21 Jan
Putting the statistics into perspective
Here is a follow up to a story I talked about back in November
FORT WORTH — A 16-year-old boy was sentenced Wednesday to 40 years’ confinement for his part in a November crime spree that included home invasions of two elderly people and gunpoint robberies of three clerks at two convenience stores.
A hearing-impaired 85-year-old man was severely beaten during one of the home invasions.
Last week, Judge Jean Boyd denied prosecutors’ request that the teen be tried as an adult.
Now, I think he should have been tried as an adult. He certainly was making adult decisions about violence and crime wasn’t he?
The statistics that I talked about here in my last post?
This is the reality of those statistics folks.
Pam Fojtik, the man’s niece, said the suspects had apparently come through the garage, then kicked in the door leading from the garage into the home. She said her uncle, who is deaf, had apparently encountered the suspects in the kitchen area.
“Take whatever you want, just don’t hurt me,” Fojtik said her uncle told the suspects.
“That’s when they started to hit him,” Fojtik said. “They beat him until he was down on the floor. He had defensive wounds on his hands where he was trying to keep them from hitting his face. … He was begging them to stop.”
The reality is; whether the thugs “just take property” (property other people worked hard to afford) or commit assault and take property, there is enough crime out there to argue against restricting people’s rights to keep and bear arms.
Social Utility theory only goes so far — in the end the right of an individual to protect himself/herself from violent thugs is something that shouldn’t be restricted.
The reality of the statistics again– a couple returning home from church walk in on a “property crime” and a man dies.
Would possessing a firearm have saved Mr. Stailey? Maybe, maybe not. Not having one didn’t do him any good, that is for sure.
Until the social construction we call America gets serious about putting violent thugs away and keeping them away; social utility theory comes up short doesn’t it?
Isn’t the phrase “if it saves just one life” equally a valid reason to expand the right to keep and bear arms?
Steven Larue Pyron of Grand Prairie was arrested on unrelated charges shortly after the death of 69-year-old Johnie Stailey and had since been considered a suspect, police said
According to public records, Pyron has prior convictions for burglary, theft, drunken driving and drug possession.
Prior convictions — not one but multiple times — has this thug been caught violating the rules of the social construction.
Yet instead of calling for the restriction of his rights bases on his actions — we have people calling for the restriction of our rights to protect ourselves.
We have people questioning if the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right. We have people questioning if the right to self defense is a natural right.
As long as there is violence in the world, the right to self defense is a right.
As long as there MIGHT be violence in the world, the right to self defense is a right.
It doesn’t matter if it is a right derived from the social construction or arising from our nature…it simply is a right.
Posted by mike w. on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
As long as there is violence in the world, the right to self defense is a right.
Self-Defense is more than just a right, it’s a basic instinctual reaction ingrained in most living organisms. Humans are tool users and personal firearms are currently the most effective tool we have for self-defense.
People like Mr. Scott can tell me I have no right to self-defense and it matters not. I WILL defend myself if necessary and will use the most effective tool at my disposal to do so.
I am reminded of Breda’s story about the mouse in her garage
http://www.thebredafallacy.com/2008/02/of-mice-and-men.html
He can ignore reality and pretend bad shit doesn’t happen, but he does so at his own peril. The moment he tries to force his choice upon me we have a problem, but anti-gunners seem insistent upon requiring all of us to live according to their own irrational fears and prejudices, rights be damned
Posted by Weer'd Beard on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
I’m certainly starting to warm to the idea of deadly force for property crimes. The current system the criminal gets valuable goods at the risk of a weak criminal sentence, the victim gets to spend time and money filing a police report, insurance claims, getting locks and damage replaced, inventorying items to determine loss, shopping for replacement items, feelings of violation and unease in your own home, ect ect.
At least if you shoot the bastards you take criminals off the street, and send a message that their chosen profession is a VERY dangerous one, and hopefully undesirable.
Thankfully most property crimes like this ARE deadly force crimes in the first place.
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
“As long as there MIGHT be violence in the world, the right to self defense is a right.” sounds like you think the right depends on environmental conditions and is not intrinsic to humans. Under this logic, elimination of violence would presumably eliminate the right as well, which means it is not natural.
I never said you had no right to self defense, MIke. I claim rather that rights depend on social relations, not intrinsic or natural characteristics of humans. This makes them no less real, though it suggests more potential for change as social relations change. In any event, neither social reality nor the potential for changing social norms has anything to do with your power to resist this change. No one would expect you to do other than resist this change.
And an instinct for survival does not necessarily carry with it a right to do so. Ask the next ribeye you cut into.
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
Oops. Italics fail there. Sorry.
Posted by Bob S. on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
Stan,
Sorry but the logic fails “elimination of violence would presumably eliminate the right as well, which means it is not natural.”
Notice that I said “might be violence”. That means unless humankind’s fundamental nature changes, there might be violence in the world.
That means unless all of nature is tamed — an animal attack is still violence — there might be violence in the world.
Heck, I’m going to do a post about the possibility of alien invasion — do you think that some of them might be a little hostile?
Violence is intrinsic to humans. Can you name one society where there has never been any violence?
In any event, neither social reality nor the potential for changing social norms has anything to do with your power to resist this change.
How can we resist something that can be changed through social norming? You’ve said repeatedly that if the social norms change and the understanding of that right changes, then there is NO underlying right left. (paraphrasing but accurate, right?)
If the social construction changes the underlying assumptions of a right, then there can be no resistance — unless some rights are natural or intrinsic to individuals.
Posted by Weer'd Beard on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
You’ll also note that Stan compares people’s right to personal protection with that of farm animals.
Now I 100% support Stan’s right to stand in the field and eat grass.
But let’s face it, Humans are tool using creatures, if some predator (on two legs or four) decides to do harm to me or mine, I won’t be just using my wits and my claws, just like how I didn’t just walk to work today, and I’m not coming over to your house to express my disagreement.
Tools make life better, and in the case of defensive firearms, they make life longer too.
I respect your right to be a Luddite, but I will not accept your flawed world view, and your rights do not extend to removing rights and property from me.
Posted by the pistolero on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
The logic also fails here:
rights depend on social relations, not intrinsic or natural characteristics of humans. This makes them no less real
If rights depend on social relations, then society can say they are not real — which, ergo, makes them not real, at least in any practical, meaningful sense of the word. To say that people have only the rights society sees fit to bestow upon them is a recipe for discrimination, tyranny and genocide; and one need only look to Nazi Germany for a perfect illustration of this. To say that the human right of self-defense is not inherent to one’s very existence is ultimately to deny ANY value to human life itself; if you haven’t the right to defend your life, then what worth is it? Are you really as nihilistic as your words suggest?
