Guns

[TheDeamon]

I would argue that the 2nd amendment was written so that local militias could be established that would play a role like the minute men did to bolster the armed forces in a conflict like the war for independence. I really don't see how people read that and come up with individuals should be armed to possibly overthrow the free state.

The Minutemen who fought the Battle of Lexington and Concord send their regards from 1776.

One thing you said doesn't mesh with the next thing you said.

[Wayward Son]

Standing in the street with an AR-15 against the American military is a death sentence. If they want you dead you'll be hit with a drone strike before you get to fire a shot with your rifle.

If you're "standing in the street" openly brandishing a weapon in opposition to the American Government for all to see while it has US Military backing, you pretty much deserve a Darwin Award.

You seem to have a very poor conception about how most people with said guns would be going about conducting their armed rebellion.

Idiots are called idiots for a reason.

I think yossarian was talking metaphorically, TheDeamon.  I doubt he expects the rebels would be literally standing in the streets at all times.

But it doesn't take away from his main point: "Pistols, shot guns, and hunting rifles would all still be around and you should be able to pretend those will keep you as safe from a tyrannical government as an AR-15. Because in reality both are equally effective in any conceivable armed domestic conflict."

When you're fighting a guerilla war, you don't expect to win many shooting battles, because by definition you're out-gunned.   And whether you are armed with AR-15s or hunting rifles, you're still out-gunned.

[Grant]

Is the counter argument the second amendment is absolute and we should quit regulating 50 caliber machine guns? Is it I like my gun and I don't care how many people get killed by AR-15's with high capacity magazines I want to keep mine. I don't understand people supporting the weapon of choice for mass shooters.

I think that lots of people actually do believe that the 2nd Amendment is absolute.  Personally I don't.  But to your main point, as I'm sure several have already mentioned, the 2nd Amendment isn't about protecting your right to hunt.  It's about preserving the right for the general populace to defend themselves and the state from foreign invasion/incursion/raiding and terrorist actions.  Stuff that high capacity magazines would actually help with.  50 cal machine guns too. 

If you're interested in fighting a tyrannical government you should be pushing to legalize IEDs and military grade weaponry. Pontificate all you want about an armed populace but AR-15s will not win many battles if both the cops and military go against you.

I hear a bunch about this kind of stuff when it comes to the efficacy of light infantry guerillas against standing armies.  Some say you need F-15s.  Some say you just need Ewoks. 

Even in 1775, when things like tanks and bombers didn't exist, it was tough for militia to stand against regular armies.  Lexington and Concorde were the exception to the rule.  Militia sucked.  Nevertheless, it was a major part of 18th century American defense strategy.  Because it was cheap.  The purpose of the militia was never to fight the American government, but to fight other armies invading the US and Indian raids.  But the concept of the militia being a counter to an overreaching Federal government or over powerful standing army was in fact pointed out and maintained, though even then it was something of a fig leaf.  Maybe Madison believed that crap, but I bet Hamilton knew the score, being a veteran. 

Nevertheless, the ability of infantry to be equipped and trained quickly is evident by the extensive use of both in 1861.  Though in this particular case, both sides were equally handicapped by quickly raised forces thrown into the breach. 

Poorly trained infantry can be seen utilized all the way to the NVA and VC/VM in the 1960s, the Russians in WWII, and the Chinese in 1950s.  But they were never really that successful without large casualty counts.  I honestly don't believe that American guerillas could sustain the type of losses that the Vietnamese, Chinese, Russians, and Taliban could in the last century.  The American vision is something like Red Dawn, where you lose 50% combat effectiveness over 6 months, not 6 minutes. 

Regardless, it is meant as a thorn in the side and delaying tactic, not as a method of victory.  They understood this immediately in 1775 when they actually created the regular army instead of just relying on state militias.  Militias and guerillas are just a cheap stop-gap/speed bump. 

Then you better get on that militia clause. Have state governments take bigger control over the national guard or train up a defense force because a bunch of unorganized yahoos with AR-15's are going to get slaughtered by real military units with air support and armor.

The whole point of the militia was to have something cheap and easy and fast, that could last maybe a week in the field.  The only way to do this is to have members of the general populace who could equip themselves with weapons, ammunition, clothing, shelter, and food/water for a week.  You could still basically do this with AR gun owners.  Though you would have to institute some manner of training before believing they could function even as small units. But the training is cheap. The weapons, food, clothing, and ammunition was not. 

Let's also not overstate ineffectiveness of armed resistance. The Vietnamese communists did a pretty good job of holding off a modern army, and so did the afghans. But they were backed by major powers providing supplies and other support, in these cases China and America. You tell me which major power is going to back qanon resistance.

Hmmm.  I think we're in different earths on the multiverse here.  On my earth, the VC and NVA and Taliban basically got slaughtered every time they faced the US Army.  It was basically a big meat grinder.  I know that may not be what was shown on television, but maybe it was different on your earth.  As to who would supply qanon, I would say there would be no shortage of help from China, North Korea, Iran, Russia (if they were not already in deep *censored*), etc.  How they're going to get arms shipments to Texas however seems to be a weakness in their grand strategy. 

But in the case of split up forces, or small areas of skirmish amidst a larger civil war, a well-armed civilian district could no doubt defend itself against a smallish military force that could otherwise wipe the floor with a passive population.

It's more likely that these "well-armed civillian districts" would be caught up fighting well armed civilians within their own districts that don't agree with their POV.  If Snuffy can decide that the Feds are out of line and need shootin, it means Sandy can decide that the Staties are out of line and can shoot them and Snuffy. We don't live in a Mason-Dixon Line country anymore.  Good luck trying to secure Houston or New Orleans or Atlanta with the Proud Boys and Oathkeepers.  You wouldn't even have to call up the Nasty Guard. 

That's because the premise is faulty. And bringing the army into it contradicts the essential belief of the 2nd Amendment rebellion fetishists because it means illegal or highly restricted weapons will be available as armories are opened and shared around.

As it stands the premise is faulty because there are no organized and trained militas outside of some fringe yahoo groups.  But the point of the 2nd Amendment is to have the capability to raise a militia, not to actually have one.  If you actually called up a militia, and enough people answered the call with their ARs, ammo, and cosplay gear, and gave them 3 to 6 months of light infantry training, in asymmetrical warfare, and organized them into groups led by trained veterans, you could create problems for a regular force moving into your AO.  You couldn't WIN mind you, tactically, but you can create problems and possibly win strategically if the political will of the enemy is low. 

The drawback to this concept is that the United States just doesn't have local ammunition supply capabilities everywhere.  Any militia would probably run out of ammunition during training rather than during any actually gorilla action unless their AO has an ammunition factory, which will be the first target of a regular force, which will be able to grind down any irregular militia by pinning it to a geographic location.  Hell, they don't even need to take it on the ground, they can just bomb the cac out of it.  Boom.  Your militia is out of bullets. 

For a domestic insurrection in the United States, small arms and the right knowledge in chemistry and electronics(Improvised Explosive Devices, after all) is all a group needs to wage an effective campaign against the Government. If they use the right strategies.

LOL.  No.

It's one thing to be a "resistance", and another thing to be an "insurrection" with the goal of toppling the government and defeating the regular military.  Either one gets destroyed much faster in the United States than anywhere else because there is less room to hide and no foreign assistance. 

They're going to have family members involved on one side or the other of that fight.

There is no war dirtier than a Civil War.  Americans invented killing family members in war.  They'll probably be MORE motivated to kill TRAITORS! in their family than some ignorant peasant in Asia that never did anything to them directly. 

[Grant]

There is a major difference between an American irregular force, AKA milita's, ability to defend against a foreign invasion/incursion/occupation, and actively standing against whatever American government is in place with the US Military behind it. 

The first is the level of operational security, your logistics base, the support of the general population.  Fighting the Federal Government, no matter how tyrannical, is going to split the population locally.  This isn't 1861.  Your operational security is only going to be as good as how small you are.  How small you are directly impacts your ability to make any difference against the US military, and your ability to establish your own logistics base. 

[Tom]

It's about preserving the right for the general populace to defend themselves and the state from foreign invasion/incursion/raiding and terrorist actions.

Specifically, it's about an American state's right to keep an armed population able to defend itself from both other American states and any standing army the federal government might muster, since it was not at that time a given that the federal army would muster to defend states from each other.

[Grant]

Specifically, it's about an American state's right to keep an armed population able to defend itself from both other American states and any standing army the federal government might muster, since it was not at that time a given that the federal army would muster to defend states from each other.

1.  You seem to be new.  Are you old TomD?  Or are you NewTom? 

2.  When are we talking about?  Nobody serious believed that Virginia was going to invade Massachusetts in 1787. 

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

On the other hand, upstate New York was very concerned about the British and Canadians and Indians all over their northern border and in the Ohio valley.  Same goes for western Virginia.  The Georgians had to worry about the Spanish in Florida and the Cherokee.  They were not too worried about South Carolina. 

