certain unalienable Rights

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

On June 12 1823 Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, wrote a letter to William Johnson and said, "On every occasion... (of Constitutional interpretation) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying (to force) what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, (instead let us) conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

The Declaration of Independence identified unalienable rights, one of which is the right to life. Anyone who believes in the right to life and concurrently denies a right to self-defense contradicts himself.

The RKBA identifies the right of people to use tools in self-defense in addition to their bare hands. The very existence of civilization is a testament to the use of tools. This website is a testament to the use of tools.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." TENCH COXE in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.
"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." PATRICK HENRY, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
"...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them." - Thomas Paine

The Second Amendment protects the RKBA for the purpose identified within it. The Second Amendment does not limit that right. Since the establishment of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, laws and court decisions have been enacted which further focus both restrictions and protections on long established rights. Those protections include the individual RKBA. An example of a restriction would be that you just can't give your friend a machine gun or GBU-43/B as a birthday present. We have progressives to thanks for these advances.

[michael811]

1. having the most powerful federal force in the history of the world

makes the second amendment pointless. The federal army is too powerful for citizens to stand against it and has no need for civilians to help defend the country from invaders. Its either a large military or an armed citizenry having both is pointless

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

3. Bullshit

Please explain that to the folks in Afghanistan.

[DonP]

32. Not to mention the North Vietnamese

I guess all those poor, "ignorant" countries didn't get the memo that they couldn't possibly defeat a "superior" force with jets and tanks.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

36. There is a long history...

...of indigenous resistance to "superior" forces from the current Afghanistan back the Spartans and other earlier peoples.

[gejohnston]

5. I would rather have the latter

because you can use the money saved from dismantling the empire (and ending the war on drugs) to rebuilding communities, neighborhood schools, infrastructure, education, public health, green energy and other cool stuff. $700 billion a year is a shit load of money. Get Mitt and his trust fund buddies to pay their share to close the wealth gap. All of that would do more to curb gun and gang violence than any feel good law. Compare federal gun laws and violent crime rates in the 1950s with 1986 or today. Street gangs rarely used guns back then, even though they didn't need straw buyers or smugglers. They just needed a Sears catalogue and a money order.
But it has some to do with a Swiss style military, but it also has to do with what was (then) a very progressive concept, individual sovereignty vs being a subject to the Crown, State, or corporation (some places in India, and IIRC, Virginia were literally under corporate rule.)

[michael811]

8. I agree 100 percent nt.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

50. Some very good points here.

My question is how do we dismantle the empire?

[Atypical Liberal]

59. Start by repealing Citizens United. n/t

[glacierbay]

12. Bullshit

what makes you think that the military won't disintegrate into factions? I predict that a large majority would side with the citizens and they would bring their heavy weapons with them.
You honestly believe that any military commander is going to start bombing cities, shooting fellow citizens? Some will for sure, but the majority would refuse to kill fellow americans or destroy cities. And any Pres. who ordered that would be arrested and impeached in very short order.
Something like that would unite all Americans, whatever they're political stripe, like we haven't seen since WW2 or 9/11/01.
The 2A is, under no circumstances, pointless.

[Oneka]

20. "the most powerful federal force in the history of the world"

The War in Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001,[17] as the armed forces of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and the Afghan United Front (Northern Alliance) launched Operation Enduring Freedom. The primary driver of the invasion was the September 11 attacks on the United States, with the stated goal of dismantling the al-Qaeda terrorist organization and ending its use of Afghanistan as a base. The United States also said that it would remove the Taliban regime from power and create a viable democratic state. More than a decade into the war, NATO forces continue to battle a widespread Taliban insurgency, and the war has expanded into the tribal area of neighboring Pakistan.[18] The War in Afghanistan is also the United States' longest running war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29

"the most powerful federal force in the history of the world"

has fought a country roughly 1/10th the population of the USA, to a virtual standstill in over 11 years of fighting, and dying. How well do you think that
"the most powerful federal force in the history of the world" would do against a country the size of the USA, with over 80,000,000
citizens armed with small arms, and countless billionsof small arms ammunition squirreled away for their own defense and the defense of the USA?

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:AFG&dl=en&hl=en&q=afghanistan+population

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&idim=country:US&dl=en&hl=en&q=population+of+usa


How does the country of Afghanistan size up in comparison to the USA? These folks put together a nice interactive map:



http://www.vendian.org/mncharity/dir3/afghan_map/

Please get an open letter to the Taliban ready, and in it , explain to them how

The federal army is too powerful for citizens to stand against it

I'm quite certain that they will read your letter, and realize the futility of fighting on, as a guerrilla force , and our troops can come home in a few weeks.

