Jack-booted thugs

[billhoward]

History and the courts appear to have have said the right to bear arms is in the context of having a well-regulated militia. The NRA may not agree with this. It gives the NRA a rallying point.

Long guns (rifles) in rural areas are a lot different than packing handguns in urban areas.

While I'm more on the side of wanting few if any handguns in cities and suburbia, especially since I'm not allowed to plunk away at deer eating plants in the back yard -- evening the score with Bambi ought to be a protected right -- there have been some interesting smaller studies, such as one that says convenience stores where the owners are known to be armed are less likely to be robbed.

[Rosey]

[quote billhoward]History and the courts appear to have have said the right to bear arms is in the context of having a well-regulated militia.[/quote]
History isn't on your side, but certainly the courts have said this on occasion, as well as having said the opposite.

But I am not really all that interested in what the government (desiring and basically possessing a monopoly on force) thinks of my natural right to the means of defense.  It is a natural right because: the state has no obligation to protect me; even if it did it would not be able to protect me at all times; and the state is often the aggressor making the means of defense necessary.

The constitution and the second amendment are cute and all, but effectively meaningless today.  I'm talking about natural law, something no government can legitimately revoke.

Cheers,
Kyle

[jtwcornell91]

How's that nuclear weapons program coming, Kyle?

[billhoward]

[quote jtwcornell91]How's that nuclear weapons program coming, Kyle?[/quote]
No problem so long as you retain the lockout pin in the firing mechanism, so you only fire one round per pull on the trigger. Plus there's the three-day waiting period.

[KeithK]

[quote billhoward]History and the courts appear to have have said the right to bear arms is in the context of having a well-regulated militia.[/quote]While the courts have certainly said this on a number of occasions, I don't believe history would support this.  From the scholarly work I have been exposed to it seems very clear that the second amendment was intended to guarantee an individual right to bear arms, not to provide a right of states to regulate their militias.  This is another case where the courts have managed to write out parts of the constitution that were inconvienent.  Commerce clause anyone?

Oh, Kyle is right that defense is a natural right.

[DeltaOne81]

[quote KeithK]
Oh, Kyle is right that defense is a natural right.[/quote]

I don't see how one can be 'right' or 'wrong' on such a subjective topic. Note I'm not actually arguing against you here, but I don't see how taking a black and white view of such a topic is helpful to anything.

[ugarte]

[quote KeithK]Oh, Kyle is right that defense is a natural right.[/quote]"Natural rights" is a self-negating idea. In a state of nature we have no rights; what we have is determined solely by what we can take.

As for second Amendment scholarship... current scholarship is all over the map, with conservative/libertarian academics doing the most writing in an effort to support their pro-gun views. Nothing they write, however, contradicts the fact that the first Congress, consisting largely of people who ratified the Second Amendment, abridged that right in their very first session. Take from that what you will.

If you will excuse me, I have to go hide under my desk because I never know when the gummint may show up and arrest me for nothing but my beliefs, man. On the other hand, I feel pretty good about being able to steal a cab from an old lady without taking a .22 in my back. It probably evens out.

[Ben Rocky '04]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here as a liberal and Democrat (and jump into this conversation really really late) but I trust the government way more than I trust Kyle.  The government, in this country, rarely strikes me as the aggressor.  Yes, yes Ruby Ridge and Waco, whatever.  I'm more likely to be eaten by a panther leaving this cafe than to be gunned down by the ATF or water-boarded to death by the CIA in Gitmo.  I'm not saying the low likelihood of government abuse makes it okay, but it isn't common.

Also, the state has the obligation to protect you.  To quote Al Gore in futurama, read your Constitution:  "provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare". Thats why we have cops, and the military, rules against DWI and fire codes.  The protection of the state isn't perfect, but it there for you, and me.  Providing for you own defense is quite reasonable, but there has to be a line somewhere before Kyle's position.  Not everyone is entitled to carry a concealed AK-, or fire their handgun whenever they feel threatened like FL now allows.

[KeithK]

Ben, I agree that our government is relatively trustworthy overall.  Government abuse gets lots of attention when it happens but I think that it is rare, at least to the level where one might consider armed resistance.

That said, the right of self-defense against government  abuse is still important.  If the government were to move in a direction where armed resistance were needed it would be too late to cry out for your rights at that point.  Just because things are good at the present doesn't mean that vigilance is unnecessary.

