SCOTUS affirms gun rights in historic decision

[Flash]

I'm sorry you feel that way... I respectfully disagree.

I think you would be hard pressed to find any politician in this country that gives a second thought to the citizenry taking up arms because of a decision they make. The few wackos that have taken up arms against the government since the Civil War haven't done all that well either. As a matter of fact, when was the last time an armed insurrection worked in the US? I will give you a hint, a guy named Washington was in charge.

One argument that I have heard repeatedly, and what I think you are alluding too, for keeping arms is again the ideal that we have an armed citizenry ready to answer the call of arms whenever necessary. But I think that is a flawed argument. It is based partly on the whole idea that we won our independence because a few citizens grabbed their guns and fought the British. If that is what you think, you are sorely mistaken. We won mainly because the professional Continental Army and in the end, French assistance. Militamen were generally unreliable on the battlefield and only served to harass the British in most cases.

One of the few battles where militiamen were a decisive factor in a battle, the Battle of Cowpens, Brigadier General Daniel Morgan actually factored in the militiamen's tendency to abandon the battlefield into account when he schose the battlefield and his tactics. He gave orders for the militamen to fire only two or three shots, withdraw and reform, and more importantly made sure there was a river at his back to ensure that the militia did not cut and run.

Another example would be the 'Bladensburg Races' in 1814, when a predominantly militia force faced a professional army on the battlefield. The militamen fled very early in the battle, leaving 400 sailors and Marines to stand and fight a desperate holding action against the British. The result, DC burned.

So I don't really know where you get this idea anyone in government seriously takes into account the armed citizenry into account when they make governmental decisions. Basing your argument for the 2nd Amendment on old fashion notions and ideals, that have not held up when tried, is probably not the best tactic.

 

[Slammer2]

Just to fuel the fire:

Dont you think that today is a little bit different than back in the day in terms of civilians fighting? Today we have so many more trained vets than we did back when we fought the British.

 

[A4sForever]

Just to fuel the fire:

Dont you think that today is a little bit different than back in the day in terms of civilians fighting? Today we have so many more trained vets than we did back when we fought the British.

I dunno ... "back then" nearly every Colonial was conversant in the use of and employment of firearms. Men & women, young & old ... proportionately, I would say "everyone" had a firearm -- and knew how to use it -- when compared to today ... ???

 

[A4sForever]

Just one more thought:

As far as enemies "domestic" are concerned ... I think the burden of proof is upon the government as to who has "more to fear" -- an armed citizenry or an oppressive government???

Can you say: Ruby Ridge?? Elian Gonzalez?? Waco?? There's arguments to be made on both sides. And as we have seen, there's no limit to what oppression can be meted out w/out the benefit of due process from an "armed" government when a certain type of mindset is at the helm ... even the current batch of Gitmo POW's get better than that.

 

[statesman]

Argument

I don't disagree with anything in your last post. I know of the unreliably of the militia in both the Revolution and 1812, but I think where you and I disagree is the original intent of the 2nd Amendment when it was authored.

I strongly believe the original purpose of the 2nd was to provide the populace with a means to the defend themselves in the face of tyranny. You can see this alluded to in the Scalia opinion.

Scalia's opinion states that the 2nd is made up of the prefatory clause and the operative. The prefatory being A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.

There is considerable argument to be had over exactly what this is implying however I would submit that the inclusion of the 'free state' suggests that this amendment is not only concerned with protecting from foreign invasion but rather is simultaneously concerned with dangers from within. Whether the Militia was any good or not is a matter for historians to argue, but many of the Founders believed the Militia to be a great asset and one that helped win the war. That said it would follow that they believed a Militia could help overthrow a government which had over reached its bounds.

Let us remember that Jefferson believed a revolution was necessary from time to time and fully expected it to occur every 25 to 50 years. (See Joseph J. Ellis 'American Sphinx') If that was the case then how would such revolution occur if it were not rooted in a well armed populace.

Again I am not arguing the effectiveness of Militia here, I am arguing the original intent of the Constitution. My argument in support of an insurgent movement still stands however. I believe that a well organized insurgent movement has the potential to resist a well armed and mechanized force. Not any insurgent force will be able to achieve victory, just like any military operation leadership, practicality in their operations are all very important, but to say insurgent movements can not affect change is in my opinion quite false.

 

[eddie]

Let us remember that Jefferson believed a revolution was necessary from time to time and fully expected it to occur every 25 to 50 years. (See Joseph J. Ellis 'American Sphinx') If that was the case then how would such revolution occur if it were not rooted in a well armed populace.

Again I am not arguing the effectiveness of Militia here, I am arguing the original intent of the Constitution.

