Come and take it.

[Joe Steel]

I saw a T-Shirt with an AK-47 and the legend "Come and take it." Presumably this was a challenge to anyone who would disarm the wearer.

Do you gun guys really believe you could resist a serious effort to disarm you?

[tekisui]

1. I'm not a gun guy, but I think the Constitution would resist a serious

effort to disarm the public.

[peace frog]

2. The politics of victimization

That's all the wingnuts have these days: "Woe is us!" Cry me a frickin' river, morans. :eyes:

[rl6214]

39. OK, first of all it's moron, not moran ya moron

Secondly the OP wasn't asking asking whether anyone felt victimized, the question was whether anyone thought there would be armed resistance to the confiscation of weapons.

Jeez, what a moron!

[petronius]

42. On DU it's 'moran' - you need to get out of the gungeon once in a while

:P

[Ian David]

3. That's what those drones and their smartbombs are for. n/t

[yay]

9. Yeah I heard those work great inurban residential area's.

:sarcasm:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

23. So you hope the government deploys those weapons against law abiding citizens?

[Tim01]

4. Yes we could resist.

Not that it would be a big battle with the civilians squaring off against swat teams and tanks.

Most people would just give up the guns. Some would complain, some would file legal suits. But some hard core types would shoot back. The media coverage would be massive, just like Waco. The internet news would be fast, really fast.
And lots of people would be on the side of the gun owners under siege. Americans don't like attacks on the constitution. It would be the publicity that would cause problems for the govt. Americans in general would not put up with an attack on the 2nd amendment. And the government couldn't do it quietly enough to prevent some states from seceding from the union. It would be civil war.
With the current rumblings, how long do you think it would take for states to start declaring their independence from the U.S. if there was a hard attack on the 2nd amendment by the federal government? Not long.

[Joe Steel]

24. Longer than you think.

how long do you think it would take for states to start declaring their independence from the U.S.(?)"

A gun recovery and ban almost certainly would be implemented only with vast public support. Support for armed rebellion likely would move in the opposite direction.

[one-eyed fat man]

55. you mean like

the Volstead Act, and the Eighteenth Amendment? (Not the first time Congress has drastically misread what ordinary folks think.)

It was the Anti-Saloon League's Wayne Wheeler who conceived and drafted the bill, Andrew Volstead just shepherded it through Congress. (Kinda like the VPC and Dianne Feinstein and another brain fart law 75 years later.)

The bill was vetoed by President Woodrow Wilson October 28, 1919, but Congress, convinced in its moral certainty it was acting for the majority and the public's own good, overrode the veto on the same day. The Act specified that "no person shall manufacture, sell, barter, transport, import, export, deliver, or furnish any intoxicating liquor except as authorized by this act".

We all know how well that turned out. Millions of ordinary Americans flouted the law and lost respect for the Law. It enabled gangsters and their criminal enterprises to flourish. It corrupted the law enforcement agencies to the extent that almost 90 years hence, places like Chicago have yet to recover.

Do the anti-gun bunch really not recall the backlash over the Assault Weapons Ban and their gloating statements like, "We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true! This is the nose of the camel under the tent. We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" --U.S. Rep. Charles Schumer, November 30, 1993, NBC Nightly News.

So convinced of their own press releases that the majority of Americans wanted ever expanding gun control, they were stunned when their 40 year lock on Congress evaporated after the majority voted. Unless you have school kids reporting their parents, vindictive spouses reporting their exes, and a network of informants rivaling the DDR's Stasi even door to door searches will not recover all the firearms in the United States, only the poorly hidden ones.

[Joe Steel]

73. Exactly.

you mean like

the Volstead Act

Exactly. The vermin in the legislatures are letting NRA write legislation, mostly without regard for their constituents and we're getting a lot of bad law. Eventually, the People will stop it.

[one-eyed fat man]

83. vermin, that's telling..............

Democrats got our collective asses handed to us on a platter over the Assault Weapons Ban, that was BAD LAW!

Our majority now is in strong measure to the pro gun Blue Dogs.

The passage of concealed carry laws in a many States was done by Democrats. Maybe the the Ivory Tower you reside in is populated only by proponents of more, ever-increasing gun control, but I tell you when I go to Tractor Supply or the Feed Mill, they ain't here.

Like it or not, gun control is an urban elitist agenda and it doesn't get much traction elsewhere. If that weren't true, the politicians would be pandering at every possible moment. Only the most stubbornly doctrinaire, like Carolyn McCarthy, relentless in her campaign against those "go up thingies" and "heat-seeking bullets" have not back-pedaled on gun control to keep from losing their office.

Even the President, found it necessary during the campaign to speechify and distance himself from his own consistently anti-gun voting record: "I am not going to take your gun away. I support the 2nd Amendment." at every Union Hall and diner in the midwest."

[friendly_iconoclast]

116. Joe's got BEIKVFMcG syndrome...

aka, "But *everyone* I know voted for McGovern!" syndrome.

He only reads or interacts with people who agree with him, so he believes he is in the majority.

[Joe Steel]

118. What good is a majority if they do bad things?

What good is a majority if they do bad things? Enabling gun violence shouldn't be a source of pride.

[Howzit]

87. No majority vote required to enact sweeping legislation when

you have signed international treaties such as this one:
http://www.oas.org/juridico/English/treaties/a-63.html

[Uben]

5. How can they take a gun if they don't know you have it?

If you own a legally registered gun, of course they know you have it. How many criminals do you think own registered guns? I'd be willing to bet that percentage is very low. So, any effort to disarm the public would only result in leaving the criminal element armed with a much lesser amount of law-abiding citizens unarmed. A criminal's dream situation!

No one is ever going to try to disarm the public in the U.S.. It just wouldn't work. If someone did come for my guns, I would simply tell them I don't own any. I do happen to own 19 guns. None of them are registered, and none were purchased at a store or gun show. there is no paper trail on any of them. Of course, I do not own any guns that even remotely resemble an assault weapon. They are all just shotguns, hunting rifles, and six-shooter type pistols. The only semi-automatic rifle I have is a .22 cal.

The people who think the government is going to take people's guns away are fooling themselves. Aint gonna happen.

Can I resist them taking my guns away? I think I already have!

[old mark]

6. You are assuming legal guns are registered - like there is a long list

somewhere. PA, where I live, has no legal registration. The SALE/Transfer of handguns is noted but the records are to be destroyed after a certain period. There are no records of sales of rifles and shotguns except the sales record if sold by a dealer. Rifles and shotguns may be sold privately to state residents with no notice to anyone.

FWIW, the number of people and the effort required to just collect all guns would be impossible to mount - police don't even bother to go to crime scenes in many places unless someone is dead or the mayor's cat is lost.

mark

[Uben]

8. No, I did not make that assumption

I own 19 guns, and all are owned legally and none are registered. The assumption I made was that only those guns that are registered are the ones they would be coming after. They are the only ones they know exist.

[old mark]

16. Please forgive my misunderstanding. Many people evidently

think every gun ever sold is on a list somewhere, and it's just not so.

Mine are not, either.

mark

[dairydog91]

7. Something of an implied strawman.

When gun owners talk about "resisting" the government, they don't have in mind some Pelennor Fields confrontation. What they're talking about is guerrilla warfare, not exactly unheard of in the 20th century. Sniping at convoys, small ambushes, assassination, that sort of thing. Yes, I'd say confronting even 1 million guerrillas (A small portion of gun owners) would make for a pretty serious resistance.

[Joe Steel]

25. Would you throw-away everything you have to keep your gun?

1 million guerrillas (A small portion of gun owners)

Do you really think that many "law abiding citizens" (a common description of gun owners) would throw-away everything they have to keep their guns?

[gorfle]

33. Ah, the million dollar question.

Do you really think that many "law abiding citizens" (a common description of gun owners) would throw-away everything they have to keep their guns?

This, of course, is the million dollar question. Will a people, when faced with tyranny, risk everything to stand against it. Our founders did. They risked life, limb, property, and money. They staked everything they had in defiance of tyranny.

