Mormons and the 2nd Admendment, The Bill of Rights

[thesometimesaint]

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

The power is not an allusion.  That power is often used for evil purposes, but it can also be used to resist evil.  Weapons do take lives, but they also save lives.

SEE https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/04/america-addicted-to-guns-illusion-strength-security

I've had  to kill people. It was justified, but I will never say it was a good thing.

[pogi]

26 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

SEE https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/04/america-addicted-to-guns-illusion-strength-security

I've had  to kill people. It was justified, but I will never say it was a good thing.

Military?

I am sorry that you have to bear that.

That article does no harm to my previous comment.  What I said is true, guns do give power (the article admits that) and guns do and have saved innocent victims.  I never said they guarantee safety, and I never said that I am not in favor of some controls.  

 

 

Edited May 18, 2017 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Military?

I am sorry that you have to bear that.

That article does no harm to my previous comment.  What I said is true, guns do give power (the article admits that) and guns do and have saved innocent victims.  I never said they guarantee safety, and I never said that I am not in favor of some controls. 

I was in the military, but no not while I was in the military. I was that nasty personnel Sergeant that sent people everywhere.

The illusion of power can be just as effective as real power. But they really aren't the same thing and it certainly is not safety. Sadly young men in particular think having a gun gives them power. It just gets them dead. I'm in favor of some controls on firearms too. I'm not one of those that want them banned entirely. Neither am I in favor of unlimited gun possession. Everyone doesn't need a gun.

[pogi]

49 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I was in the military, but no not while I was in the military. I was that nasty personnel Sergeant that sent people everywhere.

The illusion of power can be just as effective as real power. But they really aren't the same thing and it certainly is not safety. Sadly young men in particular think having a gun gives them power. It just gets them dead. I'm in favor of some controls on firearms too. I'm not one of those that want them banned entirely. Neither am I in favor of unlimited gun possession. Everyone doesn't need a gun.

I don't know the circumstances of you using your firearm, but you mentioned that it was justified.  Would I be wrong in assuming that you were protecting your own life or that of another potential innocent victim?  Did that firearm not provide safety?  Are you, or someone you were protecting, alive today because you were carrying a weapon?

I agree, everyone doesn't need a gun.  I don't own one, nor do I want to own one, but if the time ever came that I felt threatened and needed to protect myself or my family, I would be glad to have the option and choice to purchase a gun. 

[Guest]

16 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Obviously not and there are plenty of places like Europe that have been relatively stable with limited rights to protection and possessing weapons. 

We live in America, maybe this discussion should be about our laws, and the intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The restriction of gun laws and and then requiring of the surrender of those guys, is what allow Hitler to become a dictator, and to rid both German and Jews from defending themselves. 

[MiserereNobis]

14 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

The restriction of gun laws and and then requiring of the surrender of those guys, is what allow Hitler to become a dictator, and to rid both German and Jews from defending themselves. 

This is an oft-repeated idea that is not really true (the truth is much more nuanced).

Ben Carson made this claim.  Here's the fact checking on it (read the article for the details):

Quote

Carson said that under the Nazis, "German citizens were disarmed by their government in the late 1930s," which allowed the Nazis to "carry out their evil intentions with relatively little resistance."

This is a misreading of history on two levels. First, German citizens as a whole were not disarmed by the Nazis. Jews and other supposed enemies of the state were subject to having their weapons seized. But for most German citizens, the Nazi period was one in which gun regulations were loosened, not tightened. 

Second, a lack of guns was not the issue. If the majority of Germans had wanted to use these guns to fight the Nazis, they could have. But they didn’t. Carson ignores that the Nazis enjoyed significant popular support, or at least, broad acquiescence.

We rate this claim False.

 

ETA:  Wikipedia actually has a decent article on this false theory, too:  Nazi gun control theory

Here's a good quote from the article:

Quote

The Jews of Germany constituted less than 1 percent of the country's population. It is preposterous to argue that the possession of firearms would have enabled them to mount resistance against a systematic program of persecution implemented by a modern bureaucracy, enforced by a well-armed police state, and either supported or tolerated by the majority of the German population. Mr. Carson’s suggestion that ordinary Germans, had they had guns, would have risked their lives in armed resistance against the regime simply does not comport with the regrettable historical reality of a regime that was quite popular at home. Inside Germany, only the army possessed the physical force necessary for defying or overthrowing the Nazis, but the generals had thrown in their lot with Hitler early on.

