Beowulf right to Leave the SL

Jonathan_S wrote:

JohnRoth wrote:Third: pragmatic. At the time the amendment was framed and voted on, the typical hand weapon would have been a club, knife or sword. Pistols of the era were single shot muzzle loaders. Breach loading rifles did exist - the Ferguson comes to mind - but they were still single shot. The modern cartridge hadn't been invented. Anyone who invokes the framers in the argument is talking intent, not the text. The framers of the Constitution are, of course, all safely dead and unreachable to join in the discussion. I, however, seriously doubt that they would have agreed that fully automatic machine guns were appropriate weapons for self-defense.

At the risk of dirving this this thread further off the rails, I will say that while you have a point about the technology of the time, it's also true that merchant ships fairly regularly carried cannons (like those of warships; but usually lighter ones and in far fewer numbers.

But there wasn't any clear distinction made in the wording of the 2nd amendment between personal weapons and the heavier weapons which existing at the time.


So maybe the founders wouldn't want you to own a machine gun, but a cannon might be ok

HungryKing wrote:It is more complicated than that. Some of the framers though including a bill of rights was redundant, mostly because the individual states had bills of rights.

And some of them objected because if you make a list of rights it, in practice, tends to remove any other rights you failed to enumerate (regardless of how self-evident everyone at the time perceived them to be)

There were a lot of different opinions during the Constitutional Conventions which is why the resulting document is an interesting series of compromises.

Okay, I wasn't going to say another word supporting this whole topic drift, but I would like to point out that there is a distinct difference between field artillery stored in the basement of the local town hall (or local mafioso equivalent) and the broadside guns of a trading ship which might find itself necessary to protect itself against pirates or Barbary Corsairs just about anywhere except on the Great Lakes. For one thing, small arms suffice against those threats. For another thing, guns mounted aboard the ship in New York Harbor are pretty darn useless for threatening the governor in Albany. That is, armed merchant vessels — like a standing Navy — would not be viewed as a threat to the government or the citizens of the United States, whereas a battery of 12-pounder field pieces certainly could be construed that way.

runsforcelery wrote: For another thing, guns mounted aboard the ship in New York Harbor are pretty darn useless for threatening the governor in Albany.

In a case of science fiction meeting science fact, the U.S. Navy is in the final stages of development of a ship mounted railgun that could throw a shell 100km. So we soon will be at the point where a ship in New York Harbor can threaten the governor.
I don't think most private citizens would be able to afford the power plant, much less the weapon.

pablopinzone wrote:In a case of science fiction meeting science fact, the U.S. Navy is in the final stages of development of a ship mounted railgun that could throw a shell 100km. So we soon will be at the point where a ship in New York Harbor can threaten the governor.
I don't think most private citizens would be able to afford the power plant, much less the weapon.

100 km? You'd be lucky to hit Poughkeepsie.

Actually, he said again — urrrgh, pant, gasp, strain heave (damn this thing is heavy) — trying to drag the thread back on topic, these same sorts of issues and disagreements are at the heart of the Solarian League's difficulties in the Honorverse. Unfortunately for the League, the fact that the League's constitution has been a dead letter (because it's been ignored) for so long means that the clearly, sharply, and often divisively articulated contrasting views which are part of the US experience in discussing things like the Second Amendment have not been part of the SL's legal DNA for entirely too long. This means that those who pass as "constitutional experts" in the League are largely free to pick and choose and assemble their viewpoints without the degree of challenge they would receive in the present-day US political environment.

It also appears to me that there is a great deal of "might makes right" at play as well. To throw in another hot political topic, the Mandarins' attitude toward Beowulf reminds me a great deal of Putin's attitude toward the Crimea. Except that in Putin's case he really did have the might to back up his attitude while in the case of the SL their might is in their own heads.

runsforcelery wrote:If it were that cut-and-dried the issue would not have arisen.

Ah but then we are back into the realm of what´s legal vs what´s reality, same as what the thread is about.

