2nd Amendment; Why it's so important.

[Socrates]

Socrates our military and police can deal with that. I am afraid that what you suggest may look like

They aren't and can't. Our military is not supposed to operate on US soil. The National Guard is guarding a border with empty guns?

Police response time is NOT something I'm willing to bet my life on, and no one else should, either. If you employee enough police to have a 'safe' society, you don't have a free one. In rural areas firearms are pretty much the first, and only line of defense, and, the police are cleanup crews.

1. Personal protection against crime
2. Personal and neighborhood protection against major social disruption like Katrina....
3. Protection against racism and related terrorism (like the Deacons for Defense story).
4. Protection against an elected tyranny - but if that argument is only from the right - let's have guns to overthrow the government to put in a regressive right wing government and save our guns(the usual RKBA revolution call) - that isn't going to fly.

Glenn, your list.
Number one I address above.
2. I've brought this up before: The Rodney King Riots, or organized crime spree, was an excellent example of the police NOT being able to protect the public from the L.A.
gangs redistributing wealth, by robbery.
That said, Louisiana is the ultimate castle state, since their system of laws protect the right for the property owner to protect his property from invaders, including police, with deadly force. Katrina does show that given that situation, before moving in, the police are, either for their own safety, or, from their own beliefs, going to grab every gun they know is present, indeed leaving the people defenseless. The real shock is that the police chief is still in a position of power.
3. Slavery has caused the majority HUGE losses of freedom. It's truly a loose loose situation. Oppression causes actions that lost our freedom, by expanding the government's involvement, and scope, with absurd cases like Heart of Atlanta, and the expansion of the Commerce Clause to a point where the Federal government has Jurisdiction over everything, and states have no rights.
4. I'm not sure the right to bear arms is only protected from the right. Keep in mind that currently I think Obama is acting more like a Republican then the prior Republican president did. Concepts such as balanced budgets, and reducing the debt? In fact, it appears that the two party system is a strawman, designed to keep us at each others throats, when, in fact, it's become a one party Oligarchy.
A Republican is, after all, nothing more then a Democrat that's been mugged.

I'm also wondering if our current president may not have a MUCH better understanding of what the Constitution is about then I gave him credit for, and many others. Since this is a 2A discussion, and, he did graduate from Harvard with honors, and, he's been a consultant Con Law professor, he might not have swallowed the common law Harvard school view of 2A.

In fact, once elected, the presidency is set for life, and, like some Supreme Court judges, his ultimate direction may end up considerably different from the party that put him into power.

As for the Swiss, I'm not willing to let that argument go.
While I understand the other angles, and the cost benefit of invading certain countries, it brings up a number of points. Japan was, or at least the quote is made, that the idea of invading American was unwise, due to the number of weapons in our country, it's distance away, and the type of land, and, cover. I guess Yamamoto, or some of the Japanese generals studied our history, and, realized the problems of fighting a guerilla populace in the U.S.

TG:

For some reason, the war vets I've known, or at least many of them, think that the protection of family/land/country should be only in a military that is not supposed to operate in our country at all. "No standing army" means just that. I suggest that the Swiss model is much healthier, and, that the above picture you post with apprehension in support of your position to limit gun ownership is the exact reason we should have no limits.
If firearms are in every home, which they nearly are now, thanks to the latest buying spree, they start to loose their status as 'illegal'. The Swiss have a healthy, out in the open, legal right to carry a firearm. The government sponsors shooting, complete with alcohol, on a regular basis. Instead of having to sneak around my state, concealing my firearms, and afraid to let any of my neighbors, or co-workers now I'm a 2A advocate, I could have a life where those things are just things you do. Instead of having to hide your rifle, it's just like going skiing, it's part of the culture. A healthy respect for firearms, and their place in our history and society is a freedom we seem to have lost.

