“Negroes with Guns: Rob Williams and Black Power ”

[RoeBear]

http://www.jou.ufl.edu/news/robwilliams.asp

"Negroes with Guns: Rob Williams and Black Power is the raw and unsanitized story of perhaps the most misunderstood civil rights leader in the movement. Robert Williams, often dubbed the “violent crusader,” intended his philosophy of armed self-defense to work in tandem with non-violent resistance."

Here's a documentary that I want to see.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Frodo_Baggins]

7. ROFLMAO!

This one was funny.

[hijinks]

20. i guess the truth hurts... n/m

[MrSandman]

2. Glad that he was accorded his RKBA.

Of course, a gun would not have helped against repressive government. Or protected from hate groups.

[iverglas]

3. "Here's a documentary that I want to see."

Or of course you might have tried reading the book sometime in the last few decades. Maybe Columbia has a copy you can have. Or heck, maybe you've already read it.

Then maybe you can tell us exactly what this Robert Williams had to say about people arming themselves against one another, as opposed to A PEOPLE arming ITSELF against a common oppressor.

You know ... about the individual right of self-defence as opposed to the collective right of A PEOPLE to defend itself -- the latter being what I'd venture to guess Mr. Williams (and perhaps Huey P. Newton?) had in mind, just as I'm quite certain it's what Jefferson and the boys had in mind.

And what that has to do with what anybody here gets up to with his/her firearms would just be beyond me.

Oh, speaking of racism and all that -- I just found a tasty Jefferson quote I've been dying to share, and this seems like a fine opportunity:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jeffwest.html

Jefferson stated "if ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or driven beyond the Missisipi."

And we won't even start on what Andrew Jackson actually *did* ... .

.

[hansberrym]

4. Why are you quite certain that's what "Jefferson and the boys" had in mind

(quoting Iverglas)
You know ... about the individual right of self-defence as opposed to the collective right of A PEOPLE to defend itself -- the latter being what I'd venture to guess Mr. Williams (and perhaps Huey P. Newton?) had in mind, just as I'm quite certain it's what Jefferson and the boys had in mind.
(unquote)(emphasis added)


Is it your opinion that "a people" has a right to self-preservation but individuals do not?

What leads you to be certain that all "Jefferson and the boys" had in mind was collective defense?


"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment.


Defense of the Constitution, John Adams
”To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, EXCEPT IN PRIVATE SELF-DEFENCE, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws..."
(My emphasis)


George Mason:
But we need not give power to abolish our militia. If they neglect to arm them, and prescribe proper discipline, they will be of no use. I am not acquainted with the military profession. I beg to be excused for any errors I may commit with respect to it. But I stand on the general principles of freedom, whereon I dare to meet anyone. I wish that, in case the general government should neglect to arm and discipline the militia, there should be an express declaration that the state governments might arm and discipline them. I consider and fear the natural propensity of rulers to oppress the people. I wish only to prevent them from doing evil. By these amendments I would give necessary powers, but no unnecessary power. If the clause stands as it is now, it will take from the state legislatures what divine Providence has given to every individual—the means of self-defence. Unless it be moderated in some degree, it will ruin us . . . .




The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of the State of Pennsylvania to Their Constituents:

7) 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, and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.

11) That the power of organizing, arming and disciplining the militia (the manner of disciplining the militia to be prescribed by Congress) remain with the individual states, and that Congress shall not have authority to call or march any of the militia out of their own state, without the consent of such state, and for such length of time only as such state shall agree.



The evidence shows that self-defense AND collective defense is what the "boys" had in mind. If ALL they had in mind was collective defense, then the second amendment might look a lot like the 11th proposed amendment from the PA Minority above. Instead, the second amendment looks much more like #7 which protected an individual right to own arms.


Furthermore, Jefferson and the boys had a hand in drafting thier state constitutions as well, and the RKBA in state constitutions is an individual right.

Some states forbid groups of people ("a people") from engaging in armed training, while protecting the right of individual citizens to own guns and to use them for self-protection. If what Huey Newton had in mind was that "a people" such as the Black Panthers organization had a right to form its own militia for its own defense, then he(like the Militia of Montana crowd) had it backwards.

Note John Adams' Defense of the Constitution where he opposes citizens taking up arms on "partial orders of towns" (meaning local interests) but allows for individuals to use arms for "private self-defense".

[iverglas]

9. well

I'm afraid that I don't find it very fruitful to discuss something with anyone who just doesn't know (or won't acknowledge) what's being discussed.

Some states forbid groups of people ("a people") from engaging in armed training ...

No, a "group of people" is not "a people". And whatever point that was supposed to be making, it apparently had nothing to do with anything I was talking about, anyhow. (edited to add: And "the Black Panthers organization" was fairly obviously not the "people" I was talking about, or Huey P. Newton was seeking to defend againt oppression, an organization not being "a people". Cripes, are there no dictionaries??) (and edited again to fix typo)

I'm not really interested in much more chit chat about what Jefferson and the boys were up to. I do like that bit about Providence having provided firepower, though; ta. I'll remember to ackonwledge that in my prayers.

What was Huey P. Newton up to? And what do all these "Negroes With Guns" fans think of it? Them seems to me to be the questions here.

Now I'll keep reading to see whether anyone has said.

.

[hansberrym]

24. Well what?

http://www.ukans.edu/carrie/docs/texts/newt_a17.htm

(from Huey P. Newton "What we want")
We believe we can end police brutality in our black community by organizing black self-defense groups that are dedicated to defending our black community from racist police oppression and brutality. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States gives a right to bear arms. We therefore believe that all black people should arm themselves for self-defense.
(end quote)

Was Huey only concerned with ending oppression of the black community?, or was he also concerned with ending police brutality? When police beat someone, they are beating someONE, not the community as a whole. Though the oppression (fear, anger, etc) might be felt by all, the actual beating is felt by the one being beaten.

Notice that when Mr Newton references the second amendment he does NOT say that the black community should arm itself, or has a right to arm itself, instead he writes "all black people should arm themselves for self-defense".


Does the "black community" fit your definition of "a people"?

Does the "black community" have a right to form "self-defense groups"?(Such as the black panthers, or perhaps a black people's militia?)



From my reading of the second amendment, all persons have a right to keep and bear arms for self defense and to defend others, the state, or the nation(individual and collective security). But paramilitary groups/organizations can be forbidden, and in fact are forbidden by some states.

[NorthernSpy]

12. love the Beccaria reference!

And here's where I've got to jump in, being kind of a Beccaria fan and all.

You ask of Iverglas, "Is it your opinion that "a people" has a right to self-preservation but individuals do not?" It's a good question. Where exactly does this collective right of armed self-defense come from, if none of the individuals who make up that collective has any such right? One of the problems that I have with a lot of the rationales in favor of gun control is that they seem to posit a kind of pre-Enlightenment majestic state which has powers that are completely different in kind from -- and utterly disproportionate to -- the rights of the very citizens from whom the state is supposed to derive its authority. In fact, Beccaria based part of his argument against the death penalty on these grounds*. For instance, individuals have a right to use deadly force in legitimate defense of self and others, but only to the extent that such force is strictly necessary; once self-defense has been achieved, the defender may not go back and finish off the incapacitated assailant: for the individual, the right of self-defense does not imply a specific "right to kill" divorced from immediate necessity -- and therefore the state, which derives its authority from the citizens, has no such power either.


Mary (new here!)





* Beccaria's argument runs a bit differently, but my illustration is basic to it and consistent with his reasoning.



Here's a little more from On Crimes and Punishments:


A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility... who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.

The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.

(...)

Finally, that is a false idea of utility which, sacrificing things to names, separates the public good from that of individuals.



To prohibit a number of indifferent actions is not to prevent the crimes which they may produce, but to create new ones, it is to change at will the ideas of virtue and vice, which, at other times, we are told, are eternal and immutable. To what a situation should we be reduced if every thing were to be forbidden that might possibly lead to, a crime? We must be deprived of the use of our senses: for one motive that induces a man to commit a real crime, there are a thousand which excite him to those indifferent actions which are called crimes by bad laws. If then the probability that a crime will be committed be in proportion to the number of motives, to extend the sphere of crimes will be to increase that probability.


The useless profusion of punishments, which has never made men better induces me to inquire, whether the punishment of death be really just or useful in a well governed state? What right, I ask, have men to cut the throats of their fellow-creatures? Certainly not that on which the sovereignty and laws are founded. The laws, as I have said before, are only the sum of the smallest portions of the private liberty of each individual, and represent the general will, which is the aggregate of that of each individual.


(emphasis mine in all passages)

[iverglas]

14. any newbie from northern parts that I might know??

