08-12-2002 02:46									#61
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ned The 9th Cir. must be wrong.

That's an axiom.

PS CBeast!

	08-12-2002 02:46									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Considering Marx's views on religion, I should say so.

Well, there are those who think commie = commie = commie, without realizing that there are substantial differences. Pointing at the Soviet Union when arguing with someone who believes in creating a community in Christ is about as ridiculous as pointing at the evils of Mao to Trotskyist. Like, we know.

	08-12-2002 02:49									#63
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Well, Che, since the purpose of Second Amendment is to to preserve a "free" State, I woudl argue it would be entirely constitutional to deny the right of keeping and bearing arms to communists.

	08-12-2002 02:52									#64
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Ned, you are ignoring that fact that at the time of the signing of the Constitution, the army consisted of less than 6,000 people. It existed to provide a framework for the state militias, who, at the time, were composed of every able-bodied man. Up until the First World War, the bulk of US armed forces came from civilian militias, hence the reason we hear names like the 54th Massachuesetts Regiment, etc.

Civilians were the first line of defence against foreign powers. We were also the first line of defence against insurrection. Where do you think the soldiers came from when Washington called up troops to fight the Whiskey Rebellion? Congress definately meant for the main defence of the United States to be the armed people.

	08-12-2002 02:53									#65
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara about as ridiculous as pointing at the evils of Mao to Trotskyist. Like, we know.

Trotsky's views on the moral value of State terrorism make for a more appealing troll target than Mao does when argueing with a Trotskyist. I'll grant you that much.

	08-12-2002 02:54									#66
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ned Well, Che, since the purpose of Second Amendment is to to preserve a "free" State, I woudl argue it would be entirely constitutional to deny the right of keeping and bearing arms to communists.

That is why civilian militias were largely abolished following the Great Labor Uprising of 1877.

	08-12-2002 02:56									#67
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Trotsky's views on the moral value of State terrorism make for a more appealing troll target than Mao does when argueing with a Trotskyist. I'll grant you that much.

One of these days I'm gonna have to read that book.

	08-12-2002 03:00									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara One of these days I'm gonna have to read that book.

I thought that you had given the way you have explained it to me a few times.

	08-12-2002 03:04									#69
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Dude, that is so not CBEAST. That's LXBeast.

I know what the book is about and I've read critiques of it. I haven't come across an actual copy, however. I could probably read it online, but I hate reading online books.

	08-12-2002 03:20									#70
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Che, the very text of the Constitution distinquishes between the Army and the Militia. They are not the same. They may be called up by the president. But they are guaranteed to exist independently by the second amendment.

I understand your point about 1877. Very prudent.

	08-12-2002 03:57									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I don't understand why people are always so down on guns. They're cool, dammit! If it weren't for guns (with a nod to 'splosions and T&A) I'd never go to the movies anymore.

	08-12-2002 04:07									#72
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Ned Che, the very text of the Constitution distinquishes between the Army and the Militia. They are not the same. They may be called up by the president. But they are guaranteed to exist independently by the second amendment.

The doesn't negate my point. Yes, the US has to have an Army and Navy, but the Framers envisioned that these would be very small, and suplimented by the state/civilian militias. The Framers wanted the defense of the US in the hands of the people, so that they could keep the military small, and thus not a threat to the republic. They were rightly concerned about a general setting himself up as military dictator. Up until WWI, the bulk of the military during wartime was supplied by the various states. Teddy Roosevelt was the commander of one suh unit during the Spanish-American War.

Remember, our government was set up by idealists, who believed very strongly in republican ideals and the citizen-stateman-soldier. The Republic should be defended by the citizens and not mercenaries in their eyes.

	08-12-2002 04:10									#73
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Ned I understand your point about 1877. Very prudent.

Yeah, ten thousand armed workers marching down Michigan Ave. tends to make the bourgeoisie nervous. It was in the 1880s that the militia system was largely abandoned and the National Guards came into existence.

	08-12-2002 05:14									#74
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by korn469 Zkribbler Since the state as a whole can only lose its freedom to the government or an invader, and not an individual that means gun ownership exists to keep people free from state instituted tyranny. A single individual cannot threaten the security of the entire state with firearms, some horrible biological super weapon yes, but not not firearms. It seems quite clear that the second amendment exists to counteract a government that would oppress its people, and it also seems quite clear that having an armed populace capable of defending their nation would mean that there wouldn't be a need for a standing army.

