RSS 2.0 FeedLiberal Law Professor Admits Second Amendment Protects An Individual Right To Own Guns
by Doug MataconisJonathan Turley is a law professor at George Washington University and known in legal circles as a liberal legal scholar.
Which makes his recent USA Today column about the Second Amendment so interesting:
Principle is a terrible thing, because it demands not what is convenient but what is right. It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment begins with a reference to militias: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.
Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.
More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.
Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.
Gee Professor, what took you so long ?
I agree that the Second Amendment grants gun ownership rights to all persons — which is why I think we need a new amendment to the Constitution restricting gun ownership rights. There’s no good reason why anybody should have a right to own a howitzer, an automatic weapon, or even a pistol. I believe that the only good reason for gun ownership is for purposes of hunting — and that should be restricted to single-shot rifles.
The purpose of law is to protect people. Guns have a net negative effect on public safety. Yes, they have been shown to protect life in some cases. They have also been shown to endanger life in many more cases. It’s pretty simple logic — but somehow I fear that such simple logic will be lost upon those who identify guns with manhood.
I now gird my loins for the onslaught of the dogmatists…
If it could be demonstrated that guns save more lives than they take, I’d be all for them. I’m not dogmatic on this issue (as most people are). But I look at the statistics and I conclude that we’d be better off without them.
Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 5, 2007 @ 12:08 pmChepe,
I will respectfully disagree with you. You wrote, “The purpose of the law is to protect people.” That is what government is about, but in situation after situation, when government bans guns, more people get hurt. There is a difference between banning guns and making guns non-existent. By that I mean, if City A bans guns but guns are available in nearby City B (either purchased through a license of City B or bought on the street), guns really won’t disappear from City A.
Guns are merely a tool for people’s intentions. If we somehow miraculously created the most air-tight anti-gun area and could realistically eliminate guns, people who want to kill would find another weapon, be it a carving knife from the kitchen or a stick from the middle of the woods. A number of anti-gun people don’t like the idea of the phrase, “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people,” but that is what is the ultimate idea.
I do not identify guns with manhood. Guns are simply a tool used for some purpose. For some people, that is shooting deer for venison stew; for others, that is shooting the guy who stole their drugs. Remember, if guns are truly the evil influence that gun-control advocates say they are, shouldn’t we be banning the police from having them and submitting to “evil” thoughts?
Comment by trumpetbob15 — October 5, 2007 @ 12:23 pmChepe,
Actually, Peter Bagge disagrees with you.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/121979.html
As do I and anyone else who cares about maintaining our freedom. I’m not currently a gun owner, but I consider the right to own a gun absolutely essential to keeping our government in check. Allowing the government to take away our freedom to resist is the last step towards allowing our government to strip us of every other freedom.
Comment by UCrawford — October 5, 2007 @ 12:30 pmtrumpetbob, you write, “in situation after situation, when government bans guns, more people get hurt.”
If you’ve got solid data to back this up, then I’ll be happy to support handguns for personal protection. I certainly agree that banning guns at the municipal or county level will accomplish little. It might accomplish a bit at the state level (I’ve seen a few studies to that effect). But the big unknown here is what would happen if guns were restricted at the Federal level. We have lots of statistics on what guns do, and from what I’ve seen, it appears that the number of lives saved by guns is less than the number of lives taken.
As to the old “people kill people” argument, I suggest that this is black-and-white thinking, when we should be thinking in shades of grey. Yes, a determined murderer will find a way to kill somebody. But it’s a great deal more work to kill somebody with a knife than with a gun. You have to get up close, face to face, and stab them repeatedly — and stabbing deep takes effort; the knife doesn’t just slip into their chest.
The big factor here is accidental deaths. In a gun accident, there’s no intention at all; it truly is a case of a gun, not a person, killing somebody.
Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 5, 2007 @ 12:35 pmChepe,
You don’t agree with the “people kill people” argument? Fine…why don’t we get together, slap a gun down on a table and see who it kills first?
Comment by UCrawford — October 5, 2007 @ 12:38 pmOh, yes, the arguement that an armed citizenry can fight back. There are two things wrong with this:
1. A citizenry armed with muskets was just as well-armed as a government with soldiers armed with muskets. But a citizenry armed with rifles and pistols stands no chance whatever against a modern army with tanks and planes and artillery.
2. The right way to control the government is with a strong rule of law, not guns. Citizens gotta vote, people gotta argue, and everybody’s gotta follow the rules. We’re pretty good on this point, so what’s the need for military backup?
Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 5, 2007 @ 12:41 pmUCrawford, when you write “Fine…why don’t we get together, slap a gun down on a table and see who it kills first?”
you ignore the context in which I was making my point: gun accidents. Surely you don’t deny the numbers here?
Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 5, 2007 @ 12:42 pmAs for the “accidents”, I suppose that also means we should ban knives, cars, motorcycles, lawn mowers, electricity, fire, very large rocks and pretty much anything else that could conceiveably cause a death. Stupid murdering inert objects…how dare they endanger our lives like that.
Comment by UCrawford — October 5, 2007 @ 12:42 pmChepe,
So you’re saying that in the case of gun “accidents”, the gun achieves sentience, loads itself and attempts to murder others?
Comment by UCrawford — October 5, 2007 @ 12:44 pmAs to your examples my rebuttals are:
1) The American Revolution, Vietnam, Iraq…all examples of a militarily inferior opponent overcoming a militarily superior one through armed resistance.
2) Those are the words of every single dictator who has ever disarmed his populace.
Both of these points were also addressed by Bagge.
Comment by UCrawford — October 5, 2007 @ 12:47 pmUCrawford, I don’t know why you’re pressing these ridiculous arguements regarding gun accidents. If you refuse to see any difference between murder and accidents, that’s your problem; I won’t attempt to reveal something to elementary to you.
And your point about other causes of accidental death is another case of black-and-white thinking. Yes, there are plenty of things that accidentally kill people. We as a society weigh the costs and benefits of each. Automobiles kill thousands of people every year, but they also provide enormous benefits, and we as a society judge that the benefits exceed the costs. We should apply the same calculation to guns. What are the benefits and what are the costs? The benefits are as follows:
1. People enjoy hunting with guns.
2. Some people are protected from crime by guns.
3. Many people feel safer with a gun.
4. Some guys love guns because guns are macho.
Against this we have the costs:
1. People murdered with guns.
2. People injured in gun crimes.
3. People killed in gun accidents.
4. People injured in gun accidents.
Now, do the benefits exceed the costs? In my opinion, no.
Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 5, 2007 @ 12:54 pmChepe,
I don’t have solid data on what would happen if a country fully banned guns because it has never been tried. No matter what, for some reason, the government always lets its soldiers and police carry them. If we are looking to reduce accidents, then let us look at Britain? They have banned guns, but don’t people still get shot somehow?
I will also disagree with you that just because guns kill people, they should be banned. Like UCrawford, I can easily come up with a list of “dangerous” objects. Actually, in response to the knife being a close attack, what about knives being thrown? Or rocks? Do we ban sling shots then because those can kill at a distance?
My main disagreement is with the idea of a strong rule of law. That actually is the reason for the 2nd Amendment in the first place. The Founding Fathers feared a strong government, ruling without the will of the people. I agree that it would be pretty hard to fight a modern army with just handguns and rifles, but remember we are currently in that type of situation in Iraq and Vietnam was a similar scenario.
There are no shades of gray. A determined killer will kill. It might make it more difficult if we ban guns, but then again, we could make it more difficult still if we banned knives in kitchens. So what causes us to draw the line? Why are guns so special? What is it about a gun that shuts people’s brains off? If the purpose is to avoid accidents, then we should ban every other item that causes death and maiming through accidents (cars, chain saws, hockey skates, etc). If you have an answer to that, I would like to hear it because I am stumped.
Comment by trumpetbob15 — October 5, 2007 @ 1:00 pmIf we allowed for true cost/benefit analysis, this would be a much different world.
Comment by trumpetbob15 — October 5, 2007 @ 1:01 pmActually, trumpetbob, there is a lot of data showing that gun deaths are much lower in countries that ban guns, such as Britain. Most of these countries don’t actually ban guns, they restrict their use. For example, in Britain, guns can be owned by registered gun clubs, the members of which go to the clubhouse to check out the gun and use it on the target range.
I will also disagree with you that just because guns kill people, they should be banned.
Again, see my previous argument about black-and-white thinking.
My main disagreement is with the idea of a strong rule of law.
Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with the phrase “rule of law”. It applies to a society in the government obeys the law. Now, no government obeys the law fully — there are always abuses. In fact, the USA comes out lower on the league tables of rule of law than the Scandinavian countries. Certainly the entire thrust of the Bush Administration has been an attack on the principle of the rule of law. And so citizens must insist upon strict observance to the rule of law. The fact that American citizens are not besieging Congress to fight back against the Bush Administration bodes ill for our Republic.
