I thought you were suggesting we re-write the constitution from scotch.

You know me too well.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

When I first glanced over your comment, I thought you were suggesting we re-write the constitution from scotch.

I dunno. I saw a sign the other day for a 6 part lecture series run by a new local anarchist group to discuss how to set up an organized "anarchist collective" in the city. I thought that was hilarious. Almost hilarious enough to make a diary entry mocking them for 2-4 pages. But apparently not.

Certainly the second and later version makes more sense grammatically.  Aside from the wisdom of changing amendments after they are approved by congress and before they are approved by the states, the difference is subtle but significant.  The ungrammatical first (and to a small extent third) comma emphasizes the importance of the Militia and the State in the first version, which is downgraded further in the second version by dropping the capital letters from Militia and adding a capital letter to the People, placing it on equal terms with the State.    James Madison differs from many of the other founding fathers in his confidence in the State government, and the difference between his draft of the Second Amendment and the one later sent to the states for ratification reflects this.

For further clues as to what James Madison was thinking while drafting the Second Amendment, see what he wrote inThe Federalist Papers #46,

Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

The main thrust of the above quote is that Madison agrees with Daniel Webster that simply allowing the possession of normal muskets creates an ability of the people of the United States to defeat any federal army should they choose to organize to do so, though where Webster applies this rule generally including the state forces, Madison applies it only to the federal government.

Note that this assumption is built in to the Second Amendment to an extent such that one can reasonably say that the Second Amendment is factually incorrect; the limitation on the size of standing armies in Revolutionary War times was largely a result of the labor inefficiency of agriculture at that time, which required a large agricultural base to support a soldier.  The primary weapon of the time, the musket, required 15 seconds to reload and was in practice and according to military doctrine of the time slightly less effective than the bayonet, though it was highly desirable that a soldier had both.  Muskets were used not with the goal of killing but with the goal of breaking the enemy line so that the enemy could be killed with bayonets.  The US military has smart bombs, ground-attack aircraft, and tactical nuclear weapons.  Any attempt to overthrow oppression by the federal military armed only with handheld guns would be a much more uneven battle than attempting to fight the Redcoats armed only with sticks.

It seems clear that the Second Amendment as intended by the framers has little to do with the right to carry a gun to the grocery store as protection against muggers.  It is clearly intended to imply the right, at the very least in the collective and subject to some kind of majority rule, for the people to have weaponry sufficient to allow them to easily defeat the military of the United States, compensating for the superior quality of professional troops with sheer numbers.  At a minimum, this has to include large numbers of RPGs, booby traps, anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles, and can reasonably be extended up to tactical nuclear weapons.

Few people actually support following the Second Amendment, but few people are willing to admit that they don't support it.  So what we do is strip out the parts we disagree with and argue about whatever is left as if it were the whole of the Second Amendment.  This is why we argue about home shotguns and call it a Second Amendment issue.

 I'm not sure newly armed law abiding citizens are going to stabilize a neighborhood unless there are significant numbers of them and the rules of engagement are extended beyond the curb.  If there are only one or two such people in the 'hood, and they kill an intruder/attacker they better hope that more like minded friends are getting ready to move in really soon...and that the perp didn't have many like minded friends of his own.  Cuz sure as a very sure thing, there's gonna be a Shoot Out at the Buffalo Corral.  And you know...maybe this is what needs to happen.  All of the other wet-handshake/rehab the criminal schemes never work.  Perhaps a good old fashioned, biblical bloodletting is the one thing needed to clear the neighborhoods of the thugs.

"My word...the inhabitants of that neighborhood are truly  robust.  If one even expectorates on the public ways, one will fill find a significant amount of lead entering one's sphincter at an extreme velocity.  It would be prudent to purloin our mind altering chemicals elsewhere."

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

IM IN UR NEIGHBORHOOD, GENTRIFYIN' THA HOOD WIT COLD LED.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

 I'm not sure newly armed law abiding citizens are going to stabilize a neighborhood unless there are significant numbers of them and the rules of engagement are extended beyond the curb.  If there are only one or two such people in the 'hood, and they kill an intruder/attacker they better hope that more like minded friends are getting ready to move in really soon...and that the perp didn't have many like minded friends of his own.  Cuz sure as a very sure thing, there's gonna be a Shoot Out at the Buffalo Corral.  And you know...maybe this is what needs to happen.  All of the other wet-handshake/rehab the criminal schemes never work.  Perhaps a good old fashioned, biblical bloodletting is the one thing needed to clear the neighborhoods of the thugs.

Letting residents have weapons to make them feel safe does not mean they should go out and kick ass Rambo style. That is not the point. The point is to convince stable, law abiding people to move into neighborhoods they may otherwise not. An empty home is a blight on the tax rolls, surrounding houses, and safety. My home sat vacant for 9 months before I moved in. The exterior was unkempt, grass grew high until a cool neighbor mowed it, water bills and taxes went unpaid.

