2nd Amendment; Why it's so important.

[carlosr77]

I decided to write this after reading so many of your thoughts and opinions on gun rights issues. I hope this story will entertain you, and give you a perspective on why the 2nd amendment is so important.

I immigrated to the USA in 1968. At the age of ten my immediate family left Cuba after a four year wait from the time of application. I was born one year before Castro took power. At that time my father owned a small piece of land and he operated a small country store. Clients rode in on horseback, horse and buggy, and a few on old 30's and 40's trucks.
After Castro had firm control, he first [B]disarmed the population..[B] He then took my father's land from him for redistribution to peasant population. They were to grow whatever crop the government demanded.
This also brought about my fathers first arrest. He was suspected of being a counter-revolutionary and imprisoned for a week, then released, with no due process.
Castro pushed Cuba in the direction of communism and demanded the citizens to register as such. My family refused. With the little money we had, my father moved us to a small town where he opened a small store. A year later, the government took all moneys in deposit in the banks from all Cubans. Pro government propaganda grew, contolled by Castro, with more insistance in being a good communist. The students and some teachers at the elementry school I attended ridiculed me for not being a communist. We were on food rationing now and were not receiving our full share. My mother had to smuggle food home from friends in the country-side at risk to herself, in order to feed me and my new little brother.
My fathers second arrest occured shortly after the bay of pigs, failed invasion. Not being a communist he could only be a simpathizer with the Americans.
Again just picked up, locked up, and later released after no proof of collaboration was found. In these times, people were being picked up of the streets, tortured, killed, plain dissapeared. Anyone who was discovered to be talking in anti-government tones was game. I remembered many a whispered conversations with adults around the kitchen. You never knew who was listening or who is a government spy.
At 7:30 am, three armed soldiers knocked on our front door. They demanded the keys to my fathers store. What could he do? He gave them the keys. His business and our livelyhood taken for no just cause, other than we were not registered communists.
Several months later my father organized a group of men in secret to attempt to escape from Cuba on a boat. We were being persecuted and had to go. 5 men, my pregnant mother, my brother and I,; we all boarded a boat whose motor broke and we were forced to return.
Because we had dissapeared for a prolonged period of time, rumors that we had escaped circulated. When we returned home, my father was arrested for a third time. Imprisoned for a month, interogated, with no due process. He was later released and ordered in to a labor camp. I remember makiing the train trip once a month with my mother to bring him supplies/basic nessecities.
It was finally in 1968 that our family was granted permission to immigrate. We came here pennyless.
If you remeber, at the beginign of this story, it was by disarming the population that the government was able to take control and abuse human rights with no fear of any armed assault to reverse the injustice.
Our constitution in the United States was drafted by our founders, two hundred years earlier to prevent just such a thing.
The second amendment was drafted so that we would have a means to protect ourselves from our government, So that it would never be able to take away the means by wich it's citizens could wrest control back from overreaching politicians. That a bullit could bring order, balance, and the restoration of our rights.
Why are people today afraid of guns? because they are ignorant of the facts. They don't understand the importance of civic involvement to keep politicians honest, and knowledge of history's lesons. Many are victims of misguided anti-gun movements.
God bless this country, with all it's faults, it is still the best nation in the world. Please support those organizations that help protect our rights, so we never have to contemplate raising the gun to do so.

[BTR]

Thank you for posting your story.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

carlosr77,

Good post and thanks for your story. Unfortunately, in Cuba there has never really been a history of a democratic government that protected it's people's rights. The fact that Cuba had no Second Amendment did not not bring Castro to power. Fulgencio Batista and his corrupt Mafia-loving administration did that. So, Cuba exchanged a military, corrupt, gangster for a revolutionary undemocractic one. Namely Fidel Castro.

I maintain that the robustness and maturity of the US politically democratic institutions protect us far more than the Second Amendment does. It is those institutions that protect us from corruption and tyranny. See the recent impeachment and most certain imprisonment of Gov Rod Blagojevich. That sort of stuff never happened in Cuba. Politicians were replaced, but by coup and assassination rather than lawful means. After Cuba was no longer a colony of Spain it's history was soiled with civil war, race wars, foreign interventions and finally dictatorship.

Fortunately in America, after our independence, we created the best democratic document the world has ever seen. The Constitution of the United States. Today, even though not perfect the people in power in our government reflect the will of the people as they have for the last 200 + years or they are voted out of office. Power changes hands through elections and not coups or revolutions. That is the reason for our freedoms today, the ones you now enjoy and the ownership of firearms by civilians is not the reason for that.

[carlosr77]

Thank you for your thoughful response. I too have made the observations you refer to. The change of power when Nixon left the white house and the Ford family stepped in. Tip O'neal (speaker of the house)stood by a window looking out on Pensilvania Avenue that night, and made this observation. That with all this turmoil in government, there are no tanks on the streets, soldiers to protect the house. Just a few cars driving by, and some folks looking from the street on this historic night.
I appreciate deeply, perhaps more than most, what Jefferson and John Adams did for this land, and it's peoples, when they authored the Constitution.

[zukiphile]

It would not be correct to imagine that the current state of our rights have a single source, just as it would be wrong to suggest that any individual right played no part in the current state of our liberty.

Tip O'neal (speaker of the house)stood by a window looking out on Pensilvania Avenue that night, and made this observation. That with all this turmoil in government, there are no tanks on the streets, soldiers to protect the house. Just a few cars driving by, and some folks looking from the street on this historic night.
I appreciate deeply, perhaps more than most, what Jefferson and John Adams did for this land, and it's peoples, when they authored the Constitution.

Indeed. This describes a trust in law that comes with a history of stability and observance of men's rights as provided by that law. That isn't our only experience. About a century before O'Neill's observation we had some unpleasantness between the states, and in the 1960s and 1990s some populations have rioted violently at least in part in reaction to their perceptions of the legal system.

However most of our experience is in a system that provides individuals recourse through the legal and political process, and trusts them enough to allow exercise of those rights. Within that context, the government should have no fear of the militia, or of it being properly and effectively armed.

That speaks to the differences of balance between government and people in our model and that used in a lot of the latin world. When people note the importance of specific rights, especially those enumerated in the COTUS, they are very often decrying an erosion of the tradition of our rights not only in terms of arms.

In a system in which the militia are substantially disarmed, individuals are subject to speech codes enforced by government, eminent domain is used in unconventional ways, the electoral process is doubted by a growing population, or government serves as a medical and financial nanny or tyrant, it is fair to wonder how long O'Neill's observation of confidence and the ensuing order would last.

[A_Gamehog]

When the second amendment was written black powder flint locks were the standard, not SKS, AR-15's etc. remember that fact.

[publius]

those blackpowder flintlocks were the AR-15's of that time. the evolution of small arms has no bearing on the second amendment.

[shortwave]

Carlos, thank you for your post. A reality check from time to time is refreshing. Sometimes stories such as this will remind us of the country we live in, not take it for granted and helps give us the strength to fight and keep it "the best country in the world".

[miroslav]

With less than 50% voter turnout each election, you can hardly say that our government representatives reflect the will of the people. They reflect the will of the vocal minorities, the media groups that cover their campaigns, and political action committees that finance them. The level of apathy and indifference among the people of voting age in this country is going to destroy it for all of us!

[Tennessee Gentleman]

With less than 50% voter turnout each election, you can hardly say that our government representatives reflect the will of the people.

Cliche alert! Vote and the choice is yours, don't vote and the choice is theirs!

[sam1chlt]

How fair do you feel this last election was??? Did ACORN have a part in what happened? Did race play into this election more so than experience and knowledge?? Carlos..I really liked your post. I lived in Columbia South America right before Escobar took over and it really helped me appreciate what we have in America...My fear is that we are letting it slowly slip away with out a shot being fired!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Warning - Acorn, Race - the election - politics are not the purpose of the forum. If one wants to talk about excercise of the right to vote to preserve the RKBA, fine. But we don't want to to redo the last election.

[Kleinzeit]

My fear is that we are letting it slowly slip away with out a shot being fired!

I hope you are being metaphorical. What shot is it, precisely, that you want fired?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Yep, we have decided not to do revolution threads. Talk about voting strategies. We are on the brink here!

[Webleymkv]

I maintain that the robustness and maturity of the US politically democratic institutions protect us far more than the Second Amendment does. It is those institutions that protect us from corruption and tyranny. See the recent impeachment and most certain imprisonment of Gov Rod Blagojevich. That sort of stuff never happened in Cuba. Politicians were replaced, but by coup and assassination rather than lawful means. After Cuba was no longer a colony of Spain it's history was soiled with civil war, race wars, foreign interventions and finally dictatorship.

What you forget is that Cuba has been independant from Spain for just over a century. In our first century of independance from Great Britain, we had foreign intervention (we were invaded during the war of 1812), more that our fair share of racial tenisons, and a civil war. Also, it must be remembered that the longstanding state of relative tranquility and freedom from tyranny that we enjoy today was a very recent development at the time the Constitution was drafted. If one examines the Bill of Rights, we find that every amendment contained in it contains either a limit upon the power of government or an enumeration of individual right. Certainly there are some rights which were omitted from the Bill of Rights such as the right to ingest or smoke certain substances, the right to travel in freedom from regulation, etc but for some reason the founders thought that these rights were important enough to be specifically enumerated. If one examines history, we find that tyrannical governments are usually quick to take away certain rights such as freedom of speech and press, due process of law, and the right to bear arms. I think that the founders knew that prevention of the removal of these vitally important rights would help to prevent the rise of a tyrannicla government. Evidence of this is easily observed in the text of the Second Amendment: 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. Because the founders specifically included the word "free," I'm inclined to think that the Second Amendment was included in the bill of rights not only to ensure the security of the state, but the freedom of the state as well.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Also, it must be remembered that the longstanding state of relative tranquility and freedom from tyranny that we enjoy today was a very recent development at the time the Constitution was drafted. If one examines the Bill of Rights, we find that every amendment contained in it contains either a limit upon the power of government or an enumeration of individual right.

Quite right. I think freedom of speech was not even at the state level before the 14th amendment and wasn't even incorporated until the 20th century. It surely took time to develop but we developed our democratic institutions to a fine degree and were able to avoid any dictatorship and wholesale loss of our civil rights (even though Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus during the Civil War it was restored after the war was over). Also, Congress took authority over the militia (except for appointing it's officers) which was a huge step the anti-federalists decried but they lost the argument overall.

Because the founders specifically included the word "free," I'm inclined to think that the Second Amendment was included in the bill of rights not only to ensure the security of the state, but the freedom of the state as well.

Freedom (the operative term I think) is used throughout the COTUS and the BOR. I think an insecure state cannot by definition be free since fear would enslave it's people. I think the security part came first to protect the state from foreign invaders and lawless insurrection allowing our freedoms to follow in the checks and balances that restrict government and it's powers.

As I have posted before I do not hold with the Insurrection Theory which holds the 2A not only grants the personal right to bear arms, but gives citizens the right to rebel against a government perceived as tyrannical, since it cannot hold water against Article One Section Eight or Article Three Section Three of the COTUS.
Would any interpretation of the 2A make sense to say that a well-regulated body authorized by the government is intended to train itself for action against the government?

I think the militia was established to protect the state which in turn protects our freedoms. Today a professional police force and military performs that function and the militia is no more.

[sam1chlt]

If we fail to question, then yes, we will be just like Cuba!!!!Kleinzeit you may want to read a book written by Karl Marx that explains the take over with out uprising!

[Webleymkv]

Freedom (the operative term I think) is used throughout the COTUS and the BOR. I think an insecure state cannot by definition be free since fear would enslave it's people. I think the security part came first to protect the state from foreign invaders and lawless insurrection allowing our freedoms to follow in the checks and balances that restrict government and it's powers.

As I have posted before I do not hold with the Insurrection Theory which holds the 2A not only grants the personal right to bear arms, but gives citizens the right to rebel against a government perceived as tyrannical, since it cannot hold water against Article One Section Eight or Article Three Section Three of the COTUS.
Would any interpretation of the 2A make sense to say that a well-regulated body authorized by the government is intended to train itself for action against the government?

I think the militia was established to protect the state which in turn protects our freedoms. Today a professional police force and military performs that function and the militia is no more.


I agree in that I don't think the Second Amendment enumerates a right to armed insurrection. The result of the Civil War illustrates that. However, a lack of right to do so will not stop insurrection if enough of the population is armed and inclined to do so and the founders knew this (afterall, the American Revolution was viewed as treason by the British government). I think part of the purpose is to deter tyranny in the first place. I think the founders knew that tyranny is far less likely to occur if the government is unable to disarm the population as the police and military cannot control a population if the majority of that population is armed and unwilling to comply. Thusly, the government will be far less likely to become tyrannical if it fears that an armed population may not be willing to comply with such tyranny. While I agree that insecurity threatens the freedom of a nation, a nation's population can be secure without being free. China seems quite secure as did the Soviet Union for most of its history but neither nation's population was (or in the case of China is) free.

[kirpi97]

What started out as a simple observation soon turned into a discussion on the whether the rights granted by the Bill of Rights secured our fragile democracy or was it the institutions created after the framers had placed their pens back in the ink wells.

The arguments are compelling that what secures our rights today are the institutions created (i.e. law enforcement, nation guard, military, etc.). But was the case back in 1778? There was no real US Military, no Federal Agency protecting Americans. And the State Militias were not all that well organized. So what was it that held this country together?

I think what really holds this country together is the power of the people. And it is more fragile than we think. It has been strained a few times. But we have remained civil. During the Great Depression, instead of looting and mass rioting, the people worked to pull this country out. Some economists give credit to the work programs of the government. While other economists claimed that prolonged the depression and it was the war that ultimately pulled us out. But either way, the people remained civil.

The power rests in the people. We just have to be willing to use that power.

I enjoyed the story and the posts for the most part.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

But was the case back in 1778? There was no real US Military, no Federal Agency protecting Americans. And the State Militias were not all that well organized. So what was it that held this country together?

Good question! I think what held this country together was a dream that we have only recently (last 100 years) fully realized. However, the militias were a part of that and served a great purpose for our young country (even though George Washington did not like them:eek:)

Where I part company with some is that the an armed citizenry does not guarantee or really protect those freedoms today. When they further argue that we need to have military weapons such as machineguns and grenades in order to be able to fight our own military, I jump off that boat.

I am reminded of post Katrina when Mayor Nagin illegally and unconstitutionally confiscated property (firearms) from law-abiding citizens. The fact that those citizens were armed did not stop him from acting as a tyrant, but a court order filed by the NRA did. And a lawsuit made him give them back. Nixon gave up the tapes when the courts told him to and not when armed citizens stormed the White House. Cuba, never learned that and today they are not free.

Thusly, the government will be far less likely to become tyrannical if it fears that an armed population may not be willing to comply with such tyranny...China seems quite secure as did the Soviet Union for most of its history but neither nation's population was (or in the case of China is) free.

True indeed Webley, just being secure isn't enough but having guns doesn't do it either.

Look at Somalia or many other third world countries. Plenty of arms, and I mean the good stuff (machineguns, rocket launchers) that you and I have debated over;) but are they free? I have been to some of those places and I assure you they are not. They live short brutish lives but they are well armed.

See, arms alone won't make you free either. Rule of law that the people will support does the job. I teach an ethics course to a group of LEOs from time to time. I tell them that what really keeps them safe on the street is that 99.999% of our population respects the rule of law and so the thin blue line holds. If that respect and support were not there then it would be Dodge City for sure.

[Webleymkv]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
Thusly, the government will be far less likely to become tyrannical if it fears that an armed population may not be willing to comply with such tyranny...China seems quite secure as did the Soviet Union for most of its history but neither nation's population was (or in the case of China is) free.

True indeed Webley, just being secure isn't enough but having guns doesn't do it either.

Look at Somalia or many other third world countries. Plenty of arms, and I mean the good stuff (machineguns, rocket launchers) that you and I have debated over but are they free? I have been to some of those places and I assure you they are not. They live short brutish lives but they are well armed.

While I agree that right to arms alone does not make a population free, it goes a long way towards it. If you look at most of the atrocities that we see comitted in the third world, we find that it's typically one segment of the population that is well armed dominating or killing another segment that, for whatever reason, has inferior weapons or is totally unarmed. Likewise, the dominated segments of the population, armed or not, are usually poorly organized and incapable of mounting an effective resistance.

To tie in with the OP, it would seem that the police officers and soldiers, regardless of Castro's wishes, would have been more reluctant to carry out their heinous acts in Cuba if they feared resistance and/or retaliation from an armed population. By first disarming the population however, the ensured that they could go about their business unopposed. In comparison to our own country, I think that if our own government did become tyrannical without first disarming the population, it would have trouble getting the military and police to go along with it's wishes as the soldiers and LEO's would fear that the armed population may fight back.

See, arms alone won't make you free either. Rule of law that the people will support does the job. I teach an ethics course to a group of LEOs from time to time. I tell them that what really keeps them safe on the street is that 99.999% of our population respects the rule of law and so the thin blue line holds. If that respect and support were not there then it would be Dodge City for sure.


Yes, the vast majority of the population respects the rule of law now, but if the government became tyrannical, that segment of the population would surely decline and would have to be kept in line by force. Such force would be much more difficult to execute if the population is armed and able to resist. I contend that the case is not that we are armed because the government is not tyrannical, but rather that the government is not tyrannical in part because we are armed. I feel that the part of the purpose of the Second Amendment (besides protection from foreign invaders) is to foster a healthy fear within the government of an armed population and thereby prevent tyranny.

[litng1]

publius
Great little post!!!!:)

[Kleinzeit]

sam1chlt, you confuse me. First you wrote:

My fear is that we are letting it slowly slip away with out a shot being fired!

and I asked whether you meant to say by this that, because of the last election, someone should actually be shooting guns now. (That really is what you seemed to be saying.) Now you write to say,

Kleinzeit you may want to read a book written by Karl Marx that explains the take over with out uprising!

and that really confuses me. :confused:

Perhaps I don't know Marx as well as I should. My understanding is that he saw history as a process in which the working people would eventually take up arms in revolution to overthrow their elitist, tyrannical oppressors. And that he thought this was a fine idea.

Now, I'm a bit slow, so humor me here. What I have so far is that you want me to read Marx, and you think we should start shooting... So, I think perhaps you want to start a Communist revolution in America. Is that it?

Because if you are talking revolution of any kind, you might want to take that talk somewhere else.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

While I agree that right to arms alone does not make a population free, it goes a long way towards it.

No it doesn't really make you free just powerful which leads to..

most of the atrocities that we see committed in the third world, we find that it's typically one segment of the population that is well armed dominating or killing another segment that, for whatever reason, has inferior weapons or is totally unarmed.

This is not freedom in action but rather power being exercised over another group. In Rwanda the Tutsi first had the power oppressed the Hutu who later took over and massacred the Tutsi. Arms just provided the means to do it.

it would seem that the police officers and soldiers, regardless of Castro's wishes, would have been more reluctant to carry out their heinous acts in Cuba if they feared resistance and/or retaliation from an armed population.

I think the Bay of Pigs proved that wrong. The people of Cuba in the majority wanted Castro and allowed him to stay in power. Otherwise the CIA plan would have worked and millions of indignent Cubans would have risen up and overthrown Castro. Didn't happen and would Cuba had been any freer after the exiles took over? I don't think you can say that webley. Isay based on the lack of said democratic ideals and foundations you might well have had another fascist dictator in Ccuba.

Rule of law and the democratic dreams and ideals we have today will keep
if the government became tyrannical
from ever being a reality.

I contend that the case is not that we are armed because the government is not tyrannical, but rather that the government is not tyrannical in part because we are armed.

Can you show any instance in history where an armed population keep a leader from doing something tryannical. We have had instances of that. The suspension of Habeus Corpus by Lincoln, the sedition laws of WWI, the Japanese Interment in WWII. Did armed citizens stop those? Please do not cite the rural myth of the Battle of Athens:barf:

We are armed today and can defend ourselves from criminals because we have a democratic government whose checks and balances have kept power diffused so that one man or party could not take over as a tyrant. Even when things got bad during the Cvil War or the Great Depression we maintained our COTUS without the use of armed citizenry.