Posted by mike w. on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
Pistolero – I agree. Even if the right is codified and considered by law to be a right, society can (and has) ignored the law and made those rights not real.
The 15th Amendment was ratified in 1870. As a matter of law blacks had a right to vote after February 3rd 1870. As a practical matter they were not free to vote for many decades afterwards.
Look at Brown It ended segregation, but society had to be forced to recognize the rights of blacks. The bigots didn’t give up, they made the exercize of rights as difficult as possible, just like the District of Columbia is doing today in the post-Heller world.
To say that people have only the rights society sees fit to bestow upon them is a recipe for discrimination, tyranny and genocide.
Yup. History has repeatedly borne that out as truth. The social constructs/relations in Germany changed drastically in a very short timeframe, resulting in the genocide of several million Jews. According to Mr. Scott’s concept of rights the Jews had no rights whatsoever the moment the Nazi’s took power, said “you have no rights,” herded them into cattle cars and exterminated them. Based upon his understanding this would make individual rights entirely meaningless. (Of course that’s a feature not a bug if you abhor the very concept of individuals having rights)
Under mr. Scott’s position the actions taken by the Nazi’s were permissible or acceptable due to the fact that social norms had changed.
Weer’d – And of course us humans are tool users in part because we DON’T have claws, sharp teeth, or exceptional strength, speed or agility.
Posted by mike w. on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
To say that people have only the rights society sees fit to bestow upon them is a recipe for discrimination, tyranny and genocide
It’s also the antithesis of what the Founders believed and codified into law when they founded the U.S. If Mr. Scott prefers his concept of rights there are a whole host of countries he can live in that will treat his “rights” with the kind of respect he believes they deserve.
Posted by Linoge on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
Seconded, thirded, and fourthed.
Stan is more than welcome to lose, sacrifice, or give away his life however he so desires, and in whatever manners he decides are appropriate. However, we do not have to abide by his narrow-minded opinion, simply and specifically because he is trying to limit our lives. In reality, that is all this particular debate boils down to – opinions, and control. We are using our opinions as the basis for the expansion and protection of individual rights, whereas anti-rights advocates like Stan here are using their opinions to limit and abridge those same rights.
Is it any wonder why pro-rights activists like us are firmly and completely opposed to his narrow-minded, controlling desires (apart from those intentions being in opposition to 230+ years of history and tradition, a recent Supreme Court ruling, and countless civil-rights activists over the years)?
In any other time, I would strongly object to human beings being compared to cattle, but in Stan’s specific case, the analogy seems amazingly apt…
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
How in the world did I try to limit your life?
Whuh?
Posted by Linoge on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
Simple: deprivation of inalienable, natural rights. Oh, sure, not yet, but if they are succeptible to “societal whims”, then it is simply a matter of time.
Sorry, but I decline to be the frog in your pot. And there is the rub, is it not?
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
Wow. Just. Wow.
Posted by Linoge on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
Much the same thought runs through my head every time I read something of yours, only it tends to be followed up with, “That individual is obviously not living in the same reality as 90% of Americans are, and all of us should, and he is not even worthy of engaging due to the marked and distinct deficiencies in his understandings of rights, laws, and societal constructs – that degree of disconnect is simply insurmountable for someone as uninterested in doing so as me.”
Unfortunately, though, sometimes the urge to slap controlling, anti-rights idiots upside the backs of their heads is too great to overcome…
At any rate, I guess we do have one commonality, which only serves to accentuate the latter portion of my thought.
Posted by the pistolero on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
Wow. Just. Wow.
So which parts of Linoge’s observations did you not understand? And why?
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
I understand LInoge quite well, Pistolero. What I don’t understand why what I wrote annoyed him so much that he concluded that I want to “limit his life” or other wise interfere with what he sees as his “rights.”
The apparent belief that anyone offering an alternate explanation for the way these things work wants to take something away from him dumbfounds me. I don’t understand why he characterizes someone he has never met as an “idiot” in the context of a discussion like this, given that it adds nothing to the debate and only makes him appear to have no real support for his position. And the fact that for him the urge to metaphorically “slap controlling, anti-rights idiots upside the backs of their heads is too great to overcome,” but he executes this slap not with logic or evidence with name calling makes me think more of a playground bully than a person with a coherent intellectual position. I simply see no value whatsoever in discussing the subject with simple characterizations of the other side as “anti-rights idiots” with “narrow-minded controlling desires” but with no effort to make a case for his position by exploring the constitutional, legal, or political history of the subject beyond an unsupported assertion that my position is “in opposition to 230+ years of history and tradition.”
I’m fairly new to this debate, and making an effort to engage in a civil fashion. But I live in the same world Linoge lives in, and I’m no idiot. Rhetoric like Linoge’s just gives bloggers like Laci ammunition, especially in the context of a discussion with someone he has never met, and who has engaged without the slightest ad hominem attack. This does not make gun rights supporters look like people who genuinely hold a principled position and want to defend it, and it does nothing to change the minds of people like me who genuinely want to find a balance between good public policy and the exercise of what we currently understand as a right to self protection.
So wow. Just. Wow.
Posted by the pistolero on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
it adds nothing to the debate and only makes him appear to have no real support for his position.
So what of those of us who agree with him, who do back up our position? I have yet to see you address anything Mike W. or I said — which seems to me to be a tacit acknowledgment that we made valid points.
Rhetoric like Linoge’s just gives bloggers like Laci ammunition
Really? You mean such justifies saying things like “I just hope someone uses your gun against you”? All right then.
balance between good public policy
Come back to us when those who currently advocate ever more stringent gun laws talk more about keeping violent criminals in jail where they belong instead of harping on half-assed measures like background checks,
Posted by Bob S. on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
Stan,
it does nothing to change the minds of people like me who genuinely want to find a balance between good public policy and the exercise of what we currently understand as a right to self protection.
Can you name a single restrictive gun control law that gun control advocates have said “this isn’t working, let’s get rid of it”
There is no balance on the part of those who want to restrict our rights — NONE.
Every “compromise” leads to us having our rights chipped away.
Maintaining our rights is good public policy! Having people like you tell us that our rights are solely dependent upon what everyone thinks has historically led to pogroms like the ones against the Jews. The “people” were convinced the Jews didn’t have the same rights as everyone else, correct?
So excuse us of we find your argument a little troublesome.
Posted by Linoge on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
Ahh, and here comes the “wounded martyr” schtick, first tested and somewhat perfected by MikeB, and now attempted by Stan. Good to see there is some further consistency to deal with as we go.
