Right to Bear Arms - Protection Against Tyranny?

[OrdinaryTa]

It's almost a mantra among Second Amendment enthusiasts that the right to bear arms protects our citizens from tyranny. Unfortunately, this principle doesn't seem to hold universally. In Iraq, where everybody and his uncle walks around with a Kalashnikov, those people haven't known freedom for decades.

At a wedding ceremony, for example, the guests celebrate the union of bride and groom by firing automatic rifles in the air. It's hard to imagine that happening anywhere in the United States. But the Iraqis go from one tyrant to the next.

Do guns bring freedom? Or is that just a saying?

[wyldwolf]

1. It's just a saying...

...like the equally absurd gun advocate saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people"

[Superfly]

20. OK....you're going to have to explain

just how that's absurd...

[wyldwolf]

28. How what is absurd?

That the saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people" saying is absurd or the original saying is absurd?

[Superfly]

29. That saying

"guns don't kill people..." is not absurd.

Last time I checked, murderers killed people.

[wyldwolf]

30. Very absurd... and illogical...

It's a very illogical and absurd statement.

People are indeed ultimately responsible for pulling the trigger, but the national murder rate would surely fall if widespread gun availability didn't make it so incredibly easy to kill another human being.

In actuality, the first half of this slogan is demonstrably false; guns do indeed kill people. But the point that the gun lobby is surely trying to make is that they do not kill people by themselves; they require a human to pull the trigger.

This argument is an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that guns make it much easier to kill people. Guns do this in two ways: enhanced ability and feasibility. We can see the enhanced ability from suicide statistics: the most successful suicide attempts are those that involve firearms. And this greater ability also makes murder feasible in a greater number of circumstances. To anyone entertaining murderous impulses, a gun makes it feasible to attack larger people, multiple people, people from a distance, from secrecy, etc. A gun inspires confidence of success allowing a crime to occur when it wouldn't have otherwise.

Gun control advocates argue that a certain, extremely small percentage of the populace is actively contemplating murder at any given time, and would if they could. They argue the murder rate would drop if these would-be murderers did not possess the enhanced ability and feasibility provided by guns. The above pro-gun slogan responds to this argument illogically, by making an irrelevant point.

A wit once described this irrelevancy thus: "Fingers don't kill people, bullets do."

-Kangas-

[DoNotRefill]

31. sort-of, but not really.

"In actuality, the first half of this slogan is demonstrably false; guns do indeed kill people. "

A gun without a person can't kill anybody. A person with a gun can kill somebody. A person without a gun can kill somebody. A gun is a tool, just like a knife, a chainsaw, or a car. In order for any of these things to harm a person, there has to be a person present to operate it.

A million guns sitting in a locked warehouse with no people in there can NOT kill ANYBODY, either in or out of the warehouse.

And before you say that guns make killing so easy, would you care to guess what three deliberate mass-murder events killed the most people in the US at any given time, and if a gun was used to do it in any of those cases?

[wyldwolf]

34. Definitely... and really....

...if you want to quibble over shades of definitions, then NOTHING kills people. Heart disease doesn't. Cancer doesn't. Someone has to HAVE these diseases for them to kill them. Cancer cells and a diseased heart cans sit in a lab forever without killing anyone.

And, I guess you didn't read my post. I've already covered how guns make it much easier to kill people.

And the three deliberate mass-murder events you speak of really are irrelevant to the argument. We can't always control who freaks out and goes on a killing spree. We can control easy access to guns. And gun deaths have accounted for infinitely more deaths than all three of your events combined. FAR more...

[DoNotRefill]

39. If you're arguing we need to disarm people to prevent killing sprees...

those three events argue persuasively that it wouldn't work. When madmen are fixed on the idea of killing somebody, they'll find a way. People who want to kill lots of people don't use guns, they're too inefficient.

[wyldwolf]

40. That's not what I'm arguing at all...

..and I'm surprised someone on a progressive forum would make a leading statement like that.

You know gun control laws are not about disarming people but regulating who can buy firearms, what kind they can possess, and registering them.

And, as I've already demonstrated, guns make it much easier to kill people so if someone intent on murder and doesn't have as easy access to a gun, the murder is less likely to occur.

In fact, The New England Journal of Medicine (October 7, 1993) presented a study that proved as much.

[DoNotRefill]

41. you're quoting KELLERMANN!?!?!?!?

ROTFLMAO!!!!! Didn't that end up with his leaving the CDC under a cloud of shame?

BTW, you DO know that prohibited persons are constitutionally immune from gun registration under the 5th Amendment, right?

I'd really like to see some kind of proof for your assertation that murder is less likely to happen if the murderer doesn't have a gun.

[wyldwolf]

42. Well, you're the one discrediting Kellermann...

...so the burden of proof that his research was somehow bogus is on you.

And you conveniently disregarded the other points in my post because you think you've found a winning issue.

So, your move. Pull out your NRA talking points and tell us what the problem is with Kellermann's research.

[DoNotRefill]

55. They held congressional subcomittee hearings on it...

resulting in CDC's budget being cut and his leaving CDC.

what's next, going to trot out Bellesiles? ;-)

[wyldwolf]

60. **** YOU are seriously MISLED! ******

In actuality, the congressional committee was Republican led, with Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.)as co-sponsor of the amendment. In addition, the decision to cut the CDC's funding was arrived at based on the testimonies of 2nd Amendment activist Don B. Kates, Jr., as well as Drs. William Waters and Tim Wheeler of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership.

These same parties had tried, and failed, to punish the CDC for funding gun research the year before. Both Bob Dole and Trent Lott signed off on a measure to eliminate the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

It was a moot point, anyway. Bill Clinton gave the CDC the money back the Republicans took away.

New England Journal of Medicine Editor Jerome Kassirer, who has published several of the CDC-funded gun studies, called it "an attack that strikes at the very heart of scientific research." Writing in The Washington Post, CDC Director David Satcher said criticism of the firearm research did not bode well for the country's future: "If we question the honesty of scientists who give every evidence of long deliberation on the issues before them, what are our expectations of anyone else? What hope is there for us as a society?" Frederick P. Rivara, a pediatrician, told The Chronicle of Higher Education that critics of the program were trying "to block scientific discovery because they don't like the results. This is a frightening trend for academic researchers. It's the equivalent of book burning."

That view was echoed by columnists and editorial writers throughout the country. In a New York Times column entitled "More N.R.A. Mischief," Bob Herbert defended the CDC's "rigorous, unbiased, scientific studies," suggesting that critics could not refute the results of the research and therefore had decided "to pull the plug on the funding and stop the effort altogether." Editorials offering the same interpretation appeared in The Washington Post ("NRA: Afraid of Facts"), USA Today ("Gun Lobby Keeps Rolling"), the Los Angeles Times ("NRA Aims at the Messenger"), The Atlanta Journal ("GOP Tries to Shoot the Messenger"), the Sacramento Bee ("Shooting the Messenger"), and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ("The Gun Epidemic").

Which brings me to my point - anyone that can be duped by the NRA talking points of Author Kellermann's studies being discredited fall into the category above: you cannot refute the results of the research and therefore you try to ridicule it.

By the way, the Republican congressman Jay Dickey, who led the witch hunt against the CDC's gun research, is a member of the NRA and the NRA often lobbied it's members for money to support Dickey.

So, if you can't refute Kellermann's studies, please don't herald the witch hunt the Republicans subjected the CDC to.

[DoNotRefill]

62. Heh...

"Which brings me to my point - anyone that can be duped by the NRA talking points of Author Kellermann's studies being discredited fall into the category above: you cannot refute the results of the research and therefore you try to ridicule it."

Of COURSE we can't refute his research....because he WILL NOT GIVE OUT HIS DATA SETS, EVEN TO OTHER MAINSTREAM RESEARCHERS. I wonder why that is. Isn't it SOP for researchers to release their data so that other researchers can go over their research? Isn't a basic tenet of scientific research that it MUST be reproducable? Then why does Kellermann refuse to do it?

[wyldwolf]

63. HEH! Funny! I HAVE his DATA SETS! And you're STILL avoiding the issue!

It was published in The New England Journal of Medicine (October 7, 1993). Try again... and while your at it, address the NRA/Republican joke-of-a-hearing in which the President essentially overturned the decision, and researchers and scientists who were not involved in the study defended it.

[DoNotRefill]

65. You're claiming that his COMPLETE DATA SETS...

were published in the NEJM article? That shows you've got very little familiarity with that magazine and how research is supposed to work.

I noticed that Kellermann is still not at CDC...and that CDC hasn't published much in the way of anti gun research lately...

[Terran]

66. Jeez. Benchley is right about one thing.

The NRA is corrupt. And apparently has a corrupting influence on Congress as well (whodathunkit?). Supressing rigorous and unbiased research in order to promote a political agenda is pretty damn low. I don't care what party you're in, that is anathema to me--it's fascist. Needless to say it was republicans and their NRA masters, in this instance, who were responsible.

[DoNotRefill]

70. heh...

