4 ms·

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_... One aspect of t

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_... One aspect of the gun control debate is the conflict between gun control laws and the right to rebel against unjust governments. Blackstone in his Commentaries alluded to this right to rebel as the natural right of resistance and self preservation, to be used only as a last resort, exercisable when "the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression".[71] Some believe that the framers of the Bill of Rights sought to balance not just political power, but also military power, between the people, the states and the nation,[72] as Alexander Hamilton explained in 1788: [I]f 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 the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.[72][73] ======= If you accept above interpretation, why don't local police have nuclear weapons? Also why aren't nuclear weapons sold to citizens who have a right to "keep and bear arms"?

adventured 12y ago
The nuclear arms argument is a classic fallacy bandied about frequently when gun rights come up. There can be no argument in favor of nuclear weapons used for individual, or even small group or very localized, self-defense. In fact, I'd argue there can never be a valid argument in favor of nuclear weapons for self-defense (with emphasis on self). For defending a larger population base, the police have no reason to have nuclear weapons because they are not in charge of national defense or national security. That is left to the military, which does have nuclear weapons. There can be no precise or selective targeting with nuclear weapons, in the sense of shooting a bad guy and not shooting an unarmed civilian near by. Nuclear weapons also do not function to defend against individual crime, which is something a gun can defend against. In any act of attempting to defend yourself from a localized attack by using a nuke, you will kill yourself and countless civilians nearby. There's an exceptionally long list of reasons why the floated nuclear weapons counter makes absolutely no sense. Ultimately you can tell the nuclear arms argument is irrational, because if you follow the logic behind it to the proper conclusion, no person ever has a right to self-defense under any circumstances: because you should thus never be allowed to wield any weapons, including a knife or baseball bat in self-defense. It's the ultimate argument in ridiculousness: if you can't be allowed to do X very extreme thing, then you can't be allowed to do X drastically less extreme thing. A scale comparison would be, if I'm allowed to drive a car - cars kill 30,000 people per year in the US - then why can't I 'drive' an aircraft carrier.
- datashovel 12y ago
  That makes sense. Now, the general point I think would be that at a smaller scale we're hearing accounts of local police (or perhaps state police) riding around in tanks shooting tear gas into groups of citizens. Where are the accounts of organized groups of citizens riding around in tanks firing tear gas at who they believe to be oppressive police force? Are those available in the free market? I guess I'm trying to figure out where the line is supposed to be drawn in terms of who gets what kinds of arms? I'm sure alot of folks would argue that as soon as a local police force is given particular types of weapons, it's perhaps assumed that citizens will have same or similar weapons available to them to organize to protect themselves from oppressive government. EDIT: Or more precisely, as soon as certain types of weapons are turned against its own citizens, is it right that those citizens don't have the same or similar weapons at their disposal to protect themselves?
  - staunch 12y ago
    Police militarization is an issue with or without the second amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Meneze... One thing I think you're missing is that citizens only really need to have modern weapons (not every weapon) to be in ultimate control. There are 1,000+ armed citizens for every police officer. As for what the second amendment should mean, the supreme court has spent the last 100 years hearing arguments in every direction. You might guess that your "nukes" argument is about as old as nukes (and before that people just used other examples). If you want to learn more about it here's a good place to start Wikipedia'ing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
    - datashovel 12y ago
      Agreed. This is a highly nuanced and multi-faceted space in general. Specific to US and what Obama is proposing, how do you think they'll be framing the question in order to understand what the right answers are?
datashovel 12y ago
I see that my thread was downvoted, so I'll respond with this. In my opinion it was a very keen observation on which the above excerpt is based. That is that people on equal footing are far more likely to engage to resolve disputes in a civil manner than those where one group is sufficiently and strategically in a favorable position. Take any sufficiently one-sided argument anywhere in the news and show me where the weaker group prevailed? To draw a parallel to technology. We don't architect our systems for the best case scenario. For critical infrastructure we plan for the worst and hope for the best. I think that gets to the essence of the above interpretation of 2nd amendment. I think we can draw a parallel to real world and the architecture of our government. For critical infrastructure of our government, where basic human rights are at stake, it behooves us to plan for the worst and hope for the best.

adventured 12y ago

The nuclear arms argument is a classic fallacy bandied about frequently when gun rights come up. There can be no argument in favor of nuclear weapons used for individual, or even small group or very localized, self-defense. In fact, I'd argue there can never be a valid argument in favor of nuclear weapons for self-defense (with emphasis on self). For defending a larger population base, the police have no reason to have nuclear weapons because they are not in charge of national defense or national security. That is left to the military, which does have nuclear weapons. There can be no precise or selective targeting with nuclear weapons, in the sense of shooting a bad guy and not shooting an unarmed civilian near by. Nuclear weapons also do not function to defend against individual crime, which is something a gun can defend against. In any act of attempting to defend yourself from a localized attack by using a nuke, you will kill yourself and countless civilians nearby. There's an exceptionally long list of reasons why the floated nuclear weapons counter makes absolutely no sense. Ultimately you can tell the nuclear arms argument is irrational, because if you follow the logic behind it to the proper conclusion, no person ever has a right to self-defense under any circumstances: because you should thus never be allowed to wield any weapons, including a knife or baseball bat in self-defense. It's the ultimate argument in ridiculousness: if you can't be allowed to do X very extreme thing, then you can't be allowed to do X drastically less extreme thing. A scale comparison would be, if I'm allowed to drive a car - cars kill 30,000 people per year in the US - then why can't I 'drive' an aircraft carrier.

datashovel 12y ago
That makes sense. Now, the general point I think would be that at a smaller scale we're hearing accounts of local police (or perhaps state police) riding around in tanks shooting tear gas into groups of citizens. Where are the accounts of organized groups of citizens riding around in tanks firing tear gas at who they believe to be oppressive police force? Are those available in the free market? I guess I'm trying to figure out where the line is supposed to be drawn in terms of who gets what kinds of arms? I'm sure alot of folks would argue that as soon as a local police force is given particular types of weapons, it's perhaps assumed that citizens will have same or similar weapons available to them to organize to protect themselves from oppressive government. EDIT: Or more precisely, as soon as certain types of weapons are turned against its own citizens, is it right that those citizens don't have the same or similar weapons at their disposal to protect themselves?
- staunch 12y ago
  Police militarization is an issue with or without the second amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Meneze... One thing I think you're missing is that citizens only really need to have modern weapons (not every weapon) to be in ultimate control. There are 1,000+ armed citizens for every police officer. As for what the second amendment should mean, the supreme court has spent the last 100 years hearing arguments in every direction. You might guess that your "nukes" argument is about as old as nukes (and before that people just used other examples). If you want to learn more about it here's a good place to start Wikipedia'ing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
  - datashovel 12y ago
    Agreed. This is a highly nuanced and multi-faceted space in general. Specific to US and what Obama is proposing, how do you think they'll be framing the question in order to understand what the right answers are?

datashovel 12y ago

I see that my thread was downvoted, so I'll respond with this. In my opinion it was a very keen observation on which the above excerpt is based. That is that people on equal footing are far more likely to engage to resolve disputes in a civil manner than those where one group is sufficiently and strategically in a favorable position. Take any sufficiently one-sided argument anywhere in the news and show me where the weaker group prevailed? To draw a parallel to technology. We don't architect our systems for the best case scenario. For critical infrastructure we plan for the worst and hope for the best. I think that gets to the essence of the above interpretation of 2nd amendment. I think we can draw a parallel to real world and the architecture of our government. For critical infrastructure of our government, where basic human rights are at stake, it behooves us to plan for the worst and hope for the best.