Uh, I guess I think there’s a 50/50 chance or so, so I guess that’s a 50 on the Odden scale? If things keep going the way they are, maybe as high as 75? If the American people wake up a bit and take a few steps back from their current path, 25? Hell, I’m not sure. I’m no actuary. I’m going to be prepared either way. Prepare for the worst, work towards the best.
Especially the difference between “fundamental” and “primary”. I’m not getting it.
The primary reason I own a gun (the first and foremost reason) is for personal protection. The fundamental reason for the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution, is to protect men from government. (From Thomas Jefferson as referenced in my above post, “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”)
I’m dumbfounded that this thread is so controversial. Some of you are responding as though I don’t think philosophical change can happen. I know it can. I also realize that it can sometimes happen rather quickly, as with the Abolitionist movement. That’s not what I’m talking about here and I don’t have a problem or argument with that.
Heller gets announced tomorrow morning at 10:00am EDT. SCOTUSBlog does live blogging of decisions, using a nifty little chat-like text box doo-hickey that doesn’t require any mad pounding of the F5 button to get the very latest.
Interesting vote-counting tidbit: Heller is the only case left from the March session left to be decided, and Scalia is the only Justice who hasn’t written a majority opinion from that session. Usually, the workload gets balanced, so many analysts are predicting a very high probability that Scalia will be writing the majority opinion in Heller. I don’t know if I agree, but it is interesting. SCOTUS vote-counting is rather like trying to count hedgehogs while blindfolded.
The primary reason I own a gun (the first and foremost reason) is for personal protection. The fundamental reason for the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution, is to protect men from government.
…
I’m dumbfounded that this thread is so controversial.
Actually you’ve put your finger on it right here. I am completely opposed to people owning guns in the US as it exists for the purpose of armed insurrection against the government. I am completely opposed to any infringement of the right of citizens to own guns. The discussion here is clearly not about whether a person has the right to own guns which we all recognize, it is about whether a individual should in fact exercise that unquestioned right. Supposing you had no hunting or defense-against-criminals reasons for being armed, I maintain that it is irrational for a person to exercise that right to bear arms only on the mythical presumption that the government will come to get you. Of course, if you actually believe that that is gonna happen, then it’s not an irrational choice (but then we could probe into the rationality of the assumption that the government will be gunning for you soon, but not tonight).
Now here, you’re attempting to link the right to own guns to the specifics of the US Constitution. But that is not the proper derivation of the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms flows from the right of a man to live according to his values, respecting the rights of others.
So you disagree with the Founding Fathers? It’s a good thing they didn’t think the way you did, or I’d be drinking over-taxed, hot tea instead of this nice, refreshing glass of iced tea I’ve got here.
I don’t wish to put words in her mouth, but that’s not what she means. We all know that such rights were simply enumerated in the constitution.
Re: your concern here:
Actually you’ve put your finger on it right here. I am completely opposed to people owning guns in the US as it exists for the purpose of armed insurrection against the government.
The key here being as it exists. That is not the purpose that any of us here have for keeping them, i.e., overthrowing the legitimite government on a whim. Recall these words from the Declaration of Independance: “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”
Personal arms are multi-functional tools, and one of those functions is to keep tyranny in check. At this point in time, they are not yet needed to fufill that purpose.
The key here being as it exists. That is not the purpose that any of us here have for keeping them, i.e., overthrowing the legitimite government on a whim.
The numbers on that question aren’t clear to me. I don’t think anybody is suggesting overthrowing Bush / Obama on a whim, but I would like to know what exactly Sanjavalen has in mind to use his guns for. But it’s getting to be about time to listen to The News. There does appear to be a belief that the US has descended far enough into fascism to the point that armed insurrection is probably necessary within a lifetime, even if it’s not necessary today. Well, let me check The News to see if I’m mistaken about it not being necessary.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices’ first definitive pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
And K-mac never said that guns alone ensure freedom.
Not explicitly, no. But she explicitly disagreed with my statement that the right to own a gun will not protect any individual from the most significant destructive ideological forces in the United States. The objective of my subsequent commentary was not an insinuation on what I thought K-mac said or what I perceived she was thinking. Instead, it was a corroboration of my initial statement.