 

Edited May 18, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is an oft-repeated idea that is not really true (the truth is much more nuanced).

Ben Carson made this claim.  Here's the fact checking on it (read the article for the details):

 

ETA:  Wikipedia actually has a decent article on this false theory, too:  Nazi gun control theory

Here's a good quote from the article:

 

Maybe I should have qualified my remarks, regardless of my earlier statement, it was of course those Germans whom they felt would revel and thos who would not join the party. Of course, Jews and other gropes we disarmed. Of course, why take guns from those who supported Hitler. As for myself, forgetting to mention this, human error. 

[longview]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't consider it thuggish to shoot someone during an armed standoff.

Ruby Ridge was an illegal operation by the FBI to trample on the 2nd amendment rights of the people to keep and bear arms.  Municipalities like Chicago and D.C. and New York that have ordinances abrogating the rights of citizens to self defense, then the situation becomes more intolerable.

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I tend to agree that the tendency of police to go in with SWAT everywhere is a huge problem

SWAT is one thing.  It is needed to contain an out of control domestic situation or to confront bank robbers.  It is a whole separate thing to see the IRS have an elite team to barge in on the homes of "tax cheaters."  It is ludicrous for the Education Department to send their own team to ransack the home of a scofflaw for not keeping up with student loan.  Practically every US department has their own assault force.  It is going beyond the pale.

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

But once you raise weapons to the police, knowing they are the police then you should expect to be killed.

I generally agree.  But when you have stuff like "Civil Asset Forfeiture" and other unaccountable police actions, we get closer to the day where we will be forced to fight off government thugs.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, longview said:

SWAT is one thing.  It is needed to contain an out of control domestic situation or to confront bank robbers.  It is a whole separate thing to see the IRS have an elite team to barge in on the homes of "tax cheaters."  It is ludicrous for the Education Department to send their own team to ransack the home of a scofflaw for not keeping up with student loan.  Practically every US department has their own assault force.  It is going beyond the pale.

We have W to thank for this. After 9-11 he got all this going. The problem is anything the govt starts is hard to stop. Some suspect these raids are an intentional effort by these various teams to continue to justify their existence and to make expenditures to continue to ask for funding from congress. There is probably truth to this. A lot of these raids are just way overboard.

[Anijen]

I am for the Second Amendment.

I own many guns. I am very well trained in their use. I use them to hunt, target shoot, and for self defense and for the defense of others. I am legally authorized to conceal carry, although I rarely do because most of my time has been in school, court, or church. It is against school policy (in South Dakota in the colleges and universities) and church policy to not carry, but it is not against the state law, (therefore one can carry and not break the law even though it is against policy). I have chosen to follow the policy, thus, I do not carry.

Regarding the Second Amendment: I agree, 100%, with the late (very great)  Justice Antonin Scalia on the interpretation of the Second Amendment: Scalia believed that the 2nd Amendment gives the following protections:

• Gun rights can be restricted (and should be) for felons, for some misdemeanors (i.e. domestic violence), the mentally ill, and in sensitive places.
• Rehabilitated Felons may possess a firearm, unless the state constitution explicitly prohibits it. Note: here, Scalia allows for both the restoration of civil rights and still allows the 10th Amendment right for a state to deny them that right if it is expressed in that states' constitution.
• The Second Amendment right to gun ownership is individual, not only collective. Justice Scalia wrote the Courts decision in District of Columbia v. Heller and is still good law today. Scalia wrote, and I paraphrase here; that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to own a gun for private use--not only in connection with service in a militia. The genius of Scalia's writing here left open much room for continued gun regulation, short of an absolute ban.

 

We must know what the meaning of "militia" as interpreted by Madison and the people during the colonial time.  Militia was armed men (and women) made up by the people. IOW the militia was not the army, marines or the navy, it was not a police force, it was not a private security group. The militia was made from your bakers, candlemakers, milkmen, smelters, fishers, boatmen, store owners, church pastors and ministers. The militia were the people.