There was a time, when I was young and single, when I was sure that should firearm confiscation ever come to pass, that would be clarion call to armed resistance. Now, with a wife and children who depend on me to survive, I can no longer answer with certainty. I hope in my heart of hearts I will have the wisdom and courage of our founders to know when tyranny has really reared its head and be able to act.

The good news is, for now, our system of government works great, as the last election shows brilliantly.

[Joe Steel]

43. The Founders fought for the right of self-government and all it entails.

Our founders did. They risked life, limb, property, and money. They staked everything they had in defiance of tyranny.

The Founders fought for the right of self-government and all it entails. A gun recovery and ban would be a product of self-government. Opposing it might feel good to some but it would be an affront to the founding generation.

[gorfle]

56. I don't understand.

The Founders fought for the right of self-government and all it entails. A gun recovery and ban would be a product of self-government. Opposing it might feel good to some but it would be an affront to the founding generation.

They also fought to resist tyranny, and sought to keep an armed citizenry as a defense against tyranny. I'm assuming by "gun recovery" you mean "gun confiscation", as you can't "recover" something that wasn't yours to begin with". Our founders would consider firearm confiscation and bans to be tyrannical, no matter what they were a product of. I have no doubt the founders would oppose such confiscation and ban efforts.

Sure the founders were in favor of self-government. But they were also in favor having the ability to resist that same government by force of arms should it no longer respond to the will of the people.

If it were the will of the people to repeal the second amendment I suppose they would support it, but I do not think they would approve of it. They were quite clear in their fear of having the citizenry be at the mercy of their governments armed forces.

[Joe Steel]

67. By defnition, democracy is not tyranny.

I don't understand.

The Founders fought for the right of self-government and all it entails. A gun recovery and ban would be a product of self-government. Opposing it might feel good to some but it would be an affront to the founding generation.

They also fought to resist tyranny, and sought to keep an armed citizenry as a defense against tyranny.

By defnition, democracy is not tyranny. Assuming, the gun recovery and ban was the product of the constitutional process, it couldn't be tyrannical.

I'm assuming by "gun recovery" you mean "gun confiscation", as you can't "recover" something that wasn't yours to begin with". Our founders would consider firearm confiscation and bans to be tyrannical, no matter what they were a product of. I have no doubt the founders would oppose such confiscation and ban efforts.

The Founders created a government which they empowered to promote and provide for the general welfare. They would have no trouble with gun recovery as long as it was constitutionally-created.

Sure the founders were in favor of self-government. But they were also in favor having the ability to resist that same government by force of arms should it no longer respond to the will of the people.

That's an all too common misunderstanding.

A tyrannical government is harmless without the means of enforcing its will. In the Founders' view, that demanded a standing army and they feared a standing army with good reason. Standing armies such as that of King George III comprised aristocrats, adventurers, impressed derelicts and foreign mercenaries. Such armies had little or no connection to or interests in the communities they oppressed. The King could deploy them against the citizenry with little fear of mutiny. The Founders believed an army of common citizens would not take-up arms against their own families and that they need not fear it. Hamiltion touched on this in Federalist 29. The Second Amendment declares the sovereign People's right to ensure the army comprised only common citizens.

If it were the will of the people to repeal the second amendment I suppose they would support it, but I do not think they would approve of it. They were quite clear in their fear of having the citizenry be at the mercy of their governments armed forces.

Your argument reflects a false premise. A proper understanding of the Second Amendment, not its repeal, would support the gun recovery and ban.

[gorfle]

75. Have you been asleep for the last 8 years?

By defnition, democracy is not tyranny. Assuming, the gun recovery and ban was the product of the constitutional process, it couldn't be tyrannical.

Have you been asleep for the last 8 years as we hopped onto the slope descending into tyranny? Under "democracy" we had suspension of habeus corpus, pervasive domestic surveillance, and torture, to name a few civil liberties tossed out the window. This surely strikes me as tyrannical.

The Founders created a government which they empowered to promote and provide for the general welfare. They would have no trouble with gun recovery as long as it was constitutionally-created.

Again, you need to define what "gun recover" is. I assume you mean confiscation of privately owned firearms. Please clarify what you mean.

I am quite certain that the founders would most certainly have trouble with gun confiscation, as it would be contrary to the very Constitution they wrote and the ideals behind it. They wanted and armed citizenry as a counter to federal military power. They would not approve of this balance of power being lost.

That's an all too common misunderstanding.

A tyrannical government is harmless without the means of enforcing its will. In the Founders' view, that demanded a standing army and they feared a standing army with good reason. Standing armies such as that of King George III comprised aristocrats, adventurers, impressed derelicts and foreign mercenaries. Such armies had little or no connection to or interests in the communities they oppressed. The King could deploy them against the citizenry with little fear of mutiny. The Founders believed an army of common citizens would not take-up arms against their own families and that they need not fear it. Hamiltion touched on this in Federalist 29. The Second Amendment declares the sovereign People's right to ensure the army comprised only common citizens.

You are incorrect.

First of all, the founders feared a centrally-controlled army, regardless of who it was made up of, as they feared that the allegiance of that army would be to its leaders - the central government. This is why they specified State militias, made up of citizens from those states, led by officers from those states. Since the State militias were federalized in 1903, no such counter to federal standing armies exists, except for the people themselves.

Second of all, our government clearly has the means of enforcing its will. Where, then, is the counter to this means as our founders intended? It is the people.

Your argument reflects a false premise. A proper understanding of the Second Amendment, not its repeal, would support the gun recovery and ban.

This is simple hogwash. The understanding of the Second Amendment is clear. The intent was to have each state possess its own army which, due to being made up of local citizens, could not be harnessed by a central government to enforce a tyranny on its fellow states, nor could they be collectively put to use in foreign wars without all states agreeing to act in concert.

Unfortunately, these militias were federalized in 1903 and when this happened the counter against federal military power was lost. Indeed, the National Guard units now function as reserve federal troops and as such augment, rather than counter, federal military power.

I am quite certain that just as the founders approved of the decentralization of power from the federal government to the State, they would, absent militias, approve of the decentralization of power from the State to the People, just as has happened.

This is why the second amendment reads,

"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."

Clearly it is the people, and not the Militia, who are ultimately guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms.

There is no possible way that a "gun recovery" (I assume you mean gun confiscation) can be in keeping with the second amendment.

[Joe Steel]

80. Not me.

Have you been asleep for the last 8 years?

By defnition, democracy is not tyranny. Assuming, the gun recovery and ban was the product of the constitutional process, it couldn't be tyrannical.

Have you been asleep for the last 8 years as we hopped onto the slope descending into tyranny? Under "democracy" we had suspension of habeus corpus, pervasive domestic surveillance, and torture, to name a few civil liberties tossed out the window. This surely strikes me as tyrannical.

Then you should look-up tyrannical. You're not even close.

Again, you need to define what "gun recover" is. I assume you mean confiscation of privately owned firearms. Please clarify what you mean.

restoration or return to any former and better state or condition.

You are incorrect.

First of all, the founders feared a centrally-controlled army, regardless of who it was made up of, as they feared that the allegiance of that army would be to its leaders - the central government. This is why they specified State militias, made up of citizens from those states, led by officers from those states.

That's pretty much what I said.

Second of all, our government clearly has the means of enforcing its will. Where, then, is the counter to this means as our founders intended? It is the people.

Without an army, how would it do that?

This is simple hogwash. The understanding of the Second Amendment is clear. The intent was to have each state possess its own army which, due to being made up of local citizens, could not be harnessed by a central government to enforce a tyranny on its fellow states, nor could they be collectively put to use in foreign wars without all states agreeing to act in concert.

Except for your apparent error in understanding of the word "state," that's pretty much what I said. The military power of the country was to reside in an army of common citizes, i.e. a militia, rather than in standing or professional army.

This is why the second amendment reads,

"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."

Clearly it is the people, and not the Militia, who are ultimately guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms.

There is no possible way that a "gun recovery" (I assume you mean gun confiscation) can be in keeping with the second amendment.

You are incorrect.

The defining attribute of a militia is the character of its members not the ownership of their arms. While they members may have owned their own arms at the time of the Founding, it's not necessary.

