TheAgitator.com
61 Responses to “Morning Links”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Site Features
- Home
- About Radley Balko
- Publications
- Speaking Info
- Multimedia
- Resume
- Picasa Photos
- Recommendations
- RSS Feed
- Buy Agitator Gear
-
-
$12/month Recurring Donation
$6/month Recurring Donation
- My Amazon wishlist
-
Site Credits
“We don’t let the states “experiment” on the First Amendment. Should the Second Amendment receive any less respect?”
Wait a doggone second. The federal government had respect for the First Amendment? I guess they do in a “sometimes we do, sometimes we don’t” sort of way.
Let’s face it, if the Court were really upholding the Bill of Rights, we wouldn’t always wonder how they’re going to rule on BOR issues. The only reason any of the Bill of Rights is still in effect is because the SCOTUS hasn’t nullified it yet. Doing it too fast might draw attention, so they continue to do it slowly. But there’s no doubt that it will eventually be meaningless.
Freelance journalist Michael Yon says he was arrested by TSA at a Seattle airport for failing to disclose his income.
No, he was arrested for not showing proper deference to law enforcement. Although the question was about his income, it could have been any question. By not answering, you’re showing that you don’t know your place in the world and must, therefore, be taught who’s boss.
It’s a bit of a catch-22, actually. We complain when they have rigid rules for these thugs that allow for no common sense discretion, but if they are given any discretion, these bozos act like complete fucking ego-centric morons.
When your laws violate other laws, you officially have too many laws. I would love to say that this could only happen in a police state like the UK, but I know that’s not true. Actually, I kinda hope we can use the law against itself here. Maybe we can get the beast to eat itself.
Kraft sponsoring the demolition seems like good capitalism to me.
Plus, a kid gets to blow something up! How awesome is that? Maybe I can get my 9 yr old son to write an essay.
If you follow the links provided, you’ll see that HotAir is wrong (shocking I know). Yon was detained by Customs not the TSA.
You should correct your post so at least you have the correct story.
Also, wouldn’t the scanners also violate OUR child porn laws?
So, to protect children from the trauma and life long psychic devastation of being seen naked, they will have to (for the time being) expose them to the life-threatening danger of not being able to effectively screen anyone under 18 for explosives.
Yes, I’m being a bit melodramatic, but the western treatment of nudity as something inherently harmful defies credible explanation. And for what reason is a child’s privacy more worthy of protection than an adult’s privacy?
People need to get past this belief that there is a legitimate need to eradicate the possibility that someone somewhere might be sitting in a closet jerking off to a picture of a child (with or without clothes) and get back to the mission of protecting children from real harm of being intentionally exploited for the purpose of sexual gratification. A body scan does not fit that description anymore than a kid in a Calvin Klein billboard or a snapshot of a kid in a bath tub.
“the western treatment of nudity as something inherently harmful defies credible explanation.”
I have to agree with that. I grew up in the Amazon jungle and there was nudity everywhere and nobody cared. It was hot, the only source of water was the river and everybody used it for bathing and washing clothes.
Trust me, most people are not that attractive naked. Pretty soon you just don’t see it anymore. If you grow up in that environment, you don’t even notice it to begin with.
I just saw an ad for a ceramic knife for $12. Looked a LOT more dangerous than a boxcutter. It would probably sail right through a metal detector.
I for one, don’t care if they see my ugly body as long as they can reliably find stuff like this.
If Chicago is “serv[ing] as a laboratory, and try[ing] novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country” about the effectiveness of gun control (despite the Second Amendment), I’d say the results of that experiment are in: massive FAIL.
@#8 Stephen:
I’ve seen the ceramic knives at Harbor Freight (cheap tool store, for those who are not acquainted with it) for pretty cheap. The paring knive would make a great shiv…
CRNewsom
So if body scanners can’t be used on children because of child porn laws, doesn’t that mean that the same scanners used on adults makes us unwitting participates in the production of pornography?
You mean the state is forcing me to participate in the production of pornography in order to exercise my right to travel? Oh, the lawyers are going to have fun with this!
Damon Root seems to be ignorant of the “well-regulated militia” words in the second amendment which clearly give the states the right to regulate.
[blockquote]#8 | Stephen | January 6th, 2010 at 11:01 am
I just saw an ad for a ceramic knife for $12. Looked a LOT more dangerous than a boxcutter. It would probably sail right through a metal detector.