Also, the state has the obligation to protect you.

True, but the government isn't always able to protect everyone in a timely fashion.  If you are assaulted it won't matter that there are cope tasked with protecting you if there aren't any around to do so.  It's appropriate to turn to the relevant authorities when that's feasible, but the primary responsibility for self-defense is personal.  Better to be aware and prepared for potential dangers than to be a defenseless sheep hoping that someone will come and protect you.

[Rosey]

[quote KeithK]

Also, the state has the obligation to protect you.

True[/quote]
This is actually false.  It's amazing how long the legs on this myth are, but in fact, the Supreme Court ruled in 1999 in Castle Rock vs. Gonzales that the state has no obligation to protect any individual person, only to provide for "general order."  See http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy83.html for more information.

Kyle

[ugarte]

[quote krose][quote KeithK]

Also, the state has the obligation to protect you.

True[/quote]
This is actually false.  It's amazing how long the legs on this myth are, but in fact, the Supreme Court ruled in 1999 in Castle Rock vs. Gonzales that the state has no obligation to protect any individual person, only to provide for "general order."  See http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy83.html for more information.[/quote]Liberal activists! I want a gun and a personal security staff! I am important and unsafe!!!

[Ben Rocky '04]

Oh Kyle, you're so full of shit, and you're a crackpot that should be hanging out with Tim McViegh. The court rulled that couldn't SUE THEM for failing to provide it.  Personally, she should be able to: they fucked up, and her kids were taken by a crazy person, with a gun. Wow, a lot of good personal gun ownership did right there:  three dead children. If you want to arm everyone so that they can keep themselves 'safe', don't fucking do it in my state.  The fewer people with firearms, the better.

[Rosey]

[quote Ben Rocky 04 mouth-shat:]Oh Kyle, you're so full of shit, and you're a crackpot that should be hanging out with Tim McViegh. The court rulled that couldn't SUE THEM for failing to provide it.  Personally, she should be able to: they fucked up, and her kids were taken by a crazy person, with a gun. Wow, a lot of good personal gun ownership did right there:  three dead children. If you want to arm everyone so that they can keep themselves 'safe', don't fucking do it in my state.  The fewer people with firearms, the better.[/quote]
LOL.  I love it when people resort to flaming me instead of addressing my actual points: it means I won the argument. ::twak::

When you grow up, Ben, come back and argue with the big boys. :-D

Kyle

[Beeeej]

[quote krose][quote Ben Rocky 04 mouth-shat:]Oh Kyle, you're so full of shit, and you're a crackpot that should be hanging out with Tim McViegh. The court rulled that couldn't SUE THEM for failing to provide it.  Personally, she should be able to: they fucked up, and her kids were taken by a crazy person, with a gun. Wow, a lot of good personal gun ownership did right there:  three dead children. If you want to arm everyone so that they can keep themselves 'safe', don't fucking do it in my state.  The fewer people with firearms, the better.[/quote]
LOL.  I love it when people resort to flaming me instead of addressing my actual points: it means I won the argument. ::twak::[/quote]

No, it means that one of the many, many people who disagree with you happens to be really bad at debate (and at English, from the looks of his post).  Personally, I tend to think people who care most about "winning" the gun argument are the ones who don't actually care who gets hurt because of it - and that's true of both sides.

[nyc94]

[quote Beeeej][quote krose][quote Ben Rocky 04 mouth-shat:]Oh Kyle, you're so full of shit, and you're a crackpot that should be hanging out with Tim McViegh. The court rulled that couldn't SUE THEM for failing to provide it.  Personally, she should be able to: they fucked up, and her kids were taken by a crazy person, with a gun. Wow, a lot of good personal gun ownership did right there:  three dead children. If you want to arm everyone so that they can keep themselves 'safe', don't fucking do it in my state.  The fewer people with firearms, the better.[/quote]
LOL.  I love it when people resort to flaming me instead of addressing my actual points: it means I won the argument. ::twak::[/quote]

No, it means that one of the many, many people who disagree with you happens to be really bad at debate (and at English, from the looks of his post).  Personally, I tend to think people who care most about "winning" the gun argument are the ones who don't actually care who gets hurt because of it - and that's true of both sides.[/quote]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/counties/philadelphia_county/philadelphia/16104571.htm