"Supressing rigorous and unbiased research in order to promote a political agenda is pretty damn low."

You're assuming that Kellermann's research was both rigorous and unbiased. That's a BIG assumption, and not well founded.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[Terran]

75. Tut tut!

Former Moderator in the room. Don't imply people are freepers, please.

Dirk

[DoNotRefill]

79. try this:

http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Suter/med-lit/benefits.html

"one week after publication of this article, during his presentation to a gun prohibition advocacy group, H.E.L.P. Conference (Chicago, October 18, 1993), the lead author emotionally admitted his anti-gun bias..."

The lead author is, of course, Kellermann...

BTW, you might find this quote interesting...
"If you've got to resist, your chances of being hurt are less the more lethal your weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to have a .38 Special in her hand? Yeah." Kellermann, Health Magazine, March/April, 1994

[iverglas]

81. teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms???

A secondary source, obviously, and hardly what anyone would characterize as a source of impartial, credible information. Your average reader may not be familiar with it; I suspect that you and I are.

http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/homepage.html
Your one-stop shopping source for any right-wing cause in Canada that you could name.

Well, mainly gun-nuttery, but he does list these under "Other Liberty-, Rights- and Freedom-related Web Sites":
http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/HTML/freedom1.html

Canadian Alliance web site
Libertarian Party of Canada
Libertarian Party of Ontario
Freedom Party of Ontario
Electronic Frontier Canada (EFC)
Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF)
National Citizens' Coalition
Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy (CFDP)
Quackgrass Press
Fraser Institute
Canadian Property Rights Research Institute
Canadian Conservative Forum
Canada West Foundation

For those unfamiliar with Canadian politics, imagine that the list starts with the Republican Party and includes the American Enterprise Institute and that sort of thing. The long-time head of the National Citizens Coalition started his career in the public eye with the "Turn in a Pusher" phone hotline in my home town 30 years ago. (We'd call it from pay phones we passed, and leave the phone off the hook.) What a strange bedfellow for a libertarian drug-decriminalization advocate! Other than that, this guy's link list is a freeper paradise. Oh look, he lists some US orgs too, like the CATO Institute. Of the five articles currently featured under "media", one comes from the right-wing Sun newspaper chain, and two from the bizarre, fanatic, extremist right-wing magazine Western Report.

But enough musing about sources, and back to our sheep. After all, this was just a secondary source for the article (as is rkba.org).

Here's what appears there, identifying the article itself (for which Google finds 444 hits; it's obviously a fave on the anti-reasonable restrictions on access to firearms hit parade ... including rave reviews by that wackoid fake psychiatrist who was all the rage here not too long ago). Oh, by the way, I see that the author is the national chair of "Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research". Since all that the said doctors seem to be concerned with is opposing reasonable restrictions on access to firearms, I'd have to say that I'm for integrity in naming the organization one sets up. Sheesh. Talk about not declaring your bias.

"Guns in the Medical Literature: A Failure of Peer Review" appeared in the March 1994 Journal Of The Medical Association Of Georgia, 83(13). The version presented here is from a January 1994 draft and contains some material that did not appear in JMAG.

What I'm not seeing is a quotation:

"... during his presentation to a gun prohibition advocacy group, ... the lead author emotionally admitted his anti-gun bias"

... what I'm seeing is some very value-laden words ("emotionally", "admitted") ... not to mention the characterization of the group in question, which I doubt is accurate, and the characterization of what the author "admitted", which appears to be an interpretation.

I also see this in the article:

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists often claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."

That sounds like something that someone around here who shall remain nameless would say.

WHO WOULD "suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous"??

IS THAT what the "gun prohibitionists" supposedly being quoted here say?

I don't think so.

Why oh why can't they just try to make their points without misrepresenting the points they are allegedly rebutting?

Why are they so fond of straw?

Do I find this source credible as a source for what Kellermann actually said/did at the time/place in question?

Nope.

Doesn't mean he didn't say/do it. Just means that if someone wanted to persuade me that he did -- me being a person who knows very little about this specific topic and so is looking with an open mind -- someone would have to do a far better job than this.

And whoever was trying to do it would be having to overcome the very justified suspicion I would now have of whatever s/he came up with, given this attempt to push such a non-credible source past me.

.

[DoNotRefill]

82. Actually....

that site is just a place that has mirrored Suter's article. It's the first place I found it on Google.

"I also see this in the article:
'To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists often claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."'

That sounds like something that someone around here who shall remain nameless would say."

Do you deny that gun prohibitionists often state "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder" or substantively similar words? I've seen this many times in the literature.

"Why oh why can't they just try to make their points without misrepresenting the points they are allegedly rebutting?
Why are they so fond of straw?"

Oh, man...that's PERFECT! Because that statement goes EXACTLY to the point in question, except it's the anti-gunners doing it. If you read Kellermann carefully, his "43X" figure includes family members, acquaintances, and SUICIDES. Yet when Kellermann is quoted, often the quoters neglect to mention the acquaintance or suicide angle, which accounts for the vast majority of cases. Do you need me to pull some examples of this up?

"And whoever was trying to do it would be having to overcome the very justified suspicion I would now have of whatever s/he came up with, given this attempt to push such a non-credible source past me."

Suter isn't credible? Please explain why he isn't.

[iverglas]

83. can you try reading what's on your monitor?

"that site is just a place that has mirrored Suter's article."

I said that. More than once. My point, which I thought was quite clear, was that the place where one finds things quite often tells one things about the things one finds there. Long sighing noise.


"Do you deny that gun prohibitionists often state "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder" or substantively similar words? I've seen this many times in the literature."

Hip hip hooray, and bully for you.

Assuming for the sake of argument that someone has said this, this being irrelevant to my point -- why would I deny it? Why would you imply that I was denying it?

If that is what the author of the article had seen being said, WHY DIDN'T HE SAY THAT?

What he said was this:

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists often claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."

Read that carefully now. I've underlined the really important part. The part I was talking about. The part I quoted FOR A REASON when I commented on it.

WHO suggests that "science has proven that defending oneself with a gun is dangerous"???

WHERE in the statement that this person quoted -- "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder" -- does it say "science has proven that defending oneself with a gun is dangerous"??

WHY would the author characterize what WAS said as having been THAT, when IT WASN'T??

The statement that he quoted said NOTHING about the dangerousness or otherwise of "defending oneself or one's family". NOTHING.

Why did that author think it was necessary, or advisale, to MISREPRESENT the people he was quoting by describing what they said as SOMETHING THEY DID NOT SAY?


And my question was: why should I believe ANYTHING said by someone who so obviously misrepresents things at will?

Why should I believe what he said about the person under consideration, when he described him as "admitting" something (had he ever denied favouring gun control? if not, why would he be "admitting" it?), and when he described him as admitting "bias" (did he? I have no reason to believe this), and when he used all the other obviously slanted words he used to describe what he was allegedly reporting?

I can't think of a single damned reason, myself.

I'd be wanting some DIRECT EVIDENCE, and an ACTUAL QUOTATION, before I accepted his characterization of what was done and said.


Some people are just easier to persuade, at least when it comes to persuading them of something they want to be persuaded of ... or have others think they are persuaded of ...

.

[MrBenchley]

85. Gun nuts have been howling about Kellerman

for years now...and all of thgeir howlinng is the sheerest hooey.

In fact, other studies have tended to verify his findings..

[wyldwolf]

88. I guess the gun loons in the NRA don't have enough money to pay off...

..enough Republicans to suppress those other studies.

[MrBenchley]

90. Yup...

It's all they can do hiring Mary Rosh....

[MrBenchley]

84. More silliness from the RKBA crowd

"Didn't that end up with his leaving the CDC under a cloud of shame?"
No, it ended up with him being harassed by the GOP.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

45. Hammers don't build houses; carpenters build houses.

And you know what? If we were to outlaw hammers I bet they'd find some other way to do it.

[blondeatlast]

50. Your avatar is BUDDHA?

[DoNotRefill]

69. yup...

you got a problem with that?

[library_max]

51. Okay, I'll buy that.

Just put all the guns in a locked warehouse, keep it locked, and you're right, they won't kill anybody. Problem solved.

[dobak]

58. yes, muderers do kill people, but...

Guns make it a whole hell of alot easier.

Up until a couple years ago, I went hunting every year in North Dakota for deer, antelope, pheasant, goose, duck, etc.. I have since moved and am no longer able to go hunting. Through these experiences, I know for a fact that using a gun makes it easier to kill something that having to beat it with a club or stab it with a knife. I don't think I could have ever made myself kill an animal close range with a handheld weapon. It would be too real, too physical.

-Have you ever heard of a drive by knifing?
-How about an innocent bystander getting killed by a stray knife?
-Workplace or school knifing? (sure there are murders committed with knives, but they are limited to one, maybe two victims)

Common sense should show that the murder rate would drop sharply if certain types of guns were unavailable to the public.

----

As for stats showing the difference in murder rates if guns were not availble. That is impossible since guns are everywhere and nobody seems willing to give them up for the common good, much less a study.

