A Well Regulated Militia...

[Copernicus]

Quotes are just quotes....you'll note that I provided no commentary which could be called "spin".

I have seen lists like that before, and they usually come from a gun propaganda site. I may be wrong in this case, however. May I ask how you came up with that list of quotes? Did you compile them yourself, or did you get them from a source?

Are you saying that the quotes are inaccurate? Or that they don't mean what they appear to mean?

I don't know about their accuracy or their context. They only represent a collection of statements from individuals, many of whom opposed ratification of the Constitution. I did back up my position with something other than quotes--reference to the Whiskey Rebellion and the two Militia Acts of 1792. Moreover, most of those quotes do not address the question of whether the Second was intended to secure a right for the purpose of militia duty, as the preamble to the Second suggests.

Let's bear in mind that your criticism cuts both ways. There are many anti-gun websites who spin things your way too, eg, calling non-assault weapons "assault weapons" in order to heighten the hysteria.

I'm not going to get into a semantic debate over the definition of "assault weapon". Most people know that the weapon used by Holmes was intended to resemble the M-16, so it is legitimate to call it an assault weapon in an informal discussion such as this. It was a semi-automatic rifle that could be fitted with off-the-shelf large-capacity ammunition clips and modified to full auto with a kit. The same web sites that carp about the definition will still say that they oppose a ban on "assault weapons". It is nothing more than a fairly successful effort to blow smoke on the real issues.

When it comes to constitutional law, the USSC carries some weight, but when they conflict with actual language of the Constitution & with apparent intent of the founders, I'll go with the latter. Besides, do you have some knowledge of the
2nd Amendment which is superior to the justices? (Gawd, that sounds snarky, but the question is compelling.)

There were dissents in the ruling that prevailed, so I'm not the only one to take the position that the USSC changed precedent here. In any case, your entire argument is beside the point. You took issue with a different point that I think I defended rather well. Even under the expanded definition of the Second as a civilian right, there is nothing in the Second to suggest that weapons should be kept for the purpose of rebelling against government. As I pointed out--and you did not contradict--the militias have been used historically by state and federal governments against rebellion and insurrection. There is no precedent for interpreting the Second as endorsement of rebellion. Plenty of pro-gun demagogues out there have been saying the opposite, which can have dangerous consequences when drummed into people who are prone to extremist arguments (e.g. Timothy McVeigh).

What contrary evidence do you have to offer?

I offered it. You did not discuss my reference to the Whiskey Rebellion as evidence of how the militias were used to suppress rebellions. Instead, you printed a bunch of quotes of uncertain origin and relevance that did not belie the history of how militias were used.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have seen lists like that before, and they usually come from a gun propaganda site. I may be wrong in this case, however. May I ask how you came up with that list of quotes? Did you compile them yourself, or did you get them from a source?

You address them only by impugning them by association?
Should I accuse you of getting all your talking points for AlterNet, MSNBC & the Spartacus Youth League?
No, I'll not respond to a non-response....this is just quibbling, & I'd rather have a discussion.

I don't know about their accuracy or their context. They only represent a collection of statements from individuals, many of whom opposed ratification of the Constitution. I did back up my position with something other than quotes--reference to the Whiskey Rebellion and the two Militia Acts of 1792. Moreover, most of those quotes do not address the question of whether the Second was intended to secure a right for the purpose of militia duty, as the preamble to the Second suggests.

As I said, they paint a picture.

I'm not going to get into a semantic debate over the definition of "assault weapon". Most people know that the weapon used by Holmes was intended to resemble the M-16, so it is legitimate to call it an assault weapon in an informal discussion such as this. It was a semi-automatic rifle that could be fitted with off-the-shelf large-capacity ammunition clips and modified to full auto with a kit. The same web sites that carp about the definition will still say that they oppose a ban on "assault weapons". It is nothing more than a fairly successful effort to blow smoke on the real issues.

It is dishonest to call it something which it is not.

There were dissents in the ruling that prevailed, so I'm not the only one to take the position that the USSC changed precedent here. In any case, your entire argument is beside the point. You took issue with a different point that I think I defended rather well. Even under the expanded definition of the Second as a civilian right, there is nothing in the Second to suggest that weapons should be kept for the purpose of rebelling against government. As I pointed out--and you did not contradict--the militias have been used historically by state and federal governments against rebellion and insurrection. There is no precedent for interpreting the Second as endorsement of rebellion. Plenty of pro-gun demagogues out there have been saying the opposite, which can have dangerous consequences when drummed into people who are prone to extremist arguments (e.g. Timothy McVeigh).