Multiply that by dozens or hundreds in foundering neighborhoods and you can see how having a few well meaning, peaceable citizens moving in, putting properties back on the tax rolls and taking pride in their area helps out. Good homeowners start calling the cops on criminals, cleaning up the surroundings, and generally making the area more appealing to other folks looking for good, cheap housing. This leads to a rise in assessments, more properties on the tax rolls, and more "nice" people. The avalanche has to start somewhere, and if letting residents carry in their neighborhoods is the incentive they need to move into a dicey area, then so be it.

Of course, if some violent thugs happen to get a cap or two busted in them during their shenanigans that is sort of like a bonus.

Letting residents have weapons to make them feel safe does not mean they should go out and kick ass Rambo style. That is not the point. The point is to convince stable, law abiding people to move into neighborhoods they may otherwise not.

Now see, that's the hinge point.  The residents are not going to feel safe unless they have the means and will to use the weapons in the way for which they were designed.  And the thugs in the neighborhood have to realize that the new residents have that will as well otherwise it's a paper tiger*.  It's not all just about the law-abiding residents feeling safe...it's also about the malefactors feeling unsafe.  And sadly (or not so sadly), that's a lesson for the thugs that can only be written in blood.

*Is "paper tiger" still a cliche?  I haven't seen it used in a while.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Sure, that is why a private citizen carries a weapon... for self-defense. See a drug deal? Don't walk over and start giving out lead enemas, call the police from a safe location. A drug dealer or mugger pulls a knife on you? Well, if your life is threatened directly then I am sure nobody is going to have a problem with somebody utilizing all the tools at their disposal to make sure they go home to their family at night.

I hope most people who carry deadly weapons around understand that they would be better off left at home or not buying them at all if they think they would be unwilling to use them. The last thing we need would be the mugger stealing the pistol and the victim's wallet as well as shooting their mark.

Yeah, if you see a drug deal, definitely don't cap their ass 'cause one of them is almost certainly a narc. You wanna reduce crime? Get the drugs out. You wanna get the drugs out? Get the CIA to stop growing poppies in Afghanistan and cocoa in Columbia.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

"Don't walk over and start giving out lead enemas, call the police from a safe location."

Well, as much as I enjoy owning firearms, I have to agree with you there.  The one thing I never leave the house without is my cellphone.  If I see some shit going down (I have), I call the cops.  They're the pros, I'm not.  

After years of practice, I'm a very good shooter, but I know my limits.  The cops have had lots of tactical training that I never did.  

there's only one way to find out...

that's a lesson for the thugs that can only be written in blood.

That sounds to me like thug talk.

Word!

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Are you supposing the other residents of these neighborhoods you imagine are all violent, barbaric, and incapable of civilized behavior?

I'm of the opinion that in many cases citizens of said neighborhoods enable the behavior in question by otherwise glorifying thuggish lifestyle and by holding to a code of silence and refusing to cooperate with the police. I don't think anyone is inherently violent or barbaric, or incapable of change, but that makes it worse - that means that they're actively choosing to live this way. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Maybe it's a community wide case of Stockholm Syndrome, I don't know, but there's a point where these crimes require a certain amount of local complicity, and once you get to that point I lose a certain amount of sympathy for the people living there. I'll grant that there are some who are just in a bad situation (don't want to be there, but can't afford to get out and are too afraid to speak up), but there's a substantial portion who embrace and glorify this sort of lifestyle, and those folks I have absolutely no respect or pity for. They made their own bed, they can lay in it.

Maybe it's a community wide case of Stockholm Syndrome

It's probably more of a case of "I Don't Want My Head Blown Off Syndrome".  But I understand your frustration.  

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

I guess there are occasions when "Canadian" isn't just a new slur, eh?

I think your comment goes well beyond jaded.  Are you supposing the other residents of these neighborhoods you imagine are all violent, barbaric, and incapable of civilized behavior?  Or are you fine with the idea of the "otherwise peaceable people" in "their" neighborhoods being thrown to the wolves as long as it isn't happening in your backyard?

I am going to have to go ahead and reply back to this, although I am sure port1080 may do so later.

For some of us, the home where we live may be an investment. For others, it is a place to raise a family. For the rest, it may just be a place where you can come home from work and chill out and be safe. Some idiot coming in and taking a leak on your lawn in broad daylight, dumping his/her bottles of Hennessey all over your lawn, using your property as a baby diaper disposal service, picking the spot in front of your house as a place to make a last stand against the Man, settling personal disagreements by way of loud fisticuffs and tossing people into parked cars, torching private property with moltov cocktails, busting in doors and stealing everything etc are generally incompatible with options two and three, and definitely has deleterious effects on #1.

