Hey, you're getting off the topic of guns. Someone start an Anarchy thread if you want to discuss that. Hugs, Devlyn

Anarchism is not chaos; Anarchism is not rejection of organization. This is a popular misconception, repeated ad nauseam by the mass media and by anarchism's political foes.  Even a brief look at the works of anarchism's leading theoreticians and writers confirms that this belief is in error. Over and over in the writings of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Rocker, Ward, Bookchin, et al., one finds not a rejection of organization, but rather a preoccupation with it—a preoccupation with how society should be organized in accord with the anarchist principles of individual freedom and social justice. For a century and a half now, anarchists have been arguing that coercive, hierarchical organization (as embodied in government and corporations) is not equivalent to organization per se (which they regard as necessary), and that coercive organization should be replaced by decentralized, nonhierarchical organization based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid. This is hardly a rejection of organization.

Anarchism is not amoral egotism. As does any avant garde social movement, anarchism attracts more than its share of flakes, parasites, and outright sociopaths, persons simply looking for a glamorous label to cover their often-pathological selfishness, their disregard for the rights and dignity of others, and their pathetic desire to be the center of attention. These individuals tend to give anarchism a bad name, because even though they have very little in common with actual anarchists—that is, persons concerned with ethical behavior, social justice, and the rights of both themselves and others—they're often quite exhibitionistic, and their disreputable actions sometimes come into the public eye. To make matters worse, these exhibitionists sometimes publish their self-glorifying views and deliberately misidentify those views as "anarchist."  The claim that amoral egotism—essentially "I'll do what I damn well please and <not allowed> everybody else" is absurd.

Anarchism is, in its narrowest sense, simply the rejection of the state... the rejection of coercive (read: violent) government.

The primary goal of anarchism is the greatest possible amount of freedom for all, anarchists insist on equal freedom in both its negative and positive aspects—that, in the negative sense, individuals be free to do whatever they wish as long as they do not harm or directly intrude upon others; and, in the positive sense, that all individuals have equal freedom to act, that they have equal access to the world's resources.

Anarchists recognize that absolute freedom is an impossibility, that amoral egotism, ignoring the rights of others would quickly devolve into a war of all against all. What we argue for is that everyone have equal freedom from restraint (limited only by respect for the rights of others) and that everyone have as nearly as possible equal access to resources, thus ensuring equal (or near-equal) freedom to act. This is anarchism in its theoretical sense.

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on February 07, 2013, 06:40:51 PM
Hey, you're getting off the topic of guns. Someone start an Anarchy thread if you want to discuss that. Hugs, Devlyn

sorry mom

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on February 07, 2013, 06:40:51 PM
Hey, you're getting off the topic of guns. Someone start an Anarchy thread if you want to discuss that. Hugs, Devlyn

Oh, I wasn't going off-topic. If my point wasn't clear, it did pertain to guns. Govt. regulation has strong value and people cannot be trusted to be running amok with guns. As much as I would love for this to be false, it's not.   

Quote from: oZma on February 07, 2013, 06:43:03 PM
you're comparing third world and developing countries to the developed United states? good try

Doesn't change the fact that people aren't filled with caramel and sprinkles on their insides. Regardless of the nation, it's proof that people need guidance. America is no different.

I've made a new thread for this discussion.

This is a gray area, by definition everybody is right, or if you're a pessimist everybody is wrong.  We can never find the answer that both sides can agree on because it doesn't exist, there is no absolute truth here. The only thing separating the different stances is opposing world views, not fact.  Facts in this case are fluff, mostly pointless, more like rationalizations for feeling one way or another, does that make sense?

Maybe we can try to understand where the other side is coming from well enough that we can not feel animosity toward them.  That would be progress, even trying to do that would be.  Going on and on about why you are right, how do you learn from that?

Quote from: DianaP on February 07, 2013, 06:48:20 PM
Oh, I wasn't going off-topic. If my point wasn't clear, it did pertain to guns. Govt. regulation has strong value and people cannot be trusted to be running amok with guns. As much as I would love for this to be false, it's not.   

Doesn't change the fact that people aren't filled with caramel and sprinkles on their insides. Regardless of the nation, it's proof that people need guidance. America is no different.

Let me take you to task there, Diana.

