Second Amendment

[LW]

Greece for example has the greatest rates in loses during WWII ( in relation to its population) exactly because of the resistence but the battle was not equal.

Just popping in to comment that I'm very surprised about this sentence, since I'm under the impression that Poland, Yugoslavia, Byelorussia, and Ukraine had the greatest percentage of losses wrt. the population size, each losing more than 10% of pre-war population.

How do you define the rates?

 

[Kodiak]

Also you miss my point. My point is that an armed rebelion would fail, and likely cause needless deaths. There will be no Second American Revolution.

Be sure to keep that crystal ball of yours polished, Sylvia...

 

[AmateurScientist]

Ok thanks for the clarification but still people under German Occupation resisted and they resisted fiercly. Greece for example has the greatest rates in loses during WWII ( in relation to its population) exactly because of the resistence but the battle was not equal.

The organized resistance forces did in fact make a difference and helped the Allies in defeating the Germans. You are right. Of course, they did it with guns, not flowers.

You are mostly right to insist that we must try to understand the Second Amendment in its historical context but I believe that this is where the weakest point in your argumentation hides.

Those so willing to toss it aside as an anachronism apparently have forgotten all the history they ever knew. American civilization is not the end or final result of civilization evolving to an ideal. Although we may be living in the heyday of America's power and influence, there will certainly come a day when America's greatness will wane, and it too will fade into relative weakness and irrelevance, just as all other great political powers have in the past.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Again, despite what DM apparently has concluded about me, I'm not paranoid about any particular individuals or about government in general. I don't think for a second that anyone is after me or that my government has a plot against me or my neighbors. On the other hand, those in power will nearly always seek to retain it, and even expand its reach. This is a fundamental truth about human nature and the natural inclinations of those in positions of power. History has shown us quite clearly, time and time again, that even benevolent governments eventually dissolve into not so benevolent governments, and eventually they abuse their citizens. Abuses can take many forms, including overtaxation, or perhaps the gradual or sudden reduction in freedoms.

DM apparently dismisses or ignores some recent horrible abuses our own benevolent government has committed against its citizens and residents in the most recent century. The internment of persons of Japanese descent who were lawful Americans during WWII, the medical experiments involving black persons at Tuskegee, and the recent holding of suspected terrorists without bond, without counsel, and without filing formal charges are such abuses which readily come to mind.

I am not so foolish as to believe that our government is above committing such abuses, or similar ones, in the future. They will always come with justifications, just as the Nazis justified their atrocities.

I'm no believer or proponent in a second American revolution, as DM attributes to me. That's the worst straw man argument I've seen in this thread and I find it to be paranoid and without any basis. It's also insulting.

My defense of the Second Amendment has mostly been in its historical context, and in noting that believing that the times we live in today are somehow fundamentally different is utterly foolish. It's very much akin to believing that we live in the "end times," as so many nutty Christians assert.

Just because our civilization is more technologically advanced than any before it, does not mean we have risen above human impulses or the apparently natural ebbs and flows of great civilizations. Modern Western civilization is hardly the first great civilization, nor is it the most influential. It, too, will surely fall, as it must, and as all others have fallen before it.

No one knows how it will fall, and no one knows when. The Second Amendment, in its own way, is merely one measure in place to protect America's populace from threats to it from within or without. Our founders were mostly concerned with threats from political leaders and the armies they commanded. Although no such immediate threat openly exists today, we can never be sure it will not in the future, and dismissing it outright is foolish in light of world history.

For the record, I do not believe there is any government plot to suppress the liberties of American citizens. The founders were prescient enough to recognize that the American citizens would willingly give them up, one by one, when they felt their security threatened. That is exactly what is happening with the Second Amendment. Americans want to trade a liberty for security. Many also wish to abandon the protections of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments as well, as they believe that all they do is protect the rights of criminals.

We have already given away plenty of liberties at airports, and at courthouses and federal buildings. Ashcroft and others of like mind would have us trade liberty for security in countless other ways as well. DM may look forward to the day when we all must show our papers to the American Stasi upon request, but I for one do not.