You ask of Iverglas, "Is it your opinion that "a people" has a right to self-preservation but individuals do not?" It's a good question. Where exactly does this collective right of armed self-defense come from, if none of the individuals who make up that collective has any such right?

Maybe you'll answer that question of mine about the right to vote, too. ;)

First, I should probably dispose of that odd question you quoted: "Is it your opinion that 'a people' has a right to self-preservation but individuals do not?"

Is it in fact "a good question"? Not if you ask me, it isn't. I can't think of why anyone would ask me such a question. I've been around here quite a while, and had quite a fair bit to say about the individual right of self-defence. I've quoted Canadian law and various USAmerican state law on the issue, and indicated that I am in perfect agreement with the Canadian Criminal Code and some state penal codes: that an individual who assaults, and injures or kills, an individual who was engaged in an assault on the first individual should not be found guilty of the assault or homicide of the second individual. Sounds to me like it is my opinion that individuals have a right of self-defence (perhaps a sub-set of "self-preservation", I dunno). So I haven't a clue why anyone would ask me whether it is my opinion that individuals do not have such a right. Do many people actually believe that they do not or should not have that right?

Let me also dispose of this "armed self-defence"; that's not what *I* said. I said "collective right of self-defence". Extraneous adjectives just muddy the waters and create irrelevant side issues.

Actually, and this is important, the real right in question is the "collective right of self-determination" -- "self-defence" is simply one way in which that right is exercised. Just as individual self-defence is just one way in which the right to life (and security of the person, and liberty, perhaps) is exercised.

So, "Where exactly does this collective right of self-determination come from, if none of the individuals who make up that collective has any such right?" (Of course, the "individual right of self-determination" is comprised of all the rights we break it down into: life, liberty, security of the person, speech, privacy, etc.; together, they can be pretty well characterized as a right to self-determination.)

Well, about the same place that any right comes from, I guess -- and it ain't god, and it ain't nature, but we can't really say what it is.

Actually, collective rights are a little different in terms of what we might call their existence, rather than their essence. Individual rights come from who-knows-where and exist as concepts in our heads, but are recognized by human groups and their members, and apply as between human groups and their members, and belong to the individual members and are protected by the groups, the associations of the individual members.

Collective rights also come from who-knows-where and exist as concepts in our heads, but they are recognized by human groups and apply as between human groups and other human groups, and belong to human groups, and could be protected by associations of human groups.

They really just aren't the same things at all. And neither derives from the other at all: neither exists to serve the other exclusively.

We might all have as many ideas about what the purpose of rights is as we do about where they came from. Some people might think that individual rights come from somebody's god, others might think they came from the hardwiring in our brains, others might think they came from nature. Nothing that anybody believes on this point will make any sense. Ditto for the purpose of rights. The important thing is that we agree on their existence and substance, not where they came from or what they're for.

Is the purpose of the individual right to life to ensure that the group doesn't become extinct? Could be, in some people's minds. Is the purpose of the collective right to self-determination to ensure that individuals don't lose their lives? Could be, in some people's minds. Or each could be one of the purposes of the rights.

Is the purpose of life to live -- or is the purpose of life to die? Or is it to do the will of some graven image? Who knows? Who can win that argument? Obviously, as between the two main choices, we have a paradox: the purpose of life is both to live and to die. The purpose of individual rights is to protect the collective, and the purpose of collective rights is to protect the individual -- but the purpose of individual rights is also to protect the individual against the collective, and the purpose of collective rights is also to protect the collective against the individual. And there just is no right answer when it comes to resolving the conflicts that arise. That fact is the big reason why I'm a democratic socialist, after all.

Forgive me if I'm just not much more interested in Beccaria's pronouncements than I am in, oh, Jefferson's. He's not here to argue with, and if he were I'd have to insist that he brush up a little on some stuff that we've learned about and done since he died, things we've learned about like developmental psychology, things we've done like the philosophy of law -- and just plain events of history -- that we have done and learned and experienced in the 250 or so years since he was talking. If anyone were speaking today from the knowledge base and perspective from which he spoke, I'd call him/her mightily ignorant, and pretty much ignore what s/he said. Just as I have no doubt he would have done if faced with a Dark Ages political philosopher.

But hey -- allow me to dispute one of the things he said there, since it's just so very easy and such a handy example:

The laws ... represent the general will, which is the aggregate of that of each individual.

No, actually, it isn't, and that much should have been obvious even to him. The "general will" simply is not the aggregate of that of each individual; hell, we wouldn't need laws at all, if that were true!

So how about it -- the right to vote?

The right to vote is the right that the group grants to its individual members, so that the group can exercise its collective right to self-determination. Individuals certainly have a right to express their opinions -- something that bears a distinct resemblance to voting, and has the same sort of content as voting -- as an individual right that the group recognizes, and that is doubtless important to the group's own collective well-being ... but the individual only has a right to vote by virtue of membership in the group. No one just votes; people vote in elections, for the collective purpose of creating the structure that will perform various collective functions of the group, as a group.

Similarly, the right to use force that the group grants to its individual members, so that the group can exercise its collective right to self-determination, is exercised by an individual for the collective purpose of performing the collective self-defence function of the group. Individuals do not have the authority to appoint another group the enemy (or appoint an individual within the group as an "enemy of the people") and go off on a horse to "defend" their group against it when there was no need for such a defence -- that would just be an adventure, not an exercise of the collective right of self-defence. Just as "voting" when there was no election being held would just be a lark, not an exercise of the collective right of the group to perform the various functions that it assigns to its government. People who go off on frolics of their own cannot claim to be exercising collective rights.

That, of course, is not to say that individuals who claim to be exercising collective rights (against another group or against an individual within their own group, e.g. a dictator), even when they are in a small minority or even all alone, would always be wrong and would always not be exercising a collective right. After all, there just aren't any standards by which to determine right or wrong in these matters. Majority vote doesn't necessarily determine whether an individual's action is actually in the collective's interest, any more than a jury's vote determines whether someone actually killed in self-defence. Sometimes, only history will tell, and all that.

But anyhow, no. While the collective right of self-determination may serve to protect the individual, and may depend on the individual's action if it is to be exercised, and the individual right to self-determination may serve to protect the collective, and may depend on the collective's action if it is to be exercised, neither derives from the other. They are distinct rights, and of course distinct kinds of rights.

Does the collective right of self-determination require that a people (organized as a state, say) have access to nuclear weapons at all times, in order to defend itself against, or deter, the ever-present threat of foreign aggression? If all peoples have a right of self-determination (and I certainly agree with the ratifiers of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights that they do, although since I'm an individual my opinion doesn't technically count), who could possibly have authority to prevent any state from acquiring nuclear weapons?

Guess what my next question is?

Does the individual right to life require that an individual have access to firearms at all times, in order to defend him/herself against, or deter, the ever-present threat of personal injury or death at the hands of another individual? Who could have authority to prevent any individual from acquiring firearms?

Obviously, I believe that the international community of nations to which all states belong, by definition or default or however you look at it, has that authority in the first case.

And, quelle surprise, I believe that the human group to which the individual belongs (a state - a nation - or the subdivision thereof with a particular jurisdiction) has that authority in the second case.

There are both individual and collective interests at stake in both cases. Individuals, and individual states, have an interest in their existence, and in defending it. States (nations, societies), and the community of nations, have an interest in their members' safety and well-being. In both cases, unrestricted access to weapons needed for self-defence might result in catastrophic harm to other members of the collective in question: to other states, other peoples, in the first case, and to other individuals in the second. And the damned thing is that we just can't predict the future and know which state or which individual is going to be the one to cause that harm -- or to need the weapons to avert it.

And obviously, in both cases, the interests of the collective (the international community of nations, the state of the individual's residence) and the interests of the individual (the individual state, the individual), as each perceives its or his/her own interests, can be expected to conflict. Each member of the group (the state and the individual) wants to avert potential catastrophic harm to itself or him/herself at the hands of other members, and will see the weapons to achieve this that are in the hands of other members as inimical, to varying degrees, to his/her own interests. And each group (the community of nations, the state/society) wants to avert potential catastrophic harm to all of its members at the hands of others of its members, since that is after all one purpose of the group, and will see the weapons to achieve this that are in the hands of the members of the group as inimical, to varying degrees, to the other members' interests.

And this is where the only "tools" we have are good faith, honesty and sincerity. And of course intelligence and facts. Sincerity in wanting to achieve the "best" solution (and not just the one that is in our own interests), honesty about the facts we have knowledge of and about our goals, and the good faith to address our interlocutors' facts and arguments and not appeal to emotion or prejudice to portray them or ourselves as what they or we are not.

