Wingnut: Warren Presidency Would Be ‘Communist Coup’ »« Rios: Beware of Transgender FBI Agents

GOP Candidate Thinks People Can Own Missiles

Jody Hice, the preacher who won a Republican runoff and is almost certainly going to be elected to Congress from Georgia this year, has been trying to remove the archives of his radio show because he’s said some truly whacky things on there, like that the 2nd Amendment allows people to own missiles and fighter jets.

Hice then spent the second half of his program warning that liberals would seek to use the shooting to push for gun control, prompting him to stake out the extreme position that there are to be no limits on the Second Amendment because American citizens have the right to possess literally any weapon that the government possesses.

“It is my belief that any, any, any, any weapon that our government and law enforcement possesses,” Hice said, “ought to be allowed for individuals to possess in this country.”

Apparently this applies to tanks, fighter jets, and even nuclear weapons because, Hice argued, so long as people can pay for them and don’t have a criminal record, they have a right to protect themselves from a tyrannical government with the same weapons that the government can use against them.

“The Second Amendment,” he said, “is about us defending ourselves against potentially tyrannical government. You cannot defend yourself with a BB gun if your opponent has cannons and bazookas and missiles.”

I repeat, this man is going to be in Congress in January.

Comments

  1. D. C. Sessions says

    So he’s a wingnut. That position on weapons is pretty much mainstream for the “tea party” half of the Republican Party.

    I’m pretty sure that there are many of like mind in Congress already.

  2. Mr Ed says

    As an engineer for a defence contractor I welcome the new market. Don’t let flashy action movies trick you into wasting your hard earned dollars on some Navy SEAL flash a true patriot will settle for nothing less than their own Virginia class fast attack submarine.

  3. says

    I think he has a point: if Prince ‘Big Ears’ decides to attack the US to get his own back for poor old George III, how are the modern militia gonna defend themselves without the odd nuke?

  4. some bastard on the internet says

    “So, what you doin’ after work Steve?”

    “Well, Joe, I’m gonna take my Abrams down to the Pig Barn and get myself some dinner, then I’m gonna head back to the ranch and finish enriching some uranium for my homemade ICBM, then I’ll probably just go to bed after that.”

    The above scenario brought to you by the Second Amendment and FREEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOMMMM!!!!

  5. raven says

    Someone needs to write a “best of” of Jody Hice*.

    He is quite the fount of the worst of fundie xianity and humankind.

    According to him, women are slaves, owned by their closest male relative or husband, just like the bible says. One would think this wouldn’t go over well in a district with a female majority but it doesn’t stop women from voting for guys like this.

    * That is what Rightwingwatch, the SPLC, Wikipedia, and the Encyclopedia of American Loons are for. But they all seem to be getting overwhelmed these day. So many wackos, so little time.

  6. matty1 says

    Apparently this applies to tanks, fighter jets, and even nuclear weapons because, Hice argued, so long as people can pay for them and don’t have a criminal record, they have a right to protect themselves from a tyrannical government with the same weapons that the government can use against them.

    Can the US government, in any scenario use nukes against an enemy with the United States? How would they ensure none of their own people are in the fallout zone, or will targets be asked nicely to move to a suitably remote location before the attack?

  7. sabrekgb says

    @6 matty1

    In any situation sufficiently dire to warrant the use of nuclear weapons, collateral damage is assumed and determined acceptable. This would apply to any of the contingency plans that have been developed which call for the use of nuclear weapons on American soil as well. The simple answer is that a certain number of American casualties would be understood and accepted.

    If you have Soviet columns marching through the heartland, it is more important to destroy those troops than to not nuke farmer Joe. Sucks for farmer Joe, but then again, so did the Soviet invasion. Make sense?

    All that said, especially when considering targets on U.S. soil, i would expect an extreme amount of reticence to use nuclear weapons. I honestly think we probably would not do it at all on our own land, though if we were losing an existential battle, we might send a few over to wherever the foe calls home.

  8. raven says

    they have a right to protect themselves from a tyrannical government with the same weapons that the government can use against them.

    FFS, this is a myth and a rather stupid one.

    1. People don’t need a whole lot of weapons to run a revolution!!! And the military isn’t going to stop a widespread popular uprising!!!

    2. Look at what happened to the Soviety Union. Huge military, lots of nukes, and they fell apart one day. Egypt and Mubarak, Iran and the Shah, Romania and their old dictator.

    3. And the reason is known. The military is part of the people. Asking them to shoot their friends, neighbors, and relatives is asking too much.

    And if there is a real popular uprising for compelling reasons, there is always the possibility that the military or part of it will join the uprising.

  9. Menyambal says

    It is his belief. Yeah, that about sums up the belief business.

    The belief that the 2nd was intended to allow people to fight the government is a belief based on ignoring the Constitution. First, the 2nd starts with “militia” and “defense of the state”. Second, the body of the Constitution says that the militia is to be called out to suppress insurrections. It also says that the state is to supply arms to the militia.

    At most, the 2nd says that the state-owned military arms are not to be kept in government arsenals, but are to be left at the militias so they can be used for practice.

    The fellow does have a point, though. The 2nd does not say what arms the people can bear. There is no limit, except tne word “bear”. So no tanks or jets, but a backpack nuke should be fine.

  10. matty1 says

    OK I didn’t think far enough, when I wrote ‘any scenario’, yes that Soviet invasion might well have done it. I was picturing the use of nukes against some Jody Hice type character living in suburbia who wants to fire his own missiles at Washington.

  11. colnago80 says

    Re #8 & #9

    In the movie, War of the Worlds, a nuclear weapon is set off outside Los Angeles in an attempt to destroy a nest of Martian invaders. It was unsuccessful.

  12. sundiver says

    I don’t trust rightwingnuts like Hice with anything more lethal than a nerf ball.

  13. eurosid says

    This is consistent with the way they interpret the 2nd Amendment. You have to give him points for that.

    Their reading says, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

    It doesn’t say Guns, it says Arms. So, anything goes.

    Me, I don’t want a gun. Too much uncertainty. I’ll make do with a grenade. If there’s a confrontation, I’ll pull the pin and keep a grip on the striker lever while I explain the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction to my assailant.

  14. dingojack says

    SLC – Guess it wasn’t one of those mythical, magical 15Mt nukes*, eh?

    So Jody** — George the Least illegally invaded Iraq, right? I mean didn’t Saddam have the right to defend himself from a tyrannical government too?!? (Remember Jody – these are supposedly God-given rights, governments don’t come into in).

    Dingo
    ——-
    * or perhaps the area hadn’t been properly zoned as ‘car parking’….
    ** love the name BTW. Was you mom unable to spell ‘Sue’

  15. whheydt says

    With regard to tanks…

    I recall reading an article, oh, about 40 years ago about a fellow who bought and restored a Sherman tank and fitted it out to be street legal (mostly by having both the main cannon and the mounted machine gun disabled and adding rubber track covers so it wouldn’t tear up the pavement). This was in Los Angeles. Unfortunately there was a bit of a misunderstanding when he drove around town because the LA cops were unaware of the legality of the vehicle.

    As the story went, the owner found himself in the middle of an intersection with all 4 streets blocked by lined up police cars and a very nervous cop with his gun out and aimed at the tank telling him to come out with his hands up. The owner put his hands out of the hatch first.

    It the end, everything got explained.

  16. alanb says

    @matty1:

    Obviously, the Federal government would only use nuclear weapons where there is a large concentration of God-fearing Christians.

  17. says

    even nuclear weapons

    Sure, why not? They’re so expensive that only Larry Ellison, Bill Gates, and the Koch brothers could afford them. And they’ve already got disproportionate influence on society (and, arguably, are disproportionately invested in society’s well-being)

  18. says

    I’ll make do with a grenade

    Um. No.
    Grenades are flippin’ terrifying. Normally I can throw pretty far, but I was so funked up the first time I threw one that my muscles were tense and I think the damn thing went 25 feet or so.
    They’re just awful horrible things. Think about it – it’s designed to kill by ripping and shredding anything in the area.

  19. lldayo says

    I’m sure this guy would have no problem with North Korea defending itself with nukes.

  20. anubisprime says

    Local ‘Weapons-b-uz’ store downtown Texas!…

    Proprietor…
    Morning sir…what can I do you for?

    Customer…
    Well I am in the market for quite a pokey little number… High-yield thermonuclear and ground zero detonation, about 2.5 megatons …weighing around 60 kg…(gotta think of the rear springs on my Humvee) and painted gunmetal blue with the confederate flag picked out in Gold leaf…that would look real neat!

    Proprietor…

  21. says

    @ eurosid

    It doesn’t say Guns, it says Arms. So, anything goes.

    The Prescriptivists amongst us might point out that the fire-power envisaged did not extend much beyond that of muskets. Myself, I agree with Jody Hice’s interpretation.

    They screwed up in the legislation by failing to anticipate that language evolves.¹ For that, everyone has to die.

