Will the U.S. Supreme Court Endorse a Right to Armed Revolt Against Government

This month's horrific shootings in Kirkwood, Missouri provide an all-too tragic and real context for the scholarly debate over the Second Amendment that is now before the Supreme Court in the case of Heller v. District of Columbia (Parker v. District of Columbia in the lower court). One of the key issues in the case is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to armed revolt when an individual perceives the government's actions to be "tyrannical."

The Missouri shootings reveal that some of our citizens condone such violence. Charles Lee "Cookie" Thornton had been embroiled in a long running property dispute with the City of Kirkwood and its City Council. On February 7, he stormed a meeting of the council armed with two handguns and opened fire, yelling "shoot the mayor." When the smoke cleared, three city officials and two law enforcement officers were dead. Thornton's brother later justified the killings, telling local media, "My brother went to war... with the people, the government that was putting torment and strife into his life." Many comments on blogs and web articles covering the story echoed the same theme, including one on AOL News that stated, "GOOD!! I just hope he killed the right people, the evil ones, over this!!!!!! It is time we all stood up for our rights."

In the Heller case, the decision in question is that of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which struck down a District law that prohibits private possession of handguns except in limited circumstances. This marked the first time in history that a federal appellate court had struck down a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds.

In its decision, a panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals expressly held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess arms to defend against the "depredations of a tyrannical government." This insurrectionist philosophy has long been embraced by proponents of the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms unrelated to service in a government regulated militia. A right to arms to protect against "tyranny" is an important point to establish for the gun lobby, which seeks to keep gun ownership anonymous and unregulated by government. It is therefore no surprise that the National Rifle Association specifically endorsed the insurrectionist viewpoint in its friend of the court brief.

Following the decision of the lower court, the District of Columbia sought and obtained review of the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. In his brief to the Court, the respondent, Dick Heller, urges the Court to recognize that the Second Amendment protects the right of citizens to take up arms against their government "should our nation someday suffer tyranny again."

The need to empower government to quell armed insurrections, however, was one of the driving forces behind the drafting of our Constitution. Following the American War of Independence, private rebellions flared up, such as that led by Daniel Shays in Massachusetts. Shays and his followers attacked the armory at Springfield and attempted to shut down the local courts to prevent mortgage holders from foreclosing on their farms. "Shays' Rebellion" was put down with force, but revealed the need for a stronger central authority than that provided by the Articles of Confederation.

It is not because of sloppy draftsmanship that our Constitution prohibits treason and provides the national government with authority to "suppress insurrections." A reading of the Second Amendment that finds a right of individuals to possess arms so that they can engage in armed rebellion against the government when they perceive it to be "tyrannical" is irreconcilable with these and other provisions of the Constitution, as well as our history.

Fortunately, most Americans still believe that our courts are the constitutional method for resolving disputes, and the Supreme Court is likely to address this issue when arguments begin in the Heller case next month. For the sake of our democracy, let us hope they reject the insurrectionist principle (however much future Charles Thorntons believe themselves to be wronged). If the Court sanctions an individual right to armed violence against government, it may just limit its ability to resolve similar disputes in the future.

Comments

[BeeOplentee]

The Court of Last Resort is your gun.

[GEErnst]

So this is the HuffingtonPost.com. It might as well be one of the hundred gun lobby/libertarian websites and message boards. There is no end to the mindless, ignorant illogical drivel. Let us get down to somethings very simple: The Constitution is a frame of government not a treaty among sovereign individuals. Citizens are citizens under law and government not individual sovereigns in the State of Nature which is the state of anarchy. There is difference between Civil Society and the State of Nature,
http://www.potowmack.org/2ndtreat.html#94.

Josh Horwitz might have taken his citation a few pages further to p. 54. Judge Silberman must have realized in the end that he is under oath of public office. After many pages of fallacious pap to fabricate an individual right to be privately armed outside of any militia or military context he arrives at these conclusions:

"Reasonable restrictions also might be thought consistent with a "well regulated Militia." The
registration of firearms gives the government information as to how many people would be armed for militia service if called up. Reasonable firearm proficiency testing would both promote public safety and produce better candidates for military service. Personal characteristics, such as insanity or felonious conduct, that make gun ownership dangerous to society also make someone unsuitable for service in the militia."
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

Registration of ownership, militia call up, proficiency testing, public safety regulation, screening for militia suitability. Hey, these are the makings of a firearms policy. Can we get serious? Can we ask candidates for president starting with Republicans:
Do you accept and support Judge Silberman's conclusion? Will your administration work towards a national firearms policy based on these conclusions.