We don't have a tyrannical government because of those institutions, free press and the rule of law. Not because there is an armed minority.

[kirpi97]

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman:
When they further argue that we need to have military weapons such as machineguns and grenades in order to be able to fight our own military, I jump off that boat.

I am in agreement with you on this point. I am not a believer in the average citizen owning an assault rifle or any weapon that is customarily associated with the military. But given the climate of our democracy and the pursuits of some that when you give in to one point, they then use that as the new standard from which to erode more points. There is no end. So we draw arbitrary lines in the sand about which we will not budge.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman:
arms alone won't make you free either. Rule of law that the people will support does the job.

Again we are in total agreement. As long as the population respects the law and civility reigns, then you have a democracy. When that fails, anarchy or a sort of nature's feudal system--might makes right exists. Somalia was a perfect example. Weapons everywhere. But the rule of law was established by Warlords.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman:
Can you show any instance in history where an armed population keep a leader from doing something tryannical.

Bit of a loaded question wouldn't you say. If I could point to such an event, we wouldn't know it because the leader never did anything. But if they stop him by use of force, then it is a revolt.

But if we are going for an example of where the perception of the use of power thwarted the moves of a tyrant, we need only look at America. For years policy of Mutual Destruction thwarted the Soviet Union. We never had to employ the force. The threat of it was enough.

And in Turkey, the Constitution gives the Military the power to over take the Government should it try and depart from secularism. The government has tried on occasion and the military stepped in. Restored the government back to the Constitution and then relinquished control back to civilian authorities.

Today, the military is the protector of the Constitution. The mere presence and knowledge that the military will step in keeps the Islamic Party from grasping hold of the government and turning it into another Iran.

I know these are not examples of ordinary citizens thwarting tyranny because they have weapons. But it is as close as I can get. It is like Switzerland. Who has no real standing Army. Just a nation of armed citizens. And they seem to maintain a democracy.

So the military itself doesn't guarantee freedoms. It goes back to the will of the people.

.

[Kleinzeit]

But given the climate of our democracy and the pursuits of some that when you give in to one point, they then use that as the new standard from which to erode more points.

The thing that gets me worried at this point is that this description of the state of democracy could be applied equally to both sides of politics. Under the previous administration, many supported what others saw as the erosion of civil liberties. Now the situation and sides are reversed and the complaint is essentially the same. So, when people take up arms against the person they think is a tyrant, they are probably taking up arms against their neighbor, as well. This is why I, too, put my faith in democratic institutions and the rule of law.

[Webleymkv]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
While I agree that right to arms alone does not make a population free, it goes a long way towards it.

No it doesn't really make you free just powerful which leads to..


True enough, arms alone doesn't make one free. However, if the population is armed and therefore powerful, they are more difficult and therefore less likely to be oppressed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
most of the atrocities that we see committed in the third world, we find that it's typically one segment of the population that is well armed dominating or killing another segment that, for whatever reason, has inferior weapons or is totally unarmed.

This is not freedom in action but rather power being exercised over another group. In Rwanda the Tutsi first had the power oppressed the Hutu who later took over and massacred the Tutsi. Arms just provided the means to do it.


That's actually an illustration of my point, the side that was better armed was able to massacre the side that was not. Had both sides been armed equally well, I suspect the outcome may have been quite different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
it would seem that the police officers and soldiers, regardless of Castro's wishes, would have been more reluctant to carry out their heinous acts in Cuba if they feared resistance and/or retaliation from an armed population.

I think the Bay of Pigs proved that wrong. The people of Cuba in the majority wanted Castro and allowed him to stay in power. Otherwise the CIA plan would have worked and millions of indignent Cubans would have risen up and overthrown Castro. Didn't happen and would Cuba had been any freer after the exiles took over? I don't think you can say that webley. Isay based on the lack of said democratic ideals and foundations you might well have had another fascist dictator in Ccuba.

Since they had been disarmed before the invasion, how were the citizens in Cuba supposed to rise up and support the invasion. I don't think a bunch of people with sticks and pitchforks would have done particularly well against the Cuban army and the people probably knew this. Thusly, because the people were afraid (and rightly so) to support the invasion and because the invasion force was small and poorly supported, it failed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
if the government became tyrannical

from ever being a reality.

Lets hope you're right

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
I contend that the case is not that we are armed because the government is not tyrannical, but rather that the government is not tyrannical in part because we are armed.

Can you show any instance in history where an armed population keep a leader from doing something tryannical. We have had instances of that. The suspension of Habeus Corpus by Lincoln, the sedition laws of WWI, the Japanese Interment in WWII. Did armed citizens stop those? Please do not cite the rural myth of the Battle of Athens

Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus, WWI's sedition laws, and the Japanese internment camps were all allowed because they were deemed to be emergency measures, had they not been done away with when the percieved need for them was gone, it's difficult to say how the population would have reacted. As far as an instance of an armed population throwing off a tyrannical government, what do you call the American Revolution? An armed population rose up and threw off a tyrannical government. While the outcomes weren't as favorable as the American Revolution, the French Revolution and Bolshevik Revolutions are also examples of an armed population throwing off a tyrannical government (in those cases monarchies). The reasons that the French and Bolshevik revolutions did not have as favorable outcomes as our own is that nothing like the constitution was put in place afterwards to keep the new government from becoming tyrannical. Also, as kirpi97 pointed out, it is rather difficult to point out something that never happened because an armed population prevented it rather than revolted against it. One can see throughout history tyrannical governments first disarming and then opressing their populations. One of the first things that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union did was to disarm their populations, it was only after that that the jack-booted thugs began kicking in doors with much frequency.

We are armed today and can defend ourselves from criminals because we have a democratic government whose checks and balances have kept power diffused so that one man or party could not take over as a tyrant. Even when things got bad during the Cvil War or the Great Depression we maintained our COTUS without the use of armed citizenry.


Democratic government can still become tyrannical. The British Parliment was established well before the American Revolution, Hitler became chancellor through a democratic vote, and Mussolini came to power in a similar fashion. Also, during tough times such as the Great Depression, could it be that a majority of the population being armed prevented one segment of it from dominating the other? I agree that the right to arms alone does not guarantee freedom, but I maintain that it is one of the many components that does.

[zukiphile]

We don't have a tyrannical government because of those institutions, free press and the rule of law. Not because there is an armed minority.

This assumes that american rule of law itself does not require the general population to be allowed to arm, which is itself a dubious proposition.

More problemmatic, a view that some civil liberties are necessary to the state of american liberty while some others are superfluous is gravely flawed. It pretends a knowledge which is improbable, and as a proposition is categorically impossible.

A fellow might argue that the first amendment is superfluous and americans would still not have tyranny, reduced liberty, without it. It seems unlikely we would consider a government that denied those liberties anything but tyrannical, and each liberty is a strand in the tapestry of general liberty.

it would seem that the police officers and soldiers, regardless of Castro's wishes, would have been more reluctant to carry out their heinous acts in Cuba if they feared resistance and/or retaliation from an armed population.
I think the Bay of Pigs proved that wrong. The people of Cuba in the majority wanted Castro and allowed him to stay in power. Otherwise the CIA plan would have worked and millions of indignent Cubans would have risen up and overthrown Castro. Didn't happen and would Cuba had been any freer after the exiles took over? I don't think you can say that webley. Isay based on the lack of said democratic ideals and foundations you might well have had another fascist dictator in Ccuba.


Well, you've sort of shown your hand here.

I think the Bay of Pigs proved that wrong. The people of Cuba in the majority wanted Castro and allowed him to stay in power.

Whether a dicatorship is popular doesn't bear on whether it commits atrocities or whether the presence of armed resistence would temper its actions. That ascendant communists pre-emptively disarm potentially non-compliant populations indicates their view that an armed population would impede their control.

Otherwise the CIA plan would have worked and millions of indignent Cubans would have risen up and overthrown Castro.

The idea that one poorly planned and executed invasion at one point in history is equivalent to an ongoing plebisite in favour of Castro merits ridicule.

Didn't happen and would Cuba had been any freer after the exiles took over? I don't think you can say that webley. Isay based on the lack of said democratic ideals and foundations you might well have had another fascist dictator in Ccuba.

Batista wasn't a fascist. He was vehemently opposed by the fascists. The only party that labels any and all opponents fascists? That's right. The misconception of communist party government as some sort of intermediate condition between formal constitutional liberty and tyranny is not well founded. Since cubans risking death on leaky boats and innertubes is a trait peculiar to this island prison outpost of a conspicuous tyranny as created and enforced by Castro, it can only serve to slander hose who opposed him by wondering whether they would be as grotesque.

Can you show any instance in history where an armed population keep a leader from doing something tryannical.

You mean aside from the american insurrection? A modern example is provided by the arming of the nicaraguan people to remove communists from their political monopoly and re-introduce constitutional and representative government.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

On the counterpoint - the Iranian overthrow of the Shah and the ultimate overthrow of the Soviet system was done by a sea change in the populace. That sea change was accompanied by a refusal of the armed branches of those governments to use force against the populace.

In China, the armed forces (with troops brought from areas away from Beijing), were willing to use military force.

Since many democracies exist without an armed populace and major insurrections have occured without armed rebellion - one should be careful about generalizations. And of course, we return to the horrible conundrum that many of the most ardent supporters of the 2nd Amend. are quite ok with violating many other civil liberties.

I opine that the BOR are all equally important and simply stating that the 2nd is predominant is not a winning argument. There was no armed insurrection against slavery or the Japanese interrment.

[zukiphile]

Glenn, I think fidelity to history is important if we are to make historical assertions

On the counterpoint - the Iranian overthrow of the Shah and the ultimate overthrow of the Soviet system was done by a sea change in the populace.

Neither of these conveys the history of these events. The governing persian class, always a minority, was generally supportive of the Shah's program of modernisation, and was generally opposed to the very traditional and less urban general population. The Shah's failing health and clear signals from the US government that the Shah no longer had our support led to what amounted to his abdication. It was the Shah who never ordered a more vigorous entrenchment, not a refusal of iranian armed forces to follow orders.

Similarly, to suggest that the soviet system was a product of popular support, and that it folded when that support evanesced is ahistorical. While russian nationalism united russians during the german invasion and was generally supportive of soviet expansion, the support of the general population who were subject to a formal policy of rule by terror, is very hard to find.


None of this should indicate that popular support can't affect the course of some governments, or that armed insurrection or its threat is the first, best or only means by which a population can secure a greater degree of liberty. However, that it can and has done that seems difficult to deny.

[Webleymkv]

On the counterpoint - the Iranian overthrow of the Shah and the ultimate overthrow of the Soviet system was done by a sea change in the populace. That sea change was accompanied by a refusal of the armed branches of those governments to use force against the populace.

The overthrow of the Soviet system is kind of unique in that it happened at a point in time in which that system was already crumbling under it's own weight. The Soviet economy was unable to sustain the amounts of military spending that the government was taking part in and the old hard-line communists' number were dwindling. While it is true that the armed branches of the government were unwilling to use force against the populace, so to was Gorbachev. Had such changes been tried at a different point in time, under Stalin for example, I suspect that the outcome would have been quite different. Because of the Soviet government's unwillingness to use force against their populace, it could be argued that they were at that point no longer tyrannical but just ineffective. With regards to the overthrow of the Shah, the Iranian military only declared themselves neutral after they were overwhelmed by guerillas and rebel troops so armed insurrection did occur to certain extent and it was only after the Shah lost the support of the military that a relatively peaceful transition was able to occur.

I opine that the BOR are all equally important and simply stating that the 2nd is predominant is not a winning argument. There was no armed insurrection against slavery or the Japanese interrment.


I agree and have never been of the opinion that the Second Amendment is any more important that the rest, however I maintain that it is no less important in preventing tyranny and that is the heart of the debate. I think that the Constitution contains many safeguards against tyranny and the Bill of Rights is composed almost entirely of such safeguards (though there are others not contained in the Bill of Rights such as our system of checks and balances). I contend that while the Second Amendment is partly in place to ensure that the citizensare able to protect themselves from criminals and foreign invaders, it is also one of the many safeguards against tyranny contained in the Constitution. As to slavery and Japanese interrment, an armed insurrection against slavery was attempted by John Brown, but the outcome was similar to the bay of pigs in that the slave population did not join the rebellion. I very highly doubt that this was because they liked being slaves, but rather I suspect that they were unable to(due to the fact that they were unarmed and not organized) or simply afraid to. Japanese interrment was perpetrated against a relatively small proportion of the populace and was, at the time, supported by the majority of the population. The Japanese interrment of WWII was also a relatively short-lived event and was ended by the other safeguards against tyranny.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

My point was the major overturns of what were seen as tyrannical governments was accomplished without major armed insurrections. There was no support for a continuation of the Shah's government with his heirs. The armed forces wouldn't have responded to use force against the people or so I read some reports. That he didn't give a futile order begs the question.

Similarly, in the USSR - it was reported that orders to use armed force wouldn't have been successful. The armed forces were not going to try to enforce order against the populace in this case.

[Webleymkv]

My point was the major overturns of what were seen as tyrannical governments was accomplished without major armed insurrections. There was no support for a continuation of the Shah's government with his heirs. The armed forces wouldn't have responded to use force against the people or so I read some reports. That he didn't give a futile order begs the question.

Similarly, in the USSR - it was reported that orders to use armed force wouldn't have been successful. The armed forces were not going to try to enforce order against the populace in this case.


Positing about the effectiveness of an order that was never given slides into speculation and doesn't really prove anything. Regardless, it's really beside the point anyway as there are many cases throughout history in which armed insurrecton was necessary to overthrow tyranny. Given that the founders had just gone through such an event, it seems clear to me that prevention of tyranny was part of their intent when they drafted the Second Amendment.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

A subtle point and it may start a flame war for which I apologize. My point on slavery was that the general population of slave owner states were, in general, quite OK with slavery. Their ownership of firearms and the 2nd Amend. did not automatically transfer to a respect for liberty for the slaves.

Thus, the contention that the 2nd and firearms ownership almost automatically guarantees a respect for liberty doesn't hold. Private firearms ownership can be a buffer to prevent genocide (suggested by studies that indicate that genocide occurs against the weak). But it doesn't gurantee that a firearms owning majority is necessarily a respector of liberty.

[Socrates]

An armed populace provides two things: protection against our government, and, protection against invaders.

Currently, we have border squabbles with Mexico based drug gangs, police, and factions of the armed forces. They are armed with automatic weapons, and, the people on those borders should have the right to respond in kind.

The Swiss government has proven the wisdom of this position. The Swiss haven't been invaded in 800 years, and, made it through two world wars and a bunch of other stuff in the last couple hundred years. Why? Shooting is their national past time.

The joke goes:
There is a story, possibly apocryphal but awesome nonetheless, that a ranking German (possibly the Kaiser) was visiting and watching the Swiss military on their summer maneuvers. He asked the Swiss commander, "How big a force do you command?"

The Swiss general confidently replied, "I can mobilize one million men in twenty-four hours."

The German asked, "What would happen if I marched five million men in here tomorrow?"

The Swiss replied, "Each of my men will fire five shots and go home."

Note that Switzerland was not invaded during either World War, and still used an updated version of the same bolt action rifle from 1889 to 1959, and kept it in reserve service until 1980.
Imagine a government that not only allows but INSISTS its citizens keep military grade weapons. That's points right there. Even more, they hold quarterly Schuetzenfests, at which shooting, carousing and drinking are expected. And it's entirely possible you will have your ass handed to you by a 13 year old girl shooting a select-fire StG90 assault rifle that she carried to the range from school, slung across her back while pedaling her bicycle. Swiss GIRLS are better men than most allegedly-male American liberals.
The K31 packs a kick. It fires a 7.5 mm Swiss round that is expensive, because it only comes from Switzerland and it's only available in match grade. There is no non-match grade Swiss Ammo. Swiss soldiers don't miss. This is why they've never had to demonstrate the fact. Invaders fear a mountain range full of snipers. .

For this to work, as the need arises, the populace should be armed with the current state of the art weapons, just as the Swiss have upgraded.

So you have two driving points:
Primarily the intent is to protect the country from invaders. Terrorists, drug gangs, etc.
Police aren't armed for this sort of situation, and, what are the folks in Arizona going to do? Wait for an underarmed police force to come out and get shot, while they are facing drug gangs with AK 47's? Apparently it's not politically correct, nor is it Constitutionally correct to have the National Guard armed, and sitting on the border, but, that maybe what it takes, if we ever really get serious about stopping illegal immigration, and protect the people that own property on our borders.

[Webleymkv]

A subtle point and it may start a flame war for which I apologize. My point on slavery was that the general population of slave owner states were, in general, quite OK with slavery. Their ownership of firearms and the 2nd Amend. did not automatically transfer to a respect for liberty for the slaves.

Thus, the contention that the 2nd and firearms ownership almost automatically guarantees a respect for liberty doesn't hold. Private firearms ownership can be a buffer to prevent genocide (suggested by studies that indicate that genocide occurs against the weak). But it doesn't gurantee that a firearms owning majority is necessarily a respector of liberty.


I don't think that anyone has suggested that firearms ownership guarantees a respect for liberty. What I've been trying to say is that a government is less likely to become opressive if it knows that the population it wishes to opress is armed. The issue of slavery and John Brown's insurrection in particular is an example of this: the slave owners had little concern for the liberty of slaves in part because the slaves were unarmed. Many states, in fact, went to great lengths to ensure that slaves remained unarmed out of fear of a slave rebellion.

[zukiphile]

We should be able to discuss this without a "flame war".

Their ownership of firearms and the 2nd Amend. did not automatically transfer to a respect for liberty for the slaves.

Thus, the contention that the 2nd and firearms ownership almost automatically guarantees a respect for liberty doesn't hold.

That seems uncontroversial, but who contends that firearms ownership automatically guarantees a respect for liberty generally? Would any individual right automatically guarantee such a respect?

I think we can fairly generalise that a government that has real regard for its citizens' liberty will also provide to citizens the means by which to exercise and protect that liberty. The means by which we institutionalise that regard for liberty involves legal protection of rights to vote, speak, worship, assemble, bear arms, freedom from warrantless search, own property, have access to courts, etc.

When one of those rights is diminished, it may not be the only one diminished. By way of example, I was and still am a vehement opponent of McCain-Feingold election financing "reform" for its limitations on the means by which people speak and are heard. Like a character in a Twilight Zone episode, McCain got what he wanted then was bitten by it.

We have a phalanx of rights; carelessness or indifference about one area of rights is unlikely to be good for the rest.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Oh, I agree - my cynical mind sometimes freezes on cliched rhetoric and some of the RKBA argument does that. Not to be a contrarian. Some of the rhetoric does seem to imply what I said. I note that we here are more nuanced.

About the Swiss - see that's my point. It is nice to argue that the Swiss military system precluded a German invasion. That was part of it. The Swiss had resistance plans. One major part was the destruction of tunnels leading to Italy. Their destruction would have greatly hampered German military plans. They also mined roads and plants that would have been to the advantage of the Germans to seize.

Next, the Swiss - in a horrible situation - did cooperate with the Germans to a very large extent.

Thus, invading Switzerland was contemplated but not needed according to most German analyses. No one doubted that the Wermacht could have taken Switzerland at some cost. The same analysis was made of the invasion of Sweden. Cooperation was high and the cost wasn't worth it.

Portraying the Swiss system as the sole protector of their country is easily refuted and if one makes this argument for the RKBA, you'd better understand the nuances.

If we also talk about persuasion, the chances of a foreign invasion in the classic sense of the USA is nil. One might argue that criminal activity is an 'invasion' but since most folks think of those issues as a need for increased law enforcement as compared to civilians in Hummers with M2s - that's not going to be a convincing argument.

If this discussion is to provide a rationale for the RKBA with examples, one really needs to think of ones that have some realistic bite. I think of the principles of persuasion and again mention that a silly argument later negates even strong ones.

