And so the arms race continues. Better go buy my AK-47, everybody will find some reason they need one of those next. Wild West here we come.

Actually more like downtown Baghdad here we come...

Chicago's gun ban is going down. All over the country Second Amendment groups are suing to overturn similar bans.

I don't see why they should have to. Seems to me the states should just admit that the bans are null and void.

Your AK-47 is illegal unless you've got the correct federal permit to own fully automatic firearms like a friend of mine does.

The only thing that's going to change with this ruling is that now the People of DC can own a firearm for self defense against the thugs of the city.

Just like millions of Americans, I will still own my ONE firearm for self defense.....that I've had to use exactly one time in self defense when an armed heroine addict broke into my apartment in the middle of the night. Stupid summabitch still had his unregistered street gun tucked in his pants......no, I didn't have to shoot him, but that was HIS choice....he chose to not receive a few .45 rounds to the chest.

Asses like ahmanrah would have me dead in my own house with no protection from criminals OR, more appropriately, an over reaching government.

Sarge,

And yet I can always point to parts of the world that apparently don't need guns (I have done this before) to be safe, so why do we need them? You guys really have no answer for that one...other than to say some "cultural bullshit" this or that.

No one can tell me how criminals in Japan have a hard time getting guns and using them, but ours don't. Nobody can answer the paradox of why Arizona and Texas are the place Mexican thugs go to get their guns...because they can't seem to get them on their own soil. I thought Mexico was lawless compared to us, so why do they need they need us to get their guns. Maybe because guns here are easy pickings....but nobody wants to admit that...because they be unearth the ball and chain that is the route cause of America's need for guns.

Our own antidote to guns...more guns...is what's killing us.

"And yet I can always point to parts of the world that apparently don't need guns (I have done this before) to be safe, so why do we need them?"

The question isn't whether we NEED them. The question is whether we have the right to HAVE them--which we do.

Many people don't NEED lawyers--but there is a provision of the Constitution that allows for them, anyway. Were we to come to a point where the NEED for lawyers was rare, would you in fact drum them out of the Constitution? We don't usually worry any more about quartering troops in our homes, but according to the Constitution, no state can FORCE us to do so. In the same way, no jurisdiction can place an ABSOLUTE BAN (force) on guns.

"...because they be unearth the ball and chain that is the route cause of America's need for guns..."

Would you mind re-writing this so it makes some semblance of sense? It's worse than a paragraph out of Michelle Obama's thesis.

I think the decision was constitutionally sound, but I think the second amendment needs to be amended. Specifically, I think we need to clearly distinguish between the right to self-defense, which I believe everyone should have, and the right to violently overthrow the government, which is the absurd notion of militia groups. To wit, clearly "the right to bear arms" does not include hand grenades, stealth bombers or sarin gas, nor should it.

Also, I think that the specifics of the right to self-defense should vary according to expectations. For instance, if most criminals had easy access to military weapons, then it should be OK to own an assault rifle. On the other hand, if guns were as rare as grenades are now, then I don't think they are justified for self-defense. Codifying this as law seems problematic, but also problematic is the unqualified access to "arms", which does nothing to exclude nuclear weapons (without the intercession of common sense).

"I think the decision was constitutionally sound, but I think the second amendment needs to be amended. Specifically, I think we need to clearly distinguish between the right to self-defense, which I believe everyone should have, and the right to violently overthrow the government, which is the absurd notion of militia groups."

But that is exactly what the Founders had in mind. It is exactly what they themselves were doing. They were recognizing that when a government becomes abusive of its citizens, it must be overthrown. Have you actually READ the Declaration of Independence?

"To wit, clearly "the right to bear arms" does not include hand grenades, stealth bombers or sarin gas, nor should it."

Says who?

"Also, I think that the specifics of the right to self-defense should vary according to expectations. For instance, if most criminals had easy access to military weapons, then it should be OK to own an assault rifle. On the other hand, if guns were as rare as grenades are now, then I don't think they are justified for self-defense."

The Founders didn't think this was your call to make.

"Codifying this as law seems problematic, but also problematic is the unqualified access to "arms", which does nothing to exclude nuclear weapons (without the intercession of common sense)."

You REALLY don't understand the purpose of the Second Amendment at all, do you?

Just like the other amendments of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment reminds us that there are SOME rights that the government can NEVER legitimately interfere with. A government that takes away your gun is an ILLEGITIMATE government. A government that takes away your freedom of speech is an ILLEGITIMATE government. A government that quarters troops in your home without your permission is an ILLEGITIMATE government. A government that controls the press is an ILLEGITIMATE government.

The argument of the Declaration of Independence is that a government that violates the rights of its citizens is ILLEGITIMATE and its subjects have the INNATE right to break away from it.

That does not just apply to England. It applies, as well, to some future potential United States of America which has become illegitimate. That is what the Founders were on about with the Second Amendment.

"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."