Legally, if you don´t have an axe to grind, it is "cut-and-dried", but since the thing got infected with with both sides trying to force it to the extreme, well lawyering counts for far too much in USA in my opinion.

runsforcelery wrote:If "the people" are, indeed, simply the organized militia(s) of the United States

Most likely it refers to "we the people", ie the collective population of the nation.

Ie, the "people" as a whole has the right to arms ( in opposition to the restrictions that existed under British rule, which is why the amendment happened at all, as it retroactively legalises the war of indepence ), rather than individuals.

In context, this effectively means the stated "organised militias".

runsforcelery wrote:Unfortunately for this interpretation in modern terms, the Civil War pretty clearly showed that it didn't work (from the South's perspective) and the Federal government's willingness (and ability) to federalize the national guard --- as Eisenhower did in Arkansas in 1954 --- sort of erases the rganized militia"/national guard as a deterrent (for good or ill) on Federal authority/overreach (definitions of which are which will vary).

Yes, but that doesn´t change the meaning of the original amendment. As that is the very thing, USA wants to stay with the "original intent"(or at least claims so, usually as long as the current interpretation suits them personally).

runsforcelery wrote:If the original notion that the militia was to provide the deterrent to federal tyranny

It´s to guarantee a "free state" as in free nation, not under the opressive imperial yoke of the British(or anyone else).

runsforcelery wrote:but it's clear from their correspondence that they were most concerned about the potential for "tyranny" (a word they used a lot) of a central government with a monopoly on armed force. Arguments can certainly be made for abandoning the "deterrent to tyranny" argument entirely; arguments can also be made against abandoning it, however.

If the supposed meaning was for state militias to serve as a guarantor against that "tyranny", then the wording is exceedingly strange.

"being necessary to the securityof a free State", that clearly tells you that it is not a matter of opposing central government tyranny.

Otherwise even just cutting part of that would have been better, "being necessary to a free State". Also, singular free state would probably not be used, ""being necessary to the freedom of the states" or something in that direction would be more likely if protection against central govt was the primary reason.

runsforcelery wrote:Moving beyond the notion of restraining the federal government, however, brings us to the "arms for self defense" argument which was an explicit part of the Bill of Rights of 1869 and (in my opinion; others may vary) clearly implicit in the 2nd Amendment.

Sorry but no way. 2nd does not include that in any way or form, or even a hint.

runsforcelery wrote:Which brings us to what "shall not be infringed" means. Does it mean shall be absolutely unrestricted, in which case I can park a nuke in the basement and carry Sarin gas in my car? Does it mean only small arms, or are crew-served weapons covered, as well? Does it allow the government to theoretically allow its citizens to be armed while hedging the weapons with which they may be armed with so many restrictions as to make them effectively useless?

And here is yet another clear hint what the 2nd is about. The British tried to enforce arms restrictions on what became USA, in part to keep it from rebelling (that worked really great didn´t it...), so this is a big reminder to not let anything like that happen again.

"Shall no be infringed" can only mean zero restrictions. Anything else DO infringe.

Which is one more BIG hint that it´s not talking about individual rights to carry personal weapons or having anything to do with personal defense.

runsforcelery wrote:then the "right of the people" to be armed in self-defense becomes the focal point of the debate.

Except the 2nd does not say that unless you cut parts out of context.

runsforcelery wrote:I tend to come down on the side of the Framers' intention having been, first, to prevent a federal monopoly on force

That is a wishful hallucination without real value. The US military structure is very hierarchical, very top down and strictly controlled, and there have been a number of times when the central govt has used military force in questionable ways inside USA, no local forces have ever had any ability, or even "will"(ie rejecting the legality of orders) to deny this monopoly.

And the common idea that individual weapons in any way prevents it, well i don´t expect you to be among that crowd, as that is just silly.

Also, compare between nations that HAVE rejected tyranny of a central govt, what the militaries have done or not, and what system they used, how much they were "professional" and conscript armies...

runsforcelery wrote:In any case, the interpretation is not nearly so cut-and-dried as your summation suggests and the argument in question has been going on for over 300 years now.

De jure, it is. De facto? De facto, the gunlobby in USA have lots of cash and are willing to buy as much lawyering power as they need.