Many of the countrymen came in as indentured servants, after their servitude they were given certain things, one of the things they were always given was a gun. It was not just given for hunting, but also for self defense (i.e. indian attacks). Firearms at this time were not just muskets, but rifles, pistols and other type of firearms. Gun ownership was very common and not just for militia or the past indentured servants. In fact with near certainty there was not a household that did not own some type of firearm. Even those in poverty had a firearm of some type.

The bottomline, the reason we have the Second Amendment is out of necessity and to limit and control the government who would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens militia, enabling a politicized standing army, or a select militia to rule. The Second Amendment was the people's desire to deny Congress the power to abridge the ancient right right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

 

Edited May 19, 2017 by Anijen

[thesometimesaint]

22 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't know the circumstances of you using your firearm, but you mentioned that it was justified.  Would I be wrong in assuming that you were protecting your own life or that of another potential innocent victim?  Did that firearm not provide safety?  Are you, or someone you were protecting, alive today because you were carrying a weapon?

I agree, everyone doesn't need a gun.  I don't own one, nor do I want to own one, but if the time ever came that I felt threatened and needed to protect myself or my family, I would be glad to have the option and choice to purchase a gun. 

My own and the life of others. My safety wasn't a concern.  I wouldn't have been there in the first place if my safety was a concern. Looking down the wrong end of a gun was. They are alive and well AFAIK.

Guns take lots and lots of practice to use correctly/accurately, and under the right conditions when to shoot. if you wait till the threat is upon you it is you that is dead.

[thesometimesaint]

5 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I am for the Second Amendment.

I own many guns. I am very well trained in their use. I use them to hunt, target shoot, and for self defense and for the defense of others. I am legally authorized to conceal carry, although I rarely do because most of my time has been in school, court, or church. It is against school policy (in South Dakota in the colleges and universities) and church policy to not carry, but it is not against the state law, (therefore one can carry and not break the law even though it is against policy). I have chosen to follow the policy, thus, I do not carry.

Regarding the Second Amendment: I agree, 100%, with the late (very great)  Justice Antonin Scalia on the interpretation of the Second Amendment: Scalia believed that the 2nd Amendment gives the following protections:

• Gun rights can be restricted (and should be) for felons, for some misdemeanors (i.e. domestic violence), the mentally ill, and in sensitive places.
• Felons may possess a firearm, unless the state constitution explicitly prohibits it. Note: here, Scalia allows for both the restoration of civil rights and still allows the 10th Amendment right for a state to deny them that right if it is expressed in that states' constitution.
• The Second Amendment right to gun ownership is individual, not only collective. Justice Scalia wrote the Courts decision in District of Columbia v. Heller and is still good law today. Scalia wrote, and I paraphrase here; that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to own a gun for private use--not only in connection with service in a militia. The genius of Scalia's writing here left open much room for continued gun regulation, short of an absolute ban.

 

We must know what the meaning of "militia" as interpreted by Madison and the people during the colonial time.  Militia was armed men (and women) made up by the people. IOW the militia was not the army, marines or the navy, it was not a police force, it was not a private security group. The militia was made from your bakers, candlemakers, milkmen, smelters, fishers, boatmen, store owners, church pastors and ministers. The militia were the people.

Many of the countrymen came in as indentured servants, after their servitude they were given certain things, one of the things they were always given was a gun. It was not just given for hunting, but also for self defense (i.e. indian attacks). Firearms at this time were not just muskets, but rifles, pistols and other type of firearms. Gun ownership was very common and not just for militia or the past indentured servants. In fact with near certainty there was not a household that did not own some type of firearm. Even those in poverty had a firearm of some type.

The bottomline, the reason we have the Second Amendment is out of necessity and to limit and control the government who would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens militia, enabling a politicized standing army, or a select militia to rule. The Second Amendment was the people's desire to deny Congress the power to abridge the ancient right right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

The last thing the Founders wanted was for a bunch of yahoo's with guns threatening the government.

[Anijen]

3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The last thing the Founders wanted was for a bunch of yahoo's with guns threatening the government.

You are correct, but with some exceptions. Look at it from a different perspective. The last thing the British government wanted was a bunch of colonists ["yahoo's] with guns threatening the government.

The founders did not want criminals, drunks, collaborators [in other words "yahoo's") threatening the government. I am under the opinion (the correct opinion) that the founders did not want anyone (with a gun or without a gun), anyone threatening the government. However, the Founders placed the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights for that specific reason in certain exceptional cases.