One have to prove that the society and its needs that created this right exist in our days too.

Do you suggest that the American society of today has the same needs with the American Society of 18th ce?

No, not in general, but see above, and remember history. It's full of lessons for us all.

Despite what DM apparently insinuates (and sounds increasingly hysterical about), I'm certainly no member of a private militia, I'm no "survivalist," and I'm not a "gun nut." Only in the past few years have I purchased a handgun, as I have a friend who has carried for years, and I happen to practice law in two fields wherein my clients or their opponents can get rather violent. In my opinion, representing persons who are divorcing, especially when the custody of children is involved, can be very dangerous. I knew an attorney who was murdered at his office by a man as a result of his representation of a young woman who was the man's former girlfriend, and I know a man whose parents were gunned down just outside our courthouse after a custody hearing. Some of my criminal clients are "gangstas," and many routinely shoot at or rob others with knives or guns. I've been threatened by my clients more than once, as have many of my local colleagues.

I have colleagues who have had angry clients or relatives of clients show up in their offices unannounced, ready to take out their frustrations on someone. One was held at knifepoint in his own office for more than an hour.

In such situations, having ready access to a firearm can indeed save one's life, or the life of someone nearby.

The real issue about guns AS is what you said here addressing to DD:

And I am asking you:

As a free citizen and an educated person do you accept for yourself the role of the cop?

No. I'm not a criminal investigator. That's primarily what cops do. They patrol, they investigate, they assist citizens in distress, they arrest offenders, and they testify in court.

Although one may feel safer in the presence of police on the street, the simply fact is that they do not prevent crime, and they do not prevent violent crime. Those who rely on police to prevent violence from occurring to themselves are fooling themselves.

If we accept that citizens are responsible for their protection are you pro the abolition of the police force?

Of course not. Advocating the abolition of police does not follow at all from my defense of the right to keep and bear arms.

AS

 

[Cleopatra]

Very interesting post Amateur Scientist.

Maybe I was wrong but is there a tone of pessimism in your post regarding the future or it was just my idea?

I believe that what distinguishes the western political systems ( the various forms of democracy) is their ability to fix their mistakes "By themselves".

Also, don't forget that the Founding Fouthers knew very well the dangers that the building of an Empire would bring.

The number 70 of the Federalist was composed by Hamilton in 1788 the year that the final volumes of the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire of Gibbon were published! In number 70 he lists the lessons that his newborn country could learn from History, so from this point of view you belong to the long tradition that wants our future to be determined by the examination of the past.Very American approach and this is a compliment.

What Hamilton couldn't imagine thought (who could? ) was the tremendous abruption with the spirit of Enlightment that Nazism would cause and this is the reason why I quoted De Tocqueville yesterday to show you that dictators aren't born by parthenogenesis.

Hitler didn't do what he did alone. Somebody brought him into power and somebody followed him into the disaster. So, my point is that if somebody (I am talking hypothetically as you do, I do not see any conspiracy theories here) does it again it will be because the people will have given him this power to do it.

It's not the arms that will help you resist Amateur Scientist but the resistence will come from people-- allow me to add here without wanting to compliment you-- like you.

People that know about History and they participate in the common affairs are every dictator's nightmare.Dictators have nothing to fear from majorities that they trade progress with the right to hold a gun.

I do want people to continue to have the right to bare arms but I want them to choose not to because this is will make them more critical towards authorities and more demanding.

I second your experiences with clients, only a month ago a colleague was shot dead in court by a lunatic just because the victim represented the murderer's wife in their divorce case. The colleague was 45 years old, father of 3 children, an excellent scientist and an honest lawyer, I am not sure I could protect him if I was carrying a gun although I must admit that all of us who witnessed the event discussed afterwards that we might have saved him if somebody was carrying a gun ( I strongly doubt it).

Lunatics will always exist in societies and the way to combat the organised crime is a reform of the legal system along with a social reform in various levels but the state, instead of come forward and take the "brave" measurments it puts a gun in your hand and it asks "you" to protect yourself.