To cite people like McVeigh is a red herring & a fallacy. The legal aspects of this do not hinge upon the opinions of crazies.
Lest you forget, there are loonies on your side too, so that argument fails.

I offered it. You did not discuss my reference to the Whiskey Rebellion as evidence of how the militias were used to suppress rebellions. Instead, you printed a bunch of quotes of uncertain origin and relevance that did not belie the history of how militias were used.

I've never denied that militias have uses other than rebellion. Moreover, I'd say that rebellion would be the rarest use of all.

 

[Reverend Rick]

My romantic notion of a government overthrown is not shooting at our soldiers, I see this more like the military refusing to fight against their own people and law enforcement taking the side of the citizens.

I love my government. I'm thinking more about some day a one world government might materialize. I don't have a problem going batt crap crazy then.

 

[4consideration]

The people that I know (myself included) that support the preservation of the 2nd Ammendment and interpret it as including the right of the populous to defend itself against abuses by the government -- do so with the conviction that this Ammendment is a deterent (one of several) to those abuses occurring in the first place. That is my answer as to why I strongly support keeping the 2nd Ammendment in place, as it is.

I think that the best military strategy is to promote freedom, genuine fairness, peace and make a military strategy unecessary between the people and the government. Again, the first step in a organized scenario of mal-intent against the people as a whole would be to first disarm them.

 

[Wirey]

'Proper motivation' is not a static quality. You can't just assume that soldiers become sociopathic automatons who have no involvement with their own actions. If you are suggesting that the revolt of the populace is unwarranted, then I think we are definitely discussing two different topics. If you are talking about some fringe-group staging some kind of insane coup over a city, then all I can say is that is just one more reason for sane individuals like myself to have a gun. If on the other hand, you are suggesting that the the civilian population is fully justified in their revolt and the soldiers are simply 'following orders' by quelling it, then we can't ignore the fact that some of those soldiers would be persuaded very easily by the civilian populace. Even those that ignored the political nuance of the situation could eventually be persuaded through attrition that it simply wasn't worth the fight. Naturally, this could go the other way as well. Civilians could be persuaded to give up just as easily. But we should be assuming the revolt is warranted. I certainly wouldn't join one that didn't seem absolutely crucial to the freedom of my fellow human beings. When they deploy the National Guard to put down a riot, I don't grab my rifle and dream of revolt. That's just lunacy, not freedom.

I hate the point by point rebuttal thing, because it's so hard to keep track of on-line, so I'll just try to restate my point more clearly.

I'm not saying that a group of armed civilians can't do some damage. They obviously could. I'm saying that a group of armed civilians going toe-to-toe with a well-trained and equipped military force would be unable to win. In any scenario where the American public is shooting it out with the Marines, either the Marines would be in open revolt because of the initial set of circumstances that led to the confrontation (i.e. removal of the right to vote or something similar), or the Marines would support the government position. If they supported the government, they would have the same level of motivation as the civilians they face, but with a lot more firepower and know-how.

Take a minute and pick any ten men you know who own guns. How many of them do you seriously think could take sustained privation in order to wage a guerrilla war against their own countrymen? How many would simply wait to see how things played out? Gun ownership as a means of intimidating a government is an outdated notion.

PS I edit to mention that I tried to frubal you for your initial rebuttal. It was well written. Unfortunately, I can't because I frubaled you for that horrible raven/writing desk joke. Even I feel shame.

 

[Revoltingest]

...a group of armed civilians going toe-to-toe with a well-trained and equipped military force would be unable to win.

However, that is not the only scenario. Losing such a battle could also wear down the resolve of the military to fight fellow citizens.
And as has been pointed out before, other battles would be gurilla.....gorilla....guerilla style. To be able to win a defined battle is
one thing, but to win a war means defeating the enemy's ability to resist. What are the odds? I dunno, but I prefer the option to
possibly overthrow a tyrannical government.

 

[Sir Doom]

I hate the point by point rebuttal thing, because it's so hard to keep track of on-line, so I'll just try to restate my point more clearly.

Sowwy, it be my way to ensure I don't miss anything. I'll try to refrain.

I'm not saying that a group of armed civilians can't do some damage. They obviously could. I'm saying that a group of armed civilians going toe-to-toe with a well-trained and equipped military force would be unable to win. In any scenario where the American public is shooting it out with the Marines, either the Marines would be in open revolt because of the initial set of circumstances that led to the confrontation (i.e. removal of the right to vote or something similar), or the Marines would support the government position. If they supported the government, they would have the same level of motivation as the civilians they face, but with a lot more firepower and know-how.