Once our troops come home, and we are living in Blissful peace, perhaps you could implement the next step in your plan, You can send another open letter, in it you could explain that

Its either a large military or an armed citizenry having both is pointless

,you could send it to the secretary of the Army, the joint chiefs of staff, even the president. I'm quite certain that they will all see that there is no need to have such a large standing army during peacetime, and downsize to just a defensive force and unilaterally,disarm.





Of course neither of your letters will do a damn spit, in the real world, and i will just keep on exercising my constitutionally protected, god given, right to keep and bear arms

[michael811]

25. So why do we need the most powerful federal force in history

if they can be defeated by Afghanistan ? What is the point of spending trillions and trillions of dollars if an armed citizenry the size of the afghanistan can hold America off. Imagine what an armed citizenry the size of America would be able to do

[gejohnston]

27. follow the money

behind every war, there are many war profiteers

[jeepnstein]

46. Including the so-called War on Drugs

Our modern day era of Prohibition has fueled most of the violence in our cities.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

47. re: War on Drugs

What a waste in lives, money, effort...

[Oneka]

38. Our leaders like to project power,

That is all.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

39. That Monroe Doctrine...

...is starting to look a bit better.

[Atypical Liberal]

60. they would STAY THE FUCK OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S BUSINESS.

So why do we need the most powerful federal force in history if they can be defeated by Afghanistan ? What is the point of spending trillions and trillions of dollars if an armed citizenry the size of the afghanistan can hold America off. Imagine what an armed citizenry the size of America would be able to do

EXACTLY!

You know what the armed citizenry of 50 individual states would do? 90% of them would say, "Fuck that noise, we aren't going to go invade another country to supposedly fight and die for their freedom!"

This is precisely why the founders set up a decentralized military system. Imagine how many imperial entanglements we could have avoided over the years of the states had to cooperate collectively to engage in foreign military endeavors. What if half the states in the nation said, "You know what? We don't believe the whole WMD business!"

[gejohnston]

26. the article forgot a few armies

Irish, German, Canadian, French, Dutch, and the rest of NATO. Per capita, Canada suffered the most casualties.

[MercutioATC]

29. "The populace cannot effectively stand up to the military"

Tell that to the British in 1776. Today, private firearm ownership rights continue to provide that security.

Even if the government could get the military to attach its own population to the best of its ability (and it couldn't...many if not most soldiers would either refuse or join the popular forces) no force can occupy an area without controlling the ground. An armed populace makes this exceedingly difficult, if not impossible.

I'm not purporting that our government is going to attempt to forcibly oppress us. I am stating that our 2A rights make that something that we don't have to be terribly concerned about.

[4th law of robotics]

33. Great, so let's pare down our military

It's not like we're suffering crippling budget surpluses.

[sylvi]

41. If it was a handful of yahoos trying to take over a governmet building, you'd be right

But in the case of reaching the point where there's widespread civil uprising, I don't think the military would act as one monolithic entity. It would likely fracture along political and regional lines. The thought of firing on, bombing, and driving tanks over one's own family can be downright off putting. Blood is thicker than water.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

48. There will always be...

...a number 'Lon Horiuchis' but for most of us there is a great difference between attacking foreigners on foreign soil and attacking fellow citizens and neighbors.

[Eleanors38]

42. ...istan, algeria, Nam, Cuba, Tunisia, U.S.A. .....

[Missycim]

44. I wish I had a dollar for every grabber that came on and

said what you just said, I would buy a new car in cash.

[michael811]

53. I wish I had all the tax dollars I had back apparently wasted

on a defense department incapable of defeating anyone small group of people with rifles which is what is apparently true if you believe the people here

[DWC]

45. A huge domesticated "herd"

Last edited Wed Oct 10, 2012, 09:05 PM - Edit history (2)

can be controlled with very little force - which is precisely what our standing military and law enforcement personnel represent (< 6 million professionals vs > 300 million civilians of which > 70 million keep and bear private arms.

Our Fore Fathers were civilized but definitely not domesticated.

Today, Free Citizens in our Free Society are civilized and willingly comply with the just laws and rules of a peaceful society. But we, like our Fore Fathers, will never be domesticated to the point of subservience or subjective slavery to criminals and / or elitists who would be our masters - foreign or domestic.

Your ludicrous post indicates that you simply don't understand the magnitude of the 2nd Amendment and may be too domesticated to value the Freedom it guarantees.

Semper Fi,

[michael811]

51. one more major terrorist attack and americans couldn't hand over their rights

fast enough. Your deluding yourself if you think there is anything exceptional about the American populace that would make what happened in Germany impossible here. If the military is ordered to take your guns they will just take them and your neighbors would turn you in for having them too.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

52. Wrong!

Almost 30% of Americans own firearms. If you think that most of the military will just go around confiscating weapons by force, you are sadly mistaken. Ask a few vets.