This is what worried me most. As you pointed out the Governments trade Liberty for Security without providing this security.

Although one may feel safer in the presence of police on the street, the simply fact is that they do not prevent crime, and they do not prevent violent crime. Those who rely on police to prevent violence from occurring to themselves are fooling themselves.

As I said it's not the Police that prevents violence and crime BUT Police is the medium of imposing the rules in modern societies.

If the government account me responsible for my safety then the role of the Police in the society must be revised.

I think that we are in a basic agreement. I have realized from your posts that you are within the spirit of Secular Humanism as it was represented by Enlightment. Of course I belong there too.

Come on AS, it' easier for a humanist that has a gun to leave it than for a humanist who doesn't have one to put it in his pocket

 

[Kodiak]

Maybe I was wrong but is there a tone of pessimism in your post regarding the future or it was just my idea?

You say pessimism, I say skepticism.

I believe that what distinguishes the western political systems ( the various forms of democracy) is their ability to fix their mistakes "By themselves".

Revolt and revolution by the populace are two of the possible "fixes". Others include things like voting, secession, amendment, and recall.

 

[xouper]

The following two comments by AmateurScientist should be in the FAQ:

Q: Why not give up your anachronistic right to bear arms and let the police do their job protecting citizens from criminals?

AmateurScientist: The U.S. Supreme Court has declared in civil cases that the police do not have a duty to protect citizens from crime. Where does that leave the citizens? Clearly, it leaves them with the responsibility to defend themselves, or fail to do so at their peril.

An armed populace is one which can defend itself from criminal attackers. This is hardly an anachronistic notion.

AmateurScientist: No. I'm not a criminal investigator. That's primarily what cops do. They patrol, they investigate, they assist citizens in distress, they arrest offenders, and they testify in court.

Although one may feel safer in the presence of police on the street, the simply fact is that they do not prevent crime, and they do not prevent violent crime. Those who rely on police to prevent violence from occurring to themselves are fooling themselves.

Well said, AS.

 

[AmateurScientist]

Very interesting post Amateur Scientist.

Maybe I was wrong but is there a tone of pessimism in your post regarding the future or it was just my idea?

Thanks, Cleo. No, not pessimism, just fatalism. I firmly believe in the inevitability of the decline of the American Century or two, just as the once mighty British Empire upon whom the set never set eventually faded recently, the Third Reich failed to materialize beyond a futile attempt to hold onto Europe briefly, the Napoleonic Empire collapsed, the Ottoman Empire ended, the Roman Empire eventually crumbled, the Hellenic influence faded, and Alexander's own attempt to rule the civilized world ended shortly after his untimely death.

Americans today are just as foolish in their assumption that ours is the pinnacle of civilization, that it is the most perfect of all, and that the world will eventually come around to our way of life. Some day, they presume, we will all hold hands, drink Coca Cola, and sing Kumba Ya.

I suspect the British used to feel the same way, as did the Romans, the Greeks, and everyone else who held a dominant influence over much of the world at one time or another.

I believe that what distinguishes the western political systems ( the various forms of democracy) is their ability to fix their mistakes "By themselves".

Tsk tsk. Do you honestly believe democratic forms of government are the be all and end all of civilization? The only constant in the world, including in human civilization, is change.

Modern democracies, too, will one day be supplanted by other governments.

Also, don't forget that the Founding Fouthers knew very well the dangers that the building of an Empire would bring.

The number 70 of the Federalist was composed by Hamilton in 1788 the year that the final volumes of the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire of Gibbon were published! In number 70 he lists the lessons that his newborn country could learn from History, so from this point of view you belong to the long tradition that wants our future to be determined by the examination of the past.Very American approach and this is a compliment.

Thanks, I agree. I fear that Benjamin Franklin was far more realistic about our own ability to hold onto our newly found freedoms. He fully recognized that people would gladly give them away, as they have done in the past, and are doing now. Once given away, they are very difficult to get back from a power hungry government. I fear that an inevitable decline of the society as it is today (in terms of freedoms, not morals), or the revolutionary change to another kind will be the unfortunate result. Time will tell.

