I've Been Accused of being Liberal. Okay I'm laying my cards on the table (2 Viewers)

[LSSpam]

Anyways - if you believe the wording of the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the people/states from a tyrannical government then doesn;t it stand to reason that the people/states should have access to the weapons the central government has?

The 2nd Amendment, as I understand it personnally, is simply the right to protect yourself. Having to rely on the Federal government to protect you in all regards involves a high level of dependency. Of course, we depend on the federal government for a lot of things, represent our collective interests on a national level, maintan law and order, educate us, etc. But at the very least "personnal protection" seems to be reserved for us and maintaining as much independence from the Federal Government as reasonable seems like a good deal to me. Especially in light of Katrina when the Federal government's ability to protect us was demonstrated to be quite limited at times.

 

[JimEverett]

The 2nd Amendment, as I understand it personnally, is simply the right to protect yourself. Having to rely on the Federal government to protect you in all regards involves a high level of dependency. Of course, we depend on the federal government for a lot of things, represent our collective interests on a national level, maintan law and order, educate us, etc. But at the very least "personnal protection" seems to be reserved for us and maintaining as much independence from the Federal Government as reasonable seems like a good deal to me. Especially in light of Katrina when the Federal government's ability to protect us was demonstrated to be quite limited at times.

I should have made it clear that I was responding to some posts earlier that were defending the idea that the purpose of the Amendment was to protect people from a possible tyranny here in the U.S.
I think there is an obvious dilemna if you adopt that position, either:

a - the situation has changed so much because of the fact that the U.S. now has a sizeable standing army and that army has incredibly powerful weapons therefore the idea that a citizenry can be armed well enough to protect themselves from such a power is ridiculous;
or
b - citizens should have the right to own any weapon the U.S. government has in its arsenal.

 

[Saintman2884]

Jim, let me point out something to you as a matter of contention. for a long time in Europe it was illegal to own a gun or firearm because the governments their prohibited it. Thats why minorities like Jews couldn't fight back against lynch mobs and pogroms in Russia and other places. Europe even after the Enlightenment was very gun control but whose liberal thinking people overlooked certain problems like in Germany and France where Anti-antisemitism was rampant. I am a big defender of gun rights. Not because I dislike liberals and I don't it because it s a lesson of history. Human nature is human nature, and despite what some liberals say about making society better overall, that doesn't deter me from protecting myself. In Nazi Germany you couldn't own a gun, even in most Democratic societies in Europe today gun control is very strict, and thats the problem IMHO Jim.

Ted Nugent may be a tad bit on the wacko side, but he said it best, an armed society is a polite society.

 

[RebSaint]

I do not think that the Bill of Rights - or any Amendments - have one, or even a few, meanings/purposes, etc. That is what I gather an "originalist" believes. But that makes no sense - as people can agree on the wording of a phrase but not agree as to its purpose or its intent. The "founding fathers" certainly disagreed over meanings and intents - but why limit yourself to them if you are an "originalist" since it is "we the people" who established the Constitution.

Anyways - if you believe the wording of the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the people/states from a tyrannical government then doesn;t it stand to reason that the people/states should have access to the weapons the central government has? I mean while having some amount (if history is any indicator it will be very very far from most) of resistance with handguns, rifles, and shotguns will cause problems for any government trying to exert its will - it certainly wouldn;t be a match for anything like what the U.S. military has become today.

You're on very shaky historical ground here, JE. The adoption of the Bill of Rights did have a purpose vis a vis the adoption of a new government through the Constitution which compared to the articles centralized power. The colonists didn't want to go through the sam nonesense 30 years later with a king.

Do you believe "we the people" have a right to rebel against what may be percieved as a tyrannical government? The right to rebel is the right of every enlightened polity according to most of the philosophers who influenced the framers.

 

[JimEverett]

You're on very shaky historical ground here, JE. The adoption of the Bill of Rights did have a purpose vis a vis the adoption of a new government through the Constitution which compared to the articles centralized power. The colonists didn't want to go through the sam nonesense 30 years later with a king.

Do you believe "we the people" have a right to rebel against what may be percieved as a tyrannical government? The right to rebel is the right of every enlightened polity according to most of the philosophers who influenced the framers.

The generalized point was basically questioning the jurisprudence of "originalism" which has become very popular recently with Antonin Scalia and the Federalist Society leading the way. When you are interpreting a part of the Constitution the idea that you can find the "original" intent (for jurisprudence purposes) seems ludicrous given that there were so many varied intents - most notably from the fact that the Constitution wasn;t like a piece of legislation, it was a Constitution "by the people" - and in many cases the people voted for it directly. Now how are you going to find out the intent of all those people? And do you really think that if you could possibly come up with the intent of all those people that you could somehow reduce it to a single "intent"?

