|
 Ancalagon
AgnosticLibertarian
Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
|
 The Right To Keep and Bear Arms 
#3395517 - 11/22/04 08:14 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
The Right To Keep and Bear Arms
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Arguably, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should have been made first in the Bill of Rights because without the right to keep and bear arms, such rights as freedom of speech and freedom of the press would be treated as nothing more than meaningless ?privileges? bestowed and taken away by government officials at will. The Second Amendment is the American people?s ultimate insurance policy against tyranny because government officials know that guns in the hands of the people provide the only practical means by which to resist tyranny. They know that a disarmed society almost always becomes an obedient society in the face of omnipotent, tyrannical government.
Gun-control advocates suggest that gun control will result in a safer, more secure environment for people. Their arguments are false, fallacious, and dangerous. Let?s examine why.
One underlying assumption of gun-control laws is that people will obey them. The problem with that assumption, however, is that while it might be valid with respect to people who generally believe in obeying the laws of society, it is invalid with respect to people who hold society?s laws in disrespect.
Therefore, gun-control laws would be effective in disarming peaceful and law-abiding people but would be ineffective in disarming people who have no reservations about breaking laws against murder, burglary, rape, and robbery. In other words, if a person intends to murder or rape another person, what are the chances that he?s going to say to himself, ?I can?t commit this murder or rape with a gun because that would be against the law?? No chance! To belabor the obvious, if a person has no respect for a law against murder or rape, he?s not going to have any respect for a law prohibiting him from possessing a gun.
The problem, then, is obvious: By disarming peaceful and law-abiding people, a gun-control law effectively precludes the intended victim of murder and rape from possessing an excellent means by which to defend himself or herself from the murderer and the rapist. As the popular saying goes, ?God didn?t make men equal; Sam Colt did.? Guns enable weaker people to protect themselves from the bigger, stronger bullies in life who have no reservations about murdering or raping other human beings.
There?s a corollary principle involved here: Even though everyone in society might not choose to arm himself, the right to keep and bear arms makes everyone in society, including those who choose not to possess weapons, safer from the likes of murderers and rapists. Why is this so? Because the murderer and rapist do not know in advance who is armed and who isn?t, which means that they have to be cautious about trying to commit their crimes. In fact, isn?t that the most likely reason that gun-control advocates never advertise too loudly that they live in a gun-free home?
In other words, if everyone is disarmed then the violent people in society can feel safe about murdering and raping people. But if everyone has the right to be armed, the murderer and rapist know that there is a good chance that they could guess wrong ? that the person whom they?ve chosen to murder or rape might fire first with the weapon in his possession.
A black-market in guns
A second underlying assumption of gun control is that guns will no longer be available to anyone, including the violent people who wish to procure them. This assumption is based on the hope that gun control will simply wipe guns totally out of existence, perhaps through some type of government buy-back scheme by which people are encouraged to turn in their weapons to the officials who promise to destroy or store them. Again, the assumption is false, fallacious, and dangerous.
One problem with this assumption is that it fails to take into consideration the free market or, more precisely, the black market that inevitably springs up in response to laws that attempt to restrict the supply of some product or service. Consider, for example, the war on drugs, a war in which the federal government has attempted to eliminate the supply of drugs for at least 30 years. Despite an increasing array of ever-harsher laws, those who desire drugs are still able to obtain them from those who are willing to take the risks to supply them.
Why wouldn?t we expect the same result with a war on guns? Wouldn?t a black market in guns immediately spring up, just as a black market in drugs sprang up when drugs were made illegal? And wouldn?t violent, anti-social people such as murderers and rapists be much more able and willing to acquire guns in such a market than peaceful and law-abiding people?
We would also be remiss if we failed to point out all the disastrous side effects of the federal attempt to stamp out drugs ? gang wars, convenience-store killings, police corruption, and robberies, muggings, burglaries, and thefts, not to mention the ever-increasing governmental assaults on the civil liberties of the citizenry.
Why wouldn?t we expect the same results ? if not worse ? with a war on guns?
?But if we just gave the government full powers to stamp out guns, then all guns could be stamped out once and for all, which would mean they couldn?t even be acquired illegally,? gun-control advocates implicitly suggest. That?s problematic, but let?s concede the point. Let?s assume that private ownership of guns is wiped out of existence in the United States and that somehow the government is able to prevent murderers and rapists from acquiring them in a black market.
The biggest threat to liberty
Would that make the American people safer? No, because a government that wielded the power to wipe out all guns in that society would be an omnipotent, tyrannical government, such as the one that exists in Cuba or North Korea. To paraphrase an old saying, when guns are outlawed only the government will have guns.