The possibility of dissention between the states was actually an argument FOR the Federal government and standing regular army rather than FOR the militia. 

3.  The ability of a large militia to stand against a standing regular army has changed since 1787.  Instead of militia, you would have to rely upon the Nasty Guard.  Even then, no single state National Guard could stand against the US Army.  It's simply a matter of technology and logistics and security.  Yes, in 1789 one of the arguments for the militia and the right of the general populace to be armed was against the power of a regular standing army.   But things have changed since then.  Even a widespread irregular force, over several states, have the country, with local government backing, is going to run into problems due to ops security, as mentioned before. 

[Tom]

I'd rather think of myself as "venerable" at this point.

But, yeah, even in 1787 many of the founders had not only anticipated but had dealt with limited border conflicts between states and territories, some of which continued well into the 1820s. The idea that one state might challenge was absolutely used as a primary argument for state militias -- as, of course, were the prospect of Native American "problems" and French/Spanish border disputes (although even by the late 1780s people were beginning to see the problem with letting states negotiate with foreign governments.)

The biggest worry here was the whole Federal standing army bit. Almost universally, they didn't want one. States would be in change of defending themselves, both from each other and from foreign powers (but not from the federal government, since the federal government wouldn't have a military), and as such would be expected to maintain armed militias.

The reality of modern warfare simply doesn't map to the conception of armed conflict that the Founding Fathers possessed. It's one of the many reasons that Originalism is such a stillborn philosophical approach to modern law.

[Grant]

The biggest worry here was the whole Federal standing army bit. Almost universally, they didn't want one. States would be in change of defending themselves, both from each other and from foreign powers (but not from the federal government, since the federal government wouldn't have a military), and as such would be expected to maintain armed militias.

Seems an exaggeration to say "universally they didn't want one".  It was a point of contention but the Constitution was ratified by all the State Legislatures.  In some places overwhealmingly (sp). The only places it was close:  Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island.   The largest states and the smallest states.  The stickler being representation in Congress, not worries about standing armies.  It should be obvious that quite a number of Americans wanted a standing army to help in defense against Britain, France, and Spain, with the understanding that the militia alone could not defeat European standing armies, as evidenced during the recent Revolution.  In fact one of the chief arguments FOR a standing army was to keep states from sending their militias against each other, as wildly improbably as Hamilton saw it to be. 

The reality of modern warfare simply doesn't map to the conception of armed conflict that the Founding Fathers possessed. It's one of the many reasons that Originalism is such a stillborn philosophical approach to modern law.

Originalism is not meant to change the conception of war and have the law match it.  It is to keep executives from interpreting the law however they see fit according to whatever conception they may have. 

The point of Originalism is to make legislators legislate so that executives and judges cannot interpret the law however they wish.  If you think the 2nd Amendment is outdated, then amend it.  The problem isn't originalism.  The problem is American gun culture, American history, societal isolation, mental health, government overreach, and fear of more of the same. 

[Tom]

In fact one of the chief arguments FOR a standing army was to keep states from sending their militias against each other...

Well, yes. That's the flip side of one of the primary arguments for militias, as I noted earlier.

The problem isn't originalism.

Oh, I would say that one of many problems absolutely is Originalism, but I'm certainly not going to argue that's the only problem. Originalism is a good way to recognize an asshat judge, though: if they're a self-described Originalist, they shouldn't be let within fifty feet of the bench. It's like being able to recognize bad legislators by their appreciation for Ayn Rand.

[Grant]

Oh, I would say that one of many problems absolutely is Originalism, but I'm certainly not going to argue that's the only problem.

What, specifically, is the problem with Originalism? 

[Tom]

My biggest problem with Originalism is that, in practice, it always amounts to, well, hypocritical seances. Where it diverges from Textualism, it attempts to divine authorial intent (and, as a former English teacher, I'm perfectly willing to explain why that's so problematic) -- and what's interesting about the Constitution as a living document of law and not an artifact is that authorial intent does not particularly matter. It doesn't particularly add clarity to a conversation, and when it's being asserted as a final authority it's far too malleable. As with Bible interpretation, Originalism always winds up letting a judge argue on behalf of -- and this should not shock anyone -- the position they already favor, and claim without any fear of contradiction by living creatures that this was truly what was meant.

When, again, it doesn't really matter what was meant. In cases where linguistic drift has made a phrase unintelligible, sure, throw it back with a couple notes to be rewritten. But don't pretend that people arguing about whether a farmer in Georgia can own a machine gun really care what Alexander Hamilton would have thought about it.

[Fenring]

Where it diverges from Textualism, it attempts to divine authorial intent (and, as a former English teacher, I'm perfectly willing to explain why that's so problematic) -- and what's interesting about the Constitution as a living document of law and not an artifact is that authorial intent does not particularly matter. It doesn't particularly add clarity to a conversation, and when it's being asserted as a final authority it's far too malleable.

I also do text analysis as part of my job, mostly plays and screenplays, but the principle may be the same as in literature save that the presentation is done communally rather than in a reader's mind. My comment isn't about legal interpretation but just about text in general: I have found it to be very helpful to inspect authorial intent in order to find rosetta stones into word choice and meta-meaning. Sometimes this isn't necessary, either because the text lacks depth, or because its meaning is extremely straightforward. But in many cases it's not just a matter (in acting text) of understanding the semantics but also to understand there's a human intention beneath the text which can alter to purpose of saying the sentence, even if the sentence in plain English doesn't sound ambiguous. And I think even legal text may have a purposefulness to its expression, beyond the plain English meaning in a given society. Let's take a simple example of how purpose could change the interpretation:

Thou shalt not kill

At first glance pretty unambiguous: don't do a thing. But what are we supposed to understand about the context, or perhaps meta-text, of this interdiction? Let's put aside that this is an English translation of ancient Hebrew and assume it was written in English as-is. Given this literal text it could be an imperative: don't do this. In which case you are hearing an instruction for you to comply, but not exactly an ontological statement. But now let's say it's understood as being part of a list of behaviors you would do if you were good (or abstain from if you were good): in this case it defines a contour or parameter for remaining within that category (goodness). These two cases may not have the same content, i.e. they may not be isomorphic.

But now let's go further and think of author rather than text floating in limbo. Instead of seeing the phrase as an abstract descriptor of something, imagine that someone was saying to you. Now you have all sorts of factors going into it, including tone, their relationship to you, their personality, their culture, and so forth. If a policeman says "thou shalt not kill" we might imagine it coming as a threat, 'don't go against what I say or I'll mess you up.' We could perhaps re-phrase the edict as "don't make me kick your butt." But maybe it could be anything ranging from a tyrannical power trip to a paladin-like preaching of right and wrong. But now let's imagine it's your best friend saying it; suddenly we might conceive of the statement as being a desire to help you, or give you good advice. We could maybe re-imagine a meta-rephrasing as being "I want to help you stay well", or even just "I like you." To make any sense of semantics as intention we'd really have to know something about the speaker, why they're saying this, and maybe even why they aren't saying something else. Now take the words: "thou" in an Elizabethan context is a term in reference to a social inferior, so now even the social or official strata found within the statement can be inspected. This can be a large rabbit hole, but I think postmodernism has pretty definitely shown that we can't presume that meaning can be located intrinsically in a string of text. And a 'personality' or 'intention' is essentially an authorial intent, even if the speaker/writer isn't present as you read it.

Now I can't insist that no text can ever be applied without going through this type of rigorous research. Sometimes it feels like a piece of text is easy to understand, and so you move on. Although this can perhaps be a subtle trap, since typically we'll only start thinking of creative interpretation when we're stuck on a meaning. I have certainly found certain works (like Hamlet for instance) impenetrable without using analytical tools beyond just taking everything literally. One might even have to know details about Shakespeare's IRL friends and background in order to glean what some line in a play means. When reading Nietzsche even, one might need to know something about his family life and Protestant cultural context to know what the word "Christianity" might mean when he uses it. I ran a text analysis course a couple of years ago and the group found it very challenging to glean any meaning behind the few texts I selected until we started to dig into various minutiae in them and even perform them. How this would translate into legal analysis I really don't know. But it seems to me that since law consists of text one can't get away from the interpretation problem. Many directors (in theatre and film/tv) do insist that we make our own interpretation and there is no 'authentic' interpretation that exists. To an extent this must be true: part of an acting text is the person of the actor, which makes a line of text a joint expression of author and performer. But then again maybe this is true of law in a society as well: a law isn't just something that should be done, but something that specific people will have to do, and perhaps do differently depending on the social context, technology, etc. But at the same time the authorial aspect is part of that; it's just not all of it.

As I said, I don't know anything about legal analysis, but I have to imagine that simply adopting one narrow 'policy' regarding it is probably a mistake. It's sort of like saying you only do one kind of integration in calculus. You'll need all kinds of tricks to solve the various problems.

[Seriati]

Or in the riotous mob that tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power on Jan 6 2021.