The strong practical arguments as I see them (as compared to some theoretic statement) are:

1. Personal protection against crime
2. Personal and neighborhood protection against major social disruption like Katrina - but you need to stay away from racist rants (which we have seen here before).
3. Protection against racism and related terrorism (like the Deacons for Defense story).
4. Protection against an elected tyranny - but if that argument is only from the right - let's have guns to overthrow the government to put in a regressive right wing government and save our guns(the usual RKBA revolution call) - that isn't going to fly.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Sorry, I had to go to work and missed a lot of this. Good comments Glenn.:)

Had both sides been armed equally well, I suspect the outcome may have been quite different.

I don't think it was a question of arms but numbers that ruled the day and most of the genocide was done with machetes and axes not guns. I don't think your point holds using the balance of terror analogy. Again, liberty and freedom were not restored in Rwanda just revenge taken and leadership changed.

how were the citizens in Cuba supposed to rise up and support the invasion.

Actually, the CIA had done a pretty good job of smuggling in weapons and had given instructions for the rest of the Cuban populace to sabotage Fidel's Army. They didn't do it because they didn't support the uprising. Again, having arms and even a supporting Army of exiles did not return freedom to Cuba. There was little or no history of democracy in Cuba, just repression and corruption and today it remains. An armed citizenry would not change that, just change who was calling the shots.

As far as an instance of an armed population throwing off a tyrannical government, what do you call the American Revolution?

I should have said after the Revolutionary War.:o Caught me there but still no good. Why? Because we in America had no part of that system in 1776. No representation, no free press, no right to trial by jury, no free speech. Revolution in that case, and in some other similar ones in history, was the only option because there were no other means of redress.

Also, as kirpi97 pointed out, it is rather difficult to point out something that never happened because an armed population prevented it

Sure there is. Each of the historical examples I gave you were tryannical and counter to the COTUS. In fact the USA paid reparations to the Japanese that we wrongfully imprisoned in WWII.

In each and every case the armed citizenry did nothing and it was our democratic institutions that undid the wrongs. Either the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches righted the wrongs. In every case and never were armed citizens either a deterrent to government overstepping their bounds or a remedy to an ongoing infraction. It hasn't happened and won't because our democratic institutions will do it lawfully and peacefully. Even as recently as Katrina when Mayor Nagin unlawfully confiscated firearms from NO law-abiding residents did the "armed citizens" stop it or right it. The courts did by injunction.

An armed populace provides two things: protection against our government, and, protection against invaders.

I contend it does neither and hasn't in over 100 years. A professional military and police force has done it. An armed populace today protects individuals from crime and lawlessness and the 2A guarantees us that right. No right granted to overthrow the government in the 2A.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

a government is less likely to become opressive if it knows that the population it wishes to opress is armed.

A government is less likely to oppress it's citizen's when it's power is checked by law and institutions that won't allow one person or a small group to take over. Our founders insured that with the Separations of Powers and not with the 2d Amendment.

Next, the Swiss - in a horrible situation - did cooperate with the Germans to a very large extent.

Thus, invading Switzerland was contemplated but not needed according to most German analyses. No one doubted that the Wermacht could have taken Switzerland at some cost. The same analysis was made of the invasion of Sweden. Cooperation was high and the cost wasn't worth it.

Portraying the Swiss system as the sole protector of their country is easily refuted and if one makes this argument for the RKBA, you'd better understand the nuances.

Glenn, thanks for debunking that old canard. I think Swiss banks deterred the Nazi's more than their small army;)

Currently, we have border squabbles with Mexico based drug gangs, police, and factions of the armed forces. They are armed with automatic weapons, and, the people on those borders should have the right to respond in kind.

Socrates our military and police can deal with that. I am afraid that what you suggest may look like this:

http://heavynews.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/no-looting.jpg

[Socrates]

Socrates our military and police can deal with that. I am afraid that what you suggest may look like

They aren't and can't. Our military is not supposed to operate on US soil. The National Guard is guarding a border with empty guns?

Police response time is NOT something I'm willing to bet my life on, and no one else should, either. If you employee enough police to have a 'safe' society, you don't have a free one. In rural areas firearms are pretty much the first, and only line of defense, and, the police are cleanup crews.
1. Personal protection against crime
2. Personal and neighborhood protection against major social disruption like Katrina....
3. Protection against racism and related terrorism (like the Deacons for Defense story).
4. Protection against an elected tyranny - but if that argument is only from the right - let's have guns to overthrow the government to put in a regressive right wing government and save our guns(the usual RKBA revolution call) - that isn't going to fly.

Glenn, your list.
Number one I address above.
2. I've brought this up before: The Rodney King Riots, or organized crime spree, was an excellent example of the police NOT being able to protect the public from the L.A.
gangs redistributing wealth, by robbery.
That said, Louisiana is the ultimate castle state, since their system of laws protect the right for the property owner to protect his property from invaders, including police, with deadly force. Katrina does show that given that situation, before moving in, the police are, either for their own safety, or, from their own beliefs, going to grab every gun they know is present, indeed leaving the people defenseless. The real shock is that the police chief is still in a position of power.
3. Slavery has caused the majority HUGE losses of freedom. It's truly a loose loose situation. Oppression causes actions that lost our freedom, by expanding the government's involvement, and scope, with absurd cases like Heart of Atlanta, and the expansion of the Commerce Clause to a point where the Federal government has Jurisdiction over everything, and states have no rights.
4. I'm not sure the right to bear arms is only protected from the right. Keep in mind that currently I think Obama is acting more like a Republican then the prior Republican president did. Concepts such as balanced budgets, and reducing the debt? In fact, it appears that the two party system is a strawman, designed to keep us at each others throats, when, in fact, it's become a one party Oligarchy.
A Republican is, after all, nothing more then a Democrat that's been mugged.

I'm also wondering if our current president may not have a MUCH better understanding of what the Constitution is about then I gave him credit for, and many others. Since this is a 2A discussion, and, he did graduate from Harvard with honors, and, he's been a consultant Con Law professor, he might not have swallowed the common law Harvard school view of 2A.

In fact, once elected, the presidency is set for life, and, like some Supreme Court judges, his ultimate direction may end up considerably different from the party that put him into power.

As for the Swiss, I'm not willing to let that argument go.
While I understand the other angles, and the cost benefit of invading certain countries, it brings up a number of points. Japan was, or at least the quote is made, that the idea of invading American was unwise, due to the number of weapons in our country, it's distance away, and the type of land, and, cover. I guess Yamamoto, or some of the Japanese generals studied our history, and, realized the problems of fighting a guerilla populace in the U.S.

TG:
http://heavynews.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/no-looting.jpg

For some reason, the war vets I've known, or at least many of them, think that the protection of family/land/country should be only in a military that is not supposed to operate in our country at all. "No standing army" means just that. I suggest that the Swiss model is much healthier, and, that the above picture you post with apprehension in support of your position to limit gun ownership is the exact reason we should have no limits.
If firearms are in every home, which they nearly are now, thanks to the latest buying spree, they start to loose their status as 'illegal'. The Swiss have a healthy, out in the open, legal right to carry a firearm. The government sponsors shooting, complete with alcohol, on a regular basis. Instead of having to sneak around my state, concealing my firearms, and afraid to let any of my neighbors, or co-workers now I'm a 2A advocate, I could have a life where those things are just things you do. Instead of having to hide your rifle, it's just like going skiing, it's part of the culture. A healthy respect for firearms, and their place in our history and society is a freedom we seem to have lost.

I studied Politics at a very liberal school. At the end of the day, I came to this conclusion:
The country with the biggest guns, and strongest military, gets to write the laws, both international and domestic.
Having those guns is of no use, unless you are willing to use them. Since Japan, we have not used our abilities, and, the results have been lost wars.
Vietnam, Korea, etc. are examples of putting ourselves into situations the Japanese would have been smart enough to avoid, or fight differently. Fighting a satellite country, on the border of a country with 1.2 billion people, and probably that many Mosin Nagants, and AK's, doesn't seem to be the wisest of moves, and, we've lost everytime.

In short, our weapons systems have been the best, but, without the resolve to actually use them, we will be viewed as weak, and our ability to put the rules for international politics weakened.

There is a tendency for people to forget the real threat of war, and, for nations to grow fat, complacent, and think they are invulnerable. I'm hoping that we will wake up, and realize that George doing it, is not the right answer for this issue.

[Kleinzeit]

Louisiana is the ultimate castle state, since their system of laws protect the right for the property owner to protect his property from invaders, including police, with deadly force.

Good lord... Is that true? No wonder the police took the guns. They must have been terrified. Imagine trying to do your job with dehydrated, delirious loonies, mad at the gummint for leaving them there, manning sniper posts from their roofs.

Taking the guns was bad. I'm not saying it wasn't. But enshrining the right to kill the police shows too little faith in the rule of law, and is bound to result in an anxious government seizing back the control they should never have surrendered.

Mind you, I have no idea how Louisiana law works in practice. But that kind of law just sounds wrong.

[Socrates]

The doctrine in law school was Louisiana law was from the Napoleonic Code, and, it placed property above people.

The reasoning is that a person is secure in his property, and, that the police should know that they must have the owners permission to enter, and therefore, since they know, if they are shot by accident, i.e. the property owner did not know they were/are police, the shooting is justified.

It also means no civil suit, or criminal charges if you shoot to protect your house, or property.

I don't have a problem with that.
All it really means is the police have to be careful, and respectful. There is/was no excuse for their actions, other then they brought in out of staters to help, and, they brought their own law with them.

[Kleinzeit]

Thanks for the explanation, Socrates.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I have to leave the field of debate for a day or two. So I won't read replies. The Japanese example is again an example of the gun world cliche that sounds good.

If you study the Japanese plans - and there are doctoral dissertations on it, I have one that was published - there were no plans ever to invade the United States. They did not even consider it to get to the point of worrying about our armed populace. The logistics of such an invasion were impossible for the Japanese and they knew it. Many of them knew they would lose the battle based on differential industrial capacity.

They wanted to do two things:

1. Hope for a negotiated settlement to get a freer hand in China and other Asian areas. They were incensed that Western powers could establish sphere of influence and colonies in Asia but they couldn't.

2. Get some measure of respect and revenge (even if they lost the war) for Perry's forced opening of Japan and actions later by other Western powers. If they gave a crushing defeat Pearl Harbor to the USA and the Brits (Malaya, Singapore and the sinking of their two battleships on 12/8 IIRC), that would gain respect.

The quotes about every blade of grass may not be real as some of the Hitler quotes.

I might be wrong but the Swiss have a permit system for concealed weapons carry and the gun in every house is now under debate.

BTW - I didn't say I was for limiting gun rights. That's a rhetorical trick in these kind of arguments. You're an anti, you are a Brady!! Nyah, Nyah. I was trying to present a reasoned view of the arguments that support the RKBA to avoid cliches that don't have strong evidential base.

If we had a strong attack on the RKBA again, talking about invasion is the exact innoculation effect that would make the general populace outside the choir say the argument for the RKBA is not that valid. Note, I mean Swiss vs. Germans kind of invasion.

Protection against crime has some traction in the surveys of gun attitudes. Invasion and insurrection don't. Reality of convincing argumentation may not go well with the choir. I prefer to be effective in argument.

[Socrates]

The problem is, Police Chiefs, much like elected officials, and certain presidents, will say anything to their constituents, and, once they are in, they flip. I don't know the specifics of the Katrina police chief, heck, I don't even know how the
Napoleonic code has held up under attack in Louisiana. Long way away.

Good example is the Orange County new police chief. She was elected, or appointed, by a Board who does represent their voters. The result has been, even though one of the key issues was maintaining CCW, she has attacked CCW holders, and, even has the force working against the board that appointed her.

Apparently, at least in Kali, the election of a police chief is limited to a very few candidates, and, once in place, they are very difficult to remove. Sort of like a Federal judge.
Since they control the issuance of ccw permits, this issue is a 2A issue.

S

[Tennessee Gentleman]

They aren't and can't. Our military is not supposed to operate on US soil.

Not sure where you came up with that one but it is absolutely not true. The military is by law mandated to protect our borders from foreign invasion. An incursion from Mexico (or Canada for that matter) that local police could not handle would be met with military (either active or NG) force and destroyed.

Who or what says we cannot have a Standing Army?

In rural areas firearms are pretty much the first, and only line of defense, and, the police are cleanup crews.

Probably true and firearms in common use by civlians are plenty good to deal with the threat.

As for the Swiss, I'm not willing to let that argument go.

I will look for some links to show you the dirty deals the Swiss did with Nazi Germany to avoid invasion. Again, it was not their reserves. Keep in mind that for a tiny neutral country that type of system might be fine but no other powerful country has such a setup.

that the above picture you post with apprehension in support of your position to limit gun ownership is the exact reason we should have no limits.

I really don't think the "Swiss Model" works here. I am not sure we could afford it or have it be workable either. Even though we would get to have neat guns, it is much more than that. It's training and a chain of command and discipline. Something the guys in my picture don't have.

Protection against crime has some traction in the surveys of gun attitudes. Invasion and insurrection don't. Reality of convincing argumentation may not go well with the choir. I prefer to be effective in argument.

Well said!

I don't know the specifics of the Katrina police chief,

Didn't he get fired?

[kirpi97]

First it is good to have you back in the fray Tennessee Gentleman. I miss your insightful comments. With that said, back to the war of ideologies.

My response was to this initial this question:

Can you show any instance in history where an armed population keep a leader from doing something tryannical.

I do not see the connection with a leader doing something tyrannical and the U.S. paying reparations.

In fact the USA paid reparations to the Japanese that we wrongfully imprisoned in WWII.

The reparations were paid because the will of the people changed. Where were those judges in 1949? The law was the same then as it is now, in that regards. The same Bill of Rights existed. Okay then let's for argument say it wasn't the same. I didn't see those judges or any member of our congress advocating paying reparation in the 70s or the 80s. What changed?

The people and how they viewed human rights. We changed. So I do not see that there was any tyrannical leader doing something that the populous determined had to be stopped. If anything, the fact that the President of the US could impose Martial Law and with Congress suspend the rights of some Americans, for what they perceived at the time as protecting Americans, could be seen as the armed populous not stopping tyrannical actions. EXCEPT, that the populous was in agreement. So there was no outcry.

And to now look at the event years later and say because we paid reparations means our system did right. No. It means that we as Country recognized a wrong and offered a token as an olive branch to appease the masses that clamored for something to be done. Our system of judges, laws, police officers, congressmen, school board directors, teaches, professors, did nothing in the 1940s to stop it.

My Geography professor in college served in the US military in the Pacific Theater while his parents lived in those camps. He was not bitter. Neither were his parents. Because in some cases, as they told me, the camps provided protection from vigil antes. Was it right? I wasn't there.

I just know the outcry that followed 9/11. And how we had to reach out to a segment of our society to assure them that they would receive the same protection under the law as other Americans.

I look forward to your opening the eyes of this wayward thinker concerning how the WWII incident with the Japanese fits the scenario of the basic argument.

Now as for Katrina:
Even as recently as Katrina when Mayor Nagin unlawfully confiscated firearms from NO law-abiding residents did the "armed citizens" stop it or right it. The courts did by injunction.

Here the populous reacted in a civil manner when asked by their elected officials to obey what was thought to be in the best interest of the society. Not every one followed the directive. But for the most part, the people complied. They trusted the government would be there to provide protection.

So a majority of the armed citizens were not opposed to what was being asked. So there was no tyrannical despot to unseat. And the fact that the judges later rectified the wrong doing only shows they are helpless to stop a tyrannical leader from imposing their will upon the people. Their power resides in the people following the law. When that ceases, judges are helpless.

Both examples show that our system of government is retroactive when it comes to stopping a tyrannical leader. We use our military to stop tyrannical leaders in countries where the populous is either unable or unwilling to engage. But here, we react.

The rule of law gets its power from the people. And it is the people who must stand behind that law for it to work. And when the people's values change, the law changes with it.

P.S. I do have to give you credit for stirring picture. I will agree with you on that point.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

First it is good to have you back in the fray Tennessee Gentleman. I miss your insightful comments.

Thank you!:)

I do not see the connection with a leader doing something tyrannical and the U.S. paying reparations.

My point was to show that even the government that inflicted the harm later on said it was wrong to do so and further made attempts to make it right. The Japanese Internment during WWII was an act of tyranny against American citizens. The COUTUS was mugged and it is a stain on our history. No armed citizens stopped it and so my point that an armed citizenry does not create a bulwark against abusive government.

The rule of law gets its power from the people. And it is the people who must stand behind that law for it to work. And when the people's values change, the law changes with it.

I am not sure I disagree with any thing you said in the post. However, the question and issue is does the armed citizenry prevent tyranny? I say it does not and agree with your well worded thesis that the democratic institutions do that even if retroactively and that the fact that today some civilians own firearms will not prevent or rectify abuses of government power.

[kirpi97]

However, the question and issue is does the armed citizenry prevent tyranny?
Ah, here we are in agreement. Italy and Germany in the past and Venezuela today show how even a once democratic country, even with an armed citizenry, can be moved to a point that their rights are stripped from them. And all the arms in the hands of the citizens did nothing to change it.

Darn. Now I have to find something else to disagree with. I love a good debate. It is something I miss. In today's world of debates. The example displayed by the media in our politicians is not debating. So I thank you kind sir. You are gentleman.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

So I thank you kind sir. You are gentleman.

As are you sir. See you at the next thread!:D

[Webleymkv]

Glenn and TG, without going into a long dissertation I'll get right to the heart of my position. While our system of government with its Separtation of Powers does indeed combat and prevent tyranny as well as ensure that our rights remain intact, the inability of government to remove those rights without the overwhelming consent of the people ensures that our system of government with its Separation of Powers remains intact. I'll illustrate this with an example: Suppose the President wanted to use his position as Commander in Chief of the military to, against the will of the people, attempt to seize power from the other branches of the government by force and make himself a dictator. Obviously this would not work because it would be against the will of the people and the people would offer such strong resistance (including likely armed resistance) that such a scheme would be all but impossible (let's face it, neither the military nor police can control the people if the majority of them are armed and unwilling to comply). So, in order to make such a thing work, the President would first have strip the people of their rights (including RKBA) and thereby remove their ability to resist, but he cannot remove the people's rights against their will without first taking sole control of the government. So, the President cannot seize sole power without taking away the rights of the people first, and he cannot do that without sole power thusly making the attainment of sole governmental power by the President against the will of the people impossible. Therefore, both the Separation of Powers and our unalienable rights (including RKBA) prevent tyranny so long as the people have the will to be free from tyranny.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Webley,
I have spoken to the other parts of your position before so I won't rehash that but I did want to speak to your scenario.

That is, any President who tried to use the military in an unlawful way. Speaking as a career military guy I can assure you that would never happen because of this oath: "I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;

That oath would stop any rogue President or any other politician from what your scenario suggests.:cool: And believe me we take these oaths VERY seriously!

[Webleymkv]

Tennessee Gentleman, if every soldier takes that oath so seriously, why did the army uphold Lincoln's declaration of martial law and suspension of Habeus Corpus during the Civil War? Why did the military carry out the interrment of Japanese Americans during WWII? As you've already pointed out, both of these acts were tyrannical and unconstitutional, yet the military carried them out anyway. While the oath is definately a good thing, at the end of the day it's only as good as the person taking it and thus is not enough to prevent tyranny in and of itself. Therefore, the responsibility for preventing one branch of the government from seizing power over the other two falls ultimately upon the people. The Bill of Rights ensures that the people are able to prevent such tyranny by ensuring that the balance of power stays intact and the balance of power ensures that the people cannot be stripped of their rights without their consent. Each institution ensures the survival of the other so long as it is the will of the people.

[zukiphile]

That oath would stop any rogue President or any other politician from what your scenario suggests.

Aside from the plain fact that a fellow taking an oath stops nothing, the history of the armed services and the oath do not reasonably suggest that it makes the armed services a fourth branch of government and a check on their exercise of power. On the contrary, it indicates US military legal subservience to civilian authority more than LegalAid with rifles.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

if every soldier takes that oath so seriously, why did the army uphold Lincoln's declaration of martial law and suspension of Habeus Corpus during the Civil War? Why did the military carry out the interrment of Japanese Americans during WWII? As you've already pointed out, both of these acts were tyrannical and unconstitutional, yet the military carried them out anyway.