I for one, don’t care if they see my ugly body as long as they can reliably find stuff like this.[/blockquote]
This is akin to saying that if you haven’t done anything wrong then you should be willing to answer all the questions the government has for you, as well as consent to be monitored 24/7.
I like my rights and don’t want to surrender them for the sake of a false sense of security. If someone wants to do harm to a group on a plane, a ceramic knife isn’t going to deter many people from attacking the hijackers (like they did on Flight 93). Other than a gun or explosive, nobody is going to stand idle anymore and allow a group to take over a plane.
As means of defense, many people wear a belt and shoes. You can throw your shoes at the person and smack them in the back of the head with a belt buckle. You can also sneak up behind one of them as they are distracted with other passengers.
I’m sorry, but I just can’t see another 9/11-style hijacking again.
oops, used the wrong tags (used [] instead of )
The funny thing is that the wave lengths they use for the full body scan devices are long enough that many things that could be used to hi-jack or blow up a plane would not show up.
Yay for more pointless security theater to make people feel safe. There are many everyday objects that everyone brings aboard a plane that can be made to do some very dangerous things. Go ask an organic chemist what he could do with several ounces of particular chemicals to incapacitate a plane and take it over. Or someone that is a battery specialist what they could do with some laptop batteries…
People need to get away from this idea that you can stop every attack. You can’t. You never will. It’s impossible. The reason most people are so gung ho for more security and more tougher tactics (if you notice their rhetoric) is they never expect the tougher tactics to be used on them. My favorite are the ones crying for more profiling as if the terrorists are complete morons (they are morons but some of them are also pretty smart) that don’t think these things through. Once you set a profile, the weakness is found and exploited. It’s simple as that. It happened in Israel. They were cracking down on young Muslim men at checkpoints, and next thing you know you’ve got female suicide bombers.
A determined individual or group can find a way to get around almost any security system. Given a long enough time horizon for execution, it can and will happen.
So it’s a matter of when and not if the next attack is going to happen. Our choice is that we get to chose how we spend the intervening years trying to prevent it. Do we do a bunch of bedwetting, protect us protect us, we’ll give you all of our rights, suffer any indignity if only you will keep us safe, torture the bad guys, bullshit security theater or do we spend the time and energy and money putting money into real assets, working effective methods of reducing the tensions, proving we aren’t bullies our enemies portray us to be?
Nando that can’t be mentioned enough. The sad part of 9/11 is that most people miss the “lesson” of those hijackings. They didn’t work because the terrorists were able to slip a couple of pointy objects past the screeners. They worked because they exploited the loophole in our own thinking that the way to deal with a hijacking was to sit quietly, wait for demands to be met, plane lands somewhere, SWAT or Special ops comes in, and for the most part everyone goes home safe.
The weakness they exploited no longer exists. No passenger is going to sit idly by anymore when it looks like terrorists are trying to take over the plane. In many ways (and this is going to get me flamed), 9/11 was a spectacular one off. It’s like a magician revealing the sleight of hand behind his trick. Once the terrorists showed us that hand, it’s effectiveness is now as close to nill as you can get.
So the true danger now is once again explosives (as it’s always really been). So it’s a matter of finding ways to find them. Which the full body scanners are not good at picking up liquids. powders, or other low density materials. Yet we’re probably going to throw millions of dollars on more wasteful security theater just to make John and Jane Q Public feel like something is being done.
Wow, child porn laws to the rescue huh? hahaha…maybe CPS (or the British version of it) could come out and arrest TSA (or the British version of it) and their brave agents could shoot it out.
Eventually they’ll decide that concious passengers pose too much of a security risk. In order to fly you’ll have to agree to being drugged and stuffed in a large mailing tube. They’ll load passengers the same way they load baggage. Oh, and when people refuse to travel by air anymore, the government will rush in to prop up the airlines…
Bobzbob,
I think you sort of fail to realize what the 2nd amendment is saying. Selective reading of these words doesn’t change their meaning. The whole thing says…
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
1. Militia is necessary to keep the country free and secure. AKA, what the army was basically made up of before we had the kind of standing army we have now.
2. People need to be able to keep firearms for the same reason above.
3. Don’t infringe on these rights.
The grammer that is being used clearly makes three seperate points, it doesn’t put 1 and 2 together.