You specific fiction as if it were fact.  Even in the world of the "best case" version of the "riotous mob" (or, if they were Democrat's, "mostly peaceful protestors"), it was Mike Pence that had the authority to act not "the mob."  Unless you'd care to explain the mechanism by which this group actually could have stopped the transfer of power - and it should be in their own words given the claim about what they "tried" to do.

The claims about the "insurrection" are the best modern example of the Big Lie strategy in practice.  The media went out and created a Big Lie (about Trump's Big Lie) to pre-empt rational thought, and largely it's worked.

Or in the threats by certain politicians if they do not get their way.

Like say, any national Democrat?  Or heck, pretty much all of them?  I mean we've had a constant stream of threats to the judicial branch, of arguments for court packing, of accusations that half the country are fascists and that political disagreement, or heck even just disagreement with school board policies, is tantamount to domestic terrorism. 

There is no truth to an implication that Republicans are somehow the ones making threats, in a world where Democrats feel entitled to make threats and act on them and demonstrate that fact every day.

[Seriati]

The idea that police protect law-abiding citizens is actually one of those pervasive but easily disproven myths. Literally all you have to do is look at the statistics.

That's "all" you have to do?  Mind providing those statistics.  This is one of the nonsense claims that get posted here are part of Left Privilege, where posters get to assert the unprovable or even counter-factual and no one challenges them.

However, at the end of the day, I think the costs to society are high enough when you start expecting people to engage in an arms race for self-defense -- especially if the concept of self-defense extends to property -- that I'm willing to concede that an unlimited right to proactive self-defense should not exist

Whew... thank goodness your strawman is not and has never been the actual state of the law on self defense.  You can rest easy, there has never been an "unlimited" right to "proactive" self-defense, even of your person, let alone of your property.

The police don't bother to protect people,...

Which is a Left Privilege lie.

...but that doesn't mean that you get to own a tank and a grenade launcher to protect yourself and your family.

Which rolls into a complete strawman, created solely to pretend you are arguing against people who have absurd views, so you can set yourself up as the voice of reasonableness.

It just means that you have to acknowledge that your safety is never and can never be wholly guaranteed.

Whoop there it is.  I think ever person that carries a firearm already acknowledges that their safety can never be wholly guaranteed.  Its the people who think that ordering "gun free zones" and defunding the police are good policies that refuse to believe that their safety can not be guaranteed (even though the same politicians also frequently have massive armed security details themselves).

In reality, having armed citizens increases my safety on the whole.  Every responsible citizen that obtains a carry permit and who otherwise legally carries a firearm makes me and every other law abiding citizen safer. 

[Seriati]

2A was absolutely designed to fend off an invasion. The militia wasn't there to keep Jefferson in line, it was there to stop King George without maintaining a standing army.

It was to stop any tyrant, whether they be domestic or foreign.  You can't even make a rationale claim that the founders had a problem with foreign tyrants but would have been perfectly content with a local one.

[Tom]

Even in the world of the "best case" version of the "riotous mob" (or, if they were Democrat's, "mostly peaceful protestors"), it was Mike Pence that had the authority to act not "the mob."

This is profoundly disingenuous of you, Seriati. I know you're hyperpartisan, but you can be better than this.

[TheDrake]

2A was absolutely designed to fend off an invasion. The militia wasn't there to keep Jefferson in line, it was there to stop King George without maintaining a standing army.

It was to stop any tyrant, whether they be domestic or foreign.  You can't even make a rationale claim that the founders had a problem with foreign tyrants but would have been perfectly content with a local one.

2A was designed to also prevent the federal government from becoming tyrannical, but not in the way you or the Michigan Militia think. In their eyes, by having a citizen militia to defend against foreign enemies (and rebellions) it avoided putting a standing army in the hands of the federal government which they could use to oppress them. The idea was that the federal government would never have any significant military power in the first place. They wanted citizens to have more guns than the government, true, but not so they could rise up against a power like they did with England.

[Tom]

That's "all" you have to do?  Mind providing those statistics.

I'll let you find them yourself, so you can trust them.
Specifically, what you'll want to look up is:
1) Per-capita violent crime as a function of per-capita police funding
2) Per-capita theft as a function of per-capita police funding
3) Percentage of theft recovered by police
4) Percentage of open criminal cases ending in successful conviction
5) Percentage of crimes in progress stopped by police
6) Percentage of police interventions for non-criminal activities that do not end in arrest
7) Police deaths as a function of civilian deaths
8 ) Police deaths as a function of police funding
9) Civilian deaths as a function of police funding

What you rapidly discover is:
1) Having more police in an area does not prevent crime
2) Police overwhelmingly do not stop crimes in progress
3) Police overwhelmingly do not locate and return stolen property
4) Police are incredibly bad at de-escalating conflict
5) Giving police more money for better equipment does not save police lives
6) Giving police more money for better equipment actually increases the number of civilian deaths

What does reduce violent crime in an area, reliably?
1) Active police foot patrols; this is the one instance where more police is a good thing. If you hire police, make them walk.
2) Fewer misdemeanor drug arrests
3) Availability of quality healthcare

[Seriati]

Sure they are.  If you're in favor of banning a rifle for a largely imaginary reason then you're actively using sophistry to undermine the civil rights of American citizens.  Ergo you're not patriotic.

Except I never said that.  I said I wanted to make it a bit harder for people to obtain that gun.  Because while most people who want to kill someone will use whatever weapon is available--knife, blunt object, a pistol, even a hunting rifle--those who want to kill multiple scores of people want the most efficient weapon possible for doing so.  And besides, it looks cool, like Rambo or SWAT.   Do you think it is just coincidence that the many of the most recent mass shooters--Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, Uvalde--chose military rifles for their slaughtering?

I don't think its a coincidence at all that semi-automatic rifles are used in more mass shootings than they have been historically.  The upwards trend started after the massive media coverage of the 2012 mass shooting at the movie theater in Colorado.  Pistols historically outnumber rifles used 3:1 in mass shootings, but those numbers don't tell you what they appear to tell you because of how mass shootings are defined.

In any event, in my opinion, the primary reason that rifle use is increasing and in particular use of AR-15s is the obvious one.  The kinds of mass shootings the media covers with big coverage are perpetrated almost uniformly by damaged individuals who are playing to get that coverage.  It's going to be a no brainer to one of those jackasses to select the weapons that will guaranty they get their fame.  Depending on how you define them, the media ignores upto 10 times the number of mass shootings that they give the wall to wall splash treatment of. 

At the least, we should find out why people want an AR-15 instead of more innocuous rifle for self-defense.  And if this makes it a bit harder to obtain one--well, that little inconvenience might just save the life of your kid.

And that's why I said you're actively using sophistry to undermine the civil rights of American citizens.  You don't care at all about why AR-15's are valued for self defense.  There's no such concept of "innocuous" that applies.  There's just a media inspired fear for AR-15 style rifles that doesn't YET exist for other rifles.   But there's no question that if the AR-15 goes, the media will push a new list of "fear" rifles to ban.

The whole point of your sentence is to taint an ordinary person making an ordinary choice about self defense - for which there are dozens if not hundreds of reasons that an AR-15 style rifle might be an excellent choice, with the implication that their is some "scary" or "evil" about the rifles, as must be the case based on the "unprompted" choice of sick people to use it (notwithstanding the billions, if not trillions, of dollars of coverage in the media of those rifles in media pushed formats that would exactly appeal to persons seeking to get media attention).

Here's what actually is a ridiculous claim - that removing 20 million rifles for a zero percent impact on murder rates has no impact on the ability of that population to resist tyranny.  In fact, the argument that 20 million rifles in the hands of the citizens of a country would NOT have an impact on the ability of those citizens to resist tyranny is so far beyond any concept of logic as to be absurd on its face.  You seem to think that owning an AR-15 magically grants the power to kill hundreds of civilians but that what the soldiers of an abusive government would be immune to its bullets?

Incorrect and a strawman argument.

Obviously, since people are killed by AR-15's, the murder rate for them is not zero.

And while AR-15's would be effective in killing soldiers, it is unlikely that they would be effective in overthrowing the government and defeating the military.  As the people of Ukraine are finding out.

It's fascinating to watch you use sophistry in a post claiming you don't, but not surprising I suppose.  You label the absolutely irrefutable argument that 20 million rifles could not possible fail to have an impact where a population is resisting tyranny as "incorrect" and "a strawman."

It's of course neither incorrect, nor a strawman, as it directly speaks to the Left Privilege illogical claim that rifles would be no good against the weapons a government can wield.  So why make those unsupported and unsupportable claims?  So you can ignore logic and skip straight to representing your refuted thesis.

I didn't say the murder rate was zero (which is an actual strawman argument that you are "refuting"). 

And your conclusion is just a counterfactual.  Every war, every single one, every successful and every failed resistance, every successful and failed coup, in the modern era involved people armed with rifles at significant moments.  History is replete with examples.  In fact, if your counterfactual were actually true then what exactly are you complaining about?  AR-15's can't simultaneously be weapons of war not safe in the hands of a civilian and generally useless for fighting a war.  It means that every single reference to calling the AR-15 a military style weapon is itself sophistry. 