You will forgive port1080, myself, and probably a bunch of other people on this forum for having little patience with the evil shenanigans propagated by people outside our neighborhoods. Take where I live for example. I live on a moderately nice street (nice = no burned out hulks on my street for two/three blocks in either direction), but several blocks away is "the 'hood." Because of this, we frequently have malcontents roll all up in our joint to commit shenanigans on a frequent basis. Or something. Directly behind my house is a street which is 30-40% vacant and dominated by outside squatters, crackheads, and vagrants. How did I find this out? Well, I knew it was vacant, but I didn't realize it was that bad until the cops informed my neighbor of what type of people live directly behind us after they busted in a window and stole all the crap from his garage (even the wheels off the car). I call the cops when I see something. So does my neighbor. I am active in pestering my councilman, mayor, etc in getting vacant areas torn down and the neighborhood fixed up. I try to take pride in my street. Can I do it all myself? No. But I pay my taxes and I try.

Of course the problem with the "bad" areas is not caused directly by 100% of the residents. Every neighborhood has good and bad people. But where are the "good people" when something goes down? The homicide clearance rate in my city last year was ~30-40%. I have a hard time believing the neighbors and friends of those responsible for the murders, robberies, etc have no information. Perhaps those complaining the loudest about conditions in their neighborhood need to examine what they are doing to fix things. Maybe they need to "Start Snitchin'" In the interim, the rest of us will continue to fight for the sanctity of our precious neighborhoods.

Quick question: Someday when I accumulate enough money to move to a less crime ridden area and I sell my house am I going to be accused of "white flight" and leaving my neighborhood "to the wolves?"

Quick question: Someday when I accumulate enough money to move to a less crime ridden area and I sell my house am I going to be accused of "white flight" and leaving my neighborhood "to the wolves?"

I would say that from the way you describe your neighborhood, white flight has already happened.  In order to reverse the effects of white flight, it would take an influx of tax dollars from multiple households and corporations.  One household's tax dollars aren't going to do it.  

While it might be courageous for you to stay in your neighborhood as a stand against white flight, it might also be a futile act.

There's also a theory that white flight can be reversed to gentrification by a bunch of artists moving in.
http://www.riverwestcurrents.org/2002/July/000036.html

So, maybe rather than buying guns, your neighborhood should give low rentals to bohemians.

In reality, I think the best solution would be a mix of lower tax burdens, encouraging lower income educated types to move in (artists, teachers), more cops, and other incentives (ability to get  a weapons permit if otherwise qualified). Passing out pistols or whatever is not going to solve it all. Having an army of future Picassos move in will not either. The artist idea is an intriguing one, but promoting gentrification simply has the same end goal in mind... having taxpayers move in and take pride in the area. The more incentives, the better for everybody.

I think you hit the nail on the head...the old northern and eastern cities that have trouble keeping people have got to re-examine their tax structure. Nobody wants the hassle of crap like a wage tax.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

the old northern and eastern cities that have trouble keeping people have got to re-examine their tax structure.

I think it depends on the city as well as the city's history and what they can do in terms of restructuring the city to entice residents.

One city that has always fascinated me in terms of its demise is Newark in NJ.  It was a booming city until WWII and suffered a number of setbacks in terms of decline in manufacturing, bad urban planning (NJ Turnpike), lack of a solid middle class, and finally race riots in the late 60s.  Here's all the info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newark,_New_Jersey

Yet, Jersey City which is close by and suffered a decline during the same period managed to revamp themselves into one of the most desirable commute NJ towns for young professionals.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_City,_New_Jersey

And I am not sure what Jersey City did so well that they managed to get out of their slump while Newark remains a city that I wouldn't step a foot in after dark.

So, maybe rather than buying guns, your neighborhood should give low rentals to bohemians.

Yeah, but that still won't do anything about the drugs.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

You will forgive port1080, myself, and probably a bunch of other people on this forum for having little patience with the evil shenanigans propagated by people outside our neighborhoods.

I'm substantially less forgiving, however, of the notion (loosely paraphrased) that "I don't care if you do it as long as you don't do it here.."  The point of my post was not to condone behaviors such as you describe, it was to object to the idea that there are neighborhoods that deserve that sort of behavior and that it's tolerable as long as it can be confined to such areas.  It shouldn't be tolerated anywhere, in my opinion.  

As both of you rightly point out, the situation is complicated dramatically by the tacit complicity (and sometimes active cooperation) of many residents of such neighborhoods -- although it's awfully hard to pin down how much of such behavior is motivated by community pressure based on fear/distrust of authorities and how much is due to the credible threat of violent reprisal against those who speak out against misbehavior.  But surely many is not ALL.  I'm positive there are many residents of such neighborhoods who ardently wish their neighborhoods were safe and secure, just as you do.  I don't think it's fair to wash your hands of them because they haven't been able to stop the blight in their neighborhoods personally.