Judge Silberman's conclusions are not just the basis of a firearms policy: they are also a devastating repudiation of the gun lobby's core doctrine that the purpose of all those
guns in private hands is to maintain an anarchic balance of power between a privately armed populace and any and all government. In the end militia call up and military preparedness trump all other rights, concerns and considerations. Some people have a very difficult time accommodating to a governing authority. Others have a very difficult time with political and intellectual leadership. The individual right the gun lobby claims and Judge Silberman seeks to invent becomes, in Judge Silberman's conclusions, perfectly meaningless. There is no indication that Judge Silberman read my brief in Parker
http://www.potowmack.org/parkarg.pdf
http://www.potowmack.org/parker.html
but his conclusions are what I arrived at when I first starting thinking about this national absurdity twenty years ago. The gun lobby, led by the NRA, would fight viciously any legislative attempts to implement Judge Silberman's conclusions.

But, aside from the ideology, the gun vote is not about guns. It is about controlling political outcomes in a much larger struggle over the modern state and the political economy of capitalism. The simple questions would turn the whole of American politics upside down. Where is the HuffingtonPost.com?


We should not have to wait until vital issues get to the Supreme Court before we can have public discourse and even then not much.
http://www.potowmack.org/index.html
http://www.potowmack.org/5issues.html
http://www.potowmack.org/heller.html
The gun rights ideologies have been in the federal courts for more than thirty years.
http://www.potowmack.org/warin.html
http://www.potowmack.org/silveira.html
http://www.potowmack.org/nordyke.html
http://www.potowmack.org/emeramic.html
Is it because I personally put documents that would enlighten this subject in the hands of Arriana Huffington in 2003 to achieve no result that so little is understood now?

GEErnst

[Federalist]

He writes:

"But, aside from the ideology, the gun vote is not about guns. It is about controlling political outcomes in a much larger struggle over the modern state and the political economy of capitalism. The simple questions would turn the whole of American politics upside down."

An obvious socialist--but socialism is anthema to Freedom.

He has a link to John Locke and misuses the Second Essay as in other areas, Chapter 3 On War, Locke argues that I CAN kill a THIEF because I have no idea what his real intentions are....once he has me in his power, he may take my life as well as my property. Locke makes it clear that WE ARE Sovereigns, though in the normal course we use the justice sysytem to exact revenge--but recognizes that under certain circumstances we must act as judge, jury, and executioner.

The founders recognized our individual sovereignty in the Tenth Amendment which ascribes to us as INDIVIDUALS, ALL POWERS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE CONSTITUTION; whereas the opposite applies to the federal government; they may have onlt those powers that are enumerated in teh main body of the constitution--the so-called Bill of Rights(BOR) restraining government over certain pre-existing natural rights. States DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS--ONLY PEOPLE AS INDIVIDUALS HAVE RIGHTS; the people mentioned in the second amendment are the same people in the First, 4th, ninth and tenth amendments. And SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED IS THE RESTRICTION UPON GOVERNMENT---NO INFRINGEMENTS ARE PERMITTED. PERIOD!

[GEErnst]

So this is HuffingtonPost.com.

"An obvious socialist--but socialism is anthema to Freedom."

I support the socialism of the forty hour work week, first proposed by the Socialist Party, enacted by the socialist congress in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, signed into law by that socialist president FDR, upheld by the socialist Supreme Court in US v. Darby (1941), and enforced, more or less, by this socialist government every since. There are other agendas.
http://www.wisaflcio.org/political_action/rightwing.htm
There is more socialism to dismantle
http://www.potowmack.org/196rehm.html#5trans

Are there any other socialists on HuffingtonPost.com? Where is Arianna Huffington?

Without law there is no freedom. If you have a different idea, file it with the court. We don't want the court to miss anything.

"He has a link to John Locke and misuses the Second Essay as in other areas, ..."

For abuse of John Locke and the Second Treatise see http://www.potowmack.org/196locke.html.
For more important passages from Locke see
http://www.potowmack.org/2ndtreat.html.

"The founders recognized our individual sovereignty in the Tenth Amendment which ascribes to us as INDIVIDUALS, ALL POWERS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE CONSTITUTION; ...
amendments. And SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED IS THE RESTRICTION UPON GOVERNMENT---NO INFRINGEMENTS ARE PERMITTED. PERIOD!"

"In law language is subject to construction"
--G. Gordon Liddy.