[DoNotRefill]

68. heh...

"-Have you ever heard of a drive by knifing?"

Isn't that why they banned bayonets on rifles?

"-How about an innocent bystander getting killed by a stray knife?"

Wasn't random drive-by bayonetings the reason they were banned in 1994?

"-Workplace or school knifing? (sure there are murders committed with knives, but they are limited to one, maybe two victims)"

Actually, there was one in England where a madman whacked a bunch of kids with a machete. I also remember a similar case in Japan.


"I don't think I could have ever made myself kill an animal close range with a handheld weapon."

How about with a car? I'm sure more animals are killed with cars than by guns. I doubt you'd be able to kill a person with or without a gun. It sounds like you have a conscience. Lots of people don't.

[RoeBear]

73. BAN ALL GUNS!

"Common sense should show that the murder rate would drop sharply if certain types of guns were unavailable to the public."

By certain types of guns I assume you mean the type that fires bullets? Because that is what you would have to do.

[soupkitchen]

2. Carried to its logical conclusion

Every citizen should be able to have a nuclear bomb, to insure the goverment doesn't use nuclear arms against him.

"A nuclear bomb in every pot and two Apache attack helicopter in every garage." Happy days are here again.

[slackmaster]

3. You can get a nuclear bomb if you really want one

You just have to get all the required licences and permits to ensure that you transfer and store it safely.

If you don't believe me, please find the federal law that prohibits an individual from owning one. (Hint: There isn't one.)

On edit: I'm sure this thread is headed for the Dungeon in short order.

[Trek234]

15. Are you kidding?

Just because there may not be a law that says "citizens may not own a nuclear weapon" does NOT mean other laws don't apply.

National security perhaps? Endangering X? Posession of illegal hazardous materials? (you know, something that has a U on the periodic table) Environmental damage? Violation of X nuclear treaty the US may have signed? Terrorism laws?

[slackmaster]

17. No, I'm perfectly serious

Just because there may not be a law that says "citizens may not own a nuclear weapon" does NOT mean other laws don't apply.

Which other laws specifically are you referring to?

National security perhaps?

Which law?

Endangering X?

X is alive and well in Los Angeles, California and still touring.



http://www.xtheband.com/index.html

Posession of illegal hazardous materials?

Some materials are regulated and require permits to possess, store, or transport, but there are no materials which are inherently illegal.

(you know, something that has a U on the periodic table)

You can buy uranium.

Environmental damage?

If you damage the environment you may have broken one or more laws. Possessing a nuclear weapon and storing it properly does not damage the environment.

Violation of X nuclear treaty the US may have signed?

If there is a treaty that prohibits a US citizen from owning a nuclear weapon you should be able to prove it pretty easily. I haven't heard of one.

Terrorism laws?

Likewise, come up with a cite and I will retract my claim that an individual can own a nuclear bomb. Othwise, my claim stands as true.

Under our legal system all that is not prohibited is allowed. Burden of proof is therefore on you.

(Let me give you a hint here: Claiming that people who support for the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment means that they support private ownership of WMDs is a classic Straw Man fallacy. See http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html . That's why I am responding to it in this manner.)

[Trek234]

25. <sigh>

Here you go:

US Code - Title 18 - Part 1 - Chapter 39 EXPLOSIVES AND OTHER DANGEROUS ARTICLES

(a) Whoever, if one of the circumstances described in subsection
(c) of this section occurs -
(1) without lawful authority, intentionally receives,
possesses, uses, transfers, alters, disposes of, or disperses any
nuclear material or nuclear byproduct material
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(B) imprisonment -
(i) for any term of years or for life

Therefore an indivual can not possess nuclear material under pain of jail for life. See, doesn't say nuclear weapon does it? But nuclear material is sure as hell in a nuclear weapon.

All of my other conditions still apply, but if you are naive enough to truly believe you can own a nuclear weapon I doubt you are even going to read the applicable code. Here goes anyway...

"Posession of illegal hazardous materials?

Some materials are regulated and require permits to possess, store, or transport, but there are no materials which are inherently illegal."

See above code. Yes, you can have "lawful authority" if a authorized federal official within the Atomic Energy Comission grants you such authority to own the nuclear material. (good luck with that) Otherwise it is inherently illegal.

Oh, and by the way, the reasons for which such authority can be granted do NOT include "to own a nuclear weapon".

Here is the applicable code for such authorization: US Code - Title 42 - Chapter 23 - Division A - Subchapter 5

"(a) Licenses
The Commission is authorized (i) to issue licenses to transfer or
receive in interstate commerce, transfer, deliver, acquire,
possess, own, receive possession of or title to, import, or export
under the terms of an agreement for cooperation arranged pursuant
to section 2153 of this title, special nuclear material, (ii) to
make special nuclear material available for the period of the
license, and, (iii) to distribute special nuclear material within
the United States to qualified applicants requesting such material"

"You can buy uranium."

And if you do so without lawful authority you could be in jail for life.

"Endangering X?

X is alive and well in Los Angeles, California and still touring."

Endangering the life of the president, the vice president, or other elected official comes to mind. Would you agree that if you had a loaded gun, walked up to the president, and aimed it at him you would be placing his life in immediate jeopardy? (well, if you want to say no most juries wouldn't agree :) ) If you did so you could be in jail for life.

If you had a nuclear weapon - that was solely in your ability to use - that could take out a city, and the president, vice president, or anyone in line for the office of the presidency, happened to be in that city you would be placing that life in immediate danger just as if you walked up to them with a loaded gun. You would therefore be guilty of endangering the life (do I REALLY need to show you the applicable code on this one? Or do you want to say it doesn't exist an look like a fool?) of the president, vice president, or a person in line for the office of the presidency.

"Terrorism laws?

Likewise, come up with a cite and I will retract my claim that an individual can own a nuclear bomb. Othwise, my claim stands as true."

<sigh>

US Code - Title 50 - Chapter 40 - Subchapter one

(a) Enhanced response capability
In light of the potential for terrorist use of weapons of mass
destruction against the United States, the President shall take
immediate action -
(1) to enhance the capability of the Federal Government to
prevent and respond to terrorist incidents involving weapons of
mass destruction; and

One would think the feds would have legit authority under this statue to take your nuclear weapon away to PREVENT use of weapons of mass destruction. By the way - legislation passed after 9/11 (as I am sure you are well aware) - allows certain federal officals to classify you as a terrorist at will. Posession of a nuclear weapon would certainly provide them with motivation and reason to do so. Of course at that point you would be arrested and would be facing life in jail once again.

"Violation of X nuclear treaty the US may have signed?

If there is a treaty that prohibits a US citizen from owning a nuclear weapon you should be able to prove it pretty easily. I haven't heard of one."

Again, just because no treaty says you can't own one doesn't mean you aren't breaking a treaty. The US has traties that regulate the NUMBER of nuclear weapons within US territory. The US also has treaties regarding how nuclear weapons will be stored, maintained, and secured. (as well as federal statues to that effect)

By your possession of nuclear weapons you have thrown that number off and are 1. Guilty of interfering with the ability of the United States to provide for its national security (i.e. we can no longer legally have X number of nuclear weapons because of you) and 2. Further guilty of violating a treaty if you are not providing for the storage, maintnance, and security legally mandated under such treaty for that nuclear weapon. Unless you have millions of dollars to spend you will certainly not be able to.

This, of course, assumes you are legally able to have one in the first place which you are not.

"Environmental damage?

If you damage the environment you may have broken one or more laws."

I'm glad you conceed this point. Being unable to care for the radioactivity of your nuclear weapon would most certainly harm the environment. And of course when it started to harm your neighbors you would be liable for any death or injury caused to them as well. If you weren't dead first that is.

Other code simply says the potential possibility of use of WMD by a person classifies you as a terrorist and places you under threat of prosecution. Having such a weapon certainly makes your use of WMD possible. There are also TONS of explosives laws that would apply to a nuclear weapon as well.

[DoNotRefill]

33. not even close:

you cite:

"(a) Whoever, if one of the circumstances described in subsection
(c) of this section occurs -
(1) without lawful authority, intentionally receives,
possesses, uses, transfers, alters, disposes of, or disperses any
nuclear material or nuclear byproduct material
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(B) imprisonment -
(i) for any term of years or for life "

The operative words are "without lawful authority". That means you have to go through the legal regulatory process, but it's certainly something that COULD be done legally. It's like hand grenades. They're illegal unless lawfully possessed. That means you have to do the paperwork, but can own them under Federal Law. You have to comply with State law too, but it's still legal. If you get caught with a hand grenade, but have not got the legal right to possess it (an approved, tax-paid BATFE Form 5320.04) it's illegal. If you've got the paperwork, it's legal. Same deal with nuclear material. It's a different process, but it's still possible to do it legally.

Do you own a watch? Do the hands glow in the dark? If so, you legally own nuclear material (tritium). How about hospitals that use nuclear medicine? Legal. How about publicly owned energy producing corporations that operate nuclear reactors? Legal.

