5 ms·

>> What I'm more interested in is why the most passionate defenders of the second amendment never seem interested in government power grabs like this. Isn't the

by credo 14y ago

>> What I'm more interested in is why the most passionate defenders of the second amendment never seem interested in government power grabs like this. Isn't the reason for the 2nd amendment to keep expansive government in check That is the party-line. However, if you study American history, you'll see that this 2nd amendment propaganda doesn't square up with reality. The only times guns were seriously used in an anti-federal-government uprising was during the civil war - but that was armed rebellion by the state "governments" and it was a war to defend the right to slavery. (yes, I know that some people describe it as the "war of northern aggression") MLK talked about the long arc of history bending towards justice and that has undoubtedly been true in America. Today, native Americans cannot be massacred or driven into reservations, blacks cannot be enslaved to work in plantations, women have the right to vote and many more rights that were denied to them in previous centuries, gays have the right to not be arrested for being gay, Japanese-Americans have the right to not be arrested solely based on their ethnicity etc. In all of these cases, freedom has expanded far beyond what America had in previous centuries. However, I think it is safe to assert that the 2nd amendment was absolutely irrelevant (in any positive way) in the expansion of any of these freedoms.

yummyfajitas 14y ago
Guns were, however, used on a number of occasions against state governments and terrorist groups backed by state governments. The Battle of Hayes Pond (1958) is one notable example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hayes_Pond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hayes_Pond You should actually read a little history. You'll discover that gun ownership played a significant role in blacks gaining civil rights in the past century - most early gun control efforts were actually an attempt to disarm them.
baddox 14y ago
> The only times guns were seriously used in an anti-federal-government uprising was during the civil war... Like many people, you are missing the role that personal firearms play in resisting tyranny. No one is claiming that a firearm can do anything against artillery, tanks, and fighter jets (much less chemical and nuclear weapons). The armed populace obviously cannot hope to mount an offensive coup. The point is that an armed populace cannot be occupied by a tyrannical government. Look at how difficult the occupation of Iraq has proved, and imagine how much more difficult it would be in a country with ten times the population, 20 times the land area, and nearly 30 times the number of small arms.
- williamcotton 14y ago
  And the ignorant and fearful keep marching in their parade of bloodlust and violence... while the rest of us keep burying the dead, unfortunate casualties in your paranoid experiment of personal rights and politics. Nothing but hypotheticals to compete with the hard facts seen in studies of other nations, the truth pales in comparison to the nightmare you wish we all lived in.
  - bionsuba 14y ago
    > hard facts seen in studies of other nations give me one example of a time where gun violence went down after the government of a first world country imposed gun control
    - williamcotton 14y ago
      How about in the United States, where homicides from firearms dropped dramitically after the federal law banning certain assault-weapons in 1994, bottoming out and climbing since the law's repeal in 2004? Or how about the statistical analysis of gun homicides vs gun ownership in countries with a GDP of over $20k? But why do I have to prove to you why having guns around is a horrible thing? We could argue to the death over the correlation and causation between guns, crime, money and murder and not make any sense of it. At the end of the day, you're the one saying that yes, as a society, we should not only allow, but promote these devices whose sole purpose is to spit violence and extinguish life. It is madness!!!
    - meej 14y ago
      australia, apparently. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2012/1224/Could-the-US-learn-from-Australia-s-gun-control-laws http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2012/1224/Could-...
    - chris_wot 14y ago
      Since the gun buyback of 1996 and the banning of automatic weapons ad semi-automatic weapons, there have been no mass killings in Australia. We'd be doing even better if we controlled hand guns. Hope this gives a truth value to your existential quantifier.
danielhughes 14y ago
Are you arguing that the intent behind the second amendment was not to keep the powers of the government in check or that it is no longer relevant in an age where peaceful rebellions have accomplished so much?
neogamer 14y ago
>> That is the party-line. >> However, if you study American history, you'll see that this 2nd amendment propaganda doesn't square up with reality. I love when people trot out the old "read your history" chestnut. I have this compilation saved for just such an occasion: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244) "...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380) "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}]) "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169) "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950]) "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789]) "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888)) "...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 rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.) "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.) "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788) "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426) "The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87) "The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386) "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington) "The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894]) Seems to me, history and the founders had a pretty good idea what they were up to.

by credo 14y ago

yummyfajitas 14y ago

Guns were, however, used on a number of occasions against state governments and terrorist groups backed by state governments. The Battle of Hayes Pond (1958) is one notable example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hayes_Pond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hayes_Pond You should actually read a little history. You'll discover that gun ownership played a significant role in blacks gaining civil rights in the past century - most early gun control efforts were actually an attempt to disarm them.

baddox 14y ago

> The only times guns were seriously used in an anti-federal-government uprising was during the civil war... Like many people, you are missing the role that personal firearms play in resisting tyranny. No one is claiming that a firearm can do anything against artillery, tanks, and fighter jets (much less chemical and nuclear weapons). The armed populace obviously cannot hope to mount an offensive coup. The point is that an armed populace cannot be occupied by a tyrannical government. Look at how difficult the occupation of Iraq has proved, and imagine how much more difficult it would be in a country with ten times the population, 20 times the land area, and nearly 30 times the number of small arms.

williamcotton 14y ago
And the ignorant and fearful keep marching in their parade of bloodlust and violence... while the rest of us keep burying the dead, unfortunate casualties in your paranoid experiment of personal rights and politics. Nothing but hypotheticals to compete with the hard facts seen in studies of other nations, the truth pales in comparison to the nightmare you wish we all lived in.
- bionsuba 14y ago
  > hard facts seen in studies of other nations give me one example of a time where gun violence went down after the government of a first world country imposed gun control
  - williamcotton 14y ago
    How about in the United States, where homicides from firearms dropped dramitically after the federal law banning certain assault-weapons in 1994, bottoming out and climbing since the law's repeal in 2004? Or how about the statistical analysis of gun homicides vs gun ownership in countries with a GDP of over $20k? But why do I have to prove to you why having guns around is a horrible thing? We could argue to the death over the correlation and causation between guns, crime, money and murder and not make any sense of it. At the end of the day, you're the one saying that yes, as a society, we should not only allow, but promote these devices whose sole purpose is to spit violence and extinguish life. It is madness!!!
  - meej 14y ago
    australia, apparently. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2012/1224/Could-the-US-learn-from-Australia-s-gun-control-laws http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2012/1224/Could-...
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    Since the gun buyback of 1996 and the banning of automatic weapons ad semi-automatic weapons, there have been no mass killings in Australia. We'd be doing even better if we controlled hand guns. Hope this gives a truth value to your existential quantifier.

danielhughes 14y ago

Are you arguing that the intent behind the second amendment was not to keep the powers of the government in check or that it is no longer relevant in an age where peaceful rebellions have accomplished so much?

neogamer 14y ago

>> That is the party-line. >> However, if you study American history, you'll see that this 2nd amendment propaganda doesn't square up with reality. I love when people trot out the old "read your history" chestnut. I have this compilation saved for just such an occasion: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244) "...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380) "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}]) "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169) "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950]) "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789]) "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888)) "...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 rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.) "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.) "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788) "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426) "The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87) "The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386) "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington) "The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894]) Seems to me, history and the founders had a pretty good idea what they were up to.