Because you cannot have a free state (not a free "government"--the Founders thought of the US prior to its existence as an incipient "free state") without a population capable of maintaining its freedoms by banding together in armed rebellion, the individual right of every citizen to be armed shall not be infringed.

The militia doesn't provide the arms. It assumes the citizens already have them. When the Founders intended to scare up a militia (as with the armed citizens of a particular state banding together), they didn't plan to give them guns. They assumed they would already have them. Because it is an inherent right of man to arm himself in self-defense. The same weapon used for self-defense is available when that citizen finds it necessary to join a militia, to protect his (and his fellow countrymen's) inalienable rights.

As the NRA has said, the right to bear arms is the "first freedom"--because without it, all the rest can be violated at will.

Some Fellas,

But I have said this before and will say it again. The reasons we have a gun problem in the US, is because guns are so easily obtainable. Its a chicken or egg problem. Gun nuts know it, because they can't explain why other weapons aren't as easily obtainable, even though they hold the position that a criminal can get anything they want. That or they try to explain it away like its not in the culture of criminals use grenades so they don't seek them out....which we all know is BS.

No mistake why police departments are demanding better arms, 4 years after the assault weapons ban was lifted. If you make assault weapons available to all, criminals will get their hands on them...this is not rocket science.

But that is exactly what the Founders had in mind. It is exactly what they themselves were doing. They were recognizing that when a government becomes abusive of its citizens, it must be overthrown. Have you actually READ the Declaration of Independence?

*Sigh*...yes, and you're not getting it. You know the things in the constitution that come after the articles? What are they called? That's right: AMENDments.

Whether or not the founders were encoding a right to rebel, I think it's a terrible idea, and we ought to make sure people don't have that right. Let me explain to you why. Then, you will disagree in silly ways, and we'll call it a day...and I'll try so hard to ignore your absurdities, as they cry out for correction.

The reason a right of revolution is a bad idea is that in almost every historical case, violent revolutions have led to unpleasant disasters. Look at the world around us, wracked with war, primarily civil war.

The American Revolution was an anomaly. It was a revolution by bourgeois intellectuals, many of whom were shockingly gifted. This is not the ordinary way of things, and I think it's horribly naive to expect lightening to strike twice. I think it's best to encourage people to work within the system, to salvage what can be salvaged.

And if there really needs to be a violent revolution, that's not something they need a law to tell them. That's actually a deeper imperative. And even if there is such a law, the government will declare it illegal, no matter what. Perhaps you recall our last Civil War? Was that considered "legal"? You can't even talk about killing the president!

"To wit, clearly "the right to bear arms" does not include hand grenades, stealth bombers or sarin gas, nor should it."

Says who?

Hahaha...if you want the answer to this question, I suggest you procure a box of grenades, and post it on a public forum. A representative of the US government will be on hand shortly to explain it to you a lot better than I can.

The Founders didn't think this was your call to make.

Actually, they did, when they gave me the right to amend the constitution. Does anyone know if they allowed private ownership of artillery and ships of war, back in their day? I'm guessing the answer is "no", in which case, I bet they would hope someone would come along and amend the constitution to keep it up to date. In either case, I'd be curious to know.

blah blah blah [stuff about what the founders expected of militias] ribbit gobble snort

Well, times have changed, haven't they? You think private citizens should be armed with tanks and laser-guided missiles? If so, then you're buggy as all fuck! Good luck with being crazy!

But I have said this before and will say it again. The reasons we have a gun problem in the US, is because guns are so easily obtainable. Its a chicken or egg problem.

Arguments about the utility of gun control only go so far with me. I believe that you really can't deprive a person of the right to self-defense. The police aren't really there to jump in the way and defend you when someone pulls a gun; 99% of the time, they come to pick up the pieces (literally) and arrest the guy who blew you away. To tell me, under those circumstances, that my personal safety is entirely the province of what is essentially a government bureaucracy...that just goes too far.

That's why I draw a line between self-defense and right-to-revolt. The former is personal and intimate, something I will not suffer to surrender. The latter is practically beyond the law. I practically take a Chinese outlook on this; "heaven" (such as it is...don't ask, Kerry) mandates the end of a government. You can't tell someone that he can or can't revolt. It will always be fundamentally illegal, but that doesn't mean it's always wrong. However, I think it is to be discouraged, because it usually ends in ruin.

As the NRA has said, the right to bear arms is the "first freedom"--because without it, all the rest can be violated at will.

Very cute and slogany, but if you think that the guns out there in private ownership are what's enforcing the constitution today, you're not dealing with the reality outside your head.

"You know the things in the constitution that come after the articles? What are they called? That's right: AMENDments."

Yes, and the point of the Bill of Rights is to make sure that everyone understands exactly WHICH rights of the people are absolutely not negotiable. The Constitution tells the government how to function. The Bill of Rights tells it, as well, what it CANNOT do.