To summarize, for anyone who needs it:

The exercise of all individual rights (in the sense of the rights of individual members of a society, or of individual members of the community of nations) is subject to limitation by the collective, in the interests of the collective itself and of its other individual members.

This may not be "the aggregate of <the will> of each individual", because there are undoubtedly some or many who would disagree -- who believe that no individual should be prohibited from shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, and no state should be prohibited from acquiring nuclear weapons. Fortunately, the "general will" really isn't the aggregate of individuals' wills in either case, and we really do operate by consensus, regardless of dissent.

(We often bind ourselves not to do certain things that the consensus would otherwise require, i.e. we recognize and protect minorities' rights to act on their dissent in some areas of disagreement, as part of the "liberal" vision of how to do things; we don't disallow praying to graven images even if it is opposed by the majority -- but of course we do disallow human sacrifices to graven images. Just another balancing act.)

So the "right to bear arms in self-defence" is just one exercise of the right to life like any other. We don't let people take other people's kidneys in order to stay alive, in the exercise of their right to life. We don't let people drive at 160 kmh (that's nearly 100 mph for the neighbours) in order to get to where they want (and have a right) to go, in the exercise of their right to liberty. We present justification for interfering in the exercise of those rights (even if the justification might seem self-evident in some cases, it's there), and the justification is evaluated by the rules we have made for that purpose. Yup, once again, the big circle. That's life.

One country on earth, over two centuries ago, decided (allegedly) to enshrine that particular exercise of the right to life in the thing it adopted as the basis for those rules: the US Constitution. I think everybody knows what my view of the significance of that fact is: bfd. It's a piece of paper; get over it. Have the good faith (I say to all and sundry, and not to anyone in particular) to discuss the issue as what it really is, and not to appeal to some ancient authority, which is NOT an authority on anything but the rules that one particular human group ... or more accurately, the rich white male power-holders in that group ... decided to live by. If anybody can possibly know what they did decide, in any case.

There are two completely separate discussions to be had, and I simply have no patience with anyone who doesn't keep them separate.

The first is: what does the second amendment to the US Constitution say and mean, and what consequence does it have for state (government) action in respect of firearms? My answer is: I don't care. (Well, as we know, I do, since your governments have such a tendency to cite that bit of paper when refusing to join the international consensus about things like the arms trade; but that is a secondary interest.)

The second is: what limitations on the individual's exercise of the right to life are justifiable according to the rules that apply for determining justification, and specifically what limitations on the possession of firearms are justifiable as actions taken in the collective interest in protecting members of a group from the potential for catastrophic harm at the hands of other members of the group?

We may be prohibited from taking someone else's kidney. We may not be prohibited from buying the loaf of bread off the store shelf that might have kept someone else from dying of starvation. We may be prohibited from throwing someone else off the liferaft to make sure that there is enough food for us to survive. We may not be prohibited from throwing someone else off the liferaft if that's the only way not to get thrown off ourselves.

May we be prohibited from owning a weapon that we might use to cause catastrophic harm to someone else? May our access to such weapons be restricted? There's no right answer, but if we all show our work, honestly and sincerely and in good faith, consensus might be possible.

The consensus in your group, the USofA, might actually be exactly what it is now (whatever that actually is). And that would be absolutely fine and dandy.

... Except, of course, that your group is part of that bigger group that my group belongs to, too, and we out here have legitimate interests in our own collective rights, and the individual rights of our members -- which are arguably threatened by your rules and the behaviour of some members of your group.

You folks seem to expect other groups to do things like protect their own Christians from persecution -- and, well, we folks out here might just expect your group to protect your own children from getting shot. The community of nations doesn't have the kind of authority or power over its member states that states have over their individual members, just at present, but you never know, that fine day might just come, and it might be worth considering what the rest of us have to say in the meantime.


Now if that is indeed Mary o' mine -- got the snow yet?

And p.s. yes, obviously there is a question of how a group is to exercise its collective rights if its individual members do not have the means to do what needs to be done. I will probably maintain that it is for the group to decide this, and that if you are part of a group that decides to elect a vicious and oppressive dictator, you've probably already got more problems than not enough ammunition. If a group has control of its government and throws it away, I dunno, I'm just non-plussed by the question. If a group never had control of its government, it isn't bloody likely that the issue of the "right" to bear arms, or any other right you can think of, is really doing to arise.

.

.

.

[hansberrym]

19. I posed fair questions. Your use of

the phrase "as opposed to" in your comment regarding Jefferson and the boys suggests that they were ONLY concerned with collective defense and not individual or self defense.

(quoting Iverglas)
You know ... about the individual right of self-defence as opposed to the collective right of A PEOPLE to defend itself -- the latter being what I'd venture to guess Mr. Williams (and perhaps Huey P. Newton?) had in mind, just as I'm quite certain it's what Jefferson and the boys had in mind.
(end quote)


Why are you so certain that this is the case?

Since the laws allowed self defense at that time (and still do today)
and since there are documented references to self-defense made at the
time by those who were actually involved in the drafting and ratification of the second amendment, you have a very weak case for claiming that is "not what Jefferson and the boys had in mind."

I questioned whether you believed that there was ONLY a right of collective defense and not self defense for an obvious reason.
I wanted you to say that of course individuals have a right to defend themselves -and you said that.

You do not deny that individuals have a right to use arms in thier own defense when circumstances require that for self preservation.
But you deny that the second amendment has anything to do with self-defense -why?


We are back to the principle of parsimony (occam's razor).

If one recognizes the second amendment as protecting an individual right to keap arms for self defense AND collective defense, then the facts dovetail very well, and both halves of the amendment have obvious meaning.

If one holds that the second amendment is ONLY about collective defense then one has to ignor what was said at the time, and the use of that phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" without "only", or "if/then", or any other qualifier or conditional that would give the very narrow meaning you suggest.

You have said in previous discussions that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" relates to an individual right concomitant to the collective right of defense. If you simply broaden your view of the amendment ever so slightly to include self defense then facts such as the contemporary statements made regarding the second amendment would no longer run counter to your argument.

To your credit you have been honest and have not tried to deny the evidence and rewrite facts/quotes as the Silveira court and other "collective rights" advocates do routinely. But honest argument requires more than that. It requires that we fit our arguments to the facts available, and not simply pay little or no attention to evidence that does not fit one's arguments.


My questions were not unreasonable, they were quite justified by the (IMO) absurdly fine line that you draw in order to avoid any relation between the second amendment and self defense.

[iverglas]

29. holding to the principle of parsimony

... as I am not renown for doing ... and undoubtedly won't ...

But you deny that the second amendment has anything to do with self-defense -why?

Because the "right of self-defence" is fully and entirely covered by the right to life, which is recognized and protected elsewhere in the US Constitution (and was undoubtedly one of those pre-existing rights anyhow).

It is your principle of parsimony itself that supports my interpretation! "The 'right' of self-defence" is inherent in the right to life -- and I'm quite sure that your 18th century founders & framers would have agreed absolutely 100% with that statement.


Methods for exercising rights just are not generally the type of things that people put in their constitutions as "fundamental" rights.

(And there are, after all, different kinds of "rights", and the Canadian constitution is an example of recognition of this fact. Constitutionally protected rights are designated as "fundamental freedoms", "legal rights", "democratic rights", "equality rights" and so on. They're all in the constitution, but they aren't all the same kind of animal. The right to vote just isn't quite the same kind of thing as the right to life. Similarly, international conventions talk about human rights, civil rights, economic rights, and so on.)

Crossing the street is a method of exercising the right to liberty. Nobody's constitution says the right of the people to cross the street shall not be infringed -- and yet it shall not be infringed ... unless, of course, there is justification for infringing it.

Driving a car is a method of exercising the right to liberty. The US Constitution does not say that the people's right to keep and drive cars shall not be infringed -- and yet it shall not be infringed - again, without justification.

Shooting an attacker is a method of exercising the right to life. So is growing food to eat -- and so, of course, is shooting food to eat (one reason why I personally would never support a ban on individual possession of firearms in Canada, as we know). Why would a constitution mention one method and not another? (As you know, I have theories about that, having to do with which exercises of the right to life your founders & framers had more of an interest in, and the fact that their own right to grow food to eat wasn't exactly top of their list since they kind of took it for granted that their property rights weren't going to be going anywhere whereas they might have foreseen someone attacking them ... but it might have been higher on the list of some of the people they were making the rules for who didn't have any property.)