I studied Politics at a very liberal school. At the end of the day, I came to this conclusion:
The country with the biggest guns, and strongest military, gets to write the laws, both international and domestic.
Having those guns is of no use, unless you are willing to use them. Since Japan, we have not used our abilities, and, the results have been lost wars.
Vietnam, Korea, etc. are examples of putting ourselves into situations the Japanese would have been smart enough to avoid, or fight differently. Fighting a satellite country, on the border of a country with 1.2 billion people, and probably that many Mosin Nagants, and AK's, doesn't seem to be the wisest of moves, and, we've lost everytime.

In short, our weapons systems have been the best, but, without the resolve to actually use them, we will be viewed as weak, and our ability to put the rules for international politics weakened.

There is a tendency for people to forget the real threat of war, and, for nations to grow fat, complacent, and think they are invulnerable. I'm hoping that we will wake up, and realize that George doing it, is not the right answer for this issue.

 

[Kleinzeit]

Louisiana is the ultimate castle state, since their system of laws protect the right for the property owner to protect his property from invaders, including police, with deadly force.

Good lord... Is that true? No wonder the police took the guns. They must have been terrified. Imagine trying to do your job with dehydrated, delirious loonies, mad at the gummint for leaving them there, manning sniper posts from their roofs.

Taking the guns was bad. I'm not saying it wasn't. But enshrining the right to kill the police shows too little faith in the rule of law, and is bound to result in an anxious government seizing back the control they should never have surrendered.

Mind you, I have no idea how Louisiana law works in practice. But that kind of law just sounds wrong.

 

[Socrates]

The doctrine in law school was Louisiana law was from the Napoleonic Code, and, it placed property above people.

The reasoning is that a person is secure in his property, and, that the police should know that they must have the owners permission to enter, and therefore, since they know, if they are shot by accident, i.e. the property owner did not know they were/are police, the shooting is justified.

It also means no civil suit, or criminal charges if you shoot to protect your house, or property.

I don't have a problem with that.
All it really means is the police have to be careful, and respectful. There is/was no excuse for their actions, other then they brought in out of staters to help, and, they brought their own law with them.

 

[Kleinzeit]

Thanks for the explanation, Socrates.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I have to leave the field of debate for a day or two. So I won't read replies. The Japanese example is again an example of the gun world cliche that sounds good.

If you study the Japanese plans - and there are doctoral dissertations on it, I have one that was published - there were no plans ever to invade the United States. They did not even consider it to get to the point of worrying about our armed populace. The logistics of such an invasion were impossible for the Japanese and they knew it. Many of them knew they would lose the battle based on differential industrial capacity.

They wanted to do two things:

1. Hope for a negotiated settlement to get a freer hand in China and other Asian areas. They were incensed that Western powers could establish sphere of influence and colonies in Asia but they couldn't.

2. Get some measure of respect and revenge (even if they lost the war) for Perry's forced opening of Japan and actions later by other Western powers. If they gave a crushing defeat Pearl Harbor to the USA and the Brits (Malaya, Singapore and the sinking of their two battleships on 12/8 IIRC), that would gain respect.

The quotes about every blade of grass may not be real as some of the Hitler quotes.

I might be wrong but the Swiss have a permit system for concealed weapons carry and the gun in every house is now under debate.

BTW - I didn't say I was for limiting gun rights. That's a rhetorical trick in these kind of arguments. You're an anti, you are a Brady!! Nyah, Nyah. I was trying to present a reasoned view of the arguments that support the RKBA to avoid cliches that don't have strong evidential base.

If we had a strong attack on the RKBA again, talking about invasion is the exact innoculation effect that would make the general populace outside the choir say the argument for the RKBA is not that valid. Note, I mean Swiss vs. Germans kind of invasion.

Protection against crime has some traction in the surveys of gun attitudes. Invasion and insurrection don't. Reality of convincing argumentation may not go well with the choir. I prefer to be effective in argument.