For instance, during the Revolutionary War:

 England knew that military rule would be difficult to impose on an armed populace. General Gage only had about 2,000 men (troops) in Boston and there were thousands of armed men in Boston alone and more in the surrounding area. One response to the problem was to deprive the American Colonist of weapons and gun powder (see powder alarm). The Battle of Lexington and Concord purposes were to disarm the colonist. The ideology underlying American resistance was explicitly premised on the right of self-defense. This included the self defense of all inalienable rights. From that point the self defense foundation was constructed which was a political theory in which the people were the masters and the government was the servant, so that the people have the right to remove a disobedient servant. The Bill of Rights was born out of the regulations England was placing on the colonists. After the United States won their independence they wanted a solid (written) document (the Constitution) which would be written into this supreme law of the land to be a promise, an assurance that the people would not have certain inalienable rights taken away. The Second Amendment (the right to bear arms) was a written assurance that the citizens of the United States would not have its own government taking away their right to defend themselves.

So as an answer to your post: Yes the government did not want a bunch of "yahoo's threatening the government, with the exception of, if that government was restricting the rights of the people.

[Anijen]

23 hours ago, pogi said:

I agree, everyone doesn't need a gun.  I don't own one, nor do I want to own one, but if the time ever came that I felt threatened and needed to protect myself or my family, I would be glad to have the option and choice to purchase a gun. 

I agree completely with Pogi's post (above). Heaven forbid the government allow everyone to own a gun. That would be wholly negligent and and would not help our government to protect us from those who would use a gun in a crime. I am for gun regulation as interpreted by Justice Scalia (see one of my above posts). Also anyone who does not want to own a gun (like Pogi) should not be compelled to own one.

Likewise, like Pogi states, "f the time ever came that I felt threatened and needed to protect myself or my family, I would be glad to have the option and choice to purchase a gun." Pogi has very wise words.

If I do not want to buy a gun, that is great, but I would also like for someone else who can legally buy, carry, and use to protect me and my family if our lives are ever threatened. I want someone else to be able to buy one.

[thesometimesaint]

24 minutes ago, Anijen said:

You are correct, but with some exceptions. Look at it from a different perspective. The last thing the British government wanted was a bunch of colonists ["yahoo's] with guns threatening the government.

The founders did not want criminals, drunks, collaborators [in other words "yahoo's") threatening the government. I am under the opinion (the correct opinion) that the founders did not want anyone (with a gun or without a gun), anyone threatening the government. However, the Founders placed the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights for that specific reason in certain exceptional cases.

For instance, during the Revolutionary War:

 England knew that military rule would be difficult to impose on an armed populace. General Gage only had about 2,000 men (troops) in Boston and there were thousands of armed men in Boston alone and more in the surrounding area. One response to the problem was to deprive the American Colonist of weapons and gun powder (see powder alarm). The Battle of Lexington and Concord purposes were to disarm the colonist. The ideology underlying American resistance was explicitly premised on the right of self-defense. This included the self defense of all inalienable rights. From that point the self defense foundation was constructed which was a political theory in which the people were the masters and the government was the servant, so that the people have the right to remove a disobedient servant. The Bill of Rights was born out of the regulations England was placing on the colonists. After the United States won their independence they wanted a solid (written) document (the Constitution) which would be written into this supreme law of the land to be a promise, an assurance that the people would not have certain inalienable rights taken away. The Second Amendment (the right to bear arms) was a written assurance that the citizens of the United States would not have its own government taking away their right to defend themselves.

So as an answer to your post: Yes the government did not want a bunch of "yahoo's threatening the government, with the exception of, if that government was restricting the rights of the people.

The Founders provided for the peaceful change of governments. It is right there in our Constitution. Call for a Constitutional Amendment and/or a Constitutional Convention, if necessary. Use of Arms to change governments is forbidden. It is TREASON.

We are not bound by the Declaration of Independence. We are bound by the US Constitution.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Founders provided for the peaceful change of governments. It is right there in our Constitution. Call for a Constitutional Amendment and/or a Constitutional Convention, if necessary. Use of Arms to change governments is forbidden. It is TREASON.

We are not bound by the Declaration of Independence. We are bound by the US Constitution.