The grand experiment that is America, is that people do not need rulers.  The premise is that political power springs from the people, and that governments should exist only by the consent of the people.  American government is designed to secure rights, rather than infringe on liberties.  That is what regulation does - it infringes on our ability to make choices in our lives.  Government establishes laws, but in the American system, it does so by the peoples' representatives (in theory).

The American system presupposes that people can be trusted to conduct their lives in such a way as not to infringe on the lives, liberties, and rights of others.  When those limits are violated, then the system of justice that has been established will deal with it.

The authors of the Declaration of Independence knew these truths about government - they called them "self-evident."  The Framers of the Constitution, and the authors of the Bill of Rights, took special attention to protect fundamental liberties.  And one of those was the right to self-defense, through the use of firearms.

That a President through executive order, or a beaurocrat through regulation, or even a Congress through legislation, could infringe on these fundamental guarantees, would have been an anathema to the Founders and Framers.

EDIT:  And Diana, please take note, from Justice Scalia writing for the majority in Heller:

Nowhere else in the Constitution does a "right" attributed to "the people" refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention "the people," the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase "the militia" in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the "militia" in colonial America consisted of a subset of "the people"— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear Arms" in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause's description of the holder of that right as "the people".

Quote from JamieD "And one of those was the right to self-defense, through the use of firearms.

That a President through executive order, or a beaucrat through regulation, or even a Congress through legislation, could infringe on these fundamental guarantees, would have been an anathema to the Founders and Framers."

I'm not taking issue in anyway. What you damn crazy Americans do is your business!

An argument that keeps being presented is that 'Oh if the Founders could have foreseen the weapons now available, then they would have limited/modified their opinion"

The other argument is that of the right to self defense, through the use of firearms. The argument I seem to be reading, is what level or type of firearm is required for self defence, and what is excessive for the civilian population.

Personally I'd feel pretty safe in the USA with an RPG but it may spoil the look of my hand bag. Comment?

We need to keep in mind, Cindy, that the American Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, does not establish a right to bear arms, it recognizes and protects that natural right.  The 2nd Amendment of 1791 had antecedents in several of the constitutions of the individual states.

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ...." Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights, 1776; and the Vermont Constitution, 1777

"The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence ..."  Massachusetts Constitution, 1780

In America, "the requirements for self-defense and food-gathering had put firearms in the hands of nearly everyone." D. Boorstin, The Americans--The Colonial Experience 352-53 (1958).

The basis of the natural right is that you may protect yourself, your family, or your property with such force as is needed.

James Madison believed that "the advantage of being armed" was a condition "the Americans possess over the people of almost every nation." The despotisms of Europe were charged with being "afraid to trust the people with arms." An armed citizenry serves as a deterrent to governmental oppression because the people have the latent and implicit power to "rise up to defend their just rights, and compel their rulers to respect the laws." Totalitarian governments of the left and right in the twentieth century consider an armed people a threat and seek to disarm them. (R. Dowlut and R. Knoop, 7 Okla. City U. L. Rev. 177-241, 1982)

Even earlier, Sir Michael Foster, Judge of the Court of the Kings Bench, wrote:

The right of self-defence in these cases is founded in the law of nature, and is not, nor can be, superseded by any law of society. For before societies were formed, (one may conceive of such a state of things though it is difficult to fix the period when civil societies were formed,) I say before societies were formed for mutual defence and preservation, the right of self-defence resided in individuals; it could not reside elsewhere, and since in cases of necessity, individuals incorporated into society cannot resort for protection to the law of the society, that law with great propriety and strict justice considereth them, as still, in that instance, under the protection of the law of nature (London, 1776)

One of the great fears of the Founders was that of oppressive and tyrannical government.  An armed citizenry was considered an effective deterrent.   The Framers of the Constitution provided two methods to amend the Constitution.  It matter not today what they may have thought.  If the political will exists, the right might be extinguished - but no credible attempt has been made.

What type of firearm should a citizen be entitled to bear?  My view is, whatever is needed.

 But as ever is the debate in the word or the intent of the word?

Sir Michael Foster's judgement is used and is in some way pivotal, which I find strange as his decision was  aimed at the poms efforts to protect protestants from James II.  But of course that is opinion.