If I understand correctly, I think David’s and DW’s point is that for a domestic government (as opposed to a foreign conqueror), the government is going to be a reflection of the dominant philosophy among the people. There may be some inertia from the past as the dominant philosophy changes, of course. We can see this in the United States, which is now holding some lines on a few fundamental freedoms largely based on tradition.
When it comes to armed resistance against an oppressive domestic government, I think it would be very unlikely to be able to accomplish anything more than the substitution of one particular form of government for another, e.g., changing one despot for another, unless the armed resistance is motivated by a rising popularity of a more rational philosophy. Otherwise any substitution would be essentially a matter of form - not substance - and like as not it would be a change for the worse. The new government would reflect the dominant – or at least the rising – philosophy among the people.
Of course self-defense is legitimate, including against a despotic government, but how can a tiny percentage of people physically defend themselves against the vast majority? It would at least require tremendous dedication to the preparation for an organized defense and probably also a huge technological advantage. We have neither.
But maybe it’s just that I have not been invited to Galt’s Gulch?
Note:
Edited to delete an inchoate comment re today’s SCOTUS opinion.
First of all, it should be pointed out that in view of the growth of the state and the decline of individual liberty over the past 50 years there is no reason to be overly optimistic about the “limited” nature of our government. To take just one indicator, government spending is double what it was in 1960 and 14 times its level in 1900, even with adjusting for inflation. Government spending, financed by theft and inflation, eats away at private property, which is a prerequisite of freedom.
Secondly, the purpose of a well-armed populace need not be to battle an imminent threat but a potential one. Consider, by comparison, the nation’s arsenal of nuclear weapons. On a percentage scale of 0% to 100%, what is the likelihood that the U.S. is going to deploy any significant portion of its 10.000+ nuclear weapons this summer? Does the logic of probable necessity dictate that we get rid of all those weapons we won’t be using in the next year or so?
Finally, and this point cannot be emphasized enough: the mere presence of guns and ammo in millions of American homes serves as a deterrent against tyranny. See the human cost of gun control laws here: http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#dgc
It’s not that hard, people. I’m not talking about defending ideas or philosophy. I’m not talking about going psycho, forming a militia of crazies that hate all authority and attacking the government for no good reason. I’m talking about defending your life. (Which the people of Zimbabwe are helpless to do right now.) I’m talking about when a person or entity physically confronts you and intends to do you harm or kill you, you have the right to defend yourself. A gun is the most effective way to do that. That’s it. You all sure know how to get off track from the original post. :wacko:
And for those of you cheering today’s SCOTUS decision, don’t get too excited. The Court left plenty of wiggle room for other unnecessary and unwarranted restrictions to be put in place, such as a registry, banning certain types of guns, parts and/or ammunition, etc. They did not stand up in defense of the Second Amendment. They even suggested that, like the First Amendment, it’s not unlimited.
And finally, thank you to the few of you who seem to understand what I’m getting at. It’s nice to know there are others out there who get it. For the rest of you, when the government is out of control and physically attacking people (as in Zimbabwe), don’t expect your neighbors to rush to your rescue. We’ve probably only got enough guns and ammo for our own households. If you and everyone else who think guns aren’t important had enough for your own households, the government would be no physical threat to us at all in 5, 10, 50 or 100 or more years. If you don’t think the government restricting our right to keep and bear arms in any way, shape or form isn’t going down a slippery slope, I think you’re wrong and it will be very difficult for you to convince me otherwise. History has many fine examples that discredit your ignorant optimism.
A few more good quotes I found…
“Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.”
Heinrich Himmler
“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.”
Suppose that 30% of Americans understand what individual rights are and are ready to institute a government that will uphold them. However, they are consistently out-voted in elections and are subjected to increasing violations of their rights by the government. Suppose further that the pro-freedom 30% have a good chance of winning should a civil war break out, and can expect most of the nation’s military to join their side in the case of such a conflict. Under such a scenario, should the freedom-lovers submit obediently to the ever-growing depredations of the majority–or should they respond to force with force, defeat their oppressors, and establish a capitalist government?
I don’t think America is very far from this scenario being a reality.
I’m going to be prepared either way. Prepare for the worst, work towards the best.
Some of you are responding as though I don’t think philosophical change can happen. I know it can. I also realize that it can sometimes happen rather quickly, as with the Abolitionist movement. That’s not what I’m talking about here and I don’t have a problem or argument with that.