[gorfle]

85. On militias

Then you should look-up tyrannical. You're not even close.

I believe I'm spot on.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyranny

restoration or return to any former and better state or condition.

What is your metric for defining a "better state or condition"?

Without an army, how would it do that?

Well when our federal government doesn't have an army, come talk to me.

Except for your apparent error in understanding of the word "state," that's pretty much what I said. The military power of the country was to reside in an army of common citizes, i.e. a militia, rather than in standing or professional army.

You are incorrect.

The defining attribute of a militia is the character of its members not the ownership of their arms. While they members may have owned their own arms at the time of the Founding, it's not necessary.

But there are no longer any militias, nor have there been since 1903. The only people left capable of fulfilling the vision of counter to federal military power are The People.

[Joe Steel]

102. That's the whole point.

Without an army, how would it do that?

Well when our federal government doesn't have an army, come talk to me.

That's the whole point. The Second Amendment denies the government an army. The People, not the government, would fill the military. Presumably they would choose common citizens not the aristocrats, adventurers, impressed derelicts and mercenaries who comprised the British army. The result would be an army loyal primarily to the citizens not the government.

[gorfle]

105. Glad we agree.

That's the whole point. The Second Amendment denies the government an army. The People, not the government, would fill the military. Presumably they would choose common citizens not the aristocrats, adventurers, impressed derelicts and mercenaries who comprised the British army. The result would be an army loyal primarily to the citizens not the government.

Glad we agree.

[one-eyed fat man]

117. VOLAR

If you aren't old enough to remember, or like many urban elitists, believe military service is only for those beneath their lofty station, the acronym stood for VOLunteer ARmy.

If anything has changed since the end of the draft in 1972, it is to ensure the most members of the military are very much unlike you. They didn't vote for McGovern. They hunt, fish, own and shoot guns, and if ordered (by a Government that shares your vision.) to go house to house and confiscate guns a goodly portion would very likely decline.

http://www.29palmssurvey.com/survey.html

Back in 1994 a Navy War College student circulated a survey as part of a research paper he was writing. The speed with which reports and rumors of this survey percolated through the military community was amazing. That it was being discussed at Fort Knox, Kentucky by Army tank crewmen within a week of being administered to Marine infantrymen at Twenty-nine Palms, California is testimony to the stir it caused. Just freshly retired from active duty then, many of my fellow soldiers and I were troubled not only by the questions but also who wanted to know the answers and why. That the questions were framed in the context of confiscation of firearms from American citizens was especially alarming.

The survey found that some would blindly obey like good little Bundists, but a sizable chunk would mutiny. Given that this survey was done right after passage of the Assault Weapons Ban, there was some real soul-searching discussion in the barracks. The last time American soldiers were forced to make such choices as to their core beliefs Robert E Lee turned down Lincoln's offer of the command of all Federal forces.

[Joe Steel]

119. Validation of my interpretation of the Second Amendment...

Vietnam didn't end until everyday Americans sickened of having their sons come home in boxes. Bush started Iraq in large measure because he had a volunteer army. In the former case, dead draftees ended the war. In the latter, they might have. Either case is a validation of my interpretation of the Second Amendment; citizens soldiers will not allow their patriotism to be abused.

[one-eyed fat man]

120. that is a stretch

Really it is incongruous. You argue for a militia whose weapons are controlled by the unresponsive government whose military you are too good to serve in, but should be used to take arms away from those who disagree with you.

If you are trying to equate the militia as practiced by the Swiss I remember a few things from my assignment there 30 years ago.

All MALE citizens were required to take training with few exceptions. They were all issued a modern assault rifle which they stored at home along with ammunition. Based on age, they had varying lengths of service and training to complete each year. After age 45 they only had to fire annual qualification. However if they failed to pass the first time, they had pay for the ammunition to re-fire until they did pass. And when they were released from duty they could elect to keep their rifle (yes, fully-automatic too.)

The debate about giving the women the right to vote was going full force. Under the Swiss model, only those citizens willing to fight for the country were entitled a say in how it was run. At that time women were not yet in the Swiss Army, so no weapon, no vote.

There is a certain elegance to that idea!

[Joe Steel]

124. You've missed the point entirely.

You argue for a militia whose weapons are controlled by the unresponsive government

You've missed the point entirely. My argument is about the meaning of the Second Amendment and the nature of the militia.

[dairydog91]

86. Checking definitions...

There's little to no "freedom" inherent in the definition of democracy. Democracy is organized mob rule, and there's little in history to suggest that 51% of the population can't come up with some really lousy ideas. To quote George Carlin: "Realize how stupid the average person is, then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that!" The US is not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic, with major checks upon the people's ability to control their other citizens.

A proper understanding of the Second Amendment, not its repeal, would support the gun recovery and ban.

The hills are alive...with the sound of Heller! Fa-la-la-la! Seriously, even scholars who are not exactly right-of-center (Dershowitz comes to mind) have moved against the collective rights interpretation. Not to mention, the USSC is currently moving towards the individual rights interpretation, that the operative clause is controlling and that the prefatory clause simply provides a justification for the operative clause.

[SteveM]

107. What is your "proper understanding of the Second Amendment"...

and how does it differ from the bulk of scholarly opinion which holds that 2A protects an individual right, and that such a right is not contingent on the status/existence of a militia? (See Kates & Kleck, The Great American Gun Debate, copyright 1997, Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy.) If you do not rely on the "militia clause" for your "understanding," what theory of law do you employ?

[Joe Steel]

110. The proper understanding of the Second Amendment is...

What is your "proper understanding of the Second Amendment"...

and how does it differ from the bulk of scholarly opinion which holds that 2A protects an individual right, and that such a right is not contingent on the status/existence of a militia? (See Kates & Kleck, The Great American Gun Debate, copyright 1997, Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy.) If you do not rely on the "militia clause" for your "understanding," what theory of law do you employ?

Simply put, individual rights theories fail on their misconstruction of the words of the Amendment. For instance. "people" is a collective noun identfying the sovereign. It is not the plural of person. Further, "militia" is a general term for "citizen army." It does not specify a particular body. In other words, to say a person is a member of a militia is to say he is a citizen subject to military service not that he is enrolled in any particular group. Finally, "keep and bear arms" is a phrase meaning "manage and serve in the military." A man of the time might "keep shop" and expect his wife to "keep house." Should he be called to military service he would "bear arms" in defense of his community but, in his daily life, he is unlikely to say he would "bear" his ledger to his desk to keep his accounts."

The proper understanding of the Second Amendment, then, is: the collective sovereign has the right to ensure the military comprises common citizens.

[SteveM]

111. Faulty and wrong...

The expression "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." is found in the Fourth. It goes on to say: "...and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the PERSONS or things to be seized."

Yours is just another try at the debunked militia clause. Read Dershowitz, Steven Duke, Levinson and -- yes -- Laurence Tribe who popularized the notion of the "militia clause" as governing firearms in the late 60s. All now concede that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. (I note you have not addressed the Kates/Kleck citation).

You may also note that some state constitutions also use the awkward sentence structure to assure free expression and the press.

[Joe Steel]

112. Accurate and correct.

In the Fourth Amendment, "persons" refers to bodies. The amendment prohibits personal seaches.

Kates and Kleck are gun cult hacks. Time spend ignoring them is time well-spent.

[X_Digger]

113. Wasting your time..

Joe thinks that there are NO individual rights in the Constitution or BoR- we only have them because of 'activist judges'.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[jmg257]

127. "Militia" as used in the constitution certainly means a very specific thing -

"the Militia(s) of the several States". Those are the entity/ies as referred to as 'THE Militia" in Article 1, the same entities referred to in Article 2, and so the term "Militia" has the same meaning in the observatory clause of the 2nd amendment....'THE Militia of the several states'...

as they existed at the founding. Those entities pre-date the Constitution by decades (which is why no definition is needed), and are one of only a few entities deemed permanent by the constitution (they are "necessary", with very vital, very specific constitutional roles to fill). They exist, they are comprised of 'the people', and are clearly distinguished from the 'Army', 'Navy', and 'troops'.