"Whether or not the founders were encoding a right to rebel, I think it's a terrible idea, and we ought to make sure people don't have that right."

If it's a right, you can't take it away. You can only infringe upon it. (As in "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The right exists by implication; it pre-exists the possibility of "infringement," which means to trespass onto something on which you don't belong.)

"The reason a right of revolution is a bad idea is that in almost every historical case, violent revolutions have led to unpleasant disasters. Look at the world around us, wracked with war, primarily civil war."

This is true. But the Founders were willing to chance it, anyway.

"The American Revolution was an anomaly."

They didn't know that at the time. They thought it was the way of the future. As, indeed, it has proven.

"It was a revolution by bourgeois intellectuals, many of whom were shockingly gifted. This is not the ordinary way of things, and I think it's horribly naive to expect lightening to strike twice."

Um, what are revolutionaries generally, if not "bourgeois intellectuals?"

"I think it's best to encourage people to work within the system, to salvage what can be salvaged."

Of course it is. But the fact is that the Founder built into the system the notion that if this government become illegitimate, you have the right to dissolve it.

"And if there really needs to be a violent revolution, that's not something they need a law to tell them."

But it helps to be told. Evidently, you haven't been told enough.

"That's actually a deeper imperative."

So are all the rights of the Bill of Rights. But the Founders wanted to make them explicit, anyway.

""The Founders didn't think this was your call to make.""

"Actually, they did, when they gave me the right to amend the constitution."

YOU don't have the right to amend the Constitution. It requires both houses of Congress and two thirds of the states. You DO, however, have your very own right to bear arms.

"It will always be fundamentally illegal, but that doesn't mean it's always wrong. However, I think it is to be discouraged, because it usually ends in ruin."

But the Founders knew that. They drew up a manifesto to threaten revolt. When there was no satisfactory answer, they revolted. And in forming their idealist government, they left open the possibility that this grand experiment might not work after all, and might have to be done away with. In the meantime, however, they put in every failsafe they could think of, even to the point of telling the government that it was restricted to the activities detailed in the Constitution, and that everything else belonged to the people or to the states.

The Founders thought of themselves as felling a tyrant, just as the mob did Caesar. They saw themselves as having no choice but to free the "nation" of the oppression of Britain. It would be ridiculous to think that they would not acknowledge the possibility that their own government might eventually become just as tyrannical.

Oh what the hell, it's a slow day...

If it's a right, you can't take it away.

You think these rights all inherent, that they existed before the constitution. I don't. If you can prove it, go ahead. Hell, I'd even like to know why you think this is the case. If it is based on religious grounds, though, you probably know better than to bother. In any case, the burden of proof is on the party making the statement that presumes more.

Just because the founders claimed that these rights were inalienable doesn't mean that they were correct. Now, your typical arguments here is "well, I trust the founders more than you". Fine. But that isn't a legitimate argument; it's called "appeal from authority", and it's considered a logical fallacy in that the premise does not support the claim. In other words, it's a cop out.

And if you really think that all these rights are unalienable etc., then why are we able to modify them via constitutional amendment?

This is true. But the Founders were willing to chance it, anyway.

And that makes it a good idea? You even admit that this is how things usually go. Even if one is to rely on claims of "American exceptionalism", one must substantiate how we are exceptional in this manner.

They didn't know that at the time. They thought it was the way of the future. As, indeed, it has proven.

What was proven? If I look at the revolutions of the 20th century, it looks like the American revolution was NOT the way of the future.

Um, what are revolutionaries generally, if not "bourgeois intellectuals?"

Well, you may have a point there...I was thinking primarily of Mao when I said this. But I don't really think this changes anything.

But the fact is that the Founder built into the system the notion that if this government become illegitimate, you have the right to dissolve it.

And how are we supposed to know that? Some people think this government is illegitimate RIGHT NOW (not me...). Should they be encouraged to arm themselves and rebel? Would this be "legal" or morally acceptable? There are no guidelines for this in the constitution, and the difference between "freedom fighter" and "rebel scum" is entirely in the eye of the beholder.

What is "illegitimate", anyway? Violating the constitution? Hell, even I'd agree that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional. And look at all the "people" who have been "murdered" by abortion! Is that enough of a reason to rebel? Where's your gun?

But it helps to be told. Evidently, you haven't been told enough.

Why, should I besiege Washington? WHO'S WITH ME???

Seriously, where do you get this?

YOU don't have the right to amend the Constitution.

Perhaps I spoke imprecisely. I have the ABILITY to amend the constitution. All I have to do is muster the votes (yes, in theory...I know it's "very hard" to do this in practice).

It would be ridiculous to think that they would not acknowledge the possibility that their own government might eventually become just as tyrannical.