This brings us back to the primary argument against gun control ? that it serves as a check on tyranny because those in political power know that people possess the means to resist tyranny violently, perhaps even through revolution or rebellion, as Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence.
Keep in mind the entire philosophy that underlies both the Constitution and Bill of Rights ? that the biggest threat to the freedom and well-being of the American people lies with their own federal officials. Now, some people find that notion embarrassing ? that is, the notion that our own federal officials would ever impose tyranny on their own people. But the Founders and the Framers didn?t find that notion embarrassing at all, which is precisely why federal powers are expressly limited and restricted, both in the original Constitution and in the 10 amendments that followed soon after it was enacted.
Are federal officials capable of imposing tyranny on the American people? Well, tyranny might be a subjective concept but let?s define it by the violation of rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Are federal officials actually capable of violating those rights? Don?t they have such a principled devotion to those rights that they would never even conceive of violating them?
The Iraq model
The answer is ?No.? Our ancestors were right ? the federal government, by its very nature, attracts people who have absolutely no respect for such rights or the principles that underlie them. How do we know this? One good way is by examining how these people behave in the absence of constitutional restraints. A good model for such an experiment exists in Iraq, a country that federal officials have run for more than a year.
?But the Constitution doesn?t apply to how the federal government runs Iraq,? someone might argue. He would be missing my point. The point is whether federal officials honor the rights in the Constitution because they have to or because they believe in those principles.
How have federal officials, including the military, conducted themselves as rulers in Iraq, with no pesky federal judges, legislature, criminal-defense lawyers, or constitutional ?technicalities? to get in their way?
They?ve shot demonstrators; closed down newspapers critical of the military; searched people?s homes and businesses without warrants; killed suspected criminals as well as innocent bystanders; arrested people without warrants; detained criminal suspects indefinitely; denied detainees due process of law, the right to counsel, the right to bail, the right to jury trials, and the right to habeas corpus; imposed cruel and unusual punishments on people consisting of torture, rape, sex abuse, and murder by beatings; appointed unelected ?interim? sub-rulers with dictatorial powers to carry out their directives; and ensured that an elected legislature would not be part of the ?interim? regime.
And, of course, they have imposed gun control and gun confiscation and enforced their measures with deadly force.
In other words, they?ve done in Iraq all the things for which Americans rebelled against King George III ? and more.
?But that doesn?t mean that they would do all this to Americans.? Of course it does, especially if they believe it would be necessary for ?national security,? which they inevitably would. After all, don?t forget that they arrested an American, Jose Padilla, on American soil; charged him with conspiracy to commit terrorism; turned him over to the Pentagon; and denied him habeas corpus, due process, right to counsel, a jury trial, and all the other rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, including even freedom of speech.
?But that?s just one person,? one might say. But one person leads to another person who leads to another person, as the people of Chile and Argentina discovered when the military regimes in those countries were ?disappearing? an ever-growing number of people during their ?wars on terrorism.? As people who have lost their liberties at the hands of their own government throughout history have discovered, once the sacrifice and surrender of rights has begun, the march toward tyranny becomes inexorable.
Founding principles
Perhaps a good way to conclude an article on the vital importance of the right to keep and bear arms would be to restate the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and the Framers:
?Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.? ~ James Madison
?Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped.? ~ Alexander Hamilton
?As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which might be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.? ~ Tench Coxe
?Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.? ~ Noah Webster
?No free men shall be debarred the use of arms.? ~ Thomas Jefferson
?To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.? ~ Richard Henry Lee
?The great object is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun. . . . Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?? ~ Patrick Henry
?Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments . . . forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition. . . . [The] several kingdoms of Europe . . . are afraid to trust the people with arms.? ~ James Madison
--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'
|
 Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms [Re: Ancalagon]
#3396470 - 11/23/04 12:08 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Arguably, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should have been made first in the Bill of Rights because without the right to keep and bear arms
Except the second amendment says no such thing.
The Second Amendment is the American people?s ultimate insurance policy against tyranny because government officials know that guns in the hands of the people provide the only practical means by which to resist tyranny
Except the Iraqi people had the right to bear arms and were under the alleged "tyranny" of Saddam for decades. Meanwhile in the UK where there is gun control there hasn't been any tyrants in hundreds of years. So much for that theory.
And, of course, they have imposed gun control and gun confiscation and enforced their measures with deadly force
And the Iraqis are still doing a pretty damn good job of resisting the occupation. Could it be they can get guns from some other place than Bubbas gun store? Just like every other guerilla army on earth does?
Is the rest of the article this "accurate"? 
