From catherine.driscoll at adelaide.edu.au Sun May 23 17:59:34 1999
Jordan replies:
> I think the 2nd was meant to provide strong guidance that in
> the long run, the "cost" of trying to remove the right to
> bear arms is greater than whatever "cost" there is to
> upholding that right.
I think this somewhat strange as it defends a "right" it is
constructing. Or maybe that's not strange at all.
This is not a defense of the right ("right" in the context of the US Constitution needs no defense at all really; "rights" are not conferred upon US citizens, they are merely recognized as such -- the state has no [authorized] power to deprive individuals of their rights); this is just how I see this item being enumerated. That is, it is an explaination of what I think they had in mind when they wrote it. "We hold these truths to be self-evident" is in the preamble; I believe there was never a quesiton in their minds that the right of individuals to bear private arms was self-evident. In fact, the debate largely was focussed on whether to say it or not, not whether each side agreed.
Here's a reasonable summary that I agree with, if it helps:
---
After the Constitution was submitted for ratification in 1787,
political writings and debates in state conventions revealed two
basic positions: the federalist view that a bill of rights was
unnecessary because the proposed government had no positive grant
of power to deprive individuals of rights, and the anti-federalist
contention that a formal declaration would enhance protection of
those rights. On the subject of arms, the federalists promised that
the people, far from ever being disarmed, would be sufficiently
armed to check an oppressive standing army. The anti-federalists
feared that the body or the people as militia would be overpowered
by a select militia of standing army unless there was a specific
recognition of the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Stephen P. Halbrook, ``To Keep and Bear their Private Arms: The
Adoption of the Second Amendment, 1787-1791'' available as
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/haladopt.html
---
> And I also think that a historical analysis of the societies
> which have removed or sharply limited that right have
> supported this view. I think that HCI and the like use a
> "cost" argument to support their idea of removing or sharply
> limiting this right.
I don't know what evidence your citing in support of this
really.
I think I mentioned Nazi Germany and Cambodia as support for the first sentence (the "cost" of sharply limiting access to individual firearms is a sharply increased capability for tyrannical control of the citizenry -- not worth it, in my calculus). First was registration, then came confiscation based on the registration, then came genocide. For support of the second sentence see HCI's home page or a recent edition of the New York Times.
In Australia we have what must be called 'gun control'
and we haven't become a military dictatorship or anything ...
Certainly not yet :)
But the first two items came quickly after each other: registration, then confiscation (with the threat of arrest based on the lists compiled during registration). Time will tell what will happen; perhaps you're happy with your government. Beware if that changes. A decent counter example of course is Northern Ireland, where an unsuccessful attempt to disarm the citizenry has been a significant barrier to British troops attempting to pacify that area.
I'm certainly not making the case that once you disarm a citizenry, tyranny is sure to follow. But I am claiming that in order to be a sucessful tyrant, you most certainly must first disarm the public.
(and I hve heard you argue that arms are needed so that there
is some possibility of organised military action against the
state).
I use that as just one example of "uses" for weapons when people say "there's only one use for a gun" -- in fact I now recall giving you a good half-dozen things to do with a gun that were, as you say, "non-violent." Again, this is not "the justification" -- it is simply another in a list of things that I believe supports the right to bear arms in the US.
As for *actual* use in this way, it's largely not been necessary. But I came up with a good (though perhaps anecdotal) example of a lawful, successful armed uprising against the government: it happened in Tennessee in 1946.
http://users.netonecom.net/~gwood/TLP/ref/tnrevolt.htm http://www.tngenweb.usit.com/newspaper/kns001.htm
Interesting reading, especially as it relates to Al Gore's father's part in all of this ...
But must you actually *use* a right in order for it to deserve protection?
Though at present I would love some defence against our
government I do not believe a bunch of guns would give me any
effective reply to new tax legislation or bad decisions
concerning education funding.
Individual issues, obviously, do not require the use of a weapon. But ultimately the US revolution did come down to items just like these: taxation, representation, and tyrannical control of the population.
But discussing what legislation re gun ownership you prefer is
really about saying I prefer gun ownership ...
I don't think this is the case at all.
