Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

As much as I might prefer to think otherwise, it seems inconceivable to me that the Founders would have used "the people" to mean "each person individually" in the first and fourth amendments and to mean "when grouped together in a formal militia" in the second.

Having said that, I think the phrase "well-regulated" (which I understand meant something slightly different in context - more like "put into good order") can allow some limitations on the type and destructiveness of weapons. The right is not unlimited, but is subject to regulation. My own preference would be marksmanship training and competency examination, but I haven't thought through how that'd work in practice. There are definitely problems with the idea.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at December 16, 2007 05:44 PM

In the context of 1792, well-regulated would mean to put in to a good working order. To ensure positive function.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 16, 2007 06:00 PM

Then my marksmanship proposal makes sense in eighteenth century terms as much as in 21st century terms. Good to know.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at December 16, 2007 06:07 PM

Exactly. The historical usage of "well-regulated" means well-equipped, well-trained, and with sufficient ammunition, weapons, and kit. It does not refer to "regulated" in the modern sense of conferring permission or license to operate.

Posted by Gary C Hudson at December 16, 2007 06:33 PM

Jane, you're much too sensible to be a Democrat.

Well, except for your preference to think otherwise. Where does that come from?

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 16, 2007 06:44 PM

Marksmanship might just make for neater and tidier gun crimes - just like a surgeon to suggest that ! :-)

When marksmanship is mandatory, only criminals will be lousy shots.

Posted by Abominable at December 16, 2007 06:53 PM

A reply to the "leave no gun owner behind" update: Rand, I think you (and, perhaps, at least in part, Jane) are advocating the Swiss model:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

Posted by Abominable at December 16, 2007 08:02 PM

I have no doubt that's what the founders intended - a militia as a check on government power.

But in these days when the government has control over military resources that render small arms impotent (jet planes, heavy bombers, tanks and mechanized infantry), I wonder how effective a militia can be against them. In many countries around the world, the generals just drive over the rebels with their tanks on the way to establishing their dictatorships. It doesn't matter how good a shot you are if your home-town is being carpet-bombed from 30,000 feet for harboring "enemies to the people".

I think any sort of militia rebellion scenario in the United States would have to rely heavily on a total breakdown and rebellion among our military. I suppose it's not an implausible assumption in the case that some kind of would-be-dictatorship tries to turn our volunteer soldiers (who joined for the purposes of defending the country) against their own people.

But if they're smart, any would be dictators can re-assign the equipment, if not the training and will, to other more favorably aligned men.

And in modern war, the equipment is everything.

PS - guerilla warfare only works against people who will play that game with you. If you try it on, say, the Soviet Russians, they'll just exterminate town after town until your terrified neighbors turn you over (or any other unlucky scapegoat or offering to make them stop).

Posted by Aaron at December 16, 2007 08:20 PM

Aaron, the militias can have tanks. That's one of the many things I've learned from reading this blog.

Go back to the post that started off this comment thread. Click on "Hillary-Supporter". (Hmmph!) A new post will show up. Scroll through (or read) the comments on that post. Look for the keyword "tank". You will learn that we, the people of these United States, can have tanks, and that we can organize our tanks into a militia.

I'm still working on figuring out whether we, the people, can keep and bear nuclear arms, but as far as I can tell, nukes are also protected under the 2nd amendment.

It was also pointed out to me on this blog that men armed with small arms can overcome a modern military with the right tactics. But if "well-regulated" means having the proper equipment, then small arms needn't suffice -- at the very least tanks can be legally acquired for the people's militia, and I think the militia should hold out for well-regulated nukes. This talk of nukes seems silly, I realize, but a key question for everyone is figuring out the limits of the 2nd amendment, and I'm become convinced that many people here believe that when it comes to lethality, there are no limits.

Posted by Abominable at December 16, 2007 09:13 PM

Aaron said:

PS - guerilla warfare only works against people who will play that game with you. If you try it on, say, the Soviet Russians, they'll just exterminate town after town until your terrified neighbors turn you over (or any other unlucky scapegoat or offering to make them stop).