Iraq and Vietnam aren’t quite analogous because in both cases the insurgency is based upon outside support, without which it would surely wither. Yes, the American citizenry could mount a decent insurgeny — IF it were getting weapons shipments through Canada or Mexico. Otherwise, forget it.
There are no shades of gray. A determined killer will kill.
Yes, but how many killers are determined? How many deaths result from an instant of anger? How many are due to the calculation that “if I don’t shoot him first, he’ll shoot me.”? There’s plenty of grey here.
You are repeating the black-and-white arguement about guns causing accidental deaths. Please re-read my response to this arguement regarding costs and benefits.
Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 5, 2007 @ 1:14 pmChepe,
I’d argue that your position is the one that makes no difference between murders and accidents and that the murder/accident argument is irrelevant to a discussion on gun control. A gun is an inert object, no different from a car, a match, or a knife. The only time that those objects kill other people is when somebody uses them in a way that does so. And the individual who commits the killing is the one responsible, not the tool. The murder/accident argument is therefore only applicable to the individual, not the tool he used. Fundamental enough for you?
As to your examples, they’re simplistic, subjective and non-quantitative, therefore not useful in a serious cost-analysis. But if you want to go down that road, my response is that we have individual rights to possess guns and as a result live in a more or less free society. Our Founding Fathers explicitly stated that gun ownership was a means for us to keep our government in check. Every totalitarian country you could name practices strict gun control (North Korea, pre-war Iraq, Iran, Soviet Union, et al) so frankly I consider the risk of turning into them a hell of a lot worse than the current situation.
I like the idea that if a criminal is thinking about breaking into my home, somewhere in the back of his mind is the thought that I might be packing heat, and that if he decides to follow through and does something that endangers my life I have the ability to remove him from the planet. And I like the idea that if I’m mugged on a street by somebody who’s armed and thinks it might be a good idea to finish me off, I have the right to fire back.
Hell, I even like the Darwinian aspect of guns…the idea that if somebody is so stupid that they leave a loaded gun under their bed for their kid to find and play with, that there’s a good chance their tainted contribution to the gene pool will quickly be removing itself from the earth. My parents owned guns, my friends hunted, I grew up in a household and a community where gun safety was taught and emphasized, and if I ever buy a gun I’m damn sure making sure I know how to properly use it and that it’s secured. If someone else can’t be bothered to exhibit the same respect I could honestly care less how many of them die because I consider it addition by subtraction. When it comes to guns and gun safety, one of the first things you learn is that there’s no such thing as an “accidental” shooting. If you kill someone with a gun it’s either because you meant to do so or because you were negligent. Thus the blame falls on the individual, not the tool.
Read Bagge’s cartoon…it debunks every gun control argument effectively.
Comment by UCrawford — October 5, 2007 @ 1:16 pmTrumpetbob,
They’ve actually got quite a few problems with gun violence in England. The news was filled with stories about shootings that happened down in Nottingham about the time I left. All of the guns were, of course, owned by criminals.
And let’s not even get into the subject of Britain’s screwy home invasion laws.
Comment by UCrawford — October 5, 2007 @ 1:19 pmUCrawford points out:
1) The American Revolution, Vietnam, Iraq…all examples of a militarily inferior opponent overcoming a militarily superior one through armed resistance.
As I noted earlier, in each case the insurgency succeeded ONLY because of external involvement. If we do revolt against our government, then who will support our revolution? China? What do you think they’ll want in return?
2) Those are the words of every single dictator who has ever disarmed his populace.
There are dictators who did not disarm their populace and dictators who did. The Burmese have no effective gun control laws, and look what the Burmese army did to the protesters. This arguement doesn’t cut either way and so is useless.
You have not addressed my point that the better way to control the government is through political action by the citizens. Aren’t you being paranoid?
Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 5, 2007 @ 1:19 pmAnd we don’t need weapons shipments through Canada or Mexico to fight our government. We’re already armed.
The problem with your argument, Chepe, is that you have faith in the government to do the right thing as long as government’s filled with the “right” kind of people. I don’t believe that the “right” kind of people exist, so I don’t trust government enough to give up my rights to resist.
As for your “rule of law” argument, tell it to the Native Americans. Our Supreme Court ruled that our land seizures were illegal but President Jackson decided that he didn’t have to abide by the laws. And since the Indians were subject to gun control laws that we imposed on them and the federal government chose not to enforce the Court’s decision the Native Americans lost their property, their way of life, and often their lives.