And if an armed citizenry would prevent such tyrannical acts why didn't those armed citizen's resist?:p Of course, we both know the answers:) The suspension of Habeus Corpus was supported by the public because the country was involved in a civil war. Something that is not going to happen again. The Japanese Internment was actually upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional in Korematsu but later rejected and overturned. Also, the Japanese Americans were released after WWII and later paid reparations.

However, in neither case was the military used to overthrow branches of government as your scenario implied and all three branches of our government were complicit in the outrages you mention.

Our government made a terrible mistake by interning those Japanese Americans but no armed citizenry either prevented it or righted it. I have not said our government is perfect (as none is) but my point is that the righting of the constitutional ship was done by our democratic institutions not an armed citizenry which had no role whatsoever in the affair.

However, my question still stands if you can find a part of our history since our government was formed;) where an armed citizenry either prevented or overturned governmental tyranny I would be interested to hear about it.

PS Once again please not the rural myth of The Battle of Athens TN:barf:

[zukiphile]

The Japanese Internment was actually upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional in Korematsu but later rejected and overturned.

Korematsu was charged with evading the exclusion order. His personal conviction was overturned decades later, but the Supreme Court decision upholding the exclusion order has not been overturned.

I confess a fondness for Jackson's dissent. It is to the point and modest.

My duties as a justice, as I see them, do not require me to make a military judgment as to whether General DeWitt's evacuation and detention program was a reasonable military necessity. I do not suggest that the courts should have attempted to interfere with the Army in carrying out its task. But I do not think they may be asked to execute a military expedient that has no place in law under the Constitution. I would reverse the judgment and discharge the prisoner.



http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0323_0214_ZD2.html

[Webleymkv]

And if an armed citizenry would prevent such tyrannical acts why didn't those armed citizen's resist? Of course, we both know the answers The suspension of Habeus Corpus was supported by the public because the country was involved in a civil war. Something that is not going to happen again. The Japanese Internment was actually upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional in Korematsu but later rejected and overturned. Also, the Japanese Americans were released after WWII and later paid reparations.


TG, the armed citizens did not rise up and prevent such tyrannical acts because our other democratic institutions were still in place to do it. However, RKBA along with the other rights enumerated in the BOR ensured that the other democratic institutions stayed in place. You are missing my point: I never contended that an armed citizenry is the only safeguard against tryranny but that it's role in doing so is to ensure that the other democratic institutions do not break down and thusly be unable to prevent or combat it. Also, I've already stated that neither our democratic institutions nor the BOR will prevent tyranny if the people are unwilling to oppose it as was the case with both the suspension of Habeus Corpus and Japanese internment. My only point was that the military will not necessarily refuse to follow unconstitutional and/or tyrannical orders as they didn't refuse during both the Civil War and WWII. I ask if you can point out a single instance in our history in which the military refused to follow their order because that order was tyrannical and/or unconstitutional and not because the order were belayed by another branch of the government.

However, in neither case was the military used to overthrow branches of government as your scenario implied and all three branches of our government were complicit in the outrages you mention.

The people, by and large, were also complicit in these outrages. Neither the right to arms nor checks and balances will prevent tyranny if the people are unwilling to oppose it.

Our government made a terrible mistake by interning those Japanese Americans but no armed citizenry either prevented it or righted it. I have not said our government is perfect (as none is) but my point is that the righting of the constitutional ship was done by our democratic institutions not an armed citizenry which had no role whatsoever in the affair.


As I said before, our democratic institutions remained in place thusly negating the need for the armed citizenry to take action. The armed citizenry ensured that our democratic institutions remained in place to begin with.

However, my question still stands if you can find a part of our history since our government was formed where an armed citizenry either prevented or overturned governmental tyranny I would be interested to hear about it.

PS Once again please not the rural myth of The Battle of Athens TN

I've already answered this question twice, you just continue to qualify it because you don't like my answers. No one branch of our government has ever attempted to seize power from the other two because they know it would be impossible to do because of the insurmountable resistance (including armed resistance) from the people. Thusly in order to do such a thing, that branch of the government would first have to remove the people's ability to resist by stripping away their rights. This cannot be done against the will of the people because our other democratic institutions prevent it. Thusly, the rights of the people, including the right to arms, ensures the survival of our democratic institutions so long as it is the will of the people while the democratic institutions ensure the rights of the people so long as the people have a will to maintain those rights. Therefore, the only way that our government can devolve into tyranny from within is if the people allow it to happen.

[Socrates]

Thank you for addressing TG's strawman argument.

Firearms in the hands of citizens were vital in the expansion of this country, AFTER it was established.
The presence of firearms also helped slow incursions from Mexico, attempting to claim Texas, and, I have little doubt have managed to make the Mexican government think twice about invading Kalifornia using force.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

The armed citizenry ensured that our democratic institutions remained in place to begin with.

I see no evidence of that. You could also say that because the flag is blue, it prevents the government from becoming tyrannical. You can't can't show cause and effect or the deterence you claim. On the other hand I have shown historical instances of government abuse and the remedy or prevention was in every case done by our democratic institutions. You claim that tryanny is prevented by an armed citizenry and yet provide nothing more than "well it is harder to subdue an armed population". Maybe, but it is far more difficult to subdue a population that has governmental safeguards in place and whose populace obey the rule of law. However, armed citizenries HAVE been subdued and tryanny put into place.

No one branch of our government has ever attempted to seize power from the other two because they know it would be impossible to do because of the insurmountable resistance (including armed resistance) from the people.

I am not sure they (potential tyrants) know any such thing regarding armed citizens. What I think they do know is they could never pull if off politically and the other branches would stop them and they would be out of office. Rather your quote here would stop such an act:
this cannot be done against the will of the people because our other democratic institutions prevent it.

With this I agree.

I ask if you can point out a single instance in our history in which the military refused to follow their order because that order was tyrannical and/or unconstitutional and not because the order were belayed by another branch of the government.

Not necessary for me to do. You made the claim in your scenario that the military would follow the orders of the President and overthrow the other two branches of government. I disputed that contention because of the oath of office we take and adhere to. Contrary to popular belief the military does not blindly and without thought follow orders from superiors and in fact we are taught NOT to follow illegal orders.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Thank you for addressing TG's strawman argument.
Firearms in the hands of citizens were vital in the expansion of this country, AFTER it was established.

There is no strawman. I have asked for webley or you for that matter to give a historical example where an armed citizenry prevented or undid a tyrannical goverment action in this country since we were formed.

However, I think you have presented a strawman by talking about expansion of the country which has nothing to do with government or tyranny or the question posed.

[Webleymkv]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
The armed citizenry ensured that our democratic institutions remained in place to begin with.

I see no evidence of that. You could also say that because the flag is blue, it prevents the government from becoming tyrannical. You can't can't show cause and effect or the deterence you claim. On the other hand I have shown historical instances of government abuse and the remedy or prevention was in every case done by our democratic institutions. You claim that tryanny is prevented by an armed citizenry and yet provide nothing more than "well it is harder to subdue an armed population". Maybe, but it is far more difficult to subdue a population that has governmental safeguards in place and whose populace obey the rule of law. However, armed citizenries HAVE been subdued and tryanny put into place.


The Federalist Papers were written by Alexander Hamilton (the New York Delegate at the Constitutional Convention), James Madison (the Virginia Delegate who is often recognized as the "Father of the Constitution"), John Jay, and John Church Hamilton. On page 227, Alexander Hamilton states the following:

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but but in exertion of that original right of self defence, which is paramount to all positive forms of government...

Seems to me that Hamilton recognized the resistance of the people (including armed resistance) to be a legitimate means of combating tyranny.

On page 233, Hamilton states the following in his arguments attempting to allay fears that the government would use the military for tyrannical purposes:

...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 to them in discipline and use of arms who stand ready to defend their own rights, and those of their fellow citizens.

Sounds to me like Hamilton thought the military would be unable to dominate an armed and well disciplined citizenry. So it would appear to me that no one has tried to seize sole governmental power by force because an armed citizenry would make it extremely difficult if not impossible to do so.

Given Hamilton's statements on the issue, it would seem rather clear that the founders did indeed intend an armed citizenry to serve as a bulwark against tyranny, the lack of its use does not negate its purpose. If you would like to argue that the premises upon which the founders wrote the Constitution are incorrect, go right ahead. I will not debate that point because I am of firm belief that those brilliant men probably knew much more about structuring a government that ensures the freedom of the people than you or I will ever hope to.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
No one branch of our government has ever attempted to seize power from the other two because they know it would be impossible to do because of the insurmountable resistance (including armed resistance) from the people.

I am not sure they (potential tyrants) know any such thing regarding armed citizens. What I think they do know is they could never pull if off politically and the other branches would stop them and they would be out of office.

How would the other branches of the government stop the potential tyrant if he already had control over a superior military force and posessed the will to use it against them. At that point, the legality of the issue would be of little consequence as the would-be-tyrant would obviously have little respect for the law or the Constitution as evidenced by his desire to attempt such a scheme in the first place. At that point, it would fall to the people to stop such an event. Hamilton seemed confident that armed and well disciplined citizens would be up to the task.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
I ask if you can point out a single instance in our history in which the military refused to follow their order because that order was tyrannical and/or unconstitutional and not because the order were belayed by another branch of the government.

Not necessary for me to do. You made the claim in your scenario that the military would follow the orders of the President and overthrow the other two branches of government. I disputed that contention because of the oath of office we take and adhere to. Contrary to popular belief the military does not blindly and without thought follow orders from superiors and in fact we are taught NOT to follow illegal orders.

You claimed that the oath would prevent the military from supporting a rouge president from seizing sole governmental power. I pointed out, using your own examples, that this is a weak argument as the military can and has carried out illegal orders that would seem to be in conflict with the oath taken by its members. I asked that you support your claim, and, thus far, you have been either unable or unwilling to do so.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates
Thank you for addressing TG's strawman argument.
Firearms in the hands of citizens were vital in the expansion of this country, AFTER it was established.

There is no strawman. I have asked for webley or you for that matter to give a historical example where an armed citizenry prevented or undid a tyrannical goverment action in this country since we were formed.

The fact that no one branch of the government has ever attempted to seize power from the others can be attributed to one of three possible causes: All of our past and current leaders have had such a deep respect for the Constitution that they wouldn't attempt such a thing, None of our past or current leaders were intelligent enough to realize that they could do such a thing, or some insurmountable obstacle prevented the would-be-tyrants from carrying out their wishes. Given that we've had more that our fair share of dismal leader and that some of them have been quite intelligent, I think it's safe to say that the first two circumstances are not the reason for our contiued liberty. Therefore, I think we can all agree, some insurmountable obstacle prevented the would-be-tyrants from seizing power. While you contend that the legal structure of the government was that obstacle, I argue that historically law in and of itself cannot stop a tyrant from seizing power. Certainly the some of our leaders have posessed the means to ignore the law and seize power by force, yet none have attempted it. You state that the reason is that the military would not carry out such illegal orders, but history does not support that notion as the military has carried out illegal orders in the past. The reason, by process of elimination, must be that the people would not support such action and would be too strong to opress. I contend, and Hamilton seems to agree, that arms are part of what makes the people too strong to opress.

[Socrates]

FDR threatened the Supreme Court with a Constitutional amendment, expanding the court to a larger number, so he could get his socialist issues passed. The court ended up retiring, etc. but, it also didn't do any good for FDR's credibility. That is the closest I can think of, other then the Kali legislature, and government, suspending the US Constitution in this state...

[Kleinzeit]

Sounds to me like Hamilton thought the military would be unable to dominate an armed and well disciplined citizenry. So it would appear to me that no one has tried to seize sole governmental power by force because an armed citizenry would make it extremely difficult if not impossible to do so.

That's just silly. That's ideology, not rational argument.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Webley,
Good discussion and I am a Hamilton fan. However, as I always say, history MUST be read in context.

Hamilton was arguing for a strong central government and the anti-federalists (who ultimately lost the argument) wanted a weak central government. Why? Because we had just thrown off a tryannical government and we were trying a new experiment the world had never seen. The sturm und drang of the Federalist/Anti-Federalist positions helped us craft a system of checks and balances that would make armed insurrection like we had inflicted upon King George unnecessary ever again. Rebellion was the only choice we had against the Crown because there was no other choice available save slavery to the King. At the time Hamilton was writing it was not certain how we would prevent a tryannical despot from taking over. Therefore, his reliance on the idea of an armed citizen militia. Superior in numbers if not in arms to any standing Army. That would change later on as the country grew up and the democratic institutions matured. I will show that later on.

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 to them in discipline and use of arms who stand ready to defend their own rights, and those of their fellow citizens.

I posted this in another thread about the decline of the militia:

Within two decades of the ratification of the Constitution, American political leaders had abandoned the original concept of the militia, and in the words of one historian, "The ideological assumptions of revolutionary republicanism would no longer play an important role in the debate over the republic's military requirements." THE MILITIA AND THE CONSTITUTION: A LEGAL HISTORY by William S. Fields & David T. Hardy Military Law Review 1992

The founding fathers feared a large standing army and the quote you give from Hamilton as he tried to convince the anti-federalists that a strong government would not become tyrannical was speaking to that fear. The militia and the idea of a group of citizens "little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and use of arms" fell by the wayside because a) The American People didn't like compulsory service in the militia and b) the checks and balances in the system provided the necessary protections needed for preventing tyranny thus Jefferson who had once loathed the idea now as President asked for a "select militia" or standing army. The idea you support was dead 20 years after the COTUS was written.

the lack of its use does not negate its purpose.

It renders it obsolete.

You claimed that the oath would prevent the military from supporting a rouge president from seizing sole governmental power. I pointed out, using your own examples, that this is a weak argument as the military can and has carried out illegal orders that would seem to be in conflict with the oath taken by its members. I asked that you support your claim, and, thus far, you have been either unable or unwilling to do so.

I have supported the claim but you are spinning the argument. I said that a rouge president would not be able to overthrow the other branches of government using the military because of the oath the military had taken. I did not say that the military would fail to execute apparently lawful orders (even later found to be wrong) that all three branches of government supported and approved which they did in the examples I provided.

How would the other branches of the government stop the potential tyrant if he already had control over a superior military force and posessed the will to use it against them.

Unless that military force was stronger than the US Military he couldn't do it. Since no President could obtain such control over the US Military, it would have to be one big force outside the government. Not likely to happen.

The fact that no one branch of the government has ever attempted to seize power from the others can be attributed to one of three possible causes:

I submit a fourth. They could not seize power because constitutional separations of powers as well as the checks and balances of our COTUS prevented them from doing it as well as free elections and an independent judiciary.

Webley, I am still waiting for historical evidence that an armed citizenry has prevented or undid a tyrannical act by our government.

[zukiphile]

Webley, I am still waiting for historical evidence that an armed citizenry has prevented or undid a tyrannical act by our government.

Aside from the one already provided?

In order to illustrate the principle that an armed population is useful in peeling back a the grip of a government force, it should not be necessary to limit examples to the US. The soviet army certainly found its contact with afgans demotivating, and contra use of arms has returned Nicaragua to a multiparty state.

The idea is so well demonstrated that arguing against it indicates an agenda. Tennessse Gentleman, you've written often and over a long period that you fear arms in the hands of the population. You've even found a picture of a dozen or so fellows with guns to illustrate your fear.

Why is your fear an adequate basis for public policy, while the anxiety of others at being disarmed isn't?

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
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 to them in discipline and use of arms who stand ready to defend their own rights, and those of their fellow citizens.

I posted this in another thread about the decline of the militia:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Within two decades of the ratification of the Constitution, American political leaders had abandoned the original concept of the militia, and in the words of one historian, "The ideological assumptions of revolutionary republicanism would no longer play an important role in the debate over the republic's military requirements." THE MILITIA AND THE CONSTITUTION: A LEGAL HISTORY by William S. Fields & David T. Hardy Military Law Review 1992

The founding fathers feared a large standing army and the quote you give from Hamilton as he tried to convince the anti-federalists that a strong government would not become tyrannical was speaking to that fear. The militia and the idea of a group of citizens "little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and use of arms" fell by the wayside because a) The American People didn't like compulsory service in the militia and b) the checks and balances in the system provided the necessary protections needed for preventing tyranny thus Jefferson who had once loathed the idea now as President asked for a "select militia" or standing army. The idea you support was dead 20 years after the COTUS was written.

Hamilton's writings do not support that notion as he stated the following in The Federalist Papers:

To oblige the great body of yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of goin through military exercizes and evolutions, as often as might be necessary, to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regualted militia, would be a real greivance to the people, and a serious public inconveniance and loss. I would form an annual deduction from the productive labour of the country...

He also states with regards to mandatory militia service,

To attempt such a thing which would abridge the mass of labour and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise; and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured.

and finally,

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people, than to have them properly armed and equipped..

Sounds to me like the founders knew right from the beginning that Switzerland-style mandatory militia service would not work. Yet the Second Amendment was still included in the Constitution and Hamilton made the earlier comments that I posted in the very same document as his admission that mandatory militia service was not feasable.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
the lack of its use does not negate its purpose.

It renders it obsolete.

So does the fact that I've never fired or even drawn my handgun in self-defense render my right to carry it obsolete? The argument that lack of use necessarily equates to obsolescence has far too many problems and exceptions to be valid.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
You claimed that the oath would prevent the military from supporting a rouge president from seizing sole governmental power. I pointed out, using your own examples, that this is a weak argument as the military can and has carried out illegal orders that would seem to be in conflict with the oath taken by its members. I asked that you support your claim, and, thus far, you have been either unable or unwilling to do so.

I have supported the claim but you are spinning the argument. I said that a rouge president would not be able to overthrow the other branches of government using the military because of the oath the military had taken. I did not say that the military would fail to execute apparently lawful orders (even later found to be wrong) that all three branches of government supported and approved which they did in the examples I provided.


I am not spinning the argument, I simply pointed pointed out the fallacy of it. What is to prevent the military to percieve the orders of a rouge president as being lawful (even if they are later found to be wrong), such as being an emergency measure that is supposed to be rescinded later? Remember, hindsight is always 20/20. You still are unable to support your claim that the oath alone would prevent the military from carrying out illegal orders (it hasn't always done so in the past).

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
How would the other branches of the government stop the potential tyrant if he already had control over a superior military force and posessed the will to use it against them.

Unless that military force was stronger than the US Military he couldn't do it. Since no President could obtain such control over the US Military, it would have to be one big force outside the government. Not likely to happen.

It is only impossible for a President to gain control over the military because of the people. There is not evidence that the other branches of the government, without the support of the people who are equipped to resist the tyrant, would be able to stop such an event. Also, because there is no current military force outside the U.S. that is strong enough to overthrow our government, such was not always the case and there is no guarantee that such will always be the case.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
The fact that no one branch of the government has ever attempted to seize power from the others can be attributed to one of three possible causes:

I submit a fourth. They could not seize power because constitutional separations of powers as well as the checks and balances of our COTUS prevented them from doing it as well as free elections and an independent judiciary.

COTUS cannot prevent anything if the would-be tyrant has no respect for the law and the means to carry out his wishes in spite of COTUS. History supports this. The BOR's guarantee of certain rights (including RKBA) serves too ensure that no leader will have sufficient force to seize sole governmental power against the will of the people through use of the military. Those were Hamilton's thoughts on the matter and I agree with him.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Webley, I am still waiting for historical evidence that an armed citizenry has prevented or undid a tyrannical act by our government.

I've answered that question numerous times, you simply continue to modify and qualify it because you don't like my answers but are unable to refute them. This is a game that I refuse to play.

Originally posted by Kleinzeit
Quote:
Sounds to me like Hamilton thought the military would be unable to dominate an armed and well disciplined citizenry. So it would appear to me that no one has tried to seize sole governmental power by force because an armed citizenry would make it extremely difficult if not impossible to do so.