Again, we can disagree with the views of some founders like Jefferson. But let's not misrepresent them. Some (not all by any means) thought the populace should be armed to rise up in revolution if the government got out of hand. Also recognize that they all were already fine with treason since of course that's what they did in the American Revolution. So pointing to treason doesn't carry the weight you think it does. (Speaking as someone who grew up in an area heavily colonized by people loyalists who weren't too sympathetic to how they were treated)

Quote

The last thing the Founders wanted was for a bunch of yahoo's with guns threatening the government.

This is just not accurate as even a quick google of founders writings on guns will demonstrate. I posted a handful of quotes yesterday but there are dozens you can read with a quick search.

Now I personally used to think it a silly position. After seeing Venezuela over the past few years I'm no longer so sure.

 

Edited May 19, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

23 hours ago, longview said:

Ruby Ridge was an illegal operation by the FBI to trample on the 2nd amendment rights of the people to keep and bear arms.  Municipalities like Chicago and D.C. and New York that have ordinances abrogating the rights of citizens to self defense, then the situation becomes more intolerable.

If they thought it illegal there's a really straightforward way to deal with it. Unfortunately it involves lawyers not guns which is what those people chose. Weaver had his chance to go to court but refused to show up. When the police arrived there was a shootout. As soon as you're in a gunfight with the police you can no longer complain about being shot (IMO). Doesn't matter whether you're innocent or guilty of the charges. If you're choice is to shoot at the police you should expect that they will shoot back.

I can be critical of the actions of the police in these circumstances while simultaneously being critical of Weaver and company. The proper response to police is a legal and political one.

Quote

I generally agree.  But when you have stuff like "Civil Asset Forfeiture" and other unaccountable police actions, we get closer to the day where we will be forced to fight off government thugs.

Again the proper way to response is to persuade other people to change the laws. I really, really don't like the asset confiscation far too much of government uses. However in some states the laws have changed. What you don't have the right to do is "fight off government thugs" for the obvious reason that few will be sympathetic and eventually you'll all end up dead or imprisoned on attempted murder charges.

Edited May 19, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

20 hours ago, RevTestament said:

We have W to thank for this. After 9-11 he got all this going. The problem is anything the govt starts is hard to stop. Some suspect these raids are an intentional effort by these various teams to continue to justify their existence and to make expenditures to continue to ask for funding from congress. There is probably truth to this. A lot of these raids are just way overboard.

I think the problem pre-dates Bush, although the military equipment police got under Bush was ridiculous. But the way our justice system got into its current mess was due to hundreds of reasons over decades. I'm less concerned with who to blame than how to undo the bad practices. We have to change the incentives for prosecutors as well as the way costs for police and prosecutor malfeasance are distributed. Right now if plaintiffs win awards the police and prosecutors don't really bear much cost from it. The city and/or country typically pay and that ultimately just comes from higher taxes or reduced services to voters. Change the incentives and you change behavior.

Edited May 19, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Anijen]

4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Founders provided for the peaceful change of governments.

The were only able to do so through; ineffectively reporting their grievances to England,  protesting,  rebellion, and eventually through war.  It was not very peaceful.

 

Quote

It is right there in our Constitution. Call for a Constitutional Amendment and/or a Constitutional Convention, if necessary.

You will find no disagreement from me about this.

 

Quote

Use of Arms to change governments is forbidden. It is TREASON.

Yes it is. Yet the founders and many American colonists chose treason to change their government.

 

Quote

We are not bound by the Declaration of Independence.

I agree, and I never implied otherwise.

 

Quote

We are bound by the US Constitution.

I agree and never implied otherwise. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land.

 

Note: I am in no way condoning, or calling for treason. I believe we should follow the laws we have and not to violate them. Having said that, if there ever comes a time (and I do not believe that time is now or even close). A time where our rights and liberties are taken away and the government is no longer of, by, and for the people, then I agree with President Thomas Jefferson that the "watering" of the Tree of Liberty might be looked at and considered.

Edited May 20, 2017 by Anijen

[longview]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Again the proper way to response is to persuade other people to change the laws.

You make reasonable points.  I appreciate your tone.  However, America is in great peril because a large part of federal and state institutions only pay lip service to the US Constitution.  Some are hostile to it.  Some mock the defenders of original intent.  Too many judges legislate from the bench.  State legislatures and US Congress abdicate their responsibilities to a growing and bloated bureaucracy that is becoming more oppressive.  Executives play "rope a dope" between federal and state regulations, making it more difficult to establish accountability.

