Connecticut (et al)

[Svartalf]

Paris was not liberated by Aussies, and the brits simply didn't have the mapower to liberate us by themselves.

[Blind groper]

Svartalf

Certainly, and so what?
I said that, without Americans, the war would have been more costly, and taken longer. Eventually someone would have liberated Paris. Very likely the French themselves, once the Germans had been driven into sufficient confusion and weakness.

[Svartalf]

Without the Americans, the Red Army would have rolled down to the Atlantic.

[JimC]

Warren Dew wrote:

Actually it had a lot to do with both. If we hadn't had the second amendment, we would have had a tyrant making deals with Hitler just as Stalin did. If we hadn't had the second amedment, we wouldn't have had the successful free society that caused Gorbachev & co. to lose faith in their own statist sysem.

This is a complete and utter nonsense. If by this you mean that the US would have had a tyrant in place in the 40s without your precious second amendment, then you are absurdly deluded in this opinion, as well as demonstrating a disgraceful lack of faith in the democratic roots of your system.

And many other nations have democratic traditions and essentially free enterprise societies - America was not some sort of gun-inspired light on the hill that caused the USSR to recoil in shame and confusion.

American exceptionalism yet again...

Svartalf

Certainly, and so what?
I said that, without Americans, the war would have been more costly, and taken longer. Eventually someone would have liberated Paris. Very likely the French themselves, once the Germans had been driven into sufficient confusion and weakness.

Without the Americans, the Red Army would have rolled down to the Atlantic.

I am somewhat in the middle here - the relentless bombing of the 3rd Reich by the US had a major effect on their ability to prosecute the war, and the Normandy invasion (impossible without the US) was vital. However, BG is right in pointing out the massive soviet contribution to the ground war. If they had been defeated early, and the Germans had only the west to worry about, Normandy would have been impossible.

[Warren Dew]

Seth destroyed his own case about overthrowing American tyrants quite some time back. He pointed out that the American military swear an oath to uphold the constitution, not to loyalty to any leader.

No tyrant can survive without the support of the military. We have seen that in the Arab Spring. Where the military did not support, the dictator was overthrown quickly and cleanly. However, in Syria, for example, where the military support the asshole dictator, the revolution is long, and bloody, and very possibly unsuccessful.

In the USA, with a military sworn to the constitution, it will oppose any tyrant, and no tyrant can exist. So civilians bearing arms are totally and utterly unnecessary.

You have way too much confidence in oaths. Our politicians swear the same oath, and they trample the constitution regularly.

[Warren Dew]

Warren, like many Americans, you utterly exaggerate the impact of the USA on the war in Europe. To make it clear. The USA defeated Japan, and the USA was needed to win the Pacific war. But in Europe, Hitler was defeated by the USSR more than any other nation. By comparison, America's contribution was minimal. Important, but not of the same impact as in the Pacific. The turning point of WWII is widely recognised by historians as the Battle of Stalingrad, where Soviets stopped Hitler's armies, and sent them packing. 25 million Russians died in WWII - the greatest sacrifice of any nation. We should not belittle their amazing contribution as some less than well informed Americans try to do.

The Soviets' war effort was heavily dependent on U.S. lend lease aid. Soviet manpower was critical to winning the war in Europe, no doubt, but so was U.S. economic power.

And Stalin was even worse than Hitler; his winning the war solo would have extinguished freedom in Europe as surely as a German victory would have.

[Warren Dew]

Warren Dew wrote:

Actually it had a lot to do with both. If we hadn't had the second amendment, we would have had a tyrant making deals with Hitler just as Stalin did. If we hadn't had the second amedment, we wouldn't have had the successful free society that caused Gorbachev & co. to lose faith in their own statist sysem.

This is a complete and utter nonsense.

Sounds like you have no rational argument to refute my statements.

If by this you mean that the US would have had a tyrant in place in the 40s without your precious second amendment, then you are absurdly deluded in this opinion, as well as demonstrating a disgraceful lack of faith in the democratic roots of your system.