First off, Joe Biden isn't suggesting using the military on the civilian population.

Literally he was suggesting civilians fighting the military.  There's no plausible context on his F-15 comment.  I agree he wasn't proposing to actually do it, but it's ridiculous to pretend that could be taken any other way.

He was legally and duly elected President by the people of the United States.

That's not likely true.  He may have won the vote (or he may not have), but there's no question that their were legal improprieties involved.  Confusing the court's unwillingness or inability to grant remedies in the circumstances with their actually having been no improprieties is a very Real Politik way of looking at it.  Essentially, you're endorsing that winning by cheating is valid if you aren't caught, or even if you are caught, there isn't enough clear evidence to be certain you would have lost without the cheating (which latter circumstance is the one that actually occurred).

Why would he need to attack the population unless there was an illegal insurrection?

He's got tyrannical impulses, he's already declared a big part of the populace to be "semi-fascists," and those in his government are even worse, with almost zero respect for the constitution, civil liberties or freedom to disagree.  That's before you factor in the senility.

And if "Sleepy Joe" was going to listen to his liberal supporters, he wouldn't be much of a tyrant, and wouldn't need to be overthrown with AR-15s, would he?

I literally shuddered reading this nonsense.  His progressive supporters are the ones he does listen to and they are terrible people with next to no sense of even the possibility that other viewpoints are valid.  They truly believe that disagreeing with them should be criminal. 

Look, I get it, you're going to defend the regime no matter what.  It's disappointing, you tilted at strawmen when Trump was President and ignore actual erosion of your rights because it's team Biden.  I don't get why you do it, but I do get that team is everything when you are on the left.

The truth is Biden could be the biggest tyrant in history and that insurrection would still be illegal.  That's how laws work, they get made by those in power, they get enforced by those in power, or in the case of the left they get selectively enforced and selectively not enforced to further political goals.  But that's not justice.

Second, why are you limiting the military response to WMD?  There are a variety of weapons--attack helicopters, high-caliber machine guns, tanks, armored personnel vehicles, etc.--that would be very effective against AR-15s and would be far more limited against regular civilians.  Those are the weapons I was talking about.  Ones that wouldn't massacre entire civilian populations.

Because they've been cited over and over again in these discussions, but sure motte and bailey style argument.  Again, history is replete with the inability of armies with high tech weapons and an unwillingness to put boots on the ground failing to achieve sustainable victory against determined populations.  Sure they can kill a bunch of people and keep them oppressed for as long as they want.  Those victories have virtually always involved reduction of the population and the value of the country in which it occurs, which AGAIN is self defeating in a civil war or insurrection context.  You can't deny the enemy resources when the enemy is yourself.

However, remember that there is no legitimate excuse for organized attacks against these law enforcement agents during peace time.

Is that true?  I don't recall you condemning the "mostly peaceful protests."  In fact I seem to remember you defending a crowd determined to storm and burn down a federal court house, a crowd that repeatedly conducted organized attacks against law enforcement agents, or as Pelosi referred to them at the time "Federal Stormtroopers."   Is this again, a situation where the left is virtuous for attacking law enforcement for months in numbers into the tens of thousands, and the right is irredeemable for how many people breaking and entering the capital on a single day and leaving of their own volition?

If these agencies are so corrupt that they can get away with murder, then the entire government is corrupt and must be removed.

Why would the murder people?  STRAWMAN.  They just prosecute their political enemies on the very detailed laws and regulations that no one can avoid breaking in countless tiny ways, subject them to violations of their civil rights, seize their property and files without just cause and hold them without trial even in solitary confinement until they can force them to take a plea or jail them on soft charges.  It all looks very legit for the willing audience of the Left Privilege holders.  Not one bit of concern for the thousands of such detailed laws and regulations those same persons are themselves breaking and that every single holder of Left Privilege routinely breaks in their own daily operations.  Those are "completely" different, after all no charges where brought and those laws were never intended to apply in this context.

When the law becomes a game that is played based on who the defendant is rather that what the crime is, it's corrupt.  That's where the DOJ has been for some time.  Even when Trump appointed the top political officers, the system is rigged to keep the Left Privilege holders in control of the permanent staff that massively overwhelms the political officers and can stymie their every move.

The system is overwhelmingly rigged.

But then, if you have to resort to violence to change the government, you are talking about an armed insurrection and/or a civil war.  Something like that requires a very high bar, one that we have not reached yet, in either in Trump or Biden administrations.

We don't have to have violence so long as the mechanisms to effect change are open.  The Left is working desparately to close them.  They are working to shut down voices that present contrary opinions by coordinated suppression of "misinformation" and "disinformation" which is frequently just information that they disagree with.  They're working to break any ability to verify that elections are fair and that they are not being manipulated.  They're looking to turn enforcement of law openly into a system where a local king or omnipotent (a liberal DA) can change the laws on a whim, corruptly, and ignore their duty to follow the will of the public.  This is the same system that Biden overwhelmingly uses to enact change solely by his own authority (again, completely ignored by the same people - i.e., some of you - that flipped their lids when Trump would exercise actual authority of the President). 

[qutoe]And certainly not from "Intentionally seize attorney client materials and reviewing them deliberately knowing full well they can't use them in a trial but that they can leak them to the media (illegally)..." even if that were true. 

That's literally a violation of the bill of rights.  But sure you really do support the Constitution, at least when you think it applies to you, everyone knows Trump is guilty, you just have to figure out what the crime is.  How better to do that than to just seize his records and ignore the Constitution.  If only you get enough access you'll be able to find the micro-crime that no one can live their life without violating and then count on a friendly media to pretend it is the worse thing in the history of the world, the "hugest" deal.

I mean what else can we expect from the party that impeached a President to hide the evidence of their own candidate's (Biden's) crime.

In fact, that is exactly why normal, patriotic Americans are afraid of the MAGA crowd.  That they will find some lame incident, blow it completely out of proportion, and then use that as an excuse to start killing people "in the name of FREEDOM!!!!!"    That this overblown rhetoric will make some people feel justified into starting shooting other Americans.  That these lies will enrage a crowd so that they might--I don't know--attack the Capitol and threaten the lives of our duly-elected Congressmen.

We all know that if anyone starts the killing it'll be the anti-fa crowd.  Heck they've already killed people with impunity and even with the left's authority figures protecting them and trying to "make examples" of those that resist them. 

The party that puts out the hate filled rhetoric by a 100:1 ratio is the Democrat party.

AR-15s are a symbol of this sick mind-set of those who believe their beliefs trump our laws and the facts and that they have both the right and power to enforce those beliefs on the rest of America.  They think that having AR-15s gives them the power to do whatever they want, and the Constitution and the Courts be damned.  They think that military rifles are all they need to overthrow our nation.

So like I said.  You've use sophistry to undermine a Constitutional right because they media wants people to think AR-15s are scary.  You've contradicted your own points by claiming that AR-15s are military rifles that wouldn't be useful in a military setting.  And you've laughed off blatant violations of civil rights because "bad" people don't deserve rights.

Biden is just reminding them that they are wrong.

Biden is senile, and he makes a convenient figure head and later a scape goat for the movement to make us all serfs again.

[Tom]

there's no question that their were legal improprieties involved

Oh, please. That's true in the same way that eating apples has been known to kill people.

Look, I know Crunch doesn't believe his own arguments, and I know Lambert does. On which side of the Tucker Carlson divide do you fall?

[wmLambert]

The idea that police protect law-abiding citizens is actually one of those pervasive but easily disproven myths. Literally all you have to do is look at the statistics...

...The police don't bother to protect people, but that doesn't mean that you get to own a tank and a grenade launcher to protect yourself and your family. It just means that you have to acknowledge that your safety is never and can never be wholly guaranteed.

Correct, except for police "not bothering" to protect people. The response time after a call for help to the police is too long for immediate security. The most general response is for the police to arrive after the crimes are committed, and interview the victims to find redress. The most frequent response is to use a clipboard and call in forensic teams when they can be useful, to chase down the perpetrators and recover stolen property. The recommendation has always been for people to be armed and protect themselves. There are many training classes used to teach people what they can and what they should do. The biggest advice people always remember are to drag a deceased parp over the threshold, so he's in your home, and not outside - and not to try to hold a gun on a perp while you wait for the police to come. (There may be an unknown assailant one doesn't know about who can sneak up from behind.)

there's no question that their were legal improprieties involved

Oh, please. That's true in the same way that eating apples has been known to kill people.

Look, I know Crunch doesn't believe his own arguments, and I know Lambert does. On which side of the Tucker Carlson divide do you fall?

The Founders wrote the amendment as they did for the reasons spelled out in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers.

They wanted the populace armed with the same weapons as any federal or state standing army or national guard. If soldiers had machine guns - the people should have the same. They also provided armories so the armed populace could have access to the larger and more powerful team weapons, such as tanks, artillery, or anti-aircraft. The assumption was that retired soldiers who knew how to use them would be a part of the general population when needed.