[michael811]

54. the military your neighbors your friends and it will all be in the name of patriotism

I bet the japanese americans locked away in interment camps in world war 2 thought the same thing before the government came for them. I am not even arguing that your guns should be taken away but a large federal military is a huge danger to liberty and our founding fathers knew it

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

55. I am not even arguing that your guns should be...

...taken away but a large federal military is a huge danger to liberty and our founding fathers knew it"

I don't like the size of the current military either.

[DWC]

57. Nothing is Impossible

and what happened in Germany could happen here.

Understanding that fact, we aggressively defend the 2nd amendment. It is no guarantee that the wholesale murder of citizens can not happen here but it will be really, really difficult.

Review the numbers in the OP and consider that more than 25 million of those armed citizens are military veterans who committed their lives in the defense of our Constitution and our Freedoms.

We are the more senior LEOs; the gun owners; the parents and grandparents of the younger LEOs and those in the US military.

Do you actually think the individual LEOs and military personnel would willingly engage us in armed conflict?

Further, In that we were willing to die for our Rights and Freedoms when we were young; that we are any less willing to die for our Rights and Freedoms as our lives are closer to the natural end anyway?

To us, the Blessing to live in Freedom for ourselves and our posterity is and shall always be worth dying for.

Obviously, you are not one of us.

Semper Fi,

[Atypical Liberal]

58. It doesn't matter.

having the most powerful federal force in the history of the world makes the second amendment pointless. The federal army is too powerful for citizens to stand against it and has no need for civilians to help defend the country from invaders. Its either a large military or an armed citizenry having both is pointless

It doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter if the citizens of the United States can or would even attempt to serve as military forces in an emergency.

Our Constitution provides for it, and it is the law of the land that they can own the weapons that allow them the option to do so if they wish to try.

[Vincardog]

2. If we are going all originalist here we can have no permanent army, the wish to have every man armed

was the wish to have the manpower and arms ready to be called to serve. The FF believed that a standing army
would be the downfall of the republic. They have been proven correct.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. Bullshit

There is no Constitutional restriction against a standing army. The Army is mentioned only in section 2 of Article II.

[michael811]

7. There is a two year time limit for funding on a standing army

The constitution gives congress the power to raise armies where does it give them the power to keep them indefinitely

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. Where does it restrict military forces...

...to two years of existence?

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;" - This to me says that budgets have a two year max. I would suggest that the 7 year Revolutionary War would have given evidence to the Founders of the occasional need for the existence of an armed contingent for longer than two years.

[Vincardog]

11. There you have it "occasional need for the existence of an armed contingent" OCCASIONAL not

permanent. From your own words. Thank you.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. Please highlight...

...my use of "not permanent". Further more an "occasional need" doesn't deny a permanent army. I do believe that today's military is too large and needs to be reduced. But the correct size is definitely not zero.

[Vincardog]

16. I believe that opinions are like assholes.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

21. With all due respect...

...How shall I interpret your quoting of "my opinion" in post #11?

[michael811]

13. The point was to limit the existence of federal armies to times of war only

And each state was to have their own militia that the federal government could call upon as well. Do you notice there is no such limit for funding of the Navy ? I apologize for kind of hijacking the thread I know this was an article about gun control and its turned into the merits of standing armies but I do consider the two issues linked.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. You are quite correct :) n/t

[Vincardog]

17. Did you notice the Constitution does not mention the Air Force either?

[gejohnston]

18. only because it didn't exist

but I think the rational for a permanent air force would be the same for the navy.

[Vincardog]

10. Where is the Constitutional restriction against having the Corporations own the politicians? They

did not have to list everything they were not going to allow.

The Constitution allows certain things and what is not allowed is reserved for the PEOPLE to decide.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

31. Absolutely...

re: "The Constitution allows certain things and what is not allowed is reserved for the PEOPLE to decide."

Three cheers for the 10A. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[gejohnston]

6. I'm cool with that

we would still have a permanent air force, navy, marine corps, and coast guard.

[4th law of robotics]

34. Why would the constitution grant the right to raise an army to the government?

When has that right ever been in dispute?

Also why confer a collective power to the government amidst all those private rights for citizens?

[Eleanors38]

43. Re-read the Articles.nt

[4th law of robotics]

63. I'd be ok with drastic reductions to our standing infantry forces

with an emphasis on calling up the national guard should we get in to another WWII type situation.

Airforce and navy . . . not so much. Cut them a bit but it's harder to train a pilot or build a warship in a hurry as part of some mass mobilization.