The militia clauses of the Constitution, the Militia Act of 1792, http://www.potowmack.org/emerappc.html,
the Second Amendment, the American State Papers were all about conscription. There are no individual rights to speak of in a conscript military organization. The original conscript state militia concept and institution died a natural death in the early republic because no one wanted them and because the US Army did not become a feared instrument of political intrigue as had the King's and Cromwell's army in 17th century England. The original concept was resurrected and transformed as national conscription in the twentieth century Selective Service Acts, the most radical departure from original design and intent in our constitutional history. All three national conscription acts were signed into law by those "socialist" presidents Wilson, FDR and Truman.

Judge Silberman in the end must have realized that he is under oath of public office. May we call him a "socilist". So, can we get our presidential candidates to answer the simple, conventional question, Do they accept and support Judge Silberman's conclusions? Civic obligation and military preparedness trump all other rights, issues and interests. Can we do what the Founders did, enforce a civic obligation, put them on the militia registry and their weapons on the militia inventory, and then call them out to stand guard against wild-eyed gun slingers, the NRA's "armed citizen guerrillas", and other threats to public order. Or, do we have to listen to them bellyache about their individual rights and proclaim their right to enforce vigilante justice?

Where is the HuffingtonPost.com?

GEErnst

[MichelleH]

And that is exactly what it will take to wake up the leaders in our nation.

It is just a question of time until they too become victims of gun extremists, just as so many innocent children, parents, sisters, wives, grandfathers who have been gunned down daily in America. Still our leaders remain silent, or worse, distort the second amendment into a twisted pro gun jingle.

Maybe they have forgotten the NRA protects no one in their determined battle to make as much money as possible; every death puts one more dollar into their bloodied pockets. Soon, if not already, they will have armed every lunatic in this country, and then we can all get ready to kiss our butts good bye.

But what is more frightening to me than any shooting in the paper, is to read the very angry and threatening posts from gun owners...so much hate in the hands of those who are armed. It reflects the potential for the destruction of a nation, thanks to our own self serving legislators.

[GritsJr]

You're right. A lot of these guys think McVeigh had a point. And this is the mentality governing gun policy in our country right now.

[Federalist]

There is a huge difference between 1 or even a VERY small minority blowing things up because they are malcontents. But if you have say MILLIONS wanting to take up arms; surely something is wrong and now requires violence to settle it. Also McVeigh blew up innocent children and non-government employees. Not exactly in the tradition of the founders' revolution

[Sneaky]

I assume you have evidence to support your assertions? Was it not the NRA that most loudly supported updating/upgrading the NICS to better screen the mentally ill ("lunatics") from getting weapons? I'm no friend of the NRA, but I would like to try to keep the discussion honest.

It's curious that you would harbor so much dislike for the more than eighty million gun owners in America because of a select few who roam the internet.

[GritsJr]

I guess you've never read that bill. The NRA actually never formally supported the bill until they were permitted to add substantial language to the House version, H.R. 2640, just before it initially passed in that chamber.

The NRA's additions had nothing to do with the bill's stated purpose, which was to PREVENT dangerous individuals from getting their hands on guns. The NRA's additions actually served exactly the opposite purpose, to establish procedures to re-arm those who are currently prohibited under federal law from buying guns due to reasons of mental health illness. Now every state participating in the grant program will have to establish programs to allow for these people to petition to get their guns back. They're even going to pay these peoples' attorney fees in certain cases. It defies all sense and will undoubtedly lead to violence down the road (self-inflicted and otherwise).

This is no surprise. After the Brady Bill was passed back in 1994, the NRA went to court in several states to assert the premise that the states had no requirement to submit records to the federal background check database. They even attempted to have the entire Brady law statute thrown out at that point, unsuccessfully.

Read what they said about the NICS bill, what they bragged about when they commented on it.

[Federalist]

Michelle,

I don't like to call people names; but you're a nut. No one wants kids or anyone else killed; and that includes manufacturers of arms and ammunition. Ignoring the REAL reason for the Second Amendment, which is to prevent tyranny (do you REALLY trust government to have to monopoly on arms?) but I fail to see how you do not understand that criminals will ALWAYS be ARMED. ALWAYS! Why in good God's name would you want to DISARM the good guys? If you somehow manage to get FULL compliance and confiscated every gun from every law-abiding person, the violence rate will RISE. This already has happened in England and Canada--and WASH. DC, too!