I’ll trust in the fairness created by an armed society before I’ll trust the integrity of the “right” kind of people when it comes to my freedom.
Comment by UCrawford — October 5, 2007 @ 1:28 pmOK, let’s drag out some numbers here. Here’s my source.
Gun deaths per 100,000 population:
USA 10.5
Canada 3.3
Switzerland 6.3
Scotland 0.4
England & Wales 0.3
Japan 0.1
The correlation between gun ownership and deaths by gun is strongly established the world over. So let’s get this straight: more guns means more gun deaths. It’s a pretty simple concept, patently obvious to the most casual thinker, and strongly supported by the data. OK?
we have individual rights to possess guns and as a result live in a more or less free society.
Whoa! Where do you get that causality? That’s really a non-sequitur! There are lots of countries that are even freer than ours in other respects yet have few guns.
You argue that negligence is indistinguishable from criminal intent. That’s not how the rest of the world sees it. Most people apply shades-of-grey thinking and acknowledge negligence that leads to injury to be a lesser crime than actual infliction of injury.
I am surprised that you see no need to protect children from the negligence of their parents. Do you oppose laws against parental neglect?
Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 5, 2007 @ 1:36 pmChepe,
1) So you’re saying that in any future revolution it’s impossible for us to get outside help and therefore we should just give up our arms?
2) A link on the gun control laws in Burma (via a quick Google search): http://www.volokh.com/posts/1191485792.shtml
As for my paranoia, yes, I am paranoid because I’m a student of history, I’ve traveled the world, and I’ve seen and read of many examples of people who trusted in the benevolence of their government only to end up impoverished or as slaves. So when it comes to insuring my freedom I’ll trust in my paranoia and my guns before our leaders’ promises.
Comment by UCrawford — October 5, 2007 @ 1:37 pmAnd, no, I said that the difference between criminal intent and negligence had nothing to do with the gun, only with the person wielding it. And that whenever someone shoots a person with a gun, it’s not because the gun chose to fire itself.
Comment by UCrawford — October 5, 2007 @ 1:41 pmAnd we don’t need weapons shipments through Canada or Mexico to fight our government. We’re already armed.
No insurgency in the last hundred years has succeeded without foreign assistance. Your belief in the ability of the American people to overthrow a despotic government is not supported by the evidence. Besides, whatever makes you believe that enough Americans would join your revolution? If they’re not brave enough to vote out the Bush Administration, why on earth do you think they’d be brave enough to fight it with guns?
The problem with your argument, Chepe, is that you have faith in the government to do the right thing as long as government’s filled with the “right” kind of people.
No, I believe that a politically active citizenry can keep the government honest. Our citizenry has certainly lost a great deal of its vigilance of late, but again, if they won’t rein in the Bush Administration with the ballot box, why do you think they’d be willing to do it with guns?
Yes, our government has fallen short of the rule of law. That’s why we need citizens to throw out the rascals and insist on a strict respect for the law. And again, if they won’t do it politically, they certainly won’t attempt it violently.
Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 5, 2007 @ 1:43 pmSo you’re saying that in any future revolution it’s impossible for us to get outside help and therefore we should just give up our arms?
No, I’m saying that outside help is unlikely, and if it comes, it may well be founded on ulterior motives not conducive to our interests. The Germans assisted the October Revolution because they wanted Russia to drop out of the war (it worked.)
) A link on the gun control laws in Burma (via a quick Google search): http://www.volokh.com/posts/1191485792.shtml
I wrote “no EFFECTIVE gun control laws”. There are a number of armed insurgencies under way in Burma and they have guns. What’s keeping them down is the refusal of other countries to provide support.
As for your paranoia, I don’t think it’s justified. Study the history of the American republic. At no time has any government contemplated the destruction of the Constitution. That is simply inconceivable in this country. The worst we have ever had were a few incidents in the early years and the Bush Administration’s whittling away at the Constitution — and even that will likely be reversed in coming years.
Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 5, 2007 @ 1:50 pmA different argument for the right to bear arms…
Comment by js290 — October 5, 2007 @ 2:26 pmChepe –
I think you vastly underestimate the “whittling away” at the Constitution by confining it just to the Bush administration. If one were to look at the kind of government contemplated by the Constitution and compare it to what we have today, it would be clear that the whittling has gone on for a long, long time.