 

[Socrates]

The problem is, Police Chiefs, much like elected officials, and certain presidents, will say anything to their constituents, and, once they are in, they flip. I don't know the specifics of the Katrina police chief, heck, I don't even know how the
Napoleonic code has held up under attack in Louisiana. Long way away.

Good example is the Orange County new police chief. She was elected, or appointed, by a Board who does represent their voters. The result has been, even though one of the key issues was maintaining CCW, she has attacked CCW holders, and, even has the force working against the board that appointed her.

Apparently, at least in Kali, the election of a police chief is limited to a very few candidates, and, once in place, they are very difficult to remove. Sort of like a Federal judge.
Since they control the issuance of ccw permits, this issue is a 2A issue.

S

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

They aren't and can't. Our military is not supposed to operate on US soil.

Not sure where you came up with that one but it is absolutely not true. The military is by law mandated to protect our borders from foreign invasion. An incursion from Mexico (or Canada for that matter) that local police could not handle would be met with military (either active or NG) force and destroyed.

Who or what says we cannot have a Standing Army?

In rural areas firearms are pretty much the first, and only line of defense, and, the police are cleanup crews.

Probably true and firearms in common use by civlians are plenty good to deal with the threat.

As for the Swiss, I'm not willing to let that argument go.

I will look for some links to show you the dirty deals the Swiss did with Nazi Germany to avoid invasion. Again, it was not their reserves. Keep in mind that for a tiny neutral country that type of system might be fine but no other powerful country has such a setup.

that the above picture you post with apprehension in support of your position to limit gun ownership is the exact reason we should have no limits.

I really don't think the "Swiss Model" works here. I am not sure we could afford it or have it be workable either. Even though we would get to have neat guns, it is much more than that. It's training and a chain of command and discipline. Something the guys in my picture don't have.

Protection against crime has some traction in the surveys of gun attitudes. Invasion and insurrection don't. Reality of convincing argumentation may not go well with the choir. I prefer to be effective in argument.

Well said!

I don't know the specifics of the Katrina police chief,

Didn't he get fired?

 

[kirpi97]

First it is good to have you back in the fray Tennessee Gentleman. I miss your insightful comments. With that said, back to the war of ideologies.

My response was to this initial this question:

Can you show any instance in history where an armed population keep a leader from doing something tryannical.

I do not see the connection with a leader doing something tyrannical and the U.S. paying reparations.

In fact the USA paid reparations to the Japanese that we wrongfully imprisoned in WWII.

The reparations were paid because the will of the people changed. Where were those judges in 1949? The law was the same then as it is now, in that regards. The same Bill of Rights existed. Okay then let's for argument say it wasn't the same. I didn't see those judges or any member of our congress advocating paying reparation in the 70s or the 80s. What changed?

The people and how they viewed human rights. We changed. So I do not see that there was any tyrannical leader doing something that the populous determined had to be stopped. If anything, the fact that the President of the US could impose Martial Law and with Congress suspend the rights of some Americans, for what they perceived at the time as protecting Americans, could be seen as the armed populous not stopping tyrannical actions. EXCEPT, that the populous was in agreement. So there was no outcry.

And to now look at the event years later and say because we paid reparations means our system did right. No. It means that we as Country recognized a wrong and offered a token as an olive branch to appease the masses that clamored for something to be done. Our system of judges, laws, police officers, congressmen, school board directors, teaches, professors, did nothing in the 1940s to stop it.

My Geography professor in college served in the US military in the Pacific Theater while his parents lived in those camps. He was not bitter. Neither were his parents. Because in some cases, as they told me, the camps provided protection from vigil antes. Was it right? I wasn't there.

I just know the outcry that followed 9/11. And how we had to reach out to a segment of our society to assure them that they would receive the same protection under the law as other Americans.

I look forward to your opening the eyes of this wayward thinker concerning how the WWII incident with the Japanese fits the scenario of the basic argument.

Now as for Katrina:

Even as recently as Katrina when Mayor Nagin unlawfully confiscated firearms from NO law-abiding residents did the "armed citizens" stop it or right it. The courts did by injunction.