I totally agree with this. But just as they did not have to be told that it was OK to revolt, neither does, well, anyone. You revolt when the laws are unjust. Practically by definition, this is an illegal act (you are attempting to overthrow the laws by force). Indeed, the constitution doesn't actually give us a "right of revolt". It just says this bit about bearing arms so you can have a militia, and by extension, a free state.

Well, none of that is realistic anymore. All the shotguns in the world aren't going to keep the US Army at bay if you decide to hold up in your "compound". Sorry, the world is just not as free as it was.

When they wrote the constitution, half the continent was yet to be conquered by the US government. People had plenty of elbow room, and if you didn't like your neighbors, you could strike out into the frontier. And once you were there, you might live a dozen miles from the nearest neighbor, so people weren't stepping on each other's toes all the time. In that kind of environment, it would be beyond absurd to disallow gun ownership. Who's going to defend you if bandits attack on the prairie?

But now? C'mon! It's a whole 'nother world. The only way to give a "free man" the ability to ward off the US government would be to let him buy his own helicopter gunship. If you think that's a great idea, I'd LOOOOOVE to hear about it. Hell, everyone in Iraq has an AK, and they're on the other side of the world, but they still can't put a dent in our military (they can kill each other, though, with great efficiency...).

You praise the foresight of the founders, in being able to imagine that their vision may go astray. Well, so do I. But while you think that the right to bear arms is a great way to exercise this flexibility, I believe that the ability to amend the constitution was a much wiser means that they provided for dealing with the unexpected. Simply put, it's a new world, and we have to tools to adjust to it.

Because you cannot have a free state (not a free "government"--the Founders thought of the US prior to its existence as an incipient "free state") without a population capable of maintaining its freedoms by banding together in armed rebellion

There is no longer such thing as a "free state", if ever there was. Remember the civil war?

"You think these rights all inherent, that they existed before the constitution. I don't. If you can prove it, go ahead."

I don't have to prove it. I don't even have to believe it. But the Founders DID believe it, and it undergirds the entire system they devised, and it justifies their own rebellion.

If you don't believe me, just read the Delcaration of Independence. The entire justirication of the American rebellion is that the King is violating the INALIENABLE RIGHTS of the colonists--to which htey are ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR. That is pre-existent. If you don't mut that, they you have no choice but to be on the side of the King, because at this time in history the colonists have no technical legal right to their position.

"Just because the founders claimed that these rights were inalienable doesn't mean that they were correct."

But if they were not correct, then their rebellion was illegitimate, and there is no need to believe that the United States should exist, or that the premises of the Constitution are correct. In that case, you are merely choosing to live by a particular set of rules, and they are no better or worse than any other.

"Now, your typical arguments here is "well, I trust the founders more than you". Fine. But that isn't a legitimate argument; it's called "appeal from authority", and it's considered a logical fallacy in that the premise does not support the claim. In other words, it's a cop out."

That's interesting. So the original intent of the Constitution has no meaning? Besides, a logical fallacy is not necessarily false, just illogical. The "fallacy" part only comes in when the ONLY reason you believe it is the false structure of the argument.

"And if you really think that all these rights are unalienable etc., then why are we able to modify them via constitutional amendment?"

Actually, the Founders would be horrified at the thought that you would consider Amending the Amendments. The Bill of Rights is there to clarify the non-negotiable things. The Amendment process is there to cover things they might not have thought of--not to negate the things they were certain they were right on.

""This is true. But the Founders were willing to chance it, anyway.""

"And that makes it a good idea?"

No, but it makes it a necessary component of our particular Constitutional system.

"You even admit that this is how things usually go. Even if one is to rely on claims of "American exceptionalism", one must substantiate how we are exceptional in this manner."

We turned out right.

""They didn't know that at the time. They thought it was the way of the future. As, indeed, it has proven.""

"What was proven? If I look at the revolutions of the 20th century, it looks like the American revolution was NOT the way of the future."

Not revolution. Constitutional government modeled after ours. If the peaceful way of mere Constitutionalism would have been open to them, they would have taken it. They do not prefer revolution--but if the government permits of nothing else, it lays itself open to be subject to it.

""Um, what are revolutionaries generally, if not "bourgeois intellectuals?""

"Well, you may have a point there...I was thinking primarily of Mao when I said this. But I don't really think this changes anything."

Are you serious? Mao--the well-born, middle class librarian and student, sitting at the feet of academic intellectuals, studying the Russian revolution--is the very DEFINITION of "bourgeois intellectual"!

""But the fact is that the Founder built into the system the notion that if this government become illegitimate, you have the right to dissolve it.""

"And how are we supposed to know that? Some people think this government is illegitimate RIGHT NOW (not me...). Should they be encouraged to arm themselves and rebel? Would this be "legal" or morally acceptable? There are no guidelines for this in the constitution, and the difference between "freedom fighter" and "rebel scum" is entirely in the eye of the beholder."

Perhaps, but to live without the option of rebellion is just as much tyranny as to live under the King.

"What is "illegitimate", anyway? Violating the constitution? Hell, even I'd agree that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional."