[DoNotRefill]

35. Oh, BTW....check out:

http://www.stopthebombs.org/nuke/map.html#Pantex

They're talking about a private (not government-owned) corporation that used to MANUFACTURE NUCLEAR BOMBS. Sure, they had to jump through lots of regulatory hoops, but did so legally.

[Terran]

54. Your own examples ruin your argument

How about hospitals that use nuclear medicine? Legal. How about publicly owned energy producing corporations that operate nuclear reactors? Legal.

Yes, and it's legal for dentists to be in possession of cocaine because they have the legal authority to do so. Joe Blow can't just fill out some forms and then go purchase some coke from a pharmaceutical company. Oops, you have to be a dentist first before you can do that! And register with the DEA. And register with your state. And get licensed with your state. Just like you have to be a corporation running a hospital or a nuclear plant that has already passed numerous stringent and complex licencing and regulatory hurdles before you can be in possession of nuclear materials. Sorry DNR, you lose this one. Trek234 is right. The "lawful authority" referred to in 18 USC isn't something ordinary individual citizens can go out and obtain, merely because it exists. It's not just a matter of filling out the right "paperwork," as you suggest; you have to meet a few small conditions first, and those conditions are well beyond the ability of the average joe to meet.

[DoNotRefill]

56. sure they can.

"The "lawful authority" referred to in 18 USC isn't something ordinary individual citizens can go out and obtain, merely because it exists."

The main requirement is that they have enough money to do it. Or, are you suggesting corporations like I included in the Pantex example somehow have MORE rights than an individual?

The main stumbling block in the US for obtaining nuclear materials in sizable amounts is money. Not many people in the US have the inclination to spend the necessary money, jump through the regulatory "hoops", and have the cash to do so. Want to build a nuclear reactor? If you've got the money, you can get regulatory approval (subject to the standard process, with it's various checks and balances) and build it.

It's like dismantling military weapons through DRMO. If you want to do it, and have the funds to buy the necessary equipment, you can. Same thing with machineguns, landmines, tanks, and so forth. Each thing has a different regulatory scheme attached, but it can be done.

"It's not just a matter of filling out the right "paperwork," as you suggest; you have to meet a few small conditions first, and those conditions are well beyond the ability of the average joe to meet."

So, let's use an example. Suppose you want to buy a buttload of tritium for your watch company. First, you'd need the money to purchase the material (very very expensive). Then you'd need to go through the standard regulatory process, get the permits, and comply with the various safety codes out there (OSHA, NRC, et cetera). Once you've done that, you can buy it. Saying that the "average joe" can't do it is disengenuous, simply because your "average joe" couldn't afford a nuke even if there was NO paperwork involved. You'd need the money first.

On the other hand, if you want a microscopically small amount of nuclear material like tritium, you could just buy a watch that has it in it. No paperwork necessary.

[Terran]

61. It's not about money (at all)

When it comes to hazardous materials, the federal regulatory environment makes you prove 1) you have a legal authority to possess such, and 2) you have a need to possess such. The regulators don't care if you have the money; they care about what you intend to do with your hazardous stuff after you get it, and whether you're qualified to possess it in the first place. I know from my professional experience that that is how Class I and II controlled substances are regulated. You'll not persuade me, short of showing me some law, that the feds don't regulate possession of nuclear materials in at least as aggressive a way as they do controlled substances. And that regulation is extremely tight. The DEA literally has a record of every legal purchase of such drugs that takes place.

[DoNotRefill]

64. OK...

"You'll not persuade me, short of showing me some law, that the feds don't regulate possession of nuclear materials in at least as aggressive a way as they do controlled substances."

So, it's impossible for people to get controlled substances? I don't think so. Hell, I take several myself. I have perscriptions for them, and the regulatory process is followed, but I have no trouble getting them.

It's NOT difficult (NO paperwork) to get nuclear materials like tritium in small quantities. Here are two places you can order it on-line:

http://www.newsearching.com/watch/Israeli_Military_Tritium_Watch__silver_.html
http://www.hotshotsga.com/pages/accessories/optics18.html

If you want them in bulk, you've got to go through the process.

"When it comes to hazardous materials, the federal regulatory environment makes you prove 1) you have a legal authority to possess such, and 2) you have a need to possess such."

Need to possess such...that's where money comes in. Want to buy 5 grams of tritium? Go in and say "hey, I want 5 grams of tritium just for shits and giggles", and you will not get regulatory approval. Go in and say "I just built this watch or night sight factory which cost me buttloads of cash, and I want 5 grams of tritium" and odds are excellent that you'll get regulatory approval. Same if you want to build a nuclear power plant. If you say "I want to build one in my backyard to power my bugzapper", they'll laugh. If you spend the money to come up with a design, and hire an army of lawyers, and buy some safe locality to build it on, and grease the appropriate palms, it can be done.

[Terran]

71. You still haven't shown me

how anyone would manage to get to own a nuclear weapon in any of these processes. What's your justification for having your own personal nuke? How would you propose to convince federal (and international) regulators that you had a legitimate need for one, even if you had the money?

And btw, your prescription analogy doesn't work. You have to have proven a need to have Schedule 2 drugs to your doctor or dentist or whoever before you can get that prescription, buddy, i.e., you have to be sick or in pain. And if he or she gives it to you without asking you why you need it and proving to him or herself that you do, AND documenting that you do in your written patient record, then he/she is breaking the law.

[DoNotRefill]

80. Did you see the Pantex link above?

It was a company that did indeed get regulatory permission to manufacture and possess nuclear weapons. They still possess them legally, but apparently no longer manufacture them.

[Terran]

86. Uh, ya

From that site, re Pantex:

FUNCTION: Currently evaluates, refurbishes, and modifies stockpiled weapons, fabricates high-explosive components and disassembles retired nuclear weapons. Tests Helium components and assemblies and burns the waste. Formerly assembled weapons. Last new nuclear weapon (W88 warhead) assembled on July 31, 1990. Refurbishes (reassembles) nuclear weapons.

What's your point? It doesn't say they own the bloody things, does it? It says they perform those services involving the weapons and their components. The US government still owns the weapons--they're part of the country's stockpile. Did you think that the government just lets Pantex keep whatever uranium it finds in those bombs that it disassembles?

Edit:typo

[DoNotRefill]

91. Ah.

So, when Boeing builds F-18s for the Government, the Government owns them even before they're delivered?

It doesn't work that way.

[slackmaster]

87. Burden of proof, dirk

Nobody has yet shown that an individual cannot legally own a nuclear explosive device.

[Terran]

92. Actually, slackmaster

you are the one who made the original assertion, in this thread:

slackmaster (1000+ posts) Sun Sep-21-03 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #2

3. You can get a nuclear bomb if you really want one

Edited on Sun Sep-21-03 09:25 AM by slackmaster

You just have to get all the required licences and permits to ensure that you transfer and store it safely.

I could demand that you detail all those licenses and permits and storage requirements, but I'm assuming you're no more capable of producing that than I am. I won't quibble over that little detail. I will say that I made some attempts using Google to find discussion on this subject, and the results lead me to belive that if there is a statute or reg anywhere that specifically outlaws private ownership of nuclear weapons, I'll never find it because it's probably absurdly obscure. After all, no one has ever had the need to cite it, one assumes.

But laws against owning nuclear weapons isn't *really* the issue here, is it? Based on what you said in post #3, I assume you're saying that the Second Amendment *allows* people to "keep and bear" nuclear weapons, same as any other kind of weapon (and if you're not claiming that, then why the f*ck are discussing this?). I did find some interesting discussion about that issue, here:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html#fn*

A CRITICAL GUIDE TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT
Glenn Harlan Reynolds (Associate Professor of Law, University of Tennessee. J.D. Yale Law School, 1985; B.A. University of Tennessee, 1982)

I've removed the references for the sake of space, but you can always click the link if want to check them. The article says, in part:

2. What Weapons are Protected?

Discussion of the right to keep and bear arms seems to lead inevitably to questions of whether the existence of such a right necessitates the right to own, for instance, a howitzer or a nuclear weapon. Writers adhering to the Standard Model, which stresses fidelity to the purposes and history of the Second Amendment, have arrived at fairly convincing answers to such questions by drawing on those sources.

The right to keep and bear arms is no more absolute than, say, the right to free speech. Just as the demand "your money or your life" is not protected by the First Amendment, so the right to arms is not without limits. But the right to arms is no more undone by this fact than freedom of speech is undone by the fact that that right is not absolute either.

Mainstream scholars of the Second Amendment draw limits from the text and from the purpose of the provision. Textually, the language "keep and bear arms" is interpreted as limiting the arms protected to those that an individual can "bear"--that is, carry. This fact, together with the fact that the right is seen as one pertaining to individuals, leaves out large crew-served weapons such as howitzers, machine guns, nuclear missiles, and so on. Presumably individuals (if wealthy and eccentric enough) could "keep" such weapons, but they could not "bear" them.