What annoys me is that you continually scrabble for the high ground in every debate, while throwing out incessant logical fallacies and unsupported opinions of your own at every available opportunity. For instance, you once asked for a demonstration of how your position was logically and rationally undefendable. Such a demonstration was provided (your position was an inherent logical fallacy). You have never responded since – why is that?
Moving on to the current comment thread, you draw a specious analogy between humans and cattle – sure, we are both carbon-based, oxygen-breathing, multicellular organisms, but are you honestly attempting to draw a moral parallel between a non-sentient, herding animal, and a living, breathing human being? Do you even understand the rammifications of such a idiotic (and, yes, it is idiotic) suggestion?
And yet you attempt to use these half-assed “arguments” (if you can even call them that) as a basis to tell us that individual rights such as life, freedom from violence, freedom to own private property without theft, etc. are somehow dependent upon societal norms. As if a society somehow deciding that a certain cross-section of itself no longer had a right to life actually meant those individuals no longer had a right to life. To be certain, that society would undoubtedly exercise its will over those people, and deprive them of their lives, but that certainly does not mean that they somehow lost their rights to life – it simply means their rights were forcibly ignored by a larger group.
Among your large number of other logical fallacies, you seem to consistently and erroneously draw a fallacious parallel between “possessing a right” and “applying a right” – the two are markedly different, and conflating the two as much as you have done so, among other things, has lead me to applying the “idiot” descriptor to you with extreme prejudice. You earned it. Wear it proudly.
And let me say this again, since it seems to have flown right over your head – proclaiming, without any basis or support, that rights are subject to societal whims is “interfering” with intrinsic human rights. Proclaiming that rights are subject to societal whims is limiting individual’s lives – after all, if those whims suddenly go against that individual or a subsection to which he or she belongs, his life (or the products of his life) is suddenly forfeit. Put simply, the majority does not have the right to infringe upon or abridge the rights of any minority or individual – this is not to say that it is incapable of doing so (history is replete with examples), but again the distinction between “applied” and “possessed” rears its ugly little head.
So I guess it is fair to say that these words are unfamiliar with you?
Or are you just playing the willful ignorance card again?
Pistolero beat me to this one, but allow me to say, very clearly, bullshit. Nothing I or anyone else has ever said has given Laci any reason to wish death upon millions upon millions of American citizens. Such positions and statements are inherently anti-freedom, and anti-rights, and yet another reason you have earned the title of “idiot” – even obliquely defending such positions as you have done is reprehensible, in and of itself. She certainly has the right to say such things, but employing that right to support forcibly and violently abridging the rights of others is simply disgusting.
The problem with that oh-so-gracious statement is that little “what we currently understand” phrase… Suffice to say that I, and people like me, have little to no interest in finding anything even approximating at “balance” with people like you when you hold to the fallacious belief that “rights” are whatever the majority decide them to be. We have seen examples of that mentality throughout history, and only a blind fool would remain ignorant of them enough to support such a position.
Posted by mike w. on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
I’d say he is a blind fool, since he actually said to me that the USSR and China were NEVER “Communist”
Posted by mike w. on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
http://www.foggybottomline.com/?p=294&cpage=1#comments
I asked Mr. Scott several questions in this thread in hopes of furthering the discussion and I fully laid out my position. He barely responded at all, dismissed my questions en masse as “rhetorical” and offered no substantive counterpoint to anything that was said.
He didn’t even TRY to have a discussion. My questions all revolved around his assertion that the right was “collective” and they were intended to make him justify and expand upon his position. He failed miserably in doing so.
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
And right behind the wounded martyr comes “he’s-just-a-condescending-elite-liberal-who-thinks-we’re-all-stupid-and-the-government-should-save-us-from-ourselves-guy.” How original.
Mike really has only one question, and I answered it, albeit in a response to Bob. Mike and Bob both argue that a right or obligation to arm themselves for militia service must carry with it a citizen’s right to arm themselves as individuals, since government could otherwise disarm them and make militia service impossible.
I responded to this argument by arguing that government could require that each citizen provide a firearm for militia service without permitting other uses. Further I point out that the Militia Act of 1792 provides for the forming of state militias to quell insurrection, even that of a state militia. This means that the people who wrote and passed the Act did not believe in a right to own firearms for the purpose of interfering with the enforcement of properly executed laws. They in fact specifically wrote provisions for government action to interfere with the assertion of such a “right.” So while the Act creates an obligation to provide firearms for service, and permits home storage, it does in fact restrict the use of these weapons. This may not be a satisfactory answer, but it is an answer nonetheless, so the claim that I have not addressed MIke’s queries is simply not true.
I believe that the Founders intended to protect the right of states to arm the militia, not an individual right to bear arms. Indeed, I believe that the Second Amendment made it into the Bill of Rights largely because Southern States, especially Virginia, worried that Congress might use it’s Article 1 Section 8 power over the militia to disarm it, limiting state power to control slave populations (Virginia’s population was 50% black during this era.
If you have a coherent argument challenging this view, I’d love to hear it. Simply repeating, again and again, “but, but, how can citizens form for service without an individual right, huh? Huh? The government required them to provide their own weapons, so they must have a right to have them, right? Answer that one, liberal boy!” sounds profound in a stoned-sophomore-solving-the-world’s-problems sort of way, but it adds no nuance to to the NRA talking points on the subject.
Posted by Linoge on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
Ah, and right behind the wounded martyr schtick comes a few strawmen and further evasion of past questions… Consistency, once again. Consistent logical fallacies and misdirection, but they are, at least, predictable.
You wanted to know how I felt comfortable calling you an idiot without having ever met you (as if that were some pre-requisite for such a declaration)? Moronic statements such as this:
… allow me to make such a determination with ease.
So how does that make you an idiot? That statement flies in the face of the words of the Founding Fathers themselves:
The list goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on… And, given the choice between listening to the “beliefs” of one particular individual, and listening to the actual words of the men who put pen to paper and drew up the document in question, I will invariably defer to the latter. Given the ease with which these quotes are found, the excuse cannot be ignorance, which leaves us denial, or idiocy. Which is it?
Moving on, your “beliefs” fly in the face of all nine Supreme Court Justices who served during DC vs. Heller – you see, even the ones who dissented against the overall ruling of the Court agreed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms. It is not often that the Supreme Court rules unanimously regarding topics, and when it happens, I tend to listen.
And speaking of writing the amendments, the actual debate was not whether or not individuals’ rights to possess firearms existed, but rather whether or not it was actually necessary to codify the defense of that right – many delegates considered such a right immutable and unquestionable, and saw little need to add documentation to an already-large ream of paper for such a widely-accepted and little-questioned idea.