If you do go out and get that nice revolver, please take advantage of a basic gun safety course and log a few hours down at the shooting range.

No worries, I grew up around guns in Pennsylvania redneck land, so I grew up hunting and have a solid respect for them. If I actually intended to carry I would certainly take some safety and range courses to brush up on procedure, though. That said, it's unlikely I'll actually be carrying anytime soon; for all my earlier carping I'll concede northern DE is still generally a pretty safe area, and in any case I doubt I'd get too much sympathy from my academic colleagues if I walked into class at the U of D packing heat. Considering that's where I spend most of my time, if I can't carry there it's really not worth it. The cost benefit just doesn't add up - I'd be putting in far too much effort to feel safe about using the gun compared to the amount of actual time I'd get any benefit from it.

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't most college campuses ban firearms on them by virtue of state law?

Basically, it depends. In most states it's probably illegal, and it's certainly probably "against policy" at most colleges even if it's not actually illegal (i.e. campus security will escort you off campus but they can't actually take your weapon or charge you with anything). There are some exceptions (Utah, of course - should you be surprised?), though.

The 2nd amendment says I have the right to bare arms.

Depends upon what they look like.

The 2nd amendment says I have the right to bare arms

No pants, No problem.

How could you own or operate a weapon of mass destruction without imposing on the rights of a fellow citizen? Their destructive power is completely indiscriminate in who it hurts, innocent or attacker. They create fallout/pollution/contamination which fouls areas for years. This is why they are so favored by terrorist wackos. They are not designed for individuals to own. If you did manage to own a WMD and you utilized it, you would infringe on the constitutional rights of numerous people... the right to be left alone and not killed by some psycho with a nuclear weapon. I assume you were being sarcastic, so I'll stop there.

I believe the intent of the amendment dealt with the preservation of life, property and allowing citizens to come together as needed to serve as a militia. Therefore, I think the cutoff should be weapons normally given to individual soldiers in a militia/National guard type unit. Rifles, pistols, okay. Howitzers, tanks, nuclear warheads, mutant space viruses... not so much.

How could you own or operate a weapon of mass destruction without imposing on the rights of a fellow citizen?

Which is not to say that I think that private ownership of super-weapons is a good idea, just that I disagree with your reasoning that they are clearly excluded from the Second Amendment because their existence in private hands would necessarily be an infringement on other individuals' (unspecified) rights.

Well, you could own it without operating it.  Traditionally a large part of the value of such weapons has been deterrence.

Which is not to say that I think that private ownership of super-weapons is a good idea, just that I disagree with your reasoning that they are clearly excluded from the Second Amendment because their existence in private hands would necessarily be an infringement on other individuals' (unspecified) rights.

So you have superweapons (that are somehow issued to militia units generally) that once you operated them would not be covered within the scope of the second amendment. Therefore, the only way to stay legal would be to use them as a deterrent and not fire them.

If I own a shotgun in my home, but make it clear to everybody that I am a pacifist and have no intentions on using it, how big of a deterrent do you think that is?

Why not? The militia is of the citizenry. In order for the militia to defend its territory, it must have the proper weaponry. Without proper weaponry, it gives way to tyranny and cannot keep its government in line.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

What national guard unit controls and stockpiles chemical/biological or nuclear weapons? What military unit would use them on their own civilians, or on territory they control? Assuming the point of the 2A was to keep government in line, the objective could be accomplished with conventional rifles and other arms given to infantry units.

Hey, I didn't write it.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

With a chemical weapon? I mean seriously, how would you deploy that without harming innocent bystanders or property?

Who said anything about not harming bystanders? Shotguns are legal, and they are indiscriminate, so that really doesn't seem to be that big a deal

Tipping Sacred Cows

If you shoot a shotgun (assuming it is loaded with shot, and not a slug) at an attacker, there would have to be innocent bystanders behind the attacker, and if they were injured due to your self-defense actions, they have a remedy in the courts for that.

It is reductio ad absurdum to make this silly argument about NBC weapons in the hands of private citizens.

There is a right to bear arms for individuals, but I think reasonable people can agree that it is limited to personal firearms, and it can reasonably be assumed that this does not include RPGs, mortars, artillery pieces, surface-to-air missiles, etc.

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

I think reasonable people can agree that it is limited to personal firearms, and it can reasonably be assumed that this does not include RPGs, mortars, artillery pieces, surface-to-air missiles, etc.

In terms of the actual, real-world implementation, sure. But in terms of interpreting a mis-used, trampled on, 200 year old document, I don't think there's anything to be reasonable assumed. I don't think the second amendment is about personal defense at all. It's about the force of the people maintaining their political freedom by just that--force.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

You'll get my M-79 grenade launcher away from me when you pry it from my cold, dead hand.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

But how will a handgun protect you from tyranny?

Tipping Sacred Cows