Your second amendment is linguistic and logical gobbledygook -- although perhaps the kind of gobbledygook that one might expect from an 18th century thinker. IF it actually meant that those thinkers were enumerating one of many ways in which people exercise rights in a constitution, and prohibiting the government from prohibiting that one particular exercise of rights, then it simply is not consistent with anything else they did (didn't) do, i.e. they did not enumerate any other ways of exercising rights.

It's the old "the constitution doesn't give anybody a right to have an abortion" thing -- of course it doesn't, it gives people the right to life and liberty, and people may then exercise those rights as they see fit, including by terminating their own pregnancies, absent justification for interfering.

There would be no more reason to list an individual "right" to "keep and bear firearms" in a constitution than to list a "right" to "terminate a pregnancy", or cross the street or drive a car. Once people have the rights to life and liberty, how they exercise those rights is up to them, unless there is justification for "regulating" the exercises of the rights, i.e. placing conditions on it, prohibiting it in certain circumstances, etc.

And anyway, in point of fact, they did NOT say "weapons to use against murderous assailants, being necessary to the security of free individuals, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." So I continue to find this interpretation a nonsense.



You have said in previous discussions that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" relates to an individual right concomitant to the collective right of defense.

No, actually, I haven't quite. I said I might entertain that notion. But since the logic of listing such an individual "right" escapes me, what I see is an "individual right" not concommitant with, but as an exercise of the collective right.

Frankly, I also see no logic in enumerating the collective rights of the entire people whose constitution the thing is, in that constitution -- except perhaps by way of preamble. The adoption of a constitution is an exercise of the collective right to self-determination. "The security of a free state" is obviously one of the major purposes of the whole deal, and the right to it is a premise of the constitution, not a term of it. Of course, the proper forum for recognition of that right is not "a people" itself (or the state it has organized itself into), it is the larger group to which that people itself belongs; the "community of nations", or the human race, or whatever manifestation of that larger group it may have organized itself into, e.g. the United Nations. (Just as the proper forum for recognition of individual rights is not the individual, but the people/society/state to which s/he belongs.)

You know ... like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm

Article 1

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

That is the right that the US was exercising when it formed a nation and adopted a constitution. That is the right that the US would be exercising if it defended itself against an attack by a foreign power: the right to "the security of a free state".


But honest argument requires more than that. It requires that we fit our arguments to the facts available, and not simply pay little or no attention to evidence that does not fit one's arguments.

Yes ... but the problem comes when one is trying to make sense of something that makes no sense, if that is the case. If we were discussing the opposing views of some of our predecessors concerning the number of angels who could dance on the point of a needle -- there being various possible claims as to the actual number -- would our discussion be meaningful, no matter how much evidence regarding what all of the speakers of the era had to say about it we paid attention to?

Regardless of anything else any of your predecessors said, what they agreed to say is written down in your second amendment. It says what it says. And it may just not lend itself definitively to any single interpretation.

Btw, you do know what the dictionary definition of "bear arms" is, right? Not quite "wander around with a gun in your belt"; from my trusty Oxford Concise:

bear arms 1 carry weapons; serve as a soldier.
2 <irrelevant for our purposes> wear or display heraldic devices

Outside of this second amendment discussion, I simply can't imagine anyone using the expression "bear arms" to mean anything but "serve as a soldier" -- take up weapons in a common military venture. It's pretty plain to me that this is exactly what the expression meant to anyone who used or saw it in the era in question.

And how interesting ... I google a bit for this concept, and I discover that I'm not the only one who has raised this quibble in relation to your second amendment. Have we discussed the earlier bit, dropped from the final version, that went "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms should be compelled to render military service in person"? - and how if it had been retained there is virtually no way that "bear arms" could have been interpreted to mean anything but "serve as a soldier"? (Who exactly might have had religious scruples against "bearing arms" to hunt food? Would everyone who had religious scruples against war have refused to keep a weapon for the defence of his/her family?)


If one holds that the second amendment is ONLY about collective defense then one has to ignor what was said at the time, and the use of that phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" without "only", or "if/then", or any other qualifier or conditional that would give the very narrow meaning you suggest.

Well, who's ignoring what was said about religious scruple, and what that said about the intent of the words? And again, in any event, there IS such a qualifier, obviously, and we're all familiar with it:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, ...

If that bit is not meant to have any meaning, why is IT there?

But again, here we are discussing the 2nd amendment to the Constitution of the US, when it so doesn't interest me.

A people has the right to self-determination, which includes the right to defend itself against outside interference in its internal affairs.

People have the right to life, which includes the right to defend themselves against attempts to injure or kill them.

The individual right to life is undoubtedly an important "tool" for the exercise of the collective right to self-determination, and vice versa.

Just as the individual right to freedom of speech (which can be said to subsume the right to vote in this respect) is an important "tool" for the exercise of the collective right to self-determination, and vice versa.

In fact, the International Covenant I quoted (which I offer as an example of recognition of the rights we are talking about) recognizes this in its preamble:

The States Parties to the present Covenant,

Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

... Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights, ...

Each is dependent on the other: the collective interest in "freedom, justice and peace" can only be achieved if individual rights (freedom from fear and want) are respected, and individuals' (liberty) interests can only be achieved if collective rights (self-determination of peoples) are respected.

But there are indeed individual interests that are separate from and potentially in conflict with collective interests -- and vice versa. The individual right to life and the collective right to self-determination do exist completely separate from each other.

And the manner in which individuals exercise their rights can be contrary to collective interests -- and vice versa.

And that's when the balancing act between individual and collective interests comes into play -- and that's the act that the doctrines of constitutional scrutiny, which require justification for interference with individual interests in the collective interest, and things like due process, are designed to perform.

And as far as I'm concerned, and considering the matter from the standpoint of logic and generally understood notions and accepted principles rather than the badly expressed wishes of one small group of people at one point in human history in one spot on the globe, self-defence is simply an exercise of the right to life, and the possession of weapons for self-defence is simply one thing that an individual might do in order to be assured of exercising the right to life, and it is as subject to limitation in the collective interest as is anything else that anyone else might do in the exercise of any right.

There is no reason to expect that, if I stand up in the middle of my local movie house and shout "fire", someone will be killed in the resulting stampede. There may be no resulting stampede. I may just get pelted with popcorn. But I am prohibited from doing it nonetheless, because we think it wise to reduce the likelihood of such deaths and we think that prohibiting me from shouting fire in a theatre may prevent deaths that could foreseeably happen if I do it. And my freedom of speech be damned.

There may be no reason to expect that, if you keep a loaded rifle by your bed, someone (perhaps your child) will be killed. There may be no one there to get killed. You may just sleep peacefully through the night all the days of your life. Could you be prohibited from doing it nonetheless, because we think it wise to reduce the likelihood of such a death and we think that prohibiting you from keeping a loaded rifle by your bed may prevent a death that could foreseeably happen if you do it - and your right to life be damned?

That's the question, as far as I'm concerned. Second amendment or no second amendment, in fact.


And now you may have to forgive me ... the Govt of Canada's recent period of inactivity, while Parliament was in recess and the public service waited to see what this new Prime Minister of ours might get up to, seems to be coming to an end, which means that my services are going to be wanted elsewhere more than they have been for the last month, and I may have to put my own interest in earning grocery money above your collective interest in the benefit of my pearls a little more for a while.

:^) tongue in cheek(y) stupidface icon, of course.

.

[NorthernSpy]

36. interesting, but...

And how interesting ... I google a bit for this concept, and I discover that I'm not the only one who has raised this quibble in relation to your second amendment. Have we discussed the earlier bit, dropped from the final version, that went "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms should be compelled to render military service in person"? - and how if it had been retained there is virtually no way that "bear arms" could have been interpreted to mean anything but "serve as a soldier"? (Who exactly might have had religious scruples against "bearing arms" to hunt food? Would everyone who had religious scruples against war have refused to keep a weapon for the defence of his/her family?)


Actually, there are indeed groups who refuse to bear arms -- period. Example: some of the Hutterite Brethren, such as the Schmiedeleut, who completely refuse to "bear arms" -- which they construe as using or even just carrying weapons such as guns and swords. They do farm and butcher animals. Their absolute pacifist stance does pose some problems for them even now; some of their farms are in grizzly country, and they will not carry rifles even to protect their stock. So no, I think your reasoning here is certainly interesting, but not really convincing. The thing is, never underestimate people's capacity for literalism.

Also, the full phrase was "keep and bear arms". If "bear arms" meant only "serve as a soldier", then why specially point out that all these soldiers shall also not have their "right" to "keep...arms" infringed? Isn't keeping arms just one of a soldier's duties? Why point it out as a right?


Mary

[hansberrym]

38. Huh?

Methods for exercising rights just are not generally the type of things that people put in their constitutions as "fundamental" rights.