'The People' also means the same thing when it is used - the people who are citizens of the United States. 'The people' IS also the plural of "persons" at times, as we see QUITE clearly in the 4th amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

'The people' is those people who secured the blessings of liberty for themselves. It is those people who have the right to assemble, and certainly 'people' includes all those individuals who have the right to be secure in their INDIVIDUAL persons, houses, etc. from unreasonable search & seizure. The same people, persons, citizens, have the right to possess arms. Now many were required to enjoy that right collectively, as when they fulfilled their militia duty, but all are secured to enjoy that right individually - for defense, the taking of game, etc. The people of course also retain numerous other individual rights (and powers), whether they were enumerated in the Constitution or not.


'To keep and bear arm' constitutionally means just what it says, and no more. Though the phrase was indeed used to refer to the military use of arms, it was also used in ways which shows it wasn't exclusive: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game;..." Pennsylvania Minority

"In the 18th century, in numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit." Heller decision

Besides simply meaning just what it says, what the phrase 'legally' means in this case has already been decided - by Congress, the USSC, other federal courts - it is not exclusive to the military usage of arms.


So we are back to this, to prevent ANY abuse of congressional power over arms that might be inferred or abused or usurped, mostly from powers granted in Article 1, section 8:

A well trained Militia (THE Militia of the several States, made up of the people, armed by themselves) is necessary (required) for the security of a free political entity (state, nation), the right of the people (collectively AND individually) to keep and bear arms (own & possess for militia duty, and all other lawful purposes) shall not be infringed <period>

[DonP]

36. Would you throw-away everything you have to keep your Vote?

I'm sure some folks would, since many of them don't bother to vote anyway.

I'm pretty sure some folks would happily get down on bended knee and kiss the ring of the local sheriff that came for their guns.

But a lot of others wouldn't and would recognize it for what it was, a first step to totalitarianism.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. If it came down to that

It would no longer be about 'keeping our guns'.

[Joe Steel]

74. This is not about anything else.

Guns are the only thing at issue. This is not about anything else. Would you disregard the law to keep your guns?

[AtheistCrusader]

78. Would you disregard a law that forbid you to express your opinion?

[Joe Steel]

81. No...

No; at least not when the community had decided it was necessary for the general welfare and the consequences of non-compliance were clear and dangerous.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. Which could mean anything.

Anti-Bush speech? Dangerous. Criticize the Iraq War? Subversive, etc. You see where I'm going with this, right?

Keep in mind, firearms alone don't even make the top 15 list for causes of death in the United States (2005). Not unless you add just suicides where a firearm was used, and assault where a firearm was used, together, which is pretty dishonest.

[Joe Steel]

90. In a democracy we trust the judgment of the majority.

In a democracy we trust the judgment of the majority. We believe errors will be corrected when they become apparent. I'm willing to accept the process until something better comes along.

[inkool]

92. Good thing I don't live in a Democracy.

A constitutional republic is a much better form of government.

[Joe Steel]

96. The United States is a representative democracy.

The United States is a representative democracy. Attempts to sway arguments by finely parsing the definition of democracy are little more than desperation.

[inkool]

97. Um, no.

The USA is most definitely a republic. A constitutionally based federal republic. Sure there is a strong democratic ideal, but the majority does not rule. We elect people who make the rules within the confines of the Constitution.

A simple majority cannot override the Constitution.

[Joe Steel]

98. Um, yes.

Um, yes. Do some research.

[dairydog91]

99. It's a "Constitutional Republic", or a "Federal Constitutional Republic"...

It's not a democracy in the strictest sense, for several reasons. First, the government is arranged into states, which are supposed to have a fair degree of latitude in the formation of local laws. In a true democracy, everything is done by simple majority, while here there are a number of things that can only be done by local majorities (Which may actually disagree with the national majority). Second, we have a constitution, which functions as a check on majority rule. It lays down a certain number of rights, which require a supermajority in order to be overwritten. We also have the Supreme Court as a branch of government, and the fact that 9 old men and women can override major portions of national legislation is highly undemocratic (To say the least).

[Joe Steel]

103. The United States is a Democracy

All this fine parsing of political science texts is off-point. Ultimately, all political power in the US resides in the People. That makes it a democracy.

[inkool]

104. Yes the power does reside in the people, kind of.

The ultimate power is our constitution.

I think we may be hitting an argument over semantics. What I really wanted to address is this statement you made.

"In a democracy we trust the judgment of the majority. We believe errors will be corrected when they become apparent. I'm willing to accept the process until something better comes along."

My issue is that you can not accept the process as it is not how the United States works. The majority opinion has little sway over the constitution (both state and federal), and can be easily overturned by a small number of people in a black robes. Yes the constitution can be changed, but that takes more then a majority vote.

Also something better has come along, our government, which is far better then mob rule.

[inkool]

101. CIA World Factbook

Government type: Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition

[AtheistCrusader]

94. That's nice. The United States is a Republic.

If we can keep it.

[jmg257]

128. That's nice. But in THIS nation we have the Bill of Rights, which protects our basic rights, even

from an over-reaching majority.

Madison was VERY clever. He saw your type coming over 200 years ago...

"Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the Constituents"

James Madison
New York, Oct 17, 1788


BTW, note his use of the word "private" - apparently he too knew the right to arms which he included in his proposed amendments/bill of rights, besides being thought an absolute restriction, would also secure that right and others for the people as individuals.

[SteveM]

108. So much for a Constitutional Democracy...

"No; at least not when the community had decided it was necessary for the general welfare and the consequences of non-compliance were clear and dangerous."

How big does your "community" have to be before it qualifies to shut you up? I can understand being in a small town with an overwhelming membership in the Ku Klux Klan -- who in their wisdom have decided that the rights of the town should be restricted -- and that you were scared shit-less of being shot. But that hardly qualifies as constitutionally-protected decision-making.

Unless you have no real need for a constitution.

[backwoodsbob]

121. look at it the other way

look at the area where I live...SW Virginia.Pretty much EVERY home has at least one and in most cases multiple guns.

How many cops are going to go door to door to EVERY house to forcibly take peoples guns?

[rrneck]

10. I think you

might be missing the point.

"Come and get it" means the wearer of the shirt will agitate, educate, publicize, and vote while anybody in the government is in the process of "getting it". The process of gun confiscation would take years and tons of political capital and and he is offering an extended fight by all legal means to stop it.

The vast majority of gun owners harbor no illusions regarding armed defense against the military. Yes, there are insurgencies, but that's a life nobody with any sense would want. In the end, actually firing the weapon at anyone, whether they are a representative of the government or a thug, is the last thing to do when all other options are exhausted.

[Caliman73]

21. Agree

I prefer discussion and argument to wearing tee shirts and buttons to express my politics. If the government were to decide on disarming the populace gun owners and non owners alike would be impacted by the intrusion that would be needed to do so. Most responsible owners keep their arms for sporting purposes, target shooting, or personal defense and see it as a tool of last resort.

[Joe Steel]

26. I think you may be right about the agitation...

I think you may be right about the agitation and the viability of armed resistance. Nevertheless, the T-shirt and other challenges such as "...from my cold, dead hands" are cause for concern.

[rrneck]

40. Remember the movie "Wag the Dog"?

At one point there was a shot of a guy wearing a "Fuck Albania" shirt in response to Robert Deniro's made up war. Most gun owners are just people who own guns. Some are Amercian consumers that buy too much of that shit because it's fun and they have the money to throw at it. And there are a few idiots who can be easily manipulated by the right authoritarian. There are no doubt others that are just stupid. And there are a few crazy ones. We always hear about those when they shoot somebody. The guy you saw might have been one of the crazy ones, but I'm betting stupid. I doubt he was my kind of people.

And that interests me. Actually seeing an individual in person and interacting with them is the best way to know them. Since you saw the guy, you acquired a ton of information that none of the rest of us could get. Overall appearance, body language, context of interaction and everything else involved gave you information that even you may not have been aware of. Maybe he gave you the heebie jeebies for a good reason.