The connection was made by our Founders that we needed such an amendment to cause a tyrannical domestic government to never arise and threaten the people. As mentined by others, there are far more armed non-soldiers than soldiers.

This was never about hunting or recreation. Back then, our Founders understood that living in the wilderness required people to be armed - if just for protection from wild animals, snakes and things, or foreign invaders coming across the border, or tribal warfare.

[Grant]

It was to stop any tyrant, whether they be domestic or foreign.  You can't even make a rationale claim that the founders had a problem with foreign tyrants but would have been perfectly content with a local one.

Ehhh.  The Constitution as a WHOLE was meant to stop domestic tyrants.  The 2nd Amendment would have been seen as, like, the last ditch effort against domestic tyranny.  Everything else would have to fail first. 

So when it comes to domestic tyranny, it would most likely be some form of illegal and unconstitutional criminal government, or a mob or rebellious faction.  Like the Jan 6 rioters, operating outside the Constitution, that would be seen as a domestic enemy.  Not the actual constitutionally formed federal or state governments or their police forces or militaries.  For the founders, it would have been something like Shay's Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion. 

The entire Constitution was built around several basic concepts, but foremost were the ideas of controlling tyranny and factionalism, through the construction of a government.  Not by arming citizens    The idea was to combat tyranny through checks and balances and the separation of powers.  The way to combat tyranny wasn't with armed mobs, but with laws, and the rule of law.  The way to combat domestic tyranny was with things like impeachment and the courts system.  Not using an AR-15. 

[Tom]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ioaBG3K_dk

[Fenring]

The idea that police protect law-abiding citizens is actually one of those pervasive but easily disproven myths. Literally all you have to do is look at the statistics...

...The police don't bother to protect people, but that doesn't mean that you get to own a tank and a grenade launcher to protect yourself and your family. It just means that you have to acknowledge that your safety is never and can never be wholly guaranteed.

Correct, except for police "not bothering" to protect people. The response time after a call for help to the police is too long for immediate security. The most general response is for the police to arrive after the crimes are committed, and interview the victims to find redress. The most frequent response is to use a clipboard and call in forensic teams when they can be useful, to chase down the perpetrators and recover stolen property. The recommendation has always been for people to be armed and protect themselves. There are many training classes used to teach people what they can and what they should do. The biggest advice people always remember are to drag a deceased parp over the threshold, so he's in your home, and not outside - and not to try to hold a gun on a perp while you wait for the police to come. (There may be an unknown assailant one doesn't know about who can sneak up from behind.)

Maybe I'm hallucinating but it looks like you're actually agreeing with Tom's point that the police can't realistically help people in most cases, other than filing some paperwork. Now maybe the quibble is that it's not so much that they don't bother as they just couldn't even if they wanted to? That seems like a bit of a fine point, especially since that point would hinge on the police trying very hard in good faith to do everything they can for citizens, and just not quite being able to help as much as they would like. Real life would seem to indicate another interpretation.

[Fenring]

The entire Constitution was built around several basic concepts, but foremost were the ideas of controlling tyranny and factionalism, through the construction of a government.  Not by arming citizens    The idea was to combat tyranny through checks and balances and the separation of powers.  The way to combat tyranny wasn't with armed mobs, but with laws, and the rule of law.  The way to combat domestic tyranny was with things like impeachment and the courts system.  Not using an AR-15.

I am really not well read on the thoughts of the founders and their printed material on the matter (a matter I hope to correct someday), but I have to believe they weren't naive enough to think that "legitimately" elected governments would always de facto be the preferred method of rule of law. There's Jefferson's quote about periodic blood in the streets, and I don't think he meant it regarding rando rebels. I think he was thinking more of entrenched oligarchs acting on their own behalf at the expense of the country - but like I said I'm not as well-versed as I'd like to be. But if he didn't mean that then he should have, since it's obviously more of a long-term danger than fools trying to take up arms against the Federal government.

[Grant]

I am really not well read on the thoughts of the founders and their printed material on the matter (a matter I hope to correct someday), but I have to believe they weren't naive enough to think that "legitimately" elected governments would always de facto be the preferred method of rule of law. There's Jefferson's quote about periodic blood in the streets, and I don't think he meant it regarding rando rebels. I think he was thinking more of entrenched oligarchs acting on their own behalf at the expense of the country - but like I said I'm not as well-versed as I'd like to be. But if he didn't mean that then he should have, since it's obviously more of a long-term danger than fools trying to take up arms against the Federal government.

I would suggest The Federalist Papers first. It's the subject matter from some of the chief architects.  It's true it doesn't cover the entire matter but it should be the foundation.  The latest edition by Penguin Classics has a pretty good forward.  If you don't feel like going through the entire process of reading that much, there is a spectacular video series put out by The Great Courses, called "America's Founding Fathers".  It lays out the background much better than just reading The Federalist.  It consists of 36 30 minute Lectures.  I'm unsure if reading the book wouldn't just be faster, but it is good.  You can stream it with a subscription to Wonderium I think.  Both of them together is a complete course. 

Jefferson is a unique individual among the Founders.  He probably popped up in the only place and only time in history where he would become a great man.  And he was a great man, depending on your definition.  But he was primarily a writer/ideas guy.  He wasn't really an architect.  He was a bit emotional and withdrawn.  He had a very powerful relationship with his wife, and after his death of course he turned to one of his slaves as a mistress. 

When it comes to tyranny, Jefferson had a habit of seeing it everywhere.  He believed John Adams was a tyrant.  He was certain that Hamilton would become one.  Nevertheless, he never advocated armed rebellion.  He helped build the modern partisan/faction system of American politics.  He destroyed Adams and Hamilton politically.  He became President and in many ways kept some of the policies that Adams and Hamilton devised.  He was a bit of a sensitive soul who didn't trust other people easily unless they were "his" people and he was clearly in charge. 

Jefferson was outside of the great debate over the Constitution.  He was in France at the time, so his proxy, Madison, basically spoke for him.  It's all as well, since I'm unsure Jefferson would have been 100% behind the Constitution, given the lack of the Bill of Rights.  His opposition would have probably turned the tide towards the faction of Patrick Henry in Virginia, and our history would be very different.  But as it was, Madison did not share the same level of paranoia and distrust that Jefferson did, and he was the chief architect anyways.  Note that when it comes to the Constitution, the main body on government came first.  All about bearings arms came afterwards.  That's why it is called an "amendment". 

I don't think Jefferson was worried about "entrenched oligarchs".  If anyone in 1800 was an "entrenched oligarch", it was Jefferson and his buddies in Virginia like Madison.  They were highly concerned about upstart mercantilists in New England and New York, not each other. 

Funny thing about Jefferson.  He was a nerd at heart.  Like I said before, he came upon the stage at exactly the right time.  He founded the University of Virginia, I believe.  When his students, who studied him as their hero, began to practice as he preached, things started getting ugly. 

Jefferson allowed the University to have a "Drill Team".  Kinda like ROTC before it's time.  When the drill team started calling the new University President a tyrant, and rioted for two days.  While armed.  The armed students insisting that the University faculty could not dictate terms to them.  Davis, the University President, believed that 90% of the students neither understood the law or the facts surrounding the case, which dealt with the University prohibiting the students from drilling with weapons on the University grounds without University permission.  LOL. 

The students rioted, burnt the lawn, destroyed University property.  All that good freedom loving stuff.  The faculty had to arm themselves to protect themselves and their families. 

In 1825, the rioting and practice of shooting pistols into the air, and vandalism, had become so bad during the first seven months after the University was opened, that Jefferson had to call all the students together for "chastisement" after the first riot by the students.  The professors were threatening to quit.   Jefferson, the student's hero, of the tree of liberty watered by blood, was so overcome by his disappointment and disillusionment, that he just broke down crying. 

So there is Jefferson for you.  He honestly never understood people and was only comfortable in a position of power and authority.  I'm sure everyone has met people like that.  This is not to say that Jefferson was not a brilliant writer and believer in the freedoms and rights of mankind.  He was a pretty good President.  But not all of his concepts were made of gold.  That goes with probably all of the Founders. 

[Grant]

But if he didn't mean that then he should have, since it's obviously more of a long-term danger than fools trying to take up arms against the Federal government.

I dunno.  I see no evidence that any oligarchs have outsized political power in the United States.  I know that is a controversial position.  But in my mind, if Bill Gates or George Soros or Elon Musk wanted to control the government or already did, things would look and feel much differently.  It would look more like China, Russia, or Saudi than the United States.

Fools taking arms against the government usually isn't a big deal.  But every once in awhile a perfect storm of factors leads to something serious. Add in a few more factors and suddenly the government is gone. 

[msquared]

Just and FYI, Jefferson did found UVA.  My wife graduated from William and Mary and when UVA people like to boast that Jefferson founded their school W&M  people just tell them that Jefferson was a graduate of W&M, class of 1764.

