rickyp wrote:So that police officers and federal agents always need fear that the person they are encountering has decided that today is the day he stands up to tyrrany. (What he has delusionally thought was tyranny)

This is inherent in police work. No cop can approach anyone and assume the person is unarmed and non-combative. That doesn't mean you prone everyone out. It does mean as soon as you start to believe you are safe, you will be dead.

How does absolute gun control work? If we could ban guns entirely, would criminals get them? Should Americans be forced to count on the police to protect them from criminals and other threats (predatory animals, etc.)?

That might be a Worker's Paradise, but it isn't America.

Steve, you think that police forces in the rest of the world don't have to figure this stuff out already?

And who is asking for a complete ban on guns? Not even ricky seems to be advocating that, just a lot more control. Straw man alert!

rickyp wrote:The anti-Federalists lost most of the votes in the Constitutional congress Tom. And yet its they who most of the quotations you rely upon come from.

Here's your problem: it wasn't JUST Shays Rebellion that brought about the new Constitution. As my previous post explained, there were a multitude of problems with the AoC. Your analysis is a bit like a doctor pointing to a hangnail when a patient has cancer. Shays rebellion was the hangnail. The inability of the federal government to do anything, including funding itself, enforcing anything on the States, etc., were the issues.

Only left-wing nuts think the Second Amendment was written to protect the government.

danivon wrote:Steve, you think that police forces in the rest of the world don't have to figure this stuff out already?

I never said that. Straw man alert!

And who is asking for a complete ban on guns? Not even ricky seems to be advocating that, just a lot more control. Straw man alert!

What he is asking for are "controls" that violate the 2nd Amendment and would do no good--like his "gun insurance" idea. Or, his insistence that it was guns that enabled Hasan.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Steve, you think that police forces in the rest of the world don't have to figure this stuff out already?

I never said that. Straw man alert!

Erm, I was answering your point, I wasn't saying that you'd said that other nations police forces had not had to think about it. I just wonder whether you might find it interesting to see how others deal with the issues you raise. Thus, not a straw man (if you want to play the game of pointing out logical fallacies, at least make sure you know what they are)

And who is asking for a complete ban on guns? Not even ricky seems to be advocating that, just a lot more control. Straw man alert!

What he is asking for are "controls" that violate the 2nd Amendment and would do no good--like his "gun insurance" idea. Or, his insistence that it was guns that enabled Hasan.

No, he is saying that the easy availability of guns enabled Hasan (and Loughner). I am sure that the gun control he would advocate would indeed be hard to fit with the 2nd Amendment. But you specifically talked about absolute control and a complete ban on guns.

danivon wrote:Erm, I was answering your point, I wasn't saying that you'd said that other nations police forces had not had to think about it.

Except this is not what I said. You muddled the second paragraph with the first, thus creating something I never intended. So, yes, a straw man.

Ricky how incredibly dense can you be?
As stated, you can argue all sorts of other reasons but the reason is there as plain as day. He is attempting to explain the situation of the time to dense people such as yourself. This along with the many quotes is a freaking mountain of evidence that you so effortlessly ignore. Please oh please enlighten me with FACTS how you are correct. So far I have given facts that you don't care for, you gave nothing but opinions.

There is absolutely zero evidence of your guesswork,it is what you want to believe, you continue to harp on the legality of an insurrection yet ignore what the framers had to say about it, better yet you ignore they themselves broke the law to rebel against England...how freaking dense are you?

Ricky, I stated facts, I showed evidence, I spelled out the history and thinking of the time. I am correct until you can provide something other than your opinion. Can you show some evidence of your ignorant position that you seem to know oh so much about. Until you can refute the facts with facts of your own, not just guesswork (even in the global warming thread we have facts debated, not simply a guess) until you can refute the facts, your opinions are garbage.
Or better yet, your opinions stated as fact are garbage, your opinions should be stated as just that, opinion.

steve

Here's your problem: it wasn't JUST Shays Rebellion that brought about the new Constitution

No. But it was an armed insurrection. As was the Whiskey rebellion. And the Constitution was written to enable the government to eradicate this kind of action effectively. Thus clearly indicating that they weren't willing to tolerate a "right" to armed insurrection.

steve

What he is asking for are "controls" that violate the 2nd Amendment and would do no good--like his "gun insurance" idea

Well, not so sure they would violate the 2nd amendment ... And I think I could base that on one of Scalia's opinions... But I agree with you that isn't going to happen becasue there is too much that needs to change first.
I've actually diverged from arguing that, to suggesting that what has to happen is that one of the mythical interpretations of the 2nd amendment has to be confronted first.
And that is that the 2nd Amendment was written in order to provide the citizenry the right to armed insurrection if they believe one is necessary.
And Steve you've already agreed with me that there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that makes Armed insurrection a "right". As a person who is a strict constructionist, I appreciate your candor.
Tom, on the other hand, is bringing in extraneous "interpretations" of the 2nd amendment. Supporting his claims with dozens of quotations, but none that actually change the point because they all "infer" or "imply" that which is not in the words of the 2nd amendment.
There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that provides citizens a right to armed insurrection.
Yet, there is, as Tom demonstrates, a wilingness to interpret the founders words beyond the language on the page.
I believe that allowing this notion to go unchallenged, and uncorrected, helps create an environment that tolerates the kinds of dangerous crazies (militias and their ilk) and dangerous talk like Sharon Angle (2nd Amendment remedies) that helps create the potential for political violence.
And Steve, whatever a police officers ordinary caution...if they walk unknowingly into an area where crazed militia have decided they percieve tyranny ...then they become representative targets rather than representatives of law enforcement.