 

[Saintman2884]

Reb, the founding fathers were influenced by john Locke and John Stuart Mills, but IMHO their is one big thing they overlooked: Slavery. Thats the biggest thing that hurt this country for the longest time. Jefferson wanted to go farther and outlaw the slave trade but couldn't because of Southern representatives demanding it. Thats a good warning sign Reb IMHO that trouble was coming. You know I understand we were trying to build a country at the time but man slavery existed for almost 100 years after the Revolution, and Segregation took its place.

Reb we are paying the price for the slavery problem today, or as they saw it the peculiar institution as it was called in the day.

Jefferson had to have known we he wrote the words all men are created equal, that something was not totally right. He was an educated man Reb he knew the contradictions in this writing he was saying. And he lived till 1826 and probably saw the problems the slavery question had gone too. and he may have indeed regretted not doing it IMHO, but thats pure speculation

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

I think I missed this thread first go 'round. Time to chime in with my "right-wing" views.

Issues:

Gun Control: See 2nd Amendment. (It's right there, immediately following the 1st Amendment, FYI.) Obviously our founding fathers thought it was pretty damn important.) Not in favor of allowing AUTOMATIC (not to be confused with SEMI-automatic) assault rifles in the hands of citizens. Weapons of warfare belong in the hands of the military; hunting/protection weapons are fine in the hands of the citizenry.

Gay marriage/abortion: States rights issues. The fed has no constitutional jurisdiction here. ("...reserved by the states.") I should note that states tell women what they cannot do with their bodies on a daily basis. All states, save for Nevada, tell a woman she cannot sell her body for sex. So the "my body, my choice" argument falls flat with me. That said, I reiterate: it's a states' rights issue, not a federal issue. Want an abortion? Go to a state which allows it. But don't tell me, feds, how to run my state. Gay marriage? Doesn't bother me. Again, though, states' rights. Feds cannot mandate how states govern these types of issues.

Church and State: Separate. Hands off. Period.

Taxes: Flat tax proponent. Everyone who earns a dollar should pay the same personal income tax on that dollar. Those who earn below poverty level pay nothing; those who earn above poverty level are taxed for dollars earned over and above poverty level. There is no cap on taxes, meaning the rich continue to pay taxes on each dollar earned, no matter if they earn a million a year or half a billion a year. Exemptions, if any, would be minimal.

Foreign Policy: Iraq needed change, and we changed it from the top. Unfortunately there was no "ok, now what?" contingency plan in place, and the entire episode has turned to crap. Accelerate the turn-over process and get our soldiers out. Continue to provide support in the form of intelligence, strategy, training of Iraqis, etc., but end the needless loss of American life and the wanton wasteful spending.

Education: This is a states' rights issue. Cut out the confiscatory taxation of states, return their money to them, and let them manage their own educational systems. Form national committees (comprised of people nominated by the states themselves) which are not subject to any federal government intervention, for the purpose of ensuring that a minimum standard of education exists across the nation. But eradicate government tinkering, including the use of states' monies to <s>blackmail</s> force states to comply with federal mandates; also eliminate the federal implementations of social engineering within the school system.

Trade: I'm for free trade, as long as it does not favor foreign countries over our own domestic producers of goods and services. Prevent foreign countries from flooding our markets with goods and services produced by the use of cheap labor, as it unfairly advantages foreign competitors.

Welfare: I think some social welfare is good and necessary; we need a social safety net, but not a hammock. (couldn't state it any better than this) Provide incentives for able-bodied recipients to make the transition from the welfare rolls to the workforce (or, as a last resort, institute disincentives for not doing so).

Campaign Finance--Too many special interest groups, too much corporate money. McCain/Feingold is a good step.

Death Penalty--I, too, think death is far too merciful a fate for most. I think prison needs to be made almost inhumane. (I said almost, you ACLU types.) Get rid of the comforts of life and make it a truly undesirable place to be. Re-institute hard labor standards. (IOW, let Joe Arpaio run the federal prison system) That said, I am in favor of the death penalty in certain instances, including: a) if more than one credible witness actually sees the convict commit the crime; b) if the convict chooses death over life in prison; c) in the cases of unusually horrific crimes.

Social Security--I am against trusting the federal government with any more of my tax money than absolutely necessary. They're piss-poor money managers, as it is. Privatization of SS is a good first step.

Energy--I am in favor of the passage of a bill which a) opens the ANWR to exploration; b) provides for the construction of a handful of new domestic refineries; and c) mandates that energy companies seek out alternative energy sources. (All or nothing, with this bill) Included in the mandate would be specific measurables which hold said companies accountable for progressing towards this end within a given time frame. I'm also in favor of nuclear power. It's much cleaner than the burning of fossil fuels for the generation of power. And it's much cheaper.