Hallelujah.

""And look at all the "people" who have been "murdered" by abortion! Is that enough of a reason to rebel? Where's your gun?""

Our system still allows us to try to change the system. As long as the people believe they have a chance of eventually changing things, there is no need for rebellion. Even the Founders took their time coming to the resolution on "independency" as they say in 1776 (recommended viewing for the 4th of July, by the way--a tradition at our house.)

"Perhaps I spoke imprecisely. I have the ABILITY to amend the constitution. All I have to do is muster the votes (yes, in theory...I know it's "very hard" to do this in practice)."

But that is the point. The Founders did not want the power to cause great change put in the hands of any individual. That way was the past, the Divine Right of Kings, monarchy, and tyranny. "The people" are not one person.

""It would be ridiculous to think that they would not acknowledge the possibility that their own government might eventually become just as tyrannical.""

"I totally agree with this. But just as they did not have to be told that it was OK to revolt, neither does, well, anyone."

But they did, because it was a new idea. It was not a common thought at all. In fact, the Founders themselves were divided on it, originally. It, in fact, required the imprimatur of the American clergy to convince some of them that they were not committing a grave sin.

Because the Founders discovered their own right to rebellion, they had to pass it on to the future. Because they realized that, without it, no one is truly free--as they felt, trapped in the colonial system that they had no earthly reason to resist.

"You revolt when the laws are unjust. Practically by definition, this is an illegal act (you are attempting to overthrow the laws by force). Indeed, the constitution doesn't actually give us a "right of revolt". It just says this bit about bearing arms so you can have a militia, and by extension, a free state."

Then let me ask you this. Setting my explanation aside, how exactly does "a militia" give one a free state, without an individual right to bear arms? What exactly IS a militia, and why is it useful to the freedom of the state?

"Well, none of that is realistic anymore. All the shotguns in the world aren't going to keep the US Army at bay if you decide to hold up in your "compound". Sorry, the world is just not as free as it was."

Perhaps. But the right of rebellion must always exist, or one lives under functional tyranny.

"When they wrote the constitution, half the continent was yet to be conquered by the US government. People had plenty of elbow room, and if you didn't like your neighbors, you could strike out into the frontier. And once you were there, you might live a dozen miles from the nearest neighbor, so people weren't stepping on each other's toes all the time. In that kind of environment, it would be beyond absurd to disallow gun ownership. Who's going to defend you if bandits attack on the prairie?"

It wasn't quite as easy as you think to just run off to the wilderness. But we'll leave that for now. At any rate, the Founders believed they were dealing with universal laws, not momentary situations. They were visionaries that allowed for change. But they didn't see the basics as negotiable.

"But now? C'mon! It's a whole 'nother world. The only way to give a "free man" the ability to ward off the US government would be to let him buy his own helicopter gunship. If you think that's a great idea, I'd LOOOOOVE to hear about it. Hell, everyone in Iraq has an AK, and they're on the other side of the world, but they still can't put a dent in our military (they can kill each other, though, with great efficiency...)."

But we can't leave yet, so they must be doing something right (or wrong.)

"You praise the foresight of the founders, in being able to imagine that their vision may go astray. Well, so do I. But while you think that the right to bear arms is a great way to exercise this flexibility, I believe that the ability to amend the constitution was a much wiser means that they provided for dealing with the unexpected. Simply put, it's a new world, and we have to tools to adjust to it."

I think you err in thinking that the Founders would have been comforted by your zeal to remove one of their ten basic freedoms (acutally, "freedom sets" would be more accurate--the First contains several on its own.)

"There is no longer such thing as a "free state", if ever there was. Remember the civil war?"

Could you expand on this? I'm not getting the connection you're making.

OK, a decent topic and debate, I'll bite.

If you don't mut that, they you have no choice but to be on the side of the King, because at this time in history the colonists have no technical legal right to their position.

and

But if they were not correct, then their rebellion was illegitimate, and there is no need to believe that the United States should exist, or that the premises of the Constitution are correct.

Here's another classic logical fallacy, the fallacy of the false dilemma. It's not an either/or proposition. I don't agree with everything the founders say in the constitution, but I am willing to uphold its written laws because we have common ground. Legitimacy is a matter of degree. I certainly see the current American government as more legitimate than the prior colonial government. It's so simple, and yet your interpretation is simpler yet.

Besides, a logical fallacy is not necessarily false, just illogical.

You're not helping yourself with this. Sure, you can be correct, but if your point is fallacious, then your correctness is entirely coincidental to your point. In other words, the point is shot down, try something else. I am well aware that the weakness of your arguments doesn't necessarily imply the strength of mine; once again, my arguments are strong by coincidence.

The Amendment process is there to cover things they might not have thought of--not to negate the things they were certain they were right on.