Because one purpose of the right is to allow individuals to form up into militia units at a moment's notice, the kinds of weapons protected are those in general military use, or those that, though designed for civilians, are substantially equivalent to those military weapons. Because another purpose is the defense of the home, Standard Model writers also import common-law limitations on the right to arms, as they existed at the time of the framing. Under the common law, individuals had a right to keep and bear arms, but not such arms as were inherently a menace to neighbors, or that had an unavoidable tendency to terrify the community. Thus, weapons such as machine guns, howitzers, or nuclear weapons would not be permitted. Note however that the much-vilified "assault rifle" would be protected under this interpretation--not in spite of its military character, but because of it. The "recreational and sporting uses" often cited by both sides in the contemporary gun control debate, on the other hand, are not relevant. They are cited by those who favor gun control in the hopes of not arousing the fears of hunters and target shooters, and by those who oppose gun control in the hopes of mobilizing those same groups. But they have nothing to do (directly) with the purpose of maintaining an armed citizenry. Recreation and sport, to the extent they are protected at all, are covered only penumbrally; the Second Amendment is not about sport or recreation.

***

The author sort of comes down on both sides, as is obvious. It's not conclusive, although my thinking is, if you can't "bear" it personally, you don't have a right to "keep" it.

One of the things that I get out of this piece, because it is spoken of in theory, is that the issue has never been tested; no one has been fool enough to try to privately own a nuclear weapon. So in a rather strict and theoretical sense, slackmaster, you are probably right--there is no law prohibiting a private citizen from owning a nuclear weapon. However, how long do you suppose that would last if it ever came to light that a private citizen *had* somehow negotiated the regulatory maze and obtained such a thing? I imagine there are literally hundreds of state and federal laws and regulations that could be applied to prohibit such a thing retroactively. But even if there weren't, how long do think it would take before your nuke-owning ass was dragged into court and challenged on the issue? It might take a while, but eventually the Supreme Court might end up ruling on the issue. Do you actually think, in real life, that *any* court is going to allow such insanity? That's what it comes down to.

BTW, I apologize to the forum at large for wasting so much bandwidth on this ludicrous non-issue.

Dirk

(Edited to remove unintentional smiley face. :) )

[Fescue4u]

67. Sigh..the old nuclear weapons Straw Man.

The truth is, that under the 2nd ammendment, citizens are entitled to own nuclear weapons. To do otherwise would be an infringment.

And thats why I would fully support and get behind a constitituional amendment that bans private ownership of nuclear warheads.

[slackmaster]

89. Nuclear Straw Man is fun!

It's my personal favorite diversion from boring, meaningful discussions of gun control because it's so absurd.

To anyone who really WANTS to own a nuclear weapon:

Knock yourself out. Get happy. You'll probably die of old age before the paperwork is all processed, but at least you will have tried.

[rock]

4. How would you prove or disprove it?

I suppose a scientific test could be done, but right now it just appears that it's anecdotal evidence one way or the other and conjecture. Of course, whether a valid statement or not, gun ownership is a constitutional right.

On edit: spelling

[StClone]

6. Just because it's a Right

Doesn't mean that it can't be abused.

[DoNotRefill]

36. Of course it can be abused....

If you commit a crime with a gun, it's an abuse. You are punished (if caught) through the legal process. That doesn't mean that simply owning a gun is an abuse.

[EagleEye]

5. By the way, it does happen here...

Every holiday here in Texas, and I suspect elsewhere, it is a hispanic tradition to fire shots in the air. There have been warnings about it.

[RoeBear]

7. What did a wedding ceremony tradition...

...have to do with protection against tyranny?

FWIW- I'm willing to bet that there are people here in the US who have shot guns into the air as part of a wedding ceremony. Which isn't much different than a 21 gun salute during a funeral.

[EagleEye]

8. Well technically...

..a 21 gun solute is not supposed to be performed with live ammo.

[quaker bill]

9. No evidence for guns bringing liberty

The distorted concept that good ol' boys and their shot guns and assault rifles could protect us from government tyrrany is just nuts.

Back in the day, say from the American Revolution to perhaps the Civil War the concept of organized citizen militia's might have held a little water logically. My opinion is that it always was a very bad idea, but back then it was not laughable on it's face.

Has anyone noticed the absolute destruction our armed forces can wreak on well armed, armored, and organized opponents?

This notion to justify the possession of weapons became utter nonsense at least 100 years ago.

Beyond the simple lack of logic, you are correct, Iraq, and most of the rest of the middle east for that matter is quite well armed. Where is the liberty?

[soupkitchen]

10. By the way I agree with you Bill

My previous post on this subject was meant as a satire on the notion that guns will protect us from tyranny. The government has too much firepower for that notion to have any validity.
I truly hope nobody took me as a serious advocate of a more heavily armed citiizenry.
Yours was a very good post.

[T Bone]

12. The Patriot Act is an end-run around the 2nd Amendment

I always laugh at wingers who think their guns guarantee this.

The Patriot Act allows warrantless search and seizure. The target of the search and seizure does not have to be notified. It is a 'sneak and peak' operation. Law enforcement and government officials involved in this process are forbidden to divulge to the 'target' anything about any aspect of it. They are under possible penalties themselves if they do.

Why would it not be used by a tyrant to seize guns ?? The Patriot Act is a tool to nullify any of the Bill Rights, and yet we celebrate our vaunted historical rights?

They are history alright if the Patriot Act stands.

[slackmaster]

21. The Patriot Act is an end-run around the entire Bill of Rights

Combined with the "War on Terror" they have stomped all over everything except maybe the 3rd Amendment, and I wouldn't be surprised if I got a call asking if some Marines can stay in one of my spare bedrooms for an undetermined period of time.

[mantis49]

49. IMHO, guns don't assure

freedom or liberty. I have this debate with my spouse frequently, and he just won't admit I have a point.

I think the suppression of free speech and a free press are the greatest dangers to libery. Witness Hitler: one of the first actions he took after gaining power was control of the press and elimination of intellectuals.

[maha]

11. No correlation

I've read over and over that just about every Iraqi owned at least one firearm. But when I bring this up to the gun nuts, they counter that Saddam Hussein allowed his supporters to own better firearms than the average citizen was able to obtain.

But then, I say, wouldn't that mean that U.S. citizens can't protect their freedoms with firearms, because what our military has way outstrips what citizens can obtain.

At this point, the gun nuts break off the conversation.

[Mairead]

13. More that without firearms it's harder--much harder--to resist tyranny

But even with, there has to be a near-universal sense that everything's at stake.

And obviously, if tyrants are more willing to kill citizens than citizens are willing to kill tyrants, then there's a problem.

Here in the US, Bush's regime is seen as legitimate...or at least not illegitimate enough. Even though Bush is clearly a usurper, placed in power by a coup, anyone knocking him off would be convicted even by a jury of people who would dearly love to see Bush and his henchcreeps sent to prison for the rest of their lives. Similarly, an armed revolution designed to overthrow this illegitimate regime would get little support. People are too passive, so firearms are of no use.

But things could change. If SmirkCo cancelled next year's election, for example, that might be enough to energise people, and then firearms might be the difference between success and failure. As we've repeatedly seen when people riot on a large scale, the cops who are happy to roust unarmed citizens who are peacefully protesting are not willing to risk their own butts against large groups who are armed and ready to do battle.

The Iraqis are in a funny situation. They have (had!) a lot of firearms, true, but Islam is a remarkably peaceful religion that teaches fatalistic acceptance and obedience to law rather than resistance. 'Inshallah' - 'if God wills it' - is a favorite Arabic phrase and captures the general outlook quite well. So it's not surprising that they tolerated Hussein. Most people tolerate most things.

[BiggJawn]

14. It's easy to debate this and take the "con" POV...

When you can sit at your computer, knowing that later in the day you can go about whatever business you've planned without intervention from a foriegn army of occupation or an illegally-installed dictatorship.

I truly hope that we NEVER gain practical knowledge about who is right and who is wrong in this argument.

Just the same, I am glad for the Second Ammendment, even if, as a Nation (compared to Canada. Thanks, Mike Moore, for showing this) we're really too immature to deserve it.

[nuxvomica]

16. The only real protection against tyranny is a free press

It's not guns that stops tyrants, it's people that stops tyrants. And only if those people are told the truth en masse.

[AmeriCanadian]

18. People with guns maybe ...

... but just "telling the truth" to the oppressors won't cut it. I'm a Democrat, and I prefer to keep my firearms thank you.

... BTW, if we don't revisit our position, as a party, our gun owning brothers tend to lean consevative on this issue at the polls.

[nuxvomica]

24. Oppressed people without guns have been a powerful force in history

Look at the non-violent protests organized by people like King and Gandhi. If enough people are united and aware, tyranny cannot succeed. Guns or no guns. Introduce guns into the equation, and the confrontation becomes personal, a matter of self-defense, instead of ideological.

That said, I have never thought the citizenry needed guns to protect themselves from the government until the last year or so. But even though I've worried that the revolution is at hand, I still think that firearms are a distraction, that folks can be deluded into believing that keeping the right to bear arms is enough to protect them from tyranny while they let all their other rights disappear.