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

What you don't have the right to do is "fight off government thugs" for the obvious reason that few will be sympathetic and eventually you'll all end up dead or imprisoned on attempted murder charges.

This is a very dicey situation.  BATF came against the Koresh compound with a veritable army, an insanely arrogant operation.  Part of me was glad that BATF got their *** kicked.  But like I said before, it should NOT have come to this.

[carbon dioxide]

On 5/17/2017 at 5:04 PM, The Nehor said:

For 200 years the Second Amendment was understood by federal judges to involve the keeping and bearing of arms for military purposes (obsolete by our standards as national guard and regular military units do not have to procure their own weapons). It also was not intended to restrict states from regulating firearms. One other purpose of the amendment in the early days was to allow states the ability to fight an overbearing federal government but that question was settled in the Civil War.

1. Why do people assert that the Civil war settled constitutional issues.  I am not aware of any part of the Constitution where things are decided by a war or which side is more effective in killing the other side. 

2. The 2nd Amendment is about the people, outside the rule and power of the government, have the right to bear arms as a defense against the biggest threat to liberty which is our own government.  Find an oppressed group of people around the world and almost all of them are oppressed by their own government.  The Civil war settled nothing.  If anything it has made it more necessary for the population to keep and bear arms as the Federal government has gained far more power since then. 

3.  Why focus on what federal judges say. The Founders themselves were clear enough on the intent of the 2nd Amendment.  We should not need federal judges (mostly lawyers) to tell us what the Founders plainly said.

 

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." --George Mason,

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of people, trained in arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." --James Madison

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" --Tench Coxe

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." --Noah Webster

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." --Thomas Jefferson

 

 

Edited May 20, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, longview said:

You make reasonable points.  I appreciate your tone.  However, America is in great peril because a large part of federal and state institutions only pay lip service to the US Constitution.  Some are hostile to it.  Some mock the defenders of original intent.  Too many judges legislate from the bench.  State legislatures and US Congress abdicate their responsibilities to a growing and bloated bureaucracy that is becoming more oppressive.  Executives play "rope a dope" between federal and state regulations, making it more difficult to establish accountability.

More or less this reads simply as "I don't like what other people want the government to be like." There are, as I'm sure you know, very different ways of reading the constitution. While I'm definitely a textualist I don't think things are quite as clear as you seem to think. I don't agree that original intent can be the proper way to read any legal text since there are multiple often contradictory intents. So to me the more important question is how the text would reasonably interpreted in the legal culture when it was written with close attention to the context of its writing. That might sound similar to original intent but has some pretty significant hermeneutic differences. On the other hand too for large periods of our Republic most judges didn't hold to that hermeneutic and that can't be dismissed when examining law. (This was especially true during the progressive era from the late 1880's up through the 1950's) 

The problem of activist judges is real, although I think conservatives err when we see it only as a problem of the left. Many like to point to Scalia's decision in Gonzales v Raich in 2005. There it seems clear his personal feelings on drugs outweighed his strict constructionist tendencies. (See this Reason article from then for an overview of the critique and also see this later article on Scalia's activism)

Now I fully agree that congress has a huge problem delegating responsibility to bureaucrats partially to avoid having to take tough controversial stands. Although even though I'm very sympathetic to your point there again I think in practice it gets to be more complicated. That's because so much of the regulation is technical and we have unfortunately a largely uneducated congress in terms of knowing technical facts. (To the degree they are educated, it's almost always in law, not science, economics or the details of bureaucracy) Now I think a middle ground would be to get the experts to testify and then make the language explicit and voted upon. However history shows that the congress has a nasty habit of taking advantage of such things. This is of course a compelling reason to simply set broad incentives right rather than micromanaging regulation. But that gets complicated for various reasons as well.

Quote

This is a very dicey situation.  BATF came against the Koresh compound with a veritable army, an insanely arrogant operation.  Part of me was glad that BATF got their *** kicked.  But like I said before, it should NOT have come to this.

Again I think there are very, very legitimate criticisms of the use of police force especially in how they serve warrants. I think it's actually a place where leftist groups like Black Lives Matter and conservative groups have common ground. There's a lot of reform that's needed.