I don’t care what other people are willing to endure for safety. Someone’s opinion about safety isn’t enough of a reason to subject others to mistreatment. Just because you think it’s necessary invade someone’s privasy so you can feel safe doesn’t make it ok. It’s selfish and wrong.
#12 @ bobzbob : So, nine of the amendments in the Bill of Rights restrict the power of government and protect individual rights. Yet the 2nd amendment defines a government power? Strange, I figured they would have put that power somewhere in Articles 1-3…maybe it’s that “general welfare” clause?
Hopefully people are starting to realize again that 9-11 was a one off.
There was a great article that shortly after 9-11 that I really wish had been truer. It was something like “The terrorists were winning the war on terror for X minutes”.
The minutes were from the 1st hit on the tower to the people on flight 93 figuring out they needed to stop the terrorists.
“Eventually they’ll decide that conscious passengers pose too much of a security risk. In order to fly you’ll have to agree to being drugged and stuffed in a large mailing tube.”
Awesome. You nailed it. Big Bruddah needs to just drug and
“render” all future airline passengers, a la Cleric Omar in Milan.
I know it sounds extreme, but it’s the only logical solution.
I brought the ceramic knife thing up to my “save us from the terrists” co-workers years ago. Anyone that wants to can get on a plane with a 12 inch blade, no problem. I also told them that two guys with semi-auto rifles and a good supply of large capacity clips could kill 100 people easy on a commuter train in about 5 minutes. Thus, if I could come up with these scenarios off the top of my head, then a determined terrorist willing to die could easily do that. They just sat there like deer in the headlights trying to wrap their minds around what I had just said. The sheep out there want to believe in total safety and are willing to give up their rights for that fiction. If you throw out the fact that we must stop driving since 30k people/year die on the roads, their eyes really glaze over.
Edmund,
I couldn’t agree with you more. I built the interior furnishings for airliners. I don’t need to take a weapon on board, I’ll get one once I’m on the plane.
#12 BB
The word regulate in the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with rules handed down by the state. It is an 18th century military/gun term used to show that something is well trained or tuned to hit a mark. Double barreled weapons are said to be regulated when both barrels are tweaked so that they hit the same aiming point.
The 2nd amendment has unique language, a qualifier, and that makes it different in intent from the other 9. It is the only amendment that mentions, and places the right, in the context of the state.
“1. Militia is necessary to keep the country free and secure.”
Wrong, the constitution specifically refers to a “Well-regulated Militia” as being necessary. It is laughable the way libertarians pretend to be strict constructionists and then leave those words out, like you just did! It doesn’t say a militia in general, or an un-regulated militia. Perhaps the founders thought a poorly regulated militia would be a threat to the state, that is consistent with the wording here. You simply can’t argue that the founders thought an unregulated milita was necessary, ONLY a regulated one.
The second amendment was clearly written as a compromise to assure individual states that the federal government would not disarm the states. Of course it is clearly obsolete, the founders did not envision F-16′s, stinger missiles or nuclear weapons. The phrase: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” clearly no longer has meaning. This is the leading example of why the failure to do what the founders intended (regularily update and revise the constitution to meet our needs) is a problem. If we believe that guns (or SAM’s) should be legal for personal defense then let’s re-write the constitution to reflect that, rather than make arcane and senseless arguments twisting obsolete statements to our whims.
“Eventually they’ll decide that conscious passengers pose too much of a security risk. In order to fly you’ll have to agree to being drugged and stuffed in a large mailing tube.”
We all knew where this was leading. The only logical conclusion would be to subject all passengers to strip, gastric lavage, enema, sedation, insertion into one of those Brazil-like straightjackets, and hanging from a hook on the plane. A plane full of immobilized human cocoons is the only way to guarantee security from passengers.
At least this method will allow more passengers to be carried per flight, helping offset the additional costs.
#23 Yizmo Gizmo
“Awesome. You nailed it. Big Bruddah needs to just drug and
“render” all future airline passengers, a la Cleric Omar in Milan.
I know it sounds extreme, but it’s the only logical solution.”
Heck yea! Then DEA could come out and arrest TSA while they are fighting the CPS people over the naked scanners being child pornography.
And they could put the whole thing on pay per view!
The only logical conclusion would be to subject all passengers to strip, gastric lavage, enema, sedation, insertion into one of those Brazil-like straightjackets, and hanging from a hook on the plane. A plane full of immobilized human cocoons is the only way to guarantee security from passengers.