Well, as you can see on this glorious national birthday, this country went with the Hamiltonian ideal instead of Jefferson's stagnant agrarianism.

Happy 4th and God Bless America.

 

[nittany03]

If that is what you think, you are sorely mistaken. We won mainly because the professional Continental Army and in the end, French assistance. Militamen were generally unreliable on the battlefield and only served to harass the British in most cases.

One of the few battles where militiamen were a decisive factor in a battle, the Battle of Cowpens . . .

Umm, OK. The Continentals got their asses whipped on a regular basis until Von Steuben drilled them into shape at Valley Forge, and they later got a taste of winning. The Revolutionary War was pretty much a string of utter disasters interspersed with victories where we needed them the most. By all odds, we should still be British subjects. Washington et al were good, but also DAMNED lucky, and their British opponents made some really dumb decisions. What if Clinton had reinforced Cornwallis with the balance of the British Army instead of sitting in New York? What if Washington hadn't been able to escape Brooklyn or later Manhattan? Game Over in 1776!

But where did these "professional Continentals" come from? No such animal. The Continental Army wasn't a standing army. They came from shops, farms, cites, towns, and plantations. They were your average Tom, Dick, and Harry. Or Elijah, Josephus and George back then. The difference between them and the militia was a matter of experience and being blooded. Not years spent learning the craft of war as a "professional." They got that during the war, and boy, did it cost them.

Washington himself was a gentleman planter. He had service in the French and Indian War, but you could make the argument that he CAUSED it by porking away the Fort Necessity affair. He had a somewhat inauspicious or at least checkered past as a field-grade, but no flag experience until he took command of the Continentals. And there were plenty of people who wanted to see him go because they thought he was screwing things up (Gates and Lee come to mind). So it seems that the Revolution WAS won, at least partly, by common men with guns. The Continental Army was just a "militia" that learned by screwing up badly, but being lucky enough not to be defeated along the way. The other "militias" you speak of at Cowpens were simply less experienced.

The same thing happened during the Civil War. Thousands of volunteers sign up who barely know a left oblique from a right flank, and half the officer/NCO corps rises in rebellion. Captains and Majors become Colonels and Generals just like that. The Union basically gets whipped for 2 and a half years until Gettysburg. We can argue all day about what would have happened if Ewell had taken Culp's Hill in the first day of battle, or if Lee had allowed Longstreet to move Pickett's division against the Union flank, or if the 20th Maine had been overrun by Laws' Alabamans, or if Confederate artillery hadn't screwed the pooch and actually HIT the Union lines before Pickett's Charge. Or if Lee had decided to find better ground, put himself between Meade and Washington, DC, and made Meade come after him. Or whether Grant's taking Vicksburg made it all moot. If that "insurgency" hadn't made a pretty good go of it, people down there wouldn't be talking about the "War of Northern Aggression" to this day.

The more I study those two wars, the more it seems like the Continentals simply got the breaks, and the Confederates didn't.

 

[Fly Navy]

Just one more thought:

As far as enemies "domestic" are concerned ... I think the burden of proof is upon the government as to who has "more to fear" -- an armed citizenry or an oppressive government???

Can you say: Ruby Ridge?? Elian Gonzalez?? Waco?? There's arguments to be made on both sides. And as we have seen, there's no limit to what oppression can be meted out w/out the benefit of due process from an "armed" government when a certain type of mindset is at the helm ... even the current batch of Gitmo POW's get better than that.

Waco and Ruby Ridge are some of the best examples of oppressive government. As more information came out after those episodes, it became very apparent that the government lied, decieved, and was very heavy handed in its execution. The fact that the FBI sniper who murdered, and yes he murdered, the wife of the man from Ruby Ridge, who was unarmed and posed no threat whatsoever, and is not in prison, should forever be a grim spot on the federal government. You don't have to agree with what the actual "crazies" were doing, but when you see the data... the government was way way way above and beyond in reaction.

 

[Flugelman]

The fact that the FBI sniper who murdered, and yes he murdered, the wife of the man from Ruby Ridge, who was unarmed and posed no threat whatsoever, and is not in prison, should forever be a grim spot on the federal government.

You, Sir, are misinformed. I have talked directly with a Federal law enforcement agent, who is one of my closest friends, and have heard the story firsthand, only a couple of days after it happened. The wife was in the door as one of the armed people was coming in and leaned out to close the door as the shot was fired. She leaned into the line of fire and was not the primary target. I acknowledge that it is a huge tragedy but to blow it out of context just to make Federal Agents look bad is just wrong.