If there had been someone like ME (and there are lots of us) who had a gun in that mall a few weeks ago, that nut would not have sqeezed off more than 3 rounds before I or someone like me, would have killed him. Lives could have been saved, but the law-abiding who OWNED weapons but OBEYED thh law and did not have one available were unable to assist. Gun-free zone laws create killing zones---victim disarmament zones.

I know itys not that your a female that you don't understand this because I know women that DO get it, and know men that don't....but try to reason this out---unarmed law-abiding people become victims; armed ones do not. I know, because my handgun saved my life not once, but twice! And I didn't have to fire a shot either time. It doesn't always work out that way, but it mostly does. Firearms are used almost 2 million times annually by law-abiding citizens to thwart crime, and about 98% of the time, the didn't have to fire a shot. Had they not been armed, there would have been almost 2 million more victims. Do you really think that is a good idea?

You need to think about this and study it more and stop with the feeling thing, cause it ain't working for you.

[GritsJr]

You actually need to get your facts straight. There is not a lot of violence in either Britain or Canada. You know how many gun homicides England had last year? 58. Canada had 184 gun homicides in 2004. Japan had a whopping 21 in 2006. You know how many we had in the U.S. in 2005? 12,352. You're reading those numbers right.

Just about every other industrialized democracy out there has far tougher gun laws than we have, far fewer guns, and FAR lower rates of homicide and gun death. And guess what? They're all still democracies, with citizens who vote and have every right to speak their minds and live as they wish. And they're doing it without arming their populations to the teeth. And some of them have been around a lot longer than we have.

The gun manufacturers could not care less who is dying from their products. For years, the ATF tried to forward them data showing exactly which of their gun dealers were channeling guns to criminals. First they refused to take the data. Then they had the NRA prohibit the ATF under law from releasing the data to either manufacturers or to our Congress.

If you're going to insult women, or anyone else who has "feeling" about 30,000 lives lost to gun violence each year (and any human being would have a feeling about it), get your facts straight.

[perldog007]

Michelle,

I hope you don't consider me a gun extremist. I own guns, and shoot regularly at a licensed range under strict safety guidelines. I was also once a Special Police Officer in D.C. like respondent Heller. Unlike Heller I worked in public housing.

First Point, it's not all the NRA and angry white guys. The supporters of Heller include women legislators, Congress of Racial Equality, Jews for the Possession of Firearms Ownership, Pink Pistols (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and trans-gendered citizens for self defense), prosecutors, 31 State Legislatures, Scholars, Disabled Veterans and a wheelchair bound lady.

One of the original plaintiffs is a Gay man who has been a victim of a violent hate crime.

Hateful posts are not restricted to pro gun people, to suggest that is to admit to bigotry and hoplophobia. There is plenty of anger and intolerance to go around, and I agree with you, it solves nothing.

Remember that Criminals and lunatics will not be restrained by gun laws. Cocaine and Heroin make it into our country by the metric ton. To assume that the underground would have no access to guns in the face of an outright ban even is an assumption contrary to facts and experience.

You are also overlooking the positive benefits of gun ownership that far outweigh the negatives. There are a whole rack o' amicae curiae briefs in the Heller case. For and against. I have read them all, you might want to try that.

Peace,

Doug

[MsLiz]

I am glad to see a blog on the subject of the Supreme Court's pending Second Amendment case.

Now I want to ask a question. This case relates to gun laws in the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court sits in DC. Will the Court render a decision which eliminates all or many restrictions on gun ownership in DC? If so, will the justices travel to and from work in armored cars? Would the Supreme Court rule differently if this case involved another community, say Boise, Juneau, or Montgomery?

Imagine how different DC will be if everyone can carry a handgun to and from work on the subway.

I have mixed feelings. I am friends of a family who lost a son and brother to a gunman on the streets of DC. The shooter wasn't protecting himself from the government. Actually he had just left a hospital after visiting his babymomma and newborn child. Sick, huh?

[Sneaky]

So... you've got mixed feelings because a few folks broke the law to carry a weapon, have broken laws to use said illegally-possessed weapon, and this supports the notion that SC justices will be any differently effected if the ban is lifted? Should I define criminal, or are you alright with that?

If folks haven't broken the law to attack the justices yet, why would they break the law after to attack them?

[FarSeeingArt]

The question before SCOTUS is the following

Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code
secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 —
violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals
who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia,
but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for
private use in their homes?

The preamble to the (embarassing?) United States Declaration of Independence is

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The briefs entered (so far) can be found here –

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/pleadings.html

I am at a loss for words here. I can’t figure out where this guy gets his notions.