What Hamilton couldn't imagine thought (who could? ) was the tremendous abruption with the spirit of Enlightment that Nazism would cause and this is the reason why I quoted De Tocqueville yesterday to show you that dictators aren't born by parthenogenesis.

Hitler didn't do what he did alone. Somebody brought him into power and somebody followed him into the disaster. So, my point is that if somebody (I am talking hypothetically as you do, I do not see any conspiracy theories here) does it again it will be because the people will have given him this power to do it.

Of course. Hitler was heralded and welcomed into power by a troubled nation. Rhetoric and scapegoating helped him in.

Our nation has been troubled by economic woes as well, and it will be again. Rhetoric and scapegoating often result from such crises, and any charismatic leader is capable of exploiting circumstances and becoming a leader. Any such leader has the capability of abrogating rights previously held by the citizenry, especially if he is popular and regarded as a savior by his countrymen. I bring up the subject of Hitler precisely to demonstrate that Americans are no more immune to the kind of magical sway he held over his countrymen than the pre-WWII Germans were.

We like to pretend that we are different, but we are not. Americans are human beings with human frailties and emotions just as the citizens of any other country. Without eternal vigilance against encroachment on our fundamental liberties, especially those enumerated in the Bill of Rights, our foolhardy citizens will give them away, one by one.

The loud cries for the repeal of the Second Amendment, or at least for a reading of it to remove the individual right granted by it, are but one example of such foolhardiness. The specific issue may be the right to keep and bear arms, but the larger picture is the ready willingness to give up liberties in favor of security. That is the greatest danger facing our republic today, just as it always has been.

I am far more afraid of complacency and indifference and hostility to the defense of such fundamental liberties than I am of any street criminal, or foreign or domestic terrorist, or private militia nutcase. I identify far more with Patrick Henry than with James Brady.

It's not the arms that will help you resist Amateur Scientist but the resistence will come from people-- allow me to add here without wanting to compliment you-- like you.

People that know about History and they participate in the common affairs are every dictator's nightmare.Dictators have nothing to fear from majorities that they trade progress with the right to hold a gun.

I agree. I'm not in favor of chucking the Second Amendment. The framers had a good point and a good reason for including it. Even today, anyone attempting to run a dictatorship in this country would have to factor in the 230,000,000 guns in private ownership in attempting to do so.

Those willing to get rid of the Second Amendment would also trade other liberties for security, I fear.

I do want people to continue to have the right to bare arms but I want them to choose not to because this is will make them more critical towards authorities and more demanding.

Well, for the record, I wish handguns did not exist in this country. On the other hand, I believe the framers of the constitution fully intended that private citizens would and should own military arms. Today, this would mean it would be perfectly legal, and indeed quite patriotic, to own an M-16 and some claymore mines and hand grenades.

I'm not necessarily advocating that we do that, but I believe that's what the framers had in mind. I can't stress it enough. They were afraid of the government itself, not of criminals roaming the streets. They were far more afraid of the standing military than the nut case on the next block.

Gun control advocates are blissfully ignorant of that notion.

Lunatics will always exist in societies and the way to combat the organised crime is a reform of the legal system along with a social reform in various levels but the state, instead of come forward and take the "brave" measurments it puts a gun in your hand and it asks "you" to protect yourself.

There is no way to rid society of lunatics or violence. If violence doesn't come from the populace, it is because it is being suppressed by the government by violent means.

This is what worried me most. As you pointed out the Governments trade Liberty for Security without providing this security.

In many cases, it's the people, not the government, who cry for more security. They gladly give up their liberties, even without having them forcefully taken away. That's the great danger to the American way of life.

As I said it's not the Police that prevents violence and crime BUT Police is the medium of imposing the rules in modern societies.

If the government account me responsible for my safety then the role of the Police in the society must be revised.