I was raised in the south, which is to say I've been around guns and their owners all my life. I have yet to meet someone crazy enough to shoot somebody for no reason. I haven't met anyone that would willingly shoot anybody period, and I've been around. But I understand the culture and the people that inhabit it. It makes it less scary.

I'm pretty convinced that education could solve most of the problems surrounding both sides the gun debate and the problems of guns in our culture in general.

[kudzu22]

11. So far we've resisted

the effort to take away our drugs pretty well, and drugs offer no tactical advantage over the cops whose job it is to take them away. How much luck do you think they'll have at taking guns?

[jody]

12. Do you anti-gun guys and gals really believe the majority of LEO and military would support you? n/t

[spin]

15. I agree. I know most of the local police officers...

they also own gun collections (including assault weapons) and they are very pro-gun.

But than again, this is Florida.

[paulsby]

46. i'm in WA

and cops here overwhelmingly support CCW and citizen ownership of firearms.

and no, i am not talking cop-o-crat police administrators.

i am talking actual cops

[biermeister]

19. anyone heard of oath-keepers?

http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/

[Joe Steel]

27. Doesn't make any difference.

Do you anti-gun guys and gals really believe the majority of LEO and military would support you?

Doesn't make any difference. Although your assumption does get to the core of the problem.

The Founders anticipated the possibility law enforecement and the standing army would be a burden on justice and domestic tranquility. The Second Amendment protects the right of the People, collectively sovereign, to raise an army of common citizens, a militia, to ensure the security of the state.

[one-eyed fat man]

30. Seems to me

the ONLY way the people can raise a militia from among themselves is if they individually have the right to retain their personal arms.

To substitute a select militia, e.g the National Guard, which is paid, equipped, and trained by the Federal government, can be deployed by the Federal government, anywhere, at any time, for any reason, and over the objections of the States is to completely nullify the militia the Founders intended.

Clearly, the Founders lived in a time when private individuals owned cannon and warships. The frontiersman's rifle outranged the soldier's musket by at least a factor of three. All manner of dirks, daggers, knives, pistols, swords, guns and staves were carried by ordinary folks to defend themselves, their families and their fellow-citizens.

Remember, it was General Thomas Gage, British Military Governor of Massachusetts who ordered all Arms in Boston to be placed in Government stores. Some declined and took their guns and powder out of town. On the 15 of April 1775, Gage ordered a force of Light Infantry and Grenadiers, commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith and Marine Major John Pitcairn to seize and destroy the Colonists' stores at Concord.

"Don't fire unless fired upon! And if they mean to have a war, let it begin here!"

Yes, the Second Amendment was intended to prevent another Lexington and Concord, and yes, I have no doubt the Founders intended for us to be able to if it ever again came to that! The very fact that they themselves took up arms to rebel against tyranny is all the proof you need.

[Joe Steel]

41. Militias are defined by the nature of their members not the ownership of their arms.

Seems to me

the ONLY way the people can raise a militia from among themselves is if they individually have the right to retain their personal arms.

Militias are defined by the nature of their members not the ownership of their arms. A militia is an army of common citizens regardless of who owns their guns.

To substitute a select militia, e.g the National Guard, which is paid, equipped, and trained by the Federal government, can be deployed by the Federal government, anywhere, at any time, for any reason, and over the objections of the States is to completely nullify the militia the Founders intended.

In fact, the National Guard, or any other "select militia" is not the militia of the Second Amendment. As I stated above, a militia is an army of common citizens. While the true significance of the concept has been lost to time, we can look at the US Army of the WWII era as a milita. Before the hostilities, the US had a small standing army, about 100,000, if memory serves. When the country was threatened, common citizens were called to service. The army formed was a militia even though the government supplied the arms.

[one-eyed fat man]

66. partially true

back during the days when draftees were still in the Army, ID cards said, Regular Army for enlistees and Army of the United States (AUS) for draftees. When the Army still used service numbers, the prefix of RA, US, NG or ER indicted the member's status. The basic authority for draft is the Militia Acts and in essence, Selective Service calls a individual militia man to Federal duty as opposed to a whole unit. That basis is also why your 18 year old son must still register but your daughter does not.

In that the WW2 Army consisted in large measure of draftees and citizen soldiers, you are correct, but only as far as they envisioned the whole of the male citizenry responding to the nation in time of war and returning to their civilian pursuits after. To call it a militia, as defined by Title 10 and Title 32 of the US Code it is more than a stretch. Your notion, that it doesn't matter who keeps the guns you miss not only the Founder's intent, but common sense as well. The militia is only effective as a curb on Federal power if its arms are unhampered by Federal restraint.

Put it like this, I handcuff you to a pipe and then set the room on fire. Then I say, "You are free to leave." BUT I keep the key.

Bet you a dollar to a donut, without your own key, you would find my assurances vacuous.

Also the prefatory clause, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State..." lists A reason the, but not the only reason "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
That ordinary people carried weapons in the defense of themselves was certainly commonplace and that such a right was a condition of FREE men under English common law at that point for a few centuries it is pretty certain that they meant people were free to own arms for lawful purposes

[gorfle]

93. "The militia is only effective as a curb on Federal power if ..."

Exactly right.

Joe wants the militia to be the effective curb on Federal power, but there hasn't been a militia in over a hundred years.

[jody]

35. OP asked "Do you gun guys really believe you could resist a serious effort to disarm you?"

My answer was "Do you anti-gun guys and gals really believe the majority of LEO and military would support you?"

You then replied "Doesn't make any difference."

What do you mean by your OP question and subsequent posts in this thread.

I've browsed an adequate sample of your posts since December 2008 and found them to without substance and laced with phrases apparently intended to inflame a rational, reasonable discussion of the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable or pre-existing right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

What is your intent with your post since it does not appear to be to debate RKBA?

[Joe Steel]

49. Clear?

OP asked "Do you gun guys really believe you could resist a serious effort to disarm you?"

My answer was "Do you anti-gun guys and gals really believe the majority of LEO and military would support you?"

You then replied "Doesn't make any difference."

What do you mean by your OP question and subsequent posts in this thread.

Assume a number of persons who are not employed as law enforcement officers or military own guns. If those individuals were made subject to a law prohibiting gun possession and requiring any guns they possess to be delivered to to the government, would they do it?

The cooperation of law enforement officers and would not matter. If they didn't cooperate, they would be replaced.

Clear?

I've browsed an adequate sample of your posts since December 2008 and found them to without substance and laced with phrases apparently intended to inflame a rational, reasonable discussion of the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable or pre-existing right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

What is your intent with your post since it does not appear to be to debate RKBA?

If you've honestly come to that conclusion, you're not fit to post here. My opinions have been developed over a number of years and represent a fair analysis of the relevant material. Obviously, your opinions are unsophisticated and simplistic and are insult to intelligence of anyone who wastes time reading them. Apparently, you wish to do nothing more than waste your readers' time.

[jody]

57. You claim your opinion "represent a fair analysis of the relevant material" but you don't cite

sources, just continue to make unsupported assertions. "Obviously, your opinions are unsophisticated and simplistic and are insult to intelligence of anyone who wastes time reading them."

Now that you've properly described your posts, I'll say goodbye, :hi:

[friendly_iconoclast]

68. And here we find the arguments by authority, coupled with ad hominems

With Joe being his own authority. Rather clever, and if you weren't paying attention it might slip by...

If you've honestly come to that conclusion, you're not fit to post here.

Joe is not only his own authority, but has appointed himself a mod of the forum!

My opinions have been developed over a number of years and represent a fair analysis of the relevant material.

"fair analysis": By whose metric other than your own?

"relevant material": You assert it is relevant, yet you do not reveal it. Again, we are expected to take
your assurances at face value.

Obviously, your opinions are unsophisticated and simplistic and are insult to intelligence of anyone who wastes time reading them. Apparently, you wish to do nothing more than waste your readers' time.

This is a clear insult. What it isn't: a refutation of what jody said.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. Inaccurate.

The 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people to remain armed, because when we DO need a militia, it is formed from the people.

The militia and it's role in protecting a free state is 'why', but the people remaining armed is the 'what'.

[Joe Steel]

50. Nope.

A militia is defined by the nature of its members not the ownership of their arms.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. That may be so, but the 2nd speaks nothing about it.