Without the second amendment, this treatment would have been widespread across the U.S. in the 1930s, rather than limited to one unarmed protest in DC:

[Seth]

Seth destroyed his own case about overthrowing American tyrants quite some time back. He pointed out that the American military swear an oath to uphold the constitution, not to loyalty to any leader.

No tyrant can survive without the support of the military. We have seen that in the Arab Spring. Where the military did not support, the dictator was overthrown quickly and cleanly. However, in Syria, for example, where the military support the asshole dictator, the revolution is long, and bloody, and very possibly unsuccessful.

In the USA, with a military sworn to the constitution, it will oppose any tyrant, and no tyrant can exist. So civilians bearing arms are totally and utterly unnecessary.

Unless they are necessary. And that "unless they are necessary" is what the Constitution protects, whether you like it or not.

[Seth]

I accept the 1/20th that this shows. If one defensive gun use saves a life and you use this to justify gun ownership, wouldn't one aggressive criminal or neglicent non-criminal gun death justify a total ban?

No, because it's impossible to keep weapons (any weapons) out of the hands of criminals. So long as it is possible for a criminal intent on violent harm can access ANY sort of weapon, from a stick or rock to a machine gun, it is the right of the people to be armed with effective tools to combat ANY assault by ANY criminal, using ANY weapon or no weapon at all. The 80 year old grandmother being attacked by three young thugs who threaten to punch and kick her is justified in using deadly force to defend herself, because such an attack, on that person, places her in imminent danger of death OR SERIOUS BODILY HARM.

If I'm attacked by a gang of three thugs who are threatening to beat and kick me to death, I'm justified in using lethal force for exactly the same reason.

We don't restrict the rights of the law-abiding because of what criminals do to break the law. That's just stupid.

[Seth]

Since we cannot tell how many DGUs prevented murders it's impossible to say what the murder rate would have been without DGUs, but we can say that AT LEAST 100,000 people who would have been victims of crime were not victimized because they had a gun.

But other countries with no right to bear arms, and where very, very few people carry a gun, the violent crime rate is similar to the USA and the murder rate is a quarter or less. Or look at the 200 million Americans who do not own a gun. There is no evidence whatever that they are victimised or murdered more often than the 100 million Americans who do own a gun.

There's 100,000 to 2.5 million individual instances of citizens with firearms NOT being victimized every year. That's proof absolute of the utility of firearms in preventing criminal victimization.

Sorry, Seth. Your conclusions are garbage.

No, yours are.

[Seth]

I've posted numerous examples of people who were saved from death or injury by their firearms, but like a petulant child you just ignore any facts that conflict with your mania.

There are examples of people who have been saved from death or injury that didn't have firearms.
You're not really making a valid point.

Of course it's a valid point. The fact that other tactics and tools work in some situations doesn't change the fact that the handgun is the most effective tool for self defense ever invented because it can be used to dispense at least four levels of force; warning (by merely saying you have or displaying the weapon); threat (by drawing and aiming the weapon); non-lethal discharge (warning shot or wounding shot...neither being recommended); and lethal force to stop an imminent deadly attack.

Other weapons can do the same thing, but not from a distance sufficient to keep an attacker out of direct contact.

No other weapon, except another firearm, can do that.

When someone invents such a tool that will allow instant incapacitation of an attacker from distances up to 50 yards or more away that is 100 percent effective in all situations (unlike Tasers) then I'll consider putting my handgun in the safe and carrying that tool.

Until then, I'll carry a pistol.

Excellent case you've made for why guns truly are substantially different from other weapons. Most gun nuts insist that there's no difference: gun, knife, car, rock - they're all the same. I'm glad you admit that guns are particularly bad.

No, they are particularly good and useful as personal defensive weapons. They are just a tool, like a rock or a knife, and any tool can be used for lawful self-defense or for criminal acts. It's not the nature of the tool that matters, it's the nature of the person wielding the tool that determines whether the tool is "dangerous" or not.

