4 ms·

I fully recognize that systems of crime reporting are dramatically different, which I did (at least attempt to) clarify going into it early. I understand that

by bmelton 14y ago

I fully recognize that systems of crime reporting are dramatically different, which I did (at least attempt to) clarify going into it early. I understand that it is a complicated mess, and there is no apples to apples comparison. Regarding your other statement: This is a canard - where have all the second amendment activists been for this century so far? They don't seem to be doing a very good job of it, and don't seem particularly interested in protecting any amendment other than the second. I have to confess that I take a certain amount of offense to that, though I'm not exactly sure what you're implying (I'm just vaguely offended at this point. ;-). Are you trying to assert that people who care about the second amendment only care about the second amendment? Or are you trying to assert that people who care about the second amendment have been complacent for the past decade? Both? Some combination thereof? At least personally, I've been politically active in a number of civil rights issues including those on the first and fourth amendments. I've testified before state Senate and my House of Representatives on civil liberties and the potential incursion of those liberties for some time now. (Thereby disproving that all gun nuts only care about the second amendment.) As for the second, at least in Maryland, we've been fighting our 'May Issue' statutes here in Maryland, and I was personally a part of the case that got our state laws overturned (at least temporarily) to 'Shall Issue' status (though it's currently back in legal flux, but that should disprove that all second amendment advocates have been complacent). Knowing that your statements weren't a Boolean, I'll wait for clarification as to what you actually meant, but I think that it's perhaps only as visible lately because the second amendment is in such peril. In the past decade though, there have been nearly a dozen high profile cases in defense of the second amendment in DC, Illinois, Chicago and Maryland at the least. Also, oddly enough, the American Civil Liberties Union doesn't recognize that the right to bear arms is an individual right (and they believe that the ruling in DC v Heller, which specifically states that it is an individual right is wrong), so second amendment advocates tend to clump together into one of two groups, where you either are or aren't in support of the ACLU.

vacri 14y ago
You've got to admit though, that it is uncommon to testify before state (or federal) government at all. But it goes along with what I'm saying: you're trying to sway your government by using words and politics, not by joining a militia and violently opposing it. Whether you're armed or not has zero effect on speaking on the record. You're not trying to keep your government honest by virtue of your firearm, you're trying to keep it honest by virtue of your words. The government as an entity is more scared of your vote than your firearm. Some things aren't relevant anymore, such as the whole third amendment. And one of those things is the slogan that it's firearms in the hands of the citizens that keeps a government honest - because it's clearly not. The US government is not more honest than its unarmed-citizen contemporaries. Edit: To be clearer, in reference to 'not doing a good job of it', I mean that there hasn't been a lot of change brought about by threatening the government with force of arms, despite the last decade containing a lot of incursions to civil rights or things like gerrymandering.
- bmelton 14y ago
  The point isn't that we should take up arms and champion our causes with bullets over every perceived slight. The point is that when all those other recourses fail us, the right to bear arms is the last defense against tyranny. As for joining a militia, I need not bother... I am the militia. All able-bodied men in the United States are (and arguably women too), as defined by US Code. Still though, there have been cases where guns were brandished to prevent tyranny. The Battle of Athens, in 1946 (admittedly not this decade, but thank god for that too) was such a case where state officials were committing voter fraud against the populace, so that they could continue committing civil rights violations against them -- apparently their pay was tied to numbers of arrests, citations, etc., so they were literally just arresting and citing people without cause. They would pull over tour buses passing through the area and cite bus riders for drunkenness, however ridiculous. The result was an armed march on the courthouse where the ballots were being cast, a brief 'war' where custody of the ballots was fought for, and recovered, a fair election was had, and political change was enacted. Saying it isn't relevant any more is, I suspect, short sighted. Too many acts of tyranny have been committed after disarming the population for me to blindly concede that the right is no longer 'relevant'. While I agree that there are portions of the Constitution that may not be relevant in the United States right now, that doesn't discount the possibility that they would ever be necessary again. We have a hard enough time defending our rights for the first, fourth and other amendments that are arguably more relevant than ever, while the state wishes to further strip us of those rights. It's easy to conclude that some rights are irrelevant because it is unlikely that any foreign attackers would dare take on the US on American soil. But that's only true for now. What if the dollar collapses? What if we default on debt? What if our military forces are pared back to a hundredth of what they are now? What if these things happen in the next 50 to 100 years? Countries rise and fall over time, and historically, rights that are once restricted are never restored.
  - vacri 14y ago
    The concept that 'everyone is in the militia' is not the intent of the second amendment. 'everyone is in the militia' is legislation from 1903, a hundred years after the second amendment was framed. The Battle of Athens could easily have played out without firearms. Angry mobs marching on courthouses have been around forever. Firearms just makes the process shorter if you start using them. and historically, rights that are once restricted are never restored. Like the end of Prohibition? Smoking marijuana? Women's vote? Equal rights for minorities? Gay marriage? (have to be brief... running late for work as usual...)