Am I the only regular traveler who thinks “sleeping on a hook sure beats sitting in a chair for 24 hours”? No?
I can dream. But not in my airline seat.
bob,
Seriously, you totally failed. I like how you ignored the second part of the amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, and just focus on the militia part. But whatever.
That, and I didn’t leave out “well regulated”, I included that when I quoted the 2nd amendment. Gee, sorry I decided to say militia in my disection of the wording and I left out the “well regulated” portion. I guess is bobzbob world, I fail as being a strict constructionist because I thought the “well regulated” portion was to be assumed. I guess that just nullifies everything. It is laughable that you would think this bogus and weak ass retort just put me in my place. You didn’t win.
Doesn’t matter. A well regulated militia is a well regulated militia, and that’s it. In no way is that the same or implied as restrictions on personal ownership.
And I’m not sure where this idea of compirmise between the federal gov’t and state gov’ts come from. I’m reading the amendment pretty carefully, and it says, “the seucurity of a free state”…not the states. A free state as in nation state. I dont see where it says this is a comprimise between states rights and the federal gov’t. Could it be that you, gasp, just sort of made up new meanings to support your opinion?
Also, your opinion of rewriting the constition as the founding fathers wanted us to is bullshit. They realized we would have to amend it over time, not disregard the freedoms and rights it gauranteed. Being able to protect yourself isn’t archaic. Owning SAM missils is you being over dramatic. There is nothing obsolete about personal protection.
I know you don’t like the idea of people owning guns, but you’re just pushing your morals and values onto others. It’s as wrong as when Bible thumpers do the same thing. Don’t force your opinions onto others. If you don’t like guns, don’t own them and leave the rest of us alone.
Bobzbob, you’re interpretation of the language is what is intentionally bogus, misleading and wrong.
The colonists had their fill of the government (England) keeping armed soldiers everywhere, imposing their will on the population. When the new government planned to keep a standing army amongst the people, for national defense purposes, the people were uncomfortable with the idea, trading one bunch of armed bullies for another.
Thus the second amendment, which sought to reassure the PEOPLE (individuals afraid of being bullied by soldiers) that while…
““A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” meaning the new government will be maintaining a well-regulated (well-regulated for the people’s protection) standing army for national defense…
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Meaning the individual PEOPLE will always have access to their own arms and cannot be disarmed by the government, thus subjecting them to bullying from the government’s standing military. The individual people will always have the power to resist.
That is the purpose of the second amendment. Always was. There was never any gray area, it was never in doubt or subject to other interpretation until intellectually dishonest people started making ridiculous, disingenuous claims of alternate meanings to advance their own agenda, which was hampered by the existence of the second amendment. When they don’t have the balls to outright campaign for the removal of the second amendment protections, they instead use bogus arguments to try and act as if the amendment does not mean what it means.
It is dishonest and sad.
Mattocracy stated:
My understanding is a bit different…
1. A well-regulated militia (standing army) is necessary (and listed as a power of congress in Article 1), though always a threat to the liberty of the people.
2. People need to be able to keep and bear arms because of the standing army.
3. Don’t infringe that right.
My understanding comes from a study of the debate among the writers of the Constitution about the inherent threat to liberty of the government having use of that army. Noah Webster’s comments, I think, regarding an armed populace being able to resist the threat of the army spell out best what the Second Amendment is intended to do.
Re bobz:
The National Guard is essentially our state-run well regulated militia. In the event of a War of Northern, Eastern, Southern or Western Aggression, they would be called upon to serve as the militia of the States. And yes, THEY have F-16s and Blackhawks (although, no nukes).
Also, everyone I know who owns a gun(s) are ridiculously responsible with it (basically its locked in a heavy ass safe). All that anti-gun laws affect are stupid people, and I disagree with laws that protect people from their own stupidity (and no, I won’t think about the children).
Well, we don’t have to guess with a “perhaps”, because the founder told us exactly what they meant in the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, and neither one of them ever mentioned anything like that.
#19,
I’m not sure what you are stating here, so I will state some facts.
The 2nd Amendment grammar needs to be read in the same manner as the grammar of the 18th century, not the 21st century. Just as the Bible uses a lot of words and grammar that no one uses today, so do any historical documents.
Militia was every able bodied male between the ages of 18-50 (or something like that). In the 18th century women were rarely actively a part of the militia; the 21st century is a different story, so we can’t define militia as males only.