Again, if we banned tools based on their actual recorded capacity to kill human beings, the FIRST thing we would ban are automobiles, followed by many other tools and substances that are the cause of death in humans far more often than firearms are.

To suggest that we ban handguns because they are "particularly bad" is to impute a motive and moral judgment on an inanimate lump of metal that cannot function without a human being operating it, which is both logical fallacy and a silly assertion. Being an inanimate object, a handgun cannot be deemed "good" or "bad." Only those who use them can be morally judged on how they use them. That's true of any tool, including knives, hammers, rocks and everything else that's ever been used to harm someone.

It's a tool, nothing more. We judge PEOPLE, not tools.

[Seth]

I thought it was about militias. The British could attack out in the territories. Areas with no forts. Other than that, the states needed militias when the feds were of no help.

The states needed militias because there WAS NO FEDERAL ARMY when the revolution began. The militias were what the Continental Army was formed FROM, and it was those members of the Militias of the states, armed with their own firearms, ammunition, powder, equipment and supplies that won the Revolution for us. Yes, the Militias came under the command of General George Washington and officers of the new federal army, but without the militias, and without their personal arms, the Revolution would have failed immediately and we'd still be vassals of the fuckwits in the UK.

And yes, the plan was always to have a very small standing army (federal), which is why all appropriations for the military expire every two years. The model contemplated by the Founders was of a small, relatively powerless federal government with a very small standing army which could provide the initial defense while the state Militias were being called out. It was always contemplated that the bulk of our military would be formed from the Militias, both the Organized and Unorganized, that are formed, trained and commanded BY THE STATES.

This was very deliberate, and was set up that way precisely to prevent the President or Congress from ordering troops from one state to invade another state for some federal purpose that the state did not agree with.

Here's what Alexander Hamilton had to say on the matter in the Federalist No. 29:

The Federalist Papers No. 29
More of this Feature
• Index of Federalist Papers

[Next >] [< Previous]

Related Resources
• US Constitution
• Historic Documents
• Congress Today

Elsewhere on the Web
• US House
• US Senate
• The White House
• Library of Congress




Concerning the Militia
From the Daily Advertiser
Thursday, January 10, 1788

Author: Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:

THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."

Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.

In order to cast an odium upon the power of calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, it has been remarked that there is nowhere any provision in the proposed Constitution for calling out the POSSE COMITATUS, to assist the magistrate in the execution of his duty, whence it has been inferred, that military force was intended to be his only auxiliary. There is a striking incoherence in the objections which have appeared, and sometimes even from the same quarter, not much calculated to inspire a very favorable opinion of the sincerity or fair dealing of their authors. The same persons who tell us in one breath, that the powers of the federal government will be despotic and unlimited, inform us in the next, that it has not authority sufficient even to call out the POSSE COMITATUS. The latter, fortunately, is as much short of the truth as the former exceeds it. It would be as absurd to doubt, that a right to pass all laws NECESSARY AND PROPER to execute its declared powers, would include that of requiring the assistance of the citizens to the officers who may be intrusted with the execution of those laws, as it would be to believe, that a right to enact laws necessary and proper for the imposition and collection of taxes would involve that of varying the rules of descent and of the alienation of landed property, or of abolishing the trial by jury in cases relating to it. It being therefore evident that the supposition of a want of power to require the aid of the POSSE COMITATUS is entirely destitute of color, it will follow, that the conclusion which has been drawn from it, in its application to the authority of the federal government over the militia, is as uncandid as it is illogical. What reason could there be to infer, that force was intended to be the sole instrument of authority, merely because there is a power to make use of it when necessary? What shall we think of the motives which could induce men of sense to reason in this manner? How shall we prevent a conflict between charity and judgment?

By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government. It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power. What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen. But so far from viewing the matter in the same light with those who object to select corps as dangerous, were the Constitution ratified, and were I to deliver my sentiments to a member of the federal legislature from this State on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold to him, in substance, the following discourse:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

Thus differently from the adversaries of the proposed Constitution should I reason on the same subject, deducing arguments of safety from the very sources which they represent as fraught with danger and perdition. But how the national legislature may reason on the point, is a thing which neither they nor I can foresee.