That's just silly. That's ideology, not rational argument.

Well it appears that at least one of the Delegates at the Constitutional Convention shared my silly, irrational ideology.

[Kleinzeit]

Sounds to me like Hamilton thought the military would be unable to dominate an armed and well disciplined citizenry. So it would appear to me that no one has tried to seize sole governmental power by force because an armed citizenry would make it extremely difficult if not impossible to do so.

That's just silly. That's ideology, not rational argument.

Well it appears that at least one of the Delegates at the Constitutional Convention shared my silly, irrational ideology.

What I meant was that no causality has been established between what Hamilton thought and what subsequently did or not did not happen. To suppose that causality nonetheless exists is ideological.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Sounds to me like the founders knew right from the beginning that Switzerland-style mandatory militia service would not work. Yet the Second Amendment was still included in the Constitution and Hamilton made the earlier comments that I posted in the very same document as his admission that mandatory militia service was not feasable.

Really? Is that why in 1792 an Act of Congress was passed that said:

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,

Anyway, other than your affection for him, why should John Hamilton be the sole arbiter of our discussion? I bet John had no trouble with not allowing women to vote either. Doesn't make him right today.

The argument that lack of use necessarily equates to obsolescence has far too many problems and exceptions to be valid.


I am not arguing that it is obsolete because it isn't used, I argue it is obsolete because it does not exist and has been replaced by other institutions. Like the US Navy replaced Privateers and Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

You still are unable to support your claim that the oath alone would prevent the military from carrying out illegal orders (it hasn't always done so in the past).

You are still spinning and must be dizzy by now;). I have said that the Oath of Office all Military personnel take would prevent a rogue President form overthrowing the other two branches of government that you said could happen. A rogue President could not accomplish that feat as the military does not answer to the President alone.

COTUS cannot prevent anything if the would-be tyrant has no respect for the law and the means to carry out his wishes in spite of COTUS.

Again I say that unless the tyrant had a force outside and apart from the military (such as a private army) he could not have such means.

I've answered that question numerous times, you simply continue to modify and qualify it because you don't like my answers but are unable to refute them. This is a game that I refuse to play.

Webley, lets be frank, you have not answered the question. The issue we are debating was whether an armed citizenry or democratic institutions protected us from tyranny. Admittedly I did not word the challenge carefully and the only example you gave was the Revolutionary War. Then I qualified the question and you have not answered to date.

Now, why is the Revolutionary War example no good to answer the question I posed? Look again at the question. whether an armed citizenry or democratic institutions protect us from tyranny.

Since during the reign of Britain over us as a colony there were no democratic institutions in place to protect or even acknowledge our rights as people the only option left to us was war. So, using the Revolutionary War as your example won't work because only half (armed citizenry) of the equation was in play. I concede that if there is no political way to gain freedom or prevent tyranny force of arms may be the only way (apologies to Gandhi) but that is not what we face in the question I posed.

On the other hand I have shown in each example of government abuse since our government was formed that in every case, the democratic institutions we have either prevented of reversed the abuse.

I now state you cannot show that an armed citizenry has ever in the history of our republic prevented or reversed an abuse by the government. You may believe it (or want it) to be true as you claim John Hamilton did, but have nothing to support that belief. I have shown the efficacy of our democratic system to right those wrongs.

[Webleymkv]

What I meant was that no causality has been established between what Hamilton thought and what subsequently did or not did not happen. To suppose that causality nonetheless exists is ideological.

One typically has to posess at least a moderate level of intelligence in order to reach a position of considerable power within the federal government. Surely someone who is intelligent enough to reach a position within the government that gives them enough power to attempt to become a tyrant would also be smart enough to realize the the military force at his disposal is still insufficient to control the people against their will. Knowing this, why would he go to the trouble, and subject himself to the risk, of attempting such a scheme when it is doomed to failure? Throughout our history, the only times the U.S. Government has been able to carry out tyrannical acts have been when it had the support of the majority of the people. Also, historically, disarmament of their victims is often one of the first courses of action taken by tyrants. Hitler and Stalin, while evil and most likely insane, were not stupid. They both knew that they had to strip their people of their rights (including the right to arms) to ensure that their despotism could not be opposed, and thus the removal of the people's rights was one of the first courses of action taken by both tyrants.

[Kleinzeit]

The fact that Hitler and Stalin believed it was necessary to disarm the populace doesn't prove that it was, any more than the fact that some people believed it is necessary to not disarm the populace proves that it is. It's quite possible that, if Hitler and Stalin had let the people keep their guns, it wouldn't have made any significant difference to their hold on power.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

It's quite possible that, if Hitler and Stalin had let the people keep their guns, it wouldn't have made any significant difference to their hold on power.

Actually, that is not a bad point. The German and Russian citizens had already had virtually all their rights removed so that having guns was probably superflous. You would have a hard time convincing me that Jews having guns in Germany when Hitler took power would have stopped the holocaust.

[Al Norris]

OK then.

After reviewing the OP of both the threads (see my closing remarks here (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341260&page=2)), I've been able to determine that the militia discourse more accurately matches this thread than the other one.

The other thread will remain closed for going off topic.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
Sounds to me like the founders knew right from the beginning that Switzerland-style mandatory militia service would not work. Yet the Second Amendment was still included in the Constitution and Hamilton made the earlier comments that I posted in the very same document as his admission that mandatory militia service was not feasable.

Really? Is that why in 1792 an Act of Congress was passed that said:


Quote:
That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,

Anyway, other than your affection for him, why should John Hamilton be the sole arbiter of our discussion? I bet John had no trouble with not allowing women to vote either. Doesn't make him right today.


First of all, it is Alexander Hamilton I am quoting. The reason that I choose to quote Hamilton and not the other founders is that he seems to have the clearest explanations for the purpose of the issue at hand. If you know of others, I would be quite interested to read them (note, this is not a challenge to your argument but rather a request to satisfy my own thirst for knowledge on the subject).

Secondly, whether he is right today or not (that's a separate issue), he gives the most clearly stated purpose for 2A at the time it was written. If you wish to debate wheter or not that purpose is still valid, that's a separate issue which is composed mainly of opinion. Such a debate would likely generate more heat than light.

Thirdly, the only aspects of the Militia Acts of 1792 that have been abandoned are the semi-annual requirement to report for active milita duty and the requirement to provide one's own arms. However, it should be noted that two separate types of militia were commonly recognized: the Volunteer Militia and the Conscripted Militia. The Volunteer Militia took part in much more extensive training and drills than the Conscripted Militia were required to and the Volunteer Militia was not abandoned. The Volunteer and Conscripted Militia were defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as the Organized Militia (our present-day national guard) and the Unorganized Militia (all male citizens aged 18-45 who are not members of the National Guard or other branches of the Military).

It should be pointed out that even when the abandoned requirements of the Militia Act of 1792 were in effect, the Conscripted/Unorganized Militia was not subject to requirements nearly as demanding as that of the Volunteer/Organized Militia or our present National Guard.

Regardless of your obvious disdain for the abilites and/or usefulness of the Unorganized Militia, the fact remains that it does still exist as citizens who meet the criteria for membership in it are still subject to military conscription should the need arise. While the government has always been able to provide arms to the Unorganized Militia upon their conscription into the regular military, there is no guarantee that it will be able to do this in every possible crisis. Likewise, the right of the Unorganized Militia to own and become familiar with arms makes them both more effective and useful should they be needed.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
The argument that lack of use necessarily equates to obsolescence has far too many problems and exceptions to be valid.

I am not arguing that it is obsolete because it isn't used, I argue it is obsolete because it does not exist and has been replaced by other institutions. Like the US Navy replaced Privateers and Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

They have not been replaced. Unlike the other institutions you point out, an armed citizenry is still in existance, it simply has not been necessary to use them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
You still are unable to support your claim that the oath alone would prevent the military from carrying out illegal orders (it hasn't always done so in the past).

You are still spinning and must be dizzy by now. I have said that the Oath of Office all Military personnel take would prevent a rogue President form overthrowing the other two branches of government that you said could happen. A rogue President could not accomplish that feat as the military does not answer to the President alone.

You assume that every single soldier always has and always will take that oath seriously and there is not guarantee of that. The President also takes an oath to preserve and defend the Constitution, but there's no doubt that several of our Presidents have ignored it. What is to prevent a rogue president from convincing the military that his orders are legal, or from seducing them into ignoring the legality of his orders through promises of reward in his new regime. While I concede that such a situation is highly unlikely, improbability does not equate with impossibility. While I have great respect for our military personnel, at the end of the day they are still just people and are subject to the same weaknesses and temptations as the rest of us. I find it rather naive to assume that an oath, in and of itself, will prevent anything under every possible circumstnce as oaths are broken or misinterpreted all the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
COTUS cannot prevent anything if the would-be tyrant has no respect for the law and the means to carry out his wishes in spite of COTUS.

Again I say that unless the tyrant had a force outside and apart from the military (such as a private army) he could not have such means.


This argument is only valid if one assumes that the military cannot be convinced to follow illegal orders, a notion that I find illogical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
I've answered that question numerous times, you simply continue to modify and qualify it because you don't like my answers but are unable to refute them. This is a game that I refuse to play.

Webley, lets be frank, you have not answered the question. The issue we are debating was whether an armed citizenry or democratic institutions protected us from tyranny. Admittedly I did not word the challenge carefully and the only example you gave was the Revolutionary War. Then I qualified the question and you have not answered to date.


In post #24, you said

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Can you show any instance in history where an armed population keep a leader from doing something tryannical.

I replied with the following in post #27

Originally posted by Webleymkv
As far as an instance of an armed population throwing off a tyrannical government, what do you call the American Revolution? An armed population rose up and threw off a tyrannical government. While the outcomes weren't as favorable as the American Revolution, the French Revolution and Bolshevik Revolutions are also examples of an armed population throwing off a tyrannical government (in those cases monarchies). The reasons that the French and Bolshevik revolutions did not have as favorable outcomes as our own is that nothing like the constitution was put in place afterwards to keep the new government from becoming tyrannical.

You apparently did not like that answer, as you felt a need to re-phrase the question in post #39

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
As far as an instance of an armed population throwing off a tyrannical government, what do you call the American Revolution?

I should have said after the Revolutionary War. Caught me there but still no good. Why? Because we in America had no part of that system in 1776. No representation, no free press, no right to trial by jury, no free speech. Revolution in that case, and in some other similar ones in history, was the only option because there were no other means of redress.


Not only did you try to qualify out my example of the Revolutionary War, you completely ignore my examples in foreign countries. Now, while the examples I quoted did eventually devolve back into tyranny, they were nonetheless examples of armed populations rising up and overthrowing tyrannical governments and the reasons they devolved back into tyranny were explained.

So, yes I did answer your question. I simply refused to participate in your attempt to qualify away the validity of my answer. However, I will address your question one final time. Many of the colonists did indeed enjoy the right to free speech, free press, and other right that we enjoy today under the governments of their individual colonies and some of those rights, though certainly not all, under British law. So long as the British government left those rights unmolested, it was not viewed as tyrannical over the colonies. It was only after these rights were taken away that the British government was viewed as tyrannical. When this happened, the colonists attemted to use the means afforded to them by British law to rectify the situation, but the British government refused to comply. Only after every other option had been exhausted (not because of a lack of options) did the colonies revolt. While it is true that the governmental system in effect them was not exactly the same as that we have today (very few national governments fuction in exactly the same manner), they are not so dissimilar as to make the comparison invalid. Honestly, a request for another people throwing off a tyrannical government that operated in exactly the same manner that our own does is a loaded question as there is no other government, nor has there ever been, that operates in the exact same manner as our own. However, comparison of events in two similar, though not identical, governments is still valid as the same events have occured in very similar fashions with governments whose operation, and even culture, is more dissimilar that our own and 1770's Great Britain.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
whether an armed citizenry or democratic institutions protect us from tyranny.

Since during the reign of Britain over us as a colony there were no democratic institutions in place to protect or even acknowledge our rights as people the only option left to us was war. So, using the Revolutionary War as your example won't work because only half (armed citizenry) of the equation was in play.

There was a democracy in England (Parliment) and that government infringed upon the rights of British citizens (the colonists) who attempted to use the legal means of redress available to them. It was only when these legal means, and thusly the democratic institutions of Great Britain, failed that there was no other option but armed rebellion.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
I concede that if there is no political way to gain freedom or prevent tyranny force of arms may be the only way (apologies to Gandhi) but that is not what we face in the question I posed.


Then we are in agreement. The heart of my argument is that the Second Amendment is in place to combat tyranny through armed resistance if and only if our democratic institutions fail and thusly leave us no legal or political means to do so.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
On the other hand I have shown in each example of government abuse since our government was formed that in every case, the democratic institutions we have either prevented of reversed the abuse.

I now state you cannot show that an armed citizenry has ever in the history of our republic prevented or reversed an abuse by the government. You may believe it (or want it) to be true as you claim John Hamilton did, but have nothing to support that belief. I have shown the efficacy of our democratic system to right those wrongs.


No, armed citizenry has not ever combated or prevented government tyranny since the Revolution because our other democratic institutions were still in effect. However, I still maintain that part of the founder's purpose for including the Second Amendment in the BOR is to ensure that the people have the means to combat tyranny through armed resistance should our other democratic institutions fail and no longer be able to. Now, if you choose to believe that these institutions could never fail or be removed without the consent of the people, that is your right. While I find that position naive, you are obviously entrenched in it and no argument I make will sway you from it. However, I think we can agree that such confidence, whether misplaced or not, was not present at the time the Constitution was drafted and that, at least at the time, the necessity of armed resistance to tyranny was still a very real possibility. Thusly, a guarantee of the right to arms was a guarantee of the ability to mount an armed resistance, at least at the time the Constitution was drafted. I maintain my position that while its necessity may be less likely, the concern is no less valid now than it was when the Constitution was drafted.

Originally posted by Kleinziet
The fact that Hitler and Stalin believed it was necessary to disarm the populace doesn't prove that it was, any more than the fact that some people believed it is necessary to not disarm the populace proves that it is. It's quite possible that, if Hitler and Stalin had let the people keep their guns, it wouldn't have made any significant difference to their hold on power.

It does however show that both Hitler and Stalin feared the reaction of an armed population to their acts of tyranny. While fear of the people in and of itself may not prevent tyranny, it would seem to be useful in, if nothing else, making the tyrant more hesitant to commit his tyrannical acts. To borrow a line from one of my favorite films "People should not be afraid of their government, governments should be afraid of their people."

[Tennessee Gentleman]

First of all, it is Alexander Hamilton I am quoting.
Well, who the hell was John?;) Oh, I think he was an old Army pal:o

Regardless of your obvious disdain for the abilites and/or usefulness of the Unorganized Militia, the fact remains that it does still exist as citizens who meet the criteria for membership in it are still subject to military conscription should the need arise.

Not disdain, just a proper understanding of it.

Here's a good quote about it.
The term "unorganized" did not begin to emerge until the 1830s and 1840s, when a massive wave of opposition destroyed the compulsory militia system. Nobody wanted to serve in the militia. State governors and legislators wanted to be able to accommodate this desire, but they were bound by the 1792 Uniform Militia Act, which stated that every white male aged 18-45 would be in the militia.
However, the 1792 Uniform Militia Act explicitly allowed the states to determine who was exempt from militia service. So states divided their militias into two sections, the "organized" militia and the "unorganized" militia. In this way, the letter, though not the spirit, of the 1792 law could be complied with. However, only the "organized" militia would have responsibilities. These people would be volunteers, people who actually wanted to perform militia service; they gradually evolved into the National Guard. These people would have uniforms, guns, and would drill, review and encamp.

The other people were the people who did NOT want to be in the militia. Accordingly, members of the "unorganized" militia were NOT supposed to perform any duty or carry any weapons or have any responsibilities. All that would remain was the nominal authority of the state over them for military manpower purposes. This group of people had no militia responsibilities at all (in some areas they had to register, like for the draft today). In this way states could flaunt the spirit of the 1792 Uniform Militia Act, while nominally keeping to the letter of it.

The term "unorganized militia" was kept in use in subsequent decades as a statutory "reminder" that the state could still obligate its citizens to perform military duty, should it ever want them to. Eventually, U.S. law in the early twentieth century picked up this same usage for the same reason: by creating the "unorganized militia," the United States could guarantee usage of this manpower for military purposes, should the (remote) need ever arise.

But being in the "unorganized militia" conveys to you no rights, only the possibility of responsibilities. All it means is that you belong to that class of the militia which has no responsibilities. Being in the militia allows you to do not a single thing, because only the state and federal governments can create (working together) active militia systems. To date, their interest in doing so has largely concentrated on the National Guard.

Again, let me emphasize that there is not a single right guaranteed to you by virtue of your being in the unorganized militia.

So as you see, the unorganized militia really has no relation to the "Well-Regulated Militia" of the 2A. It is nothing more than a statutory construct.

Unlike the other institutions you point out, an armed citizenry is still in existance, it simply has not been necessary to use them.


But the militia is not in existence.

You apparently did not like that answer, as you felt a need to re-phrase the question in post #39

Yes I admitted earlier I did not frame the question well to the issue and based on that I rephrased it.

Not only did you try to qualify out my example of the Revolutionary War, you completely ignore my examples in foreign countries.

Because neither foreign countries nor the Revolutionary War were relevant to the rephrased question.

Many of the colonists did indeed enjoy the right to free speech, free press, and other right that we enjoy today under the governments of their individual colonies and some of those rights, though certainly not all, under British law.

Not really. There were no safeguards in place as we later put in the Constitution and the Colonies had no representation in Parliament.

No, armed citizenry has not ever combated or prevented government tyranny since the Revolution because our other democratic institutions were still in effect.

Whew! At last! I agree!:D

Now, if you choose to believe that these institutions could never fail or be removed without the consent of the people, that is your right. While I find that position naive,you are obviously entrenched in it and no argument I make will sway you from it.

Here I think we have the heart of our disagreement. I am betting the COTUS will succeed and you are betting it will fail. So far after 200 plus years and through some trying times that bet is one I am winning. I think the majority of the American People are betting on the COTUS too. However, we could be naive as you suggest but as Glenn Meyer has stated before your bet ain't playing in Peoria. I would also say that if COUTUS completely fails, the armed citizenry will not accomplish much if anything to restore it (nor will they have prevented it) and as I have quoted the Russians before: The living will envy the dead.

However, I think we can agree that such confidence, whether misplaced or not, was not present at the time the Constitution was drafted and that, at least at the time, the necessity of armed resistance to tyranny was still a very real possibility. Thusly, a guarantee of the right to arms was a guarantee of the ability to mount an armed resistance, at least at the time the Constitution was drafted.

Close but not quite. Since at that time the militia and the armed citizenry were virtually synonymous and the Founding Fathers feared a large Standing Army the 2A allowed the States to arm their militias so it can safely be generalized that most people thought that militias would not stand to be controlled by the federal government if that body were to begin acting oppressively.
Most historians agree that at least part of the meaning of the Second Amendment was that it specifically guarantees the the right of states to ensure the arming of their militias in the face of fears that the federal government might effectively deny to arms to a state controlled militia. However, those fears never came true. So, yes the Founding Fathers feared tyranny but it was through the militia that they sought protection.

The problem comes in when you try to relate that to today when we have no militia and we do have a large standing army. Let me throw another modernistic monkey wrench in your idea. I think a tyrant today wouldn'teven try to use the military to try and control us. Too messy and there are many other ways to do that without firing a shot. So, don't get too cousy with your AR-15 at home. Might not do you any good.

While I have great respect for our military personnel, at the end of the day they are still just people and are subject to the same weaknesses and temptations as the rest of us. I find it rather naive to assume that an oath, in and of itself, will prevent anything as oaths are broken all the time.

I am assuming you have never served and the only difference that makes would be in your understanding of our culture and how we view integrity. No matter, the leaders who serve in the US Military are not idiots who can in large numbers be seduced by some charming President to overthrow the rest of the government. Quite frankly, as a career Army officer whenever I read about us violating our oaths wholesale it is somewhat offensive but I understand some may not understand. As far as the oath, in and of itself, doing something. I will tell you I was ready for 21 years to lay my life down for it and even more what it stood for. I safely feel that idea is represented by the vast majority of those I knew and served with. I did not take it lightly and so responded to your scenario in post #52 which I felt was too far-fetched to really be discussed.