    Alternatively, such legislation should come under review to account for linguistic drift away from the original intention of the words. ie: Nothing beyond a pool noodle!

    .

    ¹ (Sadly, no mention was made of “gay² marriages”. Imagine if such a rule had followed the incedental visitudes of language… less bigotry in this regard would ensue.)
    ² In days of yore:”happy”

  22. anubisprime says

    Proprietor…

    Yes sir…card or cash?

    Customer…

    Card.!..you take American Express?

    Proprietor…

    Of course…

    Do you wish it wrapped sir?

    Customer…

    American flag is fine…do I have to sign anything…?

    Proprietor…

    Only the the cheque stub…have a nice day sir…….!

  23. dingojack says

    theophontes (恶六六六缓步动物) – “That’s truly remarkable Mr Jefferson, but if I may make a small suggestion. Have you considered:’life, liberty and the pursuit of gayness‘? Oh it won’t make any sense now, but in another 240 years it’ll be causing apoplexy in all the right places!”.
    :) Dingo

  24. Michael Heath says

    “The Second Amendment,” [Jody Hice] said, “is about us defending ourselves against potentially tyrannical government.”

    This is an ahistorical argument, but it’s the same ahistorical argument that J. Scalia and the majority took in D.C. v. Heller.

    This is a perfect illustration on why liberals need to hold their noses and vote Democrat for president when the Democrats nominate a centrist like the past five Democratic presidents rather than a liberal. Because even moderate Democrats overwhelmingly nominate liberal federal judges; which I think is a good thing – we need far more liberal judges.

  25. karmacat says

    What gets me is these people are always talking about “the government,” but have no idea what that word really means. I want to ask them what they mean by the government because they don’t seem to get that government is made of people, including presidents, legislators, military, police, civil servants, teachers, etc.

  26. marcus says

    Why stop at military ordinance? Surely the public should be allowed to maintain their own stocks of weaponized anthrax, and tactical nukes etc. I mean, that’s only fair.

  27. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Menyambal
    Dishonest fuckery. Didn’t we already have this conversation in the last thread?

    You seem to have a problem with black or white thinking. You seem to not understand that there can be justified rebellions and unjustified rebellions. About 10 years before the founders wrote those documents, they just engaged in an armed rebellion which they considered justified. Yet, IIRC less than 20 years later, they put down the whiskey rebellion, which was unjustified.

    Speaking of which, the history is clear that one of the major instigators of that rebellion was the British army confiscating the guns of the people in Boston IIRC.

    You are appealing to a false meaning of “militia”. All of the documents refer to the “the militia”, not “a militia”. That’s because “the militia” was identical to the people. This is clear from the Federalist 29 and 46 which said that the government should require everyone to have a gun. This is also clear in the militia act of 1792 which legally required basically every able-bodied adult male to privately purchase their own gun. (Of course, at the same time, there were many exemptions on books for getting out of owning a gun because guns were expensive.)

    Next, “defense of the state” is not there IIRC. What is there says “necessary for the security of a free state”, which includes protecting against tyranny, includes protecting the people against the government. Which again is clear in the Federalist 29 and 46.

    Plus numerous other sources.

    In short, you have everything wrong.

    @Michael Heath

    This is an ahistorical argument, but it’s the same ahistorical argument that J. Scalia and the majority took in D.C. v. Heller.

    Apparently lots of people need correcting on this point, so I’ll quote from the Federalist directly. Remember that the Federalist is basically the official guide to the U.S. constitution, and that it was understood as such during the ratification debates by both sides.

    http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

    Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. 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. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

    Read the rest of it too. IIRC, just before it talks about the militia being about half a million strong, which represents about every able-bodied male adult in the entire population at the time, thus again confirming that the militia is the people.

  28. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    PS: The problem is not linguistic drift. The general meaning of “arms” is intentional. The problem is that the founders did not foresee the massive technological advances that we have made. That means the second amendment is a bad amendment. At the very least, it should be neutered to disclude weapons of mass destruction, and disclude weapons that have been banned by international treaty.

    If I had to bet, I bet that the founders would be completely fine with any semi-auto rifle, and probably auto-fire rifle too. Of course, they would probably be very fine with a licensing class to legally be allowed to purchase, own, and bear such things.

    However, IMHO they would be against private ownership of nukes (obviously), biological weapons (because no one should be using those), and chemical weapons (because no one should be using those).

    As for tanks and planes? Especially fighter planes? Do you have any idea how expensive those things are? They require runways, massive amounts of fuel, and even the plane itself is obscenely expensive. I wouldn’t fear some redneck or terrorist using it badly. If you honestly examine the situation, we should sooner fear oppressive megacorps ala Shadowrun. The cost is so huge that the risk from allowing private ownership of a mere fighter jet is negligible. Like what is the fighter jet going to do? Bomb a few houses? You can already do that with far-cheaper conventional ways when you have ground access. I really don’t care much either way.

    AFAIK, the tank is scarier than the fighter jet, because it’s cheaper, doesn’t require a runway, and can cause massive destruction without needing to expend ammo. Look at what happened when that nut got loose on the roads in … LA was it? Just drove right through cars like paper tissue. IIRC lucky no one died except the nut.

  29. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    PPS: Remember that high explosives did not even exist during the time of the writing of the constitution. Nitroglycerin was more or less first discovered and synthesized in 1847. Dynamite, and other familiar names, came after. The Haber process was discovered only in 1913, allowing cheap access to ammonia and derivative explosives. It’s only gotten worse since then. Also plastic explosives. Chemical. Biological. Nuclear.

  30. says

    Their reading says, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

    Where “reading” = “refusing to read or remember the first half of that sentence.”

    Oh, and EL? Every time you try to argue with me, you end up flat-out LYING about nearly everything I say. The only words of mine that you don’t lie about are the ones you just ignore. You’re not in any position to accuse ANYONE of “dishonest fuckery.”

  31. says

    The belief that the 2nd was intended to allow people to fight the government is a belief based on ignoring the Constitution.

    Not to mention ignoring the circumstances that prompted its drafting in the first place. The Constitution was written because the old regime, under the Articles of Confederation, was simply unable to deal with an armed rebellion, and unable to keep the bigger States from trampling on the smaller ones.

    And in drafting a new Constitution, the founders gave us a new government that was STRONGER, not weaker, than the old regime, and MORE able to crush rebellions, not less. So the idea that the Founders wanted people to be able to overthrow a democratic government by force of arms is pretty fucking absurd, on both common-sense and historical grounds.

  32. says

    Apparently lots of people need correcting on this point…

    Michael Heath may need correcting on some things, but he’s dead right on this issue; and he doesn’t need correcting from a transparent lying propagandist shit like you.

    …so I’ll quote from the Federalist directly.

    As I’ve said before, the Federalist papers do not have the force of law. Arguments based on the wording of the actual Constitution are not trumped by arguments based on the Federalist.

    Remember that the Federalist is basically the official guide to the U.S. Constitution, and that it was understood as such during the ratification debates by both sides.

    Actually, the Federalist papers were nothing more than articles published to encourage people to support ratification of the Constitution. They were never meant to be Holy Scripture or a “definitive” or “official” guide to anything.

    Also, the Federalist quotes you keep on re-pasting don’t really refute either Heath’s arguments or mine.

  33. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I have no desire to engage with Raging Bee. I would note that Raging Bee has openly and explicitly stated numerous times that he is an infallible authority on this topic (and others), and that there is no possible evidence or argument which could convince him that he is wrong. Thus, I save myself the time. Suffice to say, most or all of the things just written by Raging Bee are wrong.

  34. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @D. C. Sessions
    It might help if people stop maliciously propagating false information.

  35. dingojack says

    ” I would note that Raging Bee has openly and explicitly stated numerous times that he is an infallible authority on this topic (and others), and that there is no possible evidence or argument which could convince him that he is wrong. ”

    Citations required.

    Dingo

  36. says

    I have no desire to engage with Raging Bee.

    That’s because you’ve learned, from recent experience, that you can’t. You don’t have the chops for a grownup conversation, and none of your lame manipulative tricks work. Neither does plain old lying.

    Suffice to say, most or all of the things just written by Raging Bee are wrong.

    Without actual citation or evidence, no, it really doesn’t “suffice.”

  37. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Dingo

    In response to more or less literally: “If I can show you X, Y, and Z, is that enough to conclude P?”:
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2014/07/05/targets-new-gun-policy/#comment-333138

    Holy shit, Raging Bee, what part of “If I can show” didn’t you get?

    The part where it’s relevant, since a) you haven’t actually shown any of it, and b) even if you did, that would not override any of what already HAS been shown.

    Then, after repeated attempts to ascertain what would change Raging Bee’s mind, I get this:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2014/07/05/targets-new-gun-policy/#comment-333503

    I ask again, will you entertain the possibility that I could show enough historical evidence and documents to convince you that you are mistaken about your position? Or are you close-minded and dogmatic?

    This is the same sort of bullshit I hear from creationists, flat-earthers, and other denialists: “Are you willing to admit that my ignorant, dishonest, and/or manipulative talking-points may be right after all, or are you closed-minded and dogmatic?”