by bmelton 14y ago

vacri 14y ago

You've got to admit though, that it is uncommon to testify before state (or federal) government at all. But it goes along with what I'm saying: you're trying to sway your government by using words and politics, not by joining a militia and violently opposing it. Whether you're armed or not has zero effect on speaking on the record. You're not trying to keep your government honest by virtue of your firearm, you're trying to keep it honest by virtue of your words. The government as an entity is more scared of your vote than your firearm. Some things aren't relevant anymore, such as the whole third amendment. And one of those things is the slogan that it's firearms in the hands of the citizens that keeps a government honest - because it's clearly not. The US government is not more honest than its unarmed-citizen contemporaries. Edit: To be clearer, in reference to 'not doing a good job of it', I mean that there hasn't been a lot of change brought about by threatening the government with force of arms, despite the last decade containing a lot of incursions to civil rights or things like gerrymandering.

bmelton 14y ago
The point isn't that we should take up arms and champion our causes with bullets over every perceived slight. The point is that when all those other recourses fail us, the right to bear arms is the last defense against tyranny. As for joining a militia, I need not bother... I am the militia. All able-bodied men in the United States are (and arguably women too), as defined by US Code. Still though, there have been cases where guns were brandished to prevent tyranny. The Battle of Athens, in 1946 (admittedly not this decade, but thank god for that too) was such a case where state officials were committing voter fraud against the populace, so that they could continue committing civil rights violations against them -- apparently their pay was tied to numbers of arrests, citations, etc., so they were literally just arresting and citing people without cause. They would pull over tour buses passing through the area and cite bus riders for drunkenness, however ridiculous. The result was an armed march on the courthouse where the ballots were being cast, a brief 'war' where custody of the ballots was fought for, and recovered, a fair election was had, and political change was enacted. Saying it isn't relevant any more is, I suspect, short sighted. Too many acts of tyranny have been committed after disarming the population for me to blindly concede that the right is no longer 'relevant'. While I agree that there are portions of the Constitution that may not be relevant in the United States right now, that doesn't discount the possibility that they would ever be necessary again. We have a hard enough time defending our rights for the first, fourth and other amendments that are arguably more relevant than ever, while the state wishes to further strip us of those rights. It's easy to conclude that some rights are irrelevant because it is unlikely that any foreign attackers would dare take on the US on American soil. But that's only true for now. What if the dollar collapses? What if we default on debt? What if our military forces are pared back to a hundredth of what they are now? What if these things happen in the next 50 to 100 years? Countries rise and fall over time, and historically, rights that are once restricted are never restored.
- vacri 14y ago
  The concept that 'everyone is in the militia' is not the intent of the second amendment. 'everyone is in the militia' is legislation from 1903, a hundred years after the second amendment was framed. The Battle of Athens could easily have played out without firearms. Angry mobs marching on courthouses have been around forever. Firearms just makes the process shorter if you start using them. and historically, rights that are once restricted are never restored. Like the end of Prohibition? Smoking marijuana? Women's vote? Equal rights for minorities? Gay marriage? (have to be brief... running late for work as usual...)