Callisto32's Journal - Archives
This is a really great post. I have always appreciated your contributions to the forums, even/especially when we were spending way too much time on the internet arguing theoretical economics. Your posts are almost all helpful and informative. Keep it up, eh?
Anyway, I would like to add to one of your posts as to "what people hear" I am sharing real thoughts that I have had on this one, and discussed with other people that feel the same way and can assure you that, at least in central PA, this is a commonly held view. It is somewhat derogatory to the "other" but I will leave that part in for completeness.
What some anti RKBA say: "Guns are only for killing people."
What some people hear: I don't care about you, or your very practical needs. I am a snobby urbanite who has no interaction with his/her environment and does not understand what actually living with nature in any way is like. I don't understand that coyotes, bears, and rabid animals of all kinds are very real threats to you and your loved ones/pets. I don't know what it is like to come across a wounded and suffering deer on the side of the road 70 miles from anywhere with no cell service, oh, and by the way, the nearest town has no police station/post office/running effing water. I don't understand what it is like to be poor and looking at the price of meat, and thinking about how a box of cartridges for the old .30-30 would put a lot of food on the table, don't forget to send some to uncle Bob.
You get the idea.
Insurrectionist and Extreme.
I suspect that you mean the position that RKBA is an individual, rather than corporate right.
First, a corporation cannot have rights, only powers (edit) and privileges. Rights are reserved to natural persons.
The Constitution. There are some basic rules of statutory interpretation, and the Constitution is a statute:
You start with the plain language of the statute. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I don't think you need to have the plain meaning explained to you.
Statutes are interpreted as a whole, and words in statutes are given consistent definitions. Everywhere else in the constitution, the phrase "the people" refers to individual rights. There is no reason to believe, absent clear language to the contrary, that a different definition is used in the Second Amendment than anywhere else. Also, the people cannot mean a corporate right of the state due to the following language: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This language indicates that the people are distinct entities from either the federal or state governments, thus "the people" in the Second Amendment must mean the individual people because of the rule that words in statutes are given consistent meanings throughout.
Therefore, you are wrong when you say that the view that the Second Amendment preserves an individual right to keep and bear arms is "insurrectionist and extreme" in the way you seem to mean. It may be insurrectionist, given that the people that wrote it were....GASP....insurrectionists. It may be extreme, but only compared with the authoritarian bent in much of the world. But to use those words to suggest that the NRA's view of the document is somehow incorrect is absurd on its face, given the language of the Constitution.
Well, that would be the asshat PA state trooper, one Mr. Reeves. My step-brother was a hellion and he came to the house, wanting to talk to him about some kind of vandalism that had occurred. When I told him he wasn't around, and no he couldn't come in to check (I may have been 13 but I wasn't stupid) he decided that it would be a great idea to kick our aluminum screen door so hard that it would break the sheet metal out from the frame and send a jagged piece of metal pointing into the entry door behind it.
My step-father was home, but asleep as he worked the night shift, and the impact woke him up and he came down stairs yelling something about trespassing and needing a warrant. The trooper cursed something under his breath and left.
We called the barracks directly and told them about what had happened. Two "officer" level troopers came out and took my (apparently worthless) 13 year old statement, and the statement of my step-father about what had happened. They asked him what happened, and he denied the happening, and (because the word of the police is just worth more, apparently) we were told that our story, and the dent in the door that matched the shape of the boot of the PA state troopers, didn't really matter, because he said it didn't happen.
A few years later, we were talking with an uncle of mine, and started to tell the story. He interrupted, "Reeves? Yeah, I had a run in with him on a traffic stop. He was completely unprofessional, and didn't treat me with respect until he saw my gov't papers. The uncle was/is a high-up admin at a federal penitentiary. He also complained, and nothing occurred, because (again) the cop said it didn't happen.
Trust them with my safety? They can't even handle internal discipline.
I am STEEPED in American gun culture. I own, shoot, carry, read out, repair, and upgrade guns.
Funny thing. The American GUN culture is very knowledge/safety oriented. Safety rules are harped upon continuously. Folks that know what they are doing gladly sit through safety briefs at ranges, because we want to keep our sport one of the safest in the nation. Football and lacrosse injuries FAR outstrip those in the shooting sports. Why? Because while gunfire is certainly violent in a physics sense, it is rarely violent in a social sense, unlike the full-contact ritual combat that we call "sports."
The American gun culture is not violent, as evidenced by the huge numbers of life-time gun owners that somehow manage to not ever shoot anyone.
Guns are used as tools in American gun culture. Tools that put food on the table, provide recreation, and defend from violent attack.
Thug culture, on the other hand, leads to a lot of dead bodies, and wounded.
These people see their firearms as a tool to increase the likelihood of compliance with their unlawful, violent demands, or a method of easily removing a competing force; like another dealer.
To lump category 2 into category 1 is absurd, insulting, and disingenuous.
For those of you from outside this forum, or who have forgotten about me in my long absence here is the same old disclaimer: I am a libertarian, (note the lower case "l"), not a Democrat, or anything that could probably be confused therewith.
I would say that if the bill states that you cannot get an abortion on the public tab, it is fine. Of course, I don't think that the state should be paying anybody's medical bills, and certainly not calling it a right to receive health care. Here is why. For something to be a right, I believe, it must be able to be fulfilled entirely by the voluntary actions of the person asserting the right. So, for example, you would have the right to enter into contracts with medical professionals for the tender of care in exchange for any valuable consideration you may agree upon. You cannot simply have a right to health care. Because if you have a right, you cannot rightly be denied it, and so someone HAS to provide that service for you. This is tantamount to enslaving the person who is forced, by your "right," to provide a service. Firearms are the same way. If there was a bill that was going to use tax (read: "stolen") funds to provide the populace with firearms, that would be wrong too because of the force involved in moving the wealth around. But, if someone can acquire a firearm and all of the accoutrement, and use that firearm, both in ways that do not harm others or the property of others, then he has a right to possession of that firearm.
Okay, I think that this may just be the strongest argument for gun rights in the US that I have ever heard. I wish I could take credit for it, but I am just a messenger. I'd like responses to and attacks against this argument, please. Though those of you who wish to attack should be fairly warned that I want it to be attacked so that I may refine the argument further. "Don't raise your voice, get a better argument."
In the United States, the sovereignty lies with the citizens
All political powers are subordinate to the sovereign
It is the sovereign that delegates abilities and responsibilities to the several subordinate entities
The sovereign cannot delegate that which is not in its possession to begin with (I can't give you $300 I don't have. Well, Unless I am a bank practicing fractional lending, but that is another matter entirely )
Some of these subordinate entities (LE entities, the military et cetera) are allowed the possession and use of firearms
Therefore: The citizens must have a right to the possession and use of firearms, otherwise the citizenry (sovereign) would not be able to provide the ability to do so to its subordinate entities.
Keep in mind that I have likely missed a bit or widget here or there.
The ten most recent threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums.
Hillary Clinton Bernie Sanders battle over meaning of progressive
By Divine Discontent
The X-Files Reopens
By Divine Discontent
DU 2 Still Exists
Hillary Clinton's Glass-Steagall
Who should Sanders choose for VP?
By No Elephants
Donated to Sanders
President Bernie Fucking Sanders, Baby!!!
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.