Here the populous reacted in a civil manner when asked by their elected officials to obey what was thought to be in the best interest of the society. Not every one followed the directive. But for the most part, the people complied. They trusted the government would be there to provide protection.

So a majority of the armed citizens were not opposed to what was being asked. So there was no tyrannical despot to unseat. And the fact that the judges later rectified the wrong doing only shows they are helpless to stop a tyrannical leader from imposing their will upon the people. Their power resides in the people following the law. When that ceases, judges are helpless.

Both examples show that our system of government is retroactive when it comes to stopping a tyrannical leader. We use our military to stop tyrannical leaders in countries where the populous is either unable or unwilling to engage. But here, we react.

The rule of law gets its power from the people. And it is the people who must stand behind that law for it to work. And when the people's values change, the law changes with it.

P.S. I do have to give you credit for stirring picture. I will agree with you on that point.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

First it is good to have you back in the fray Tennessee Gentleman. I miss your insightful comments.

Thank you!

I do not see the connection with a leader doing something tyrannical and the U.S. paying reparations.

My point was to show that even the government that inflicted the harm later on said it was wrong to do so and further made attempts to make it right. The Japanese Internment during WWII was an act of tyranny against American citizens. The COUTUS was mugged and it is a stain on our history. No armed citizens stopped it and so my point that an armed citizenry does not create a bulwark against abusive government.

The rule of law gets its power from the people. And it is the people who must stand behind that law for it to work. And when the people's values change, the law changes with it.

I am not sure I disagree with any thing you said in the post. However, the question and issue is does the armed citizenry prevent tyranny? I say it does not and agree with your well worded thesis that the democratic institutions do that even if retroactively and that the fact that today some civilians own firearms will not prevent or rectify abuses of government power.

 

[kirpi97]

However, the question and issue is does the armed citizenry prevent tyranny?

Ah, here we are in agreement. Italy and Germany in the past and Venezuela today show how even a once democratic country, even with an armed citizenry, can be moved to a point that their rights are stripped from them. And all the arms in the hands of the citizens did nothing to change it.

Darn. Now I have to find something else to disagree with. I love a good debate. It is something I miss. In today's world of debates. The example displayed by the media in our politicians is not debating. So I thank you kind sir. You are gentleman.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

So I thank you kind sir. You are gentleman.

As are you sir. See you at the next thread!

 

[Webleymkv]

Glenn and TG, without going into a long dissertation I'll get right to the heart of my position. While our system of government with its Separtation of Powers does indeed combat and prevent tyranny as well as ensure that our rights remain intact, the inability of government to remove those rights without the overwhelming consent of the people ensures that our system of government with its Separation of Powers remains intact. I'll illustrate this with an example: Suppose the President wanted to use his position as Commander in Chief of the military to, against the will of the people, attempt to seize power from the other branches of the government by force and make himself a dictator. Obviously this would not work because it would be against the will of the people and the people would offer such strong resistance (including likely armed resistance) that such a scheme would be all but impossible (let's face it, neither the military nor police can control the people if the majority of them are armed and unwilling to comply). So, in order to make such a thing work, the President would first have strip the people of their rights (including RKBA) and thereby remove their ability to resist, but he cannot remove the people's rights against their will without first taking sole control of the government. So, the President cannot seize sole power without taking away the rights of the people first, and he cannot do that without sole power thusly making the attainment of sole governmental power by the President against the will of the people impossible. Therefore, both the Separation of Powers and our unalienable rights (including RKBA) prevent tyranny so long as the people have the will to be free from tyranny.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Webley,
I have spoken to the other parts of your position before so I won't rehash that but I did want to speak to your scenario.

That is, any President who tried to use the military in an unlawful way. Speaking as a career military guy I can assure you that would never happen because of this oath:

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;

That oath would stop any rogue President or any other politician from what your scenario suggests. And believe me we take these oaths VERY seriously!