First, nowhere did anyone specify we have a "Right" to insurrection, we went so far as to say this is most certainly not a right, but there goes Ricky ignoring things and putting words in our mouths. An ability and a right are not even in the same ball park.

He goes on further to say we can not imply or infer what was meant, excuse me? How many quotes are you willing to simply ignore? How much history are you willing to ignore?There is zero debate as to the meaning and thoughts of the framers, by suggesting we are guessing their intent is an outright lie. Please Ricky, I asked you to point to something the framers said that would lead us to any other sort of conclusion, you have ZERO evidence of your opinion while you ignore the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

So Ricky, why do you cheat on your wife? (yes, I have zero evidence of such a thing but evidence doesn't seem to stop you from making outlandish statements posed as truth, so please answer why you cheat on your wife, we demand to know why)

You simply can not make such outlandish statements while ignoring both fact and history. You sir are flat out WRONG. Please prove me wrong as I am doing to you ...it can't be done, so you ignore the facts and plow on to make your statements as if true, Where oh where do you come up with the idea we are trying to guess at their meanings when I have PROVEN by what 20+ quotes? that we indeed do know their position quite clearly. And if you actually understood history as it was (and not what you wanted to assume) you would also know what the feelings were at the time in the American Colonies, this is absolutely no debate as to their intention. Where do you get off posting this crap!?

How is the following statement "Mythical" in any way? How is it possibly misunderstood? How can you deny the meaning behind it?

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
...Thomas Jefferson

Please move on to actual FACTS and not your opinion posed as fact (as you are so prone to do)

tom

First, nowhere did anyone specify we have a "Right" to insurrection

[
you did.
Tom
quote]We have the right to own guns in part to protect ourselves from a government that gets out of hand[/quote]


If you're now willing to admit that the 2nd amendment does not give people the right to take up arms against their govenrment , thats fine.

tom

How is the following statement "Mythical" in any way? How is it possibly misunderstood? How can you deny the meaning behind it?

The statement is not part of the 2nd amendment is it?
Its what Jefferson rationalizes. But then Jefferson was somewhat isolated in his response to the armed insurrections of Shays and Whiskey ...he applauded them. Whilst Washington led an army against the latter group.
What Jefferson says about the 2nd amendment has no bearing on a strict constructionist implementation of the 2nd amendment.
If the founders had wanted to confer the right of citizens to take up arms against the government they would have included something along that lines in the wording of the 2nd amendment. They didn't.
And to take armed action against the government is codified in law as treason. Treason is not a right.

GMTom wrote:But Ricky, you are surmising based on your position today. You need to think of the situation at the time of it's writing and that one letter by Jefferson that you want to dismiss carries greater weight in the argument than you want to admit. Jefferson was probably THE single biggest driving force behind the Constitution, it was his baby if you will.

While I agree with the idea you are trying to express over the full post, this part is completely incorrect. First off, Jefferson wasn't even in the U.S. when the Philadelphia convention happened. He was Minister to France. Further Jefferson absolutely opposed the Constitution and urged people to vote against it. He felt the Philadelphia Convention way over stepped it's mandate. I also believe he was actually quite prodigious in writing letters to acquaintances urging the state conventions to vote down the proposed Constitution but I would have to confirm that.

However, ricky is incorrect in his opinions in the origin of the 2nd amendment. Yes the Constitution was a reaction to Shay's but only in part. Yes it created a stronger central government. The purpose of the stronger central government was to allow better government response to both international and interstate issues.

The most common argument as to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is that it was as a sop to those who opposed the Constitution because they feared the tyranny a strong central government could impose. There are two key provision within the Constitution that we need to look at to understand this argument. Art. I, sec. 8, cl.12 which says in part "To raise and support Armies" and Art. I, sec.8, cl. 16 which says in part "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,"

The Anti-Federalist saw the Federal Government's ability to create a standing army in clause 12 and one step on that road to tyranny. The state militias were viewed by most people (both Federalist and Anti-Federalist) as not only a defense against foreign invasion but also as a defense against the central government becoming tyrannical. However, the Anti-Federalist looked at clause 16 and argued that since the Federal Government was responsible for arming the militia, it could easily circumvent the threat of state militias to Federal tyranny by passing laws against personal gun ownership and then not arming the militias. The Second Amendment was the response to that fear.

Author Garry Wills put forth another argument for the 2nd that I find rather compelling. It is also based on Art. I, sec. 8 cl.16 but is based on the free state/slave state dynamic. The southern states had a 3rd purpose of militia. That of an internal security force against slave uprisings. Wills argument is that the Southern States saw clause 16 as a way for the Free states to hamper their ability to put down an uprising by not arming the state militias.

I find either argument rather compelling and it could be both played a little bit in the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. The problem though is it doesn't really answer whether it was intended to be a communal right or an individual right. I fall on the individual rights side for 2 reasons. First is that the other rights listed in the Bill of Rights are pretty much individual rights as well. Add that to the fact that most state constitutions included wording similar to what the PA Constitution still uses today, i.e. "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state".

http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/charliesykes/117064153.html

Here is a real threat. Much more that a target on a district. This man is a jacka$$.

Archduke
I'm not so worried about the origins as I am about the effect. I've not disagreed that anti-federalists and the southern states all had concerns about states militias, and indeed about private ownership of guns. But Hamilton finaly wrote the amendment and it was voted into force and ratified. And we have in hand what he wrote. A strict constructionist view is that we deal with the written law, no?

In your opinion, does the 2nd amendment provide a right for citizens to take up arms against the govenment?