Comment by Quincy — October 5, 2007 @ 2:27 pmChepe,
Guns laws are preventative regulations designed to stop tragedies that are the result of either owner negligence or criminal activity. In the case of owner negligence, the way to stop it is to impose punitive measures against those who accidentally kill people. In the case of criminal activity the solution is to impose punitive measures for the crimes those individuals are committing. In neither case is the outlawing of guns right because in the case of the negligent people you’re also punishing responsible gun owners who have done nothing wrong and in the case of criminal activities, criminals don’t give a shit about the laws and you’re giving them the added advantage of disarming their victims.
You want to claim that Burma has no effective gun laws? It’s a ridiculous argument because there is no such thing as an effective gun law, unless the purpose of a gun law is to punish the responsible and the law-abiding by disarming them. In the case of Burma, the guns laws are effective because it’s entirely at the government’s discretion which groups they choose to disarm…and as we’ve seen the ones who generally get disarmed are those who the people running the government don’t like. Thus, the government’s been able to create a repressive, dictatorship because those who oppose it have limited means to do so.
As for the power of the vote to rectify our problems with government, democracy without restraints is simply mob rule. What prevents the majority from voting away the rights of the minority in our country is not our ability to vote but the ability of the minority to violently resist when the majority-backed government comes for their property and their freedoms. Self-defense is a fundamental human right, and you’ll forgive me if I don’t throw my right away because of the short-sighted willingness of the panic-mongerers who think the government can control our lives better than we can.
Comment by UCrawford — October 5, 2007 @ 3:04 pmjs290, thanks for that link — the guy provides an interesting argument. I don’t think it’s compelling, but it’s certainly interesting.
Quincy, yes, the Constitution has been whittled down for a long time, and responsibility for this can be attributed to a great many politicians. I referred to the Bush Administration’s excesses in this regard only because they are current and because they are more far-reaching than previous assaults.
Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 5, 2007 @ 3:05 pmjs290,
Interesting link…the fact that disarming ourselves means entrusting the police (who are often underfunded, undermanned, and therefore unresponsive) to protect us is yet another reason I love the 2nd Amendment.
Chepe,
Did you read the Bagge cartoon I linked to?
Comment by UCrawford — October 5, 2007 @ 3:07 pmChepe,
As for argument that nobody ever attempted to destroy the Constitution, I’d say that FDR’s tenure in office discredits that position. The New Deal, Social Security, Lend-Lease, all of these were un-Constitutional. Thank God the miserable sonofabitch died when he did, otherwise we’d have ended up with this crap that would have effectively destroyed our country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rights
It’s little wonder that my grandparents hated the guy so much.
Comment by UCrawford — October 5, 2007 @ 3:53 pmDid you read the Bagge cartoon I linked to?
Yes, and it’s a funny comic strip, but I normally prefer to get my information on Constitutional issues from, shall we say, more reliable sources than comic strips.
As for FDR, he did a lot of things that were questionable, but to suggest that he destroyed the Constitution is wild hyperbole. The Constitution is still very much alive and even, I daresay, healthy — although its health has certainly declined with the years.
Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 5, 2007 @ 4:17 pmIf you dismiss a political argument simply because it’s in graphic or satirical form, then I’d say you’re exercising nothing more than a form of intellectual snobbery and willful ignorance. And I see no reason to take anything you say seriously considering your own tendency to offer thoroughly unsubstantiated opinions backed by often flawed and ridiculous analysis. Bagge’s a respected political cartoonist. You’re just a guy on the net who seems to think that the Constitution doesn’t mean anything. Frankly, I don’t think Bagge’s the one lacking credibility here.
And if you honestly think what FDR did wasn’t a blatant attempt to undermine the very basis of the Constitution itself (especially considering his court-packing attempt when the Supreme Court threatened to rule against him) then you have no clue what you’re talking about when you discuss freedom and our Constitution.
http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria10_4.html
Comment by UCrawford — October 5, 2007 @ 4:30 pmLook, Bagge’s a political cartoonist, not an analyst. He’s not presenting a reasoned case. His strip is full of silly innuendo, like the crook in the background of that last panel. If you truly want to discuss his cartoon seriously, I’ll be happy to do so, but you’d better be prepared to defend such things as the type of shirt the crook is wearing.
you have no clue what you’re talking about when you discuss freedom and our Constitution.