[FarSeeingArt]

The D.C. Court of Appeals decision is here

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/parkerdc030907.pdf

I can't find the part the author alleges where they "expressly held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess arms to defend against the "depredations of a tyrannical government." "

75 pages of densely reasoned opinion - easy to miss if it was tucked into a footnote. Certainly not a main point if a point at all.

Maybe he can give a page number - or I have the wrong decision. It would help if the author is going to appoint himself as a spokesperson for the court or others that he provide a link. If any.

[GritsJr]

That quote is on page 46 of the decision. Here is the full paragraph: "To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the
depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to
placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."

Josh is actually right-on in his reading here. The Parker court became the first in history to embrace an insurrectionist purpose for the amendment.

[LeftRight]

Of course the Constitution says that the federal gov't has the right and authority to put down insurection, and specifically mentions treason as a crime. It must. Especially since the founders had just fought a revolution, which to the British was insurection, and they didn't want the people to overthrow them.

[GritsJr]

Your logic completely evades me. Actually, given that they had just fought a revolutionary war, you would think the Founders' tendency would have been to NOT put in the treason clause and anti-insurrection clauses. Clearly, though, events like the Shays Rebellion changed their thinking and made them realize that the Constitution--and our democracy itself--had to have some additional safeguards in place. It speaks volumes that these provisions were included in the Constitution BY REVOLUTIONARIES.

[LeftRight]

But, by that time, they weren't revolutionaries anymore. In fact, they weren't really revolutionaries in the first place, they just wanted to be the leaders of their own lives, like everybody else.

Further, if you look at what they wrote, at the time of the revolution they were very liberal about what a person could do to their own gov't (the Declaration of Independence is the best known example), but by the time that the Constitution was written (1787) they recognized that a lot of what King George had done was understandable, if not reasonable.

[Federalist]

Once again....government has powers, not rights. These powers are derived from the consent of teh governed, and EXCEPT for those powers reserved SOLELY to the Federal govenment (and they are few)
then those powers rest with the states OR the people. As to (natural) rights: only PEOPLE as INDIVDIDUALS have rights. These rights are pre-existing because we get them from God. We have them because we draw breath.

The cardinal natural rights are to Life, Liberty, and Property. Naturally that implies the right to defend those rights, for without such ability, then one can be said to not be in possession of them. Furthermore, one may distinguish natural rights from priviliges or so-called "human/civil rights," by the fact that natural rights are ABSOLUTE. And my exercise of them can not in principle EVER abbrogate your rights. However one may forfeit a right when one tries to prohibit an absolute right of another. For example, by trying to rob or kill me, I may kill you if I can in defense of my own rights. One may see an excellent exposition of this idea in John Locke's Second Essay Concerning Civil Government, Chapter 3, "On War." This section deals not with wars between governments, but rather when one individual makes war on another by attempting to rob the other of the intended victim's natural rights.

As to the POWER to suppress insurrection, that is from Art I Sec 8, Claause 15 of the US Constitution. It says that the Congress can call forth the militia to this function; however, the founders did not regard the militia as the ARMY. The militia were the citizens of a community. PERIOD.

If in the judgment of the people the government has usurped power, or as Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 28 if the representatives betray their constituents (by tyranny)then the people have recourse to self-defense (armed revolution). The main point however is that only PEOPLE have rights!

[LeftRight]

Whatever, please stop focusing on my misuse of one word. Whether they are called rights or powers is really unimportant.

[LeftRight]

And as far as what I said, you didn't answer it. The gov't has as it's primary responsibility to itself, the authority, and requirement to protect itself from any threats, internal or external. Therefore Treason is a crime, and one of the only crimes specifically forbidden by the Constitution. Also therefore insurrection (attempting to overthrow the gov't) is a crime, as an extention of Treason.

Even though the founders had themselves a mere decade before BEEN treasonous revolutionaries, they looked at the gov't that they had founded and thought that it needed more POWER (happy now!?) and thus they created the Constitution which included the power of the federal gov't to resist overthrow from all sources.

This was my point, not that it's a right or a power for the gov't to protect itself.

[fsilber]

Josh Horwitz is confusing a right to revolution with a right to the means of revolution. Obviously if some people try to have a revolution the government has the authority to put it down, if it can. If it cannot put down the revolution, it will only be because the government has become tyrannical, lost popular support, and refused to submit to democratic change -- in which case it _should_ be overthrown.

The ability of the people to do this is what helps deter the government from becoming tyrannical and suspending elections in the first place.