    Seems pretty clear-cut to me.

  38. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    PS: For an extended conversation showing how Raging Bee is both wrong and frantically dishonest and in denial, see the conversation in in the links above.

  39. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    PPS: Oh, and to try and take the high ground.

    Raging Bee: I will engage you on this topic if you explain what standard of evidence and argument I would need to meet to show that 1- the US constitution (plus amendments) does protect an individual right to guns, and show 2- it should protect an individual right to guns under any good jurisprudence. Preferably examples.

    For example, if you can find writings from the founders, such as in the Federalist or elsewhere, which describes how it’s a bad idea to private citizens to have guns, and if we could verify the authenticity of that, and that this paper was held in high esteem and widely circulated at the time, then that would make me strongly question my position. It would be a good start, but we don’t even have that AFAIK.

    For you, for example, I would expect that this quote would be pretty damning:

    Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation,

    I’m not sure how else to interpret that except as the Federalist stating that the American public posses the advantage of being armed, aka the American people can own guns, privately. The people. it’s made quite clear by contrasting it with the public of other countries. It’s also made quite clear about one of the purposes of being armed, when the Federalist continues and says one of the beneficial effects of an armed population is the overthrow of tyrannies.

    For example, the militia act of 1972 requires every able-bodied adult male to privately purchase a gun and have it ready for militia training. I would think that this would also be pretty clear and compelling.

    For example, the Federalist also says that we can hope that every able-bodied adult male should own a gun. I would think this alone would also be pretty clear and compelling.

    If you are honest, and you are not infallible, then what would I need to show to convince you that you are wrong? You can set the bar absurdly high if you want, and we can work down from there to something reasonable. Even an absurdly high bar would let me know some important details of your position.

    For example, what would it take for a law – a constitutional provision in particular – to have the legal force of protecting gun rights? Is there any amount of historical evidence which could make the second amendment that?

    Then, what sort of jurisprudence do you support, and would any such jurisprudence be compatible with legally protected gun rights? Or do you consider gun rights fundamentally incompatible with good jurisprudence? Aka if the constitution did purport to protect gun rights, would you advocate civil disobedience, revolt, or pretending the constitution meant something else?

    But, like many other threads, you never engage with my points. I expect nothing less here, which means I’m talking to a proverbial wall. Meh.

  40. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    PPPS:
    Man, I forgot one of my favorite sources on this subject – the ratification debates around the fourteenth amendment and the Freedmen Bureau bills.

    One of the big debate topics around the fourteenth amendment was that it would give blacks the right to own guns!

    http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm#TOC35

    Sec. 14. And be it furhter enacted, That in every State or district where the ordinary course of judicial proceedings has been interrupted by the rebellion . . . the right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens of such State or district without respect to race or color, or previous condition of slavery.

    Of course, start googling, and many sources will be had on this.

  41. says

    The only thing that’s “clear-cut,” EL, is that your paltry TWO quotes of mine do not support your allegation @35. You’re a fucking liar.

    Raging Bee: I will engage you on this topic if you explain what standard of evidence and argument I would need to meet to show that 1- the US constitution (plus amendments) does protect an individual right to guns, and show 2- it should protect an individual right to guns under any good jurisprudence.

    Why the fuck do I have to explain my standards of evidence before you’ll be willing to make an argument? If you have a case to make, MAKE IT ALREADY, and stop trying to dodge and bluff and find excuses to blame someone else for your own failure to make a convincing argument. Just because your arguments so far have been transparent bullshit, and get called out as such, does not mean I’m closed-minded. You’re sounding like those creationists whining about us “dogmatic” evolutionists after all their bullshit arguments get debunked.

    I’ve already made arguments, in plain English, based on the wording of the Constitution itself, on documented history, and on basic common-sense political theory; and you have repeatedly ignored my arguments and kept on lying about what I’ve said.

    For you, for example, I would expect that this quote would be pretty damning: “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…”

    That’s not “damning,” that’s laughably naive — the “advantages” of an armed citizenry have, since the Founders’ time, been far outweighed by the disadvantages.

    One of the big debate topics around the fourteenth amendment was that it would give blacks the right to own guns!

    And were blacks able to use their guns to fight discrimination? I certainly don’t recall MLK advocating such action — in fact, he explicitly said armed revolt was the WORST option for blacks. Your willful ignorance of such issues once again shows what an uncaring moron you are.

  42. says

    Man, I forgot one of my favorite sources on this subject…

    …a totally different subject! About which you’re just laughably ignorant and dishonest as you are on the original subject.

  43. colnago80 says

    Re dingojack @ #15

    Actually, according to the plot, a Tsar Bombe wouldn’t have done anything either,.

  44. dingojack says

    En. Lib. – “For you, for example, I would expect that this quote would be pretty damning:

    Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation

    Well that’s great but is that quote as good as: “The truth is you don’t know what is going to happen tomorrow. Life is a crazy ride, and nothing is guaranteed”* — I can’t tell, there’s no attribution or source.

    More appositely, the data I can find seems to show that you can decrease (or increase) the level of government control over weapons, but it has no effect on government intrusiveness into the lives of their citizens. They are not correlated to any significant degree.

    As noted above, China starved (despite being armed), the UK and Australia didn’t end up with government massacres (despite restricting gun ownership).

    American exceptionalism? Or is that merely special pleading?

    Dingo
    ——–
    * Eminem, in an post-concert interview

  45. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @dingojack
    I thought the citation of source was clear. I did put a link literally right before the blockquote.

    For the most part, my beef is with the bad jurisprudence concerning the second amendment, and/or gross ignorance / denial of the history of the second amendment. My primary purpose is not to argue that gun rights are a good thing. My primary purpose is to argue that rule of law is a good thing, and the second amendment is an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that we should support this sole legit interpretation as long as it’s the law.

    That alone is in no way an argument that the law, the second amendment, is a good law. Whether it’s a good law is an entirely separate discussion, which I’m also interested in having, and which I have done a little in the other thread. I think that simple sentence or two you just wrote does more to address that conversation than an entire threads by Raging Bee and others. Thank you.

    I’d be curious what data you are looking at.

    First, to get it well out of the way, again I am not a gun nut. I’ve never owned a gun. I’ve never fired a gun. I have no interest in buying a gun.

    However, I think your argument may be fallacious.

    So we’re on the same page: The only argument I can see in favor of gun rights rests upon the premise that the people should be reminded that the government is subordinate to the people, and not the other way around. Gun rights is a central component of that.

    You addressed that argument very specifically. Again, thank you. You argued that we can have the culture where the people know that the government is subordinate to the people without gun rights.

    However, one of your examples is fallacious IMHO. China is not a country which promoted the values of the European Enlightenment, the United States Founding Fathers, of John Stuart Mill, etc. IMHO, that’s like attacking “atheism” by saying Stalin and Pol Pot are representative of the European Enlightenment values we want to push. In fact, AFAIK, communist China of 40 years ago is the farthest thing from the culture I say we should have, where the people treat the government are subordinate, and they maintain the spirit of rebellion (but only reserved for the gravest of problems).

    Australia and Britain are better examples. These are much better examples of what I would call cultures which are staying true to Enlightenment values without gun rights at all. Again, I don’t have a strong opinion on whether we should have a law guaranteeing gun rights. I merely have a strong opinion that we do have a law guaranteeing gun rights and that the rule of law is a good thing.

  46. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Raging Bee
    My quotes above of you Raging Bee, those posts are literally the posts in which you blithely dismissed my near formally stated arguments. Remember the whole “If I can show you X, Y, and Z, would you accept conclusion P?”. Remember how your response was that you said you could never be shown to be wrong, and you should also never admit to a creationist that you might wrong about evolution?

    Yet you call me a liar, and I have no doubt you’re about to say I’m lying in this post too. I’m beginning to suspect that you’re insane. Or a troll. Poe’s law and all. Maybe both.

  47. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Raging Bee
    Wait a sec. Did you really quote Martin Luther King Jr., born 1929, died 1968, as being relevant regarding the legislative history of the fourteenth amendment, passed 1868, and the Freedmen Bureau acts, circa 1865? And you call me dishonest and ignorant? Wow. Do you really think the fourteenth amendment was passed in the 1960s? Really?

    Do what I said before. Take a civics class. Apparently a basic United States history class would be good too, considering that you’re about a century off.

  48. says

    My primary purpose is to argue that rule of law is a good thing, and the second amendment is an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that we should support this sole legit interpretation as long as it’s the law.

    You claim to support the rule of law, while ignoring the FIRST HALF of the law you’re arguing about. This has been pointed out to you numerous times on numerous threads, and you keep on ignoring this fact. The Second Amendment is the most easily-memorized sentence in the entire Constitution, and you and your fellow gun-nuts keep on deliberately forgetting the first half of the sentence. Your support for the rule of law is nothing but a pretentious lie.