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
DirtMcgirt
in a pinch
Registered: 10/20/04
Posts: 2,213
Loc: city of angels
|
Re: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms [Re: Xlea321]
#3396830 - 11/23/04 02:02 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I am for the right to bear arms but most of this article is short-sighted bullshit that goes all over the place to justify the right to bear arms. Please post descent material that makes it easier to argue for my gun.
It takes descent points like the black market and liberty and twists them to sounding laughable by using hackneyed scare tactics and assumptions. This author should be shot with his own gun.
--------------------
"And we, inhabitants of the great coral of the Cosmos, believe the atom (which still we cannot see) to be full matter, whereas, it too, like everything else, is but an embroidery of voids in the Void, and we give the name of being, dense and even eternal, to that dance of inconsistencies, that infinite extension that is identified with absolute Nothingness and that spins from its own non-being the illusion of everything."
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
Re: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms [Re: Ancalagon]
#3397188 - 11/23/04 06:09 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
They know that a disarmed society almost always becomes an obedient society in the face of omnipotent, tyrannical government.
Has this guy actually taken a long look at modern America?? Guns arent really doing the job they are supposed to in this respect are they?
Quote:
Even though everyone in society might not choose to arm himself, the right to keep and bear arms makes everyone in society, including those who choose not to possess weapons, safer from the likes of murderers and rapists.
Its a great theory but why is the murder rate higher in the US than it is in many countries with gun control laws?
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms [Re: GazzBut]
#3397222 - 11/23/04 06:29 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said:
Quote:
They know that a disarmed society almost always becomes an obedient society in the face of omnipotent, tyrannical government.
Has this guy actually taken a long look at modern America?? Guns arent really doing the job they are supposed to in this respect are they?
They certainly aren't preventing government abuse entirely, but it's hard to gauge how bad things might be without them.
Quote:
Quote:
Even though everyone in society might not choose to arm himself, the right to keep and bear arms makes everyone in society, including those who choose not to possess weapons, safer from the likes of murderers and rapists.
Its a great theory but why is the murder rate higher in the US than it is in many countries with gun control laws?
Probably has something to do with the cultural tension and xenophobia that comes with all this ethnic diversity. Why is the murder rate so much lower in Switzerland, where every household has a gun?
--------------------
 
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms [Re: Xlea321]
#3397557 - 11/23/04 09:14 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Except the second amendment says no such thing.
it does, and we've been over this many times. the second amendment says,
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
who do you think the words, "the people" refer to?
|
Fucknuckle
Dog Lover
Registered: 04/24/04
Posts: 6,762
|
Re: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms [Re: ]
#3397588 - 11/23/04 09:24 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
The bottom line here is this
What or what not the Second Amendment says really means nothing. Because if the Government outlaws private ownership of Arms. They will only get half of them.
If there is a reason to march on Washington armed. Then the people with the balls to do it will have the weapons. 
There are far to many Guns in this country and the world, to ever think of removing the threat of Civil war.
--------------------
What it is, is what it is my Brother.
It is as it is, so suffer thru it.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms [Re: Fucknuckle]
#3397629 - 11/23/04 09:42 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There will be a rifle behind
every blade of grass." - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
Re: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms [Re: silversoul7]
#3397776 - 11/23/04 10:22 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Probably has something to do with the cultural tension and xenophobia that comes with all this ethnic diversity.
You are not the only multi cultural country in the world you know!
Quote:
Why is the murder rate so much lower in Switzerland, where every household has a gun?
Maybe because the level of poverty is so low?
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms [Re: ]
#3397804 - 11/23/04 10:31 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
who do you think the words, "the people" refer to?
So are you down to picking out words from the sentence that support your position and ignoring the rest? Take the sentence as a whole. If they'd meant the people why didn't they just say "The people shall own handguns and rifles".
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Autonomous
MysteriousStranger
Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
|
Re: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms [Re: GazzBut]
#3397807 - 11/23/04 10:34 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
"Its a great theory but why is the murder rate higher in the US than it is in many countries with gun control laws?"
You're in the UK, right? Can you explain why in Britain where the government is becoming increasingly intolerant of self defense and gun ownership, the crime rate is rising, while in the U.S. where more and more states have passed right to carry laws and there are more guns than ever, the crime rate is dropping? Can you also explain the low crime rate in Switzerland where guns are in so many homes?
--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms [Re: ]
#3397811 - 11/23/04 10:34 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
every blade of grass
Not to mention the pacific ocean..
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms [Re: Autonomous]
#3397834 - 11/23/04 10:39 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
the crime rate is rising
The crime rate was falling in the UK for 7 years in a row, then increased in 2002, and the most recent report I read said it was falling again.
the crime rate is dropping
What does the "crime rate" have to do with gun ownership? Does everyone packing heat stop people shoplifting or writing graffitti on walls?
