SECOND AMENDMENT AGAIN

The horrific tragedy of the school shooting that occurred today has again brought up the question of gun control.  It always comes up at these times, but if someone raises the question Where were our armed citizens when this happened, who might have stopped this rampage in its tracks?, you are likely to be accused of callously taking the opportunity to make a political point, as if that isn't what the gun control people are doing. 

As a matter of fact whenever one of these tragedies occurs it breaks my heart and that IS the first question I ask these days:  WHERE IS OUR ARMED CITIZENRY at these times.  Where was an armed teacher or an armed parent or ANYBODY who could have ended this insanity before it killed people?

And you often hear how these murders occur in an area where there is extreme gun control or at least an underarmed population.  But the obvious conclusion is not drawn, that we need MORE, not fewer, armed citizens, especially in these crazy days of murdering individuals.  

I must admit I've been wondering if there is some kind of conspiracy behind these guys, some kind of influence that picks out emotionally unstrung people and influences them in this direction -- they often kill themselves or get killed so you can't interrogate them.  I know it sounds nuts, and maybe it IS just unstable individuals getting "inspired" by similar crazy acts, but I wonder nevertheless.  There's good reason to think that the murder in the Batman movie premier not long ago involved another person who disappeared during the shooting.  It just makes me wonder. 

So as usual you immediately hear that the Second Amendment was about an organized militia, and not citizen possession of firearms.  On the face of it this seems ludicrous because it's exactly an organized militia that can become the sort of threat an armed citizenry is protection against. 

But there is a history to this that is overlooked by these gun control fanatics who want to take the amendment away from us.  The concept of an armed citizenry goes way back in England long before the second amendment was written, and it was built on that history.  The point was for individual citizens to have the means of self defense and they WERE the army that protected the nation. 

The intention of the Second Amendment was to preserve us from foreign enemies and make a standing army unnecessary, which historically easily becomes a threat to the people, but obviously an armed citizenry can coexist with a national army and be a deterrent to its becoming that sort of menace, and it should be effective for these crazy individual enemies as well who kill innocent people in schools and malls and theaters.

Here are some quotes from men of the founding era:

James Madison:
http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm

The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.  

Patrick Henry:
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/361839.Patrick_Henry

 “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.”

George Mason,
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Mason

Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British parliament was advised by an artful man, [Sir William Keith] who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people. That it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.  

 http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/george+mason

Who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia?  They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. 

Samuel Adams
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/samuel+adams

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress … to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms…

It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control ... The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.

Alexander Hamilton
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton

The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out; a permanent or long standing force would be entirely different in make-up and call.

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.  

Richard Henry Lee
 https://www.facebook.com/unorganizedmilitia/notes

A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms...To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms...The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Henry_Lee

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."[3] Here's an interesting scholarly article on the concept:

History of the Second Amendment
David E Vandercoy
1994
http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1956&context=vulr

This study gives the history of the “citizen army” in England, which is the same thing as the “militia” intended by the Second Amendment,  that goes back centuries.  I’m just going to quote from The Conclusion:

English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries:  force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. [sic] Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.

These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists.

Seems to me I've run across discussions that include protection against criminals as well, but I didn't find them on this run.

DEFENDING THE SECOND AMENDMENT Pt 2

Dr. A who is a regular poster at EvC forums, whose Course in Geology is often quite good but whose other posts are usually not worth reading in my opinion, has just posted a really amazing piece of sophistry on the thread about Gun Control.

Don't arguments about overthrowing the government cut both ways? I mean, if it is possible for a bunch of private citizens with guns to overthrow a tyranny and replace it with a democratic republic, then wouldn't it also be possible for an armed citizenry to overthrow a democratic republic and replace it with a tyranny? There is, after all, nothing particularly bullet-proof about democrats.