 

[Webleymkv]

Tennessee Gentleman, if every soldier takes that oath so seriously, why did the army uphold Lincoln's declaration of martial law and suspension of Habeus Corpus during the Civil War? Why did the military carry out the interrment of Japanese Americans during WWII? As you've already pointed out, both of these acts were tyrannical and unconstitutional, yet the military carried them out anyway. While the oath is definately a good thing, at the end of the day it's only as good as the person taking it and thus is not enough to prevent tyranny in and of itself. Therefore, the responsibility for preventing one branch of the government from seizing power over the other two falls ultimately upon the people. The Bill of Rights ensures that the people are able to prevent such tyranny by ensuring that the balance of power stays intact and the balance of power ensures that the people cannot be stripped of their rights without their consent. Each institution ensures the survival of the other so long as it is the will of the people.

 

[zukiphile]

That oath would stop any rogue President or any other politician from what your scenario suggests.

Aside from the plain fact that a fellow taking an oath stops nothing, the history of the armed services and the oath do not reasonably suggest that it makes the armed services a fourth branch of government and a check on their exercise of power. On the contrary, it indicates US military legal subservience to civilian authority more than LegalAid with rifles.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

if every soldier takes that oath so seriously, why did the army uphold Lincoln's declaration of martial law and suspension of Habeus Corpus during the Civil War? Why did the military carry out the interrment of Japanese Americans during WWII? As you've already pointed out, both of these acts were tyrannical and unconstitutional, yet the military carried them out anyway.

And if an armed citizenry would prevent such tyrannical acts why didn't those armed citizen's resist? Of course, we both know the answers The suspension of Habeus Corpus was supported by the public because the country was involved in a civil war. Something that is not going to happen again. The Japanese Internment was actually upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional in Korematsu but later rejected and overturned. Also, the Japanese Americans were released after WWII and later paid reparations.

However, in neither case was the military used to overthrow branches of government as your scenario implied and all three branches of our government were complicit in the outrages you mention.

Our government made a terrible mistake by interning those Japanese Americans but no armed citizenry either prevented it or righted it. I have not said our government is perfect (as none is) but my point is that the righting of the constitutional ship was done by our democratic institutions not an armed citizenry which had no role whatsoever in the affair.

However, my question still stands if you can find a part of our history since our government was formed where an armed citizenry either prevented or overturned governmental tyranny I would be interested to hear about it.

PS Once again please not the rural myth of The Battle of Athens TN:barf:

 

[zukiphile]

The Japanese Internment was actually upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional in Korematsu but later rejected and overturned.

Korematsu was charged with evading the exclusion order. His personal conviction was overturned decades later, but the Supreme Court decision upholding the exclusion order has not been overturned.

I confess a fondness for Jackson's dissent. It is to the point and modest.

My duties as a justice, as I see them, do not require me to make a military judgment as to whether General DeWitt's evacuation and detention program was a reasonable military necessity. I do not suggest that the courts should have attempted to interfere with the Army in carrying out its task. But I do not think they may be asked to execute a military expedient that has no place in law under the Constitution. I would reverse the judgment and discharge the prisoner.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0323_0214_ZD2.html

 

[Webleymkv]

And if an armed citizenry would prevent such tyrannical acts why didn't those armed citizen's resist? Of course, we both know the answers The suspension of Habeus Corpus was supported by the public because the country was involved in a civil war. Something that is not going to happen again. The Japanese Internment was actually upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional in Korematsu but later rejected and overturned. Also, the Japanese Americans were released after WWII and later paid reparations.