So you say -- but why leave the matter to interpretation when we have the written law? And the written law allows us to change the constitution through the amendment process. Are you suggesting that the founders overlooked this, and that they should have made some law unamendable? I know, you would never say that...but the point is, I don't care, because the law is the law.

Setting my explanation aside, how exactly does "a militia" give one a free state, without an individual right to bear arms? What exactly IS a militia, and why is it useful to the freedom of the state?

You tell me, because I DON'T SEE ONE. Show me a state that is capable of calling up a militia to assert it's independence from the US. That's what I was getting at with the Civil War reference (more later). Like I've been saying, a bunch of dudes with shotguns aren't going to make their state free.

If you want this right to bear arms to mean anything in terms of a right to resist the government, then you've gotta give the thumbs up for private ownership of everything up to and including nuclear weapons. Where do you stand on this?

Weapons are just going to get more and more powerful. Either you believe in a government monopoly on military-grade weapons, or you don't. If you do, then you've pretty much made it impossible for the militia of a "free state" to rebel. If you don't, then you must have a very different notion of human behavior than mine, wherein a crazy man with a helicopter gunship might just blow the crap out of skyscraper or two before anyone can shoot him down. Routinely.

Perhaps. But the right of rebellion must always exist, or one lives under functional tyranny.

More of your false dichotomies...care to qualify this statement? And while we're at it, do we really have a right to rebellion? Where is it? Because there are a number of laws against treason. Would terrorism be OK if it is performed by a US citizen as an act of rebellion? Show me this right of rebellion! Show me when someone has rebelled against the US and it has been declared constitutionally protected? Was the Civil War a legal rebellion?

No, but it makes it a necessary component of our particular Constitutional system.

No it doesn't. Amend out any reading for a "right to rebellion", and nothing will actually change. Protect a right to self-defense without ambiguity, and if nothing else, it will strengthen the position of gun ownership advocates.

"You even admit that this is how things usually go. Even if one is to rely on claims of "American exceptionalism", one must substantiate how we are exceptional in this manner."

We turned out right.

Key words: "in this manner." I'm not going to debate you on the general matter of American exceptionalism, but your argument does nothing to advance the idea that lightning should strike twice in terms of having another revolution with such good consequences. Frankly, this is just smarmy, glib, and devoid of content.

But we can't leave yet, so they must be doing something right (or wrong.)

Pretty weak. They're able to keep us there by killing each other, causing mayhem and chaos in an unfamiliar culture, speaking in an unfamiliar language, on the other side of the globe.

It wasn't quite as easy as you think to just run off to the wilderness.

OK, because I really thought that!

Because the Founders discovered their own right to rebellion, they had to pass it on to the future.

Yes, it was helpful for them to announce and substantiate their revolution on those terms, in that time. However, these days most of us are bound, formally or otherwise, by the idea of a "social contract", and don't need to be told that it's OK to rebel when the nation is not living up to its end of the contract. They were making a clean break with the era of a divine-right monarchy. The only people who need to be told these sorts of things today would be, well, folks like you.

Could you expand on this? I'm not getting the connection you're making.

The point I'm making is that the Civil War ended any illusion of there being "free states". A state could not "opt out" of the US federal government. THAT would be a free state (in answer to your earlier question) -- one that could choose to end its association with the US government, and go independent, or join a new federation.

Obviously, this is not what we have. Likewise, no state or even coalition of states would be able to forcibly withdraw for this union (see, they tried), so the 2nd amendment failed to protect your notion of "free states" over a century ago! States are NOT free, and any move they made to achieve independence would be met with derision and cluster bombs.

If you think this is wrong and unconstitutional, that would lead me to several questions. Do you think the south should have been free to secede in 1861? Do you think we should let states have standing armies to defend themselves against federal encroachment? And do you think a la the 2nd amendment that these armies should consist of private citizen who bring their own tanks?

"I don't agree with everything the founders say in the constitution..."

Really? Just out of curiosity, what don't you agree with?

"..but I am willing to uphold its written laws because we have common ground."

Wait. Who has common ground? And what is it?

"Legitimacy is a matter of degree."

How is "legitimacy" a matter of degree? You either is or you ain't. What does a government look like that is "kind of" legitimate? Or "a little bit" legitimate?

"I certainly see the current American government as more legitimate than the prior colonial government."

Why? That's not a frivolous question. It's very important to the issue.

"You're not helping yourself with this. Sure, you can be correct, but if your point is fallacious, then your correctness is entirely coincidental to your point. In other words, the point is shot down, try something else."

No, I don't think so. You are refusing to take the word of the Founders for the meaning of the Constitution. You call that an "appeal to authority," which you claim is an automatic fallacy. When the authority is the actual SOURCE of the point of the argument, then an "appeal to authority" is the only way to find the right answer.

"I am well aware that the weakness of your arguments doesn't necessarily imply the strength of mine; once again, my arguments are strong by coincidence."

Actually, you arguments are weak because you appeal to nothing but your own opinion.