    Yet you call me a liar…

    And I keep on quoting you to prove it. When you’re not proving it yourself, that is.

    Wait a sec. Did you really quote Martin Luther King Jr., born 1929, died 1968, as being relevant regarding the legislative history of the fourteenth amendment, passed 1868, and the Freedmen Bureau acts, circa 1865?

    No, asshole, I quoted him to show the total uselessness of personal firearms in fighting injustice or securing legal rights. His experience, and that of his followers, shows how ridiculous and tragically wrong your beliefs about guns really are.

  49. says

    Do what I said before. Take a civics class. Apparently a basic United States history class would be good too…

    Practically all of the points I’ve made come from civics, government and history classes I took in junior-high, high-school, and college, plus decades of extracurricular reading. And the fact that you can’t address a single one of those points honestly or intelligently, strongly implies I got a far better education than you did.

  50. says

    Remember the whole “If I can show you X, Y, and Z, would you accept conclusion P?”. Remember how your response was that you said you could never be shown to be wrong…?

    As I’ve pointed out at least THREE TIMES already, that is NOT what I said. If you can’t respond to me without flat-out lying about what I said, maybe you should admit you’re out of your depth, and stop floundering around like the blustering moron you’ve shown yourself to be.

  51. sabrekgb says

    Wow, Raging Bee, just wow… It really is like watching someone talk to a wall.

    You claim to support the rule of law, while ignoring the FIRST HALF of the law you’re arguing about. This has been pointed out to you numerous times on numerous threads, and you keep on ignoring this fact.

    This is a lie. EL very specifically addressed this, more than once. I know you don’t like the fact that he (and I) don’t think that the first clause of the amendment means that you can safely disregard the plain reading of the second, but that is very different from not addressing it.

    You have also never actually addressed the question of what evidence would be sufficient to change your mind.

    Person A: I learned in school that Columbus was awesome. We even have a national holiday in honor of him!
    Person B: Hmm, what would make you change your mind on that?
    Person A: Oh, umm, i never really thought about it before, but i suppose that if it could be shown that his actions weren’t all that good. Maybe if what i learned about him being the first person to discover america was false…
    Person B: Let’s have a conversation about vikings and kidnapped native americans.

    Do you see? People don’t often think about what would be sufficient to change their mind until confronted with actual evidence contrary to their beliefs, but a good inquiring mind will engage in that mental exercise from time to time…about both mundane and cherished beliefs. Even if you haven’t thought about it before, why not actually sit back for a second and answer the damn question instead of saying that other people are lying. Stop obfuscating.

    the total uselessness of personal firearms in fighting injustice or securing legal rights

    Is not relevant to EL’s point about the legality of such. Lemon meringue pies may be absolutely horrible in combat, but if the second amendment read: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear lemon meringue pies shall not be infringed.” Then we have the right to lemon meringue pies, regardless of their efficacy.

    Why can you not mentally separate the concepts in play? There are differences between “guns are good”, “guns are effective at X”, and “guns are legal/constitutional”.

    EL is, according to his own statements, very much not a gun nut. Are you just tossing inaccurate labels because he disagrees with you legally? Is it easier to dismiss him if you can just mentally write him off as a “gun nut”? He doesn’t even own a gun…

    Bee…it’s becoming pretty clear that you aren’t able to argue this issue in good faith. That EL is even still addressing you, and with the calmness and cogency he is doing so, is impressive.

  52. says

    This is a lie. EL very specifically addressed this, more than once.

    Citation required.

    I know you don’t like the fact that he (and I) don’t think that the first clause of the amendment means that you can safely disregard the plain reading of the second…

    Excuse me, but the “plain reading” of only half of a sentence is simply not valid — it’s the plain reading of the ENTIRE SENTENCE that counts. And the entire sentence clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms is SUBORDINATE to the need to protect the security of a free state.

    You have also never actually addressed the question of what evidence would be sufficient to change your mind.

    The question is nothing but a bluff. If you have evidence, present it and see what happens. Put up or shut up. Who’s stopping you? Hypothetical questions about evidence not in, um, evidence, don’t really serve any purpose.

    Is not relevant to EL’s point about the legality of such.

    EL didn’t just talk about legality, he talked about alleged usefulness of guns — and talked very stupidly about it, using non-legal documents to try (and fail) to back up his claims.

  53. says

    EL is, according to his own statements, very much not a gun nut.

    And I disregard such statements because a) he’s spouting the same transparently false talking-points as most gun nuts, and b) he’s already been proven a pathological liar so his statements have zero credibility.

  54. sabrekgb says

    @ Raging Bee

    The question is nothing but a bluff.

    Hey, look, another instance of you not answering it. What the hell does a bluff even mean in this instance? It’s a legit question.

    I disregard such statements

    Exactly, you just chose to disregard it and assign him a mental label that makes him easier to handwave away in your mind. You are wrong for doing this. I am a “gun nut” in regards to your thinking, EL who owns no guns is manifestly not.

    Citation required

    You should recall this from the previous thread, but sure:

    1- There is no such subordinate language. There is an explanation of intent. Huge difference. Compare: “the militia being necessary, the rights of the people shall not be infringed” vs “The rights of the people shall not be infringed only to the extant to preserve the militia.” Again, the purpose of constitutional law is to raise certain fact-finding and interest-balancing above the heads of the congress and the court.
    2- Even if it said “the people shall have the right to keep and bear arms, but only for the purposes of maintaining a well regulated militia”, you would still be on shaky ground. When it says “well regulated”, that was a particular idiomatic phrase at the time meaning “well trained”. When it says “militia”, that is almost synonymous with the people. Even today, there are laws on the books which define the militia as all able bodied men between 18 and 45 (IIRC).

    -EL

    You may not like what he said, you may disagree with it, but he most definitely did address it and cogently so. Saying he ignored it is a lie.

  55. says

    His assertion was simply wrong. The scope of the right was limited by the stated intent — otherwise why would the Founders have written the intent into the Amendment at all? No other right is set forth with a stated purpose, so the only plausible explanation is that the Founders intended to LIMIT the right to keep and bear arms, in a way that they did not intend to limit other rights.

    Also, as I said before, the Constitution specifically sets forth certain obligations of the national government, and those obligations inevitably entail restricting ordinary people’s access to arms, enforcing peace, and disarming people who prove a threat.

    Also, EL’s bullshit about the phrase “well-regulated” is just a dodge. Anyone with a grain of common sense can tell you that “well-regulated” means far more than “well-trained.” The Founders could have used the latter phrase if that was what they meant.

  56. sabrekgb says

    His assertion was simply wrong.

    Maybe, maybe not…but the point is he addressed it!

    So, when you say that he was “ignoring the FIRST HALF of the law” and that “This has been pointed out to you numerous times on numerous threads, and you keep on ignoring this fact.” you are wrong. This has now been explicitly pointed out to you, so if you persist in saying it you have no excuse.

    You can disagree, you can provide explanations for why his interpretation (and mine) are incorrect, but you are lying if you say that it was ignored.

  57. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Also, EL’s bullshit about the phrase “well-regulated” is just a dodge. Anyone with a grain of common sense can tell you that “well-regulated” means far more than “well-trained.” The Founders could have used the latter phrase if that was what they meant.

    Have you ever read Shakespeare? Would you ever dare to apply your knowledge of modern English to be the authoritative standard of understanding Shakespeare? The founders (1792) were closer in time to Shakespeare (1564 – 1616) than they were to us (2014). Language changes over time. You do realize this, yes?

    As another example, if someone from modern day Britain told you that they were pissed, would you think that they are angry? You would be wrong.
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pissed
    > 1 chiefly British sometimes vulgar : drunk 1a
    > 2 sometimes vulgar : angry, irritated —often used with off

    http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/chumbawamba/tubthumping.html
    Pissing the night away, pissing the night away

  58. says

    Maybe, maybe not…but the point is he addressed it!

    Yes, he addressed it badly and dishonestly, and when I and others refuted his points, he fell back on lying, dodging, ignoring substantive responses, and selectively quoting the Federalist over and over while ignoring both the Constitution itself and other more relevant sources. So no, for all practical purposes, he didn’t really address it, he just blurted out a few stock NRA talking-points and then pretty much ran away.

    Exactly, you just chose to disregard it and assign him a mental label that makes him easier to handwave away in your mind.

    Yeah, the fact that he’s proven himself a pathological liar by his own words, is just my excuse to treat him as a pathological liar. [Eyeroll]

    Have you ever read Shakespeare? Would you ever dare to apply your knowledge of modern English to be the authoritative standard of understanding Shakespeare? The founders (1792) were closer in time to Shakespeare (1564 – 1616) than they were to us (2014). Language changes over time. You do realize this, yes?

    Wow, EL, you’re really getting desperate. I can almost hear you hyperventilating. Shakespeare wrote plays, not laws. What the fuck does he have to do with the US Constitution?