Except that the Soviet Russians had a hard time against guerillas in Afghanistan. However, your point would hold true in the mid-Twentieth Century but not in the late-Twenty-First Century. Those tanks and planes aren't going to help you against insurgents armed with homemade bio-weapons and nano-assembler weapons.

The dictator's tank drivers aren't going to do him much good if their bodies are being eaten from the inside out.

Posted by Robert at December 16, 2007 10:01 PM

Aaron said:

And in modern war, the equipment is everything.

Let me correct this:

"And in Twentieth Century war, the mass industrial equipment is everything."

"And in Twenty-First Century war, the homemade WMD is everything."

Posted by Robert at December 16, 2007 10:04 PM

Robert, we seem to be agreed on one thing; that at some indeterminate time (we seem to disagree on the timescale - I think we need to start worrying in twenty years or so) the potential horrors from nanoscale technology will make all talk of gun control a waste of time and energy.

But what exactly is your point? Should the Western powers be instituting a crash programme into "blue goo" defensive nanotech right now? Probably not IMHO - but not too long from now, either. And there is of course the problem of getting elected on such a platform - imagine trying to explain THAT to Southern Baptist fundies. Or Old Labour leftist dinosaurs in the UK, for that matter.

So what do you think should be done, now, about this looming problem? And of course there is the small matter of trying to prevent a few thousand murders between now and that future, using our soon-to-be-obsolete technology.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at December 16, 2007 11:33 PM

Explaining that to Southern Baptist Fundies would probably make their brains explode! I think such tech would probably be available 50 years or so, that's just my opinion. I think such technologies would mean that the population must disperse (so much for the metropolis) and develop "blue goo" (defensive microbial tech and nanotech). You can't prevent murders from happening anyway, the "Mister Rogers Neighborhood" never existed in the first place.

Posted by Robert at December 17, 2007 01:17 AM

Explaining that to Southern Baptist Fundies would probably make their brains explode!

Why is it that only comments like this about Christians get a free pass? That is at least the second such comment from Robert in the past week that I have noted, and likewise for Fletcher.

Posted by Offside at December 17, 2007 06:34 AM

I'm become convinced that many people here believe that when it comes to lethality, there are no limits.

I don't know how you managed that. It certainly can't be based on anything anyone has written here.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 17, 2007 06:39 AM

"Those tanks and planes aren't going to help you against insurgents armed with homemade bio-weapons and nano-assembler weapons."

The militia would not need tanks, only AT missiles and AT mines. Tanks are maintaince heavy items that require large amounts of fuel and spare parts. Sure, tanks are nice but quantity has a quality all its own.

The problem with using a heavy force inside of a highly developed country is it would play absolute hell on the very economic base that supports the selfsame heavy force. There would be places where it would be very hard to indescriminately attack. These areas would basically require difficult house-to-house fighting by a demoralized force. Not a warm and fuzzy scenario for the bad guys.

You also have to understand how large the US is. There are over three million square miles of territory in the CONUS. There are less than one servicemember per square mile with our current force structure. Not infantryman or Marine, but servicemember right down to the lowliest zoomie papershuffler.

It would be like burning your house down to save it.

The purpose of a militia is kind of a war games type thing: The only way to win is to not play.

It is a deterrent and raises the cost and uncertainty factor for a would-be oppressor.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 17, 2007 06:52 AM

I think that talk about nano goo would make most citizens' heads explode, "fundy" or not.

I'm a Southern Baptist non-fundy evangelical sci-fi reader, so my head is doing just fine.

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at December 17, 2007 08:06 AM

Mike, if the purpose of the militia is to stop an oppressive government from oppressing your town, and if the best militia is the kind that has deterrent value, then the most deterrent bang for your buck might be nukes. If th oppressive literally unlawful government in Washington threatens to oppress your town, threaten to nuke them. Nuclear deterrence has a track record.