Do note that i personally have nothing what so ever against individual ownership of firearms. Responsible ownership.
And although i might wish for slightly looser gunlaws here, i will much rather keep what we have now, than USAs mess.

I can still own 20 rifles or 10 pistols before needing a collectors permit here, and who NEEDS more?


And for selfdefense? A year or two of martial arts is far more useful than a gun in your pocket.

Because "you can´t dodge a bullet", that is very true, but what is usually skipped past is the fact that you CAN dodge the AIM of the one who shoots.

runsforcelery wrote:I don't expect it to end tomorrow.

Meh, you sensible folks should just come up with a decent "middle of the road" law and be done with it.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:Tenshinai,
I usually agree with you, but in this case it seems that
you overlooked the clause in Article 2:
"The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army
(and the Navy)"

This shows (to the standard you are arguing by) that
the USA was indeed intended to have an Army.

HTJM

Nope, if you gather a bunch of armed people together, regardless if they´re militia or whatever, then you have an army.

No contradiction.




##########

JohnRoth wrote:Since the dreaded "2nd amendment" topic has come up, I've got a few things to say, grammatical, political and pragmatic.

All good points.

May be another name would be "The War to prevent the massacre of Southern State White People?

IIRC, the Haiti slave revolt had recently occurred. Nearly zero white people survived.

Of course it also could be called "The War to eliminate job and wage competition for lower class whites."

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:HB, if you are not going to use the standard "ACW" name
for that war, then please call it by its Truename:
"The War For Slaveholders Privileges."

HTM of Philadelphia Pennsylvania

HB of CJ wrote:
[snip - htm]
... the War Between The States...1861 to 1865.

[snip - htm]
HB of CJ (old coot) Lt.Cm. born in Big Lick VA.

My late father in law had a plow that incorporated a muzzle loading cannon into the main beam.

Some wealthy people owned cannon and raised their own militia units.

Of course Albany is far from NYC harbor, but most State capitals were on the coast or grew up around inland harbors. Washington DC is on the Ptomac. An armed merchantmen was always a potential threat.

runsforcelery wrote:


Okay, I wasn't going to say another word supporting this whole topic drift, but I would like to point out that there is a distinct difference between field artillery stored in the basement of the local town hall (or local mafioso equivalent) and the broadside guns of a trading ship which might find itself necessary to protect itself against pirates or Barbary Corsairs just about anywhere except on the Great Lakes. For one thing, small arms suffice against those threats. For another thing, guns mounted aboard the ship in New York Harbor are pretty darn useless for threatening the governor in Albany. That is, armed merchant vessels — like a standing Navy — would not be viewed as a threat to the government or the citizens of the United States, whereas a battery of 12-pounder field pieces certainly could be construed that way.

Commodore Oakius wrote:Larger government bodies to represent the increase population? Maybe. Mort government controls? NO! Nazi Germany, USSR under Stalin. The Facists under Musselini in Italy. North Korea Under Kim Jung Il. China under Mao. Cuba under Castro... Need I go on? More and more Government control leads to opresive government, because they control all and everyone chafes against control, and the governments spook about so much chafeing and the crack down.

No it doesn´t. Living in a Nordic country here, you know one of those strange places that has had lots of govt influence and control in general, and people generally don´t mind it much.

Because it doesn´t actually matter as long as that control isn´t oppressive.

but that we should have the ablitiy to stand against mondern military units, and a double-barrel shotgun is not enough to stand against M-16s.

A shotguns is just as effective as if you have an M-16 of your own. Civillians with guns simply CAN NOT stand up to modern military units.

The only way to win such a confrontation is to get the military to join you.

I am a firm believer that I have the right to do anything I want, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the the life, property and pursuit of happiness of my fellow citizen. My bearing arms or not bearing arms will have no effect on whether our not a neihborhood with gang violence will be safer or not.

No, but if you were willing to accept that it might take a week or four extra to aquire "your gun" and that you are required to store it safely, then those gangs would have a much harder time to aquire their weapons.

1: Gangs with guns will not be curtailed by limiting gun laws.