So, sure, believe as you like – that is certainly your right. But demanding a “coherent argument challenging” your view, when your view comes nowhere near “coherent” itself, is, indeed, the height of idiocy.
Posted by Thomas on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
My coherent argument challenging anybody else’s views regarding my rprivate and individual ight to bear arms either comes with spare magazines, reloading dies, iron and glass optical sighting devices, a pile of spare brass, swaging dies, and is capable of physically changing minds reliably into pink, white, and grey matter at considerable physical distances past 1000 yards or it is the biochemical/biomechanical autonomous entity that is willing to pull the trigger if need be.
Everything else is academic when people like me REALLY WOULD vote with our rifles if need be and the “R. Stanton Scotts” of the world, and likely the tsra-nra-field and stream gang-tams-zumbos-snowflakes-linoges, wouldn’t. that would involve risk and they are all risk averse to the point of losing freedoms, especially if it’s freedons they don’t have a personal interest in. The wannabe, but fraidy cat antis, would try to send politically authorized goons to disarm for them and some people here would register their rifles just like some people register a lot of things they probably shouldn’t, but people eventually run fresh out of goons when they keep getting KILLED by people willing to break laws for moral purposes and freedoms in an emphatic fashion.
I remember one of my most favorite Christmas days ever. Mr. Deadboy Nicolas of Romania may not have liked is as much. He found out what happened when you repress people that eventually decide they don’t want to be repressed in that fashion. Romania may be a bit of an anarchic nightmare now, but I’d rather live there now than under the national security state Ceauşescu had. It’s a mostly free nightmare at the moment that will either eventually find an acceptable level of order like Rome did or become another police state like Weimar Germany. Jury is out.
To have a National Security state that disarms people against their wills ,you have to arm a component of them to do so. Here lies a problem in permanent disarmament of the populace. Historically it has never been maintained by any government for very long in terms of the relative length of recoded history compared to successful police state longevities.
In the very end, if one were to be realistic about things, “what the founders wanted” isn’t much relevant as long as we can and will vote from the rooftops, when need be to keep what I believe the founders wanted.
As Bill Hicks once postulated: “Beliefs are good. Just don’t go around confusing them with TRUTHS.” (I know, Bill Hicks hated guns but he was a clever individual and said some sharp things along with the wrong. Nobody is perfect.)
Texas–Where We’ve Been Bringing You Prominent Rooftop Voting since 1963!
Keep your guns laws and legislative hands where we can see them as we have you covered with numerous snipers.
As to the utility of the so called prags of the world…they get people to dip their toes in the water of freedom at times, but they also have a tendency to, at least as far as I’ve seen on the web, have a tendency towards conceding some things to anti-gunners if they think it is for the over all good of the cause and allow some of us to be protrayed wrongly as lunatics when we are just more emphatic about freedoms and refuse to compromise one bit as the compromises are never compromises. I’m not sure of the long term utility of this at all.
I think it’s better to be feared and thought lunatic, though, than to be thought of as “reasonable” by people one personally finds UNREASONABLE, but that’s just me and a whole bunch of other lunatics. No intent on getting in a mudsling with the so-called pragmatists as we already know where we stand in relation to each other and it’s been hashed out before. linoge once called me internet noice and I think of him and his mates about the same and don’t feel like going there again but it was relevant to include the supplicants in this outline, as they would/will factor in any disarmament effort by government. Quislings always do.
In the end, those with the stomach and will for naked aggresive violence always carry the day, be they on the side of good or evil in my reckoning or morality.
Posted by Mike w on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
Linoge. He’s complaining like a child but still hasn’t addressed any of my questions. Sad but predictable eh?
Posted by Bob S. on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
Stan,
Sorry but I don’t agree that you addressed our points in your statement.
I responded to this argument by arguing that government could require that each citizen provide a firearm for militia service without permitting other uses.
The government COULD do just about anything but that doesn’t mean that it makes sense, is logical or consistent with the purpose of the right.
You’ve explained absolutely nothing about how it makes sense that the individuals that make up the militia DON’T actually enjoy the right that they enjoy as a group.
This means that the people who wrote and passed the Act did not believe in a right to own firearms for the purpose of interfering with the enforcement of properly executed laws.
You are right in this regard. If a law is properly executed, nothing gives the people the right to interfere with it. But that is a huge caveat that you skimmed over.
A law outlawing ownership of fireams– properly passed by Congress, signed by the President and vetted by a Court — still is not a properly executed law because it goes against the Constitution. And you know that there have been Supreme Court opinions that were unconstitutional but were still handed down.
By your very words, you still argue a position that is contrary to the Constitution, to the laws of the law and the opinion o f the Supreme Court.
Posted by Mike w on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
I asked more than 1 question Scott. You haven’t addressed any of them. How can a group have a right to collective defense with arms if each individual has no right to self-defense? Can’t form an armed militia if the members are dead.
Posted by Thomas on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
All political power comes from the barrel of a gun.–Chairman Mao
You might not like him but he was correct.
We must never allow the subject races to be armed.–Adolf Hitler
You might not like him either, but correct.
Joseph Stalin is said to have asked an adviser, dismissively, “How many divisions does the Pope have?” prior to going ahead and ding exactly what he was going to do anyway before the Vatican complained.
You might not like him but he was correct.
How many Divisions do Sarah Brady’s minions and oddballs, the majority of the USA–disinterested observors–, and R. Stanton Scott have? I’d postulate NEXT TO NONE.
That’s a more relevant question or you could rearrange the same chess pieces in the same debates that eventually land with R. Stanton Scott and most people here not agreeing in the same fashion as they didn’t agree last week or was it the week before?) when they didn’t agree to begin with. I’m too lazy to look for a date of R.Stanton vs Gun Owners bout one, which I call as a draw as far as any resolution of anything.
Guns exist in society.
You can’t outlaw guns because even if you do the outlawing doesn’t preclude manufacture, sales, or ownership anymore than it keeps people from huffing glue.
If you legislatively outlaw and try to take some of our guns and people are killed over it, you may call it a pyrrhic victory for us, because we can’t be certain of the final outcome re-non-hardcore gun owners and survivors and what rights they may retain , but we’ll still shoot you just the same iffin’ ya try, some of us that aren’t supplicants. Giving away rights sure as fook doesn’t retain them, it just sets a precedent for giving away more rights to the land of priviledge, the moronic thing that carry permit people are activist in.
People tend to be safer in an armed society, and statistics bear that out, except if they don’t if you don’t want them to, because everybody is going to cherry pick information and stats in all circumstances to support their pre-existing bias. You can come up with numbers either way, although the pro-gun numbers are scientifically more valid in my study of statistics.