Whether mines, tanks or nukes are affordable isn't really the point (Robert will tell you that what is affordable is about to change anyway.) I just find it interesting that the 2nd Amendment seems have no limit on firepower, and seems to point more toward deterrent weapons held by well-regulated militia guarding small towns rather than toward restaurant owners guarding the day's cash intake with a handgun (although I grant that the restaurant owner's right to a handgun shall not be infringed, at least provided he is also part of the well-regulated militia).

And Rand, consider the irony: You ask "What makes you think that there are no limits on lethality", and then Mike posts a thoughtful and interesting comment on whether mines or tanks are better.

Posted by Abominable at December 17, 2007 08:25 AM

"Why is it that only comments like this about Christians get a free pass?"

I said "Southern Baptist fundies" because they are the only fundamentalist nutters who have a say in the politics of any country likely to have anything to do with nanotech.

What Islamofascist fundamentalists would do about such development is really rather beside the point. Let's all hope it stays that way.

"I'm become convinced that many people here believe that when it comes to lethality, there are no limits."

Which is precisely what I do believe. How many (sufficiently well-designed) replicating nanoassemblers, assuming no effective defense mechanisms at that scale, does it take to destroy all life on Earth?

One.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at December 17, 2007 08:39 AM

And Rand, consider the irony: You ask "What makes you think that there are no limits on lethality", and then Mike posts a thoughtful and interesting comment on whether mines or tanks are better.

Sorry, I see no irony to consider. Mike didn't say there were "no limits on lethality." Neither has anyone else, let alone "many."

And considering that the language of the amendment refers to "bearing" arms, it's pretty clear that it's referring to arms that can be borne. It may indeed be legal to own and drive a tank, but not because the right to do so is protected by the Second Amendment.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 17, 2007 08:40 AM

Abominable,

The Second Amendment certainly does not specify a limit on firepower, although many have proposed that it means the arms must be bearable. However, there aren't any absolute rights in the Bill of Rights. You do not have the right to yell fire in a theatre, you can't print malicious falsehoods about your neighbor, election laws can limit your rights to free speech, free press and free assembly. Oh, and don't try to bring back the worship of Astarte in order to make pimping legal.

What you are really doing is knocking down strawmen. Please try to avoid logical fallacies.

Yours,
Wince

Posted by Wince and Nod at December 17, 2007 08:46 AM

"if the best militia is the kind that has deterrent value, then the most deterrent bang for your buck might be nukes."

Yes, because the hundreds of billions of dollars necessary to construct and maintain your nuclear strawman would be so damn cost-effective. I sure spend my time worrying about civilian manufacture and possession of something even Bill Gates could not afford.

Did you really think that one through before you hit post? If not, then please feel free to whomp up a couple of plutonium pits in your kitchen sink and report back on how cost-effective it is.

"although I grant that the restaurant owner's right to a handgun shall not be infringed, at least provided he is also part of the well-regulated militia"

He already is a member of a militia as defined by the Dick Act of 1903. If you are an American citizen then you likely are as well.

Whether it is well-regulated or not is immaterial to the validity of his right to on a firearm. His possessing the firearm is a necessary condition, a prerequsite to the existance of an effective (IE, well-regulated in the classical sense) militia, not the reverse.

"A well-educated populace being necessary to to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

Which is the necessary initital condition, the well-educated populace or the right to books?

I really don't think you very well understand the concept and employment of a militia or the cost and logistics involved in acquiring and supporting heavy weapons. You seem to be angling to make some snarky point about what the second amendment theoretically permits as opposed to what is actually real-world practical.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 17, 2007 08:46 AM

My goal isn't to be snarky, it is to reconcile the left's preoccupation with gun violence with the right's various legitimate interests, and above all else, to honor and study the constitution. I also enjoy talking to people who are different than me.

The question about whether arms include cannon and navy vessels was discussed by the Founding Fathers. Although any one sentence summary will introduce inaccuracy, I've just learned that Washington, Jefferson, other founding fatehrs the US house of representatives, and the Continental Congress before them all thoght that holding and bearing arms referred all arms, including calvery, cannon, gun boats, and more.