[knight_of_the_star]

38. Non-violent resistance doesn't always work

If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had tried to use passive resistance against Hitler when he sent in troops to level the ghetto they would have been wiped out. Passive resistance only works in an open society like Britain or here. If you are in an oppressive society, then armed resistance can be the only way to accomplish liberation. I personally think that we SHOULD keep the right to bear arms, despite the fact that I am a pacifist, when you look at it that is probably the only thing right now that is keeping Bush from outright declaring a police state and throwing us all in prison is that we have access to weapons and the population would be able to fight back if he tried. If you want to say that passive resistance always works, go look at South Africa. Conflict between the black Africans and the Afrikaaners in control of the country many times turned violent. Passive resistance would have fallen flat on its face agains the British during the Revolution. Sometimes it is needed for blood to be shed to ensure liberty will rise. I think it was Jefferson said something to the effect of, "The blood of patriots is good fertilizer for the tree of liberty," or something like that. Passive resistance is always my first choice for causing change, but sometimes force is needed, and the wise patriot knows when there is time for passive resistance and time for fighting.

[library_max]

53. But violent resistance never works

Not in the 20th or 21st Centuries. Not without a full-blown military (either your own or another nation's) supporting you. Do you have a contrary example? If so, please share it.

[DoNotRefill]

57. Pick a revolutionary group....

PIRA, FARC, the Viet Minh, Tamil Tigers, Mujahadeen, et cetera.

Prior to the US supplying the Muj with Stingers, how long did they fight the Soviets?

When an armed populace has a sizeable part of the people behind them and a great commitment to a cause, it VERY hard to defeat them without totally depopulating the area.

[library_max]

93. Okay, let's see.

FARC and the Tamil Tigers haven't won anything, at least not yet (nor are they winning). The Viet Minh had the Soviet Union behind them, the Mujahadeen had the U.S. behind them. Not familiar with PIRA and can't find them on Google (can't pick them out of the tons of irrelevant hits). All the groups you mention are VASTLY better armed than the NRA or any American militia group, and none of them tried to take on the U.S. military on its home turf.

The most you can say for your argument is that it might be possible for a very large, very well armed (by civilian standards) and very determined group to lose slowly.

[DoNotRefill]

97. PIRA: Provisional Irish Republican Army

They had a few hundred active members at any given time, were on an island where the enemy controlled all access, were in a place where guns were legally unavailable and weapons training was impossible, and managed to fight the Brits to a standstill to the point that Sinn Fein is working on a peace settlement/power sharing arrangement.

The Muj got US support only very late in the game. It's like during the US Revolution...prior to Saratoga, nobody wanted to help us. Afterwards, we got help. Prior to the US helping them, they managed to fight the Sovs to a standstill using mostly WWI surplus British weapons.

The Viet Minh started out without Soviet support, at least from everything I've read. The soviets gave them antique weapons like the Mosin Nagant M-91 bolt-action rifle (called that because it was adopted in 1891).

"All the groups you mention are VASTLY better armed than the NRA or any American militia group, and none of them tried to take on the U.S. military on its home turf."

Says who? How many non-gun owning NRA or militia members are there? Remember, the VPC's name for a hunting rifle is a "sniper rifle". True, none of the above groups have ever tried to take on the US military in the US. But the Viet Minh and it's sucessor the Viet Cong certainly did take on the US military (and lost the battles but won the war), and the Muj certainly did take on the best the Soviets could throw at them. Same with the PIRA and the British army. And remember, the insurgency group's not winning but continuing to exist is a victory in and of itself. Either way, the government being fought against generally loses in one way or another.

[library_max]

100. Every single one of your examples

involves insurgents fighting a foreign enemy. And if Northern Ireland in the last 30 years is your idea of "victory" (or Taliban Afghanistan, for that matter), you are welcome to it. Not one of them succeeded in furthering the cause of freedom, which was the assertion of my original post.

[maggrwaggr]

37. ain't that the truth!! And THAT's what we've lost in America

unfortunately people can't see it, because, well gosh guess what? THEY THINK WE HAVE a free press.

It's a perfect system for a demogogue.

[Superfly]

19. Right to bear arms - Protection against crime

directed to me and my loved ones.

[baldguy]

22. "Right" to bear arms = right to impose tyranny

[TomNickell]

23. In 1792....

it made a lot of sense.

Nowadays, not very much. Try resisting an Abrams tank with an assault rifle.

And when was the last time a 'volunteer' militia was called out to use its own weapons to defend the nation.

The constitutional debate, unfortunately, stops us from adopting common-sense measures that would satisfy (most) everyone.

[Fescue4u]

44. in 2003

The Iraqis are resisting quite well with small arms.

Yes they are dying in droves, but our boys are not exactly unscathed.

I suspect that before its over, small arms in Iraq will defeat the US arms.

[happyslug]

77. September 11, 2001.

When the passenger of the last plane in the Air (after hearing of what had happen in New York and the Pentagon) tired to re-take the plane, that was the Militia in operation. It saw a threat and rose to do its duty. American History is full of actions done by "Volunteers" whose actions are the actions of the Militia, and there is a long history of recognizing such activities as MILITARY activities of the Militia.


Another example was Mississippi River Floods of the early 1990s, people came out to fill in sandbags to help keep the water back, that was the Militia in action.

Shovels and Spades have long been one of the main "weapon" of the Militia. The Virginia Militia at Yorktown used their spades to did trenches more than they used their muskets. After Gettysburg the spades was again the Pennsylvania's Militia's weapon when it had to bury all of the Died animals who died in that battle.

Thus when people get togther and work together during a time of crisis that is the Militia in operation adn always has been and always will be. As Napoleon said, to defend everywhere is to defend no where, thus it is IMPOSSIBLE for the police, Army, Navy, AIr Force, CIA etc to protect EVERYWHERE. Where they can NOT, and a crisis happens than it is the Militia that must do the job till one of these "Professional" groups shows up and take over. I do not want to imply that everytime some one helps someone that is the Militia, but when you have a crisis in an area and the Community has to work together to address it, that is the Militia in action. The Militia is the people in action as a group during a crisis.

[library_max]

94. Unless you're Noah Webster

you can't just decide that a word means what you say it means.

[MrPrax]

26. This makes no sense...

"In Iraq, where everybody and his uncle walks around with a Kalashnikov, those people haven't known freedom for decades. "

They did?...I thought they acquired the weapons AFTER the US tookover and when Saddam handed them out like chicklets?

Real tyrannts tend not to want people to carry guns around

[ThoughtCriminal]

27. The pen IS mightier than the sword

Lock and Load!

[SOS]

32. A thought on the 2nd Amendment

Much debate swirls around the 2nd Amendment, yet one crucial factor is always left out and that is alcohol.
In 75% of murders committed in this country the killer is drunk.
Rather than endlessly focusing on the gun itself, we need to address the intoxication of the killer. Just like with drinking and driving. Some creative thinking needs to be applied.
Like DWI, new laws could be introduced increasing penalties for drunken, irresponsible gun use. This would reduce the terrible damage caused by guns in the US, while leaving the 2nd Amendment untouched for sober, responsible people who aren't blasting away in a bar.

[Fescue4u]

43. Small Arms in Iraq

are proving quite problematic for the strongest and most well funded military on Earth.

Indeed, we may find out asses kicked out of Iraq by the people of Iraq using small arms in hit and run tactics.

if anything good comes out of Iraq, it has proven that firearms in the hands of civilans can deter tyranny, and can defeat any military.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

46. I know if the United States were being invaded

I'd want all the guns I could get my hands on.

[not systems]

47. guns are tools

People have often used them to secure freedom from oppression.

This is a plain fact.

Another plain fact is tyrants have often disarmed their
subjects before implementing the worst of their crimes.

Guns are tools for prevention of oppression when in the
hands of the oppressed.

Look at it this way if you were a crooked cop who liked
robbing people in a poor neighborhood don't you think
that the fact that person behind that door was probably
armed would make you think twice. On the other hand
knowing that the person behind the door was not armed
would embolden your robbery.

Too many people only look at this as can people resist the
millitary with small arms and never consider the petty
tyranny and larceny committed by corrupt police through
out the world. Arming the poor prevents some police abuse.

[library_max]

95. "People have often used them to secure freedom from oppression"

Please give us one - just one - good example of civilians successfully using guns to free themselves from oppression since World War II.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

48. Umm, the last wedding I attended,

we did indeed celebrate by firing guns into the air.

What can I say, this is Montana. lol

[Dr Fate]

52. Most Pro-Bush gun owners would use them FOR tyranny...

...YOU and ME would be the ones getting "rounded up" and shot, not the armed Brownshirts.

I am a gun owner and I would like to think that our armed populace would rise up against tyranny- Ironically, most of the more ardent gun enthusists are pro-Bush, and would form vigilante groups against dissenters, not their infalible GOP gods...