This is impossible without a police state intruding into our private lives beyond our comfort level. I prefer to be responsible for my safety myself. I don't want the government in my home or following me around all day doing it for me.

I think that we are in a basic agreement. I have realized from your posts that you are within the spirit of Secular Humanism as it was represented by Enlightment. Of course I belong there too.

Absolutely.

Come on AS, it' easier for a humanist that has a gun to leave it than for a humanist who doesn't have one to put it in his pocket

I don't know. Self-defense gun enthusiasts are fond of saying the best kind of gun is the one you are carrying at the moment. The point is that no one can protect himself with the gun he leaves at home.

AS

 

[Richard G]

We would like to interupt the debate with this brief, commercial message:

 

[Suddenly]

Thanks!! Where can I get one of those small red x's?

edited to add: You fixed it. I was expecting something foolish and pointless. Thank you for living up to my expectations. You see so little of that anymore. I blame modern marketing and constant bombardment of bombast that skews expectations.

 

[Kodiak]

Thanks!! Where can I get one of those small red x's?

edited to add: You fixed it. I was expecting something foolish and pointless. Thank you for living up to my expectations. You see so little of that anymore. I blame modern marketing and constant bombardment of bombast that skews expectations.

The only appropriate response, IMO:

 

[severin]

A few points in reply to some of those raised above.

Bearing arms to prevent against foreign attack is no longer valid. As both Pearl Harbour and 9/11 showed, and the nuclear threat of the Cold War anticipated, attacks by foreign powers will not be land-based and guns will be of no use.

There a way to withstand oppressive government that was not available to the majority of the population when the 2nd Amendment was written. If you don't like the government, become the government. Stand for election.

I would not be happy living in a country where my rights to hold certain views would put my life in danger from those people who thought it was their right to own guns. For example, pro-abortionists being shot. Yes, this is a small example, but there is a serious point here: what is the right path to take when one person's rights impinge on another's life, freedom and pursuit of happiness etc? Should pro-choicers have to carry guns to pretect themselves?

Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom but so is responsibility. Sometimes, we have to give away a small part of our rights to protect the greater rights of others. In the end, everyone benefits.

What are the legitimate reasons for owning a gun? A) for hunting. Is the right to kill animals for fun really so important to the fabric of society? B) for gun club membership etc. It's only a hobby. If it's that important, keep the gun at the club. C) for self-defence in the home. All gun-owners should be licensed, subject to in-depth background checks, given gun education and prevented by law from taking the gun out of the house.

Empires rise and fall. That's the nature of empires. America is just the latest, even if its empire is cultural and economic rather than territorial. Having a gun will not stop its eventual decline, whether by outside attack or collapse from within (insurrection, corrupt/inept government etc)

 

[AmateurScientist]

I would not be happy living in a country where my rights to hold certain views would put my life in danger from those people who thought it was their right to own guns. For example, pro-abortionists being shot. Yes, this is a small example, but there is a serious point here: what is the right path to take when one person's rights impinge on another's life, freedom and pursuit of happiness etc? Should pro-choicers have to carry guns to pretect themselves?

Your country has a higher rate of assault than ours. The relative lack of guns in your country has done nothing to prevent or reduce incidents of violence.

Guns are not the harm to be protected against. People are. Guns are hardly the only instruments of violence or murder. Nearly any ordinary household item can be readily adapted into a deadly weapon. Just pick up any heavy object and smash it into the other person's skull. Pick up a rock. Nearly anything.

Empires rise and fall. That's the nature of empires. America is just the latest, even if its empire is cultural and economic rather than territorial. Having a gun will not stop its eventual decline, whether by outside attack or collapse from within (insurrection, corrupt/inept government etc)

Nope, can't stop America's eventual, inevitable fall. But eroding or abolishing the individual liberties in the Bill of Rights, one by one, beginning with the Second Amendment, will certainly hasten it.

AS

 

[Tony]

Bearing arms to prevent against foreign attack is no longer valid. As both Pearl Harbour and 9/11 showed, and the nuclear threat of the Cold War anticipated, attacks by foreign powers will not be land-based and guns will be of no use.