[P99AS9]

Carlosr77,

Wow, thanks for sharing. You are a living example of why the 2nd amendment is so important to a free country.

[Kleinzeit]

It's quite possible that, if Hitler and Stalin had let the people keep their guns, it wouldn't have made any significant difference to their hold on power.

It does however show that both Hitler and Stalin feared the reaction of an armed population to their acts of tyranny. While fear of the people in and of itself may not prevent tyranny, it would seem to be useful in, if nothing else, making the tyrant more hesitant to commit his tyrannical acts.

Good point.

Although... the people wouldn't have to actually own guns to make the tyrant hesitate, would they? The tyrant would just have to think they might own guns. So, 2A preserves the people's capacity to make symbolic gestures that may or may not be taken seriously.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Although... the people wouldn't have to actually own guns to make the tyrant hesitate, would they? The tyrant would just have to think they might own guns. So, 2A preserves the people's capacity to make symbolic gestures that may or may not be taken seriously.

I think once the tyrant had removed all civil rights, Removing firearms would not be that hard. In Russia there was I believe little or no firearms owned by the "people" so Stalin probably didn't need to remove many. Same I think with Germany. The point being, once you've lost your government and the civil rights that might have gone with it having guns probably won't help. It would be too late.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
So as you see, the unorganized militia really has no relation to the "Well-Regulated Militia" of the 2A. It is nothing more than a statutory construct.


Your argumant hinges upon a concrete definition of "well-regulated," which I am unsure even exists. Hamilton admitted that the militia could not be as "well-regulated" as he'd like without commitment that he saw as impractical. Hamilton admitted that even under the abandoned requirements of the Militia Act of 1792, the militia would not be as effective as a large standing army. Yet he still seemed confident that though their numbers and resolve, the people, if allowed to be armed, would not be able to be dominated by a standing army should one attempt to do so. Even without the requirement to report for militia service semiannully, I see no reason that an armed and properly motivated citizenry would not be able to pose an effective resistance to a large and well-equipped military force. Certainly our experience in Vietnam and our current experiences in the Middle East demonstrate that even the best military will face great difficulty when they attempt to control a populace that is armed and unwilling to comply with the wishes of the force attempting to control them, even when that populace posesses inferior equipment and is not as well organized.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
Unlike the other institutions you point out, an armed citizenry is still in existance, it simply has not been necessary to use them.

But the militia is not in existence.


Yes, by legal definition it is. While it may have been modified from it's original form, it is still there. Whether you think that it is "well-regulated" enough or carries enough responsibility to perform it's function, should that be necessary, is irrelevant as lack of effectiveness does not equate with lack of existance. Also, to argue that the Unorganized Militia bears no responsibility is incorrect. Its members are still required to report for military service and defend their country, the only difference is that they are now only required to report when needed (through conscription into the regular military) rather than semiaunnually. While the Unorganized Militia is no longer legally required to provide their own arms, it would be unwise to remove their ability to do so as it is not impossible that, during a dire emergency, the government would be unable to properly equip them when they are summoned.

Originally posted by Tenessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webelymkv
Many of the colonists did indeed enjoy the right to free speech, free press, and other right that we enjoy today under the governments of their individual colonies and some of those rights, though certainly not all, under British law.

Not really. There were no safeguards in place as we later put in the Constitution and the Colonies had no representation in Parliament.

What you fail to take into account is that the colonists considered themselves to be, and were widely recognized prior to the 1770's as, British citizens. While the British government certainly was not structured identically to ours and its citizens were not afforded the exact same rights, they were not as dissimilar as you suggest as it posessed an elected governing body (Parliment), a governing document (the Magna Carta), Courts of law, and certain rights that were granted to the people. While the colonies were not represented in Parliment, they were also left, for the most part, unmolested and free to govern themselves as they saw fit prior to the 1770's and generally afforded the same rights as British citizens. It was only when the British government interfered with their governing that they demanded representation in parliment. When they attempted the means of redress available to British citizens, those means as well as the rights of citizenship were denied to them. It was at this point, when the laws and democratic institutions of their country had failed them, that they turned to armed rebellion. Given the fact that the rule of law and governmental institutions had already failed them once, it was not unreasonable for the founders to believe that the laws and governmental institutions of the new government could fail as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
Now, if you choose to believe that these institutions could never fail or be removed without the consent of the people, that is your right. While I find that position naive,you are obviously entrenched in it and no argument I make will sway you from it.

Here I think we have the heart of our disagreement. I am betting the COTUS will succeed and you are betting it will fail. So far after 200 plus years and through some trying times that bet is one I am winning. I think the majority of the American People are betting on the COTUS too. However, we could be naive as you suggest but as Glenn Meyer has stated before your bet ain't playing in Peoria. I would also say that if COUTUS completely fails, the armed citizenry will not accomplish much if anything to restore it (nor will they have prevented it) and as I have quoted the Russians before: The living will envy the dead.


Were I a betting man (I am not) I would also bet on the Constitution as I believe that it's extremely unlikely that it will fail us anytime soon. However, as I am not a betting man, I am unwilling to stake my freedom solely on the hope that it won't fail. The founders understood this as they viewed the failure of our democratic institutions as a real possibility. As far as the lack of accomplishment of the citizenry should COTUS fail, well I guess I have a bit more faith in the Amercian People than you do.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
However, I think we can agree that such confidence, whether misplaced or not, was not present at the time the Constitution was drafted and that, at least at the time, the necessity of armed resistance to tyranny was still a very real possibility. Thusly, a guarantee of the right to arms was a guarantee of the ability to mount an armed resistance, at least at the time the Constitution was drafted.

Close but not quite. Since at that time the militia and the armed citizenry were virtually synonymous and the Founding Fathers feared a large Standing Army the 2A allowed the States to arm their militias so it can safely be generalized that most people thought that militias would not stand to be controlled by the federal government if that body were to begin acting oppressively.
Most historians agree that at least part of the meaning of the Second Amendment was that it specifically guarantees the the right of states to ensure the arming of their militias in the face of fears that the federal government might effectively deny to arms to a state controlled militia. However, those fears never came true. So, yes the Founding Fathers feared tyranny but it was through the militia that they sought protection.

The problem comes in when you try to relate that to today when we have no militia and we do have a large standing army. Let me throw another modernistic monkey wrench in your idea. I think a tyrant today wouldn'teven try to use the military to try and control us. Too messy and there are many other ways to do that without firing a shot. So, don't get too cousy with your AR-15 at home. Might not do you any good.


The problem here is that, whether you acknowledge it or not, the militia does still exist. While it's structure may have changed, that does not necessarily change it's function or purpose. Likewise, I find myself wondering why, if the founders so feared a large standing army, they did not prevent the government from forming one through the structure of the Constitution. Because of Hamilton's commentary, it appears to me that the founders did not view a standing army as something to be feared so long as the people still had the ability to resist it should it try to usurp undue power. With regards to a would-be tyrant attempting to seize power through means other than the military, I see no way he could do so without the support of the people. If he had the support of the people, I fail to see how the Constitution or an armed citizenry would stop him. Besides, I don't own an AR-15, I'm more of an AK type of guy.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
While I have great respect for our military personnel, at the end of the day they are still just people and are subject to the same weaknesses and temptations as the rest of us. I find it rather naive to assume that an oath, in and of itself, will prevent anything as oaths are broken all the time.

I am assuming you have never served and the only difference that makes would be in your understanding of our culture and how we view integrity. No matter, the leaders who serve in the US Military are not idiots who can in large numbers be seduced by some charming President to overthrow the rest of the government. Quite frankly, as a career Army officer whenever I read about us violating our oaths wholesale it is somewhat offensive but I understand some may not understand. As far as the oath, in and of itself, doing something. I will tell you I was ready for 21 years to lay my life down for it and even more what it stood for. I safely feel that idea is represented by the vast majority of those I knew and served with. I did not take it lightly and so responded to your scenario in post #52 which I felt was too far-fetched to really be discussed.


Obviously you take great pride in your service to your country and rightfully so. However, I think that pride may be causing you to view the military through rose-colored glasses. While I am not under the illusion that our military personell are a bunch of dumb, mindless drones who will blindly follow whatever order they are given without question, I also reject the notion that they are somehow more intelligent and less vunerable to seduction or deception than the rest of the population. What is in the best interest of the nation, and indeed what is legal and Constitutional, can and has been misconstrued and misrepresented. Because hindsight is always 20/20, it is well within the realm of possibility that the military could carry out an illegal and unconstitutional order that, at the time, may appear to be both legal and constitutional. Such was certainly the case with suspension of Habeus Corpus and Japanese Internment and there is no guarantee that such an act could not be carried out against another branch of the government or the majority of the people rather than a singel small minority (Japanese Americans) or location (New York City). At the end of the day, our soldiers are still just people complete with all the virtues and vices of the rest of the population. While I concede that the scenario I presented was highly unlikely, improbability does not equate with impossibility. While it may be highly unlikely, it is not impossible that the military could be persuaded to take action against the wishes of one or more branches of the government and/or the people, and thusly through its own will or more likely clever deception become an instument of tyranny.

Originally posted by Kleinzeit
Quote:
It does however show that both Hitler and Stalin feared the reaction of an armed population to their acts of tyranny. While fear of the people in and of itself may not prevent tyranny, it would seem to be useful in, if nothing else, making the tyrant more hesitant to commit his tyrannical acts.

Good point.

Although... the people wouldn't have to actually own guns to make the tyrant hesitate, would they? The tyrant would just have to think they might own guns. So, 2A preserves the people's capacity to make symbolic gestures that may or may not be taken seriously.

But if the tyrant strips away that right, he knows that the majority of them do not and therefore no longer has reason to fear them.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by kleinzeit
Although... the people wouldn't have to actually own guns to make the tyrant hesitate, would they? The tyrant would just have to think they might own guns. So, 2A preserves the people's capacity to make symbolic gestures that may or may not be taken seriously.

I think once the tyrant had removed all civil rights, Removing firearms would not be that hard. In Russia there was I believe little or no firearms owned by the "people" so Stalin probably didn't need to remove many. Same I think with Germany. The point being, once you've lost your government and the civil rights that might have gone with it having guns probably won't help. It would be too late.


Which is why the loss of any civil right such as free speech or the right to due process of law is equally threatening as the loss of RKBA. The basic principle isn't limited exclusively to the right to arms.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Your argumant hinges upon a concrete definition of "well-regulated," which I am unsure even exists.

I think my argument hinges on common sense. I think it is pretty plain to an unbiased mind that a group of people scattered throughout rural, urban and suburban America, unknown to each other, untrained, unorganized and who have no defined form or leadership who just happen to own a gun are not in any sensible way part of a "well-regulated" militia. It just flies in the face of reason. I think we can quibble over what "well-regulated" might mean we can surely see the "militia" you are proposing, which is nothing more than all of America's gun owners is not what the 2A meant. Webley, you can do better than that! The 2A does not mention an "armed citizenry" but a militia which had a very understandable meaning and was a system that had form and purpose an "armed citizenry" lacks. The 'well-regulated' militia has been expressly held to have nothing at all to do with either a citizens' militia or the 'unorganized militia': U.S. v. Warin, 530 F. 2d. 103 (6th Circuit,1976) and U.S. v. Oakes, 564 F. 2d 384 (10th Circuit,1977).

Certainly our experience in Vietnam and our current experiences in the Middle East demonstrate that even the best military will face great difficulty when they attempt to control a populace that is armed and unwilling to comply with the wishes of the force attempting to control them, even when that populace posesses inferior equipment and is not as well organized.

First of all, we haven't had that great a difficulty in Iraq and the insurgency is pretty much defeated in spite of what the newspapers might say. Another gun culture legend is that in Vietnam we were dealing with poorly armed, organized and trained adversaries. Just not true. North Vietnam was supported strongly by the Soviet Union and China. They were well armed with modern weaponry, had tanks and an Air Force. We still defeated them militarily at every turn but waged a war with no real strategy and so gave up politically later on. They were not merely a group of people with guns.

Yes, by legal definition it is. While it may have been modified from it's original form, it is still there.

It is also against the law in Tennessee to swim a horse across a river. You are taking a 100 plus year old law and twisting it around to suit your argument. I posted in another thread:


The Decline of the General Militia in America

The inclusion of the militia provisions in what became the Second and Fifth amendments proved insufficient to prevent the original ideal of the American militia from ultimately going the way of its English counterpart.

Pre-1789 American political thought had emphasized the need to enroll all citizens--or at least freeholders--for militia duty, and had rejected the idea of a "select militia," in which only a portion of the population was enrolled. Provisions that authorized the new Congress to provide for the arming and organizing of the national militia were seen as allowing it to require that all citizens possess arms of uniform caliber and conform to a standard of drill. In practice, while various administrations prepared detailed plans along those lines, Congress refused to enact them.
In 1792, Congress enacted the first (and until 1903, the last) national Militia Act. While this Act required all white males of military age to possess a rifle or musket--or, if enrolled in cavalry or artillery units, pistols and a sword--it did nothing to guarantee uniformity of calibers, fixed no standards of national drill, and failed even to provide a penalty for noncompliance. The subsequent presidential calls for detailed organization of a national citizen army went unheeded. By 1805, even Jefferson was reduced to asking for a select militia, which had been anathema even to conservatives a few years before. In a message to Congress Jefferson stated, "I can not, then, but earnestly recommend to your early consideration the expediency of so modifying our militia system as, by a separation of the more active part from that which is less so, we may draw from it when necessary an efficient corps fit for real and active service, and to be called to it in regular rotation."

Within two decades of the ratification of the Constitution, American political leaders had abandoned the original concept of the militia, and in the words of one historian, "The ideological assumptions of revolutionary republicanism would no longer play an important role in the debate over the republic's military requirements." THE MILITIA AND THE CONSTITUTION: A LEGAL HISTORY by William S. Fields & David T. Hardy Military Law Review 1992

Here's more on the unorganized militia that you seem to think is what the 2A was supposed to be:
The term "unorganized" did not begin to emerge until the 1830s and 1840s, when a massive wave of opposition destroyed the compulsory militia system. Nobody wanted to serve in the militia. State governors and legislators wanted to be able to accommodate this desire, but they were bound by the 1792 Uniform Militia Act, which stated that every white male aged 18-45 would be in the militia.
However, the 1792 Uniform Militia Act explicitly allowed the states to determine who was exempt from militia service. So states divided their militias into two sections, the "organized" militia and the "unorganized" militia. In this way, the letter, though not the spirit, of the 1792 law could be complied with. However, only the "organized" militia would have responsibilities. These people would be volunteers, people who actually wanted to perform militia service; they gradually evolved into the National Guard. These people would have uniforms, guns, and would drill, review and encamp.

The other people were the people who did NOT want to be in the militia. Accordingly, members of the "unorganized" militia were NOT supposed to perform any duty or carry any weapons or have any responsibilities. All that would remain was the nominal authority of the state over them for military manpower purposes. This group of people had no militia responsibilities at all (in some areas they had to register, like for the draft today). In this way states could flaunt the spirit of the 1792 Uniform Militia Act, while nominally keeping to the letter of it.

The term "unorganized militia" was kept in use in subsequent decades as a statutory "reminder" that the state could still obligate its citizens to perform military duty, should it ever want them to. Eventually, U.S. law in the early twentieth century picked up this same usage for the same reason: by creating the "unorganized militia," the United States could guarantee usage of this manpower for military purposes, should the (remote) need ever arise.

But being in the "unorganized militia" conveys to you no rights, only the possibility of responsibilities. All it means is that you belong to that class which has no responsibilities. Being in the "unorganized militia" allows you to do not a single thing, because only the state and federal governments can create (working together) active militia systems. To date, their interest in doing so has largely concentrated on the National Guard.

Again, let me emphasize that there is not a single right guaranteed to you by virtue of your being in the militia.

The "Unorganized militia" in modern terms is more a draft-dodging loophole, not a Rambo clause.

well I guess I have a bit more faith in the Amercian People than you do.

I would argue the reverse. I have faith in our democracy which is the body of the American People. These Dr. Strangelove scenarios that many post about and cling to are really an insult to our citizenry and I would urge you to disregard such tripe. I don't think we are ever going to descend into the type of madness you might fear that would require us to revert to the law of the jungle with guns. I have more faith in the American People than that and you should too.

The problem here is that, whether you acknowledge it or not, the militia does still exist. While it's structure may have changed, that does not necessarily change it's function or purpose.

But you see Webley it's function and purpose was assumed by another institution, namely the US Military. The republican ideal of a citizen militia was abandoned two decades after the COTUS was ratified. The militia has no more relevence today than privateers or Letters of Marque. Look here:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9B06EFD71E3DEE32A25753C2A9649D946397D6CF. This was in 1902 and even the people living then knew it was gone!

Because hindsight is always 20/20, it is well within the realm of possibility that the military could carry out an illegal and unconstitutional order that, at the time, may appear to be both legal and constitutional. Such was certainly the case with suspension of Habeus Corpus and Japanese Internment and there is no guarantee that such an act could not be carried out against another branch of the government or the majority of the people rather than a singel small minority (Japanese Americans) or location (New York City).

I really think it is clear that to equate something like the Japanese Internment during WWII, a move supported by all three branches of government as well as most Americans at the time,to a far out scenario that a clever President could turn the US Military against the rest of the nation and it's own government is not only far fetched but a little wild. The leap of logic is unsustainable.

I think your quote here: While I concede that the scenario I presented was highly unlikely, improbability does not equate with impossibility.
could also be applied to space alien invasion or zombie war. I guess nothing is impossible. Should we prepare for those outcomes as well?

[Kleinzeit]

I'm wondering how universally applicable is the "guard against tyrannous government" justification of 2A. Meaning: is this logic attributable in part merely to the peculiarities of the American disposition, to the unique circumstances of America's creation, and to the traditions that have followed from this? Or is the argument intended as a universal principle? (So far, it has been being defended as if it were.)

So here's what I'm thinking: There are many people in other countries who see the USA as a tyrannical power or as one which is capable of becoming tyrannous. Some of those people believe that it is necessary for them to arm themselves as a check against the possibility of this happening. When they see the USA attempting to disarm nations or to limit their capacity to arm themselves, they see this as a confirmation of tyranny, as a tyrannous attempt to create the conditions under which the USA can become yet more tyrannous.

It could be argued that the USA simply isn't being tyrannous and that these people have got it all wrong. But the USA, it could be countered, has no more right to make that determination on behalf of other nations than the US government has to make it on behalf of the American populace.

I'm not trying to be facetious. Part of the reason I ask is that other nations do watch this 2A debate and do ask themselves whether the USA can really walk the walk. Whether we intend it or not, 2A has implications that go far beyond our shores.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
The 'well-regulated' militia has been expressly held to have nothing at all to do with either a citizens' militia or the 'unorganized militia': U.S. v. Warin, 530 F. 2d. 103 (6th Circuit,1976) and U.S. v. Oakes, 564 F. 2d 384 (10th Circuit,1977).

The decision of the court in both cases was predicated upon the notion that the Second Amendment only guarantees the collective right of the States to raise a militia. That notion was dispelled in D.C. v. Heller when SCOTUS declared the Second Amendment to be an individual right. Thusly, if the Second Amendment was set in order to guarantee the ability to arm the militia so that it may protect the country, and it also guarantees an individual right according to SCOTUS in the Heller opinion, it would logically follow that the individual, regardless of his membership to the Organized Militia according to the Heller opinion, is indeed considered to be a member of the militia. Likewise, SCOTUS stated the following in their opinion in U.S. v Miller:

The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power --

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

As the federal govenrment still retains the authority to call upon the Unorganized Militia to defend the country through military conscription, it would seem that members of the Unorganized Militia are still members of the Militia as a whole.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
Certainly our experience in Vietnam and our current experiences in the Middle East demonstrate that even the best military will face great difficulty when they attempt to control a populace that is armed and unwilling to comply with the wishes of the force attempting to control them, even when that populace posesses inferior equipment and is not as well organized.