The purpose of the militia was to prevent a tyrannical government. The British became so despotic that leaders in several colonies got enough support from the people that they decided they were done being oppressed, and the path of diplomacy was no longer an option, thus it was now time to fight and die for liberty. The same purpose still holds true today. Militia != Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines/National Guard. Militia = the citizen, We The People, who will take up arms and fight and die for liberty when government becomes despotic enough for a number of people that the shots rings out and the fight is on. The Founders, based on their own words and experiences, would never have written the 2nd Amendment to disarm the average citizen after what they went through.
To be clear, “A well regulated militia” doesn’t mean “pass laws and regulate the shit out of people to affectively disarm them”. Only a dishonest person would interpret that part of the 2nd Amendment that way, and I am quite certain that many are so dishonest as to do so. We call those slaves (love to be controlled, will give up their ability to fight and die for liberty), bureaucrats, and other power seekers. “A well regulated”, interpreted in the grammar of the period (18th century), means supported by people and government AKA “government should be actively supporting/be involved with We The People organizing militias to fight against tyranny/despotism”. Unfortunately that also requires people that Do The Right Thing (for lack of better words) and always keep government in check, as the nature of the government beast is to grow and become tyrannical, at which point the reset button needs to be hit again.
There are laws in many states that specifically state that organizing a militia is ILLEGAL, and define a militia and 2 or more people actively organizing a group of people and training them in firearms use. I believe Washington state is one of them — I can’t recall the states off of the top of my head.
Well, if the terrorists get to have ceramic blades, then I should at least get to keep my fingernail clippers to fight them off. :)
Seriously though, I am with you guys that it is complete theater. Issuing baseball bats to passengers at boarding time would be more truly effective.
#26, you are more correct than I as to the definition of “well regulated” than I. You define it specifically to (correctly) be “firearms are sighted in / on the mark / tuned, etc”. My definition is an indirect reading, as in “the state should support the well regulated militia, not oppose it”.
In a comedic sense, I would welcome the enema idea because then I’m sure many people would be drinking a lot of prune juice, not bathing, not wiping well, etc. to make the enema giver’s job more enjoyable.
I’ve heard stories from wrestler friends that sometimes they wouldn’t bathe well before a match, eat garlic so the sweat becomes really stinky, etc. all as a psychological attack on their opponent’s ability to withstand olfactory (sense of smell) attacks.
#27
DISCLAIMER: I don’t care what the Constitution says. The Constitution does not grant rights; it either respects or does not respect them. The fundamental human right to self-defense exists independently of the Constitution, and as a necessary corollary, it includes the right to arm oneself to exercise self-defense. Conversely, nobody has the right to tell you whether or not you are allowed to have a firearm, provided you have not aggressed against them or others, and take it from you under threat of violence or infringement of liberty.
That said, Randy Barnett often jokes that everyone claims to be a textualist when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, even those who otherwise reject textualism. The problem is that most people are bad textualists. Even if you accept at face value that a “militia” must by definition be controlled by the state and that “well-regulated” means something like “well-controlled by the state” — the problem is that the simple text of the “preamble” to the 2nd Amendment, by its own language, creates no substantive limitation whatsoever on “the right of the People to keep and bear arms” which “shall not be infringed.” Whether the authors of the 2nd Amendment were right or wrong about the necessity of a well-regulated militia, and whether or not a well-regulated militia existed or not in any particular state; nothing in the text of the 2nd Amendment requires as a precondition of the right to bear arms that either of the things before it to be true. In fact, simple sentence flow suggests just the opposite: the framers of the 2nd Amendment believed that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was a factual prerequisite for having a well-regulated militia; not that a well-regulated militia was a precondition for the exercise of an explicit constitutional right.
But more than that, there is ample historical evidence that a militia does NOT in fact mean something like a military body controlled by the State. Rather, as expressed by contemporary writings like the Militia Act of 1792, the militia included all able-bodied white male citizens over the age of 18 and under the age of 45. The current US Code defines the militia as all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age. In Constitutional terms at least, the militia is conceived of as simply adult male (white, initially) citizens. There are numerous contemporary writings that suggest the same; that the militia is comprised of “the people.”
Additionally, there are numerous contemporary writings that suggest that well-regulated does not mean state-controlled, but something like “well prepared” or “well trained” or “properly disciplined.” An example is in Hamilton’s Federalist 29, but to reproduce any of the examples contextually would extend this post to twice its length. Suffice it to say they are easily google-able.