TG, the armed citizens did not rise up and prevent such tyrannical acts because our other democratic institutions were still in place to do it. However, RKBA along with the other rights enumerated in the BOR ensured that the other democratic institutions stayed in place. You are missing my point: I never contended that an armed citizenry is the only safeguard against tryranny but that it's role in doing so is to ensure that the other democratic institutions do not break down and thusly be unable to prevent or combat it. Also, I've already stated that neither our democratic institutions nor the BOR will prevent tyranny if the people are unwilling to oppose it as was the case with both the suspension of Habeus Corpus and Japanese internment. My only point was that the military will not necessarily refuse to follow unconstitutional and/or tyrannical orders as they didn't refuse during both the Civil War and WWII. I ask if you can point out a single instance in our history in which the military refused to follow their order because that order was tyrannical and/or unconstitutional and not because the order were belayed by another branch of the government.

However, in neither case was the military used to overthrow branches of government as your scenario implied and all three branches of our government were complicit in the outrages you mention.

The people, by and large, were also complicit in these outrages. Neither the right to arms nor checks and balances will prevent tyranny if the people are unwilling to oppose it.

Our government made a terrible mistake by interning those Japanese Americans but no armed citizenry either prevented it or righted it. I have not said our government is perfect (as none is) but my point is that the righting of the constitutional ship was done by our democratic institutions not an armed citizenry which had no role whatsoever in the affair.

As I said before, our democratic institutions remained in place thusly negating the need for the armed citizenry to take action. The armed citizenry ensured that our democratic institutions remained in place to begin with.

However, my question still stands if you can find a part of our history since our government was formed where an armed citizenry either prevented or overturned governmental tyranny I would be interested to hear about it.

PS Once again please not the rural myth of The Battle of Athens TN

I've already answered this question twice, you just continue to qualify it because you don't like my answers. No one branch of our government has ever attempted to seize power from the other two because they know it would be impossible to do because of the insurmountable resistance (including armed resistance) from the people. Thusly in order to do such a thing, that branch of the government would first have to remove the people's ability to resist by stripping away their rights. This cannot be done against the will of the people because our other democratic institutions prevent it. Thusly, the rights of the people, including the right to arms, ensures the survival of our democratic institutions so long as it is the will of the people while the democratic institutions ensure the rights of the people so long as the people have a will to maintain those rights. Therefore, the only way that our government can devolve into tyranny from within is if the people allow it to happen.

 

[Socrates]

Thank you for addressing TG's strawman argument.

Firearms in the hands of citizens were vital in the expansion of this country, AFTER it was established.
The presence of firearms also helped slow incursions from Mexico, attempting to claim Texas, and, I have little doubt have managed to make the Mexican government think twice about invading Kalifornia using force.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

The armed citizenry ensured that our democratic institutions remained in place to begin with.

I see no evidence of that. You could also say that because the flag is blue, it prevents the government from becoming tyrannical. You can't can't show cause and effect or the deterence you claim. On the other hand I have shown historical instances of government abuse and the remedy or prevention was in every case done by our democratic institutions. You claim that tryanny is prevented by an armed citizenry and yet provide nothing more than "well it is harder to subdue an armed population". Maybe, but it is far more difficult to subdue a population that has governmental safeguards in place and whose populace obey the rule of law. However, armed citizenries HAVE been subdued and tryanny put into place.

No one branch of our government has ever attempted to seize power from the other two because they know it would be impossible to do because of the insurmountable resistance (including armed resistance) from the people.

I am not sure they (potential tyrants) know any such thing regarding armed citizens. What I think they do know is they could never pull if off politically and the other branches would stop them and they would be out of office. Rather your quote here would stop such an act:

this cannot be done against the will of the people because our other democratic institutions prevent it.

With this I agree.

I ask if you can point out a single instance in our history in which the military refused to follow their order because that order was tyrannical and/or unconstitutional and not because the order were belayed by another branch of the government.

Not necessary for me to do. You made the claim in your scenario that the military would follow the orders of the President and overthrow the other two branches of government. I disputed that contention because of the oath of office we take and adhere to. Contrary to popular belief the military does not blindly and without thought follow orders from superiors and in fact we are taught NOT to follow illegal orders.