Besides, both are pretty ineffective at oppressing a population. Which is why every despot has had a strong army, but not every one saw the need for investing in a strong navy or airforce.

So to sum up: we ought to (in my opinion) maintain a reasonable peace time airforce and navy. But we should reduce our professional peace time land forces significantly and rely more heavily on a part time force for defending against invasion/occupying enemy states should that come up. Maybe we could use various incentives to encourage people to join the national guard. Perhaps even make it mandatory for certain jobs/scholarships.

[gejohnston]

64. that is why the Constitution mandates an active navy

and now an air force and navy. Not so much an army.

[4th law of robotics]

65. Yep, the US is a virtual island.

We have major oceans on both sides of us and thoroughly peaceful relations with our only neighbors (well we've had issues on the Mexican border, but nothing like a war in a long time).

As such a powerful navy and air force are sufficient to guard our borders against most threats and project power when needed (like say by supporting uprisings against unpopular despots).

An army is a double edged sword: great for fending off enemies by shooting them until they behave, also great for oppressing citizens by shooting them until they behave.

This was common knowledge in the colonial days and part of the reason why absolute despotism developed on the mainland of Europe under strong central armies whereas the British remained (ironically given the revolution) relatively free due to their reliance on a strong navy and comparably weak army. That's part of the reason why "representation" was even an issue in the 13 colonies whereas no one in the French or Spanish colonies could have even conceived of that.

I guess at some point we forgot that.

/also it's really expensive during times of peace.

//if you get a chance this is an awesome history book that covers this phenomenon pretty well: http://books.google.com/books/about/War_and_the_rise_of_the_state.html?id=ZRKFAAAAMAAJ

[Vincardog]

66. Bingo got it in one. Mandatory service for all. Even Willard's kids.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

67. I like the mandatory service idea.

BTW, who's Willard?

[Vincardog]

68. Willard M. RobMe. GOP candidate for POTUS.

[gejohnston]

69. that name always reminds of a movie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_(1971_film)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

71. oh my

such an obtuse reference

Hell yeah, they should serve.

[DWC]

70. I strongly support the Swedish Model

Mandatory service for all capable.

That service may be other than military for those incapable of performing military duties and conscientious objectors

That model would reduce the standing military and its cost by at least 75% and reduce the rate of violent crime bu at least 50% as well

Semper Fi,

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

72. I like it

thanks

[michael811]

19. There is a line to be drawn somewhere though right ?

I don't know where the line should be as far as arms that are unrestricted because I don't know guns all that well. But say like Nuclear weapons could technically be considered arms. I would agree we should err on the side of more rights then less but I am curious as to your thoughts on what you would consider too far ?

[rDigital]

22. If citizens have the right to individually bear the primary weapons of the armed forces at the unit

level, then we will always be free.

In Afghanistan, one of the primary opposition weapons is the 91/30 Mosin Nagant, a 121 year old bolt action rifle. Just food for thought.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

23. This is a complicated issue.

Thanks for your question.

In short, I favor allowing arms that an individual can carry and efficaciously use against another individual in his defense if attacked. This would exclude nukes, helicopter gunships and tanks.

[michael811]

28. Thanks for answering

That makes sense so anything like grenade or rocket launchers which are for use against said tanks or helicopters are out too ? I am not trying to make a point or anything I am just seriously asking. Basically weapons that fire bullets that can be hand carried and operated by an individual are ok and anything more than that isn't generally speaking ?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

30. I don't see as much danger...

...in allowing personal ownership of tanks as I do in disallowing personal ownership of assault rifles. I think most of our current laws do a good job of both respecting rights and limiting use to what is reasonable according to the will of the people. I believe pistols, rifles and shotguns of any description (single shot, semi-auto and full-auto) are just fine for personal use. I further have no issue with restrictions on strategic weapons which target squad sized groups of people or areas larger than 100 sq. ft.

HTH

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

40. You never answered...

Questions or issues?

[gejohnston]

24. nuclear weapons are not arms

any more than a tank is. Besides, the price tag (and secrecy laws, since all nuke information is TOP SECRET, SECRET/RD, or SECRET/FRD) makes it a defacto ban on ownership.

[oneshooter]

49. " I don't know guns all that well." Thank you for your honesty. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

35. I don't own any firearms, and I don't really care for them,

but I don't want to deny others the right to have them, except in certain cases, such as children in school.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

37. I'm not crazy about children and...

...unsupervised minors having access to firearms.

[spin]

56. That's fair. (n/t)

[locks]

61. Empire and its consequences

Please read Koehler' Empire and Its Consequences under good reads today. Thanks

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

62. I read that. Thanks.