Why then is there a "Freedom of the Press"? Publication of ones thoughts is just one specific method of excerising one's fundamental "liberty" is it not?. Freedom of religion is just another specific exercise of "liberty".




Outside of this second amendment discussion, I simply can't imagine anyone using the expression "bear arms" to mean anything but "serve as a soldier" -- take up weapons in a common military venture. It's pretty plain to me that this is exactly what the expression meant to anyone who used or saw it in the era in question.

But I have already cited one instance that is quite closely related
in which a proposed amendment used the term "bear arms" in a quite broad manner, and of course there are the early State court cases in which the "right of the people to bear arms" was a broad indivdual right.

From The Address of the Pennsyvania Minority:
7) 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, and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.

And certainly every use of the phrase during the ratification debates in Congress of the second amendment was about an individual's action. Madison's "render military service in person" is often used by the Collective Rights advocates without reference to "in person". The most narrow reading possible from those debates alone would still allow an individual right to keep arms and to render military service in person. Other public discussion during the ratification of the amendments by the states would suggest a broader meaning. Also the language being so similar to the state constitutions, I would think that the people of that time would expect "the right to bear arms" to mean the same in thier state constitutions as it meant in the Federal Constitution.







Well, who's ignoring what was said about religious scruple, and what that said about the intent of the words? And again, in any event, there IS such a qualifier, obviously, and we're all familiar with it:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, ...
If that bit is not meant to have any meaning, why is IT there?



A word about the Quakers (religious scruples)
http://www.lbfc.org/docs/1661-declaration.html
Our principle is, and our Practice have always been, to seek peace and ensue it and to follow after righteousness and the knowledge of God, seeking the good and welfare and doing that which tends to the peace of all. We know that wars and fightings proceed from the lusts of men (as Jas. iv. 1-3), out of which lusts the Lord hath redeemed us, and so out of the occasion of war. The occasion of which war, and war itself (wherein envious men, who are lovers of themselves more than lovers of God, lust, kill, and desire to have men's lives or estates) ariseth from the lust. All bloody principles and practices, we, as to our own particulars, do utterly deny, with all outward wars and strife and fightings with outward weapons, for any end or under any pretence whatsoever. And this is our testimony to the whole world.

The Quakers would not defend themselves with arms nor would they take up arms in war. They were against fighting of any kind.


Qualifier? How so? Please explain. Surely you know what a qualifier is and how to write one.


If that bit is not meant to have any meaning, why is IT there?

Strawman -you are the only one making that claim.
I have posted on the "preamble" on previously.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=6892&mesg_id=8314&page=

[hansberrym]

39. logical gobbledygook indeed.

Your second amendment is linguistic and logical gobbledygook -- although perhaps the kind of gobbledygook that one might expect from an 18th century thinker. IF it actually meant that those thinkers were enumerating one of many ways in which people exercise rights in a constitution, and prohibiting the government from prohibiting that one particular exercise of rights, then it simply is not consistent with anything else they did (didn't) do, i.e. they did not enumerate any other ways of exercising rights.


Not only did those foolish 18th century thinkers enumerate ways of exercising rights, so did your favorite 20th century thinkers.


US Constitution, Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.



Each of the rights listed above is but an exercise of the fundamental right to "Liberty" and yet they are listed in both the US constitution and the International Covenant.

Under the US Constitution the right to keep and bear arms is of the same sort as a right to own and operate a printing press. Both are subject to restrictions necessary for respecting the rights of others and for public order.


Furthermore, the state constitutions of that time period contained(and stil do contain)similar provisions:

Virginia Bill of Rights
Section 12. Freedom of speech and of the press; right peaceably to assemble, and to petition.

That the freedoms of speech and of the press are among the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained except by despotic governments; that any citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; that the General Assembly shall not pass any law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, nor the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances.


Note the declarative preamble. Does it limit the freedom of speech?
Or is it meant to underscore the importance of that right?

[hansberrym]

5. More

From the second Freedmen's Bureau Bill:
"...in consequence of any State or Local law, ordinance, police or other regulation, custom or prejudice, any of the civil rights belonging to white persons, including the right to make or enforce contract, to sue,...and to have full and equal benefits of laws and procedings for the security of person and estate, including the constitutional right of bearing arms , are refused or denied to negroes...it shall be the duty of the President of the United States... to extend protection..." (my emphasis)
(Equal Justice Under Law, Hymann and Wiecek, Harper&Row publishers, copyright 1982)



Congressional debates on the Fourteenth Amendment as quoted by Justice Hugo Black in his disent in Adamson v. People of Californina.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=332&invol=46&friend=oyez

'Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be-for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature-to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; <332 U.S. 46 , 106> the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments. (my emphasis)

[Man_in_the_Moon]

6. And Jefferson has exactly what to with your point?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Liberal Classic]

8. Re: individual right vs collective right of A PEOPLE to defend itself

Then maybe you can tell us exactly what this Robert Williams had to say about people arming themselves against one
another, as opposed to A PEOPLE arming ITSELF against a common oppressor.

You know ... about the individual right of self-defence as opposed to the collective right of A PEOPLE to defend itself
-- the latter being what I'd venture to guess Mr. Williams (and perhaps Huey P. Newton?) had in mind, just as I'm
quite certain it's what Jefferson and the boys had in mind.

I'd be interested to read the book to find out, but in terms of the civil rights struggle and lynchings what is the difference? Can blacks collectively defend themselves as a people against a common oppressor without the individuals arming themselves to resist oppression? This is why I believe the collective versus individual debate to be a red herring. A minority group cannot effectively protect itself unless the individuals can do so, or at least it is much more difficult to do so. Could a mob of Klucker Klansmen lynch an armed black man? Yes, but it is likely that the armed black man will take some of the sons of bitches with him.

[iverglas]

10. once you've explained to me ...

... how come you can't just go exercise your right to vote whenever, wherever and however you might please, well, maybe I won't have to explain to you how the collective right of a people to defend itself against oppression just doesn't imply that the individual members of the group have, or must have, the right to wander around with guns.

.

[Liberal Classic]

17. Interesting question

Considering that voting is a right which may be abridged due to a felony conviction as is the right to own weapons. The simple answer is that rights are not absolute. For example there is no right to murder or threaten bodily harm implied in the right to own weapons, likewise there is no right to slander and libel in the right to free speech and the press. I believe the extent to which the right is regulated is largely the contention in these debates.

[iverglas]

18. aaaaaaaaaaargh

Considering that voting is a right which may be abridged due to a felony conviction as is the right to own weapons.

Can we possibly, please, someday, distinguish between description and prescription???


Where YOU are, the right to vote IS abridged due to felony convictions.

Where *I* am, IT IS NOT. It MAY not be, under the rules that WE apply for determining when constitutional rights MAY be impaired. Our Supreme Court has held that governments have NO JUSTIFICATION for denying inmates of prisons the right to vote (let alone denying the vote to offenders who have completed their sentences, which is too outrageous and unjustifiable for our governments to have ever even considered doing).

Where YOU are, the right to possess firearms is (I gather) abridged due to felony convictions.

Where *I* am, IT IS NOT. And I'll bet you're surprised. People convicted of criminal offences

- may be ordered not to possess weapons as a condition of probation or parole;
- may be denied a firearms licence if the issuing authority determines that it is not in the public interest to issue the licence (and that decision is subject to judicial review).


There are no universal rules about what rights may be impaired, and how. There are decisions that human groups (states, societies) make, and that are generally required to be consistent with some set of overriding rules (like constitutions).

I have no bloody idea how anyone could justify denying individuals who have completed their sentences for criminal offences the right to vote, under YOUR constitution, but there ya go. Apparently you guys, or enough of you to matter, and more importantly your constitutional courts, think it's justified. Up here, our Supreme Court said that the right is so important, and the reasons offered by governments for interfering in it so specious, that there was no justification.


The simple answer is that rights are not absolute.

There ya go. Actually, rights are absolute -- it's just that there may be justification for interfering in the exercise of the right.

Convicted murderers in death-penalty jurisdictions DO have the right to life, the same right to life as anyone else there has. The difference between them and everyone else is that there is felt to be justification for denying them the ability to exercise the right.

If murderers did not have a right to life, why would anyone bother holding trials??


For example there is no right to murder or threaten bodily harm implied in the right to own weapons, likewise there is no right to slander and libel in the right to free speech and the press.