If you really want to get into that you might want to talk to Howard Nemerov as he’s basically statistically oriented in his support for gun ownership rather than being remotely any kind of normal pro-gun advocate. his interest in the whole subject came from him noting as a mostly liberalish austinite (which is a communist occupied teitory in Texas) that rescinding firearms freedoms didn’t seem to help fight crime in any verifiable or notably effective fashion.
Howard and I and Codrea and I have actually gotten rather sideways in debates as I don’t care if guns prevent or cause crime because at the end of the day I’m going to keep my guns unless you manage to kill me and the legal record shows that UNLIKE HIPPIES AND INTERNET DEBATERS I put my money where my mouth was and lived my life as I saw fit and was charged for it and ended up having to wrongly forfeit a firearm to a state and fines and court costs and the whole bit for exercising a NATURAL RIGHT OF MAN.
It’s all academic and dorm room bullshit to a lot of y’all. I got the scars to prove how I feel about it and at the end of the day if you fook with me or my property or my family or my rights I might just decide it’s time to kill you to defend said things…then you can go debate with god whether or not I had a right to kill you but I won’t have to listed to the dorm room BS sessions anymore.
People say that such an attitude sets up the premise for a violent altercation or us three want one, but that’s not true. We want to be left alone. We are the rattle of a snake you mostly do not publicly see, the ones that speak openly about it. And there is venom behind the rattle just like with a real rattlesnake.
As so Eloquently put a long time ago by Mama Liberty at Codreas:
“Here’s an idea…If nobody wants a ‘civil disturbance,’ why in heck don’t they quit disturbing us?”
Some of us ammend that to pointing out that there will be NOTHING CIVIL ABOUT SUCH A DISTURBANCE and at the end of the day we care a lot more about freedom and rights of man and our rights than we do about people we dislike anyway continuing to fog a mirror.
This scares prags because they think that shaking the rattle will scare poofters and lilly livered scum into trying to take our firearms as “potential homegrown extremists” and we will keep pointing out that if the government and disarmament advocates left us alone they wouldn’t put some of us in mind of “extremist behaviors’ if the need comes to it.
We’d all like to have our sinecures and families in life and hobbies and NOT BOTHER ANYBODY and ASK THAT OF THE R. STANTON SCOTTS and BRADIES of the world.
Don’t ask, don’t take, don’t worry about us and you won’t have anything to worry about. Start screwing with our God Given Rights and you will have a war. Whether that war will be effective in the long run would be decided by history but people would get killed over nothing, just the same. Is that what anybody really wants? Another WACO on a NATIONAL scale? You don’t serve tax warrants with machine guns blazing, most especially on things that shouldn’t be taxed in the way they are by the current firearms related tax code and maybe less people will have claymores planted around their property with a return to sender message to Federal Law Enforcement’s mom’s and dad’s.
There would be no second place. Just like a real gunfight. Which it would be.
Posted by Thomas on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
Funny and on-topic quote of the day rather than arguing about the Constitution, as we all know the constitution means next to nothing to the Legislatures and Law Enforcement when they have an agenda to pursue:
I have no doubt that should the domestic enemies of the Constitution make their final, bloody move, many will be terminally surprised by how many copperheads — human, informed, intelligent copperheads — will pursue them silently and remorselessly until they are dead and their malignant collectivist revolution against the Founders’ Republic is consigned to the dustbin of history.
–Mike V.
Why Mike and I, literally, have exchanged Christmas presents and I wouldn’t share a room with some “activists” if at all avoidable. Funy that I hadn’t read that yet today prior to typoing the above…
Posted by mike w. on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
The “collective rights” view our esteemed philosopher adheres to would mean American colonists had the right (as a group) to take up arms (against for example the redcoats) but no right to defend themselves, their families, and their homes individually from that very same threat.
Such a viewpoint is so unbelievably illogical it should be cast aside as the moronic rubbish it is.
And of course the simple fact that a group can’t form if it’s members can’t gather escapes Mr. Scott. Then there’s the matter of a group being no more than a collection of individuals. If a group has a right then each and every individual that comprises it has the very same right.
The entire BOR makes no sense if viewed “collectively.” If you must form groups to exercise any rights then your rights can be easily violated in practice by the government denying you the ability to form those groups.
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
There is nothing at all illogical about the idea that some groups could assert justice claims that individual members could not. An understanding that a group of people can assert a right collectively does not imply a unilateral right to assert the same claim as an individual. If you think this is so, then you must believe that since the citizens of a state, collectively, have the “right” to establish and amend a constitution, and then pass laws under it, then each individual member must hold the same right.
If you read carefully what I wrote, you will find that I never claim that individuals have no right to self defense. I argue only that this “right” is not intrinsic to humans, and does not inhere to them by their nature–but depends on our shared social understandings. I would further argue that the Founders, even if they believed in an individual right to own and carry weapons, didn’t include the Second Amendment in the Constitution to protect such a right–instead, they did so to calm the fears of wealthy people, especially slave owners, that the Federal Government could disarm their militias. That this view has changed underscores my claim that this understanding is not universally held, and does not remain static, either across or within our own society, so the “right” is contested as are all other justice claims. But this does not mean, as I have several times clearly stated, that I think this makes such a right any less real or less enforceable.
The sophomoric argument that “a group can’t form if it’s members can’t gather escapes Mr. Scott. Then there’s the matter of a group being no more than a collection of individuals. If a group has a right then each and every individual that comprises it has the very same right” makes no sense in the case of the militia. First, their ability to gather depends more on power than whether or not they claim a “right” to do so, and they are more likely to have the power to gather in the face of government interference if shared social understandings include such a right, whether or not the claim is made for a “natural” source. If too few fellow citizens reject your “rights’ claim, you will fail, whether or not God bestowed it.
Second, since the militia is a creation of the state acting collectively in the name of the people as their representatives. As the Militia Act makes clear–given that it specifically provides for the quelling of insurrection even by the States themselves, against proper execution of Federal Law, any group of armed citizens forming for insurrection cannot by definition be the militia, but simply an armed gang, for example of farmers who wanted to pay neither their debts nor their taxes.
I wholeheartedly agree today’s US population widely shares the social norm that individuals have a right to self-defense, including the right to defend property. But this norm remains strongly contested, with strict norms about the appropriateness of asserting these claims, including one that would probably preclude simply shooting a trespasser taking an apple from your tree–whether or not a particular jurisdiction considers this legally acceptable. The argument that humans have a natural “right,” as if comparable to a natural “heart,” means nothing unless you can empirically show such a thing exists. It is instead a useful rhetorical tool for protecting the social understanding you prefer, but it is the real world no more than that, and entitles you to no privileging of your claim to a right to own a gun over other rights.