Sorry- I just cant see your average Freeper in a gunfight against Republican iniciatives- these guys would rather shoot ME.

It's a good concept on paper- but in reality, the freeps have the guns, not us.

Anyone for starting a "Liberal" militia???

[not systems]

59. pink pistols

This might be close...

http://www.pinkpistols.com/

[Procopius]

74. Good common sense

Don't shoot back. let the Freepers kill you and keep the guns.

Do we liberals really need guns? NO! (and nyther do the Freepers).

[happyslug]

76. Without organization Guns are useless

When Madison wrote the Bill of Rights, he made the first Amendment First and the Second amendment Second for very good reasons.

First, history has shown it is ORGANIZATIONS and people who are ORGANIZED that win fights against tyrants. Thus the First Amendment addressed the issue of HOW people can organize, how who to organize people. During the and before the Revolution many of the support for the Revolution came from the Churches, came from people assembling peacefully to state their rights. During and before the Revolution people wrote pamphlets, letters, newspapers etc to support the Revolution (and also to oppose the Revolution). Without these attempts to mobilize the population the Revolution would have FAILED. Thus the First Amendment has all of the rights needed to organize any group of people, Freedom of association, Religion, Freedom to Assembly, Freedom of Speech and of the Press. Without these you can NOT MOBILIZE any sizable group of people.

With the rights set forth in the First Amendment you can mobilize people and once you have moblized the majority of the people that the ruling tyrants must address this mobilized group of people. The problem is what happens when the tyrants (For lack of a better name, I will use this name in this paper as the name for the people who the people want to overthrow) refuses to address what the people want? What if (unlike the British in India and the Federal Government regarding the Civil Rights Movement in the South) the powers that control the Government are willing to use violence to suppress opposition?

In Vietnam you had two periods of LOW LEVEL Guerilla Activities, right after WWII as the French re-occupied the Country from the Japanese (and actually took the country back from the View Minh who had driven the Japanese back to just the ports at the end of WWII) and again rom 1955 to 1964 as the North Vietnam switched from fighting the French (which ended in 1954 by Peace treaty giving Ho Chi Minh control of North Vietnam, and Diem control of South Vietnam) to overthrowing the Government of South Vietnam.

In 1954 most of what would become North Vietnam was under the Control of the Viet Minh (With the Exception of Hanoi, Haiphong, and most of South Vietnam except the Mekong Delta which was pro-Communist). Thus the split of Vietnam in 1954 was along the lines both sides controlled (With the Viet Minh giving up the Mekong Delta and getting Hanoi and Haiphong in return). At the time people if the majority of people in South Vietnam had been permitted to vote, they would have voted to join North Vietnam. The ruling classes of South Vietnam opposed that idea so no such election occurred. In response to this lack of an election the Communists started a slow growth of Guerilla activities. To support these activities and to support increase activities in the future, North Vietnam started to build up its forces in the South. These forces became known as the Viet Cong.

The Viet Cong did not form a Battalion size units till about 1964. Thus between 1954 and 1964 all activities were Company (i.e. less than 100 men) or smaller attacks. These also tended not to be integrated (i.e. individual attacks to show to the people the opposition to the Government of South Vietnam existed, very similar to what is happening in Iraq today. By 1964 this guerilla activity was on the verge of taking over the Country. The Viet Cong knew they needed larger formations than Companies to take over the country, so they started to integrate the previously independent Companies into Battalions and Regiments. At that point we intervened and delayed the wishes of the South Vietnamese people till 1975 when in what most people consider a fair vote the South Agreed to merge with the north (this was after the fall of South Vietnam to the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese troops).

In Afghanistan a similar scenario played out, you had opposition to the Government of Afghanistan, which was in danger of falling when the former Soviet Union Intervened in 1979. Ten years later the former Soviet Union left and finally the Government of Afghanistan fell to the Islamic opposition (Which a few years later after tearing the country apart fell to the Taliban, but that is another story).

In all three of these situation the opposition to the Tyrannical Government first organized themselves at the village level, than into Companies, than into Battalions and Regiments. In Vietnam this was between 1954 and 1964, in Afghanistan between 1975 (and the fall of the King of Afghanistan) and 1979, in the case of the Taliban between 1995 and 1997 as they slowly took over the country, more by political maneuvering than military might. In fact the Taliban takeover was the most peaceful of the three but also the one not OPPOSED by foreign countries (Till it came to the Northern Provinces when Russia opposed the expansion of the Taliban let their brand of Islam be carried into the Islamic Republics of the former Soviet Union).

If you want an example closed to home, look at Castro’s Cuban Revolution of the late 1960s, again he first organized, made political opposition and when that was repressed went into Guerilla warfare to overthrow a tyrant. The FARC in Columbia is following a similar policy.

The first lesson of these campaigns is first guns, by themselves are useless. You must first organize the majority of people to support the guerilla activities and maintain a message to those same majority of people of the need to maintain the opposition to the tyranny.

Only once you have the majority of the people on your side you can do a successful guerilla war. If the people support the Tyrant you can NOT win. Opposition is NOT enough, the people must want to support you. Support means providing their sons to fight for you AND supplying you with the food and money to keep on fighting. This has to be “Voluntary, I use “Voluntary” in quotes for it is the same type of voluntary commitment people do when they pay taxes. People do not like paying taxes, but will do so for a Government (or Guerilla resistence Group) that offers to give them what the people want.

I go into the above to show you HOW the Second works in conjunction with the First. The First gives you the ability to form into groups that opposes an “enemy”, once you are formed up, like Castro’s Guerillas, The Viet Cong, The Afghan Guerillas, The FARC in Columbia, than and only than can you make your military move IF YOU HAVE THE WEAPONS TO DO SO.

Eastern Europe was occupied from 1945 till 1990 when the Soviet Union pulled out. The people of Eastern Europe opposed rule by the former USSR, but lacked the means to drive out the Red Army. Given the Military/ Political situation in Eastern Europe the people did not want another war and the USSR made efforts to make sure any opposition was muted. For example the removal of the Germans from Silesia and the Sudenland. These had been hot points prior to WWII, so the Soviet Union removed the German population and gave their homes to Poles (in Silesia) and Czechs (In Sudenland). These new Settlers had to support the Government for if they did not all the Government had to do is threaten to fall and the title to they new homes disappeared with the Government. Furthermore the Armies of Eastern Europe were kept under constant watch and had inferior equipment to the Red Army itself. Finally, the Soviet Union’s hand was light on matters NOT involved with ruling. Finally, the actually ruler where locals, who had some popularity with the people, and these politicians AND the people knew that to much opposition would lead to total war with the Red Army something, the people, their Armies and their Politicians all opposed.

Please note once the threat of Red Army intervention was removed by Gorbachev, all of these countries overthrew their Communist leadership and installed governments more in line with Western Style Democracy (and the only Eastern European Country that had any violence was Romania, where the Army backed the People against the Rulers and their Police followers). The chief reason for the relatively peaceful transition is that Eastern Europe had Universal Military Service, thus the Army consisted of the people (more like a militia than a regular army). Thus the Army of these countries could not be used against the people (unless the people supported such use). This is a major difference between Eastern European Countries and the Countries mentioned earlier (Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cuba and Columbia) these countries’s Armies are all “Voluntary” i.e. hired mercenaries with some draftees to fill in the lower ranks. The people of these countries and these countries’s armies are NOT the same (And very similar to the present US Volunteer Army).

Thus to have a successful revolution you need organization first. That is sufficient unless the Tyrants decide to use force. A Eastern European style army can not be used for that activity and as such if a country has such an army the revolution will tend to be peaceful, the problem is most of the world who are ruled by Tyrants who have mercenary armies. Such mercenary armies will do anything to keep their paymaster in power (and themselves paid).

To destroy such an army requires a slow destruction of its ability to supply itself and to pay itself. Thus any successful Guerilla war has first to separate the Mercenary army from its ability to be paid and feed. Protecting the Peasants (or other poor people) when possible but mostly tying the mercenary army in futile efforts to get supplies (i.e. food to eat and money to buy weapons with and to pay themselves). The Army of South Vietnam was noted for this and once the US left, where unable to stop the onslaught of both Guerilla and Regular forces of North Vietnam that lead to the fall in South Vietnam in 1975. The Army of South Vietnam needed to disburse to collect the taxes (including food) and thus were targets for the Guerillas, at the same time it needed to stay together to fight off any attack by the regular forces allied with the Guerillas.

This same tactics where used by Washington destroyed the British Army. Washington by keeping his regular forces together, forced the British to keep their forces in New York and their other bases let Washington’s Continentals launch an attack. The problem for the British was that by staying together they could not gather food and fodder for their horses. Thus the British Army in North America slowly died (Yorktown was a great Victory but the British was still in a very Strong position after Yorktown but the strain of maintaining an army AND fighting Guerillas were to much and the British decided to cut their losses and used Yorktown as an excuse back home in England). The same thing was happening to our army in Vietnam and later what destroyed the South Vietnamese Army.