[Grant]

Just and FYI, Jefferson did found UVA.  My wife graduated from William and Mary and when UVA people like to boast that Jefferson founded their school W&M  people just tell them that Jefferson was a graduate of W&M, class of 1764.

I mean, neither one is an SEC school, so not sure what they are bragging about.    lol

[msquared]

My was in the pep band while she was in school, and you know the chant where the spell out the name of school? Like "Give me an O. Give  me an H. Give me an I. Give me an O. What does that spell?  OHIO.

Well they did that but did "The College of William and Mary, Chartered in 1693". Took them the whole half time to do it.

[Grant]

My was in the pep band while she was in school, and you know the chant where the spell out the name of school? Like "Give me an O. Give  me an H. Give me an I. Give me an O. What does that spell?  OHIO.

Well they did that but did "The College of William and Mary, Chartered in 1693". Took them the whole half time to do it.

Spelling isn't allowed in SEC schools.  It doesn't help win football games. 

[msquared]

And that was supposed to say my wife was in the band.

[Fenring]

He helped build the modern partisan/faction system of American politics.  He destroyed Adams and Hamilton politically.  He became President and in many ways kept some of the policies that Adams and Hamilton devised.  He was a bit of a sensitive soul who didn't trust other people easily unless they were "his" people and he was clearly in charge. 

What little I have read did seem to indicate that he was vehemently against having political parties in the first place, believing they would be the demise of democracy, but that others (like Hamilton I think?) cautioned him that he was living in a dream land if he thought he could avoid joining or forming a party. And he eventually relented. Maybe this point isn't so clear historically and I was reading a decided opinion of one scholar.

[Grant]

What little I have read did seem to indicate that he was vehemently against having political parties in the first place, believing they would be the demise of democracy, but that others (like Hamilton I think?) cautioned him that he was living in a dream land if he thought he could avoid joining or forming a party. And he eventually relented. Maybe this point isn't so clear historically and I was reading a decided opinion of one scholar.

Meh.  Everybody was against factionalism and partisanship in 1780.  That was before Jefferson and Hamilton had to be on the same cabinet together for Washington.  Even up to 1790 it was rather clean.  This was the founders cutting off the anti-federalists, who for the most part quietly went to their graves. (except for Monroe and George Clinton [the politician, not the grandmaster of funk]). 

As for the Founders, they were against factionalism, but they saw it as a natural outgrowth.  Almost inevitable.  The key writings are Federalist 9 & 10.  If Federalist 10 is the most famous paper, 9 is probably not far behind it.  Written by BOTH Hamilton and Madison respectively.  The key here is that the Constitution was constructed to control factionalism and party politics.  Both Hamilton and Madison were realists in this sense.  They both saw, and so did Jefferson I'm sure, that trying to control the causes of partisanship and factionalism were closer to tyranny than otherwise. 

It was the Jeffersonians who left the administration first, and began forming a political party.  Whatever the founders thought of political parties in 1790, it was out the door by 1796.  Led by Jefferson and Hamilton, the first party system in the United States was born.  But it was Jefferson who created a party first.  Hamilton's party naturally formed as a result of Jefferson's party. 

[TheDrake]

Jefferson in 1824 on parties:

I am no believer in the amalgamation of parties, nor do I consider it as either desirable or useful for the public; but only that, like religious differences, a difference in politics should never be permitted to enter into social intercourse, or to disturb its friendships, its charities or justice. in that form, they are censors of the conduct of each other, and useful watchmen for the public. men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties. 1. those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2dly those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them cherish and consider them as the most honest & safe, altho’ not the most wise depository of the public interests. in every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. call them therefore liberals and serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, whigs and tories, republicans and federalists, aristocrats and democrats or by whatever name you please; they are the same parties still and pursue the same object.

He clearly still didn't like them, but acknowledged they were inevitable.

Meanwhile, it can be hard to know what the founders really thought about guns because people love to make up quotes and spread them around in support of guns.

The Founding Fathers are frequently quoted in the gun control debate, but many of those quotations turn out to be fake.

The most popular comment on a recent story about gun control featured a purported quotation from Thomas Jefferson. More than 2,000 votes pushed it to the top.

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty,” reads the quotation. “When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

The same quotation has been posted dozens of times in other readers’ posts. Some readers worked to debunk it by mentioning Monticello.org, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation’s website, which has a section devoted to “spurious” quotations that have been attributed to the third president of the United States. The website lists several variations of the quotation, featured on two pages, and says staff “have not found any evidence that Thomas Jefferson said or wrote” those words.

[Ouija Nightmare]

But if he didn't mean that then he should have, since it's obviously more of a long-term danger than fools trying to take up arms against the Federal government.

I dunno.  I see no evidence that any oligarchs have outsized political power in the United States.  I know that is a controversial position.  But in my mind, if Bill Gates or George Soros or Elon Musk wanted to control the government or already did, things would look and feel much differently.  It would look more like China, Russia, or Saudi than the United States.

Fools taking arms against the government usually isn't a big deal.  But every once in awhile a perfect storm of factors leads to something serious. Add in a few more factors and suddenly the government is gone.

That’s because like other people they have diverse political interests. They tend to provide their own counterforces.

Where you see it the most is things like tax structures which somehow leave people who actually work for a living defending the ultra wealthy’s right to not pay taxes while claiming child tax credits and maintaining a private space fleet.

[Seriati]

It was to stop any tyrant, whether they be domestic or foreign.  You can't even make a rationale claim that the founders had a problem with foreign tyrants but would have been perfectly content with a local one.

Ehhh.  The Constitution as a WHOLE was meant to stop domestic tyrants.  The 2nd Amendment would have been seen as, like, the last ditch effort against domestic tyranny.  Everything else would have to fail first. 

So when it comes to domestic tyranny, it would most likely be some form of illegal and unconstitutional criminal government, or a mob or rebellious faction.  Like the Jan 6 rioters, operating outside the Constitution, that would be seen as a domestic enemy.  Not the actual constitutionally formed federal or state governments or their police forces or militaries.  For the founders, it would have been something like Shay's Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion. 

The entire Constitution was built around several basic concepts, but foremost were the ideas of controlling tyranny and factionalism, through the construction of a government.  Not by arming citizens    The idea was to combat tyranny through checks and balances and the separation of powers.  The way to combat tyranny wasn't with armed mobs, but with laws, and the rule of law.  The way to combat domestic tyranny was with things like impeachment and the courts system.  Not using an AR-15.

It's a fascinating contra-historical interpretation there.  The founders were clear that the Constitution was to limit the government itself from becoming abusive.  They just revolted against a "legitimate" government in England that had become illegitimate.  It's literal nonsense to assert that they thought the threat of tyranny came from primarily from non-governmental sources.

In fact, the Bill of Rights was literally to double down on constraining the actual government.  That was its direct and intended purpose.  The primary argument against it was that it was unnecessary because the Constitution never granted the government power in those areas in the first place.  Glad that argument lost.

There's no legitimate question about what the second amendment was designed to do.  The founders never even questioned that the populace should be armed, that was a natural law right that predates the concept of a Constitution.  The second amendment was a direct response to their own experiences with abusive and tyrannical government that sought to control the people by disarming them.  So really not a shock that the party of big government tyrants is pro-gun control.

And again, how do you even try to argue that a document that was written by people who literally overthrew a foreign government in an armed revolt was written by people who were rejecting using force to combat tyranny?  "The way to combat tyranny wasn't with armed mobs, but with laws, and the rule of law."  That was the aspiration of creating a better government, not a pledge of some kind of crazy pacificism.  The founders knew better than anyone that corruption undermines the rule of law but leaves the forms in place (a situation then of two-tiered justice in favor of the King, much like the two-tiered system we are heading towards today).   The people that wrote the document understood that when corruption and men overturn fair and neutral application of the law, then justice is no longer possible. 

[Seriati]

That's "all" you have to do?  Mind providing those statistics.

I'll let you find them yourself, so you can trust them.

Lol.  Sure that's "why" you'll let me find them.  Couldn't just be what I said - i.e., that you're entitled as a Left Privilege holder to make unfounded assertions without proof or challenge.

So, what did you say?

The idea that police protect law-abiding citizens is actually one of those pervasive but easily disproven myths. Literally all you have to do is look at the statistics.

And what do you want me to look up?

Specifically, what you'll want to look up is:
1) Per-capita violent crime as a function of per-capita police funding

Even in fantasy land this wouldn't "prove" your case.  It could be helpful to identify areas that are over or under resourced, but it literally has no relationship to your claim on whether police protect law abiding citizens.

2) Per-capita theft as a function of per-capita police funding

Also wouldn't prove your claim.  You seem to think success rates as tied to dollars spent speaks to whether police protect law abiding citizens, but that is correlation where very likely one or both are actually dependent variables.

3) Percentage of theft recovered by police

This would speak to potentially dozens of things, not least of police competence, types of thefts reported, efficiency of criminals, etc.  None of which actually speak directly to your claim.  If you want to make an inference you actually need to draw one and explain away the pieces that don't fit.