First of all, we haven't had that great a difficulty in Iraq and the insurgency is pretty much defeated in spite of what the newspapers might say.

If we have not had significant difficulty, why do we remain engaged there for nearly six years now? For the majority of that time, the regular Iraqi army has not been our opponent as Hussein's government was toppled fairly early on. Likewise, the formal military of no other nation has stepped into the fray to oppose us. Likewise, the Taliban is no longer the formal government of Afghanistan and the regular Afghan Army is our ally. Yet we remain unable to stabilize the country partly because a large segment of the population, though their arms and organization are inferior to our own, opposes us.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Another gun culture legend is that in Vietnam we were dealing with poorly armed, organized and trained adversaries. Just not true. North Vietnam was supported strongly by the Soviet Union and China. They were well armed with modern weaponry, had tanks and an Air Force. We still defeated them militarily at every turn but waged a war with no real strategy and so gave up politically later on. They were not merely a group of people with guns.


So if the NVA was not difficult to defeat, why did we lose the war? The answer of course is that a large segement of the South Vietnamese population (the VC) did not support the corrupt government that we were attempting to prop up. Thusly, the VC, whose equipment and organization was inferior to our own, was able to cause us great difficulty in Vietnam. It is generally accepted by historians that a large component to our difficulties in Vietnam came from the inability to distinguish between the VC and friendly civillians, thusly rendering us unable to quell them.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
Yes, by legal definition it is. While it may have been modified from it's original form, it is still there.

It is also against the law in Tennessee to swim a horse across a river. You are taking a 100 plus year old law and twisting it around to suit your argument.

The age of a law has nothing to do with it's validity or purpose. Many very important laws date back to the founding of our country, yet their age has no bearing on their validity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
well I guess I have a bit more faith in the Amercian People than you do.

I would argue the reverse. I have faith in our democracy which is the body of the American People. These Dr. Strangelove scenarios that many post about and cling to are really an insult to our citizenry and I would urge you to disregard such tripe. I don't think we are ever going to descend into the type of madness you might fear that would require us to revert to the law of the jungle with guns. I have more faith in the American People than that and you should too.


So was the founders lack of faith in democratic institutions in and of themselves, which caused them to include the Second Amendment into the constitution, insulting tripe as well? You have repeatedly stated that the founders feared a standing army, but if the oath of service and democratic institutions in and of themselves are sufficient to prevent military tyranny, why did the founders fear the large standing army? Remember, checks and balances were outlined in the body of the Constitution (which was ratified simultatneously with the Second Amendment) so it cannot be argued that such institutions evolved later. Likewise, the Militia Act of 1792, which you state attempted to negate the need for a large standing army, was passed after the ratification of the Constitution and its Separation of Powers. Thusly, it must be concluded that in spite of democratic institutions, the founders retained their fear of a large standing army. While their fear has yet to be realized (though it is not impossible that it might be), that does not change the purpose for their inclusion of the Second Amendment.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webelymkv
The problem here is that, whether you acknowledge it or not, the militia does still exist. While it's structure may have changed, that does not necessarily change it's function or purpose.

But you see Webley it's function and purpose was assumed by another institution, namely the US Military. The republican ideal of a citizen militia was abandoned two decades after the COTUS was ratified. The militia has no more relevence today than privateers or Letters of Marque. Look here:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...649D946397D6CF. This was in 1902 and even the people living then knew it was gone!


Function, perhaps but not its purpose. An editorial in the New York Times proves nothing as newspapers, that one included, have quite often published editorials in favor of measures that are unconstitutional.

Also, the militia, the Unorganized Militia included, was not abandonded as to do so would negate the government's ability to institute a draft. You see, COTUS does not grant the government the ability to conscript the people into the military; it only grants the ability to call forth the militia. By redefining the people, or at least a large segment of them, as the militia, the government is able to legally conscript that segment into the military. The government is therefore unable to completely abandon the concept of the militia without also abandoning its legal authority to conscript a segment of the people into the military should that be needed. Since the people have been conscripted into the military multiple times within the last century, it is impossible that the institution of the Militia, the Unorganized Militia included, was abandoned over 100 years ago. Thusly, because the people are still legally considered to be the militia and because the Miller decision specifically defined the purpose of the Second Amendment as ensuring that the Militia can be equipped to defend the country, it must be concluded that, legally at least, the Second Amendment's purpose is to guarantee that the people are able to be equipped in order to defend the country. While you may argue that the militia is not the same institution that it was at the time the Constitution was drafted, the fact remains that by legal definition the Unorganized Militia remains a part of the Militia. Because the Unorganized Militia, and thusly the people, remain a part of the Militia and because the purpose of the Second Amendment, as defined by SCOTUS, is to equip the militia so that it may defend the country, deductive reasoning dictates the the purpose of the Second Amendment is to equip the people to defend the country.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
Because hindsight is always 20/20, it is well within the realm of possibility that the military could carry out an illegal and unconstitutional order that, at the time, may appear to be both legal and constitutional. Such was certainly the case with suspension of Habeus Corpus and Japanese Internment and there is no guarantee that such an act could not be carried out against another branch of the government or the majority of the people rather than a singel small minority (Japanese Americans) or location (New York City).

I really think it is clear that to equate something like the Japanese Internment during WWII, a move supported by all three branches of government as well as most Americans at the time,to a far out scenario that a clever President could turn the US Military against the rest of the nation and it's own government is not only far fetched but a little wild. The leap of logic is unsustainable.


No, the leap of logic is not unsustainable. History shows multiple examples of Persuasive leaders convincing the military to help them seize power in spite of legal safeguards that were in place to prevent such an occurance. Julius Caesar used the military force that he commanded to seize power from the Roman senate in spite of the fact that Roman law forbade a dictatorship outside of times of crisis (which had passed). Likewise, Hitler used the SS to eliminate his potential enemies in the SA during the Night of the Long Knives in spite of German law mandating due process of law. To say that laws forbiding such an occurence and the morality of the military in and of themselves are sufficient to prevent a miitary coup is a notion that is not supported by history.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
I think your quote here:
Quote:
While I concede that the scenario I presented was highly unlikely, improbability does not equate with impossibility.

could also be applied to space alien invasion or zombie war. I guess nothing is impossible. Should we prepare for those outcomes as well?


This is nothing more than a strawman argument. To say that concern over a situtation that could be perpetrated by a large and powerful military, which we certainly posess, which posesses inherent human faults, which soldiers certainly do, equates with concern over defence from things which cannot be proven to even exist is a weak attempt to discredit a legitimate argument.

Originally posted by Tenessee Gentleman
The "Unorganized militia" in modern terms is more a draft-dodging loophole, not a Rambo clause.

Herein lies the crux of our disagreement. I think this statement as well as the picture that you posted in post #40 demonstrates that you subscibe to what I refer to the sheep/sheepdog/shepherd mentality. Basically, it seems that you view the police and military (the sheepdogs) as the only ones with a duty, or right for that matter, to use arms in order to defend the country and thusly the people. Similarly, it seems as though you view the government (the shepherd) as bearing sole duty, as well as right, to command both the police/military and the people in defense of the nation because it alone is able to determine what is best for the country with regards to defense (the flock if you will). Finally, it would seem that you view the people (the sheep) has having only one duty and right with regard to use of arms in defense: the defense of their individual selves. It seems as though you view anyone, outside of the police or military, who states that they wish to be armed in order to defend liberty as some sort of misguided redneck that wishes to play "Rambo" and is some sort of "draft-dodger" because they refuse to join the ranks of the military or police. It appears as though you believe that the "sheepdogs" are the only ones who have a right to use arms in order to defend the country and that the "sheep" should stand aside and concern themselves only with their own well being and have the right to use their arms to that end and that end only.

I reject this mentality and instead subscribe to what could be called the "Dog-pack" philosopy. While individual members of society are selected to lead and bear specific duties that ensure the well being of the "pack," each and every member of society bears both the right and duty to ensure not only his own well being, but that of the "pack" as well. This duty extends to the use of arms should that be necessary.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Kleinzeit
I'm wondering how universally applicable is the "guard against tyrannous government" justification of 2A. Meaning: is this logic attributable in part merely to the peculiarities of the American disposition, to the unique circumstances of America's creation, and to the traditions that have followed from this? Or is the argument intended as a universal principle? (So far, it has been being defended as if it were.)

So here's what I'm thinking: There are many people in other countries who see the USA as a tyrannical power or as one which is capable of becoming tyrannous. Some of those people believe that it is necessary for them to arm themselves as a check against the possibility of this happening. When they see the USA attempting to disarm nations or to limit their capacity to arm themselves, they see this as a confirmation of tyranny, as a tyrannous attempt to create the conditions under which the USA can become yet more tyrannous.

It could be argued that the USA simply isn't being tyrannous and that these people have got it all wrong. But the USA, it could be countered, has no more right to make that determination on behalf of other nations than the US government has to make it on behalf of the American populace.

I'm not trying to be facetious. Part of the reason I ask is that other nations do watch this 2A debate and do ask themselves whether the USA can really walk the walk. Whether we intend it or not, 2A has implications that go far beyond our shores.

That is actually a very valid point. However, discussion of that point would most likely devolve into an examination of both changes to the organization of our armed forces and foreign policy, which I feel is best discussed via Private Message (which I would be more that happy to do should you wish to) as it would more than likely be off-topic for this thread and the forum as a whole.

[Al Norris]

Just to put a bit of scholarly history in perspective:

"And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its bur[d]ens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights." Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833)
-----


"The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.

"The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.

"What Arms may be kept. -- The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely to deadly individual encounters may be prohibited." Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880)
-----


"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed; where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567, 570 (Kozinski, J., dissenting).
-----


Two rather distinguished scholars and a current Circuit Judge. All espousing what the purpose of the amendment was and is for, from basically the beginning, middle and current history of the US.

Also, please remember that the Heller decision did not in any shape or form, address the prefatory clause. The courts have simply refused to opine on this matter, other than a brief sentence from the Miller decision.

Nor do I believe that the Court will ever pass judgment on the prefatory clause within our lifetimes. The reasons for avoiding the clause are purely political; self-defensive and self-serving. No government older than a few decades will ever admit that its citizens have the right and duty as was written into the DOI.

Like it or not, the U.S. Constitution was written with that in mind.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

The decision of the court in both cases was predicated upon the notion that the Second Amendment only guarantees the collective right of the States to raise a militia.

I think you should read the facts of the cases cited. Heller did not reverse them and the quote you provide is dicta.

Now, the facts of the first case would be familiar to you based on some of our previous debates about NFA weapons. A man possessed an unregistered NFA weapon and claimed that he was able to have it because he was a "member of the militia" and therefore based on Miller had a constitutional right to have it. He lost.

Were say, you for instance, try to own an unregistered NFA weapon and upon arrest by the BATFE claim that your "status" in the "unorganized militia" gave you a constitutional right to have it, do you think Heller would save you from jail? I like how the court in Warin referred to the militia as "the sedentary militia" :D Heller did not rule on the militia question rather decoupled correctly the right to keep and bear arms from service in the militia.

it would seem that members of the Unorganized Militia are still members of the Militia as a whole.

With no rights, duties or responsibilities. In other words meaningless and without purpose.

If we have not had significant difficulty, why do we remain engaged there for nearly six years now?

Good question and makes my point perfectly. The reason is because Iraq has no democratic institutions to guarantee the rights of it citizens and as a result has a very weak government that we have chosen for strategic reasons (not that I agree with them!) to assist until Iraq can police itself. BTW, plenty of arms there and yet still no freedom and safety. Beginning to see a pattern Webley? No political safeguards no peace in spite of a proliferation of firearms. The difficulty in Iraq is not because a large segment of the population, though their arms and organization are inferior to our own, opposes us. but because (as I saw first hand in Somalia) you cannot build democratic society overnight with no foundations to support to build them from. The problem is political not military.

So if the NVA was not difficult to defeat, why did we lose the war?

In short, because the American People and thus their government lost the will to continue the fight because no viable strategy was in place to win it. Once again, the problem was political and had nothing to do with the effectiveness of the VC or the NVA (which were really the same).

An important side note here Webley. I would recommend some more reading on guerrilla warfare and perhaps watch a show on the Military Channel or two. Successfuul insurgencies are not waged by disorganized, poorly armed partisans as the gun culture may lead you to believe. It requires extensive training, leadership, planning, help from an outside source or country and luck to win such a war. The real lesson here is that a mob with guns tend to do more harm than good and when faced by a trained force they normally are slaughtered. I would leave the John Ross books alone.

The age of a law has nothing to do with it's validity or purpose.

In this case it does because the idea was outmoded from the beginning and virtually abandoned within two decades of it's ratification.

Remember, checks and balances were outlined in the body of the Constitution (which was ratified simultaneously with the Second Amendment) so it cannot be argued that such institutions evolved later.

Actually, those institutions did evolve. Remember Marbury vs. Madison?
How about in 1962 with "one man one vote" in Baker vs Carr These institutions and branches were brand new and the Founders couldn't be sure they would work as this was a government never before tried in the world. The reason that the Dr. Strangelove scenarios today are insulting is because we know better after 230 years which the Founders could not know. I have read writings from some of them where they expressed grave doubts about howit would all turn out. They were far from sure. As to the military oaths, no Army before ours answered to the people and the Founders fear was that a large standing Army might pose a threat to their liberty. We have a standing Army today and know better.

You see Webley, things change and evolve as we learn. That's why the COTUS was amended 27 times. As I posted a quote in post #80 the Founders had a republican ideal (which btw did not include an unorganized militia) that every able citizen would be armed and by obligation stand up and defend when necessary the state. This was not an option but an obligation. This ideal did take care of the fear of a standing army in that the Founders believed that if the defense of the nation lay mostly in the hands of state militias that no standing army could be a threat to the liberty of all. Al Norris in his post above lays out some good quotes to illustrate this republican ideal. I agree that the COUTUS was written with that ideal in mind. However, the "unorganized militia" that you keep hangin your hat on from 1903 was NOT that ideal.
Nevertheless, it didn't work!

Here:By the time Jefferson left office as governor of Virginia, the ineffectiveness of the militia had left him deeply disillusioned. Painfully humiliated by – and criticized for – the rout of the Virginia militia that forced him to abandon Monticello just hours ahead of British raiders, he had long been frustrated by the lack of commitment to martial obligations in the state. He had witnessed the difficulties of raising effective forces since his appointment to the Virginia Convention’s militia committee THOMAS JEFFERSON’S ARMED CITIZENRY AND THE REPUBLICAN MILITIA Albany Law Review David Thomas Konig

So, as I posted earlier the grand idea of the citizen republican militia didn't work (George Washington didn't like them either) and so the Militia of the 2A went away over time and today we have a large standing army. Jefferson wouldn't like it if he saw it today at first. But once he understood how the world had changed he would see the need.

An editorial in the New York Times proves nothing as newspapers, that one included, have quite often published editorials in favor of measures that are unconstitutional.

OK, how about Teddy Roosevelt who at his first State of the Union declared the militia law to be "obsolete and worthless". My point is that even 100 years ago the militia was a dead letter and it is even deader today.

You see, COTUS does not grant the government the ability to conscript the people into the military; it only grants the ability to call forth the militia.

The SCOTUS says otherwise. See Arver v. United States in which the court says:The power ... was clearly an unmixed federal power dealing with the subject from the sphere of the authority given to Congress to raise armies and not from the sphere of the right to deal with the militia as such, whether organized or unorganized.

The draft authority comes from Article One Section Eight. Congress has the right to raise armies. The militia of the 2A referred to the states. When we are called to active duty by a draft by congressional law it is through Article One Section Eight and not the 1903 Militia Act.

To say that laws forbiding such an occurence and the morality of the military in and of themselves are sufficient to prevent a miitary coup is a notion that is not supported by history.

No other nation in the history you mention has had our government or our democratic institutions either.:) History is fine but you need to consider it in context before you draw too many modern day proofs from it.

To say that concern over a situtation that could be perpetrated by a large and powerful military, which we certainly posess, which posesses inherent human faults, which soldiers certainly do, equates with concern over defence from things which cannot be proven to even exist is a weak attempt to discredit a legitimate argument.

Human weakness is not the issue or the problem. It is power and who has it and can they be checked. In our system government no one has the type of power to do what you have suggested regardless of the "human frailty of soldiers". I really think Webley you don't understand the military and how it functions either and that is why I have warned you against believing the Dr. Strangelove scenarios, they aren't real and are as plausible as martians. Checks and balances acutally assume that power corrupts (human frailty) and that no one person or group should have too much of it.

Thusly, because the people are still legally considered to be the militia and because the Miller decision specifically defined the purpose of the Second Amendment as ensuring that the Militia can be equipped to defend the country, it must be concluded that, legally at least, the Second Amendment's purpose is to guarantee that the people are able to be equipped in order to defend the country.

I don't think Miller says any such thing as you conclude. I think you should reread it

that you subscibe to what I refer to the sheep/sheepdog/shepherd mentality.

How wrong you are my friend. I despise the sheep/wolf/dog/shepard crap I read posted about. To my mind it is nothing more than romantic hollywood superhero garbage. What I believe in is first; our democratic institutions, a free press, free elections, an independent judiaciary and respect for the rule of law protect us against tyranny. No dogs or sheep involved. I secondly believe that our professional military protects us from enemies foreign and domestic and our police generally protect us from criminality but that we as citizens have a personal right to self defense and that means the keeping and bearing of arms.

I further believe there is no more militia and the people you describe "who wish to be armed in order to "defend liberty" and refuse to join the ranks of the military or police" otherwise known as the modern militia, are nothing more than unauthorized paramilitary organizations who answer to no one and who could be an even greater real danger than any stnding army could ever be. I am beginning to think that your belief that the militia still exists stems from your support of these extralegal entities and I would warn you again about the dangers of:

http://heavynews.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/no-looting.jpg

They keep nobody free and might be dangerous to your liberties if you got on the wrong side of them.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
The decision of the court in both cases was predicated upon the notion that the Second Amendment only guarantees the collective right of the States to raise a militia.

I think you should read the facts of the cases cited. Heller did not reverse them and the quote you provide is dicta.


http://www.guncite.com/court/fed/530f2d103.html
Within a few years after Miller v. United States was announced the First Circuit dealt with arguments similar to those made by Warin in the present case. In Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied sub nom., Velazquez v. United States, 319 U.S. 770, 63 S.Ct. 1431, 87 L.Ed. 1718 (1943), the court held that the Supreme Court did not intend to formulate a general rule in Miller, but merely dealt with the facts of that case. The court of appeals noted the development of new weaponry during the early years of World War II and concluded that it was not the intention of the Supreme Court to hold that the Second Amendment prohibits Congress from regulating any weapons except antiques "such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus." 131 F.2d at 922. If the logical extension of the defendant's argument for the holding of Miller was inconceivable in 1942, it is completely irrational in this time of nuclear weapons.

Agreeing as we do with the conclusion in Cases v. United States, supra, that the Supreme Court did not lay down a general rule in Miller, we consider the present case on its own facts and in light of applicable authoritative decisions. It is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right. In Stevens v. United States, 440 F.2d 144, 149 (6th Cir. 1971), this court held, in a case challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a)(1):

Since the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear Arms" applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm.


The whole argument of D.C. v Heller was whether the Second Amendment guarantees an individual or collective right. The court affirmed that it is indeed an individual right which would seem to be in contradiction to the bolded section.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/us_v_oakes.txt
The second constitutional argument that appellant advances is
that the prosecution here violated his right to bear arms guaran-
teed by the second amendment. [footnote 1] Defendant presents a
long historical analysis of the amendment's background and purpose
from which he concludes that every citizen has the absolute right
to keep arms. This broad conclusion has long been rejected. United
States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206.
However, as in his search and seizure argument, appellant attempts
to avoid the seemingly dispositive nature of the case law by
arguing a factual distinction. He contends that, even if the
second amendment is construed to guarantee the right to bear arms
only to an organized militia, he comes within the scope of the
amendment. He points out that under Kans. Const. art. VIII,
section 1, the state militia includes all "able-bodied male
citizens between the ages of twenty-one and forty-five years . .
.." He further points out that he is a member of "Posse Comita-
tus, a militia-type organization registered with the state of
Kansas."