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
Oops. “If too many citizens reject your rights claim,” not “too few.
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
Ooops again. “Second, since the militia is a creation of the state acting collectively in the name of the people as their representatives, it can have collective rights and authority not given to individual members acting unilaterally.”
Don’t be in such a damn hurry, Stan. Sorry.
Posted by Bob S. on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
Stan,
You’ve made several attempts to convince of this:
If you read carefully what I wrote, you will find that I never claim that individuals have no right to self defense. I argue only that this “right” is not intrinsic to humans, and does not inhere to them by their nature–but depends on our shared social understandings.
But the only sources I’ve seen you cite are sociologists and scientists types. I haven’t seen a single legal opinion that backs you up. Doesn’t your argument fail –because society has and continues to belief that we have “inalienable rights”?
Next– the “militia” is not a creation of the state. The state recognizes that militias were formed and incorporated some of those militias into their defense plans.
Hurricane Katrina saw the formation of impromptu citizen militias, same with the L.A. Rodney King Riots. Heck, we are even seeing people banding together in Haiti to protect themselves.
Your example of the state constitution being amended is not an example of an inherent right but one due solely to the social construction. Even then it fails– the individual does have the right to amend the constitution — by leaving the polity and starting another. It can and should be done peacefully — when the changes to the constitution are legal. You yourself have expressed this “right” of the people to leave many times.
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Again, the words of our forefathers show the protected that right– by exercising it.
Others have provided quotes from the time of the founding of our country showing the writers of the Constitution included multiple reasons for their inclusion of the 2nd amendment, states had multiple reasons for the inclusion of the right to keep and bear arms incorporated into their Constitutions at the time. Legal opinion — including the recent Heller Decison back the inherent right of self defense.
And you bring????
Posted by mike w. on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
Mr. Scott – What other rights in the BOR are “collective?” What other rights to I have ONLY when engaged as a member of a group, but not when acting individually?
Posted by mike w. on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
If you can’t arm yourself to defend your individual life then how could you effectively form an armed militia? A militia is a group of individuals. How can that group provide for defense collectively if each individual does not retain a right (and means) of defending himself?
If each individual is killed off you have no group, no militia.
What other rights do I have only when collectively exercising that right in a group, but which magically disappear if I act individually? May I only petiton the government for redress of greivances if I form a group and we act as one? Can my right to religious freedom be abridged unless I’m actively worshipping with others? Of course not. If I must form a group before I may exercize any right then my rights are meaningless the moment the government denies me the ability to form that group.
It also makes no sense for the BOR to use the term “the people” to refer specifically to individual citizens in every single amendment except the 2nd. “The people” means just that, while “the States” refers to individual states. Had the founders wanted the right to be “collective” they could have said “the right of state militias” They showed that they could quite clearly differentiate between the two in the 10th Amendment. “the people” did not mean “the states”
Posted by mike w. on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
And you bring????
He brings an unsubstantiated opinion and continually plays the victim card. As I told him before, if he has facts bring them. An opinion is worthless if you can’t substantiate it with evidence and defend it when challenged.
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
By your definition of “militia,” the Bloods and Crips qualify. No, not every gathering of armed citizens intent on protecting their unique version of “public safety” constitutes a militia. “Militia” refers to organized or unorganized military units made up of citizens who do not actively serve but capable of forming in emergencies and regulated by government. Groups of armed citizens acting outside legal frameworks are called “criminal gangs.” Unless, I suppose, they share your ideology.
I’m not sure why you would privilege a legal opinion over “sociologists and scientists types” as evidence, and I suspect that you would shift to a preference for still other forms of evidence if someone presented legal opinions which challenged your views to which you had no ready response. I doubt that any “evidence” I offered would persuade anyone here anyway, and I frankly think presenting it is a fool’s errand, though if I made an empirical claim I would do so.
In any event, I never claimed empirical support for my position on the sources of rights, nor is any possible for either side of such a debate. I never, in fact, offered anything other than an opinion, and I’m aware of the “everyone has one and they all stink” principle. All I thought to do was engage with you on what I think is an interesting concept of rights. Instead of challenging the idea in a thoughtful way which could expand everyone’s thinking on the subject, many of you immediately assumed that I’m some anti-gun nut and went straight into the NRA Action Team Talking Points.
Fair enough, if that’s how you guys roll. But I gotta ask: since you think my opinion is worthless, why spend so much time challenging it?
By the way, Thomas, I can almost see you sitting there, your eyes bulging, adrenaline flowing, and heart pounding while you type your “screw with my rights and you’ll have a war” bullshit. I once heard similar crap from a Serbian Colonel, and it’s no more impressive coming from you than it was from him (I took his weapons away from his dumb ass, by the way, war not included). Indeed, it makes you both sound unhinged. But just keep raging against the machine, man, if it makes you feel better about yourself.
SFL is right. It’s really hard to keep a civil tone with some of you guys.
Posted by the pistolero on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
this “right” is not intrinsic to humans
So the men who wrote the words below were wrong?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
If you say that they are wrong, you are effectively arguing that humans only have a right to live and be free because society says they do, and that if society says they don’t have a right to live and be free then that’s just too bad for them. And I’ll be honest. That viewpoint makes me want to go out and buy as much ammunition as the back of my pickup will hold. Society can contest certain rights to its heart’s content, but the recognition — and respect — of a right to life is ultimately the only thing that keeps said society from descending back into the tribal warfare that Hobbes argued was man’s natural state. If we’re not going to acknowledge and respect the basic human right to life — yes, inherent to one’s very existence — then what’s the point of existing at all? And we can talk all day long about this individual vs. collective right manure, but the fact is that if an individual is denied the best tools of self-defense, said individual is denied the right of self-defense, which ultimately can be seen as depriving him of his right to life. Which takes us right back to the question of whether said right is inherent to one’s existence or dependent on society’s whims. Do you really want to live in a world that is the latter? I sure as hell don’t.
Posted by Bob S. on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
Stan,
Question: Fair enough, if that’s how you guys roll. But I gotta ask: since you think my opinion is worthless, why spend so much time challenging it?
Answer: See the “big lie” or any other propaganda technique — if left unchallenged, it is possible to see our rights slip away. Sorry but I’ll challenge your perspective for that reason alone. The fact that you might have a point is also sufficient to find out – through debate.
By your definition of “militia,” the Bloods and Crips qualify.