Perhaps this is true, but it isnt an argument against ownership. Just like I tried to illustrate to DD earlier, you not being able to successfully defend yourself against 10 guys bigger than you is no reason to cut off your hands.

There a way to withstand oppressive government that was not available to the majority of the population when the 2nd Amendment was written. If you don't like the government, become the government. Stand for election.

So if a tyrannical dictator siezes power I should run for election? How is running for election under circumstances in which elections dont exist going to solve anything?

Should pro-choicers have to carry guns to pretect themselves?

Yes.

Sometimes, we have to give away a small part of our rights to protect the greater rights of others. In the end, everyone benefits.

No they dont, less freedom and more government control benefits no one. If this was true, the Patriot Act would be beneficial.

What are the legitimate reasons for owning a gun?

It doesnt matter, rights aren't subject to neccessity.

 

[severin]

Amateur Scientist:

True, almost anything can be a weapon. But a gun is one of the few with which you can kill someone easily and at a distance. Little thought or effort are required. It's just too easy.

And I think you'll find that your country has a higher rate offatal assault.

"Guns are not the harm to be protected against. People are." - No, people with guns are.

"But eroding or abolishing the individual liberties in the Bill of Rights, one by one, beginning with the Second Amendment, will certainly hasten it." - Depends how it's done. Taking away one dubious right is not necessarily the beginning of the end.

Incidentally, how do you quote someone else's post and make it come out in bol? On most boards people put them inside >< type brackets to indicate a quote, but that doesn't work here.

 

[AmateurScientist]

Amateur Scientist:

Incidentally, how do you quote someone else's post and make it come out in bol? On most boards people put them inside >< type brackets to indicate a quote, but that doesn't work here.

I do it manually. You just insert at the beginning. At the end, you put in a , only put a "/" before the B, but inside the brackets. I didn't put it in here, because you wouldn't have seen the typing; it would have bolded everything.

You can do the same thing with "QUOTE" or with "i" for italics, or others.

AS

 

[epepke]

The last one: democracy.

Ah, the current one, the one where most French seem to think that Chirac is a corrupt fool but don't think they can do anything about it.

Gotcha.

 

[epepke]

Amateur Scientist:

True, almost anything can be a weapon. But a gun is one of the few with which you can kill someone easily and at a distance. Little thought or effort are required. It's just too easy.

Um. Have you actually used a pistol to hit a target at a distance?

Unless you're talking about shotguns, but wait--those are perfectly legal in the UK, aren't they? I can even legally bring one over in checked baggage.

 

[AmateurScientist]

Um. Have you actually used a pistol to hit a target at a distance?

Good point. Average distance of actual pistol combat is about 15 feet. Most other household items can be used at a similar distance with a simple forward lunge.


AS

 

[epepke]

Good point. Average distance of actual pistol combat is about 15 feet. Most other household items can be used at a similar distance with a simple forward lunge.

I'm glad you agree. I'm a pretty good shot. I can "pin the heart" on a Barney the Dinosaur poster at 20 meters with a Colt 1911. But that required a hell of a lot of training, starting with the pistol training I got at MIT with the old Victor 22.

I think that people get the idea, from watching too many Mannix re-runs, that you just have to point the pistol vaguely at a distant target, and it will fall down. Not even remotely true.

 

[AmateurScientist]

I'm glad you agree. I'm a pretty good shot. I can "pin the heart" on a Barney the Dinosaur poster at 20 meters with a Colt 1911. But that required a hell of a lot of training, starting with the pistol training I got at MIT with the old Victor 22.

I think that people get the idea, from watching too many Mannix re-runs, that you just have to point the pistol vaguely at a distant target, and it will fall down. Not even remotely true.

Well, when I was in the army, I was better at 25 meters with a .45 than I was with an M-16. At 300 m, however, my M-16 shooting was perfect.

BTW, when you quoted above about shooting at a distance, you were quoting Severin, not me. She mentioned my name, and it must have appeared to you that I said those remarks. I didn't.

AS