Environment--I believe in common sense government protection of this nation's natural resources. I believe lobbyists should have no influence on this issue whatsoever. I also believe in a reasonable approach to the global temperature change discussion. Last, I believe corporations should be good citizens in this regard.

Immigration--No more laws limiting immigration. Enforce the ones on the books. Building a fence won't help and would be a big waste of money. (again, well-stated) The caveat here would be that anyone currently in this country illegally would be given two choices: a) sign up as a citizen and/or taxpayer, if you're working; if not working, find a job; or b) adios.

Civil Liberties--US Citizens should continue to enjoy the protections provided by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Non-citizens who are here, however, should be entitled to enjoy no such liberties. By and large, the federal government should be limited. States should take back the power which is rightfully theirs, and should enforce their own civil laws. There are 50 states in the union. Don't like one state's laws? Load up the U-Haul and find another one. Government should stay out of people's bedrooms, out of churches, out of private communications, etc.

As far as many categories not covered in Reb's template? I believe in the simple beauty of the reserved powers clause. (See below) Not mentioned in the Constitution? States' call. End of story.



In other words, the states run this country, the states run the federal government, and not the other way around. This entire issue has become bastageized over time. But it hasn't changed one bit in the way it reads to this day.

- I agree with most of what you had to say, Houdat- especially re. the Flat Tax and the death penalty (it's way too expensive- let 'em rot), but I'm not real clear on the States' rights stuff. I'm admittedly no historian, and I understand that the Constitution advocates states rights, but I guess when I think of "our" laws, i think of the U.S. laws- not "Louisiana's" or "California's" or "Texas's" laws. Help me understand what the benefits of states' laws would be to the average person....

 

[JimEverett]

Jim, let me point out something to you as a matter of contention. for a long time in Europe it was illegal to own a gun or firearm because the governments their prohibited it. Thats why minorities like Jews couldn't fight back against lynch mobs and pogroms in Russia and other places. Europe even after the Enlightenment was very gun control but whose liberal thinking people overlooked certain problems like in Germany and France where Anti-antisemitism was rampant. I am a big defender of gun rights. Not because I dislike liberals and I don't it because it s a lesson of history. Human nature is human nature, and despite what some liberals say about making society better overall, that doesn't deter me from protecting myself. In Nazi Germany you couldn't own a gun, even in most Democratic societies in Europe today gun control is very strict, and thats the problem IMHO Jim.

Ted Nugent may be a tad bit on the wacko side, but he said it best, an armed society is a polite society.

There wasn;t gun control in the South in the 1950s and 1960s - yet a central government came in and forced people (arguably a large majority) and states to submit against their will. Why?
I think part of the answer (maybe not the most important part) lies in the fact that the federal government had so much more power - brute physical power.

And don;t get me wrong - I am not arguing that people do not have the right to bear arms. I am questioning the idea of why we have that right.

 

[RebSaint]

The generalized point was basically questioning the jurisprudence of "originalism" which has become very popular recently with Antonin Scalia and the Federalist Society leading the way. When you are interpreting a part of the Constitution the idea that you can find the "original" intent (for jurisprudence purposes) seems ludicrous given that there were so many varied intents - most notably from the fact that the Constitution wasn;t like a piece of legislation, it was a Constitution "by the people" - and in many cases the people voted for it directly. Now how are you going to find out the intent of all those people? And do you really think that if you could possibly come up with the intent of all those people that you could somehow reduce it to a single "intent"?

How can you find intent of "these people"--answer--history. Granted, ascertaining "intent" for a 200+ document is very dicey, but I think the intent of the 2nd Amendment was quite clear--to give the "people" the ability to overthrow a tryrannical ruler in the wake of adopting a document which centralized federal power, resulting from a contentious comprimise to give "the people" a measure of safe guards to control leviathan.

These are good points, but pedogocally somewhat flawed. I'm not up on the latest nomenclature of "intent" of the framers. I'm assuming that "originalism" is synonomous with "intent."

The Constitution wasn't drafted, "by the people" but moreso of a coterie of a bunch of elites interested in the survival of a fragile republic. The Bill of Rights, most historians recognize as more of a representation of "the people."

Although the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, from a historical perspective, it must be viewed as something seperate and an expression of more of, at the time what the "the people," or the more democratic forces at work at the time.

 

[LSSpam]

There wasn;t gun control in the South in the 1950s and 1960s - yet a central government came in and forced people (arguably a large majority) and states to submit against their will. Why?
I think part of the answer (maybe not the most important part) lies in the fact that the federal government had so much more power - brute physical power.