It's all about the _balance_ of powers -- a notion that goes through and through the entire Constitution.

[Rule Of Law]

Comes a point in the cycle of oppression when Patriots either stand before oncoming tanks and willingly martyr themselves, or they take up arms just as our founders did. As Jefferson said, "From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of tyrants and patriots”

Those were some of the most Liberal thinkers of their era who put their fortunes and lives on the line in the cause of freedom from tyranny. I know we have a very difficult time putting ourselves in their place, today, but it is Never Treason to restore the rights and freedoms that our Constitution guarantees us. And when Diebold and the Supreme Court circumvent the will of the People, and the representatives we send to Washington to take care of the people's business, don't, then what recourse is left?

Yes, all of these insane attacks are tragedies. So is the flood of automatic weapons into the ghettos that arm the gangs who sell the crack, both of which are supplied courtesy of the CIA and the US Army. Oh, but those people are of color, aren't they. That's never a topic that will be blogged here. What of the millions slaughtered in Africa, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq with weapons manufactured and sold by the US government; do they not count either? Is the fact that America is the largest weapons (of all kinds) supplier to the world not merit a blog, too?

Or could it be that this society, that condones and exports death wholesale, has a culture that encourages and celebrates this aberrant behavior, puts pressure on the already unstable, and with fantasies of "24" and "The Sopranos" or "Dexter" fueling their anger and disillusionment, they snap and act out. And could it be that this "entertainment" is not piped into our homes by accident?

[Rule Of Law]

It is necessary that the right and ability of the People to defend and, if necessary, restore the Constitution, or challenge the acts of rogue governments, be preserved, and the ongoing argument about standing armies and the time limits on their funding are living examples of exactly why the Constitution offers the protections for us that it does.

The insanity of our society, its causes, and enablers, the culture of fear under which we are forced to live and the antisocial behaviors it evinces to some degree in us all--from road rage to mass murder--are symptoms of a nation gone mad. Rather than question the right and duty of real Americans to protect their country, you would be better off examining what and who have caused this decay of the public mind and to what end.

[Nightowl22]

Our constitution is for a nation of people who know and love god. It wont work for heathens.

[1will]

Do you have ONE link detailing the CIA or US Army supplying automatic weapons and drugs to the ghettos? Just one.
By the way, have you ever been on an Army Base. It's quite a few black people in the US Army.

[LeftRight]

I can't speak for the automatic weapons (somehow I doubt it) but there is in fact a lot of circumstantial evidence that the CIA has flooded the ghettos of America with drugs. Granted, it's not enough evidence for a court, but it is still there.

And as far as there being a lot of blacks on military bases, of course there are. It's a way out, and it allows the military (assuming that they ARE racist and trying to kill all the brown people) to kill all the brown people!

[Rule Of Law]

Checked your bio--you are pro-gun--so am I, so what's your beef? Were you ever in combat, you ever in Nam? I was. I have seen the drugs loaded onto the planes by grunts working for the brass, who had a real going concern with importing drugs to the US, and "losing" weapons in country; reminds me of the record poppy crops in Afghanistan and the weapons "lost" in Iraq today. Alla same same! You think we're there just for oil? Ha.

You can't believe your military or the government is in business on the side? Don't be naive. I'll supply you with at few links to get you started, but you'll either not read them or take a few lines out of context to continue your losing argument.

As far as your remark about Blacks in the military, what's your point exactly? A lot of Black people are poor, a lot of poor folks get in the military, but international drug running is done from the top down by the lilly white Corporate Masters, who run the wars we die in as well.

In the thirties and forties it was heroin in the ghettos with the rule being don't you dare sell that crap to white folks. And in the 80's and 90's it was crack cocaine, packaged and delivered along with weapons and a government marketing plan on how to expand your turf into other parts of the country. Big business. Big, Big business.

Here's the reporter who dared to take the lid off this. His career is ruined, but it's amazing he's still alive at all.

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/webb.html

Check that last remark--he's dead; suicide--TWO bullets to the head. Read here.

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

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/storm.htm

http://ciadrugs.homestead.com/files/cia-ig-rpt-gw.html

http://ciadrugs.homestead.com/files/outline.html

http://www.democracynow.org/1998/5/11/cia_crack_
connection­_reporter_­releases_n­ew

You want to know anything else, you do the work!

[ProgressiveNotLiberal]

The Second Amendment is easy to interpret. We just don't have the balls to enforce it because of misplaced stupidity. Individual rights are within a framework of regulation. The 2nd does not give the right to people to be able to be armed to overthrow the Government or to protect themselves from criminals. It gives the Rights to States to have the means necessary to secure the State from all enemies foreign or domestic. That is all it does.