No, because in most cases the Bloods and the crips aren’t called forth to execute the laws of a nation but to contravene it. Isn’t amazing how intent matters in most things.
MILITIA – The military force of the nation, consisting of citizens called forth to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasion.
If the Bloods and the Crips act in concert with the laws, yes they would qualify.
In states that do not outlaw them, private militias are limited only by the criminal laws applicable to all of society. Thus, if an armed private militia seeks to parade and exercise in a public area, its members will be subject to arrest on a variety of laws, including disturbing-the-peace, firearms, or even riot statutes.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/10067/Second-Amendment-PRIVATE-MILITIAS.html
and from the same page.
Some private militias have formed their own government. The legal problems of these private militias are generally unrelated to military activities. Instead, any criminal charges usually arise from activities associated with their political beliefs.
In the Miller Decision, no Court (Supreme or othewise) held that Miller didn’t have a right to a sawed off shotgun because he wasn’t a member of a recognized militia, right?
What the decision was that Miller simply had to register the weapon in accordance with TAX LAWS.
never, in fact, offered anything other than an opinion, and I’m aware of the “everyone has one and they all stink” principle. All I thought to do was engage with you on what I think is an interesting concept of rights.
And if your opinion is supported by research, by legal opinion, my scientific knowledge that woudl give your ideas more weight. But you’ve offered little of that, instead you argue that our rights are based only on the idea of a consensus and we should strongly consider what you say.
We have.
And we’ve found it lacking. Yet we still engage you in discourse – civil discourse while you sink the level of insults.
If there is a difficulty in keeping a civil tone with us, consider where the problem lies carefully Stan. Look at how Laci discusses the issue and ask who is unhinged.
Posted by the pistolero on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
Groups of armed citizens acting outside legal frameworks are called “criminal gangs.”
So you lump the Algiers Point Militia in with the Bloods, the Crips and the Mafia? Okay then.
Posted by mike w. on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
More questions presented to Mr. Scott, more questions avoided by a man who either cannot or will not defend his positions.
May I ask, what have I said that qualifies as “NRA action team talking points?” Just because you continually dismiss what I have to say because you don’t like it and can’t offer a substantive counterpoint doesn’t mean my words are “talking points”
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
Watch out, Bob: if you complain about insults, Mike will call you a “wounded martyr” pretty soon. Or maybe not. In any event, try not to blame me for Laci’s rhetoric. I’m not even a dog!
“The military force of the nation, consisting of citizens called forth to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasion” looks like a “creation of the state” to me. Your mileage may vary.
And yes, Pistolero, the men who wrote “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” were wrong. All men were not “self-evidently created equal”, nor “endowed by their Creator” with “inalienable” rights.
At least not the dark-skinned ones.
Posted by mike w. on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
Watch out, Bob: if you complain about insults, Mike will call you a “wounded martyr” pretty soon.
Oh look, Mr. Scott exhibits even more reading comprehension issues. I didn’t call you or anyone else a “wounded martyr.
In any event, try not to blame me for Laci’s rhetoric. I’m not even a dog!
Oh lord the hypocrisy! I seem to recall YOU blaming US for Laci’s vile, violent, sociopathic rants.
Why is it Mr. Scott that you’ve abandoned the discussion of your very own posts @ your blog? Are the positions you took in those posts so weak that you cannot defend them?
BTW – You still haven’t answered any of my questions. They should be pretty simple if you position actually has merit.
Posted by the pistolero on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
All men were not “self-evidently created equal”, nor “endowed by their Creator” with “inalienable” rights.
The point about the treatment of “the dark-skinned ones” is well-taken; however, I do not regard the Founders’ failure to perceive the incongruity between their words and their actions as a justification for following generations’ failure to recognize and respect inalienable rights. The treatment of “the dark-skinned ones” was wrong. But if your view is the correct one, it was just peachy because they didn’t have the right to be considered equal anyway. After all, that was the societal consensus back then…
Posted by Bob S. on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
Stan,
You stated:
“Militia” refers to organized or unorganized military units made up of citizens who do not actively serve but capable of forming in emergencies and regulated by government.
I showed how your definition was wrong.
Then you come back and try to discuss the militia as a creation of the state? Sorry but you missed the entire point.
Private militias are armed military groups that are composed of private citizens and not recognized by federal or state governments.
How can a private organization not recognized by the state be a creation of the state?
Approximately half the states maintain laws regulating private militias. Generally, these laws prohibit the parading and exercising of armed private militias in public, but do not forbid the formation of private militias.
My neighborhood block party can be a militia or it can be a group of people getting together for a BBQ. What makes the difference is the INTENT.
The Bloods and the Crips do not meet the intent –provided by the definition of a militia. Since their actions are not intent on adhering to the law.
Just because the state regulates something does not mean it creates that item. There are laws about cars — does that mean the government creates cars?
Nope, absurd on the face of it. So is your argument that militias are the creation of the state.
Some militias are, but not all. Did you read Kevin Baker’s blog post ? http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2005/09/militias.html
As far as the part of the insults? Bring them on. I want you to feel comfortable giving as many insults as you want.
What I was pointing out is the differences in the basis of our arguments. You bring opinion and insults. Some folks on the other side also insult but after you’ve ignored questions, ignored the legal, scientific and statistical evidence presented refuting your argument.
So, let’s see on one side we have Laci and you bringing little else but opinion and insults and on the other we have legal opinion, court cases, statutes, statistical evidence, historical writings and opinions……which is more convincing?
Posted by Linoge on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
Hm, I think I am starting to see the source of the problem – Stan seems to be unfortunately laboring under the mistaken belief that all opinions are equal. Obviously, this is not the case – if I were firmly of the opinion that babies were implanted by extraterrestrial human-pregnancy-facilitators, and had the backings of likeminded people to support me, should I be determining pre- and post-natal care policy for the NIH? …Probably not.
So it is with Stan – sure, he has opinions, and those opinions should be addressed in order to avoid the “big lie” problem Bob S. articulated, but simply having an opinion means precisely squat when that opinion is not backed up by facts. Unfortunately, this lack of backing has been exposed repeatedly, and the simple facts of the situation likewise has been exposed repeatedly, neither to any result or apparent understanding. We have officially entered the realm of “faith”, and everyone knows how those discussions go.
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
I think it’s the “called forth to execute the laws of the Union” in your definition of militia that makes it government created. By this definition, groups of armed citizens do not become a “militia” until they are “called forth,” and even then only when called forth to “execute the laws of the Union.”
So the group Thomas wants to form to protect his right to bear arms against lawfully passed legislation restricting this right–that is, the “laws of the Union”–is not a “militia,” at least not under your definition. It is a criminal gang.