He also had a history, not only having a great judicial mind, for the time, but supporting rather contentious opinions for now a days. Including of course 'press gangs'.

Was his ruling borrowed by  'states' in the Americas to allow each militia to protect themselves from each other, rather than any concept of individual self defence?

It doesn't matter of course. There is far too much commercial interest involved to allow change no matter opinion.

The second article in the Bill of Rights states.


Amendment II

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.

The founders knew that at one point the people may indeed need to rise up and take arms ageist an oppressive government.  How do you think the United States was formed?  That being said, the government shouldn't restrict a citizen from owning any type of firearm, in modern times you would need to then modernize and interpret the second amendment and look at it from the stand point of which it was written. Today since the government has large scale weapons, heavy artillery, jets and fully automatic weapons, it should be a right that the citizen would be able to defend against such a force if nessasary.  We Americans have long forgotten that our liberties and freedoms were not given to us, blood was shed and many died in order to stand up to tyranny.  Over regulation and excessive law making by it's very nature create an oppressive state.  As long as you are not trampling on the liberties of another, the innate human right to live as you choose, then no law should impede that.  Generally those on the "liberal" side of law making, ( remember liberal mean MORE ) would beg to differ and in general look to laws to restrict individual rights.  Laws do not stop criminals, they make them.  We all need to give people credit on their own humanity, there are those who will always be disruptive to the liberties of others, however less law making will not destabilize the country and turn it into barbarous heathens running rampent. That's just silly. FEAR is used to scare people into giving up thier rights, a tragedy happens and law makers use the FEAR to wave there flags and sign there bills to restrict the citizenry.  It's shameful however, that's politics.

I have no problem with the right to bear arms. Everyone should be able to protect them selves, their family, and their property. But how big of a gun do you need?
Would a 0.22 do the job, or is a 0.44 better suited? And Why fully automatic? I can see semi automatic, at least with a semi the third or fourth bullet has a better chance of hitting the target than with an automatic whose recoil will have bullets flying everywhere.

Personaly I don't see the need to have military grade weapons in the home. But what do I know? We just might need them to fight off a horde of zombies.

the constitution and the bill of rights does not GIVE Americans rights... it recognizes them. people bring up the second amendment when talking about guns... I say thats a crappy argument.  the right to defend yourself is built in.  just like I don't need 10 commandments to tell me not to kill. 

the bill of rights was great, don't get me wrong but all it does is tell us the sky is blue :-) which id great for all you color blind lefties who enjoy the idea of big gov that walks all over our rights in attempt to make us 'safe'

Quote from: Cindy James on February 08, 2013, 01:51:18 AM
Personally I'd feel pretty safe in the USA with an RPG but it may spoil the look of my hand bag. Comment?

I'm sure we could design a sexy bag to conceal it for you. 

Quote from: oZma on February 08, 2013, 09:49:10 AM
the constitution and the bill of rights does not GIVE Americans rights... it recognizes them. people bring up the second amendment when talking about guns... I say thats a crappy argument.  the right to defend yourself is built in.  just like I don't need 10 commandments to tell me not to kill. 

the bill of rights was great, don't get me wrong but all it does is tell us the sky is blue :-) which id great for all you color blind lefties who enjoy the idea of big gov that walks all over our rights in attempt to make us 'safe'

oZma, I agree with you completely in the bill of rights is recognizing given human rights.  Sadly even if some one is color blind they can argue that blue doesn't exist because the can't perceive the notion of color... Such are those who love limiting personal liberties, to them personal liberties are more of granted privileges by a ruling government then unquestionable rights. 

Quote from: Penny Gurl on February 08, 2013, 05:28:20 AM
The second article in the Bill of Rights states.


Amendment II

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.