[ianto94]

Of course you just cannot point to anyone who said this or believed it at the time. But why let that stand in the way.

[MsLiz]

Thomas Jefferson wrote the Bill of Rights, so you have him saying it. Then Congress approved the amendment and the states ratified it. There you are. No court to date has ratified the NRA's position that everybody has a right to a gun.

[Federalist]

actually, I pretty much can. The founders were clear on the purposes of an armed poplation.

[Federalist]

The so-called "bill of rights" (BOR) does not confer rights at all. It limits the power of government. The preamble to the BOR has the following:

----------­----------­--------
The First 10 Amendments to the
Constitution as Ratified by the States
December 15, 1791
Preamble
Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

----------­----------­----------­-------

Only PEOPLE as INDIVIDUALS can have rights; rights that come from God and are therefore pre-existing. Under the Tenth Amandment, it is clear that government may have powers, but so do individuals. We as individuals have all powers not sepcifically denied us under the Constitution. The Federal Government may only have those powers DIRECTLY SPECIFIED in the Cosntitution. It NEVER has a right to anything. The 2A RESTRICTS government from infringing AT ALL on the right to keep and bear arms.

Also, the (non-selec­t)Militia, as the founders understood the term, were composed of the body of the people as INDIVIDUALS.

And the verb "to regulate," as its PRIMARY meaning did NOT mean control in 1787; it meant to put in good working order or to adjust the function. The context of the 2A is that the people would be WELL trained at arms--which according to the founders was the best way to avoid tyranny and to fight it if it came anyway.

The writings about this by the founders are so numerous as to make it impossible to publish here. Look it up
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndcom.html

These are just a few sources.

The Federalist Papers also make reference

[LeftRight]

Thank you for the post, I appreciate reading what you're talking about. I still disagree with you, in that I think that the Constitution has changed since then, in the interpretation, and therefore we need to look into what it means as regards today. However, you wrote a very good piece and I appreciate the insight.

[unit1069]

"Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

The Founding Fathers learned from history, and one of the primary lessons was that government, as a rule, tends to increasingly concentrate power until government eventually becomes tyrannical. This is true for kings, dictators, Fuhrers, Great Helmsmen, Dear Leaders, and even democracies.

Yes, Greece and Rome were both relatively benign democracies for several centuries before an elite ruling class eventually emerged. Finally from the elite class came emperors and tyrants with total power. Today Fidel Castro "resigned" total power in Cuba after nearly fifty years of inhumanely cruel dictatorship although nobody seriously believes that he relinquished his iron grip.

What do Americans have for insurance against a government that moves from being overbearing and oppressive to tyrannical? The Second Amendment only. The author of the above essay can't imagine a country that goes from relative freedom to tyranny in a lifespan, so he surely doesn't know the history of post-WW I Germany which made the transition in roughly a dozen years. He most assuredly doesn't know the evolving history happening right before his eyes in Venezuela, where one Leftist demigod, Yugo Chavez, is seizing Castro-like powers incrementally and branding anyone disputing his plans "traitors"; otherwise the author would surely understand why each and every human has the right to regularly affirm government and that governments are only legitimate via the will of the people. (Founding Fathers wisdom, again.)

The federal Appeals Court that struck down DC's anti-rights law well understands history and affirmed that governments --- like DC's --- can and do void basic human and constitutional rights through sheer ideology instead of adherence to constitutional means. Too bad the author doesn't understand this elementary lesson of history

[Sundialsvc4]

I think that the most-reasonable course is likely to be the one that this or any Court would choose to take: (1) the Constitution grants you the right to "bear arms," and (2) even Common Law holds you responsible for what you choose to do with it.

In other words, you ARE, one way or the other, a "responsible" gun-owner because you ARE responsible for what you do... with a gun, or with anything else.

"Armed revolt" is certainly not condoned... not by the second amendment, nor by anything else. That's clear enough without any Supreme Court decision at all.

[TIME]

I don't like the idea that there are over 300 million firearms throughout our society.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems inescapable that the 2nd amendment does mean that individuals do have the right to own guns.

I don't have a problem with that, but like many things, Americans go overboard on exercising their rights. Some people own 20 cars, why? Some people own 20 guns, why? Some people own 20 Tvs, why? It doesn't really matter why, they can if they want to.