The purpose of the second amendment as stated by the Supreme
Court in United States v. Miller, supra at 178, 59 S.Ct. 816, was
to preserve the effectiveness and assure the continuation of the
state militia. The Court stated that the amendment must be
interpreted and applied with that purpose in view. Id. To apply
the amendment so as to guarantee appellant's right to keep an
unregistered firearm which has not been shown to have any
connection to the militia, merely because he is technically a
member of the Kansas militia, would be unjustifiable in terms of
either logic or policy. This lack of justification is even more
apparent when applied to appellant's membership in "Posse
Comitatus," an apparently nongovernmental organization. We
conclude, therefore, that this prosecution did not violate the
second amendment.


The court, while conceding that the defendant is indeed a member of the militia, upheld his conviction because the firearm in question showed no connection to the militia thusly not meeting the Miller definition of "preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Thusly, the decision of the court was based on the type of firearm the defendant posessed rather than his membership status in the militia.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Now, the facts of the first case would be familiar to you based on some of our previous debates about NFA weapons. A man possessed an unregistered NFA weapon and claimed that he was able to have it because he was a "member of the militia" and therefore based on Miller had a constitutional right to have it. He lost.

The court based its ruling against the defendant on the notion that the Second Amendment does not guarantee and individual right. That notion was overturned by Heller.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Were say, you for instance, try to own an unregistered NFA weapon and upon arrest by the BATFE claim that your "status" in the "unorganized militia" gave you a constitutional right to have it, do you think Heller would save you from jail? I like how the court in Warin referred to the militia as "the sedentary militia" Heller did not rule on the militia question rather decoupled correctly the right to keep and bear arms from service in the militia.

The discussion at hand has nothing to do with NFA weapons. I have not contended that Heller overturned the Miller decision, it simply dispelled the notion that the Second Amendment only afforded protection at the federal level and that states and cities were not bound by it. Miller did not deny that the individual was a member of the militia, but rather ruled that firearms which were not common or suitable for militia use are not protected by the Second Amendment. However, as Miller did state that the purpose for the Second Amendment was to ensure the effectiveness of the Militia while Heller states that the protection of 2A extends to the individual rather than the collective. So, if the amendment's purpose is the arming of the militia, and it's protection extends to the individual, it is logical to conclude that the purpose, and therefore membership in the militia, also extends to the individual. I find it illogical to presume that the purpose and protection afforded by the Second Amendment are somehow unconnected, and SCOTUS does not refute that. Therefore, the notion that the purpose of the amendment changed within 20 years after it's adoption does not hold as SCOTUS refuted that in the 20th Century.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
it would seem that members of the Unorganized Militia are still members of the Militia as a whole.

With no rights, duties or responsibilities. In other words meaningless and without purpose.

But still members nonetheless. Purpose is not predicated on usefulness, and usefulness with regards to the current debate is in and of itself debatable.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
If we have not had significant difficulty, why do we remain engaged there for nearly six years now?

Good question and makes my point perfectly. The reason is because Iraq has no democratic institutions to guarantee the rights of it citizens and as a result has a very weak government that we have chosen for strategic reasons (not that I agree with them!) to assist until Iraq can police itself. BTW, plenty of arms there and yet still no freedom and safety. Beginning to see a pattern Webley? No political safeguards no peace in spite of a proliferation of firearms.

I have never argued that arms in and of themselves guarantee liberty. However, my point that an inferiorly armed and organized population can cause great difficulty for a military with superior arms and organization still stands.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
The difficulty in Iraq is not
Quote:
because a large segment of the population, though their arms and organization are inferior to our own, opposes us.

but because (as I saw first hand in Somalia) you cannot build democratic society overnight with no foundations to support to build them from. The problem is political not military.


My point that superiority of arms and organization does not guarantee that a population can be controlled. As you point out, no amount of military might can easily overcome an armed population without the democratic institutions that we posess. The Second Amendment ensures that a government, be it foreign or domestic, cannot control the population of our country without the democratic institutions you speak of.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
So if the NVA was not difficult to defeat, why did we lose the war?

In short, because the American People and thus their government lost the will to continue the fight because no viable strategy was in place to win it. Once again, the problem was political and had nothing to do with the effectiveness of the VC or the NVA (which were really the same).

And we lost the political will to do so partly because we realized that the country's populace did not sufficiently support our efforts. The populace did not support us because the government that we were attempting to prop up did not share our democratic institutions. My point still stands that an armed populace can cause great difficulty for even the best military if they do not support rule by that military.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
An important side note here Webley. I would recommend some more reading on guerrilla warfare and perhaps watch a show on the Military Channel or two. Successfuul insurgencies are not waged by disorganized, poorly armed partisans as the gun culture may lead you to believe. It requires extensive training, leadership, planning, help from an outside source or country and luck to win such a war. The real lesson here is that a mob with guns tend to do more harm than good and when faced by a trained force they normally are slaughtered. I would leave the John Ross books alone.


I never said that insurgencies could be successfully carried out without organization of any kind, but rather that they could overcome superior organization and armament. Certainly the U.S. military was in posession of superior arms and organization.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
The age of a law has nothing to do with it's validity or purpose.

In this case it does because the idea was outmoded from the beginning and virtually abandoned within two decades of it's ratification.

You have yet to prove that it was abandoned.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
Remember, checks and balances were outlined in the body of the Constitution (which was ratified simultaneously with the Second Amendment) so it cannot be argued that such institutions evolved later.

Actually, those institutions did evolve. Remember Marbury vs. Madison?
How about in 1962 with "one man one vote" in Baker vs Carr These institutions and branches were brand new and the Founders couldn't be sure they would work as this was a government never before tried in the world. The reason that the Dr. Strangelove scenarios today are insulting is because we know better after 230 years which the Founders could not know. I have read writings from some of them where they expressed grave doubts about howit would all turn out. They were far from sure. As to the military oaths, no Army before ours answered to the people and the Founders fear was that a large standing Army might pose a threat to their liberty. We have a standing Army today and know better.


The court's ability to strike down law was not formed through Marbury v Madison rather this was the first time it was exercised. The court's authority to do so is drawn from the Constitution itself rather than a seizure of such power through a single case. Likewise, the court did nothing more than oblige the Tennessee State Legislature to abide by the State Constitution in Baker v Carr, the authority of the court to oblige the other branches of the Government to do so is also outlined in COTUS. So, the court did not derive new power from either case, they simply chose to exercise it for the first time.

Also, simply because something has worked for an extended period of time does not guarantee that it will continue to do so as neither you, I, nor anyone else knows what the future holds. History is ripe with systems of government that endured much longer than our own which ultimately failed. There is no way that you, the founders, or I can know whether or not our system of government will continue to work so well. Our system of government is not an experiment that was carried out successfully, but rather a continuing experiment that has thus far been successful.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
You see Webley, things change and evolve as we learn. That's why the COTUS was amended 27 times. As I posted a quote in post #80 the Founders had a republican ideal (which btw did not include an unorganized militia) that every able citizen would be armed and by obligation stand up and defend when necessary the state.

The people still bear obligation to stand up and defend the state and they have been called upon to do so 4 times in the last century alone through conscription into the military. Also, while the Constitution had indeed been modified 27 times through amendments, none of those other 26 removed or modified the 2nd Amendment in any way.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
This was not an option but an obligation. This ideal did take care of the fear of a standing army in that the Founders believed that if the defense of the nation lay mostly in the hands of state militias that no standing army could be a threat to the liberty of all.

Last time I checked, the draft was not optional. As I have already demonstrated, armed people can and have demonstrated a significant obstacle to rule by force. I see no evidence that should a military, be it foreign or domestic, attempt to overpower the people of our country that the armed citizens would not give them great difficulty. Therefore, the founders were right, a standing army such as we have today cannot be a threat to liberty so long as we have armed, liberty-loving people.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Al Norris in his post above lays out some good quotes to illustrate this republican ideal. I agree that the COUTUS was written with that ideal in mind. However, the "unorganized militia" that you keep hangin your hat on from 1903 was NOT that ideal.
Nevertheless, it didn't work!


Your whole argument hinges upon the notion that the armed citizenry, through compromise to practicality, is now so ineffective that they are rendered a moot point. However, you forget that the original republican ideal that was outlined in the Militia Act of 1792 was in and of itself a compromise. Hamilton admitted in the Federalist Papers that a militia regulated in accordance with specifications almost identical to those of the Militia Act of 1792 would not be as effective in defense of the country as a standing army (which was not prohibited by the constitution), yet he remained confident that in spite of such compromise the militia could nonetheless remain effective enough to serve its purpose. I do not see how further compromise (and not really all that great a compromise as the required duties of the militia under the 1792 Militia Act were pretty rudimentary to begin with) necessarily renders the militia ineffective and thusly useless. Remember, prior to the Militia Act of 1903, the Volunteer Militia and Conscripted Militia were commonly recognized as different institution although both served the same basic purpose and were subject to the authority of their individual state governments and the federal government in times of crisis. The 1903 Act simply removed the inconvenient requirements of the Conscripted Militia (which were already rather rudimentary), and legally redefined the Volunteer and Conscripted Militias as the Organized and Unorganized Militias respectively. The basic duty of defense of the the country remained unchanged as the Unorganized Militia may still be called upon through conscription into the regualr military.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
By the time Jefferson left office as governor of Virginia, the ineffectiveness of the militia had left him deeply disillusioned. Painfully humiliated by – and criticized for – the rout of the Virginia militia that forced him to abandon Monticello just hours ahead of British raiders, he had long been frustrated by the lack of commitment to martial obligations in the state. He had witnessed the difficulties of raising effective forces since his appointment to the Virginia Convention’s militia committee THOMAS JEFFERSON’S ARMED CITIZENRY AND THE REPUBLICAN MILITIA Albany Law Review David Thomas Konig

So, as I posted earlier the grand idea of the citizen republican militia didn't work (George Washington didn't like them either) and so the Militia of the 2A went away over time and today we have a large standing army. Jefferson wouldn't like it if he saw it today at first. But once he understood how the world had changed he would see the need.


The basic principle of the citizen republican militia, while some of the details have been modified, did work and is still in effect as I have already demonstrated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
An editorial in the New York Times proves nothing as newspapers, that one included, have quite often published editorials in favor of measures that are unconstitutional.

OK, how about Teddy Roosevelt who at his first State of the Union declared the militia law to be "obsolete and worthless". My point is that even 100 years ago the militia was a dead letter and it is even deader today.


First of all, Presidents in and of themselves are not necessarily Constitutional scholars and have supported unconstitutional measures on several occasions in the past. Secondly, Roosevelt declared the Militia law not the militia itself to be "obsolete and worthless." The law was subesquently changed with the Militia Act of 1903, yet the most basic duty of the militia remained unchanged.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webelymkv
You see, COTUS does not grant the government the ability to conscript the people into the military; it only grants the ability to call forth the militia.

The SCOTUS says otherwise. See Arver v. United States in which the court says:
Quote:
The power ... was clearly an unmixed federal power dealing with the subject from the sphere of the authority given to Congress to raise armies and not from the sphere of the right to deal with the militia as such, whether organized or unorganized.

The draft authority comes from Article One Section Eight. Congress has the right to raise armies. The militia of the 2A referred to the states. When we are called to active duty by a draft by congressional law it is through Article One Section Eight and not the 1903 Militia Act.


Article One Section Eight grants congress the authority to raise an army. British law, prior to the Revolution, did not grant the government the power to conscript British citizens into the army, and the British government did not do so (though they did gain volunteers often through trickery or outright deception) so it is illogical to think that the founders did not know that it was possible to raise an army through means other than conscription. As the Constitution does grant the government the power to call forth the militia, defining an entire segment of the population gives the government the power to call upon that segment and thus makes conscription of that segment legal. Arver v Unitied States makes clear that the power of congress to call forth the militia, and thusly the entire segment of the population defined as the militia, does not hinge upon that segments inclusion in the Organized Militia. Certainly, congress does not have the power to conscript members of the population who are not defined as members of the militia, such as women and men who are either too young or too old, into the military.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
To say that concern over a situtation that could be perpetrated by a large and powerful military, which we certainly posess, which posesses inherent human faults, which soldiers certainly do, equates with concern over defence from things which cannot be proven to even exist is a weak attempt to discredit a legitimate argument.

Human weakness is not the issue or the problem. It is power and who has it and can they be checked. In our system government no one has the type of power to do what you have suggested regardless of the "human frailty of soldiers". I really think Webley you don't understand the military and how it functions either and that is why I have warned you against believing the Dr. Strangelove scenarios, they aren't real and are as plausible as martians. Checks and balances acutally assume that power corrupts (human frailty) and that no one person or group should have too much of it.


It is not that I misunderstand the military, it is that I realize that power can be seized through means that are both illegal and immoral. The founders understood this and thusly feared a standing army without an armed citizenry to check its power. To say that an army who cannot be opposed by an armed citizenry would be unable to sieze power is the notion that is as implausible as martians.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
Thusly, because the people are still legally considered to be the militia and because the Miller decision specifically defined the purpose of the Second Amendment as ensuring that the Militia can be equipped to defend the country, it must be concluded that, legally at least, the Second Amendment's purpose is to guarantee that the people are able to be equipped in order to defend the country.

I don't think Miller says any such thing as you conclude. I think you should reread it


I assure you that I have read it several times. Perhaps it is you who should review the Miller decision as well as the other historical documents that I have mentioned.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
that you subscibe to what I refer to the sheep/sheepdog/shepherd mentality.

How wrong you are my friend. I despise the sheep/wolf/dog/shepard crap I read posted about. To my mind it is nothing more than romantic hollywood superhero garbage. What I believe in is first

That being the case, I find myself wondering why you display such disdain and fear of the armed citizenry of the country. It would seem as though you equate any mention of armed citizens as defenders of liberty to the stereotypical gun-toting rednecks displayed in your image (which I find offensive as it implies that anyone disagreeing with you is the same as the people in the image).

It is because of this dogmaticism that I grow tired of this debate. It has become clear to me that neither of us will sway the other from his position and thusly the debate becomes pointless. You are indeed an intellegent and skilled debater and thus far we have been able to conduct our argument in a respectable fashion. It would seem though that we are drawing dangerously close to a debate of emotion and pure ideology and such a debate is not one in which I wish to participate (and I doubt that you wish to either). Because of this, I choose to leave the field of debate while it still remains on the high road, and I wish you the best Sir.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

An interesting debate and at a high intellectual level! Well done.

Reading about the John Yoo memos - it would seem that the violation of the BOR for expediency was high on his mind. I wondered if he was deterred by Bush's support of the 2nd Amend.

Or am I being a trouble maker here?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Webley,

It was a good run. I enjoyed it. Thank you Sir. We have discussed things before and it was also enjoyable. I think this one was good and well thought out.

Rather than post a lengthy repost (I have some work to do tonight)to numerous points I will close my part of the discussion with Webley on a couple of points.

1) While the militia was a grand republican ideal in the 18th Century and one of the dreams of the Founding Fathers, it soon faded due to the general dislike of military service by the great majority of early American citizens (that even persists today with our All-Volunteer Military) and changed into the professional standing military who serve us today. Though some may argue accurately that a de jure unorganized militia, one unorganized, unarmed, undisciplined, untrained, unsupplied, undeployed, and unwanted as a matter of statute--thoroughly disregarded by Congress, exists in a 100 year old statute today. However, De facto it is clear such a system as our Founding Fathers dreamed of and wrote the 2A partially to protect is a dead letter. I could point out law and court cases to prove that and have done some of that already, however, the most undeniable prove is the mere fact that when you look around in America today you will not see a miltia. Some on TFL will argue that all Americans who own guns are the militia, but that idea flies in the face of any definition one might produce of the militia. Aside from the paramilitary organizations, who call themselves militia and are fading, you won't find them. Like the horse cavalry (still on the statutes) the militia of 1789 was replaced by a modern and professional military.
2) I must confess a bias in that I served in the military for a career and am rather defensive about ideas that I feel attack the integrity of it. Some of my friends who took their oaths to the letter are no longer on this earth because of that fidelity. So, at times I will give voice to hard protests when I read that we must have an "armed citizenry" to protect our liberty against those who have stepped up and submitted to national service because they might be "seduced" to turn against our government and our own people. For sure there are bad apples in every bunch and my service, the US Army has not had a spotless record indeed in its conduct. However, the idea that this service would turn on those through "seduction" it's members have sworn to protect is repugnent to me in the extreme. Others have the right to say such things but I will generally rail against them when they do. BTW I have seen in other countries what "armed citizenrys" can do to their own people and thus when I post a picture as I did in another post it is to warn you that mobs with guns are no friend to freedom.
3) If you want to serve your country with arms, by all means do so. But don't do it in a cheap way. Don't just buy a gun and sit and say "I am in the militia!" Step up to the bar and make the sacrifice, take the oath and serve! That service and sacrifice I say is the real purpose and the heart and soul of the militia that our founders wrote of.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I wondered if he was deterred by Bush's support of the 2nd Amend.

Lets visit him in jail and ask:D

[Socrates]

My issue is why the LEO, mil, etc. are somehow gifted with a different status then the rest of us?

Why, with my Juris Doctrate degree, are people telling me I'm not competent to own, and shoot certain firearms, like machine guns, laws rockets, etc. :confused:
Sure, I did these things as a Reserve grunt wantabe.
Including shooting a 105 MM out of an M60 tank.

I'm not much for classes. I think if Bubba wants a machine gun, he should have one. I don't think some ex-mil guy is superior one way or another, to someone like Ross Seyfried, John Linebaugh, Jack Huntington, or myself...

[Tennessee Gentleman]

My issue is why the LEO, mil, etc. are somehow gifted with a different status then the rest of us?

Because they have taken the oath to serve and have subordinated their own self interest to serve a greater good. Bubba hasn't done that. It's not because they are superior (maybe more noble) but they are public servants.
Bubba isn't. So they are entrusted with things like nuclear weapons and such.
If Bubba joins up he can have some fun too!:)

[Socrates]

Sorry, but, that is the basic argument that we'll disagree on.
Oaths are like TP, at least with our current Congress, and gang members on the streets, trained by the military.

I don't hold the military in high regard. I find a VERY negative attitude, and, a one strike, and your out situation with the military.

While I have great respect for the folks that actually fought in wars, piece time military is the worst we have to offer...

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I don't hold the military in high regard.

Well, they stand on the wall for you too.

[Socrates]

NO. They didn't stand in the Pacific Palisades/West Hollywood/ Brentwood when the bad guys where coming up during the Rodney King riots. When the LAPD, and LAFD had pulled out, the people in these areas were on their own. No PD, no national guard, no army.

Private citizens protected, and stopped gangs from invading their homes, stealing their property, and put up barricades.

[zukiphile]

Well, they stand on the wall for you too.

NO. They didn't stand .... No PD, no national guard, no army.


I don't think it is necessary to impugn public or military service to note the manner in which this point displays the 2D Am. as part of a network of individual liberties.

It is not the duty of the police, national guard, or any branch of the services to protect you individually. We all benefit inicidentally and in varying degrees from security provided by the state as it sees fit. However, it should not be in the political character of people who consider themselves "free" to any appreciable degree to turn over decisions about personal security or safety to the state entirely.

People who take measures to keep themselves or neighbours safe can be derided as "bubbas", but I will guess that the people in the picture that is relentlessly reproduced here enjoyed a low probability of victimisation while that picture was being taken.

We can't very well complain about people not showing individual responsibility if we remove the means by which they can demonstrate it.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We have had a good run but the last few posts indicates that our intellectual magazines have run dry and we may start to be throwing sticks.

Thus, on the high road and before the low, I think we are done.

I thank TNG, WeblyMKV and Zukiphile for their erudition as the debate continued.

GM