You are correct, but in practice the defined Amendment process hasn’t been followed pretty much since the writing of the Constitution. Yes, it has been followed here and there, but if one examines the entirety of government action, I’d guess that 90+% are invalid due to violating the Constitution. This is reality, but of course it doesn’t make it right.
#32, one of the best concise explanations of the 2nd Amendment. As you point out, only intellectually dishonest people want to distort the meaning and ignore data (usually for reasons of controlling people who would otherwise resist). A disarmed (no firearms) citizenry is easier to control. Reference data: see HISTORY OF HUMANITY IN ANY COUNTRY.
A point worth repeating for those that think government (other humans) grant them rights. A person has basic rights (health care is not one of them) simply by your existence, unless you consider yourself a slave, in which case yes government (other humans) grant you rights.
The Philadelphia Eagles (or at least Philly Cream Cheese) should have sponsored the Texas Stadium destruction….especially after how they whupped us last Sunday.
So you’re saying that “well regulated” back then doesn’t mean what it means today? You know, like having to go to a certified school to learn what to do, take a state administered exam, apply for a license, submit to random government inspections, keep government prescribed records, file periodic reports, and don’t bitch about the chafing of the iron collar holding your chains? You know. That stuff.
The second amendment was written as a check against a military state. If the people were disarmed, then a large standing army would be required because the people (the militia) would not be able to be quickly mobilized for war. This large standing army would lessen the people’s freedom through the taxes needed to pay for it and the concentration of power in the executive needed to manage it.
We’ve pretty much arrived at the position the founders feared, though as much due to technology as to constitutional law. It is not a coincidence that the 2nd and 3rd amendments are next to each other.
There is also the issue of removing people’s capacity for self-defense necessarily leading to an growth in police power (another state function the Bill of Rights was written to limit) and Jeffersonian lunacy (I for one am quite thankful that America developed along Hamiltonian lines).
Also, wouldn’t the scanners also violate OUR child porn laws?
I don’t believe the nude depiction of minors per se is a violation of U.S. child pornography statutes. If a kid walking through the full body scanner had a hard on, that would probably do it.
It seems like the whole idea of a well armed citizenry being a deterrent to government tyranny is just a bit outdated to me. I live in Texas. I know a LOT of people who are armed to the teeth. But realistically what are they gonna do when the SWAT team breaks down their door at night? If they defend themselves they will be killed or captured and sent to prison, so where’s the deterrent? I don’t think the government in fears the citizen’s guns at all. They will always have more and better guns.
from yons facebook:
Michael Yon There is some confusion about who arrested me. TSA was not involved. The Customs people (CBP) were the actors who handcuffed me.
‘A plane full of immobilized human cocoons is the only way to guarantee security from passengers. ‘
Probably still not good enough if your enemies are engineers (real ones, who build and test a dozen prototypes before deploying their weapons). Explosive implants with a non-metal pressure sensor / altimeter would defeat your scheme (or for those who think explosives are old hat we could imagine a PTFE canister of 3-methyl-fentanyl or other war gas). Granted, most engineers would probably aim for a softer target if they were trying to inflict maximum damage, but some would probably take it on as a challenge.
What’s the latest with Maricopa County and Sheriff Joe’s lying goons? Especially the “steal the lawyer’s files in court” Deputy Dipstick?
Nothing can be done to stop the singular incidents like you describe. A militia is for combatting organized mass oppression, e.g. martial law, forced evacuations and relocation, etc.
@JS #49
Hi JS.
The second amendment is not about one person being able to take on the police. It is about our whole population being able to resist the potential rise of a tyrannical government. The police are (sadly it seems at times) part of the citizenry, not the military and are supposed to be on our side if the government tries to impose its will on us through the military. The second amendment helps protect us against a military coup.
And it does not matter that the military has jets, Apache helicopters, tanks or any of that other stuff that has been trotted out above (and typically) as a reason why the second amendment is obsolete. That argument is bunk. Here’s why.
I have a friend that used to do computer models for the military of our ‘enemies’ (at the time it was the russians) and their ability to attack and occupy the US. Without WMDs, no country could take us…even when the simulation started with us having no military at all!