Rubbish. They might not be left without guns completely, but they WILL notice. Of course, in USA it´s effectively already too late because there are such insane amounts of guns floating around already.

In fact there are arguments that if certain guns are unable to be sold in the pubilc they are more likely to be found in the blackmarket since they have no legal outlet.

... That´s not even worth being called rubbish. That´s a complete brickwall headbutt in regards to logic.

2: You are right deranged individuals should not have access to guns, which is why we have the current laws in place for background checks and mental health checks.

And those works sooo well don´t they?

Last year, a reporter from here went and tested purchasing guns in a few states in USA, despite not even being a US citizen, he got the guns almost every time. Over the counter in a few minutes some times.

Background checks? What checks?

but they tend to, with guns anyway, and that is blackmarket guns bought by criminals, not legally purchased fire arms.

And where do those blackmarket weapons come from?


##########

n7axw wrote:As for the gun arguments, ccould we please have some practical sense? No one, least of all me has any particular objection to guns in the possession of responsible people, but look at what we actually have:

...

Gang, the way we tolerate this crap is both outrageous and stupid to say nothing of morally reprehensible. On a personal level, I find it offensive when the pro-gun people talk like their right to bear arms is more important than my right to walk down the street without the fear of getting shot.

Don

And a big +1 to that.


##########

biochem wrote:It also appears to me that there is a great deal of "might makes right" at play as well. To throw in another hot political topic, the Mandarins' attitude toward Beowulf reminds me a great deal of Putin's attitude toward the Crimea. Except that in Putin's case he really did have the might to back up his attitude while in the case of the SL their might is in their own heads.

Crimea has openly and repeatedly requested federalisation due to the mismanagement the Kiev governments have treated the nation with almost since from the start.

Crimea even had a regional vote in the early 90s with a result skyhigh towards demanding federalisation back to where it was under the USSR time(or under Russian rule post USSR).

This is the same problem as with the rest of the "separatists", most of them are NOT separatists, but federalists, wanting more regional independence from Kiev.

Then, Crimea holds the only "southwestern" port for Russia, and with Kiev starting to talk about defaulting on the deals for that after a nationalist coup sponsored by NATO, EU and USA...

Uh, no. There´s pretty much zero correlation.

Point number 2 is utter bovine scatology.

The job related homicide rate for American police is as low as it has ever been and actually lower than the homicide rate for male citizens.

The use of rifles to commit homicides in major American cities is almost unheard of except for homicides committed by the police. This is why the DC sniper shootings provoked such a fecal storm. DC had not had a homicide committed with a rifle of any type for over a decade.

The police like to whine about being outgunned for two reasons:

1 to distract public attention from the issue of clearance rates. Since 1960, the percentage of homicides cleared by the arrest of the perpetrator has declined from greater than 90% to barely 60%. The decline in clearance rates preceeded the increase in homicide rates. There is an absolute correlation between low clearance rates and high murder rates. There is an inverse correlation between the number of cops per capita in a jurisdiction. More cops = greeter chance of getting away with murder = more murder.

If you want to find an outlaw, call an outlaw.
If you want to find a donut shop, call a cop.


2. To distract their wives and girlfriends from noticing their anatomical short comings.

n7axw wrote:I guess I am going to have to weigh in on the other side. I have no desire to deny constitutional rights.

As for the right to seceed, that is now settled, not with legal arguments but in blood at places like Gettysburg, Shiloh and so on. Consequently there is no right of sucession, whatever the framers might have intended to start with.

As for the gun arguments, ccould we please have some practical sense? No one, least of all me has any particular objection to guns in the possession of responsible people, but look at what we actually have:

1.criminal gangs in some our cities who actually outgun the police who are trying to apprehend them.

2.Deranged individuals who wander through college campuses and yes, even grade schools shooting kids...easy access to guns guaranteed.

3.people who live in dangerous neighborhoods afraid to let their children out to play for fear they will be shot.

Gang, the way we tolerate this crap is both outrageous and stupid to say nothing of morally reprehensible. On a personal level, I find it offensive when the pro-gun people talk like their right to bear arms is more important than my right to walk down the street without the fear of getting shot.

Don