With regard to gun ownership and the 2nd amendment:
Unless we the “people†have a few A1 Abrams, Appache
helicopters and F22s lying around, it’s not likely well do
much to fend off the Government.
Can't disagree with that. (See long note below, though.) The
original purpose of the 2nd Amendment no longer exists in the
form it did when it was written. For many reasons.
But you may miss my point, given the rest I see below. I'll
resay it again, at the end, after the "..."
Don’t ever forget Ruby Ridge or Waco.
If the concept is to be able to effectively counter a
“perceived†tyrannical government, we’re headed in the wrong
direction. We need at least full auto, access to grenades,
rocket launchers, etc!
The original purpose included foreign invasion as well as
internal revolt as well as providing the "last" and "final"
check against those who might wish to use a federal force
against those in a state of the union.
Other checks were added, including a bar against the idea of
a standing military -- also a barrier long since broken for
reasons both good and bad.
But at the time, there wasn't a standing, well trained army;
and there wasn't nearly as large a distinction in weaponry.
And the world was different in other ways. (Though I think
after reading the massive book, Les Miserables, I'm starting
to take the position that there isn't anything at all new
about politics.)
Hell the state I live in won’t allow full auto of any sort.
We the “folks†are just plain too damn under “armed†to make
much of an impact.
Understood.
But what the heck, we can smoke pot!
Pot is harmless. If legal, there'd also be no violence
because the courts would then be available to settle
disputes.
My next door neighbor sells full auto. But if I remember
correctly in the US these are quite limited -- no additional
pieces are authorized and the existing stock is the only
legal stock allowed. And licence fees must be paid ever year,
if I remember right. (Never owned one, though.)
The 2nd amendment needs to revised, or thrown out.
It's already been revised. A 1939 Supreme Court decision used
an entirely "prudential" argument having nothing whatever to
do with original intent, in my opinion.
However, at least there remains an individual right that was
recently upheld... for whatever that turns out to be worth.
I'll add below a long comment I'd written in 2004 on this
topic. Might be interesting to refresh memories.
But what is clear, is that this nonsense re s/a weapons, is
because most of the people targeting the weapons don’t
understand the weaponry.
That's largely true.
The real issue is the nut behind the trigger, and everybody
knows it. But I suspect, providing an effective solution
will be way too costly and much more difficult.
It may also require deeper self-examination than most are
willing to engage in. As well as the expense.
Easier to make busy work and go after high profile emotional
topics than fix problems.
Looking busy, though.
Having said all that I’ve been staring at my AR-10 for
several hours and it has yet to jump up and battery a
charge. I have no “frigin†idea what’s wrong with this damn
thing!
My .02 worth.
I don't often see those and know nothing about their design.
But I do know my weapons well enough to make and replace some
of the parts. (I don't do rifling for example.)
....
My point wasn't to either encourage or defend any particular
side in this seemingly perennial debate or to take sides.
There are strongly felt and reasoned feelings from many
quarters.
My intent was to point out that while it once might have once
been practical to ban large magazines from sales at stores,
it no longer is. 3D printing has already been able to cheaply
build lower receivers that can withstand "some" use before
breaking. It certainly can be and is being used to build
large capacity magazines that work rather well. Banning
larger magazines today, in 2013, will only create a lucrative
niche market for 3D printing. It's effect now will be much
less than it might have been a few decades ago. (And again,
I'm not arguing about that effect. It probably had little to
no effect for the intended reasons at the time.)
I also imagine it will be 'very hard' to make semiautos
illegal. What would be the alternate? Revolvers? Single fire
break-barrel designs like a Barreta 86-F, but without a
magazine? I don't think any of that would pass, either.
Time needs to be put elsewhere. The magazine debate is
pointless. It would, even if passed, only create a new
marketplace as well as accelerated efforts towards cheaper,
more advanced 3D printer designs. That genie is out of the
bag, now. There's no putting it back.
http://wordpress.digitalcrowbar.net/?p=167
http://defdist.tumblr.com/post/37023487585/printed-reinforced-ar-lower-review
http://defensedistributed.com/
....
I'm going to quote a little from the Federalist papers. I
want to make it clear that at the time they were published
they were not the only opinions around. But they were popular
ones and written to push a point of view. There were a number
of other factions, including the anti-federalists (like the
"Federal Farmer".) Still, the 2nd Amendment was well
understood and commonly accepted as wise at the time.
The Supreme Court (itself ever changing) gleans intent not
just from the Federalist Papers. Those papers tell how some
thought and, to the degree that their arguments won through
in writing specific phrases and lines in our Constitution,
you can find some measure of "original intent." But there is
also the intent of those who actually wrote specific elements
and the intent of those who voted in support of the final
document and that is gleaned from elsewhere, including
reading the debates in the various legislatures that
ratified. (As well as in letters, trial versions of the text
before editing changes, and so on.)
