Posted on 02/07/2007 2:40:44 PM PST by Jim Robinson
"A well-regulated militia being necessary..."
Simple grammar disagrees with you.
How exactly does the word "regulate" modify "arms" and not "militia" in the text of Second Amendment? It is part of a subordinate clause. "The right... shall not be infringed" is the meat of the Amendment... and that says nothing about regulating that right or that all-important tool.
Numbers, morale, the moral high ground, guerilla tactics, never massing troops, anonymity, etc... all of those things are helping the terrorists in Iraq now ("the moral high ground" being in THEIR eyes, of course), and they'd be our strengths in any kind of insurrection here.
The Japanese were terrified of the idea of invading America with troops, since there would be "a rifle behind every blade of grass". Our military is incredibly powerful... but in the end, you need motivated boots on the ground to win, and those loyal to an American tyrant simply would not possess sufficient numbers if every American hunter became a rebellious sniper overnight.
I do not think there is a caveat in the second amendment that says "regulate". Regulate? (As Morty Seinfeld said in the "Low flow shower" episode) "I don't like the sound of that"
Guerilla warfare? I don't think so.
The tyrant has another option, a ready, high-tech arsenal. And, for the very reasons you cite, he would use it.
Indeed, that he COULD use it is sufficient reason to call the matchup lopsided and the 2nd amendment emasculated.
I'm just checking back in for a moment to let you both know that I have read your responses and will reply to them later this evening. Unfortunately, through the week-end and today the press of time and responsibilities wouldn't allow a more timely response. Thank you for your patience.
It refers to a "well-regulated militia"... which, at the time, mean well-drilled, well-prepared, and well-supplied... and certainly NOT "well-controlled by the government forces that it is supposed to protect us from"!!
How well did technology work against guerilla tactics in Veitnam, my dear?
The entire point of guerilla warfare is to turn the enemy's advantages into disavantages. Do you think that enterprising and highly-motivated American hunters, most of whom have some military training or experience, would be incapable of thinking of ways to do that? I respectfully assert that you are incorrect on that matter.
The Iraqi insurgents are doing an exquisite job of doing so. Our strength, politics, and tech all mean that we can be very careful about civlian casualties and destroying important buildings... and thus they hide among innocents and in "important" mosques.
The tyrant has another option, a ready, high-tech arsenal. And, for the very reasons you cite, he would use it.
True, he could order it... but how many US soldiers would carry out orders to use such weapons on American citizens? Some, surely, but not all. And, once again, they'd be spending far more expensive ordinance than necessary or feasible... the old "missile for a camel's tent" problem. Our "troops" wouldn't mass. Our strength would be solo work and small concentrations in important areas. With only 1 million troops (tops) to ferret out 100,000,000 "snipers", one at a time, it puts the tyrant in an untenable position. Lobbing missiles at individual locations just wastes missiles. The US doesn't HAVE 100,000,000 missiles to lob at people, even if they could find the soldiers willing to pull the trigger.
Indeed, that he COULD use it is sufficient reason to call the matchup lopsided and the 2nd amendment emasculated.
Again, I completely disagree. Unless you're talking nukes, they cannot destroy us all. (IF they use nukes, then there's nothing left to rule anyway, so why bother worrying about it? If we confront THAT kind of tyrant, it's all over for the nation as an entity. That government would never rule, because it would have nothing to rule.)
Again, anything they use can be countered or minimized with intelligence, tactics, and willpower.
Nonetheless, I am talking about the underlying intent of the Founders, namely, the ability to defend against a despotic govt, (which was, understandably, the principal concern at the time).Guns were sufficient for that purpose in the 18th century, but they clearly are not today. And thus we have a reason--a need even--to 'regulate.'
If 'arms means guns,' and if there is no regulation, or if technology outpaces such regulation, then the 2nd amendment becomes as ineffectual as your 'guns' do. --Mia T
I was originally thinking mini-nukes, other tactical nukes or some equivalent weaponry.
The tyrant won't be deterred by 'collateral damage;' conversely, he can preserve a subjugated population by limiting the kill with weapon type and size. Moreover, he likely would not have to deploy many weapons--the psychological effect alone would be sufficient to put down the rebellion.
But I can imagine another scenario in which you don't have to pinpoint the 'enemy' that is more humane.
If guns, which I believe are wholy mechanical at present, become even partially computerized, i.e, begin to contain silicon chips, then all the tyrant would have to do is to deploy an electromagnetic (pulse) bomb. It would disable all the guns within a given radius of that bomb.
The 'logic' of those refusing to vote for Rudy:
Rudy is a too 'liberal' 'New Yorker' so they will place their de facto vote for missus clinton, a Stalinist New Yorker, albeit fake, (fake New Yorker, not fake Stalinist), who
It does the conservative cause no good to become petulant and self-destructive.