    Like I said, “well-regulated” doesn’t just mean well-trained in the use of weapons — it means whatever regulation is appropriate to ensure that a militia does its job reliably and efficiently, and serves only the public good according to laws duly passed by elected governments. Seriously, a bunch of morons with guns is not a “well-regulated” anything, in any sense of that phrase, no matter how well-trained they are in the use of their weapons. This is just plain simple common sense, and I really can’t see why such a basic principle is suddenly so hard to grasp.

  59. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    As for “well-regulated”. I am unable to personally guarantee the authenticity of these quotes offhand, and I don’t feel the need to shill out 3 dollars to find out. It seems legit enough for me. The following is purportedly from the Oxford English Dictionary.

    1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”
    1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”
    1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
    1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”
    1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”
    1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

    “Well-regulated” did not mean “under government control”. It did mean “in proper working order”.

    Raging Bee would apply his knowledge of English, of modern English, of English limited to his current cultural pockets, to determine this question of meaning of two hundred years Ago. He will seemingly ignore the overwhelming evidence that language changes over time, and more specifically that the word “regulate”, and in particular the phrase “well regulated” had a very particular meaning which largely fallen out of use.

    Similarly, Raging Bee will ignore the militia act of 1792, the Federalist 46, and so on. Raging Bee will ignore the evidence showing that “the militia” was understood to encompass all of the people. At the time, this class of people – the militia – adult white males – was even larger than the voting population, which was often even more limited, and yet I’m willing to bet that they would use the language of “the people” to identify the class of people who could vote.

    I am wasting my time on a deluded liar or troll, and I do not know why.

  60. says

    “Well-regulated” did not mean “under government control”. It did mean “in proper working order”.

    In the case of militias and other security and law-enforcement bodies (which none of your quotes referred to at all), yes, it does mean “under government control.” If it’s not under government control, it’s not a “militia,” it’s a gang or a rebel insurgency or army.

    If you think it’s perfectly okay to have a militia that’s not under government control, perhaps you should move to another country, like maybe eastern Ukraine, or northern Iraq.

    Raging Bee will ignore the evidence showing that “the militia” was understood to encompass all of the people.

    This “understanding” was never more than fantasy or rhetoric, just like when a Maoist blithers about how the People’s Army is one with the people.

  61. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    And now I need to argue about the meaning of militia – again.

    If you think it’s perfectly okay to have a militia that’s not under government control, perhaps you should move to another country, like maybe eastern Ukraine, or northern Iraq.

    You seem to have problems with ambiguity. It’s not a simple black-and-white question. Of course the government has some control over the militia. The president has the power to call it forth. The congress has the power to regulate its training. The states have the power to appoint officers. Yet, the militia is still just the people.

    Further, this is not a legal argument. At best, this is an argument to violate rule of law, to pretend it does not exist or that it means something else. At worst, it’s a non-sequitur to this conversation. Take your pick. I don’t care much which way you go.

    As for the legal arguments.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia

    1
    a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
    b : a body of citizens organized for military service
    2
    : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

    The militia is an armed gang. That’s all it is.

    If it’s not under government control, it’s not a “militia,”

    You have it exactly backward. It is a militia precisely because it’s not under government control (under your usage of the words “government control”). If it was under government control, then it would be called an army. Notice in the definition that it stresses that a militia is the body of citizens, civilians. That’s what a militia is. Just a bunch of people playing cowboy on the weekends. Specifically, as originally implemented in the US IIRC, being in the militia was showing up for training like once a year, and it was considered to be a vacation for many. That’s what a militia is.

  62. says

    You seem to have problems with ambiguity. It’s not a simple black-and-white question.

    Yes, it is. It is a fundamental principle of democracy that the elected government(s) have full and unquestioned control over whatever security forces exist in the country (cops, militia, standing army, SWAT teams, whatever), and that the security forces be answerable to the legitimate democratic government(s) and follow all laws duly passed by same. If a democratic government does not have control over its security forces, then for all practical purposes, there is no democracy in that country, as long as the security forces get to veto the will of the people. The fact that you reject this basic and easily-understood principle of democracy proves how deeply fascist and anti-democratic your mindset is.

    At best, this is an argument to violate rule of law…

    An argument that a militia should be under the control of the government, and comply with the law, is “an argument to violate the rule of law?” Seriously? Once again, you fall back on lying about what I said.

    Take your pick. I don’t care much which way you go.

    This is, what, the third time you’ve tried to stick a flounce and failed. Can’t you do ANYTHING right?

  63. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Raging Bee
    Again, you are not making legal arguments. I don’t understand how you think you are. You must be insane, or a troll. Your last post in no way made a legal argument. Your last post was entirely based on your moral philosophizing of what constitutes a democracy, and has nothing to do with the constitution of the United States and its legal history. Again, at best it’s a non-sequitur, and at worst you are advocating ignoring the constitution, pretending it means something else, overriding the rule of law, because you think the law (the constitution) is bad.

    About your point: Our founders completely and utterly disagreed. It was a well-established principle in English common law at the time of the creation of the United States that the King does not have the right to take away guns from the citizens. Conversely, the citizens had the right to have their guns. This idea that only the government should have access to violence and arms is a foreign one to the writers of the constitution. A plethora of writing confirms this fact, and basically none stands against it.

    At least: any writings which stand against this point were written by royalists, and obviously royalists in favor of strengthening the King should not be considered authoritative. Of course, in principle the English parliament had the power to take away guns, but had they tried it would have been another Glorious Revolution. See:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

    The whole of the bill of rights was non-controversial guarantees of pre-existing rights, passed by the federalists to placate the anti-federalists. The second amendment is no exception. Its basis is found clearly in the English bill of rights of 1689, and various state constitutions at passing of the second amendment.

    For goodness sake, the writers of the constitution and bill of rights had just instigated and carried out a successful armed rebellion against the “legitimate” authority. Hell, one of the biggest complaints the people had which started the war of independence was when the British troops in Boston started disarming the people in response to the Boston Tea Party.
    http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html

    Governor Gage directed the Redcoats to begin general, warrantless searches for arms and ammunition. According to the Boston Gazette, of all General Gage’s offenses, “what most irritated the People” was “seizing their Arms and Ammunition.”

    That’s what started the war.

    Of course, the founders would argue that if you break a law, such as take part in unjustified rebellion, or even simple murder and theft, you should be captured and punished. They would also argue that you should take part in justified armed rebellions – you know, about a decade after having done so. You may think there’s a contradiction here, but the founders did not.

  64. says

    No, I’m not making a strictly legal argument; I’m describing a reality that must inform a relevant interpretation of the law. A proper legal or ConLaw case isn’t based only on laws; it’s also based on material facts, reasoning from said facts, and observed or likely consequences of certain policies or actions in the real world. This is a basic fact of legal reasoning and interpretation, which I’ve been learning about since I was in my teens, and I really can’t see how you can refuse to understand it. Laws are not applied or interpreted in a vacuum; they’re applied with an eye toward common sense and real-world events and consequences.

    About your point: Our founders completely and utterly disagreed.

    None of the quotes you’ve provided so far prove this, as I’ve pointed out to you numerous times already. Also, the Founders are not all-powerful gods whose teachings override observable reality or lessons of experience.

    It was a well-established principle in English common law at the time of the creation of the United States that the King does not have the right to take away guns from the citizens.

    First, that’s bullshit — kings and other rulers routinely try to disarm anyone on their turf who commits crime or tries to do violence against other people or the government. This is a basic feature of how governments function. (And I’m pretty sure that was also in English common law: if you take up arms against your neighbor, the cops can disarm you.) You don’t have to agree with a particular king’s actions, but don’t try to pretend there was ever a sacrosanct and inviolable right to bear arms that no king could ever infringe.

    Second, English common law stopped applying in the US the moment the US left the British Empire. The Constitution supercedes English common law, and the Constitution clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms is SUBORDINATE to the security of a free state.

    And third, as you yourself admitted, common law evolves; so you can’t validly argue that present-day ConLaw can never diverge from the common law of over two centuries ago.

    For goodness sake, the writers of the constitution and bill of rights had just instigated and carried out a successful armed rebellion against the “legitimate” authority.

    So fucking what? The Founders won a revolution, therefore they could never do anything to stop their government from being overthrown? Are you actually trying to say that anyone who opposes the violent overthrow of the US government is a hypocrite?

  65. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Second, English common law stopped applying in the US the moment the US left the British Empire.

    Congrats ignoring my argument and responding to something I didn’t say. I talked about the legislative history in order to get to legislative intent, common-man understanding of the law at the time, etc. I did not say that English common law is binding, and I definitely did not say that English common law supersedes the US constitution.

    The argument I actually made was that the legislative intent and common understanding of the whole of the bill of rights was that it was done by the federalists to appease the anti-federalists, and it was only to include non-controversial issues which the federalists thought was unnecessary because they felt the limited powers doctrine of the federal government already forbade infringing the listed rights.

    Having said that, let me now actually make that argument which you strawman-applied to me, but slightly modified.

    You said:

    The Constitution supercedes English common law

    In a certain sense, that’s wrong. At best, it’s horribly misleading. Let me explain.

