09-06-2016, 11:13 PM
I feel like responding to this post by Warren Dew. It could be educational. I am glad to see a new poster here. The old pro-gun arguments like this, leave me puzzled and baffled and bemused, however. And no offense intended, but there's much to refute in these kinds of statements.
Warren Dew:
This is a common argument but quite incorrect. I am always surprised that any government would recognize in its constitution the right of the people to rise up and overthrow it by force of arms. The second amendment is indeed about the need of a free state to protect itself. The need to put down uprisings and repel invasions is specifically mentioned in the constitution, iirc. That's why the militia was needed. It was probably intended to repel a slave rebellion. In any case, the people can't protect themselves from the government through their individual right to bear arms. The government has to enforce law and order and protect itself from invasion. It has to be armed, therefore, and is always likely to be better armed than individual gun owners are. The only way for the people to threaten the government violently with guns is to do what Dixie did; form an alternative government, conscript an army, equip it with all the weapons an army can muster, and make itself into the very kind of state that you are rebelling against.
The idea that the people protect themselves from the government with their own arms, suggests that police shooting unarmed black people has justified what the guys did in Dallas and New Orleans in response, and shooting police/the government by themselves. I disagree; they did not have the right to go kill police. Black lives matter, and the Black Panthers did some things right, but no, the people do not have the constitutional right to shoot the government or rise up and overthrow it-- unless they are ready to set up an alternative state of their own with their own constitution and defend it with a full army. Talk like this from Warren Dew suggests that many people today are ready for civil war, and have utterly given up on law and politics as an alternative. Be sure and understand what you are getting into with your calls for individuals to be armed to "protect themselves from the government." It means civil war and gross slaughter, for which the rebels will suffer disproportionately.
This is a strange statement that takes me aback. So Warren, you are saying here that free governments need to have large numbers of armed citizens ready to fight wars, which really means drafting huge numbers into the army, and without this the people lose their freedom. But the freest countries in the world are precisely those who are poorly armed, have gun control, and work together well with other countries. Maybe you can get Cynic Hero to agree with you; but no, heavily-armed countries are those who oppress their people and invade other countries, generally-speaking. Governments with large armies do not build them from individual gun fanatics who are resisting the government. Armies do not consist of such individualist libertarian anarchist gun toters. Governments build armies by putting young people into their armies and taxing their citizens to put lots of military weapons in their hands and at their control. So what are you talking about here, Warren? Make some sense of your statement, and take responsibility for it if you can. I don't think you can.
Warren Dew:
Quote:I'll skip the political arguments where no one is interested in being convinced anyway, but I will address this a bit. The majority opinion in Heller, which as you point out allows gun regulation, but not de facto bans, is really the only reasonable interpretation. The minoriity interpretation would have to be based on the idea that the government needs protection from the people of the government's right to use arms, which is pretty far fetched and entirely inconsistent with the rest of the bill of rights, which is all about protecting the people from the government.
Clinton's team has made it quite clear that she intends to use the Scalia vacancy to reverse Heller, which would eliminate any individual right to bear arms. That would also eliminate any ability of the people to protect themselves against the elites' making the democratic process a sham and against the elites' eliminating all other individual liberties that they don't care to grant.
This is a common argument but quite incorrect. I am always surprised that any government would recognize in its constitution the right of the people to rise up and overthrow it by force of arms. The second amendment is indeed about the need of a free state to protect itself. The need to put down uprisings and repel invasions is specifically mentioned in the constitution, iirc. That's why the militia was needed. It was probably intended to repel a slave rebellion. In any case, the people can't protect themselves from the government through their individual right to bear arms. The government has to enforce law and order and protect itself from invasion. It has to be armed, therefore, and is always likely to be better armed than individual gun owners are. The only way for the people to threaten the government violently with guns is to do what Dixie did; form an alternative government, conscript an army, equip it with all the weapons an army can muster, and make itself into the very kind of state that you are rebelling against.
The idea that the people protect themselves from the government with their own arms, suggests that police shooting unarmed black people has justified what the guys did in Dallas and New Orleans in response, and shooting police/the government by themselves. I disagree; they did not have the right to go kill police. Black lives matter, and the Black Panthers did some things right, but no, the people do not have the constitutional right to shoot the government or rise up and overthrow it-- unless they are ready to set up an alternative state of their own with their own constitution and defend it with a full army. Talk like this from Warren Dew suggests that many people today are ready for civil war, and have utterly given up on law and politics as an alternative. Be sure and understand what you are getting into with your calls for individuals to be armed to "protect themselves from the government." It means civil war and gross slaughter, for which the rebels will suffer disproportionately.
Quote:And with the shift from individual firearms to nuclear weapons as the critical weapons of war, that could mean we would be saying goodbye to democracy and individual rights forever. It has only been governments' need for large numbers of armed citizens to fight their wars that has forced the government to grant citizens power and freedom; without that need, the elites can ignore the citizens' welfare entirely.
This is a strange statement that takes me aback. So Warren, you are saying here that free governments need to have large numbers of armed citizens ready to fight wars, which really means drafting huge numbers into the army, and without this the people lose their freedom. But the freest countries in the world are precisely those who are poorly armed, have gun control, and work together well with other countries. Maybe you can get Cynic Hero to agree with you; but no, heavily-armed countries are those who oppress their people and invade other countries, generally-speaking. Governments with large armies do not build them from individual gun fanatics who are resisting the government. Armies do not consist of such individualist libertarian anarchist gun toters. Governments build armies by putting young people into their armies and taxing their citizens to put lots of military weapons in their hands and at their control. So what are you talking about here, Warren? Make some sense of your statement, and take responsibility for it if you can. I don't think you can.