Can you also explain the low crime rate in Switzerland where guns are in so many homes?
Despite claims that Switzerland is one of the most armed countries in the world, only 27% of Swiss households have firearms
http://www.gca.org.za/facts/briefs/10switzerland.htm
Switzerland: Opponents of gun control often use Switzerland as evidence that access to guns is not linked to crime or violence. They argue that since virtually all adult males are members of the army and have military weapons, there is nearly universal access to deadly weapons yet few gun-related problems in Switzerland. However, Swiss criminologist Martin Killias, of the Universit? de Lausanne, argues that the rate of households with firearms is actually comparable to that of Canada (27.2%). There is strict screening of army officers and ammunition is stored in sealed boxes and inspected regularly. Despite these controls, Switzerland has rates of gun suicide second only to the US among the countries Killias surveyed and a gun murder rate comparable to Canada's. Although firearms regulations in Switzerland is fragmented and controlled at the regional level, wide ranging reforms are being undertaken to establish national standards.
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms [Re: Autonomous]
#3397847 - 11/23/04 10:43 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
You're in the UK, right? Can you explain why in Britain where the government is becoming increasingly intolerant of self defense and gun ownership, the crime rate is rising
Longest period of falling crime for 106 years
Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Thursday July 22, 2004
The crime rate in England and Wales fell by a further 5% in the past year to produce the longest sustained drop since 1898, the Home Office reported today.
Overall crime has fallen by 39% since it peaked in 1995, with the rate of car crime and burglary halving in the past nine years, according to the latest British Crime Survey.
The risk of becoming a victim of crime has fallen from 40% in 1995 to 26% in the 12 months to March 2004, marking the lowest since the annual survey began in 1981.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1266247,00.html
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
st0nedphucker
Rogue State
Registered: 04/17/03
Posts: 1,047
Loc: Wales (yes it is a countr...
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
|
Re: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms [Re: Xlea321]
#3397873 - 11/23/04 10:50 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The crime rate was falling in the UK for 7 years in a row, then increased in 2002, and the most recent report I read said it was falling again.
....
What report have you been reading?
According to the most recent Government figures released violent crime rose by 11% and gun crime by 3%.
--------------------
The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms [Re: st0nedphucker]
#3397884 - 11/23/04 10:55 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
What report have you been reading?
*Steps back in amazement..*
Er..the one I posted the link for above?
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
ld50negative1
lethal dosage
Registered: 07/01/04
Posts: 821
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
|
Re: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms [Re: Xlea321]
#3397896 - 11/23/04 10:58 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
So are you down to picking out words from the sentence that support your position and ignoring the rest? Take the sentence as a whole. If they'd meant the people why didn't they just say "The people shall own handguns and rifles".
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Could that not be any clearer?
--------------------
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms [Re: ld50negative1]
#3397902 - 11/23/04 11:01 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
As far as i can tell, that's one sentence. This whole debate could be cleared up by my first grade english teacher Mrs Farmer. If you reverse the two parts of the sentence it becomes even more clear "The right of the people to keep and maintain arms shall not be infringed, in order to maintain a well-regulated militia". This sentence does not say every Floyd, Clem or Burl has the right to bear arms. It does not say every psychopathic yahoo in the country should be able to own a gun. It doesn't say that AT ALL and anyone with an education higher than the first grade should be able to comprehend this.
- bill hicks
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Autonomous
MysteriousStranger
Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
|
Re: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms [Re: Xlea321]
#3397904 - 11/23/04 11:01 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
"Except the Iraqi people had the right to bear arms and were under the alleged "tyranny" of Saddam for decades."
People must have the will to resist, if they do not, the possession of guns is a moot point. If they do have the will and the means, they can resist. Just as having a stove does not assist you in cooking unless it is used in that capacity, having a gun does not assist you in rebellion to tyranny unless it is used in that capacity.
I have a question for you, do you think that the Iraqi resistance would be more effective, less effective or there would be no difference if none of the Iraqis had firearms? A straightforward answer to this and a honest reading of the Second Amendment to the U.S. constitution will offer you a clue to one of the reasons that the amendment was included in the Bill of Rights.
--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms [Re: Xlea321]
#3397909 - 11/23/04 11:03 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
So are you down to picking out words from the sentence that support your position and ignoring the rest? Take the sentence as a whole. If they'd meant the people why didn't they just say "The people shall own handguns and rifles".
answer the question, will you?
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Red Vein Kratom 
Buy Bali Kratom Powder 
CBD Concentrates 
Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 all )
phi1618
Baby_Hitler
Anonymous
Phred
DigitalDuality
PsiloKitten
dee_N_ae