    Now, another reason the federalists didn’t like the idea of a bill of rights is that by enumerating certain English common law rights and not others, the unenumerated rights would be less protected. That’s why we got the ninth amendment. So, it is true that English common law does not supersede the US constitution, but it is also true that the US constitution specifically stipulates that rights enjoyed under English common law shall be binding and the government shall not infringe those rights.

    Which means even if we ignore the second amendment, I could make a good case that individual gun rights are guaranteed by the ninth amendment. I’ve mentioned that the right to keep weapons and carry weapons (keep and bear arms) was fundamental to the founders and their understanding of English common law. It was also fundamental to the English themselves at the time and the English understanding of English common law. It is perhaps the “most important” common law right. I can make a good case that weapon rights were more important and more widely enjoyed that the right to vote! Far less people had the right to vote than had the right to a gun.

    The Constitution supercedes English common law, and the Constitution clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms is SUBORDINATE to the security of a free state.

    Talk about Gish Gallop. Can we finish up the earlier points please? Can you please agree that you were wrong about the meaning of “well regulated”? Can you please agree that you were wrong about the meaning of “militia”? But onto the next of your shotgun approach.

    “Subordinate” – there is no such language. You are doing an equivocation.

    Equivocated meaning 1- an armed population (the militia) is a necessary policy to preserve a free state. Equivocation meaning 2- “the militia” is subordinate to the state in the sense that it is a select militia, or army, and membership in that army is at the whim of the government.

    This is made clear in the plethora of writings which I have cited. This is the overwhelming understanding of the law. You are applying an entirely new understanding to the text which is contrary to the clearly documented intent and clearly documented understanding of the plain text meaning up to at least the 1850s. This is also made clear with a simple reading with the text that follows which reads that the right of the people, not the militia, not the state, shall not be infringed. States don’t have rights, people do.

    You talk about jurisprudence. You talk big. Yet you ignore the entire legislative history. You ignore the overwhelming consensus of the writers of the document. You ignore the overwhelming consensus on the effect and plain text meaning of the document which lasted at least the next 70 years (as evidenced by the ratification debates around the Freedman Bureau acts and the Fourteenth Amendment). You have to contort the text into something entirely unnatural to get a very strained reading. You have no jurisprudence. You have anarchy.

    Again:
    What is your reading? As best as I can tell, it’s something like this.

    >A well regulated militia
    You redefine militia to mean army. You ignore the well documented idiomatic meaning of “well regulated”. Your reading seems to be “An army controlled by the government”. The proper reading here is “An armed population which is properly trained, prepared, and in good working order”, which means you completely reversed the meaning.

    >being necessary to the security of a free State
    You reinterpret “free State” to be “stable government”. Your reading seems to be “is necessary to ensure a stable government”. In the proper reading, “free State” refers to a lack of tyranny and oppression, which means you completely reversed the meaning.

    >the rights of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    You somehow reinterpret “people” to mean “government” and “right” to mean “power”, and you ignore the clear connotation of rights of the people in the phrase “shall not be infringed”. In short, you completely rewrite the entire clause to be the complete reverse of the actual meaning.

    Somehow, you read that text, and you come away with:
    > An army controlled by the government is necessary to preserve a stable government, and (thus) the right of the government to keep an army shall not be infringed.

    The clearly proper reading is:
    > An armed population which is properly trained, prepared, and in good working order, is necessary to prevent tyranny and oppression, and thus the rights of the people to keep weapons and carry weapons shall not be infringed.

    I struggle with how you can honestly pervert the text so badly after it has been explained to you. With the little bit of education I’ve given you, the proper meaning must be obvious now.

    First, that’s bullshit — kings and other rulers routinely try to disarm anyone on their turf who commits crime or tries to do violence against other people or the government. This is a basic feature of how governments function. (And I’m pretty sure that was also in English common law: if you take up arms against your neighbor, the cops can disarm you.) You don’t have to agree with a particular king’s actions, but don’t try to pretend there was ever a sacrosanct and inviolable right to bear arms that no king could ever infringe.

    Are you actually trying to say that anyone who opposes the violent overthrow of the US government is a hypocrite?

    You persist in this ambiguity-blind argumentation. I’m being serious when I ask – do you have a learning disability that I should be made aware of? You seem to be completely unable to cope with ambiguity. You seem to be a slave to black-and-white thinking. If I know what disability you have, I may be better able to structure my argument to accommodate your disability.

    Of course individuals can be disarmed when they commit a crime, just like individuals can be denied their right to free association, free speech, etc., when they commit a crime. That much is both obvious and implied. At least it should be. However, we’ve had this conversation before, and I even explicitly stated this at least once in a previous post or thread to you. Memory problems too?

    Even with a learning disability, I don’t understand how you cannot understand that gun rights can be a thing, but we can still legally disarm criminals and children, just like free speech and free association rights are a thing, but we can still legally censor criminals and children, and legally restrict the association of criminals and children. I am convinced that you are trolling or that you have a mental disability of some kind to persist in these flagrantly irrational and dishonest arguments.

    As for whether we can legally stop a rebellion, I already wrote an answer in my previous post. I’m pretty sure you read it. Maybe you’re a troll and you just ignored it, or maybe your disability prevents you from registering it meaningfully. Which – I do not know. … My answer from the previous post:

    Of course, the founders would argue that if you break a law, such as take part in unjustified rebellion, or even simple murder and theft, you should be captured and punished. They would also argue that you should take part in justified armed rebellions – you know, about a decade after having done so. You may think there’s a contradiction here, but the founders did not.

  66. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Somehow, you read that text, and you come away with:
    > An army controlled by the government is necessary to preserve a stable government, and (thus) the right of the government to keep an army shall not be infringed.

    The clearly proper reading is:
    > An armed population which is properly trained, prepared, and in good working order, is necessary to prevent tyranny and oppression, and thus the rights of the people to keep weapons and carry weapons shall not be infringed.

    One other point – if that is your reading, or something close, why would they pass such an amendment? The constitution itself is already quite clear that the government has the power to call forth the militia and to raise an army. Use your much touted jurisprudence.What is the purpose of the second amendment then? It’s standard jurisprudence to assume that a law has meaning and effect and that it’s not just wasted space. What effect does the second amendment have on top of the pre-amended constitution, when the pre-amended constitution already gives the government the power to call forth the militia and the power to raise an army?

    Also, keep in mind that this amendment is smack-dab in the middle of a bunch of other amendments, where all of the other amendments have the clear and sole purpose is to limit government power and protect the power of individual citizens. In addition to proposing a meaningless amendment, are you going to propose that the second amendment is an outlier in the bill of rights, and it’s a “right” of the government and not a right of the people like the rest? (Tenth partially excluded.)

  67. says

    Congrats ignoring my argument and responding to something I didn’t say. I talked about the legislative history in order to get to legislative intent, common-man understanding of the law at the time, etc.

    Yes, and none of that is as relevant as what the Constitution actually says, and how its interpretation has evolved since it was ratified.

    Which means even if we ignore the second amendment, I could make a good case that individual gun rights are guaranteed by the ninth amendment.

    And your case would fail because the government would still be required to maintain civil order, and that need would supercede any individual right to own guns.

    You talk about jurisprudence. You talk big. Yet you ignore the entire legislative history. You ignore the overwhelming consensus of the writers of the document.

    Excuse me, but you’re the one ignoring the circumstances that directly caused the writing of the Constitution in the first place, despite my having mentioned it several times.

    You redefine militia to mean army.

    You’re lying again. I said no such thing.

    You reinterpret “free State” to be “stable government”.

    That’s because you can’t have either liberty or democracy if the government is not stable and consistently able to uphold rights, enforce laws, and and prevent democratic institutions and processes from being undermined. Your failure to understand this basic fact of political life (not to mention your laughable stupidity WRT civil-war situations like Syria) is what causes your entire case to fail, diversions and all.

    In the proper reading, “free State” refers to a lack of tyranny and oppression…

    Yes, and the only way to prevent tyranny and repression is to keep a democratic regime stable. (Notice how the overwhelming majority of gun-rights loonies also want to DEstabilize our democratic government? That’s not a coincidence.)

    You somehow reinterpret “people” to mean “government” and “right” to mean “power”…

    Once again, you’re lying about what I said.

    Somehow, you read that text, and you come away with: An army controlled by the government is necessary to preserve a stable government, and (thus) the right of the government to keep an army shall not be infringed.

    That’s what YOU come away with. I never said any such thing.

    Use your much touted jurisprudence. What is the purpose of the second amendment then?

    That’s easy, and it’s been explained many times: the Second Amendment was a response to the British government’s practice of preventing colonial and local authorities from responding in a timely manner to local threats, such as Indian raids, by organizing their own security forces. It does not guarantee an unlimited individual right to bear arms; its primary purpose is to prevent the national government from interfering with the States’ decisions WRT local security threats. That’s why it mentioned well-regulated militias first, and rights second.