If Thomas’ group is a militia, then the Bloods and Crips qualify as well, as long as their “intent” is to enforce their version of the “laws of the Union,” or perhaps resist what they see as unconstitutional interference– that is, to enforce their justice claim.
The fact that the Founders discussed inalienable rights endowed by the Creator while at the same time excluding dark-skinned human beings from this “natural” rights regime makes my point exactly and should be all the support for my argument anyone needs. This happened not because of anything intrinsic the the nature of rights or of human beings. It happened because social relations of the day, and the social reality constituted by those relations, could provide no other result, however “natural” the source of these rights.
And no–a “right” to be free did not exist for slaves at the time of the Founding, since rights only exist when social understandings include the concept. This does not make such a situation just of course, or suggest that enslaving them was not unjust–it simply means the understandings of the day included a different concept of justice.
Posted by the pistolero on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
And no–a “right” to be free did not exist for slaves at the time of the Founding
Yes, actually, it did. The fact that the Founders didn’t recognize it didn’t make it any less real or legitimate.
Posted by Bob S. on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
Stan,
It isn’t their version of the “laws of the Union. The laws of the Union are consistent. You or the Crips don’t have one version that applies and we have another.
This is what I don’t understand about some of the liberal philosophy — denying the reality of the situation doesn’t change it.
Second, the “called forth” doesn’t entirely depend on the government. Kevin Baker’s post shows several instances of the militia being “called forth” by circumstances — note they didn’t break the laws but enforced them.
The government only exerts control of the militia when the government lawfully calls them forth.
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;
Note that the governing only takes place when the militia are EMPLOYED in the Service of the United States.
Posted by mike w. on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
groups of armed citizens do not become a “militia” until they are “called forth,” and even then only when called forth to “execute the laws of the Union.”
And how can they come forth armed (as required by the 1792 acts) if they don’t have the right to keep & bear the very arms they are expected to bring into service?
You need to read the words of the founders Mr. Scott
http://anothergunblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/quote-of-day-militia.html
http://anothergunblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/few-quotes-in-light-of-heller.html
As for what they thought of self-defense, they directly conflict with your views (unsurprisingly)
http://anothergunblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/quote-of-day.html
Posted by Thomas on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
The first time the militia was mustered officially after independence was to beat up on farmers to the fiscal benefit of big business in a little skirmish called “The Whiskey Rebellion”. Government tends to be a force of evil and oppression and laws only matter so much.
Criminal by statute law is not criminal in a moral sense more often than not. We’d have a lot less things criminalized that shouldn’t be if people would stand up for themselves a bit.
As a gun writer, off the record said to me in an email the other day–one probably that you ALL read–regarding the “praggish”–”..it’s the “I’m better than you, because I’m ‘law-abiding’” assholery that really pisses me off.” As, in the final reckoning, many times in life it’s not in your best interest to be entirely law abiding as a lot of wrongheaded laws are on the books.
Many people have been murdered by law abiding government executioners. Doing something under the color and cloaks of law does not make it right. Some of us have a rather absolute sense of morality rather than an administrative sense of it. We are troublesome to the rest. Intentionally so.
Posted by Thomas on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
Oh, R. Stanton…your disarming the Serb was by force of arms that you were willing to use, wasn’t it?
So you made my point.
At the end of the day, you seem unhinged and trying to play both sides of the fence. It’s perfectly OK for you to go in a foreign country to forcibly disarm people through superior forces, aye? And he was ineffective and nothing for you to worry about because you had the entire US Military behind you?
Well, how many divisions do you have now?
We’re still back to zero aren’t we?
If the shoe was on the other foot and he was commanding a superior force, he’d have executed your dumb ass. You just had a trump card and people willing to use it to keep you from getting killed.
That seems unhinged.
And a double standard.
Posted by Thomas on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
Oh, R. Stanton…your disarming the Serb was by force of arms that you were willing to use, wasn’t it?
So you made my point.
At the end of the day, you seem unhinged and trying to play both sides of the fence. It’s perfectly OK for you to go in a foreign country to forcibly disarm people through superior forces, aye? And he was ineffective and nothing for you to worry about because you had the entire US Military behind you?
Well, how many divisions do you have now?
We’re still back to zero aren’t we? So Your Idea of “proper balance” is still irrelevant.
If the shoe was on the other foot and he was commanding a superior force, he’d have executed your dumb ass. You just had a trump card and people willing to use it to keep you from getting killed. Being with the winning army didn’t make you in any fashion morally superior in your violation of Serbian Sovereignty. It just meant you could get away with it.
That seems unhinged, not recognizing that you had pro R-Stanton-Circumstances.
Humorously, you were enforcing a debatable view of world politics and what constitutes individual and state sovereignty with force of arms. Incidentally you just traded opressors and didn’t stabilize the region while making a mess of everything, from a political and military perspective and likely laid the groundwork for the next Balkan wars.
But people who would resist such interference through force of arms are whack jobs?
And a double standard, if I ever saw one.
Posted by mike w. on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
We have officially entered the realm of “faith”, and everyone knows how those discussions go.
Judging by the obfuscation and general avoidance of issues and questions raised I thiink Mr. Scott has been in the realm of “faith” for quite a while now. His “belief” trumps all else, much like he “believes” that the USSR was not Communist or Mao was not Communist, despite a mountain of historical evidence to the contrary.
Posted by the pistolero on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
And no–a “right” to be free did not exist for slaves at the time of the Founding, since rights only exist when social understandings include the concept. This does not make such a situation just of course, or suggest that enslaving them was not unjust–it simply means the understandings of the day included a different concept of justice.
Why would you say enslaving blacks was unjust? If you’re acknowledging any injustice here, you are necessarily implying a denial of rights — which in turn implies said rights are not dependent on societal norms, which is the exact opposite of your entire argument. If these rights are not dependent on societal norms, as is implied, then where do they come from?
Posted by Bob S. on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
And Pistolero for the WIN!!!!
Posted by Borepatch on 21.01.10 at 8:24 AM
Boy, I’m late to this party … And Bob – 57 comments? Yowzer.
The problem here is one of semantics. People are arguing without a proper base of mutual understanding, which comes from the misuse of a word by one of the sides in the debate.
Properly speaking, the English language has a word for what has been called “rights dependent on societal approval”. That word is “privileges.” If you go back through the comments thread and replace the misused word, you actually get to the heart of the meaning, and a clear debate: to wit, is owning weapons for the purpose of self-defense a right, or is it a privilege?
An honest debate requires the “privilege” side to recognize what they really mean.