Well, and there is no right to eat pineapples "implied in" the right to privacy, I suppose. Except that I just don't see any of that as being a meaningful thing to say.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, period. There is a right to say any bloody thing anyone wants -- unless the group decides that there is justification for prohibiting the saying of something or other. Your society has decided that there is justification for prohibiting slander and libel -- well, except that it hasn't. There is no criminal prohibition against defamation, as far as I am aware. There is a complete right to defame anyone one likes, it's just that one may be liable to pay for the damage caused by doing so.

Is there no right to kill (let's not pre-judge what is simply an action by calling it "murder") or threaten bodily harm "implied in" the right to life (the "right to own weapons" being simply one exercise of the right to life)?

Well, there just might be. There is indeed a "right to kill" someone who is attempting to kill, or cause serious bodily harm, to one's self, expressed in the self-defence justification for homicide.

But I'm afraid that saying that there is no "right to kill" "implied in" the "right to own weapons" just does not say anything more meaningful to me than saying that there is no "right to speed" "implied in" the "right to own vehicles".

(And yes, there IS as much of a "right" to own vehicles as there is a "right" to own weapons -- they are both exercises of fundamental rights, like the right to life and liberty. They are both used in the exercise of those rights, and can be used to ensure that it is possible to exercise those rights.)


I believe the extent to which the right is regulated is largely the contention in these debates.

Well yes indeed. The extent to which it is justifiable to interfere in the exercise of the right.

In our specific case (i.e. "our" case, the case that *I* am addressing, not the case of the US's second constitutional amendment), the extent to which regulating the possession of firearms is a justifiable interference in the exercise of the right to life, or liberty, or whatever other right it might be an exercise of.

My problem is that in any attempt to discuss THAT issue, I find all too many people responding to arguments by appealing to the authority of the US Constitution. That is indeed what is done within the framework of a legal dispute in the US -- but it does nothing to answer the question of whether what is (allegedly) said in the US Constitution is a good thing for the society governed by it.

My other problem is that your simple statement, that we probably basically agree on the content and effect of while using different formulations -- "rights are not absolute" / "there may be justification for interference in the exercise of all rights" -- is rejected by some people when it comes to the right (allegedly) set out in the second amendment to the US constitution. That one, somehow, becomes an "absolute right" / a right for which there is "no justifiable interference".

Well, maybe, except for the limitations/interferences that the person speaking happens to have no objection to, like prohibiting criminals from possessing firearms. The obvious fact that this is a limitation on the exercise of the right, and that they are therefore admitting that limitations on the exercise of the right can be justified, and that the real question -- not whether there may be such limitations but which limitations are justified -- never seems to get acknowledged, and the real issue then addressed.

It's a constant meta-discussion -- a discussion of what we are discussing. I'd love it to bits if we could just agree that we are discussing the issue of what limitations on the possession of weapons, as an exercise of a fundamental right or rights, are justifiable. You know: offer opinions, with the facts and arguments that we think back them up ...

.

[Liberal Classic]

21. Thanks for the long post

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.


Where YOU are, the right to vote IS abridged due to felony convictions.

Where *I* am, IT IS NOT.

Sure. Laws may differ by locale, but in the practical sense rights are limited law.

Actually, rights are absolute -- it's just that there may be justification for interfering in the exercise of the right.

In principle and in theory, there is no question in my mind that people have intrinsic rights over a broad scope of their lives. The question of where to draw this line has vexed greater minds than ours, but I am willing to have a stab at it. I undestand laws are passed for pragmatic reasons to deal with the perceived problems of the day. I am not anarchist by any stretch, eventhough I believe in a small and frugal government that within its scope is effective. I believe there is a general trend of the increase in governmental regulation in all aspects of our lives and I fear future repercussions, but in the here and now I am not wholly opposed to some measure of regulating the conduct of firearms dealers and owners. I have no problem with city ordinaces prohibting the discharge of weapons, because what goes up must come down, right?

For another example, I am generally more in favor of the Brady Bill than the AWB because Brady, though it does abridge the 2nd amendment to a degree, it allows for law abiding citizens to excercise their right without (too much) of a delay. Most people who follow the law by from legitimate dealers and these are the people that Brady was designed to accomodate. For a minority there are delays, but they can be avoided through state or federal license. The 'instant' background check system is not perfect of course but it is in the right spirit because it tries to catch law-breakers while being user-friendly to those who are honest. I have read as far as the cost to taxpayers it is not as expensive as many law enforcement programs. (drug war *cough* *cough*) So even though I am pro-gun-ownership and pro-self-defense I am forced to admit Brady at least was written with good intentions in mind. I wouldn't mind if more government agencies were designed around being more user-friendly and cheaper to operate.

The Assault Weapons Ban on the other hand is a cosmetic ban, which totally ignores the ballistic characteristics of the weapons it was designed to deny importation. Large numbers of similar and even more powerful rifles already exist in domestic circulation, and cosmetic features are easily changed. No consideration of the citizen in good standing is made in the AWB and the list of banned weapons is so vague and incomplete that it is constantly under revision. This in my opinion is a bad law because it is ineffective and as a rule of thumb I believe that bans and prohibitions on inanimate objects are problematic laws. I believe strongly in innocent before guilty, and therefore I favor laws with lenience for people who have kept their nose clean but strict penalties for breaking the law. I am less in favor of prior restraint of people, because it's easier to keep a violent criminal in prison than read minds.

Just one other note. We do not now have universal sufferage, if you consider that those below the age of 18 are prohibited from exercising their sovereign franchises.

[iverglas]

30. in a word

And this time I promise, no more than a few of them, anyhow --

We agree that some limitations on individual rights are justified. Everybody -- at least everybody who is going to have an influence on the outcome of any issue -- agrees that some limitations on individual rights are justified. This *is* our consensus.

The question is, of course, what limitations are justified. What is "justification", what collective interests are compelling, what degree of interference in the exercise of a right is necessary, and so on and on.

Once it is determined that there is justification for *some* interference, certainly the cost of one measure over another measure is a factor to be properly considered, just as the anticipated effectiveness is a factor -- and the bang-for-buck relationship between the two is a factor.

"Your" assault weapons ban is another of those things that make my eyes glaze over. If anybody wanted to compare what is banned in the US with what is "prohibited" or "restricted" in Canada, we might get an idea of what I might think about your assault weapons ban, since I've never had any reason to be dissatisfied with the way things are here at present.

It remains pretty much beyond me why any "citizen in good standing" would want one of the damned things, let alone why s/he might think that his/her interest in owning it would outweigh the collective interest in keeping it out of society. I mean, if I were allowed to drive at 150 kph (say 100 mph) on our highways, it would certainly be in my interest, in terms of getting where I want to go and wasting less of my valuable time -- and I have absolutely no doubt that *I* could do it perfectly safely (given that I drive nearly that fast all the time anyhow). But I'm really just not going to demand that I be allowed to do that, given that a whole lot of people that *I* don't want to be sharing the highway with while they drive at 150 would then be allowed to do it too, and that even I can't really predict when my own speeding is going to result in an accident that is no fault of mine but that I would have been able to avoid at a lower speed. Who can say for certain that his/her big scarey gun isn't going to get stolen and used to kill someone, regardless of how nice s/he is?

I find all this quibbling about what should and shouldn't be banned, and how many there already are floating around, just pointless. If they were registered to start with, and if society decided that it was time they were taken out of circulation, then at least a lot of them could be (or people who had illegally disposed of them could be dealt with, although since that would be entirely post-facto action it would have little deterrent effect, and therefore not be my favoured way of solving a problem). I mean, how easy is that? Not too easy when one hasn't done what's necessary to make it possible, but I never see it as a very good answer to the suggestion that something be done to say "but it would be really really hard to do it!" There are other ways of doing things, even if one did not do the best thing in the first place.

I believe strongly in innocent before guilty, and therefore I favor laws with lenience for people who have kept their nose clean but strict penalties for breaking the law.

Hey, so do I. The presumption of innocence means that no one may be punished for something unless it has been proved, to the appropriate degree of certainty, that s/he did it. What that has to do with restrictions on the possession of firearms always escapes me. No one is being punished, any more than requiring me to drive at less than 101 kph "punishes" me.

I am less in favor of prior restraint of people, because it's easier to keep a violent criminal in prison than read minds.

Yeah, well, I on the other hand am more in favour of preventing harm from occurring than of punishing someone for causing it. As a general principle and all. And I do tend to be kind of opposed to punishing people for what they might do -- which *is* what depriving someone of liberty because of what s/he might do, i.e. imposing prison sentences out of proportion to the offences actually committed, amounts to. I see that kind of unjustified deprivation of liberty -- the lock 'em up for life or a good chunk thereof approach -- as a little more serious a problem than generalized, non-arbitrary regulation of the exercises of certain rights and liberties.

.