Uh yeah, but there would be no MOTIVE to overthrow a nontyrannical government. When there is such tyranny you can be sure there will be plenty of buzz leading up to any sort of action, such as was the case before the American Revolution. Where there is no popular motive to overthrow a government the people's possession of guns nevertheless acts as a deterrent to the development of such tyranny, and in any case provides protection against garden-variety criminality which is going to be a problem in any society, less in one where more guns are owned by citizens.

And in this context I might as well respond to a statistic that keeps coming up on that thread to the effect that America has more guns per capita than any other nation on earth and YET we have more homicides too, so that the guns are not acting as a deterrent. Well, consider the fact that there were NO guns in the possession of audience members when the theater in Aurora Colorado was invaded by a homicidal maniac. Had there been even one or two he might have been stopped in his tracks and many lives might have been saved. Same with all the mass murder scenarios we've been plagued with over the last couple of decades, such as at schools. There should be armed teachers, armed members of churches, just more armed citizens out there in the world in general, if the homicide statistic is to be reduced.

Case in point is the situation of the internet cafe in Florida where just a couple weeks ago a 71-year-old man in possession of a legal concealed gun DID rout a couple of robbers, one of them armed, who might have done harm to many except for him. Moral of the story: It doesn't matter what the statistics say, obviously we need MORE upright citizens carrying guns.

So, yes, it might be a good idea if the Chinese had more guns, but what about the USA? If our citizens have enough weaponry to overthrow the government (which I doubt, but for the sake of argument let's say they do) then since we are currently a democratic republic, what they would be doing would be overthrowing democracy in favor of tyranny. Since we currently have liberty, guns can not currently be used to give us liberty, but to take it away; if it is possible to use them to overthrow the government, they are not a bulwark of liberty but rather a threat to it.

Sure, we may not have enough citizen-owned guns to pull that off, but again, why would anyone want to if we are truly the democratic republic he says we are, that provides that we "currently have liberty?" Of course there are those who would dispute that characterization of our current situation, but obviously there isn't enough motivation OR citizen gun power, either one, to do anything about it. But again, it is only if enough recognize that the government is NOT "a bulwark of liberty" that any such use of citizen firepower would be attempted. It would probably have to reach the level that even Dr. A himself would agree that tyranny is indeed the proper word for the situation at hand.

To conceive of guns defending our liberties, we have to be thinking two revolutions ahead. Once someone has taken our liberty away, then maybe we could use guns to put it back. But right now, since we have liberty, they can only be used to take it away.

On this basis, whether or not guns are good would depend on the state of the particular nation in question. In China, perhaps they could be a force for liberty; in the USA, they imperil it.

Silly sophistic distinctions, Dr. A, just word games. It's possible to be under government tyranny and it not be recognized by a majority because it hasn't yet reached a certain level, but the most likely scenario is that it WILL be recognized if it reaches a level that pinches the majority, and then it would be very sad if we'd already succumbed to government confiscation of the people's guns or laws that violate the second amendment by imposing extreme restrictions. Overthrowing the government is of course the remotest of all the reasons for an armed citizenry when you HAVE an armed citizenry, but it could rapidly become urgent and immediate if guns were taken away.

=================
The common feeling is that the more guns the more danger, the opposite of course of the reasoning behind the second amendment that the more guns the less danger. Here onifre at EvC is arguing that in New York city jar's position that guns should be carried openly would be extremely dangerous.

Have you seen the subways? Have you seen the amount of people in those things daily? Can you not see how maybe in this particular case, unlimited open carry (like in a holster) is a terrible idea?

Unlimited Open Carry does not mean that there must be no limitation.

Hmmm...

but it does mean that if someone carries it should be open, displayed

. Again, that's a terrible idea where I live.

The more guns the more fear of danger, but is the fear realistic? The founding fathers apparently thought the opposite and in fact statistics that I've heard of seem to bear them out. When guns are confiscated crime goes up, not down, and when guns are owned by a majority the reverse occurs. This makes sense. Criminals generally are not going to want to risk being shot.