I don't see my support of the right to bear arms as necessarily encouraging everyone to do so.
I support the right for individuals to make their own decisions about firearm ownership. Brett, for instance, says he thinks that he's such a bad shot (and likely to be one in teh future) that he's not at all interested in having a gun. I fully support Brett.
I'm not pro-gun; I'm anti-anti-gun.
I think you're presuming that there must be some right to bear
arms clause and are only talking about what it should be.
When you put it that way: yes, I do believe that responsible private ownership of personal arms for the legitimate use in self-defense, in the pursuit of sport and hobby, as a collective (if largely symbolic) back-stop to tyranny, and for any other lawful purpose is just fine with me.
> I also believe that any attempt to sharply limit gun
> ownership in the US will have to deal with the 2nd in some
> way; in fact, it's long overdue for review by the Supremes --
> of course, those who wish to limit this right see a review by
> the Supreme's at this time to be their worst nightmare ...
> that should tell you something already. In the mean time,
> I'm against using the Legislative process (or Executive
> process, for that matter) to undermine the core meaning of
> the 2nd.
If 'the Supremes' just deleted 'the 2nd' (such portentous
phrasing) Jordan, what would be the effect on your society?
Again, I suppose I'm not being clear: the current Supreme Court appears, from many accounts, to believe that the Legislative & Executive branches of the US Government have gone too far in their current attempts to undermine the core meaning of the 2nd. I believe that several times in the past few years, Supreme Court opinions have mentioned parenthetically that they believe a review is warranted and if they could do something about it (they can't; or won't ... technically the Executive "can't" make law, but the Clinton administration does it nearly every day) they would.
They are practically begging for a nice big juicy case to get dropped on their laps so that they could be heard for the first time in decades about this subject.
It's not the Supremes who will 'delete the 2nd' -- it's the Executive and the Legislative. And they will do it bit by bit, so as not to become a big enough target for something that would lead to the Supremes being given the opportunity to review the issue.
You live in Australia, and I don't know kind of protection you had before the recent confiscation laws were passed there; I don't know that your Constitution contained a right to bear arms that the Legislative branch subsequently overrode.
> Put another way: if you're for a national gun/gunowner
> registration database, why aren't you for a national health
> records database?
I don't see how any of the above actually replied to me.
I was probably speaking of the "royal you" -- that is, those who on this list would be apalled at the potential for abuse that a national heath records database would provide.
Who said I wasn't for national health records, I've never been
asked ...
Ok, I'll ask: are you for a national health records database? I'm against it because of the potential for abuse by both the government officially and by the workers within and without the government unofficially who will ultimately have access (legally or not) to such data; the IRS continues to have incidents where their employees have abused taxpayer data, and that's just money. When it comes to health records, I'm downright frightened of what will ensue.
I can't understand why every time some makes an argument
against wide access to guns and/or gun ownership you respond by
citing the constitution -- it doesn't seem like an argument to
me.
It's certainly not "everytime" -- in fact, I don't think I've ever said "we can't outlaw guns because it's Constitutionally guaranteed" ... though I can see how you'd think that was stupid if I did. I've cited many reasons why I'm against this idea of limiting the widespread access to firearms. The biggest reason, I believe, is exactly in response to that effort: it's not an appropriate way to deal with the perceived "problem" ...
But perhaps its because I am somewhat external to the situation
that I notice patterns which seem habitual to all of you --
guns are raised, the constitution is raised, as if two
naturally go together in some way ...
I don't know about "naturally" -- but certainly "legally" in this country they do. I did say before that I don't think this country could/would come anywhere near what has happened in Australia and (most of) the UK without a serious look at the 2nd -- and I don't think that ultimately the citizenry would put up with what happened in Australia. But like I also said, it must be clear to those who are whittliing away bit by bit that to do something so blatant would invite disaster on their agenda.
as if amending the constitution is the only way to talk about
access to guns, as if any question about guns or gun ownership
is automatically a desire to rip up the constitution, or as if
(and I see this in your posts most of all) citation of the
constitution was a reply to arguments about use of guns.
I think you're exaggerating, and I'd like you to cite me saying that even just once before you accuse me of it again.
Thanks,
/jordan