The framers were worried about a federally instituted tyranny. That is why they wanted a well regulated state militia. An armed populous would permit a well regulated state militia. The 9th Circuit was therefore acting logically when it declared the rights under the 2nd Amendment flow to the several states, not to individuals.

	08-12-2002 05:21									#75
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by loinburger I don't understand why people are always so down on guns. They're cool, dammit! If it weren't for guns (with a nod to 'splosions and T&A) I'd never go to the movies anymore.

Hmmmm, maybe we need to amend the 2nd Amendment:

quote: Lots of gunfire and explosions, being necessary to the making of really cool movies, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

	08-12-2002 05:28									#76
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Does anyone have the test of the ruling? If it says what Zkribbler says it says, the holding really makes no sense at all.

	08-12-2002 05:40									#77
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Ned, your mean "text." Naw, I haven't seen it. According to the news article I read, it's 70-pages long. Looks like Judge Reinhardt knows this is going up to the Supremes and wants to make his case before he gets reversed.

	08-12-2002 05:49									#78
	Increase Your PM Length

Ah ha! Found it.

It's Silveira v. Lockyer. Link

	08-12-2002 06:01									#79
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ned the Army and the Militia.

The "Militia", then as now, (and codified in statute) basicly means Anyone eligible to join the military and serve in combat. The current stutory definition , for classification purposes (since it cannot change the constirution) is something like all legal male resident from age 17 to 50. Look in the USC, armed services title, for 'unorganized militia'. National gaurd units are 'organized militia'.

	08-12-2002 06:14									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: The framers were worried about a federally instituted tyranny. That is why they wanted a well regulated state militia. An armed populous would permit a well regulated state militia. The 9th Circuit was therefore acting logically when it declared the rights under the 2nd Amendment flow to the several states, not to individuals.

Zkribbler

i disagree, the second amendment says well regulated, but it doesn't say who should regulate the militia, it doesn't say state militia, nor does it tell exactly what well regulated means, all it specifically states is that the people have a right to arms

what you are saying is that the right to bear arms, isn't a individual right, it isn't a collective right, that instead it is a state right, i don't think the second amendment implies this at all especially when taken in context with the nineth and tenth amendments

quote: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

this means that even if the second amendment doesn't exist, that there could still be an individual right to own guns

damnit! why doesn't the US have a Nineth Amendment lobbying group? it is my favorite amendment

quote: 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

The second amendment states, "shall not be infringed," since only the federal or state government could legally infringe on this right, it seems like it would apply to both of them since neither are specifically exempted. That would make this is one of the powers prohibited to the states, otherwise I think it would have said states instead of people.

	08-12-2002 06:39									#81
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: If "people" meant "individuals," then the open phrase is meaningless. Congress could have simply said: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Basically you have to examine the etymology of phrases "well-regulated" and "militia."

Look at the root word of "regulate" - rule. Note that rules are not always man-made. Look at the word "regular," for instance, which can refer to the proper operation of a something. Well-regulated militias in this case mean militias that are working properly - well supplied, trained, and so forth.

As others have pointed out, the word "militia" has previously implied an armed citizenry not necessarily taking orders from the state.

Therefore, the initial phrase in the second makes eminient sense, as a well-trained, armed citizenry was pivotal in defending the US.

	08-12-2002 06:46									#82
	Got spare money?

Every time I've tried to make this point in the past people have ignored it and gone on with the frankly silly "it's about individual liberty" vs. "it's about collective security" arguments, so I don't expect it to fare any better now. But I might as well try. Anyway, aspects of it have been covered above this time, so maybe someone will not just skip over it.

Nicolo Macchiavelli, father of modern civic republicanism, claimed that one of the essential facts about the mechanics of a Republic was that in order for the elites not to go mad with power and corruption there needed to be the constant threat of the people rising up and returning power to the constitutional arrangement. In fact, he went so far as to claim that regular popular uprisings were a healthy and natural part of the life of a republic, and one of the reasons it was the only consistently stable form of government. Machiavelli's balance of power rests not between different elites (as the modern american one does) but between the elites on one hand and the citizens themselves on the other.

Now, among the liberal and collectivist thought patterns present among the founding fathers of the united states were also a fair amount of civic republican sentiments. If you look at the US constitution, you will find all three types of thought enshrined in various aspects of it, some more clear-cut than others. The first ammendment, for instance, is quite clearly purely an individual-liberty ammendment.