Castro used the same tactics, maintaining a strong central force while maintaining a widespread Guerilla Army against Batista. The FARC is doing the same, it has a large centralized Army, but also a huge number of Guerillas fighting the Government of Columbia thoughout the area FARC controls. Washingont tactics where copied by the North Vietnamese when it kept a armored division just north of the DMZ during the whole Vietnam war waiting to pounce when it was the right time to attack (The Armored Division stayed north of the DMZ during the Tet Offensive of 1968, but did strike in 1975). The Taliban did the same tactics on its march to power, maintained a strong Army that would fight, but preferred to deal and set up Guerillas and than take over another section of Afghanistan. The Taliban used these tactics to take over most of Afghanistan. These tactics only failed the Taliban when they moved out of areas dominated by Pathans and into areas of other ethics groups in Afghanistan (And the Taliban had limited ability to use Guerilla tactics in these areas) . During the Afghan War, the fact that the Guerillas could maintain a fairly large force in both Iran and Pakistan contained Soviet attacks.

Now, you may say “Hay, you are talking about Islamic and/or Communists groups not ‘Western Liberal resistence groups’”. And you would be correct. As I said in the beginning the first step in a guerilla war against a tyrant is to first organize. The Islamic and Communists Groups were the best at organizing people. “Western Liberal Resistence Groups” were less effective in organizing resistence groups (And less liked by the CIA and KGB who tended to fund these groups, remember any war is expensive, money talks).

Furthermore since most Islamic and Communist groups tend to be the first groups outlawed they tend to go underground first. Once underground they start to organize and as other groups are outlawed those groups tend to join the opposition which tends to be either Islamic or Communistic. Once outlawed these groups also tend to be controlled by the most fanatic opponents of the Tyrants and these tend to be either Islamic or Communistic. Thus to oppose the Tyrants you have to support a side with enough discipline to get the job done and that tend to be Communist or Islamic.

And do not think these can NOT be democratic, Iran while not a Western Style Liberal Democracy, has more freedom than any other country in the Mid-East including Iraq and excepting Israel. The Islamic leadership has problems but they are not the tyrants the Shah had been. Castro has jailed opponents, but he is NOT the Tyrant Batista had been. While the Overthrow of the Communist Government of Afghanistan was a disaster in Civil Rights (Especially for Women), under the Taliban you finally had peace that most of the people of Afghanistan accepted.

My point is ORGANIZATION is important, but without weapons such organization is worthless. The Chinese used Guerilla tactics against the Japanese and the better equipped the Guerillas became the more effective they became. Finally as WWII ended they became strong enough to drive out the Japanese (as the Japanese tried to hold onto anything it could as the US prepared to Invade and as the Soviet Union Took Manchuria from Japan). The better equipped the Guerilla is the better job he will do, and if equipped and organized good enough (i.e. the Universal Service Armies of Eastern Europe) the people being opposed by them will not even try to suppress the revolt (i.e. Eastern Europe in the late 1980s) or if suppression in tried quickly defeated (Romania).

It is when organization and/or weapons are missing that Tyrants last for any length of time. For example Castro has ruled as a Tyrant, but he is popular and therefore the opposition has been unable to formed a popular uprising against him (Castro’s opponents has the weapons but no popular support). Eastern Europe had the weapons but also no will when under Soviet occupation (but as soon as the Red Army withdrew they did overthrow their dictators).

Thus the point of this paper, it takes three things to overthrow a tyrant,

1. Popular support, you must have the majority of the people on your side (i.e. Democracy, even the Communists and Islamics both try to show they have the Support of the Majority of the People),
2. Organization to perform the overthrow (This is why Madison wrote the First like he did, these are HOW you organize an opposition. Without the First it is hard to organize an opposition and any resistence organized in absence of the rights stated in the First tend to be as tyrannical as what you are opposing)
3. Weapons to push the issue if the leadership that is being overthrown tries to use force to stay in power. You have to be willing to answer force with force. Weapons do not overthrow a tyrant, weapons just protect the people who are overthrowing a tyrant.

[happyslug]

78. I also forgot

Our Founding fathers disliked a large regular army for it had marched on the Capital during the Revolution and threaten to overthrow the Government (Washington plead with the men not to do so, and the men relented but they did march).

This was the Professional Army Washington had wanted from day one of the War. The Army others had opposed but gave in to Washington's demands. This fear that the ARMY could take over the Government was well known from recent historty to our founding fathers. Thus given a choice between George Washington's (and Alexander's Hamiltons's) first choice, i.e. a profesional Army backed by a PAID select Militia, Congress in the First Militia Act decided on what amounted to a Universal Service Army based on all white males between the ages of 18-45 being in the Army.

Subsequet Congresses never rejected this Army (The Militia Act Stayed on the books from 1792 till 1903) but also never funded it either. Thus the US ended up with a Small (15,000 man) army, supported by "Volunteers" during times of Crisis between 1792 and 1903. Since the only foreign invansion during that period was in 1812 this tended to work out.

Simply put the Congreess that passed the Bill of Rights did NOT want a large standing Army (and if it had to have one, wanted one made of all of the people of military age). Congress feared a Large army for the reason the Army had Marched in 1782. When the Army has to face a choice, its best interests of the best interest of the Nation which will the Army choice? In 1782 the Army barely chose the Nation, again in 1783 the Army almost marched again (this time under the command of its officers not just its Sargents).

IT was this fear that the Congress wanted a Small Army, a fear that still exists. Who will the Military support when the choice is The military or the Nation? A small Army is a Small threat and easy to overthrow, a large Army is difficult to overthrow and thus to be avoided. Thus during peacetime the Orginal Congress would have preferred a Militia to the large standing Army we have today. The Militia was not only cheaper, but since it consists of the Whole Population very rarely would the interest of the Militia and the people differ, you can NOT say the same of a profesional full time standing Army.

[library_max]

96. Thus,

since we have a large standing army and not a national militia, the 2nd Amendment, which very clearly states its context as a "well regulated militia," is moot.

[happyslug]

98. Yes, and can we afford it?

The Soviet Union fell more do to maintaining a huge army than by its embrace of Communism (You can NOT speed 30% of your GDP on the Military and NOT ruin your economy).

In the US we are spending the same amount as we did during the Cold War. Nixon started our long trail to decline when he "Freed" the Dollar from the fixed Exchange rates in 1971. Since we had the largest Economy we could do that, for what else would people trade in Yens? Marks? Rubles? No people traded in Dollars and once we gave up the Fixed rates of the post-war era, the Dollar was valuable to currency Attacks. The Dollar has survived the last 30 years because no want could come up with an alternative and thus we could export many of our economic problems overseas. The Euro effectively killed that ability and with Bush's tax cut nad his increase military spending, how soon before the Dollar comes under attack? Once that attack occurs we will go the way of the Soviet Union, you can NOT spend as much as we are doing on the Military without hurting our economy.

What has this to do with the Militia? We should re-adopt it as our defensive force, for the same reason it was adopted in 1792, it was the cheapest way to defend America and thus cause the least harm to the economy.

[happyslug]

99. Can one of the Rights in the Bill of Rights be "Obsolete"

This started out as a Second Amendment thread, as a such I was addressing the issue behind the Second Amendment. The Militia clauses itself are in the Constitution as ratified, the Second is a modification of the Constitution to address fears of the people who ratified the Constitution.

One of those fears was what would happen if the Militia was ignored by the Federal Government on the Ground a Regular Army would do the Job "Better". Such a development was not unknown to the Founding Fathers and were addressed by the Bill of Rights.

Today (as it was in 1792) the main form of defense to tyranny is the First Amendment, the Second still has some bite in it. It permits the people to form themselves into Militia units if that is what is needed to implement the will of the People over the will of the Regular Army. Such a fight (like what is happening in Iraq) will be long and bloody but as long as the majority of the people support the Militia, the Militia will prevail.

One of the ways to defeat a militia uprising is to look at why people are supporting the uprising. For example US forces have, in the past and today in Iraq, address what the people wanted in Economic terms, build roads, drill wells, do land reform (something done in El Salvador to separate the peasants of that country from the Rebels fighting the El Salvador Government during Reagan's Administration).

Thus the Second is still important, when the majority of the people oppose even our Armed Forces, we have been driven out (Vietnam) it took along time but the Viet Cong did it. In El Salvador the people revolted, but to put it down the El Salvador Government not only had to fight the Guerillas, but also provide the peasants of that Country with limited rights so to separate them from the Guerillas (this was the reason the Guerilla finally agreed to a cease-fire and Peace Treaty. A Similar set of Facts lead to the Peace Treaty in Guatemala).

My point is the Second amendment permits the people to retain an ability to fight off a tyrannical government. By itself the Second is useless, with the First Amendment it permits a revolt if all other means to address the needs of the people had been ignored or suppressed by force. (and forces any government to at least consider that a revolt may occur and thus hold off using force themselves OR even forcing the Government to at least consider the concern of the people).

[thetoolshed]

101. hrmm

Isn't that like saying "Because we have NPR, we don't need freedom of the press."?