The founders knew that at one point the people may indeed need to rise up and take arms against an oppressive government.  How do you think the United States was formed?  That being said, the government shouldn't restrict a citizen from owning any type of firearm, in modern times you would need to then modernize and interpret the second amendment and look at it from the stand point of which it was written. Today since the government has large scale weapons, heavy artillery, jets and fully automatic weapons, it should be a right that the citizen would be able to defend against such a force if necessary.  We Americans have long forgotten that our liberties and freedoms were not given to us, blood was shed and many died in order to stand up to tyranny.  Over regulation and excessive law making by it's very nature create an oppressive state.  As long as you are not trampling on the liberties of another, the innate human right to live as you choose, then no law should impede that.  Generally those on the "liberal" side of law making, ( remember liberal mean MORE ) would beg to differ and in general look to laws to restrict individual rights.  Laws do not stop criminals, they make them.  We all need to give people credit on their own humanity, there are those who will always be disruptive to the liberties of others, however less law making will not destabilize the country and turn it into barbarous heathens running rampant. That's just silly. FEAR is used to scare people into giving up their rights, a tragedy happens and law makers use the FEAR to wave there flags and sign there bills to restrict the citizenry.  It's shameful however, that's politics.

Interestingly, it is quite legal to privately own "artillery," armed piston and jet aircraft, and warships in the United States.

Cannon, Mortars, Howitzers

Warbirds

Warships

Automatic weapons ownership, however, was severely restricted by federal legislation in the 1930s.  Therefore, automatic weapons on these planes and vessels are demilitarized.

1. The 2nd amendment was designed for a militia. The US has a military. That amendment is obsolete. Even if it weren't I'm sure the founding father would change their minds if they were placed in modern times. 

2. Artillery owned by civilians are de-weaponized, meaning that tanks barrels are plugged, etc.

3. Laws do stop criminals. If there were no rules, people would go crazy. What consequences would be there to stop them? Don't give people too much credit. Heck, even I wanted to punch a kid in the face at my school, but didn't because I knew I'd get in trouble. No human is perfect, so govt. and rules are necessary.

Quote from: DianaP on February 08, 2013, 03:42:43 PM
1. The 2nd amendment was designed for a militia. The US has a military. That amendment is obsolete. Even if it weren't I'm sure the founding father would change their minds if they were placed in modern times. 

2. Artillery owned by civilians are de-weaponized, meaning that tanks barrels are plugged, etc.

3. Laws do stop criminals. If there were no rules, people would go crazy. What consequences would be there to stop them? Don't give people too much credit. Heck, even I wanted to punch a kid in the face at my school, but didn't because I knew I'd get in trouble. No human is perfect, so govt. and rules are necessary.

nevermind, I don't feel like getting into anything with you again... I get it...

you believe the gov has the best intentions for us... that the military and police are here to protect us and instill fear to make us obediant to their laws because without laws, we are all simply savages and would all go crayzy without big brother.

k, we get it... move along now :-) leave us to talk constructively and positively about anarchy :-)

Quote from: DianaP on February 08, 2013, 03:42:43 PM
1. The 2nd amendment was designed for a militia. The US has a military. That amendment is obsolete. Even if it weren't I'm sure the founding father would change their minds if they were placed in modern times. 

2. Artillery owned by civilians are de-weaponized, meaning that tanks barrels are plugged, etc.

3. Laws do stop criminals. If there were no rules, people would go crazy. What consequences would be there to stop them? Don't give people too much credit. Heck, even I wanted to punch a kid in the face at my school, but didn't because I knew I'd get in trouble. No human is perfect, so govt. and rules are necessary.

DianaP

To your first point.  During the time that the bill of rights was written, the American colonies had JUST come out of the revaluation and were in the process of forming a NEW government BY and FOR the people.  They had been denied rights which by any human should not be denied.  The very purpose of the constitution is to have a regulated government, not a regulated citizen population.  If the founders were around today then yes, they infact would have changed the wording.  However due to the facts of the situation it would be to recognize that the people themselves have a right to stand up to the military and the government, hence the right to form a militia.  A militia is recognized to be separate then the military and navel forces, it's purpose is for the PEOPLE not the government.  The very reason for such an assemblage is to have a force capable of standing up and defending against the military.  Taking that ideal set fourth in the second amendment you would infact need to include the ability to defend against modern weaponry. So "assault rifles," artillery, ect.  Any branch of the armed services are not for the people, they are the government force that can be used against the people of the country. 

To your second point.. Yes much of the artillery has been deweaponized that is owened by private citizens, however in many cases it can be reactivated if a gun smith is knowledgeable.  Pins replaced barrels reboared and firing systems added. 