A gun is made to kill, so others get nervous about who owns guns, why they feel the need to own guns, and where these guns are. Those are not legitimate legal questions since there is a right to own guns.

Through elections, we can change the make up of our government often. If a real nut job (worse than George Bush) happened to be elected, 4 years would be plenty of time to ruin our system. We have legal remedies to deal with those problems, like impeachment, criminal prosecution, and other processes.

There is no excuse to shoot, or kill government representatives. Anyone (like a relative) that would condone such an act, is also a danger to the society. It would be a BIG mistake for the Supreme Court to leave even an impression that armed revolt against the government is ok, just because one might have a legitimate grievance against the government.

It was bad enough that we had to fight a Civil War (6000,000 dead) but what if blacks had just started shooting government leaders? Why couldn't we simply follow the words of the founding fathers (all men equal) and end slavery through the legal system?

There are times when guns are needed to preserve freedom, but we make a mistake if we think all we need to preserve freedom, is guns.

[Federalist]

No. An educated electorate would be nice.

[jdevienne]

Maybe there is a universal human right to rebel against tyrannical governments. But if you decide that is the situation, you are committed to operating outside the law -- you can't look for justification within the structure of government itself! If the Constitution really said it was OK to take up arms against the government, it would be a self-cancelling document.

[Rule Of Law]

Once a government becomes a tyranny, It is outside the law, and the People are the keepers of the Constitution that restores the original balance.

[Federalist]

Tha would be........correct!

[Federalist]

Not at all. Because as is so eloquently stated in our Declaration of Independence:


"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Thomas Jefferson also privately noted that the contract binding the the subject to the Crown was broken when the Crown undertook to restrict or eliminate the subject's rights. The difference between a (natutral) right and a privilege, si that a right is ABSOLUTE; privileges are granted and may rightfully be removed.

[Sciguy]

True, our government was designed to be able to suppress armed insurrections. But please don't forget that our country was formed BECAUSE of an armed insurrection.

Second Amendment issues are tough to interpret, partly because of the language used when the Second Amendment was written. I think it's better to err on the side of caution, but with gun issues, we can't even define what "caution" is. Is it cautious to allow everyone to have guns? Is it cautious to allow no one (except the military or police) to have guns? Is it dangerous to the public good if the citizens are better armed than the police? Is it dangerous to the public good if the police are better armed than the citizens?

Where is the line drawn - what arms can I own? I can own rifles and revolvers. I'm not allowed to own a nuclear submarine with nuclear warheads. I can own a helicopter, but I can't own a helicopter bristling with (loaded) gun turrets. I can collect old guns, but I can't collect old nukes. Can I own an Uzi? An AK-47? Any machine gun? A semi-automatic that's not quite a machine gun? There's a line in there somewhere, but I sure don't know where it is. Such is life.

[Federalist]

It is always better if the people are armed and outnumber government representatives from the point of view of LIBERTY. Suggest you read the founders in detail. But here are a few:
----------­----------
"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution Proposed BV the Late Convention (1787).

"Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation." James Madison.

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms …To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms . . . " Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53 (1788).

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).

"…The said Constitution be never construed …to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).


"Suppose that we let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal: still it would not be going to far to say that the State governments with the people at their side would be able to repel the danger...half a million citizens with arms in their hands" --James Madison, The Federalist Papers

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." --Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Framer (1788) at p. 169

These are but a few of MANY quotes from the founders.

[DemandTruth]

I tend to agree about the last resort thing. But what are you gonna do, when Blackwater comes for you? You'll point your gun at them and scream for them to get out of your house (after they've broken in the door) and all 17 of them heavily armored "soldiers" will just open fire on you. Okay, maybe that's preferrable to living the rest of your life in a Halliburton constructed "camp", but really, if it comes down to it, what are you gonna do? What are the Iraqis doing? Living in raw sewage and getting picked off one by one. That's what. And they got plenty of guns over there.

[Rule Of Law]

But let's not forget that the Iraqis, the Afghanis, the NVA and Viet Cong and every other popular resistance movement, including the French during WW2, were more than able to hold their own and prevent their occupiers from attaining victory. This is a big, big country. If we can't "pacify" one small desert nation, what luck will our military have--especially if they don't come over to the side of the people and the Constitution they are sworn to uphold over any president or general--against an armed and determined populace. Yes, many many would die. That didn't stop our founders from taking on the world's largest Empire. It won't stop us.

[LeftRight]

Military of the US won't stand by the gov't against the people. Some might, but you're looking at around 1% or less. Now then, against a small group.... maybe.