4) Percentage of open criminal cases ending in successful conviction

Success rate speaks to you claim in what specific way?

5) Percentage of crimes in progress stopped by police

Which is literally a function of the rate of crime and the density of officers.  Says virtually nothing to support your claim, unless you think you can demonstrate that areas with a high density of police officers ignore crime.  There are some woke jurisdictions where that is true, where officers have been ordered not to interfere with crimes.  The results there are pretty much massive increases in crime and people being unsafe.  So for those jurisdictions you may be able to "prove" your argument.

6) Percentage of police interventions for non-criminal activities that do not end in arrest

So you're asking about the percentage that end in arrest versus those that don't?  Hardly helps your case without giving context.  Unless you're arguing that they are making political arrests in those circumstances?  It could be that you're attempting, poorly, to imply that those are not legitimate arrests, without actually doing any of the work to show that they don't involve legitimate arrests.

7) Police deaths as a function of civilian deaths

Not even clear what you mean, but has zero to do with your claim.

8 ) Police deaths as a function of police funding

Irrelevant to your claim.

9) Civilian deaths as a function of police funding

Sounds a useless statistic.  Is an armed felon a "civilian" firing at police?  Probably, and why would that be a bad result?

What you rapidly discover is:
1) Having more police in an area does not prevent crime

Which has no relevance to your claim - even if it were true.  And I get what you've done, you're blind referencing some advocacy studies that you don't really understand but that say what you want to hear.  There is plenty of evidence that crime increases where there is opportunity and low risk of detection.  Historically, officers on patrol knocked out a big chunk of that part of crime. 

Today, the overwhelming ability of the state to access cameras and tracking data means that far less crime is truly undetectable.  However, it still may appear to be undetectable.  Police in sight will stop more crimes, cameras may catch the perpetrators after the fact.

So again, doesn't speak to your claim.

2) Police overwhelmingly do not stop crimes in progress

They do when they are present and haven't been ordered by woke authority figures not to.  They stop them just by being present, but also they stop them actively.

Presumably, you are referring to the statistical point that "most" crimes are not stopped in progress by police (or anyone else), which is of course a function of the prior point that crimes increase where there is opportunity and low risk of getting caught - both of which describe times when police are not present.  You may also be deluded by the change in those statistics over time that have occurred because of the increase in the surveillance state ability to catch crimes after the fact.

3) Police overwhelmingly do not locate and return stolen property

And?  Still not relevant to your claim (you know that police are don't help law abiding citizens).  Honestly, this point is beyond stupid.  It's a big world and the possibilities to hide even big pieces of property, let alone little ones, are near endless.

4) Police are incredibly bad at de-escalating conflict

Left Privilege claim.  Prove it.  Pretty sure you are near 100% wrong on this. 

5) Giving police more money for better equipment does not save police lives

It can, but much like giving union teachers "more money for the same teachers" doesn't improve educational outcomes, its mostly a function of what the money is used for.  But this also has ZERO relevance to your claim.

6) Giving police more money for better equipment actually increases the number of civilian deaths

Does it?  Maybe you can cite exactly which "better" equipment is responsible for civilian deaths.  And exactly how.  This again is an unexamined Left Privilege claim, there are almost certainly things the police departments buy and don't need that are more dangerous in their hands.  There are almost certainly felons that are included in the "civilians" category you use.

What does reduce violent crime in an area, reliably?

Which - by the way - in case you forgot has ZERO to do with your "easy to prove" claim.  Again, you made a poorly thought through claim, refused to actually provide the "easy" proof of said claim, and now want to change to a completely different argument (that I suspect you cribbed out of some advocacy pieces).

1) Active police foot patrols; this is the one instance where more police is a good thing. If you hire police, make them walk.

This is true and undermines about 6 of your "claims" above.

2) Fewer misdemeanor drug arrests

Wow.  So you can "reduce" violent crime, if you let other crime run rampant.  No chance that what you're actually seeing is flight from the area by the non-drug addicted citizens, less reporting of crimes because the people that are the victims are drug addicts and drug dealers, and generally an overall decline in quality of life and the rule of law.

And again, this has nothing to do with your claim.

3) Availability of quality healthcare

Which is a correlation more likely than a causitive factor.  (And also has nothing to do with your claim).

[Tom]

Couldn't just be what I said...

Based on past experience, Seriati, it very rarely is.

Also: if you don't want to do a minimum amount of research, man, you can just say so. You don't need to pretend that you don't understand how correlation works. For example:

Presumably, you are referring to the statistical point that "most" crimes are not stopped in progress by police (or anyone else), which is of course a function of the prior point that crimes increase where there is opportunity and low risk of getting caught...

No. I'm referring to the statistical point that increasing the number of police in an area does not increase the number of crimes stopped as a percentage of crimes reported. While obviously there's distortion at both extremes -- having no police and having one policeman per square foot are both going to throw off the numbers a bit -- you'll find that crimes in progress are not actually reduced by increasing the number of police in an area. Response times to emergency calls (which make up a small subset of the number of crimes reported) don't even meaningfully improve.  But that's just one of many conclusions that can be drawn from the handful of limited datasets I suggested you look up.

Also: what do you think my claim was? Mine was that police do not protect law-abiding citizens. To bolster that claim, I pointed out that police have no legal obligation to do so, do not do so reliably, etc. As a body, police do a woefully bad job of being protective of the citizenry (although, in their defense, this is because it is not their priority), and we do ourselves and our communities a practical disservice by expecting that of them and lionizing them based on that presumption. Is your objection here that I did not couch it in enough mealy-mouthed exceptions that it's conceivably possible that an idiot might conclude that I meant that no police ever protect any law-abiding citizens? That if I said bakers do not protect law-abiding citizens, I would be maligning those individual bakers who have in fact historically provided some protective service?

Edited to add: I also want to briefly address the point below.

This is true and undermines about 6 of your "claims" above.

I should note that increased foot patrols are a specific outlier. Noting that increased foot patrols -- alone of almost all increases in police function -- do indeed seem to reduce crime is not an argument that undermines the overall observation that policing in general is not protective, any more than saying "my kid hates dessert, but will eat apple pie if you put it in front of him" somehow invalidates the first part of the phrase. Sure, I could have refrained from acknowledging that anything police-related appears to reduce crime based on available data, but intellectual honesty demanded that I recognize that there is something, and that there's probably something unique about it (as opposed to buying police vests, or more cars, or even more officers) that makes it more effective.

Personally, given that I think one of the big problems with modern policing is an "us vs. them" mentality, I'm inclined to guess that foot patrols break down some of that isolation and perhaps actually inspires some genuinely protective instincts. But I'm just speculating on that -- unlike the data-based observation that police in general don't actually protect the citizenry.

(Also, speculation: I think ignoring minor drug offenses probably keeps people who're financially on the brink from falling into a vicious cycle that leads to worse crimes and more incarceration, and available healthcare reduces stressors that actually lead to violent crime.)

[Seriati]

Couldn't just be what I said...

Based on past experience, Seriati, it very rarely is.

Also: if you don't want to do a minimum amount of research, man, you can just say so. You don't need to pretend that you don't understand how correlation works. For example:

I love this one.  You accuse me of not understanding correlation, then use a correlation to make a causation argument.

Presumably, you are referring to the statistical point that "most" crimes are not stopped in progress by police (or anyone else), which is of course a function of the prior point that crimes increase where there is opportunity and low risk of getting caught...

No. I'm referring to the statistical point that increasing the number of police in an area does not increase the number of crimes stopped as a percentage of crimes reported.

Do you understand the mistake you made there?  An observed correlation (i.e., a "statistical point") does not demonstrate that there is causation.  In other words, when you claim that "increasing the number of police...." has a specific result, you've actually made an unproven and potentially false claim. 

There are way too many factors influencing these statistics to make that kind of specific conclusion without a completely different kind of analysis.  There's a reason they don't run that kind of analysis (it's simple really, it doesn't support the claim they want to make).

While obviously there's distortion at both extremes -- having no police and having one policeman per square foot are both going to throw off the numbers a bit -- you'll find that crimes in progress are not actually reduced by increasing the number of police in an area.

I won't actually "find that," at least not based on this fact pattern - again, you'd need a study that establishes causation not correlation to "find that." 

What you would have "found" is that in areas that correlate with higher police presence (which could also correlate with other things like urban density, higher levels of police administrators, greater or lesser levels of wealth, more criminals, greater gang influence, more local strife), also correlate with areas that by percentage have more successful crimes as a percentage of all - what reported? actual? - crimes.  Those areas could also correlate with areas that under-report crimes (as most urban areas do), areas where the population density actually facilitates the ability to commit crimes unobserved (less chance for a successful pick pocket on a country farm than a crowded street), or a million other factors.  And while all that undermines the actual relevance of the two factors you are cherry picking to compare, without any actual scientific basis, there's also the problem that by using a "percentage" you've introduced a ratio, which itself introduces a large number of potential additional factors related to the conversion rate.

Statistics, when selected by advocacy groups, are selected specifically for narrative implications, not because they describe reality.