""The Amendment process is there to cover things they might not have thought of--not to negate the things they were certain they were right on.""

"So you say"

No, not so *I* say. So THEY said.

" -- but why leave the matter to interpretation when we have the written law?"

Because the writers of the Constitution gave us a Supreme Court to INTERPRET the law. There is no dichotomy between "interpretation" and "the written law." Interpretation is OF the written law. Otherwise it's not "interpretation" at all, but simply decree.

""Setting my explanation aside, how exactly does "a militia" give one a free state, without an individual right to bear arms? What exactly IS a militia, and why is it useful to the freedom of the state?""

"You tell me, because I DON'T SEE ONE."

But the Founders did. In fact, that is the PREMISE of the Second Amendment, which they assert as though it is purely self-evident (like the principles of the Declaration). "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,"--not being "useful" or "helpful" or "a nice idea." Being NECESSARY.

That means they did not believe a state could be free WITHOUT a militia--and they were talking about a "free state"==not the US, but the state. Like North Carolina, or Massachusetts, or New York. But the rest of the Amendment tells us the rest of it--"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Again, why shall it not be infringed? Because the people, to protect their state and their interests, must be able to take up arms when necessary--or they are no longer "free." A state that may not arm itself is a vassal of someone else.

"Show me a state that is capable of calling up a militia to assert it's independence from the US."

Capable? Perhaps. But we won't know until such a thing occurs.

"That's what I was getting at with the Civil War reference (more later). Like I've been saying, a bunch of dudes with shotguns aren't going to make their state free."

Why not? If the government of the United States took over an individual state, don't you think the other states might be a bit taken aback? And, whatever the question involved, find themselves wondering whose side to be on?

If a government becomes tyrannical, the people--whatever their condition--must be able to resist it, as the Founders argued they had both the moral right and the moral OBLIGATION to do.

"If you want this right to bear arms to mean anything in terms of a right to resist the government, then you've gotta give the thumbs up for private ownership of everything up to and including nuclear weapons. Where do you stand on this?"

The right to resist does not imply the obligation of the government to supply the means of resistance.

"Weapons are just going to get more and more powerful. Either you believe in a government monopoly on military-grade weapons, or you don't."

That depends on the justification.

"If you do, then you've pretty much made it impossible for the militia of a "free state" to rebel. If you don't, then you must have a very different notion of human behavior than mine, wherein a crazy man with a helicopter gunship might just blow the crap out of skyscraper or two before anyone can shoot him down. Routinely."

Why do you assume that everyone armed is also crazy?

""Perhaps. But the right of rebellion must always exist, or one lives under functional tyranny.""

"More of your false dichotomies...care to qualify this statement?"

No, because it is a bedrock truth. If you do not have the right of rebellion, then you are not free. Period.

"And while we're at it, do we really have a right to rebellion? Where is it?"

In the Declaration of Independence. The whole thing is that very argument. Have you read it?

**When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...**

"to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them....."

Yes, an appeal to Authority. No doubt about it. And the existence and legitimacy of that Authority, accepted by both the Founders and the target of their Declaration (King George), is what gives the American rebellion ITS legitimacy. If the King did not believe in or fear God, there would be no point in making this attempt. All these classically trained men believed to their core in the right of free men to equality with the King. And they appealed to the Authority in hope that the King would agree with them.

**whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (referring to the "inalienable rights" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with which they are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.**

There it is. Right there. When the government (ANY form of government, which must include that which they themselves were to invent) fails to protect the INALIENABLE (pre-existent) right, it is the right of THE PEOPLE (the same "people" who also have the "right" to "keep and bear arms") to alter OR ABOLISH IT. Do you think they meant necessarily peacefully? No. They make here a most forceful MORAL argument for the right of rebellion first, and their own particular case for rebellion from the crown SECOND.

Before asserting their own claims against the King, they first establish the RIGHT OF ANY PEOPLE to rebel against ANY GOVERNMENT that has become illegitimate.

"Because there are a number of laws against treason."

Of course there are. No state would long exist without them.

"Would terrorism be OK if it is performed by a US citizen as an act of rebellion?"

No. Watch: **Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;*

Before you assert the right of rebellion, you have to recognize that you are making yourself the enemy of the state. That, however, is a step the rebel will take, having determined already that the state is illegitimate.

"Show me this right of rebellion!"

At your service. Conveniently, it is the next line in the Declaration:

**But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.**

"Show me when someone has rebelled against the US and it has been declared constitutionally protected? Was the Civil War a legal rebellion?"

Yes, it was. Under the terms of the Declaration of Independence. Because the separation was a temporary one, we do not recognize it as such. But there is very little difference between the desire of the England to retain her colonies and the desire of the Union to retain the Confederate states as part of the US.

""No, but it makes it a necessary component of our particular Constitutional system.""