    The clearly proper reading is: An armed population which is properly trained, prepared, and in good working order, is necessary to prevent tyranny and oppression, and thus the rights of the people to keep weapons and carry weapons shall not be infringed.

    In a much earlier time, when the American people were a mostly rural and more or less homogeneous demographic (not counting darker-skinned people who didn’t count, because they weren’t considered people back then), maybe. Today, when the US population is far more concentrated, urban and multi-ethnic, that rule doesn’t apply so well, and the organization of security forces has had to change accordingly; and the scope of people’s right to own guns has to change along with it.

    They would also argue that you should take part in justified armed rebellions…

    Without any sort of mechanism or procedure in place to determine in advance which armed rebellions are justified, and which are not, that statement is nothing but empty inflammatory rhetoric. I’ve been hearing a lot of that since a certain black guy got elected President.

  68. says

    PS: I also notice that when I get back to the actual text of the Second Amendment — the WHOLE sentence, not just the second half — you call it a Gish Gallop. That says a lot about your honesty.

  69. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Raging Bee
    Seriously – try actually answering my direct questions with direct answers. It’s the sign of an honest person. I answer your questions with direct answers. Return the favor.

    About the evolving constitution. I ask again: The text of the first amendment, congress shall not establish a religion, will the constitution ever evolve – without amendment – to the point where Congress has the legal authority to require everyone to attend Mormon church services every Sunday? Is this the jurisprudence which you are proposing?

    I ask again: Consider a possible entirely new constitution. It possible that there might be some constitution with some entirely different and new text which could gaurantee individual gun rights? Or would individual gun rights always be overridden by the implicit and unstated need for the government “to maintain civil order”?

    About the “defending from ‘Indian’ attack” purpose of the second amendment. First, it’s native American, not Indian. I’m part Cherokee, and that’s both racist, bigoted, and offensive. Get your shit straight. Second, you pulled that purpose directly out of your ass. Give me a single citation, I dare you. I have given a plethora of citations that basically no one held to that view. I have given a plethora of citations that everyone held to the view that the purpose of the second amendment was to preserve the preexisting individual gun rights. Gun rights was preexisting in English common law in the English bill of rights. Other state constitutions at the time also had similar gun right protections. There is a plethora of writing that individual gun rights are a requirement of a functioning democracy. This was also the understanding of basically everyone for at least the next 70 years going by the debates we have surrounding the passing of the Freedman Bureau acts and the fourteenth amendment. I can keep going with new citations from founders, newspapers, etc. The evidence here is overwhelming and endless.

    You somehow reinterpret “people” to mean “government” and “right” to mean “power”…

    Once again, you’re lying about what I said.

    You just very explicitly stated that the purpose of the second amendment is to protect the power of government to have government-controlled security forces, and it is not about the rights of the people. Literally just said that in the previous post, in the same post. The hell is wrong with you?

    Somehow, you read that text, and you come away with: An army controlled by the government is necessary to preserve a stable government, and (thus) the right of the government to keep an army shall not be infringed.

    That’s what YOU come away with. I never said any such thing.

    What the fuck. Do you think the amendment protects a power of government, or an (individual) right of the people? I don’t see a third option. Are you advocating a third option? What third option is that? Again, what the fuck.

    Are you advocating that the second amendment does guarantee individual gun rights, and that it’s merely overriden by other considerations? You keep dancing in between positions. It’s impossible to nail you down. It’s like jello.

    They would also argue that you should take part in justified armed rebellions…

    Without any sort of mechanism or procedure in place to determine in advance which armed rebellions are justified, and which are not, that statement is nothing but empty inflammatory rhetoric. I’ve been hearing a lot of that since a certain black guy got elected President.

    Right… What was the American war of independence then if not a justified armed rebellion (according to the founders)? What was the Whiskey Rebellion if not an unjustified armed rebellion (according to the founders)?

    The founders participated in one armed rebellion (the American war of independence), and just a decade or two later, they put down an armed rebellion. You agree with these material facts, yes?

  70. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Raging Bee
    I also object to your ad hominem by implicitly comparing me to the Republican nutjobs who are advocating armed rebellion because Obama is a gay black Muslim communist Nazi atheist who did horrible unspeakable crimes like trying to get national health care. I have never advocated lightly for rebellion, and I sure as hell never advocated for rebellion against the current administration.

    I ask you: is an armed rebellion ever justified? Was the American war of independence a justified armed rebellion?

  71. says

    Seriously – try actually answering my direct questions with direct answers.

    Your questions are irrelevant to this argument.

    First, it’s native American, not Indian. I’m part Cherokee, and that’s both racist, bigoted, and offensive. Get your shit straight.

    Stop trying to change the subject.

    Second, you pulled that purpose directly out of your ass.

    Actually, I pulled it out of all those history and civics classes you pretend I never took.

    Are you advocating a third option? What third option is that? Again, what the fuck.

    I just told you the third option, you lying moron. More than once. How many times do you want me to repeat myself?

    I also object to your ad hominem by implicitly comparing me to the Republican nutjobs who are advocating armed rebellion…

    Then stop spouting their bullshit talking-points and their revisionist history, and stop lying about what I say as soon as I say it.

  72. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I just told you the third option, you lying moron. More than once. How many times do you want me to repeat myself?

    I’d settle for just once if it was a clear and unambiguous answer. You haven’t given that yet. You can start by clearing answering these questions. I’m just going to keep reposting them until you answer.

    Your questions are irrelevant to this argument.

    No, they’re very relevant. They are very specific targeted questions which would allow me to understand your jurisprudence. I’ve been trying to understand that for pages now, but you seem to be refusing to be clear and state your position. If you would answer these questions, then I would understand your position. Please stop dodging.

    Is it ever possible for the culture to move to a point where the first amendment, without further constitutional amendment, would be consistent with the congress requiring every citizen to attend Mormon church services every Sunday?

    Would you accept the legal “consistency” and legal enforceability of some hypothetical constitution which included a very clear individual right to guns? Or is the possibility of such a thing impossible under your jurisprudence?

    Do you have any citations for your asspull that original purpose, original meaning, original plain text meaning, and/or legislative history behind the second amendment is about guaranteeing the power of governments to have security forces to counteract native American attacks?

    Does the second amendment guarantee a right of the people? Or does it give a power to the government?

    If it gives a power to the government, that means you interpret the text “the rights of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” to be “the government shall have the power to raise an army and other security forces”, right? In other words, you interpret “people” to mean “government”, “right” to mean “government power, aka restrictions of natural rights”, and “shall not be infringed” to “(the power) shall be given to the government”, right?

    Under this purported meaning and asspull original purpose, I ask again: Under normal jurisprudence, it is assumed that a law has effect. In other words, that a law was enacted for some purpose, to change the existing law. The US constitution pre- second amendment already gave the powers to congress to raise an army and to call forth the militia. What additional powers does the second amendment give to government? How does your interpretation give the second amendment teeth. How does your interpretation render the second amendment as anything but a moot and do-nothing amendment?

    Or instead do you interpret the second amendment as a guarantee of the right of the people, but it’s simply overruled by other considerations?

    PS:

    I also object to your ad hominem by implicitly comparing me to the Republican nutjobs who are advocating armed rebellion…

    Then stop spouting their bullshit talking-points and their revisionist history, and stop lying about what I say as soon as I say it.

    You have again gone beyond ad hominem into straight-out lying. You insinuated that I am arguing for rebellion against Obama. I clearly explained I was not. Here, you refuse to stop making that accusation, even though you know it to be false.

    That’s one step away from actionable defamation. I won’t sue you just on principle, (and I don’t think I could win when I’m operating under a mere pseudonym), but you really out to be more careful. If I was posting under my actual name, there’s a good chance I could win a suit. You have accused me of a crime (treason), which means statutory damages in most states aka I don’t have to show damages. I can also show that you have acted with full knowledge of the falsehood of your statement, aka with malice.

    PPS:

    First, it’s native American, not Indian. I’m part Cherokee, and that’s both racist, bigoted, and offensive. Get your shit straight.

    Stop trying to change the subject.

    Oh, so now you’re an unrepentant bigot and racist? Awesome.

  73. sabrekgb says

    EL: Seriously – try actually answering my direct questions with direct answers.

    Raging Bee: Your questions are irrelevant to this argument.

    I think this pretty much sums up things and demonstrates that Raging Bee is not arguing in good faith.

    Multiple threads of multiple pages and she can’t be bothered to answer explicit questions directly or state her position concisely. Ridiculous.

  74. dingojack says

    Mr Raging Bee is simply pointing out that EL’s arguments are (largely) irrelevant red herrings to avoid answering actual data and arguments put to him/her.
    Dingo

  75. says

    That’s one step away from actionable defamation.

    EL, go fuck yourself. You’ve lied about what I said, as soon as I said it, so many times that you no longer have any basis to accuse anyone else of lying or defamation. Take your phony diversionary outrage and shove it back where it came from.