And, none of this has to to with your claim.

Response times to emergency calls (which make up a small subset of the number of crimes reported) don't even meaningfully improve.  But that's just one of many conclusions that can be drawn from the handful of limited datasets I suggested you look up.

Again, "drawing conclusions" requires causative studies, not statistical correlation.  Emergency call response is far more directly linked to a thousand other factors than those you are choosing to "review," and NO CONCLUSION can be reached that increasing police presence would not increase the response times on a case by case basis from the statistic you are referencing.  Why is that?  Because the situation for each event may be completely changeable by adding a police officer, even if a "similar" situation (defined loosely given how broad your categories are and how much they ignore) at "plus one police officer" in a different location is not already better.   

It takes a real study (and understanding) to make those kinds of conclusions.  Yet you assert them as if they are facts.

Also: what do you think my claim was? Mine was that police do not protect law-abiding citizens.

That's part of what you claimed.   You also claimed that it would be easy to demonstrate with statistics.  Given that first claim is almost certainly false and that it's virtually impossible to "easily" demonstrate that (even if it were true) with statistics, your entire claim is false.  Rather than giving evidence you backed up into the Left Privilege motte and bailey.

To bolster that claim, I pointed out that police have no legal obligation to do so, do not do so reliably, etc.

Did you?  Or did you list about 20 "bullets" that had nothing to do with the claim you made?

As a body, police do a woefully bad job of being protective of the citizenry (although, in their defense, this is because it is not their priority), and we do ourselves and our communities a practical disservice by expecting that of them and lionizing them based on that presumption.

Left privilege claim.  As a body, the existence and presence of the police provides significant protections to the body of the people, both by pre-empting crime but also by making sure that the consequences of crime act to dissuade crime.  There is virtually no safety in true anarchy situations. 

As far as doing a bad job?  That's almost complete spin rather than reality.   We can tell because rather than offer an explanation and a plan that actually works better, you offer "doing nothing" and point to statistics that rely on factors like rural communities (i.e., low per capital spending and low per capita crimes) having less crime than urban ones (i.e., high per capita spending, high per capita crime), without any honest effort to find the relevant independent variables that drive crime in either situation. 

You can't really explain how stopping the function of enforcing our democratically agreed laws will lead to less violations of the law, because in reality it does not do so.

Is your objection here that I did not couch it in enough mealy-mouthed exceptions that it's conceivably possible that an idiot might conclude that I meant that no police ever protect any law-abiding citizens?

No, my objection is that you're repeating advocacy propaganda that you barely understand and relying on being on the "correct team" to cover the deficiency in the arguments.

But please do fall back to increasingly absurd strawman and false framing rather than say using the radical approach of actually making a supported argument.

You made a claim that is more likely than not false and virtually impossible to support.  If you can support do so, but the line of argument you're making is exactly why I said this was a Left Privilege claim where you get to make a false assertion in the confidence that it will go unchallenged and ultimately not require proof.  You could retract the false statement, you could defend it, but what you're doing is emphasizing  what I said about the claim.

That if I said bakers do not protect law-abiding citizens, I would be maligning those individual bakers who have in fact historically provided some protective service?

Nope.  But if you said bakers don't want to feed citizens because they charge for the bread it would be of a kind to the nonsense you posted about the police.

Edited to add: I also want to briefly address the point below.

This is true and undermines about 6 of your "claims" above.

I should note that increased foot patrols are a specific outlier.

They aren't an "outlier" they are just such an obvious counter-point that failing to give them credit would cause people to question whether there is any sense in the position. 

It's like relying on the statistic "trick" that a crime prevented doesn't actually show up in the statistics, because there is nothing to report about something that didn't happen.  Yet, you absolutely make claims that rely on ignoring crimes prevented by increased police presence.

Noting that increased foot patrols -- alone of almost all increases in police function -- do indeed seem to reduce crime is not an argument that undermines the overall observation that policing in general is not protective, any more than saying "my kid hates dessert, but will eat apple pie if you put it in front of him" somehow invalidates the first part of the phrase.

No it just reflects how your analysis is completely at the surface level.  You don't comprehend the other police functions and how they relate in greater or lesser parts to public safety as a whole, because it's not "easy" to see, and more significantly, its harder for the other side to explain and demonstrate its worth, ergo it doesn't exist in your model of the world.  But ignoring the difficult to parse literally means you'll always fail to understand what's actually going on and leads to making decisions that appear - at the surface - to create a good result, without any real regard for the true consequences.  After all you can always pretend those consequences are unrelated to your position (i.e., every Democrat on crime increases following they're defund the police policy implementation).

Personally, given that I think one of the big problems with modern policing is an "us vs. them" mentality, I'm inclined to guess that foot patrols break down some of that isolation and perhaps actually inspires some genuinely protective instincts.

Why speculate, there is actual research on these topics.  Get off the advocacy pages and pick up something that is around a hundred pages with a data set, statistical analysis, charts, commentary, the whole works.

But I'm just speculating on that -- unlike the data-based observation that police in general don't actually protect the citizenry.

Not a data based observation.  Just a political position that someone has gone to the trouble of compiling a bunch of misleading correlations to support.

Why don't you go pull a longitudinal study of crime rates in a specific locale based on police funding and tactics.  Even there they're difficult to use for meaningful conclusions of the kind you are drawing out of the blue here, because so many other factors are in motion, but they're not as hopeless as what you're letting influence you now.

(Also, speculation: I think ignoring minor drug offenses probably keeps people who're financially on the brink from falling into a vicious cycle that leads to worse crimes and more incarceration, and available healthcare reduces stressors that actually lead to violent crime.)

You're welcome to your opinion, but I'm not obligate not to try and pop the bubble of your delusions about your opinions somehow being "data-driven" when they are not. 

[Tom]

*sigh* Seriati, I am at present, among other things, a data scientist. You have heard an old saw about correlation not proving causation and are attempting here to use it to assert that correlation cannot suggest causation. In so doing, you are actually attacking the validity of all statistical analysis, since correlation (or the lack thereof) is literally the only thing statistics get you.

Now, you can argue that a small enough sample, cluttered with enough confounding variables, might lead someone to erroneously conclude causation (or, again, the lack thereof) where something else was happening that went uncaptured; perhaps every time the test subject hurled himself off the cliff, a massive updraft chanced to lift him into the air.

But without bothering to look into the underlying data collection, you are asserting that no conclusions can be drawn from that data. Please at least do me the favor of admitting that you're just dismissing evidence and arguments because you're not comfortable with them.

As an example: I have made no claim about whether or not police want to protect citizens; I have simply said they do not do so effectively. You reworked my baker example into one of intent, but let us imagine that I simply said that bakers do not feed the people, and as evidence cited the caloric value of bread produced and consumed daily as a per capita average. Would you fins that insufficient?

[Fenring]

Do you understand the mistake you made there?  An observed correlation (i.e., a "statistical point") does not demonstrate that there is causation.  In other words, when you claim that "increasing the number of police...." has a specific result, you've actually made an unproven and potentially false claim. 

There are way too many factors influencing these statistics to make that kind of specific conclusion without a completely different kind of analysis.  There's a reason they don't run that kind of analysis (it's simple really, it doesn't support the claim they want to make).

I'm not studied in the research on police effectiveness in relation to funding, positioning, etc, but I'd like to point out, Seriati, that based on your criteria here it sounds like it would actually be impossible to produce a study on police effectiveness. If you eliminate correlations based on factors (for instance funding, reported crime per capita, etc) as implying causation then you will never be able to establish soft causation. I use that made-up term because hard causation is obviously impossible to show: the equivalent of observing one large ball knocking another and producing a kinetic result cannot ever be established in chaotic and complex systems. So soft causation would mean something like "this seems to be causing this" which is still a stronger claim than citing a correlation but must obviously leave open the possibility that it's a potentially false claim. You actually cannot do better than that in any human affairs. What you would need if you were being precise would be a probability distribution (if such thing existed) of the likelihood of a given claim being accurate, and create a matrix of the various correlates against the probabilities to see how likely it is that all correlations are disconnected in a soft causal sense. In other words, "this doesn't show causation" isn't really the appropriate refutation to the type of hypothesis Tom is making, but rather a re-casting of the various probabilities, presumably to lower values.

Sorry to be a bit dry about this, but it just seems that sweeping Tom's claims aside as if his data shows nothing is...exceedingly premature as a conclusion. Intuitively Tom's claims make sense: it would be bizarre if the police were really good at de-escalation, for instance, given what we know about the training methods used in the last 20 years involving military tactics, foreign agencies being brought in to train police forces, and the purchasing and deployment of military-type arsenal. Even the prevalence of SWAT-type units would seem to suggest that de-escalation is not a top priority. How reasonable it is to suppose that police are both trained to see citizens as being "the enemy" (a term they are trained to use) versus being good people that need to be given the benefit of doubt at all times? All I'm saying is that your claim seems to be the one that's counter-intuitive, if we're just using common sense. