Congresswoman Giffords, Others Shot/Killed in Arizona

[Dog Walker]

Yeah, and sometimes things are exactly what they seem with no counter intuition necessary. The UK has severe restrictions on firearms, and their police don't even carry guns, and their violent crime rates are a fraction of ours. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Come on, Chris!  You know that's a bad argument.  Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is familiar to you.  The Brits simply don't have to\he culture of violence and guns that we do.  Unfortunately that is changing and the use of guns by criminals there is rising.  You've got a good point but need to make it in another way.

Switzerland has a lower crime rate than we do (shady banking aside) and most homes have military weapons in them.

I don't think that there is an association between gun laws and the level of violence.  It's a cultural thing independent of the laws.

In any case, no matter what laws we pass, the genie is out of the bottle and we can never put it back in.  We can ban 31 round magazines right now and there are still millions of them out there already.  We can ban hand guns now, but can never recover the 100 million plus that are already out there.  There are other more effective ways of reducing gun violence faster than gun control laws.

[NotNow]

Chris, your mind is obviously made up.  My opinion of the military is based on decades of direct participation and observation.  But you do make my point in your second paragraph.  The last line of defense against tyranny is not the military, but the people. 

The second amendment is clear in it's meaning.  The founding fathers expounded on the principle many times in their public and private writing.  Basic human rights don't change over time.

[ChriswUfGator]

Yeah, and sometimes things are exactly what they seem with no counter intuition necessary. The UK has severe restrictions on firearms, and their police don't even carry guns, and their violent crime rates are a fraction of ours. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Come on, Chris!  You know that's a bad argument.  Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is familiar to you.  The Brits simply don't have to\he culture of violence and guns that we do.  Unfortunately that is changing and the use of guns by criminals there is rising.  You've got a good point but need to make it in another way.

Switzerland has a lower crime rate than we do (shady banking aside) and most homes have military weapons in them.

I don't think that there is an association between gun laws and the level of violence.  It's a cultural thing independent of the laws.

In any case, no matter what laws we pass, the genie is out of the bottle and we can never put it back in.  We can ban 31 round magazines right now and there are still millions of them out there already.  We can ban hand guns now, but can never recover the 100 million plus that are already out there.  There are other more effective ways of reducing gun violence faster than gun control laws.

It all, I think anyway, boils down to the romanticization of guns and violence in our culture to a large extent. I like bowling for columbine, and though I hate to use a Michael Moore movie as an example (since NotNow is going to be sitting over there going 'aha! I knew it!') I think it sums up all the cultural reasons why our society is comparatively violent. But still, my point here was really more that the original intent behind the second amendment was to have an armed populace serve as a backstop against government tyranny, and that is no longer possible because of the march of technology. Unless we are willing to allow private individuals or groups to own military grade weapons then the original intent of the second amendment was already abrogated.

And NotNow, you cannot legally own those things. Sure you can buy a ship or a tank or a plane or whatever, but they completely disable all the guns and fire control systems and they cannot legally be in firing condition if you own it privately. In most states it would also be illegal to own the powder and explosives the military uses without a bunch of licenses and permits that won't be granted when you tell them you're building a private militia. Under no circumstances would you legally be able to own half of the US arsenal, let's see you try and buy a functional missile or some enriched uranium and see how long it would take for that knock on the door to come.

I guess my point here all along was simply that the original intent of the second amendment has already been squashed by the government's possession of military grade weaponry and by its outlawing the ownership of that stuff by private individuals. Yes you can buy a used ship or plane as a private group, but you're not allowed to have it in firing condition. There is no way any private arms can stand up to military weapons, so all of this talk about strict construction and the founders intent is really impossible when you think about it.

[NotNow]

I addressed the nuclear bomb issue in an earlier post.  It is not a valid argument in this debate.  I'm not sure where you are getting or are going with the churches and civic organizations thing.  I have not mentioned or argued such a point.  I have also not addressed the source of tyranny, or mentioned a particular form of it.  To go down that road would be nonproductive, and not pertinent to the right of an individual to protect him or herself as well as the right to resist tyranny.

[NotNow]

Ah!  I knew it! 

[NotNow]

Again, the nuclear question is moot.  Nuclear weapons are not commercially available to anyone and are the exclusive development of a small number of nations.  So take that off the table.  It is quite legal to own armored vehicles and other military grade weapons in this country (and many others.  Most often, it is a question of money.)  You still greatly underestimate the power of an armed populace that is of one mind.  I do not think that the original intent of the second amendment is limited to resisting tyranny, although that is one of the reasons specified by the founding fathers it is certainly not the only one.

But if you believe that it is no longer possible to resist the government as the founding fathers intended, then the answer in my mind is NOT to disregard what the founders put in our Constitution, but to make our government conform to that charter document.  Otherwise, just wad up the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and throw it away, because none of our liberties are safe from such a government.

[BridgeTroll]

I guess my point here all along was simply that the original intent of the second amendment has already been squashed by the government's possession of military grade weaponry and by its outlawing the ownership of that stuff by private individuals.

Then I guess you can understand those defending the last remaining shred of our right to keep and bear arms is so vehemently defended.  Apparently our government has already removed most of our right to keep most weapons.  Understandably... they are not willing to voluntarily give up what is left.

[stjr]

Just to stir the pot, what might be the definition of "arms" envisioned by the framers of the constitution?  

"Arms" as they existed in their day or as they might someday be advanced by future technologies such that they might not be recognizable to someone of that era?