All that said though, once the police is there you have zero right to start shooting at them and if you do you should fully expect to be killed. The proper way to respond is again through the courts and through the ballot.

It's wrong for right wing groups and it was wrong for left wing groups or individuals who have assassinated police in protest for potential police wrong doing.

Edited May 20, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

32 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

1. Why do people assert that the Civil war settled constitutional issues.  I am not aware of any part of the Constitution where things are decided by a war or which side is more effective in killing the other side. 

It settled slavery. If the Bill of Rights is supposed to guarantee natural rights then slavery was completely at odds with that. However due to the nature of the makeup of the country and especially the place of southern judges sympathetic to slavery the constitution never was interpreted in a way that protected the rights of slaves.

The war not only ensured that changed but brought amendments making explicit certain rights. The problem was that with Lincoln's assassination and a terribly President who replaced him along with exhaustion from the war these rights weren't enforced in the south. Thus a low level guerrilla insurgency and shadow government persisted for decades well into the 20th century.

It's funny that people point to judicial activism from the time of FDR onward but neglect the role of how southerners in particular interpreted law and constitution in the period from the founding on up to the civil war. I'd argue there's far, far, far worse activism then. How anyone can look at our time as the worst while neglecting decisions like Dred Scott continues to floor me. (Not pointing at anyone in this discussion -- just prior discussions I've had)

Edited May 20, 2017 by clarkgoble

[strappinglad]

If a group defies the police long enough , the National Guard will be called in. Kent State should remind us about how that works out for unarmed protestors. Now imagine the scenario back  then if a large group of  the protestors had been armed .

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

1. Why do people assert that the Civil war settled constitutional issues.  I am not aware of any part of the Constitution where things are decided by a war or which side is more effective in killing the other side. 

Why do people assert that America got independence from the British just because they won the Revolutionary War?  I am not aware of any part of the Magna Carta that gives colonies the right to secede based on which side is more effective in killing the other side.

It settled the constitutional issue of slavery and whether states have the right to secede. Except for a few of my more idiotic compatriots here in Texas and a couple of airheads out in California (my birth state) it is pretty much a settled question now since the war. Now I wonder if secessionist feeling follows me around.....

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

2. The 2nd Amendment is about the people, outside the rule and power of the government, have the right to bear arms as a defense against the biggest threat to liberty which is our own government.  Find an oppressed group of people around the world and almost all of them are oppressed by their own government.  The Civil war settled nothing.  If anything it has made it more necessary for the population to keep and bear arms as the Federal government has gained far more power since then. 

No. And that is a ridiculous assertion. The Second Amendment in a government document gives the people rights outside the rule and power of government? And no, the Second Amendment talking about well-regulated militias, was not put in so people could overthrow the government. That is a recent interpretation by nuts who (unsurprisingly) want to overthrow the government but lack the courage to do so unless a government document gives them permission. I call them pathetic losers.

The Civil War settled plenty unless you consider slavery a minor issue. And yeah, a couple of miltary wannabes with assault rifles are the only thing keeping the federal government in check. If you believe that I have some beachfront property in Arizona I can sell to you at a bargain price.

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

3.  Why focus on what federal judges say. The Founders themselves were clear enough on the intent of the 2nd Amendment.  We should not need federal judges (mostly lawyers) to tell us what the Founders plainly said.

 

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." --George Mason,

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of people, trained in arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." --James Madison

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" --Tench Coxe

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." --Noah Webster

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." --Thomas Jefferson

Okay, Mason believed the people needed to defend themselves rather then be defended by the military, not a defense against their own government.

Madison was talking about the same thing. Hamilton also believed people should be armed to defend themselves from aggressors such as the natives.

Coxe was also talking about militias and not armed individuals.

Webster and Jefferson kind of agree with you but they were talking more about state governments fighting off the federal government rather then a group of rednecks occupying a wildlife refuge to fight for 'liberty'.

Context is fun!

And no, the Founders do not agree with your average NRA afficionado nor have federal judges dating back to the Revolution. While the right to possess a firearm was reasonably protected laws delineating where you could take a firearm have been around since the beginning. The right to have a firearm was tied to the duty of citizenship which involved the protection of the community, primarily from external raiders and not for fighting state and national armed forces.