The reason? First, our citizens have guns. Second, they have knowledge. Machine shops and everything we need, in every podunk town, to manufacture ammo and weapons, bombs, vehicles and other supplies. We have police, active and retired, hunters, and other people throughout our cities that can train us. We have cars, boats and planes and the ability to work on and maintain them. We know our land. We have radios and communication networks, generators and electronic gadgetry. We are a nightmare to occupy for any invader, even with no military. We are 250 million people with the know how to resist. But most important of all, we have guns. Rifles, handguns and shot guns. Everywhere. Over fireplaces, in cabinets and in stores around the country. Passed down from our grandfathers or bought last year for hunting. And while we are not likely to ever need to use all of this to resist any government, our own or otherwise, we should not give up this power. The fact that we have it is why we are not likely to ever need it.
And, if you have guts and guns, you can hold off an overwhelmingly larger, more powerful and more technologically advanced adversary indefinitely. Just ask Afghanistan.
[...] tip to the Agitator. [...]
#54, the main reason why Hitler (there goes the Godwin effect) didn’t invade Switzerland is that every citizen owned and was trained to use pistols and rifles. It made it a losing proposition to invade Switzerland — easier pickings elsewhere.
As you state, the police are supposed to be part of the citizenry and not the military. However, they are morphing over the years into a paramilitary outfit. This means there is one more body for the citizens to fight against.
There are a million things wrong with the 2nd amendment arguments above. More than I have time to correct. But lets take two:
“The purpose of the militia was to prevent a tyrannical government.”
Totally wrong, in the context of 1782 a militia’s purpose, and the reasons the states were so attached to them, was primarily to protect the western borders of the states from indian attacks. The states feared that a national army would not be around to protect their frontiers the way a local “well regulated militia” was. That is why they insisted on protection for their religions.
“Switzerland is that every citizen owned and was trained to use pistols and rifles.” Utter bullshit. There were political, economic and military reasons not to invade Switzerland, but citizens with WWI era rifles were not a threat to the german army. Well fortified defensive positions in difficult mountain terrain were, in fact it was the combination of terrain in the presence of well guarded anti-tank gun emplacements that were the biggest threat. In fact, swiss plans called only for defense of the mountains and passes, ceding control of the populated areas and cities to the germans by default. In other words that armed citizenry was not considered to be an effective part of the defense by the Swiss themselves. Stop rewriting history.
A handgun is of little or no value to the “defense of a free state”. If you want argue that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own SAM’s and anti-tank weapons – then you have a point. But its silly to think the framer’s intended “Well-regulated militia” to refer to individual concealed carry. If we believe we should have individual concealed carry in the constitution, let’s put it there, but let’s not pretend that was the original intent.
#57
Well, I guess if you’re only going to take the time to respond to two arguments, it’s best to pick (1) pointlessly vague and (2) completely irrelevant ones.
Chris in AL #54
Yea I see what you’re saying. I guess thats all true if the people are organized enough and all. But it won’t be the Russians or somebody the people have to fight it will be the ones most people will never recognize as an enemy-it will be our own government. But yea you’re right, I wasn’t trying to make an argument for not having guns at all or anything.
@57
Research what James Madison, the “Father of the Bill of Rights” and original writer of the 2nd Ammendment, wrote regarding the individual right to keep and bear arms. It was to protect the individual right as well as the militia that was comprised of the people.
@bobzbob – Concealed carry? No, probably not. The very concept of having to hide it from a bunch of frightened panic-stricken pansies that wet themselves whenever they see a gun in public that isn’t accompanied by a shiny metal star would’ve been inconceivable to them.
@Original Article, I understand what he’s saying, but I see that as a disaster. If the second amendment is incorporated then a few things happen. First, whatever the federal government gets away with in doing limitations, will affect ALL of us – not just those in weird places like Chicago and D.C. And that gang of ne’er-do-wells up there in D.C. is far more dangerous and far less accountable to me and mine than my state government is.
Second, the fight moves from just individual regulation that we fight, and sometimes win and sometimes lose in an ongoing dance to an all out press towards repealing the second amendment. Right now that’s a dangerous political proposition without a lot of support, because people who want (for whatever insane reason) to live in a state that oppresses you through trying to suppress your right to own a firearm are able to. After this, they won’t, and the pressure will be on to change things at the top.
NO THANK YOU. All y’all living in disasters like Chicago and D.C. that want to taste freedom can just move somewhere that has it, and fight alongside the people there to keep it. Don’t foist your nightmare on the rest of us.