Where does the term "arms" begin and end with respect to swords, bayonets, knives, single shot guns, automatic multi-shot guns, grenades and bazookas, artillery, various bombs, missiles, plastic explosives, tanks, planes, submarines, ships, drones, chemical and biological warfare, nuclear devices, lasers, electromagnetic or other energy beams/waves, star wars, etc.?  Is an "arm" anything that can destroy human life or something more limited?

Feel free to discuss!  

[NotNow]

I addressed the nuclear bomb issue in an earlier post.  It is not a valid argument in this debate.  I'm not sure where you are getting or are going with the churches and civic organizations thing.  I have not mentioned or argued such a point.  I have also not addressed the source of tyranny, or mentioned a particular form of it.  To go down that road would be nonproductive, and not pertinent to the right of an individual to protect him or herself as well as the right to resist tyranny.

meh,  thats a copout.

If we illegalized assault weapons they would also be a moot point since that is your argument.

A tyrannical government by definition would be the government of the united states, so you did directly mention the source of the tyranny.

After all, you can't be tyrannized by china unless they defeat the US first-----after which they would be the government in place.....the evasion is silly.

If you back the 2nd amendment sheerly on the basis of providing a disincentive to 'tyranny', then following your logic, it would have to be a credible opposition.

Why wouldnt you be for widespread WMDs using the same logic?

Copout?  No, it is a fact.  Nuclear weapons are not available.  They are treated differently even by our own government, and are issued to and returned by our military to the civilian agency charged with building, manageing, and maintaining them.  

Making something illegal does not make it impossible to acquire.  And "assault weapons" is a term that is not defined, so I'm not sure what you mean by it.  

You can be tyrannized by a federal government, a state government, a municipal government, a business, corporation, or organization, as well as thugs and neer do wells.  

Your WMD statement makes no sense at all.

Opinions differ, I have mine.  But the meaning and intent of the founding fathers is quite clear.  And as I suggested to Chris, if ANY adjustment needs to be made, then we and our government should conform to the Constitution, not the other way around.

[BridgeTroll]

The founders seemed to be pretty bright guys.  Quite sure the understood the evolution of "arms" up to their era.  Seems to me they would be able to forsee the future evolutions of "arms".

[NotNow]

Again, the nuclear question is moot.  Nuclear weapons are not commercially available to anyone and are the exclusive development of a small number of nations.  So take that off the table.  It is quite legal to own armored vehicles and other military grade weapons in this country (and many others.  Most often, it is a question of money.)  You still greatly underestimate the power of an armed populace that is of one mind.  I do not think that the original intent of the second amendment is limited to resisting tyranny, although that is one of the reasons specified by the founding fathers it is certainly not the only one.

But if you believe that it is no longer possible to resist the government as the founding fathers intended, then the answer in my mind is NOT to disregard what the founders put in our Constitution, but to make our government conform to that charter document.  Otherwise, just wad up the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and throw it away, because none of our liberties are safe from such a government.

So how did those weapons become illegal?  and why?  Do you support the laws that keep nuclear weapons illegal?

And if you truly believe in restoring some sort of equity to the military power of the people vs the government wouldnt that mean disarming the police and dismissing the military except as a defensive force in times of attack?

(sigh)  Let me explain again.  Nuclear weapons are not available.  They are the exclusive property of a very few nations.  You can not buy one...anywhere.  

"Illegal" weapons on the other hand, are simply commercially available weapons that are outlawed by whatever government has jurisdiction.  An "illegal" weapon in the US would be a ground to ground missile.  Then there are regulated weapons and the various levels of that regulation.  Of course, we will mention nonregulated weapons and makeshift weapons but they are not (yet) part of this discussion.

I do believe in the right and the responsibility of the people of our country to protect themselves from tyranny.  As I have mentioned to Chris, don't underestimate the power of 100 million armed patriots.  There is no requirement to disarm any police or dismiss any military force....both are silly ideas.

[stjr]

The founders seemed to be pretty bright guys.  Quite sure the understood the evolution of "arms" up to their era.  Seems to me they would be able to forsee the future evolutions of "arms".

Our founders could project the development of arms out over 200 years?  Really? The advent of electricity, computers, lasers, satellites, airplanes, rockets, nuclear power, advanced chemistry, genetic engineering, etc.  More importantly they could foresee the "acceleration" of technological development?  That tech would someday advance more in a decade than it had in thousands of years prior.  That's quite a crystal ball.  I wonder what their stock picks were?  Oh yeah, first they had to predict the stock market.  LOL.

Now back to my question, what might be the envisioned definition of "arms"?

[ChriswUfGator]

NotNow, there's an eye-popping current (2010'ish) movie out called "Countdown to Zero" that you should watch if you haven't already. It is unparalleled in terms of the quality of the interview subjects and research that went into it, and I think you'd really like it. The point it makes is that it's not so hard to get ahold of nuclear weapons anymore, pretty much all the people you wouldn't want to have theat technology already do, and a lot of them are in the process of developing large-scale production and delivery systems as we speak. It's a scary but awesome documentary.

[NotNow]

stjr,

As discussed earlier in the thread, ALL of technology has changed.  Would we do away with freedom of speech because one man can address the entire country on TV?  Would we limit the right to assemble because people can fly into Washington DC by the thousands?  

The basic premise of natural human rights is a truth.  That truth can not be changed by any evolution of technology.

[NotNow]

I have seen it.  Nuclear proliferation is a problem.  But no individual has yet been able to buy a nuclear weapon.  And some are trying very hard.  The US and many other countries have programs in place to try to prevent such activity.

There are programs in unfriendly countries, N. Korea and Iran are the obvious ones, that are a threat.  These are international problems that belong in another thread, and are not pertinant to this debate.