Oh, lordy, here we go again with the accusations of stupidity. I suppose you can tell me what courses I have taken on Constitutional law, what grades I got in them, what books I have read, what cases I have read, and so forth. Go ahead and reveal it to everybody — just how stupid am I?
Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 5, 2007 @ 4:47 pmFunny, for being someone who claims to have studied the Constitution you don’t seem to have much of a grasp of the history of and reasons for the Bill of Rights. So was it the teacher’s fault for doing a bad job, or was this one of those mail-in schools where their other degrees were locksmithing and home television repair?
Bagge’s a cartoonist, not an analyst? So only the “right” kind of people can offer logical arguments and analysis, and people who express themselves graphically aren’t among them? I guess that means nobody should have taken Thomas Nast seriously when he did his campaign to take down the corruption at Tammany Hall ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Nast ). Perhaps we should only listen to the opinions of people who’ve been around politics most of their lives, graduated from the most reputable schools, and gotten MBAs from Harvard ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_w._bush ). Political cartoonists never have anything useful to add. People who express themselves through are pointless dreamers who don’t have anything useful or relevant to add to society ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_vinci ). We should only listen to analysts who have the approval of our trustworthy government…like the brilliant and insightful people on Fox News. Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly are much more insightful than any of those libertarian pussies over at Reason Magazine.
To answer your question, Chepe, if you honestly trust the people who run our government to do the right thing with our freedoms when we have no power to oppose them if they take them away, you’re about as stupid as they come. Sorry…but you asked, and anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of history has seen how that line of thinking usually plays out.
Not that it matters. The government can pass all the rules it wants to try and take our guns away. But I pity the poor police officers who have to knock on doors to try and enforce those laws. It’s just not going to happen…not without a lot of bloodshed and probably open revolt. Guns are here to stay, regardless of how the revisionists try to mangle the Constitution.
Comment by UCrawford — October 5, 2007 @ 5:54 pmFunny, for being someone who claims to have studied the Constitution you don’t seem to have much of a grasp of the history of and reasons for the Bill of Rights.
Golly gee, I must be the greatest idiot on the planet. You sure are smart, Mr. UCrawford, and I’m just a big dummy. Yessirree!
OK, now that we’ve gotten your ego stroked, let’s turn to something serious.
OK, you want to discuss Mr. Bagge’s work seriously, I’m happy to do so.
On Page One of this serious analysis, one character asserts that the significance of the Second Amendment to the Constitution is that “it means that we have the right to violently overthrow the government if necessary, but that would be pretty hard to do without guns.”
Please cite any item from the Federalist Papers or the Federalist Farmer or any person involved in writing the Constitution to justify this claim.
I’ll wait until you answer this question before proceeding to page Two.
Political cartoonists never have anything useful to add.
You wrote that, not I. Political cartoonists are great for entertainment purposes, and they often capture the essence of a situation more clearly than anybody else. But if you want to argue by slinging cartoons back and forth, why do even bother using anything so cumbersome as reason? Why not just paste links to cartoons and leave it at that?
Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly are much more insightful than any of those libertarian pussies over at Reason Magazine.
Wow! I didn’t realize that you had such extreme views! I myself don’t think much of those fellows.
if you honestly trust the people who run our government to do the right thing with our freedoms when we have no power to oppose them if they take them away, you’re about as stupid as they come.
I take it you believe that we have the power to oppose them now. But I have already pointed out (and you have not answered this point) that, if the citizenry is not concerned enough to vote the rascals out of office, then they’re certainly not going to be courageous enough to take up arms against the government. Your chances of success against the Federal government are about as great as those of any wacko who gets surrounded by the cops and tries to shoot their way out. Good luck, smart guy.
anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of history has seen how that line of thinking usually plays out.
I see. So tell me, what do you think of the impact of the flow of silver from Europe to the Orient during the early centuries of the previous millenium? Was the net decrease of specie in the West a contributing factor to the development of science and technology via metallurgy?
And while you’re at it, perhaps you could explain to me your take on the dispute between Erasmus and Luther on the nature of free will. That certainly was a tricky fight, wasn’t it?
Do you think that the Dark Ages that marked the end of the Bronze Age were ultimately attributable to the migration of steppe nomads, or was it more likely due to conditions that were confined to the Eastern Mediterranean? And what do you think of the controversy regarding the simultaneity or sequentiality of the collapse of the Mycenaen and Minoan cultures?
Getting more to the point regarding Constitutional history, who do you think had a greater effect on Madison’s thinking: Rousseau or Plato?
Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 5, 2007 @ 8:58 pmChepe,
At least you’re able to admit it…that’s the first step on the road to recovery. Now, to your requests:
1) James Madison made reference in the Federalist Papers, No. 46 to the importance of an armed American populace and its ability to withstand tyranny (and how the disarmed populace of Europe contributed to their less-free status) when making a case for a federal army. Here’s his full quote:
“Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.”
Bagge also made reference to Madison’s views on the subject in his cartoon…in case you didn’t bother to read that frame.
Comment by UCrawford — October 5, 2007 @ 9:32 pm2) Yup, I did write that…after you claimed that Bagge was a “cartoonist, not an analyst”, thereby implying his opinion was not valid because of his chosen medium. I was mocking your position because it was condescending bullshit with not a lick of truth to it.
3) My Hannity and O’Reilly remarks were meant to be an absurd remark (which even I’m not cynical enough to believe you missed). Considering your reverence for “legitimate” sources I referenced two who work for a network with the stamp of approval of the highest office in the land…who you’ve stated you disagree with. My point being that political commentary is not dependent upon qualification…only the logic of the individual’s argument is relevant. Reason Magazine’s opinions are, in my opinion, more valid (because they’re better researched and documented) than 90% of what you’ll see on Fox. But they don’t appear to have any official qualifications making their opinions more valid and they don’t have the government’s approval. So my comment was designed to illustrate the absurdity of your condescension when I referenced an article from Reason.
4) Yes, we have the ability to oppose the government now and as long as we have our guns we always will. That’s why I argue for keeping them. And as I stated earlier, individual ownership of firearms is also a guarantor of freedom against a tyranny of the majority. Thus Benjamin Franklin’s comment about democracy being two wolves and a lamb arguing over what to have for dinner while our constitutional republic is an armed lamb contesting the vote. People with only a shallow comprehension of freedom believe that a vote makes you free. Democracy unbound by constitutional limits guaranteeing freedoms that the majority of voters cannot vote away is simply mob rule.
5) As I recall, the flow of silver to the Orient was a factor more of trade imbalance regarding British importation tea than anything else. I assume of course that you’re referring to the trade issues preceding the Opium Wars, which were ultimately resolved by British violations of Chinese soveriegnty (to which I would have been opposed). Or if not, what the fuck do I care and how is it relevant to the price of tea in China? As for Erasmus v. Luther, I’m more of a John Stuart Mill/Adam Smith adherent myself. I think Europe’s Dark Ages were brought on by their economic devotion to feudalism (and its dampening effect on worker effort and productivity) and were ended by the evolution of mankind towards advancements in international trade and new technologies which had much to do with their forays into the Middle East during the Crusades. As for Madison, his influences were less relevant than the intention behind the document he helped draft. The document which you apparently have little interest in preserving, which begs the question of why you’d waste your time arguing on a libertarian site with a libertarian who’s never going to buy into your statist approach toward individual liberty.
Any relevant points you’d like to offer or are you wedded to the idea of throwing out obscure red herrings to compensate for the pain inflicted by me calling you stupid? There was nothing personal about it…you asked a question which I answered. Which seems to demonstrate that you probably shouldn’t ask questions to which you don’t really want to hear the answers.
Comment by UCrawford — October 5, 2007 @ 9:59 pmPerhaps you need to re-read Madison’s statement more carefully. He made it very explicit that the value of the armed militia was for the state governments to resist the federal government, not for the citizens to resist their governments:
“the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.”
Thus, he’s not at all supporting your fantasy case of citizens prosecuting an insurgency against the government, but instead of the state government resisting the federal government.
So, do you have a citation that supports your claims?
Reason Magazine’s opinions are, in my opinion, more valid (because they’re better researched and documented) than 90% of what you’ll see on Fox.
I’m not talking about Reason Magazine. I’m talking about a comic strip. I asked for research regarding one of its claims and you haven’t been able to provide it. If that comic strip is so well researched, why can’t you find the source of its claim?
So my comment was designed to illustrate the absurdity of your condescension when I referenced an article from Reason.
And you have done nothing to demonstrate that this comic strip offers anything like a reasoned argument.
Yes, we have the ability to oppose the government now and as long as we have our guns we always will.
Give me one example of a citizen successfully using his gun to resist the federal government. Just one example! From anytime in the 200+ year history of the federal government. The Whisky Rebellion? John Brown? The Civil War? Guess what — they all lost. If nobody has ever been successful before, why do you think you can be successful armed with your popgun? Are you going to stand in the middle of the street at high noon and face down an Abrams tank?