And don;t get me wrong - I am not arguing that people do not have the right to bear arms. I am questioning the idea of why we have that right.

Well you are severely underestimating the ability of a determined population over a great area to institute an armed rebellion. We're struggling to occupy a country of 26 million people crammed into 169,000 sq/m. The state of Texas alone is 20 million/260,000 sq/m.

Admittly we don't have AK-47s or RPGs, but there's little doubt any sizeable "rebellion" would give the US significant trouble in occupying the area, and native guns would figure into it.

I admit I think some people may have watched Red Dawn a bit too many times but we're a lot more capable of rebellion then you seem to be giving credit too.

 

[HouDat]

- I agree with most of what you had to say, Houdat- especially re. the Flat Tax and the death penalty (it's way too expensive- let 'em rot), but I'm not real clear on the States' rights stuff. I'm admittedly no historian, and I understand that the Constitution advocates states rights, but I guess when I think of "our" laws, i think of the U.S. laws- not "Louisiana's" or "California's" or "Texas's" laws. Help me understand what the benefits of states' laws would be to the average person....

I guess it boils down to what I see as an increasingly activist Supreme Court continually making power grabs on behalf of the Feds. And also, increasingly activist Congresses doing the same.

When the Constitution was originally drawn up, it was done with a very limited Federal government in mind. Specific powers were granted to the Feds. The first logical question which arises in my mind is "Granted by whom?". By the states. In other words, the states originally had the powers and granted some of them to the Federal government they were forming.

That the Federal government today acts as the final authority is a huge sticking point for me. I still do not see where in this nation's history the states granted the Feds this "final authority" which the Feds now make the un-spoken claim of possessing. The deck, however, is stacked in favor of the Feds, by virtue of their having the activist Supreme Court in their corner.

At least that's the way I see it.

 

[Saintman2884]

Jim once agian look at Europe and see its past as a cautionary tale. Even in very liberal countries like FRance and Germany their is extreme gun control. Thats a problem Jim, I would feel uncomfortable with a government telling me I cant own a gun because to trust them. Thats unacceptable IMHO. Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Czarist Russia, all of them prohibited its citizens from owning guns becuase they wanted to control them.

Liberalism prides it self on individual rights well why does it clamp down on gun rights, it is a contradition I dont get Jimmy. I dont care how liberal one says they are, or how sincere they may be, I dont buy gun control arguments at all. the founding fathers knew human nature, some people dont know it and have their heads in the clouds for lack of a better word.

 

[JimEverett]

How can you find intent of "these people"--answer--history.

I don;t see how history can discover the reasoning/interpretation/intent every single citizen of the 11 states that ratified the Bill of Rights.
Its the history of those people and putting our best guess as to how they understood the power of government and the people that should control. While the intent of the so-called "founding fathers" might be helpful, they are far from the source of power and therefore their intent is no more important than that Joe Blow from Newark.

 

[JimEverett]

Well you are severely underestimating the ability of a determined population over a great area to institute an armed rebellion. We're struggling to occupy a country of 26 million people crammed into 169,000 sq/m. The state of Texas alone is 20 million/260,000 sq/m.

Admittly we don't have AK-47s or RPGs, but there's little doubt any sizeable "rebellion" would give the US significant trouble in occupying the area, and native guns would figure into it.

I admit I think some people may have watched Red Dawn a bit too many times but we're a lot more capable of rebellion then you seem to be giving credit too.

That is a good point.
However, I still think that if you believe that THE reason for the 2nd Amendment is the ability for armed rebellion against a tyrannical central governemnt the the dilemma I set up still applies.
I mean if that is the purpose of it then we should give great deference to the people in their ability to own anything the government owns - since we want the people to be able to fight the central government.

 

[LSSpam]

That is a good point.
However, I still think that if you believe that THE reason for the 2nd Amendment is the ability for armed rebellion against a tyrannical central governemnt the the dilemma I set up still applies.
I mean if that is the purpose of it then we should give great deference to the people in their ability to own anything the government owns - since we want the people to be able to fight the central government.

I agree that if THE reason is the ability to overthrow the government then it is a weak reason. A determined population could pursue a rebellion even against the modern US army, but clearly we don't have all of the "tools" in order to be highly succesful at it available to us. Therefore that can't be considered the sole or even primary reason for the 2nd amendment anymore.

I fall back on my "personnal protection" point of view. Which I think also has validity from an "original intent" position because clearly personnal protection was even more of an issue at that time then now. The ability to "rebel" is simply the large scale expression of that, i.e. the ability to protect yourself from the government.

The "right" has been chipped away on the top end (ability to protect yourself from the government) but the core principal remains.