Take a minute and pick any ten men you know who own guns. How many of them do you seriously think could take sustained privation in order to wage a guerrilla war against their own countrymen? How many would simply wait to see how things played out? Gun ownership as a means of intimidating a government is an outdated notion.

Is it okay if I pick myself and 9 of my former Infantry colleagues? Or can I even go a step further and pick some of the former US Army Rangers that I know? Or can I even throw in the former Green Berets that I have met?

PS I edit to mention that I tried to frubal you for your initial rebuttal. It was well written. Unfortunately, I can't because I frubaled you for that horrible raven/writing desk joke. Even I feel shame.

Hehe, that's from Alice in Wonderland

<3 for the frubals btw

 

[Wirey]

Sowwy, it be my way to ensure I don't miss anything. I'll try to refrain.



Is it okay if I pick myself and 9 of my former Infantry colleagues? Or can I even go a step further and pick some of the former US Army Rangers that I know? Or can I even throw in the former Green Berets that I have met?



Hehe, that's from Alice in Wonderland

<3 for the frubals btw

Okay, you know ten guys. I'll bet not everyone does. I'll also bet that, if you've been out for more than six months, you're not at the same level of training as the guys who are in, nor do you have access to the cool shootin' irons they do. I have an uncle who taught Canadian snipers how to shoot, and I would fear him greatly in a shootout. But the army has a whole bunch of him to my one.

And now I'm all pouty. I want my frubal back.

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay, you know ten guys. I'll bet not everyone does. I'll also bet that, if you've been out for more than six months, you're not at the same level of training as the guys who are in, nor do you have access to the cool shootin' irons they do. I have an uncle who taught Canadian snipers how to shoot, and I would fear him greatly in a shootout. But the army has a whole bunch of him to my one.
And now I'm all pouty. I want my frubal back.

Let's suppose that 1 army sniper is worth 3 civilian snipers.
We still outnumber'm.....& we'd be recruiting converts from their ranks.
Tis not a foregone conclusion that a tyrannical gov't would prevail against rebels.
So it really isn't about odds of winning this or that battle, or a guarantee of outcome.
It's about what side you choose....passivity or resistance. Gun ownership helps preserve the latter option.

Mind you, I'm not ruling out the cowardly collaborator option either.

 

[Wirey]

Collaboration, what a time.

I'm not questioning whether or not resistance is worth the effort. Given the right motivation, anyone will fight. I'm saying that claiming the 2nd is about that is kind of gilding the lily. Yanks like guns, and want to buy them. Period. I do to. But I'll never claim it's so I can run off the Van Doos if they get uppity.

PS Van Doo is a French Canadian infantry regiment. Vann Doo is a deliberate mispronounciation of vingt deux (22), the regiment's number. Not to be confused with Van Damne, a Canadian for tax purposes only.

 

[Copernicus]

You address them only by impugning them by association?
Should I accuse you of getting all your talking points for AlterNet, MSNBC & the Spartacus Youth League?
No, I'll not respond to a non-response....this is just quibbling, & I'd rather have a discussion.

I have been naming my sources, and you can judge them on their merits. I asked a question that you pointedly avoided answering: Did you get that list of sentences from a source, or did you compile it on your own? If you got it from a source, then you ought to cite that source. If it came from a pro-gun site, then that alone does not make them false or misleading.

I've explained why I don't take that list of quotes to invalidate my point about the nature of the Second Amendment. It is there to ensure a supply of weapons to an 18th-century militia in which the government required militia members to bring private weapons to train with. One function of such militias was to put down insurrections. Rhetoric about using them against government is just that--overblown rhetoric.

It is dishonest to call it something which it is not.

True, but I called it what I honestly thought it was.

To cite people like McVeigh is a red herring & a fallacy. The legal aspects of this do not hinge upon the opinions of crazies.

I cited McVeigh to support my claim that demagoguery over the Second does have an effect. McVeigh was part of the so-called "militia movement"--a bunch of right-wing crazies who worship the Second Amendment. Hopped up on right wing rhetoric and hyperbole, he took what he regarded as "patriotic" action against the government. He bombed a government building

Lest you forget, there are loonies on your side too, so that argument fails.

I agree that there are loonies on the left (albeit not quite as many in these times), and I have made no effort to defend them or claim that terrorism is just a right wing problem. Left wing paranoids can buy the same equipment that Holmes did, and they do not tend to be big supporters of gun control. However, even if I had been backing the straw man that you built here, it is at best a tu quoque fallacy to claim that your argument is supported because I am a hypocrite. Hypocrite or not, my arguments are still valid.