[NorthernSpy]

22. okay, how bout this?

Once you've explained to me how come you can't just go exercise your right to vote whenever, wherever and however you might please, well, maybe I won't have to explain to you how the collective right of a people to defend itself against oppression just doesn't imply that the individual members of the group have, or must have, the right to wander around with guns.


I'll give it a shot.

Your "right to vote" is actually a right to participate in the electoral process mandated by the laws of your jurisdiction. Elections are of course a mechanism that allows society to make basic decisions on its governance. They are held at prescribed intervals, after which the decisions made by the voters are put into practice*, because without such organization no goverment would ever actually come about, and the elections themselves would be total exercises in futility. For public elections to fulfill their legitimate purpose of governance, they must be (among other things) timely and orderly, which is why we organize them and make them periodic.

Of course, in another sense, we all vote unceasingly -- on the countless issues of personal self-governance that arise every day, and that no public process could be remotely expected to deal with, no matter how well organized it was. Which has some relation to my next remarks on the issue of firearms and force.

In order to fulfill the legitimate purpose of defense of the people, the use of force can be made orderly by organizing armies, police departments, etc; but these measures are insufficient because they rarely can provide for the timely defense of individuals who are under attack**. The organized, collective use of defensive force does lessen somewhat the individual's need to defend herself from immediate physical harm, but cannot abolish it any more than well-organized elections will do away with her need for personal decision-making.

So the state can't abolish the need for effective self-defense, but it can handicap exercise of the associated right*** to the point of practical abolition? Even if that need is the state's own original justification and reason for being?

Finally, I'm tempted to point out that no.2 pencils, the mere tools of voting, are perfectly legal to own & why not the mere tools of self-defense, &c, but I dunno. I think it's valid, but I don't want to sound silly.



* Or not. See "Presidential Election, 2000"
** This naturally leads right back to the question: from what does the collective "people" derive its "right" to armed self-defense in the first place?
*** By which I mean, of course, convenient access to very effective weapons of personal defense, especially firearms. I know that nobody opposes the concept of self-defense per se, and I know that nobody wants to ban scratching, biting, and kicking as methods of achieving same.


And yes, I'm the Mary you know (hi!), and yup, it's been snowing thickly all night, adding up to a few inches of new whitestuff this morning. Which is just as well, because January was way too dry & cold.



Mary

[hansberrym]

23. Good answer. The key difference between voting and defense

is that one (voting) is discontinuous and the other is continuous.


Voting occurs at discrete times, but defense is constant.
The keeping of arms is continuous as it must be since we can not know when an attack might occur. Also our being prepared itself is a deterent to attacks (Jefferson, C.Beccaria, J.Story)


Consider what are we defending ourselves from.
Tyranny in government, a first line of defense against foreign invasion, and defense against attacks on property and person.


Does it make any sense at all to say that the government should decide when we can keep arms for our defense against tyranny in government? (does the farmer hire the fox to guard the henhouse?)

Does it make any sense at all to say that the government will decide when we can keep arms to defend ourselves against foreign invasion?
Note the ridiculous track record of US "Intelligence" in determining threats from other nations.


Does it make sense to say that the government will decide when we can keep arms to defend against attacks on property and person? Can the government tell us when these attacks will occur? Can the government prevent these attacks?(there was a Tom Cruise movie with a similar plot, but that was of course fictional)


No matter how narrowly the second amendment is read, it can not plausibly be read to mean that the keeping of arms can be regulated to certain times or that the bearing of arms (carrying for defensive purposes) can be abolished altogether.

[NorthernSpy]

32. I'm glad you think so :)

I'm a total novice at the whole gun-discussion thing, and I fear not yet good enough at making the case I want to make.

Re the 2nd Amendment, I've heard some people argue that the original intent was that citizens should have access to any weaponry that a standing army would have. After all, the citizenry cannot begin to defend themselves against the organized tyranny of the state (or a foreign invader) if they are too severely outclassed: the original intent of the Constitution was not to give the govt state-of-the-art toys while permitting the citizens only comparatively archaic stuff like crossbows. Parity in arms was the point.

But this seems to create a problem: on what grounds do we deny anyone howitzers, machine guns, grenades, or other items of current military issue? If we care about preserving the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, how can we justify not permitting citizens to arm themselves with these? Do you know of a Constitutionally-consistent test that we can apply to decide such questions in a way that does not violate the original intent of the framers?


Mary

[FeebMaster]

33. Why should you?

But this seems to create a problem: on what grounds do we deny anyone howitzers, machine guns, grenades, or other items of current military issue?

In most states, you can buy all of those things, quite legally. Most people don't, of course, due to the money and federal paperwork involved.

[RoeBear]

34. I believe the definition of arms...

...is what a soldier carries. Crew served weapons such as a howitzer are not arms by that definition.

[NorthernSpy]

35. you guys are fast!

As soon as I post a question, the answers arrive like magic. :)

Except for machine guns -- which I'd already read that you can own with special approval from the feds -- I had no idea that it's legal to buy grenades and such. I bet, though, that there's a lot of red tape involved, which does seem a little like an "infringement" of the right to keep & bear arms.

So the test is: personal arms, but no artillery. Okay. I'll have to think about that. Such a rule would seem to leave the citizens hopelessly outclassed. But I really don't know anything about military matters, so I'm not sure.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't really figure into my support for rkba that much, so I'm less familiar with all this stuff than most of the people on this board.


Mary

[iverglas]

11. getting back to my muttons

I am still dying for answers to those inquiries from the other thread.

The single most important intellectual influence on Huey P. Newton, the founder of the Black Panther Party, Negroes with Guns is a classic story of a man who risked his life for democracy and freedom.
(emphasis added)

Now, hands up everybody who agrees with the political philosophy of Huey P. Newton ... or has a clue what it was ... . How about: hands up anybody who lives by it, or does anything at all to advance the struggle of African-Americans "for democracy and freedom".

And then, hands up anybody who is exploiting the struggle of African-Americans "for democracy and freedom" for no other reason but to advance their own interests (or maybe for the chance to say "Negroes with guns" a few times) ... .

How about: hands up anybody who would shoot an African-American (or is that "Negro"?) youth who broke into his/her home?

I surely do hope that nobody who put his/her hand up for that last one had the gall *not* to put his/her hand up for the one right before it.


I just don't think that Huey P. Newton, or Robert Williams, would have been real impressed with the sincerity of people who claimed to support their cause -- which was not "RKBA", it was DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM -- and shot (or supported the shooting of) African-American kids who broke into their houses.

.

[el_gato]

13. do you have special mind reading powers iverglas?

You seem to know what everyone thinks.

[iverglas]

15. nah ...

Just the ability to READ and the good character to report what I read accurately and offer my opinions about it sincerely.

How 'bout you? Read anything interesting lately about what the political philosophy of, oh, Huey P. Newton was, and care to share and comment?

.

[el_gato]

16. I'll have to take your word for it.

since you're so smart and all

[MrBenchley]

25. Interesting that there's not even an attempt

to answer these questions....

[NorthernSpy]

26. well, I 'll try

But I can't promise satisfaction.


Iverglas: Now, hands up everybody who agrees with the political philosophy of Huey P. Newton ... or has a clue what it was ... . How about: hands up anybody who lives by it, or does anything at all to advance the struggle of African-Americans "for democracy and freedom".

I'm not intimately familiar with the political philosophy of Newton and the Panthers, but I do know a little bit about it.

As for "living by it" or doing things to "advance the struggle of African-Americans", I'm not sure how to do that.

Iverglas: And then, hands up anybody who is exploiting the struggle of African-Americans "for democracy and freedom" for no other reason but to advance their own interests (or maybe for the chance to say "Negroes with guns" a few times) ... .

The pleasurable aspect of repeating the phrase "Negroes with guns" is lost on me. And I hope that I'm not exploiting the black struggle if I say that it seems perfectly reasonable for blacks to want to defend themselves with guns, and equally reasonable for blacks and non-blacks to agree on gun-rights issues.

Iverglas: How about: hands up anybody who would shoot an African-American (or is that "Negro"?) youth who broke into his/her home?

Shoot the kid? With what? Not all gun control opponents are armed to the teeth, y'know. There's an ancient four-ten around here somewhere, but there's no chance of anyone shooting it until a missing part is replaced. So I'm almost as gunless as you.

As for whether I would shoot the hypothetical black youth if I were better armed than I am in real life, I have no idea. Really, I haven't a clue what I would do in such a situation. Perhaps I might be more likely to shoot a male intruder than a female one -- which may yet qualify me as some kind of bigot -- but I doubt that I could find a black intruder more frightening or more shootable than a white one. But all of this is speculation. If you apply surprise, terror, adrenalin, and a loaded pistol, who knows which principles and inhibitions will hold and which will fall? I want my inhibitions to be the right and healthy ones, and I want my principles to be rock-solid. But fear can corrupt anything and anyone, and I wouldn't bet that my strength of mind is superior to fear.