My citation for this claim is
http://www.brainshavings.com/supplements/arms/iii.htm
I know "brainshavings" sounds silly, but try it and you'll be pleasantly surprised. For those who like the content of the link, note that it is a multiple page reference which can be navigated by buttons at the bottom of the page. The set of articles starts here:
http://www.brainshavings.com/supplements/arms/i.htm

Posted by Abominable at December 17, 2007 09:21 AM

Also, Mike, thank you for the link to www.guncite.org. It is a very good website.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html was particularly helpful.

I sincerely don't want to sound snarky, but Rand, your point that "bearing" is like "carrying", if I understand you correctly, is carefully considered and then refuted by the guncite.com link I just mentioned.

Posted by Abominable at December 17, 2007 09:36 AM

I said "Southern Baptist fundies" because they are the only fundamentalist nutters who have a say in the politics of any country likely to have anything to do with nanotech.

I'm a lot more worried about the Eurosocialist nutters and Islamofascist fundies, both of which groups want to impose oppressive regimes on all of us, than I am about my fellow citizens who want to be left alone to practice their version of Christianity.

Posted by Jonathan at December 17, 2007 09:44 AM

BTW, while I think it is important to clarify the 2nd Amendment as recognizing an individual right to arms, I think it is a mistake to define the RKBA solely in terms of the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution does not grant rights. Nor are Constitutionally tolerated practices necessarily morally right (slavery is the obvious example). The RKBA derives from and should be defended in terms of the natural right of individuals to defend themselves. Who opposes that right? People like "Fletcher Christian," who favors having agents of the State shoot on sight anyone with an illegal gun, should explain to the rest of us why we should not be allowed to defend ourselves. They should explain why, if they don't trust people like us with weapons, we should trust people like them with power.

Posted by Jonathan at December 17, 2007 10:10 AM

"I'm a lot more worried about the Eurosocialist nutters and Islamofascist fundies, both of which groups want to impose oppressive regimes on all of us, than I am about my fellow citizens who want to be left alone to practice their version of Christianity."

And when they get the chance, to then impose their "moral standards" on everyone else. This has already been tried - remember Prohibition? There are still quite a lot of "dry" towns in the USA - and I believe a dry state too. Which, of course, simply leads to busy liquor stores just over the border.

Similarly dogmatic "Christians" have their hands on the levers of power in Ireland - which recently led to an Irish woman having to smuggle herself onto a plane to England to get an abortion. OK, maybe there is a case against abortion - but in this particular case the foetus, of about 4 months, had no brain. So what was expected of this woman was to go through all the dangers and discomforts of pregnancy and birth, with something at the end of it which wasn't going to "live" more than a few minutes and in any case was never going to be human.

The Inquisition thought they were good Christians. So do the KKK. For a description of an America under the control of the "Moral Majority", check out "If This Goes On" by Heinlein.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at December 17, 2007 03:10 PM

That's quite a hole you're digging there.

Posted by Jonathan at December 17, 2007 04:35 PM

I wonder if the 2nd amendment provides for the right to own a race of atomic super soldiers, with freakin' lasers of red hot death in their skull.

Posted by Josh Reiter at December 17, 2007 08:53 PM

The Second Amendment covers the right to lasers, but the 13th Amendment prohibits owning human soldiers. The Constitution is silent on the right to robot soldiers.

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at December 19, 2007 12:58 PM

Sorry if it has been posted already, and I am only rephrasing something that has already been written in a book, but "A Well Regulated Militia" syntactically, in the context of the amendment, is not a modifier of the subject. The subject being, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The scholars I have read (and the argument I follow) state that reworded, the argument becomes obvious.

"A well educated electorate being necessary to the survival of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed". No one would argue that it would be okay to ban books for those people who choose not to vote.

These are not my words, although I believe them, this is shamelessly lifted from a book I read 10 years or more ago. Sorry, do not recall the title.

Tom

Posted by Tom Hart at December 21, 2007 10:50 AM

Post a comment