As I recall, the flow of silver to the Orient was a factor more of trade imbalance regarding British importation tea
Good lord, you didn’t even read what I wrote. I asked about:
the flow of silver from Europe to the Orient during the early centuries of the previous millenium?
Let me make it a little easier for you:
the flow of silver from Europe to the Orient DURING THE EARLY CENTURIES OF THE PREVIOUS MILLENIUM?
Do you think that the Opium Wars took place during the early centuries of the previous millenium? Were the British sailing gunboats up the Yangtze in 1200 AD? Perhaps you need to check your chronology — they didn’t have gunboats back then…
what the fuck do I care and how is it relevant to the price of tea in China?
Ah, but you were telling us previously that
anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of history has seen how that line of thinking usually plays out.
This suggests that you think that you have at least a rudimentary grasp of history. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) Now you’re saying “what the fuck do I care about history?” Make up your mind!
As for Erasmus v. Luther, I’m more of a John Stuart Mill/Adam Smith adherent myself.
So you don’t know anything about that, either. OK, Mr. Student of History.
I think Europe’s Dark Ages were brought on by their economic devotion to feudalism (and its dampening effect on worker effort and productivity)
Oh really? So the Volkerwanderung (look it up) had nothing to do with the descent into the Dark Ages? How surprising — you should write a book about it — I’m sure that historians the world over would be astounded to learn that they’ve been so wrong all this time.
I found this comment particularly ironic:
(and its dampening effect on worker effort and productivity)
Many historians pinpoint the dependence of classical civilization on slavery as one of its fundamental economic weaknesses. The feudal system actually gave MORE freedom and responsibility to the workers than slavery had, which is one reason why, once the barbarians stopped stomping all over the place, the European economy started to slowly recover. But you already knew that, didn’t you?
Dark Ages…were ended by the evolution of mankind towards advancements in international trade
Oh, it was just “evolution”. It just kinda sort evolved into being, eh? The Champagne fairs and the Venetians just sorta went along for the ride?
new technologies which had much to do with their forays into the Middle East during the Crusades.
I see — new technologies like the heavy wheeled plow, the stirrup, geared clocks, water mills, large ship construction, better systems for pumping water out of mines, crop rotation systems, improvements in breeding of domesticated animals, and casting of large iron pieces — these were all imported from the Middle East? No, I don’t think so (although I think that the lateen sail and the windmill were imports from the Middle East.)
As for Madison, his influences were less relevant than the intention behind the document he helped draft.
Oh really? So understanding his education and thought processes is not relevant to understanding the Constitution he wrote? Yeah, right…
I’m sorry to have humiliated you by exposing your ignorance so tellingly, but I hope you’ve learned your lesson: concentrate on the issues, not the people. If you start slinging about accusations that other people are stupid, you might end up being squashed like a bug. If you just stick to the facts and issues, this won’t happen again.
Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 5, 2007 @ 11:35 pmOh, I meant to comment on this statement of yours, too:
why you’d waste your time arguing on a libertarian site with a libertarian who’s never going to buy into your statist approach toward individual liberty
I understand quite well that I’m not likely to convince you of anything — you strike me as being quite immune to reason (although I could be wrong here — I don’t really know you.) But my purpose here isn’t to convince you, it’s to discredit you. To show other readers just how easily your arguments and bullying collapse when confronted with reason and truth. If you really want to render me impotent, stick to the facts, don’t resort to name-calling, and keep your arguments tight. That’s the only way you can beat me. Are you up to the challenge?
Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 5, 2007 @ 11:47 pmChepe,
The day I worry about an anonymous gun-phobic, anti-Constitutionalist discrediting me on a site called “The Liberty Papers” is the day I will officially give up on the future of the human race.
But in the interest of mending fences, here’s a site that claims it can cure you of that hoplophobia of yours: http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=5586:1603
Best of luck on the road to recovery.
Comment by UCrawford — October 6, 2007 @ 1:16 amYou continue your name-calling, but you offer nothing of substance. No facts, no arguments, no discussion — just name-calling. And you seem to think that truth is dependent upon location. If this were a right-wing blog, would you be discredited? A left-wing blog? A Catholic blog? A biology blog? Do you think that other libertarians are just as adamant in refusing to acknowledge truth as you are?
Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 6, 2007 @ 9:51 am