I've never denied that militias have uses other than rebellion. Moreover, I'd say that rebellion would be the rarest use of all.

The point I'm making here is that the Second Amendment does not exist to put guns in the hands of people who might rebel against the government. The Constitution was put in place to provide an alternative means of changing government policy than through violent means. When Tea Party zealots hint at armed rebellion, as they so often have in the recent past, they are actually hinting at treason against the government, and that is inexcusable. When Jared Lee Loughner shot a campaigning Congressional representative in the head, everyone could see that he was a lunatic. But he was a lunatic with guns during a heated campaign in which Giffords' opponent had made threatening and hateful remarks toward her. Demagoguery may be protected under the First Amendment, but it is rendered much more dangerous under the Second.

 

[Sir Doom]

Okay, you know ten guys. I'll bet not everyone does. I'll also bet that, if you've been out for more than six months, you're not at the same level of training as the guys who are in, nor do you have access to the cool shootin' irons they do. I have an uncle who taught Canadian snipers how to shoot, and I would fear him greatly in a shootout. But the army has a whole bunch of him to my one.

And now I'm all pouty. I want my frubal back.

Hehe, well you supplied the number. I couldn't tell you how many prior service members that I know, because I don't think I've ever counted. I also can't even begin to imagine what the network would be like considering the people they know that I don't know. Beyond that, I didn't even bring current and former law enforcement into it, nor private security. Or just plain, old gun enthusiasts who shoot their weapons at least once a week if not more. Soldiers don't do that. I wasn't even allowed to touch my weapon without orders, let alone go out and practice.

Physical training may be a different story, but I can tell you there are far more rigorous workout schedules on the civilian side. Not that I adhere to any of them, but plenty of people do. Some people live for that sort of thing.

Now, granted the military has access to some pretty nice toys, but really most of them are pretty narrow in scope. Grenade launchers, machine guns, rockets, hand grenades, these all have their specific uses and it behooves the military to have them. But they aren't anywhere near as effective at killing the enemy as a regular old rifle. Not even a machine gun due to their size and inaccuracy. There is a good reason why every soldier is not issued these weapons. They are simply inefficient outside of very narrow support functions. I can go into more detail on that if you like.

I'll give you frubals for remaining civil throughout the conversation by the way

 

[Revoltingest]

I have been naming my sources, and you can judge them on their merits.

I provided the quotes & the quotees.
They illustrate thoughts of the founders.

I asked a question that you pointedly avoided answering: Did you get that list of sentences from a source, or did you compile it on your own? If you got it from a source, then you ought to cite that source. If it came from a pro-gun site, then that alone does not make them false or misleading.

Not worth answering, even if I did remember them.
This is a pesky & pointless thing to pursue.

I've explained why I don't take that list of quotes to invalidate my point about the nature of the Second Amendment. It is there to ensure a supply of weapons to an 18th-century militia in which the government required militia members to bring private weapons to train with. One function of such militias was to put down insurrections. Rhetoric about using them against government is just that--overblown rhetoric.

One person's "overblown rhetoric" is another's substance.
Yours is no better than mine.

True, but I called it what I honestly thought it was.

There is a larger context in which media use words incorrectly in order to heighten hysteria.
"Assault weapon" is one such phrase. "Gun show loophole" is another....typically, it's the loophole
which lets you buy a rifle at a gun show with no background check (as i just heard on NPR).
Except that it's no loophole at all....you can go to any gun store & do the same.
This is a dishonest form of spin, so I will enlighten those who fall prey to media word butchery.

I cited McVeigh to support my claim that demagoguery over the Second does have an effect.

I don't see the relevance to a discussion about the Constitution,
unless you think I'm advancing the cause of demagoguery. I'm not.

...it is at best a tu quoque fallacy to claim that your argument is supported because I am a hypocrite.

Did I say anything about hypocrisy? I don't recall it....I just don't buy your argument.
And careful wielding the fallacy barb, lest thou be hoist by thine own petard.

The point I'm making here is that the Second Amendment does not exist to put guns in the hands of people who might rebel against the government. The Constitution was put in place to provide an alternative means of changing government policy than through violent means.

I disagree, even if that is a lesser motive for the 2nd Amendment.

When Tea Party zealots.....

Tea Party bashing in order to make an argument about the founders' intent? A red herring.

 

[Copernicus]

OK, Rev. I don't see much of substance to go on about. We'll meet again on the field of onions.

 

[Revoltingest]

OK, Rev. I don't see much of substance to go on about. We'll meet again on the field of onions.

I hope that isn't a Joseph Wambaugh type onion field!