Do conservatives really want
I find it hard to believe that those people aren't able to discern the difference between Giuliani and clinton. Frankly, if true, it is frightening.
I am advocating for Giuliani not because of his ideology. I am advocating for him because I believe he possesses the qualities that this country desperately needs in these perilous times... and because I believe he, unlike all the others, will actually win.
The other night, I heard a man who is not perfect, but a man of rare intelligence, humility, warmth, competence, strength and leadership.
We will be fortunate, indeed, and our babies, born and unborn, living and not yet imagined, will be infinitely safer, if he is our next president.
As for psychological effects, I cannot fathom any circumstances that would make me stop fighting against an American tyrant. The more brutal and efficient, the more I am motivated to oppose them. If they're "politically correct" in their methods, it shows weakness and supports my feelings of Hope. Nothing would make me stop struggling and making any contribution I could, once the shooting starts... other than victory or death.
Wonderful. A latter-day Patrick Henry. :)
Somewhere along the line my original point and yours were conflated. The issue isn't whether the rebellion can be put down. The issue is whether, if there is no regulation, the gun's obsolescence will render the 2nd amendment ineffectual.
Ah, but then we come back to the "whether arms = guns" debate. Again, I'll stick to the idea that "we" retain the right to own the same basic "implements of destruction" that the common foot-soldier may carry. With my little verbal gyration, obsolescence is moot... unless the common footsoldier will one day walk around unarmed.
First: Teacher317
Let's begin with Teacher's initial post which I challenged:
True, but the Second Amendment talks about the regulation of the militia, not of arms.
To which I replied: "This assertion is simply, flatly untrue."
Teacher, I responded so forcefully because I thought (mistakenly, as your subsequent posts showed) that you were using the term "regulated" in the same dishonestly incorrect sense that "collective-rights" advocates have used it, and that you therefore believed that the 2nd Amendment authorized the federal government to control (regulate - in the modern sense of 'government regulations') the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Your subsequent posts on this thread indicated clearly, however, that was not the case, and that you understood fully that the proper, historically accurate 18th Century meaning of the term "well-regulated" was simply "set-up or configured and functioning properly". For example, a well-regulated engine is one which is properly tuned and running smoothly, a well-regulated clock is one which is properly adjusted and keeps the correct time, and a well-regulated militia is one whose members are properly armed, supplied and proficient in the skills necessary to be effective.
Thus, once my misunderstanding of your meaning was corrected, it was clear you and I were in agreement. I apologise for my failure at first to clearly get your meaning and my rather forceful response. I tend to be more zealous and strident in my defense of the 2nd Amendment than I do in most other discussions because I recognize that without it, those others become moot.
One final caveat regarding the imprecise use of language bears mentioning. When you said above "True, but the Second Amendment talks about the regulation of the militia, not of arms.", that statement is dangerously unclear. As you yourself acknowledge, a "well-regulated militia" does not mean the same thing as "regulating" (controlling, restricting, limiting, etc. in the modern sense) the militia". I know what you mean and you know what you mean, but the transposition of those terms provides an opportunity for distortion and deception to those who argue for the "collective-rights" interpretations of the 2nd.
The only place in the Constitution which deals with the "regulation" (in the modern sense) of the militia is found in Article I, Section 8, where the Legislative branch is empowered:
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
The term "well-regulated" in the subordinate clause of the 2nd Amendment is an adjective, not an adverb - it merely describes the militia, it does not control (regulate) anything. A more precise, and much safer and resistant to distortion way to say what you said would be that the 2nd Amendment "mentions" (talks about) the militia, but the "subject" of the 2nd Amendment is the RIGHT of individual people to keep and bear arms. The subject clause is dominant.
Second: Mia T
Mia, I have followed your posts for years, and I appreciate the tremendous time and effort you put into them, and the interesting and useful information you provide. Thanks for all your hard work.
For this thread, the issue where we differ is found in your assertion:
My argument goes to the underlying intent of the Founders, namely, the ability to defend against a despotic govt, (which was, understandably, the principal concern at the time). Guns were sufficient for that purpose in the 18th century, but they clearly are not today.
Once more, during my absence from the thread other posters, including Teacher317 stepped forward and gave you several explanations of just how timely and relevant to todays world the 2nd Amendment remains, and how guns in the hands of private citizens can still be a potent factor in maintaining our freedom. Just remember, it isn't necessary to defeat a tyrant's tanks and planes if you can take out the tyrant himself with a single bullet. If it were not so, history's tyrants, both past and prospective, would not be so desperately determined to disarm their citizens.