There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.

In reading many of the publications against the Constitution, a man is apt to imagine that he is perusing some ill-written tale or romance, which instead of natural and agreeable images, exhibits to the mind nothing but frightful and distorted shapes "Gorgons, hydras, and chimeras dire"; discoloring and disfiguring whatever it represents, and transforming everything it touches into a monster.

A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d'ors and ducats. At one moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths?

If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.

In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition. This was frequently the case, in respect to the first object, in the course of the late war; and this mutual succor is, indeed, a principal end of our political association. If the power of affording it be placed under the direction of the Union, there will be no danger of a supine and listless inattention to the dangers of a neighbor, till its near approach had superadded the incitements of selfpreservation to the too feeble impulses of duty and sympathy.

PUBLIUS.

Colored text added, emphasis (in capitals) in original

[pErvinalia]

But in the end, all those tyrants were sorted out, not by armed civilians, but by mass political and military action.

They were sorted out by military action from nations which had rights to bear arms, yes.

And any rights for civilians to bear arms had absolutely nothing to do with the military success of the allies in WW2. Neither did it have anything to do with the break up of the Warsaw Pact, or the demise of the Soviet Union, or anything that can be given an example of the end of tyranny in the modern era.

Actually it had a lot to do with both. If we hadn't had the second amendment, we would have had a tyrant making deals with Hitler just as Stalin did. If we hadn't had the second amedment, we wouldn't have had the successful free society that caused Gorbachev & co. to lose faith in their own statist sysem.

What?

Lol.

[orpheus]

I've posted numerous examples of people who were saved from death or injury by their firearms, but like a petulant child you just ignore any facts that conflict with your mania.

There are examples of people who have been saved from death or injury that didn't have firearms.
You're not really making a valid point.

Of course it's a valid point. The fact that other tactics and tools work in some situations doesn't change the fact that the handgun is the most effective tool for self defense ever invented because it can be used to dispense at least four levels of force; warning (by merely saying you have or displaying the weapon); threat (by drawing and aiming the weapon); non-lethal discharge (warning shot or wounding shot...neither being recommended); and lethal force to stop an imminent deadly attack.

Other weapons can do the same thing, but not from a distance sufficient to keep an attacker out of direct contact.

No other weapon, except another firearm, can do that.

When someone invents such a tool that will allow instant incapacitation of an attacker from distances up to 50 yards or more away that is 100 percent effective in all situations (unlike Tasers) then I'll consider putting my handgun in the safe and carrying that tool.

Until then, I'll carry a pistol.

Excellent case you've made for why guns truly are substantially different from other weapons. Most gun nuts insist that there's no difference: gun, knife, car, rock - they're all the same. I'm glad you admit that guns are particularly bad.

No, they are particularly good and useful as personal defensive weapons. They are just a tool, like a rock or a knife, and any tool can be used for lawful self-defense or for criminal acts. It's not the nature of the tool that matters, it's the nature of the person wielding the tool that determines whether the tool is "dangerous" or not.

(bold mine)

You contradict yourself. If the nature of the tool doesn't matter, then you should be just as able to defend yourself with a knife, a bat, a car, a rock.

If a gun is particularly effective for all the reasons you say, then it's particularly effective for criminals too.

Can't have it both ways, Seth.

[Blind groper]

No, because it's impossible to keep weapons (any weapons) out of the hands of criminals.

Not true. 23 out of the 24 richest nations show it not to be true. In those nations with good gun control, a few criminals will get hold of nasty firearms, like hand guns. But the vast bulk will have to rely on lesser weapons, that do not kill people as easily. This drops the murder rate dramatically and save human lives.

On WWII

No. The Red would not 'roll down the Atlantic'. The Soviets paid a massive price in WWII, and their army, economy, and government had massive amounts of rebuilding to do. The USSR was never so weak.