Iverglas: I surely do hope that nobody who put his/her hand up for that last one had the gall *not* to put his/her hand up for the one right before it.

Me, I am a timid sort, and very short on gall. But then, my votes were "I don't get it," "I hope not," and "I don't know," so I think I'm off the hook here.


Iverglas: I just don't think that Huey P. Newton, or Robert Williams, would have been real impressed with the sincerity of people who claimed to support their cause -- which was not "RKBA", it was DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM -- and shot (or supported the shooting of) African-American kids who broke into their houses.


But part of their cause was very specifically the right to keep and bear arms. Roebear is not wrong about that. I know what you're driving at, and I appreciate your point about opportunism and how exploitative it is (and your concerns are valid ones, I don't deny that).

But. There's a reason why Newton et al named their group the Black Panther Party for Self Defense:

So Huey says, "You know what we're going to do?" "What?" "We're going to the Capitol." I said, "The Capitol?" He says, "Yeah, we're going to the Capitol." I say, "For what?" "Mulford's there, and they're trying to pass a law against our guns, and we're going to the Capitol steps. We're going to take the best Panthers we got and we're going to the Capitol steps with our guns and forces, loaded down to the gills. And we're going to read a message to the world, because all the press is going to be up there. The press is always up there. They'll listen to the message, and they'll probably blast it all across this country. I know, I know they'll blast it all the way across California. We've got to get a message over to the people."

Huey understood a revolutionary culture, and Huey understood how arms and guns become a part of the culture of a people in the revolutionary struggle. And he knew that the best way to do it was to go forth, and those hungry newspaper reporters, who are shocked, who are going to be shook up, are going to be blasting that news faster than they could be stopped. I said, "All right, brother, right on. I'm with you. We're going to the Capitol." So we called a meeting that night, before going up to the Capitol, to write the first executive mandate for the Black Panther Party. Huey was going to write Executive Mandate Number One.

-- Bobby Seale, in Seize the Time



Executive Mandate Number One is too long to paste here in its entirety, but here is a representative excerpt:



The Black Panther Party for Self-Defense calls upon the American people in general and the black people in particular to take careful note of the racist California Legislature which is now considering legislation aimed at keeping the black people disarmed and powerless at the very same time that racist police agencies throughout the country are intensifying the terror, brutality, murder, and repression of black people.

(...)

Black people have begged, prayed, petitioned, demonstrated, and everything else to get the racist power structure of America to right the wrongs which have historically been perpetrated against black people. All of these efforts have been answered by more repression, deceit, and hypocrisy. As the aggression of the racist American government escalates in Vietnam, the police agencies of America escalate the repression of black people throughout the ghettoes of America. Vicious police dogs, cattle prods, and increased patrols have become familiar sights in black communities. City Hall turns a deaf ear to the pleas of black people for relief from this increasing terror.

The Black Panther Party for Self-defense believes that the time has come for black people to arm themselves against this terror before it is too late. The pending Mulford Act brings the hour of doom one step nearer. A people who have suffered so much for so long at the hands of a racist society, must draw the line somewhere. We believe that the black communities of America must rise up as one man to halt the progression of a trend that leads inevitably to their total destruction.



As I said, your concern about pro-rkba opportunism is a valid one. What I'm wondering, though, is what Newton himself might have preferred: genuine goodhearted sympathy from non-bigots, without the right to armed self-defense; or general indifference and enmity -- but with the right to armed self-defense fully intact*.


Mary



*Ah, but what might he prefer now? you ask. Yes, I know that Huey Newton died of gunshot wounds decades after he wrote the statement above. So I meditate on the sad truth that California's gun control laws don't seem to have helped him any...

[MrBenchley]

27. Newton was shot to death in 1989

so California's gun control laws came too late to help him in any way....

Meanwhile, here's Bobby Seale...

"Q: When it formed, the Black Panther Party advocated armed self-defense. At the time, it was legal to carry unconcealed firearms, and Panthers used this tactic as they became community watchdogs, being especially alert to police harassment and brutality. Situations did flare and situations turned violent. How do you think black citizens should monitor police actions today?

A: I suggest communities form personalized video camps. With the proliferation of personal videos, people in the community who see police brutality can use the camera to document it. You don't need a gun. "

http://www.abqtrib.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=BLACKPANTHERS-02-08-04&cat=HR

[slackmaster]

28. Are you saying that California had no gun control in 1989?

Nonsense.

California has had gun control since the 1930s when machine gun registration was enacted on the heels of the National Firearms Act. Waiting periods for handgun purchases have been around since the 1950s. We've had de facto registration of all handguns since 1968, and an "assault weapons ban" since 1989.

The only significant legislation enacted since then would be the drop test for handguns passed in the mid 1990s along with the Handgun Safety Certificate and its predecessor, and a stricter definition of "assault weapon".

I'm sure the upcoming requirements for chamber-loaded indicators and magazine disconnect mechanisms will stop a lot of murders.

:freak:

[NorthernSpy]

31. thank you for the info

I hadn't known about Bobby Seale's current views.


These links go into the issue a little further:

Why did the Panthers carry guns?
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/calheritage/panthers/guns.htm


Why did the Panthers stop carrying guns?
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/calheritage/panthers/notguns.htm


It seems that going about openly armed was adopted as a tactic for a while and abandoned when the costs outweighed the benefits. Seale seems to be talking about choice of tactics here, not about rights and claims of rights. Of course, he may have changed his position on gun rights questions too: I simply don't know.


Mary

[CO Liberal]

37. Fascinating

Such a large number of prominent African-Americans have died from being shot, including the following:

Martin Luthur King, Jr.
Medger Evers
Malcolm X
Huey Newton

Yet some African-Americans still view guns as their salvation....

Quite a paradox.

[demsrule4life]

40. If a bunch of Kluckers came to your house to lynch you what

would you rather be holding in your hand, a nasty assault rifle or your ______? Let you fill in the blank.

[MrBenchley]

41. You mean the "gun rights" KKK?

"The so-called gun control bill enacted by the government is nothing but anti-self defense laws designed to disarm law abiding citizens. The right to own guns as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution must be protected. Gun ownership is NOT a privilege, it’s a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT!!! The Texas Knights work to completely restore the right of all law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms."

http://www.texaskkk.com/platform.htm

Fortunately, shitheels such as the KKK are now reduced to roaming the aisles of gun shows handing out pamphlets rather than riding the night with their guns as they used to...although the gun rights politicans are doing all they can to bring them back. Just about every GOP blowhard of note appeared in the pages of Southern Partisan magazine to puff up its racist agenda, and the unelected drunk just appointed Charlie "cross-burning" Pickering.

[demsrule4life]

42. I cant believe the number of links

that the anti's post from right wing websites.

[MrBenchley]

43. Gee, dems....WE put them up to show what shit they are

not to pretend they're golden words of wisdom.

And it's amazing how many scumbags arein that "gun rights" camp.

[grower]

44. So after the attack of the messenger

What part of the quoted message do you disagree with



"The so-called gun control bill enacted by the government is nothing but anti-self defense laws designed to disarm law abiding citizens. The right to own guns as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution must be protected. Gun ownership is NOT a privilege, it’s a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT!!! The Texas Knights work to completely restore the right of all law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms."



1st sentence is an opinion, get over it

2cnd sentence. Quoting the constitution...very questionable

3rd sentence, mission statement quantifying the first two

[CO Liberal]

45. As Far As I'm Concerned....

...anyone who aligns themselves with the KKK is suspect.

[MrBenchley]

47. Always instructive to see

exactly how far the RKBA crowd will go....

[MrBenchley]

46. I disagree with the whole damn mess

Gun control has nothing to do with disarming law biding citizens. The Constitution doesn't confer an individual right...as the courts have ruled time and time again. And the KKK stands for "all citizens" the way Halliburtonn stands for corporate honesty.

And the KKK, John AshKKKroft and Tom DeLay are all representative of the sort of scum pushing the bogus "gun rights" platform in public....

[slackmaster]

48. You've never shared with us what you DO believe in, Bench

Gun control has nothing to do with disarming law biding citizens.

Your playmates at the VPC would not agree.

The Constitution doesn't confer an individual right...

I'll give you half credit for that one. It doesn't confer ANY rights, just recognizes some of them explicitly in order to protect them.

(red herrings snipped)