" The Second Amendment protects the right of the People, collectively sovereign, to raise an army of common citizens, a militia, to ensure the security of the state."

This statement is incorrect. The Militia Act did so, but the 2nd Amendment does NOT provide for the formation of a militia. You could lop off the 'A well regulated milita being necessary to the security of a free state,' and not change the functional nature of the amendment one iota.

See, US vs. Cruikshank

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.

Part of that has been reversed, notably in Heller, since, the court has held that the 1st also applies to the States, so does the 2nd. But the meaning is clear. Several Supreme Court decisions make it quite clear, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is not in any way whatever dependend upon their membership in any Militia.

[Joe Steel]

89. The statement is not incorrect.

That may be so, but the 2nd speaks nothing about it.

"The Second Amendment protects the right of the People, collectively sovereign, to raise an army of common citizens, a militia, to ensure the security of the state."

This statement is incorrect. The Militia Act did so, but the 2nd Amendment does NOT provide for the formation of a militia. You could lop off the 'A well regulated milita being necessary to the security of a free state,' and not change the functional nature of the amendment one iota.

The statement is not incorrect. The implication you find in it is incorrect. The Second Amendment is not a detailed script for legislation. It is a declaration of the People's right, a statement of principle. Subsequent legislation may or may not have supplemented it.

But the meaning is clear. Several Supreme Court decisions make it quite clear, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is not in any way whatever dependend upon their membership in any Militia.

Your argument suggests a misapprehension of the term "militia" as it is used in the Second Amendment. You seem to think it is a discrete body, as if membership in the militia is akin to membership in a club or in a community organization. That's not the meaning of the word in the Second Amendment. As it is used in the Second Amendment, "militia" is the citizenry considered in their capacity to act as soldiers. Compare with the capacity of citizens (and others) to act as consumers and purchasers of goods and services. In that capacity, we would call them the "market." The word is a generality used in a statement of political philosophy.

Secondly, as a statement of political philosopy, the Second Amendment isn't concerned with the possession of physical objects. It is concerned with the establishment of principles. The phrase "keep and bear arms" doesn't mean own and carry guns. It means "manage and serve in the military."

[AtheistCrusader]

95. What source do you have for this?

"The phrase "keep and bear arms" doesn't mean own and carry guns. It means "manage and serve in the military.""

Pretty much flies in the face of every Supreme Court decision on the matter (particularly Heller, but there are several others), so I hope you have a good source.

Also, US Code defines the militia as every able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45. (Plus women in the same age range that are also members of the national guard, sexist, but hey, we can fix that.) I generally agree with your 'market' comparison, but again, the actual nature of the Militia(TM) (and chain of command) has been codified in law, at the state (most states, I have not verified ALL states), and federal levels.

[one-eyed fat man]

100. BOR 101

The Constitution grants powers to the government.

The Second Amendment does not grant the States militias, Article 1, Section 10 does that.

The Bill of Rights is a not only a partial listing of limits to government power, further, it prohibits powers to the government not explicitly granted by the Constitution. See the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Governments do not have rights, people do.

A gun-free militia is an oxymoron.

A militia whose guns are not beyond the government's reach is a sham. A right which is wholly dependent on the whim of government is no right at all. A serf is a serf no matter how velvet the collar or how benevolent the tyrant holding the chain.

For a militia to exist as a counter to an overreaching government, the Founder's were right on the money,"....the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[Joe Steel]

114. BOR 201

BOR 101

The Constitution grants powers to the government.

Technically, the document we call the Constitution is a compact with a constitution. The Preamble is a compact. It forms the United States of America from among People of the several states. All that follows is a constitution. In the constitution, the People of the United declare certain powers for their creature, the government of the United States of America.

The Second Amendment does not grant the States militias, Article 1, Section 10 does that.

In the Second Amendment, the People, collectively sovereign, declare the right to control the composition of the military. The Amendment is silent on the militias of the several states.

The Bill of Rights is a not only a partial listing of limits to government power, further, it prohibits powers to the government not explicitly granted by the Constitution.

The so-called "enumerated powers" of the Constitution are not limitations on government.

In the Preamble, the sovereign People declare their intention to form a government to promote the general welfare. In Article 1, Seciton 8, they empower their government to borrow and tax to provide for the general welfare. Realizing the phrase "general welfare" is somewhat ambiguous and imprecise and good faith disputes could arise as to its meaning, they placed certain powers beyond discussion by listing them. This enumeration, however, does not mean other powers would not serve the general welfare and, thus, are prohibited. It means only that the enumerated powers, by definition, do serve the general welfare.

See the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments merely serve to remind the government of the People's sovereignty, that they retain rights and powers they have not seen fit to enumerate.

Governments do not have rights, people do.

Without knowing what you imagine a right to be, correcting your misapprehension is difficult. Please tell me.

A gun-free militia is an oxymoron.

A militia whose guns are not beyond the government's reach is a sham. A right which is wholly dependent on the whim of government is no right at all. A serf is a serf no matter how velvet the collar or how benevolent the tyrant holding the chain.

For a militia to exist as a counter to an overreaching government, the Founder's were right on the money,"....the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Your argument reflects a false premise. In the Second Amendment, "militia" is a general term used to identify an army of common citizens. See Machiavelli's "The Prince" for a discussion of the various kinds of military forces.

[one-eyed fat man]

123. go back and re read Article 1, Section 8 and 9

The enumerated powers grant Congress may establish and support the armed forces, but no appropriation made for the support of the army may be used for more than two years. This provision was inserted because the Framers feared the establishment of a standing army, beyond civilian control, during peacetime. Congress may regulate or call forth the state militias, but the states retain the authority to appoint officers and train personnel. These are manifest today in Title 10 and Title 32 of the US Code.

Congress also has exclusive power to make rules and regulations governing the land and naval forces. Congress used this power soon after World War II with the enactment of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Now in simple terms, the enumerated powers are the things the "People forming the more perfect Union" rightly felt the government ought to do.

Section 9 lists things those same "People" said the government may not do.

The United States Supreme Court has interpreted the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause in Article One to allow Congress to enact legislation that is neither expressly listed in the enumerated power nor expressly denied in the limitations on Congress.

You are correct in only one aspect of your flawed definition of a militia in that it is made up of citizen soldiers. But that has little to do with the Bill of Rights.

Remember that Founders were so distrustful of a strong central government that they suffered through the Articles of Confederation before concluding they were ineffective. Through the Federalist Papers it is apparent that the Bill of Rights was meant to further define the limits of government power and reaffirm the rights the People who allowed the government to exist retained. Those rights were important enough that the Constitution was not going to be ratified without those explicit guarantees

Hamilton, Jefferson, Blackstone, Locke, writings going back to the Magna Carta all affirming the notion free individuals right to arms, notwithstanding, you argue, in essence, that the Second Amendment only ensures a citizen is 'allowed' to join the Army.

While I have read Machiavelli, also Clausewitz, Sun-Tzu, and Guderian, among others, the bulk of my observations about Armies have been first hand. With just a touch over 26 years active duty, I also got to observe other armies, working along side some and in conflict with others.

The only point I will concede to you is that is that today's Army is increasingly NOT LIKE YOU. A generation has come to view military service as something suitable only for the 'underclass.' Nothing will undermine a citizen Army faster than that.

[Joe Steel]

125. Everything looked OK until...

The enumerated powers grant Congress may establish and support the armed forces, but no appropriation made for the support of the army may be used for more than two years. This provision was inserted because the Framers feared the establishment of a standing army, beyond civilian control, during peacetime.

Exactly. Then, the Founders declared a power to control the Militia:

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;

Everything looked OK until someone realized that was a lot of power to give Congress. The result was the Second Amendment which removed all ambiguity about control of the military forces of the United States. It resides ultimately in the People, collectively sovereign.

[one-eyed fat man]

126. tortured logic

Everything looked OK until someone realized that was a lot of power to give Congress. The result was the Second Amendment which removed all ambiguity about control of the military forces of the United States. It resides ultimately in the People, collectively sovereign.