    You have accused me of a crime (treason)…

    No, I did not. Treason is defined in the Constitution, and if you really understood the constitution as much as you pretend to do, you would know that the things I accuse you of do not constitute treason.

    Oh, so now you’re an unrepentant bigot and racist? Awesome.

    I use a word that was in both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and is still in routine use, and that makes me a racist? Grow the fuck up. The DoI has far more colorful words for Native Americans — look them up if you need a REAL example of racism.

    They are very specific targeted questions which would allow me to understand your jurisprudence. I’ve been trying to understand that for pages now…

    This is another lie of yours. If you were really trying to understand me, then you would not have resorted to flat-out lying about my words, nor would you have spent so much time and energy tossing about so many diverse diversions and Gish-Gallops, from Colonial-Williamsburg-ad rhetoric to bloody Shakespeare. Your statement of intent is flatly disproven by your actual behavior, over a period of several weeks, with no end in sight.

    PS: sabrekgb, Not that it matters, but I’m kinda curious — what makes you think I’m female? Is it something I actually said, or is questioning someone’s manhood a standard procedure of yours?

  76. sabrekgb says

    @80 Dingojack

    Raging Bee is simply pointing out that EL’s arguments are (largely) irrelevant red herrings

    The questions asked are not irrelevant. Even if they were, that’s not a reason to not answer. EL is trying to point out what he sees as a legitimate conflict in what he thinks Raging Bee’s position is. He’s trying to confirm that is in fact the accurate position…and Raging Bee is being slippery about saying one way or another. Unless they were embarrassed about their position, why would someone shy away so much from concisely stating it?

    @81 Raging Bee

    If you were really trying to understand me, then you would not have resorted to flat-out lying about my words, nor would you have spent so much time and energy tossing about so many diverse diversions and Gish-Gallops, from Colonial-Williamsburg-ad rhetoric to bloody Shakespeare. Your statement of intent is flatly disproven by your actual behavior, over a period of several weeks, with no end in sight.

    Why not just answer the damn questions then? If EL is being disingenuous or not, it shouldn’t matter, you can just answer and be done with it instead of every single time diverting, obfuscating, and basically doing all you can except concisely answer the questions. EL has answered (most) of your direct questions in such a concise manner…just do the same, and then proceed with disagreements from there.

    PS: sabrekgb, Not that it matters, but I’m kinda curious — what makes you think I’m female? Is it something I actually said, or is questioning someone’s manhood a standard procedure of yours?

    I take it from Dingojack and this that i am incorrect. Apologies. I had thought i’d read something a long time ago that implied you were female. I don’t recall what it was, but had just made that assumption and run with it since this is the internet and i didn’t have anything else to go off of. There is something of a male-normativity on the internet that i didn’t want to be guilty of. In any case, there’s nothing wrong with being female, but rest assured i am not questioning your manhood. I shall correct my pronouns when referring to you in future.

  77. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @dingojack
    I have answered in good faith every “actual data and arguments” put to me AFAIK. If I missed something, please reference it, and I’ll be happy to respond. Otherwise, I have to ask what the fuck are you talking about?

    Whereas, Raging Bee has made a concerted effort to never answer any of the hard questions and to be as purposefully vague as possible.

    Further, what “actual data”? I don’t think Raging Bee has given a single citation, and/or if he has, it’s been exceedingly rare. Whereas I’ve been doing nothing but giving citation upon citation of the legislative history, legislative intent, original plain text understanding, etc.

  78. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Raging Bee

    I use a word that was in both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and is still in routine use, and that makes me a racist? Grow the fuck up. The DoI has far more colorful words for Native Americans — look them up if you need a REAL example of racism.

    Oh man, invoking Dear Muslima as a defense now?
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as
    Good times, good times.

    So, your position is that if the conversation tangentially cited some historic letter using the N- word, then several posts later in a mostly separate context, when not quoting the letter, it’s totally legit to use the N- word to describe black people? Is that your position?

    Again, I am shocked – shocked – that you think you can talk about my heritage that way, and that you are so brazen about your bigotry.

  79. sabrekgb says

    The racism thing seems to be something of a distraction…

    I think it’s clear that Raging Bee didn’t mean to be racist by anything he said. EL, with respect, you may be making more of the comments than is deserved.

  80. says

    If EL is being disingenuous or not, it shouldn’t matter…

    If other people’s blatant dishonesty doesn’t matter to you, I’ll just leave you to your world. Out here, honesty does matter, and there’s no point in trying to have a substantive discussion of anything with a known liar.

  81. sabrekgb says

    @87 Raging Bee

    If other people’s blatant dishonesty doesn’t matter to you

    Ok, now you’re starting to do the same thing to me. I didn’t say it doesn’t matter in general, because it does. I said when referring to you continually refusing to answer specific questions that it doesn’t matter if he’s being disingenuous or not (which you say he is but it’s very obvious he is not), because you could just answer the question and be done with it. What do you lose by answering a question? Then we would all see that you can answer the question and if it turns out EL is being disingenuous, then that will be obvious afterward. You can’t have a constructive argument if you’re not going to answer questions about your own positions.

    Again: Answer the questions. If your position is not internally contradictory, then what do you have to fear from telling us all exactly what it is? Hell, if it is contradictory, then wouldn’t knowing that be a good thing?

    It’s not like it’s something out of left field. The questions EL asked are very relevant to the discussion at hand. My god, man, just answer the damn things so we can get a grasp on your position and then we can actually argue the issue instead of trying to argue who’s the liar or troll or whatever. Fuck.

  82. says

    Again: Answer the questions.

    Again: I don’t have to answer to liars. I’ve already made my point, and all I have to do now is note that NO ONE disputes my arguments except for the liars. Go JAQ off somewhere else.

  83. sabrekgb says

    More honest Raging Bee: Everyone who disagrees with me is a liar. I don’t argue with liars. So i don’t ever actually have to explain myself…everyone who isn’t a liar already agrees with me.

    That’s convenient as hell, isn’t it? Just call those who disagree with you liars by definition and then you don’t actually have to engage ideas.

    Yeah…Raging Bee is very explicitly arguing in bad faith. I don’t see how that can be taken any other way. Wow…how do you not see that?

    *shrug*

  84. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    If other people’s blatant dishonesty doesn’t matter to you, I’ll just leave you to your world. Out here, honesty does matter, and there’s no point in trying to have a substantive discussion of anything with a known liar.

    The proper response is “Oh, sorry. Let me not do that again.” Instead, the given response was “Fuck you. It doesn’t matter if I’m a little racist because look here at this much more racist person / document.” I did not intend to make a big deal about it, and I would have dropped it at that had he given a proper acknowledgement of wrongdoing. Instead, he doubled down. He needs to review the first rule about holes – stop digging.

  85. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    all I have to do now is note that NO ONE disputes my arguments except for the liars.

    Do you mean there is no one who disputes your arguments in the whole world who isn’t a liar? Or just in this thread?

    Also, that’s the fallacy fallacy combined with ad hominem. Even if the only people who promote an argument are liars, that fact has no relation on the validity and soundness of the argument.

    Also, please answer my question here:
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2014/07/28/gop-candidate-thinks-people-can-own-missiles/#comment-340499

  86. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    all I have to do now is note that NO ONE disputes my arguments except for the liars.

    Do you mean there is no one who disputes your arguments in the whole world who isn’t a liar? Or just in this thread?

    Then again, coming from a no-gun-rights presuppositionalist, I shouldn’t be too surprised. Raging Bee already said that he is infallible on this topic, and it’s not much of a stretch for him to argue that everyone innately knows that gun rights are illegitimate, which means anyone who disagrees is a liar. Snark: Have you seen the Sye Ten Brugencate v Matt Dillahunty debate? You were cheering on Sye, right?

  87. sabrekgb says

    An aside:

    the Sye Ten Brugencate v Matt Dillahunty debate

    I’ve been meaning to listen to that debate…worth it?

  88. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @sabrekgb
    I don’t know. I am a sucker for pain. For you to be here to song, you probably are too. I don’t know how to answer that question. If you’ve never seen a hard presupp go at it before, it’s interesting. Matt had a couple absolutely brilliant moments in there too.

    If anything, I found it amusing for how fundamentally dishonest Sye was, and how absolutely brazen he was about it. It was a real show.

  89. sabrekgb says

    This is probably pointless, since i don’t think Raging Bee will be back to this thread, but i do want to say one additional thing:

    It is a bit ironic that Raging Bee is comparing EL to creationists and such with regards to this argument on the second amendment because Bee is acting far more like them than EL is.

    Raging Bee will not explicitly state his position when asked. Raging Bee appears to be immovable on the subject (not even stating what could in theory change his mind). When confronted with specific arguments for the interpretation of the amendment from several different angles, Bee handwaves them away pointing instead to common sense and opinions on how things ought to be. Bee is arguing in bad faith.

    Raging Bee is behaving much more like a dishonest creationist apologist than EL, and i think that is pretty obvious to anyone disinterested reading this thread. An odd insult, Raging Bee, considering your own behavior.

Leave a Reply