I won't get into the rights and wrongs of what happened at Ruby Ridge but I do know that there was no grand Government conspiracy to "murder" these people. Just some good men trying to enforce the laws as they are paid by us to do. The press and the politicians blur the truths after the fact to suit their own agendas.

We can take it to PM if you wish to discuss further.

 

[Zissou]

Flugelman,

The story your friend related to you is pretty close to what I know to be true about the death of Vicki Weaver. And my differing opinions arent meant to imply that your friend is not telling the story as he believes it.

Lon Horiuchi's first shot struck an unarmed man, Randy Weaver, who was checking on the body of his 14 year old son who had been shot in the back, and killed, by Agent Dugan.

Also with Randy was his unarmed 16 year old daughter and Randy Harris. Randy Harris was armed.

Realizing they were under sniper attack the three ran back to the home.

They covered less than 20 feet moving right to left. Lon Horiuchi was at a range of 72 yards with a Remington 700. The shot that killed Vicki Weaver entered her back while she was breast feeding her child. The bullet first passed through Harris's arm and into the open doorway where Vicki was standing.

One of the four rules to firearm safety is to be sure of your target and what is behind it. This is taught to Boy Scouts.

His shooting unarmed citizens was criminal.

His accidentally shooting an unarmed woman in the back was criminal.

His actions go so far beyond negligence and incompetence that its hard to believe he valued anyone's life.

I dont believe their was a conspiracy to murder and I also dont believe he intended to murder. But thats exactly what he did.

If it makes FED Agents look bad? Thats no one's fault here.

The two citizen's killed at Ruby Ridge were both shot in the back. One was unarmed and nursing a baby, the other 14 years old.

Lon Horiuchi would claim that he had been ordered to kill, on sight, the people occupying Ruby Ridge. The scene commander denied giving this order though it appeared in handwriting on the OP ORD given to the sniper elements.

The Nuremberg defense.

 

[Flash]

The two citizen's killed at Ruby Ridge were both shot in the back. One was unarmed and nursing a baby, the other 14 years old.

Let us not forget a federal law enforcement officer also lost his life there as well.

 

[Flash]

Umm, OK. The Continentals got their asses whipped on a regular basis until Von Steuben drilled them into shape at Valley Forge, and they later got a taste of winning.

But where did these "professional Continentals" come from? No such animal. The Continental Army wasn't a standing army. They came from shops, farms, cites, towns, and plantations. They were your average Tom, Dick, and Harry.

The Continental Army was just a "militia" that learned by screwing up badly, but being lucky enough not to be defeated along the way. The other "militias" you speak of at Cowpens were simply less experienced.

Thousands of volunteers sign up who barely know a left oblique from a right flank, and half the officer/NCO corps rises in rebellion.

Professionals have to start somewhere, same as today. And the Continentals were full time soldiers for the terms of their contracts, unlike the militia forces.

The more I study those two wars, the more it seems like the Continentals simply got the breaks, and the Confederates didn't.

Thank goodness in both cases.

 

[Zissou]

Let us not forget a federal law enforcement officer also lost his life there as well.

I have no doubt he was a good man, doing what he believed was right.

But the governments case was so perverted that his killer was awarded 2 Million dollars and never had handcuffs put on him. The details of this officer's death are still taught at FLTC as "what not to do".

The charge against Randy Weaver? He was asked to saw the barrel off a shotgun by an undercover agent. He agreed to after measuring the barrel. It would be legal in length after he completed the job, he was a gunsmith and Special Forces soldier.

The ATF had covertly shaved 1/4" off the stock and had it refinished so as to look new. No gunsmith of any level of sanity would have spotted it.

The ATF agents who arranged the entrapment were charged with conspiracy, but acquitted.

Nothing happened at Ruby Ridge or Waco except tragedy.

Alot of things have changed since, actions taken, measures in place.

 

[A4sForever]

...I acknowledge that it is a huge tragedy but to blow it out of context just to make Federal Agents look bad is just wrong....

We agree on a lot, but not this one. The FEDS made themselves "look bad" w/ their free & loose "cowboy" ROE which allowed them to fire first, and not just in self-defense.

FBI Director Louis Freeh disciplined or proposed discipline for twelve FBI agents for their handling of the incident and the later prosecution of Randy Weaver and Harris. Director Freeh described it before the U.S. Senate hearing investigating the incident as "synonymous with the exaggerated application of federal law enforcement" and stated "law enforcement overreacted at Ruby Ridge." (emphasis added)

Opening Statement of Louis J. Freeh, Director Federal Bureau of Investigation, October, 1995

For a shorter read try: New York Times: The FBI and Ruby Ridge; published August, 1995