If you're intent to twist the language to conform to your notion of a militia, you have to ignore ".....governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States..." That portion of the Militia that is not in Federal service is still controlled by the several States.

You also fail to understand that the Constitution grants the Federal government the power to raise and Army in addition to the Militia, Among the powers denied the several States is the power to keep an Army, they may only have militias.

But your biggest failure is to comprehend, is that a militia without arms cannot counter an Army that does. You are trying to justify to mutually exclusive concepts, that the militia stands as a check on Federal power with the guns the Feds let them have. I know that's what you want Second Amendment to mean, but the whole notion is oxymoronic.

General Gage perceived a some discontent with his performance as Governor of Massachusetts. He sent troops to Concord to reassert his authority. Under your model, the Minutemen would have been waiting at the bridge for the Redcoats to issue them muskets. Then, I guess,there would have been a coin toss to see who got to shoot first?

[spin]

13. A small percentage of "assault weapons" owners would resist...

but there is one hell of a lot of "assault weapons" owners.

The result would be some dead gun owners and some dead law enforcement personnel. Considering that many of the dead firearm owners would have been honest citizens before the ban, exactly what would be accomplished. If the object of gun control is to reduce firearm violence, this would only increase the problem.

The criminal gangs would still have their "assault weapons" and they are the real problem, not some gun owner with a semi-auto firearm that resembles a true military assault rifle.

Of course there is the possibility that a few gun owners might go on the offensive after seeing other gun owners who had done no wrong killed by SWAT teams.

[yay]

14. You can bet there will be some "accidents" as well.

As the war on drugs has demonstrated oh so many times.

[east texas lib]

17. And who, pray tell, would lead the way in this dubious hypothetical enterprise?

This would be a disaster for all concerned. It would be Waco all over again on a much larger scale.

[jmg257]

18. The guy in Pittsburgh thought he could, and he shot 3 cops, and lived.

NO WAY do I condone his actions, and he certainly had other serious issues.


Maybe those who wish to take them should ask "at what cost?", "is this worth it"?

And that is part of the idea, that the state fear intrusions on basic rights of We the people.
Because what would be more an example of tyranny then armed agents of the state going out to enforce unpopular &/or unconstitutional laws?


The 2nd wasn't enumerated so the people could fight another Lexington & Concord, it was enacted so another one wouldn't be necesary.

[Howzit]

20. "Gun guys" are not a homogeneous group

They are not part of an organized militia that takes orders from some leader. In fact, they don't take orders from anybody - that is the whole point!

If there are attempts to disarm the populace each "gun guy" will make up their own mind as to what the appropriate action is. One thing is certain, only a small number would be foolish enough to face the superior equipment of the disarming forces and "go out in style". Some would give up their guns without any noise while other would vote from the rooftops. The majority would probably just bide their time; unless their gun were registered, in which case they are more likely to just give up or actively resist.

This is why lawful means are applied to peacefully resist registration and other "gun control" intended to disarm the otherwise law abiding population. What you read here are reflections of that political process.

I don't know about you, but apart from trying to influence the voting public, I have not seen any "gun guys" on DU promoting the idea of taking on government forces with their guns drawn?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

22. A serious effort from you. I'm positive a small child with a water pistol could resist that effort.

[NewMoonTherian]

28. Yes I think gun owners could resist.

And the first step is not to wear that freaking shirt. I love the idea, but the biggest advantage in resisting confiscation is making sure "they" don't know you have the guns in the first place! Those shirts are a voluntary registration program for people who are probably too dense to be owning guns. The brighter gun owners would probably use these for cannon fodder while they organized a legitimate resistance.

[DonP]

29. Translation from the historian Herodotus

In the story of the battle of Thermopylae 491 BC, King Leonidas of Sparta, when challenged by the Persians to lay down their weapons and surrender, said "Come, take them" in the original Greek that's Molon Labe.

I don't know if Leonidas had it on his T-shirt, but it's pretty straight forward translation and since it was originally said in 491 BC not really an new idea.

[Joe Steel]

44. The Spartans were fighting a foreign invader not their fellow citizens.

The Spartans were fighting a foreign invader not their fellow citizens. Any gun recovery and ban would be lawful and resisters would be law breakers.

[DonP]

70. Not trying to debate, just inform

Your opinion on gun rights issues is really irrelevant.

The mainstream and the tide is running strongly for more gun rights and away from more gun control and it shows no signs of changing anytime soon.

But everybody is entitled to an opinion, just not to their own private set of facts.

I was just trying to shed a little light on where the phrase originated.

I don't think anyone in their right mind can see a point where the police or the military will be commanded to confiscate privately owned weapons anymore than I can imagine them ever being directed to arrest any physician that ever performed an abortion.

[Joe Steel]

91. Is it?

Your opinion on gun rights issues is really irrelevant.

The mainstream and the tide is running strongly for more gun rights and away from more gun control and it shows no signs of changing anytime soon.

Is it?

In the mid-'80s, the idea of a constitutional right to guns would have been dismissed by almost every judge in the country. Twenty-five years later, most states have universal armament laws and many have added free-fire laws to them.

As you've mentioned, opinions change.

[one-eyed fat man]

106. again,

your bias is showing quite clearly. You can have your opinions and make your case, but don't go passing yourself off as an "objective student" of the Second Amendment when you call the passage of Concealed Carry Laws by the several States 'universal armament laws' and the notion they you don't have to retreat in the face of deadly force "free-fire laws."

The notion that right to bear arms was not an individual right didn't gain much traction until Miller v US.

On April 18, 1938, the Siloam Springs police stopped Jack Miller and Frank Layton, two washed-up Oklahoma bank robbers. Miller and Layton had an unregistered sawed-off shotgun, so the police arrested them for violating the National Firearms Act (“NFA”). The district court dismissed the charges, holding the NFA violates the Second Amendment.

But Attorney General Homer Cummings, who said, “We certainly don’t expect gangsters to come forward to register their weapons and be fingerprinted, and a $200 tax is frankly prohibitive to private citizens.” Immediately reacted to overturn the lower court judge, bypassing the Appeals Courts and going directly yo the USSC.

So unprecedented speed with which the Federal government was before the Supreme Court is telling. From arrest to Supreme Court in under 11 months. Coupled with the fact that only the Solicitor General made arguments or briefed the appeal, you begin to wonder.

With no defense muddying the waters, it was the government’s ideal test case.

Gun control was a part of the New Deal program and legislation that would compel all sportsmen to register their firearms and store them in armories when they are not being used for hunting or target purposes had been proposed.

Sounds like your kind of judicial activism, Joe!

[NewMoonTherian]

72. The consensus among the Molon Labe contingent...

is that gun bans would be a violation of basic human rights(I don't speak for gun enthusiasts, this is all just my estimation). As such, the government that perpetrates such a ban is unjust and that rebellion is justified. As far as resistance being unlawful, that all depends on how successful they were. If they lose, they're criminals. If they win, they're revolutionaries. History shows us a litany of people who rebelled against unjust laws and governments, with varying degrees of success.

[gorfle]

31. On resistance.

Do you gun guys really believe you could resist a serious effort to disarm you?

Individually? No way. This is why it is so important to preserve anonymous firearm ownership. If the government knows that Fred owns firearms, it is a simple matter to dispatch a SWAT team to his address, arrest him and his family, and tear his house apart until they are satisfied they have all his firearms.

But today, every firearm owner in America has plausible deniability. There is nothing to say that I have not given, lost, or sold every firearm I have ever owned.

[Joe Steel]

45. Certainly.

Certainly. Anonimity would make resistence easier but it wouldn't make it lawful. Apparently, you've accepted criminality. Is that right?

[Pullo]

48. Apparently you've accepted tryanny...

Is that right?

[Joe Steel]

51. No.

Self-government is not tyranny.

[Pullo]

59. I guess we are in agreement there....

....so long as that government respects civil rights.


If you are one of those folks who wants to repeal the 2nd A, I take my hat off to you........I'd disagree with disagree with you mightily, but that is a much more honest approach by the anti-gun side IMO.