Equally clearly, the second one (at least to me) seems to be the epitopme of civic republican influence on the formation of the budding american state. It allows people to keep and bear arms for the specific purpose of bringing down a government gone bad, not for randomly and wantonly shooting prowlers in their back yard. It is not about individual freedom or state security, it's about the right of the people to take to arms in a well-ordered manner and take down whatever power-hungry despot is looming at the top. And good riddance.

The best solution therefore would be making shooting people (even in self-defence) illegal, and stop people from weilding guns outside the context of said type of mass movement.

	08-12-2002 06:53									#83
	Get a bigger avatar today!

sigh. "regulated" in the phrase does not mean regualted by authority. It means disciplines and somewhat trained. Able to line up in formation, take orders from its officers, and shoot towards the enemy.

	08-12-2002 07:01									#84
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Buck Birdseed The best solution therefore would be making shooting people (even in self-defence) illegal, and stop people from weilding guns outside the context of said type of mass movement.

So defending yourself against a lethal threat should be "illegal" but then ol Timmy McVeigh would have been fine and dandy, I suppose, because he was attacking power mad despots in his quaint little world view.

	08-12-2002 07:03									#85
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: sigh. "regulated" in the phrase does not mean regualted by authority. It means disciplines and somewhat trained. Able to line up in formation, take orders from its officers, and shoot towards the enemy.

Isn't that just what I said?

quote: Every time I've tried to make this point in the past people have ignored it and gone on with the frankly silly "it's about individual liberty" vs. "it's about collective security" arguments, so I don't expect it to fare any better now. But I might as well try. Anyway, aspects of it have been covered above this time, so maybe someone will not just skip over it.

Gun-weilding in mass-protests is an extremely bad idea (only giving cops a rationale to crush protesters' freedoms or accidentally starting a bloodbath).

I'd also say that gun-restrictions aren't particularly effective in stopping violence (if you realize much of it can be attributed to the war on drugs), so such gun-restrictions, particularly given that you woundn't be cutting down on the supply, are pretty much pointless.

	08-12-2002 07:21									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat So defending yourself against a lethal threat should be "illegal" but then ol Timmy McVeigh would have been fine and dandy, I suppose, because he was attacking power mad despots in his quaint little world view.

I think Snap was being ironic in some quaint European way.

I also think that you are well aware of that, and that I'm making an ass of myself by telling you.

	08-12-2002 09:18									#87
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by korn469 The second amendment states, "shall not be infringed," since only the federal or state government could legally infringe on this right, it seems like it would apply to both of them since neither are specifically exempted.

The Bill of Rights was passed to limit the power of the federal government. It wasn't until the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were passed that these limitations began being extended to the states.

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Basically you have to examine the etymology of phrases "well-regulated" and "militia." Look at the root word of "regulate" - rule. Note that rules are not always man-made. Look at the word "regular," for instance, which can refer to the proper operation of a something. Well-regulated militias in this case mean militias that are working properly - well supplied, trained, and so forth.

Ah! So "regulated" does not mean "regulated" but rather "running well on its own without any regulation." Thanks for pointing out my erroneous thinking.

Oh...and uh.."trained" by whom?

	08-12-2002 09:43									#88
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Zkribbler, you are aware that words in 18th Century English don't necessarily have the same meanings or emphasis as they do today, don't you?

	08-12-2002 11:41									#89
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Well, there are those who think commie = commie = commie, without realizing that there are substantial differences. Pointing at the Soviet Union when arguing with someone who believes in creating a community in Christ is about as ridiculous as pointing at the evils of Mao to Trotskyist. Like, we know.

Well put Che. That said, we Christian Commies (or at least me, as I'm the only christian commie I have ever met, sadly ) still greatly admire the Marxist literary tradition. So while I think Marx was perhaps wrong on a point or two, I still hold him (and the rest of the gang) in very high regards.

And the community in Christ description is just a tad bit of a misnomer. Mostly because I want to distance myself from past attempts at a "community in christ" such as the Puritans. It is true that the community would just so happened to be based on Christ's teachings and philosophies, but all comrades and workers, whether christian, buddhist, or atheist, would be treated as equals. In fact, part of what I hope to accomplish is to break down the traditional barriers that divide people of all belief systems. We are all God's children, and thus, all will be treated as brothers. So there isn't as much between you and I (relatively speaking) as you may think, comrade.

	08-12-2002 12:02									#90
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: this means that even if the second amendment doesn't exist, that there could still be an individual right to own guns damnit! why doesn't the US have a Nineth Amendment lobbying group? it is my favorite amendment

I rather like that one too