I haven't given it thought before now, but I don't think I'd want guns to be carried openly as a matter of course. Better that the criminals have no idea how many guns might be drawn against them than be able to make their plans around the ones they can see and possibly avoid the danger. Keep them in the dark.

So, are there no upright citizens that ride the subways, Onifre? If everybody is a potential homicidal maniac wouldn't there still be a deterrent to their inclinations in the fact of more guns versus less?

But if you specifically have openly visible guns in mind, as I say above I probably wouldn't think that the best situation, but still, if most people had them I would think it would have some deterrent effect rather than be the danger you think it is.

DEFENDING THE SECOND AMENDMENT

THE TRUE CONTEXT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT SHOWN IN QUOTES BY EARLY AMERICAN LEADERS:

Chris Pinto is continuing the subject of gun control in today's (July 27) broadcast The Second Amendment Some topics covered: UN aim to disarm the world, means the average citizen. + Pinto believes it's basically Rome's attempt to reinstate a worldwide Inqusition. + He gives quotes from American leaders that make clear what the Second Amendment was really all about, which contradicts today's attempt to disarm the people.

Quotes Blackstone on the law. + quotes Jefferson on necessity of armed citizens for protection against criminal acts. + Mentions a video at You Tube How to stop a massacre which shows a recent real-life incident in which an armed citizen routs a couple of robbers who were threatening people in an internet cafe. +

Quotes Patrick Henry on need for force to protect liberty, advocating that every citizen have a gun. + Quotes Noah Webster on how the tyranny of state armies is thwarted by the arming of the citizens. + Quotes a journal in Boston in 1769 calling for citizens to be armed against British military abuses of power. English Bill of Rights invoked as authority. Mentions Blackstone's commentary on the law. Natural right of self defense. + Bible references +

Quotes George Mason 1775 militia plan, pledge to keep arms in readiness + Patrick Henry on protection of liberty by all citizens being armed + Sam Adams natural rights to life liberty and property and right to defend them. + John Adams arms for defense of country, ovethrow of tyranny or private self defense. +

As Pinto says "It's so clear what the second amendment was intended to mean" if you read the writings of these early Americans, "its purpose clearly extended to private citizens", and yet the second amendment has been "twisted and manipulated and lied about" by people trying to find a way to destroy it. + He ends with a quote from Richard Henry Lee in 1788 which ought to put to rest all the anti-second-amendment stuff about what a militia was supposed to be:

"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

The importance of knowing history is demonstrated in this quote. I've been in all kinds of discussions about what the second amendment means and nothing like this came up, which should have silenced all that nonsense about a militia being an organization or an army. The idea always seemed to contradict the very soul of the second amendment which is the right of the PEOPLE to defend themselves, but without proof of the original intent of the founding generation the gun control people were always winning the debates. We need more Chris Pintos.
============================
Later edit:
Typical "liberal" view of the second amendment:

... what you CAN construe is that the National Guards of the various states are the modern militias in question, organized and trained by state, armed, organized and disciplined by congress ... and the place where civilians can enroll to get proper training and then keep and bear arms. The second amendment is curiously silent on whether or not these arms can be taken home, presumably leaving that up to the states that are running the National Guards ( militias), and it is also silent on regulation of general gun ownership, again, presumably leaving that up to the states, a position that is upheld in the supreme court.

In light of the quote of Richard Henry Lee given above, such an opinion is completely out of tune with the original intent of the founding generation. Any official army, even the National Guard, is an entity that can become a force of tyranny on behalf of the state against the people, the very people the second amendment was intended to protect against that very kind of tyranny.

The second amendment is not "curiously silent on whether these arms can be taken home" since it accords to "the People" the right to keep and bear arms.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution was what inspired the interpretation quoted above:

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;

If this section is intended to define or qualify the "militia" as set forth in the second amendment, then it must refer to the totality of the People that Congress is called to organize, arm and discipline, as opposed to "such Part of them" as a separate unit to be employed in the service of the United States... The singling out of such a Part implies a much greater totality which is not so employed -- that is, of course, ALL THE PEOPLE.