To your third point, the reason why we have a constitution is to defend against others impending on someone else's rights, when that happens that's when the judicial system would kick in. But to say that less laws would cause people to go crazy is simply invalid.  If we were lawless then maybe more "crimes" would be committed, however if there were no laws, then there would be no crime as it would take a law to be broken.

I doubt that anyone living in any city in the US would be able to tell you all the laws and city ordinances for thier given city.  With a system so clogged with burocrocy how can anyone be expected to truly live lawfully if it's not even possible to be informed about every law that exists? Some places it's unlawfully to swear in public, other forbid spitting on sidewalks.  In Alabama (I think) it's unlawful for a woman to drive a car on Sunday.  There are so many silly useless outdated laws that we're choking on the paper work and bleeding to death on endless paper cuts.  The "system" can certainly stand to be thinned out a bit.

i thought this thread was about anarchy.

see, i have a lot of stuff to say about anarchy and the downfall of the state, but if people aren't talking about anarchy, i can't do that!

i teeter constantly between thinking that full communism is the way to go (or, well, socialism, technically, since the whole violent revolution does strike me as a very high-collateral method of achieving the same result, and i'm not so comfortable with that) and that anarchosyndicalism strips away the corruption and structural violence inherent in the state.  as far as practical matters are concerned my vote goes to the people who push for what's closest to a socialist agenda, but i recognize that the state is deeply flawed and i'm not sure if it's the sort of thing that can be fixed or whether it all has to go.

Quote from: oZma on February 07, 2013, 06:43:03 PM
Anarchism is not chaos; Anarchism is not rejection of organization. This is a popular misconception, repeated ad nauseam by the mass media and by anarchism's political foes.  Even a brief look at the works of anarchism's leading theoreticians and writers confirms that this belief is in error. Over and over in the writings of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Rocker, Ward, Bookchin, et al., one finds not a rejection of organization, but rather a preoccupation with it—a preoccupation with how society should be organized in accord with the anarchist principles of individual freedom and social justice. For a century and a half now, anarchists have been arguing that coercive, hierarchical organization (as embodied in government and corporations) is not equivalent to organization per se (which they regard as necessary), and that coercive organization should be replaced by decentralized, nonhierarchical organization based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid. This is hardly a rejection of organization.

Anarchism is not amoral egotism. As does any avant garde social movement, anarchism attracts more than its share of flakes, parasites, and outright sociopaths, persons simply looking for a glamorous label to cover their often-pathological selfishness, their disregard for the rights and dignity of others, and their pathetic desire to be the center of attention. These individuals tend to give anarchism a bad name, because even though they have very little in common with actual anarchists—that is, persons concerned with ethical behavior, social justice, and the rights of both themselves and others—they're often quite exhibitionistic, and their disreputable actions sometimes come into the public eye. To make matters worse, these exhibitionists sometimes publish their self-glorifying views and deliberately misidentify those views as "anarchist."  The claim that amoral egotism—essentially "I'll do what I damn well please and <not allowed> everybody else" is absurd.

Anarchism is, in its narrowest sense, simply the rejection of the state... the rejection of coercive (read: violent) government.

The primary goal of anarchism is the greatest possible amount of freedom for all, anarchists insist on equal freedom in both its negative and positive aspects—that, in the negative sense, individuals be free to do whatever they wish as long as they do not harm or directly intrude upon others; and, in the positive sense, that all individuals have equal freedom to act, that they have equal access to the world's resources.

Anarchists recognize that absolute freedom is an impossibility, that amoral egotism, ignoring the rights of others would quickly devolve into a war of all against all. What we argue for is that everyone have equal freedom from restraint (limited only by respect for the rights of others) and that everyone have as nearly as possible equal access to resources, thus ensuring equal (or near-equal) freedom to act. This is anarchism in its theoretical sense.

this is some great writing right here!  i just want to echo all of this, and i guess expand on it by vehemently negating the claimed similarities between the often-lumped-together libertarian "anarcho-capitalists" who seem to end up always advocating for a minarchist state, which kind of ends up doing the exact WRONG thing with a government and engenders police and military brutality.  basically, the thing about capitalism, especially as it exists today, is that anyone living in a state that participates in it is nonconsensually compelled into participation, and in a true anarchist state (not in the government sense, but in the sense of a state of being) that isn't going to occur.