"No it doesn't. Amend out any reading for a "right to rebellion", and nothing will actually change. Protect a right to self-defense without ambiguity, and if nothing else, it will strengthen the position of gun ownership advocates."

Actually, there is a very strong philosophical argument that any state in which one does not have the right to dissent to the point of rebellion is fundamentally illegitimate.

""You even admit that this is how things usually go. Even if one is to rely on claims of "American exceptionalism", one must substantiate how we are exceptional in this manner.""

"We turned out right."

"Key words: "in this manner." I'm not going to debate you on the general matter of American exceptionalism, but your argument does nothing to advance the idea that lightning should strike twice in terms of having another revolution with such good consequences. Frankly, this is just smarmy, glib, and devoid of content."

But it IS the Founders' position. It doesn't matter what you think about it. I thought we were discussing whether it was endemic to their argument for independence.

Because the Founders discovered their own right to rebellion, they had to pass it on to the future.

"Yes, it was helpful for them to announce and substantiate their revolution on those terms, in that time. However, these days most of us are bound, formally or otherwise, by the idea of a "social contract", and don't need to be told that it's OK to rebel when the nation is not living up to its end of the contract."

Really? Then why don't you believe it?

"They were making a clean break with the era of a divine-right monarchy. The only people who need to be told these sorts of things today would be, well, folks like you."

But they were doing more than that. They were asserting an unheard of right to be free. This was news to everyone. The idea of equality was new. The idea of inherent rights that were not determined by order and circumstance of birth was new. The notion of (sorry, I know you are tired of hearing about it) a right to rebel was no only new, but considered quite dangerous.

"The point I'm making is that the Civil War ended any illusion of there being "free states"."

No, I don't think so. Even though the position of the Union was that the states could not secede, it was clearly prosecuted as a war of nations against each other. It was so treated by other nations. And the South clearly existed as a fundamentally separate government. Had the North not had a remarkable reversal of misfortune (a successful "surge," if you will), there is no way of telling whether the Southern rebellion might some day have been settled another way.

"A state could not "opt out" of the US federal government. THAT would be a free state (in answer to your earlier question) -- one that could choose to end its association with the US government, and go independent, or join a new federation."

No, freedom is not dependent on the ability to exercise it, but on the right to make the attempt. You are free internally, even if not externally. This nation of which we are a part--even when and if those currently running it do not--holds at its heart the understanding that an illegitimate government does not deserve to stand.

"Obviously, this is not what we have. Likewise, no state or even coalition of states would be able to forcibly withdraw for this union (see, they tried),"

Actually, I believe it would depend on the intensity of the issue and the intention of the seceding state. Should a state desire, for its own reasons, to peaceably withdraw, I'm not sure it would necessitate the same situation as the Civil War. The Civil War was over an issue that could not be allowed a separation.

You cannot be half-slave, and half-free, but the underlying truth of the Union position was that you cannot allow a slaveholding nation. By the time of the Second Inaugural, Lincoln's position had become purely about the issue of slavery. He saw the war as a Divine punishment to both sides for the way the US had treated slaves:

"The Almighty has His own purposes....If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?....Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether'."

The War, for Lincoln, began as an attempt to keep the Union strong, but by 1865, he understood it differently.

Did the South have a "right to rebel?" We all do. Whether that right results in war or peace is something each must weigh, as the Founders did. They did not take their actions frivolously. But they also believed they had an INHERENT right to do what they did. To deny that right to those who would follow them would have been the height of dishonorable hypocrisy.

"so the 2nd amendment failed to protect your notion of "free states" over a century ago! States are NOT free, and any move they made to achieve independence would be met with derision and cluster bombs."

Actually, it worked exactly the way the Second would predict. The States rebelled. They fought with the aid of their citizenry against what they saw as a tyrannical government. However, they lost the war, and returned to the Union. But they did not lose because their arms were inferior. Indeed, they were winning for the first two years of the war.

Even today, we honor the attempt of the Southern states. We are careful not to cross the memories of those who fought on the Southern side, despite the fact that they are the people who fought for evil and lost. They were not destroyed, but preserved and forgiven. At no point did they confess to not having had a right to rebel. The right to fight does not imply the right to win.

"If you think this is wrong and unconstitutional, that would lead me to several questions. Do you think the south should have been free to secede in 1861?"

I think they had the right to make the attempt. But let's get one thing clear: once you have invoked that right, you have determined the controlling government to be illegitimate. Therefore, you have made it your enemy, and it, too, has the right to do whatever it chooses to stop you.

"Do you think we should let states have standing armies to defend themselves against federal encroachment?"

I think the states have the right to militias, and the people of the states have the right to bear arms to facilitate that right.

"And do you think a la the 2nd amendment that these armies should consist of private citizen who bring their own tanks?"

I think they have the right to bring whatever they have. 21 atates have their own militia distinct from the national guard, to be used by and for those states. What kind of weapons they have are, I suppose, their business.