

I'm sure it would be more of the party line BS they get throughout the rest of their teaching:

- Socialism is good
- The civil war was all about slavery
- Lincoln liberated the slaves
- Hamilton wasn't an ass
etc...

The problem now is we are 2 maybe 3 generations into the brainwashing that is our socialist public school system. Even the parents could be bothered to educate their kids outside of school - they'd feed them the same line of crap they get from the media now...

+1. I thought Aaron Burr was a bad guy until I got to college.

 

[Bill Nance]

Anarchism: Welcome to the 10th century BC.

You need government for laws. You need laws for commerce. You need commerce for an effective economy beyond barter, you need government for reliable currency, common defense etc.

You think anarchy will mean no coercion? Tell ya what. Suppose I shoot faster and more accurately than you do. Thanks for your stuff, thanks for letting me rape your sister. Seeing as there is no form of government, you'd best hope your clan is tougher than mine.

Anarchy is just as clueless about the human condition as pacifism.

Forgive me, but I find anarchy, like pacifism, to be a philosophy popular among the very young and the very ignorant. "Small l" libertarianism is practical. Anarchy is not practical and will never be implemented, despite what the nutjobs protesting at the WTO meetings might wish.

 

[Negotiator]

I can tell that you haven't given serious, objective thought to the theory of Anarchism, nicely summed up by this quote: "Anarchism is grounded in a rather definite social-psychological hypothesis: that forceful, graceful and intelligent behaviour occurs only when there is an uncoerced and direct response to the physical and social environment; that in most human affairs, more harm than good results from compulsion, top-down direction, bureaucratic planning, pre-ordained curricula, jails, conscription, states." It also believes in the non-aggression principle, defined as being against the initiation of violence unless in self-defense. It's a well thought out theory that isn't at all utopian like the theory of government.

Oh please...spare us from the naive rambling of the social psychologists. The "Nice theories" of social psychology have a habit of breaking down into sheer bloody mayhem when the leash is off the beast called mankind - and practice, not theory, takes over. Look at mob behaviour and deindividuation...this is what you get when the nice theory breaks down and I want to take what you have for my group.I kill you as there is no consequence, except that I may , in turn, be killed for what I have taken from you. Without laws, the nasty evil in society is free to roam the countryside at will. You want that? Did you ever see the Stanley Milgram experiment??? Milgram wanted to understand the atrocities carried out by the Nazis in WWII and designed an experiment to test out a theory that there was something about Eichmann and the German psychology that allowed these things to happen. After the experiments at Yale, he had his answer...we are all capable of unspeakable cruelty...

The rule of law keeps the nasty side of humanity in check, to some degree, unless we want to get into a debate about state sponsored violence

 

[cekim]

We have government for a very simple reason: Anarchy sucks even more than government.

Only marginally less so, though, sometimes.

This is a point that seems totally lost on a huge portion of our population - another product of the pacifist, socialist public eduction system...

"Least Bad" is as good as it gets...

"Life is pain, anyone who tells you different is selling something" - Dread Pirate Roberts...

People seem to have to this silly notion of "the best" political/social system when there is no such thing and any attempt to create it will FAIL...

As a species we are about 1/2 step away from the system of governance which says that the largest among us tears the arms off anyone who disagrees with him... So, we've made some progress - which we should be proud of... But we still are never going to agree on specific "moral" boundaries. You can get closer with "ethics", but even that is subjective...

So, we have to start out with the premise that we are agreeing to disagree and we legislate only that which we must and/or we can agree upon unanimously. Everything else gets left up to individuals and communities to decide on a case by case basis...

Perhaps more importantly, legislation should focus first and foremost on preventing abuse of power as this is the primary flaw of government - it hurts people in bulk... It's the Sam's Club of murder, discrimination and mistreatment generally of any given population... A citizen can take out a few of his fellow citizens if he sets his mind to it... A politician can legislate entire family trees off the face of the earth... As such his power needs to be checked at every turn...

+1. I thought Aaron Burr was a bad guy until I got to college.