[gorfle]

60. In what way?

Certainly. Anonimity would make resistence easier but it wouldn't make it lawful. Apparently, you've accepted criminality. Is that right?

It goes without saying that any government, no matter how bad, is going to consider rebellion unlawful. This does not mean that rebellion against a bad government is not a righteous endeavor. Likewise, it does not mean that a rebellion against tyranny cannot or should not proceed just because "it's against the rules".

Here is what I accept. I accept the distinct possibility that there may well come a day when I become a criminal simply because of a change in firearm laws. For example, one day our government may pass a law requiring the registration of all firearms. Since I believe this would be an unjust law, I will not comply, and thus I will accept and become a criminal. Note that I will have become a criminal not because of anything that I will have done differently from one day to the next, but solely by an arbitrary decision of my government. My rebellion and criminality would thus begin by noncompliance with the law. Yes, I accept this.

[jmg257]

129. I know not what course others may take...

A government which moves to disarm the people through bans and 'recovery' schemes leaves them individually defenseless against criminals, and collectively defenseless against usurpers and tyrants. There is no governmental obligation to protect the people; self-defense is typically the only recourse left to citizens from common criminals. An armed populace is the best security against tryants. Such anti-gun laws, no matter how they are enacted, force the people to render themselves defenseless; they deny the citizens the means of securing their inherent rights, including the enjoyment of life and liberty, the possessing and protecting of property, the obtainment of safety, etc. And so, such tyrannical laws essentially put an end to the citizens' "reciprocal obligation" of allegiance to the government, because any government that willfully exposes it's citizens to such loss of life and liberties under color of law, and yet which still demands their allegiance through enforcement of those laws, is no government, it is a criminal conspiracy.


UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS

§ 241. Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;...

§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ...

[Pullo]

32. Cosmoline is your friend, Joe

Your post shows why its vitally important that the vast majority of firearms in the US stay unregistered. Registration has led to confiscation in many countries, including some parts of the US.

I know several people who refuse to get their CCW permits because they do not want to be "registered" firearm owners. Obtaining a permit to carry in public is a good trade off as far as I'm concerned, but I certainly understand their hesitation.

[Joe Steel]

47. So they would resist...

Your post shows why its vitally important that the vast majority of firearms in the US stay unregistered. Registration has led to confiscation in many countries, including some parts of the US.

So they would resist; putting themselves outside the law by placing themselves above it. Isn't that problematic for the notion of gun owners as law-abiding citizens?

[spin]

53. But they are law-abiding until the government tries to

set up a system to confiscate firearms. Then they become criminal.

"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."

[Joe Steel]

54. Exemption?

Laws change all the time. You're not suggesting someone who doesn't like a law can declare himself exempt from it, are you?

[one-eyed fat man]

58. kinda depends..............

seems like the difference of opinion that gave rise to Dred Scott, caused a bunch of sincere Democrats, on April 12, 1861, at 4:30 a.m., to open fire on Fort Sumter, and continue firing for 34 straight hours.

On the other hand, it was against the law for Rosa Parks not to go the back of the bus.

It was against the law for those folks to sit at lunch counter.

Civil disobedience to which law, when?

When Lester Maddox ran for governor passing out axe-handles he was the law. So was 'Bull' Conner at Selma.

[gorfle]

63. The second million dollar question.

Laws change all the time. You're not suggesting someone who doesn't like a law can declare himself exempt from it, are you?

Ah, here is the second million dollar question. When is a rebellion a rebellion and when is it a few raving lunatics?

No one can say what will spark the fires of rebellion, Joe.

After Ruby Ridge, Timothy McVeigh went to war against the Federal government and blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. Obviously he declared himself exempt from quite a few laws that day. And yet most regard McVeigh as an aberration.

But what if he wasn't?

What if there were a hundred McVeighs? Or a thousand? Or ten thousand? At what point are there enough people breaking the law that the law no longer carries any weight? When does a few lunatics become the mainstream?

I submit to you, Joe, that we are on the cusp of seeing this exact sort of question answered with marijuana use in this country. Clearly it is against the law. But clearly pot is less dangerous than alcohol. And clearly millions of people in this country have declared themselves exempt from the laws that make its use illegal.

How many people does it take to break unjust laws before it's accepted that the law was unjust?

[rrneck]

69. A law is a codification of popular consent. Every time

someone lights a joint in this country they are telling big pharma "fuck you". CCW laws are analogous. People want to own guns, and they want to be able to carry them wherever they go. Looks to me like we are just trying to work out how that is going to happen in this culture.

[DonP]

71. Kind of like that Martin Luther King Jr. guy, huh?

Every once in a while some people decide a law is unjust. It can be about where your kids can go to school, where to sit on a bus, who you can marry or maybe about what you are allowed to own or do in the privacy of your home.

Then it becomes incumbent on that person, and all like believers, to protest that unjust law in a manner most appropriate to overturn it - by any means necessary.

[gorfle]

77. Very well said.

Very well said, Don.

[Joe Steel]

82. Dr. King advocated non-violent protest not armed resistence.

The t-shirt implied armed resistence to law. Dr. King advocated non-violent protest not armed resistence.

[DonP]

84. That was his choice

Others, like John Adams, Patrick Henry, and a handful of other troublemakers chose a different, but equally successful, option to prevent the lawful government's gun control and the forced confiscation of their firearms and ammunition at a place called Concord

Handful of farmers and shopkeepers with squirrel rifles against the largest and most successful army in the world, don't make me laugh, not a chance of success!

Question for the hard core history students out there. Did the guys at Lexington have special T-Shirts that said; "George III Sucks Thy Donkey", "Tea Suckers Go Home" or something similar?

[gorfle]

62. On "law abiding"

Joe, you seem to be hung up on this idea of being "law abiding", as if being a "law abiding" citizen of a good and just representative government somehow binds him to blind obedience to the laws of an unjust, unrepresentative government.

This is clearly not the case, nor is it what our founders intended.

Once a government breaks its contract with the governed the governed are under no obligation to obey the governments laws.

As our Declaration of Independence reads,

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

I submit to you, Joe, that when, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, it's pretty much assured it will be against the laws of the "another"..

[X_Digger]

64. Lost cause..

Joe thinks that if 50% +1 voted to make slavery legal, it would be okay.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x205151#206289

[gorfle]

76. Ah, I see.

Clearly Joe does not understand the difference between a Democracy and a Democratic Republic.

[spin]

52. I also know people who refuse to get a carry permit...

for that same reason. They would prefer to fly under the radar.

Of course, what they may not realize is that the government does a lot of data mining, so there's an excellent possibility that Big Brother already knows or easily can find out.

[Pullo]

65. Very true...

Some of these guys have come around, and now feel like its their obligation to get a permit and carry. Its kind of a political demonstration for them, inverting the gun control HCI/Brady/VPC's tactics of the last 30 years against them.....as a side benefit, I see it as a community asset.

[benEzra]

34. In the aggregate, yes. (n/t)

[bossy22]

79. quick answer: no

eventually with enough force (and will) you could disarm the population

but after its all said and done...america would have lost so many police officers, so many military personal, so many people....that your "victory" would taste as bitter as defeat.

just think, a kid with an sks and a 357 mag revolver killed 3 cops in PA (and injured a 4th)...imagine that on a scale that is 10 fold.

so the question is, how much is disarmament worth...is it worth turning some communities into a war zone? violating multiple amendments to the constitution?...how much?

[SteveM]

109. The short answer is "yes."....

Those doing the confiscation would be wholly intent on not stopping with guns. This probably wouldn't be objectionable to you either, given your notion of "community."

You don't seem to be much of a supporter of our constitution. What would you do with it?

[FudaFuda]

115. Ask the mujahideen.

[solinvictus]

122. Yeah, we could...

...and I mean "we" referring to gun owners. If just 10% resisted with firearms, that's nearly 9 million armed people firing back. Just do the math; we win regardless.

[old mark]

130. Absolutely. The reason the RIGHT to have guns is the 2nd amendment,

right after free speech, is that the writers thought is was very important.
Nothing has changed.
If you don't like guns, you are free not to have any.
Other than that, you are infringing on my constitutional rights and may STFU.

mark