Modern Constitutional analysis doesn't just conclude even
from these original intent arguments. Current thinking seems
to include:
(1) textual arguments, which appeal to the unadorned language
of the text and without any 'original intent' analysis to
speak of (on the theory that the document is the controlling
agreement that was signed, and not just what some folks may
have read into it at the time);
(2) historical arguments, appealing to an historical
background, such as specific appeals to the intentions of
framers, as lit by their many writings on the subject (this
is more of that original intent thing);
(3) structural arguments, analyzing the particular structures
established by the Constitution, such as the tripartite
division of the national government or the separate existence
of both state and nation as political entities and/or the
structured role of citizens within the political order (a bit
of an abstraction, but useful in understanding the _thrust_
of intent where specific details may be lacking);
(4) doctrinal arguments, focusing on implications of prior
cases decided by the Supreme Court (stare decisis);
(5) prudential arguments, which emphasize the consequences of
adopting any proffered decision in any given case;
As an example of number (5) above, the 2nd Amendment was in
many ways thoroughly changed from original intent when the
U.S. Supreme Court held in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S.
174 (1939), that the Second Amendment was designed to protect
only the ability of the states to maintain a well regulated
militia. This 1939 case is the only modern case in which the
Supreme Court has addressed this issue, and since this Miller
decision, every federal court that has considered the issue
has rejected the contention that the Second Amendment confers
a right to firearm possession unrelated to militia service.
(Until District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
appeared on the scene, anyway.)
However, this 1939 position was NOT the original intent nor
can it be taken from the language.
Well before District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570
(2008), the constitutional authority, Professor Laurence
Tribe, confirmed that the 2nd Amendment is an individual
right. See "American Constitutional Law, 2nd ed., 1988." He
does so in a somewhat offhand way, but freely admits the
difficulty of any other interpretation, writing, "...the
debates surrounding congressional approval of the second
amendment do contain references to individual self-protection
as well as to states' rights." And Tribe was supportive of
strong gun control laws.
James Madison writes about the subject in Federalist #46,
saying "...the advantage of being armed, which the Americans
possess over the people of almost every other nation...forms
a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more
insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form
can admit of."
He also discusses the idea that a Federal Army might be
formed in order to subdue the people. He leads his point by
first trying to get an estimate of just how big an army the
Federal gov't might possibly be able to muster. He then
dispels it by saying, "To these would be opposed a militia
amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in
their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves,
fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted
by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It
may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced
could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular
troops."
Alexander Hamilton writes in Federalist #29, "...but if
circumstances should at any time oblige the government to
form an army of any magnitude that army can never be
formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a
large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them
in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend
their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This
appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a
standing army, and the best possible security against it, if
it should exist."
If you read the Virginia Legislature debates or what exists
of the many writings by the various important visionaries
around this time, well documented in George Bancroft's
"History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United
States of America" (which is often referred to by members of
the US Supreme Court), or if you carefully read through the
Federalist Papers, in particular #24 to #29, #46, and others,
you will find a continuing and clear understanding that
common citizens must be afforded the right to keep and bear
arms.
Even the opposition writers to the Federalists, for example
the "Federal Farmer," an anti-federalist critic of the
Constitution and its absence then of a Bill of Rights, wrote
"to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of
the people always possess arms, and be taught alike,
especially when young, how to use them..."
Frankly, on this subject, there was little disagreement back
then.
But, as you imply when you bring up F22's and the A1 Abrams,
the prudential argument wins out at this time. Despite the
original writings and intent. The essence of this position is
based on (5), mentioned above. And it amounts to asking this
question,
"What would happen *if* we decided that the Second Amendment
provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right
to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to
resist government tyranny?"
If one then decides that there *is* such an absolute right,
then one is forced to the conclusion that the Second
Amendment must allow individuals to possess bazookas,
torpedoes, SCUD missiles, biological weapons, and even
nuclear warheads, for they are, like rifles and pistols,
__arms__. Certainly, it is hard to imagine any serious
resistance to an organized and well funded standing military
without many of such arms.
Since to most people in the US today that is clearly
unacceptable to social stability, the question is therefore
reduced to a different one. No longer is it whether or not
to restrict arms ownership, as that is already been
determined by examining alternatives. The question becomes
only by how much to restrict it. The Second Amendment's
origianl intent has bene demolished by a prudential refusal
to accept the original arguments and intent.
The important issues won't be examined. They are more
abstract, largely unattended, and will take time to consider
and then turn into concrete goals. It's much easier to pick
on pithy adages that play well with an ignorant public.
The debate about magazine size will continue. I just think
that it won't achieve its goals, even if some restricting law
comes to pass. Today, it will be even less useful because of
the ready availability of 3D printers and the ease of making
them if you don't already have one, from readily available
parts. I'll be using heavy rollers and aluminum I-beams
designed for pocket doors by Johnson Hardware on the next one
I build, for example. They aren't going to control pocket
door hardware, nor the software that is readily available for
driving these machines with good accuracy. And they are
getting easier to buy or make, by the day. And Pirate Bay has
already set up a special section just for these "Physibles."
As well as the links I provided above.
Interesting times.
Jon