One final note re: P.S. I think you mean 'unsound,' (not 'invalid'). --Mia T
Yes, 'unsound' would be more correct. Thanks for the alert catch! This response was to our exchange of comments:
Guns were sufficient for that purpose in the 18th century, but they clearly are not today. And thus we have a reason--a need even--to 'regulate.'
If 'arms means guns,' and if there is no regulation, or if technology outpaces such regulation, then the 2nd amendment becomes as ineffectual as our 'guns' do.--Mia T
You are... trying to reason from false premises, and thus your entire argument... [is] invalid.--tarheelswamprat
With regards to the specific assertion at issue: "Guns were sufficient for that purpose in the 18th century, but they clearly are not today. And thus we have a reason--a need even--to 'regulate'.", there are actually two logic errors in this statement.
First, the premise that "Guns were sufficient for that purpose in the 18th century, but they clearly are not today" is false. They may or may not be 'sufficient', but that has not been established as fact. In logic terms, it has not been proven.
Secondly, even if we were to grant, for purposes of illustration, that the premise is true (been proven), the stated conclusion that "And thus we have a reason--a need even--to 'regulate'." simply does not follow from the premise. You could just as easily argue that "Since guns aren't sufficient or effective today, they're not a threat and there's no need to regulate them." Both arguments represent a logical fallacy called a "non sequitur" (the conclusion does not follow from the premise).
The argument that time and technology negate the 2nd Amendment is no more sound than the argument that they negate the First, e.g. "the Founding Fathers could have never envisioned radio, TV or the internet, so the First Amendment applies only to printed media". In fact, none of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights provide for any so-called "regulation" by government. They are ALL prohibitions and limitations on the powers of government. A person either understands and accepts this, or they don't. It's primarily a question of philosophy and principle, not logic.
Thank you both for your thoughtful posts, both here and in other threads, and thanks again for your forbearance of my tardiness in completing my responses to you. It's pretty obvious the "real world" is telling me it's time to take a break from FR. /g
With regards to the specific assertion at issue: "Guns were sufficient for that purpose in the 18th century, but they clearly are not today. And thus we have a reason--a need even--to 'regulate'.", there are actually two logic errors in this statement.First, the premise that "Guns were sufficient for that purpose in the 18th century, but they clearly are not today" is false. They may or may not be 'sufficient', but that has not been established as fact. In logic terms, it has not been proven.
What you are saying is that the truth of one of my premises is undetermined. I don't agree. We could only know the truth inductively, by observation, and I think history, empirical evidence, bears it out.
But we can also go back to the logic of the Founders. Why would they have bothered with the 2nd Amendment if the method to defend against despots was not sufficient to do the job?
Secondly, even if we were to grant, for purposes of illustration, that the premise is true (been proven), the stated conclusion that "And thus we have a reason--a need even--to 'regulate'." simply does not follow from the premise. You could just as easily argue that "Since guns aren't sufficient or effective today, they're not a threat and there's no need to regulate them." Both arguments represent a logical fallacy called a "non sequitur" (the conclusion does not follow from the premise).
You miss my point. (No non sequitur here, but I could have been more explicit.)
You are assuming that by 'regulation' I am talking about limitation. My point is just the opposite, namely that if technical obsolescence has made guns ineffectual and has thereby rendered the 2nd Amendment equally ineffectual, then regulation to strengthen what is meant by 'arms' is necessary to preserve the 2nd Amendment.
The argument that time and technology negate the 2nd Amendment is no more sound than the argument that they negate the First, e.g. "the Founding Fathers could have never envisioned radio, TV or the internet, so the First Amendment applies only to printed media". In fact, none of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights provide for any so-called "regulation" by government. They are ALL prohibitions and limitations on the powers of government. A person either understands and accepts this, or they don't. It's primarily a question of philosophy and principle, not logic.
Again, you are missing the point. If the arms don't do the job, the 2nd Amendment is worthless. It has nothing to do with philosophy and principle... or logic, for that matter.... It has to do with being able to nail the despot with the 'arms.'
At the time of the Founders, "arms" included the basic infantry weapons (rifle, pistol, sword and bayonet) as well as cannon (artillery) and armed vessels (cannon, again, on merchant shipping). Today this would essentially translate into private ownership of ANY militarily useful weapon (with the exception of biological and chemical "weapons" which, IMO, have NO serious MILITARY use. They are useful as terror weapons, but that's all and that's not good enough.) Nukes, IMO, should be removed from the category of weapons and used solely in MAJOR earthmoving and/or demolition projects... if someone could afford not only the nuke, but the attendant safety measures required.
Thanks for the additional response. It is evident that we don't evaluate issues from the same frames of reference, but I hope you will continue your efforts for the cause of freedom in the manner which fits your needs. All the best to you and yours!
Very much appreciate your insights and perspective...
and your graciousness.
Thank you and best wishes to you and yours. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.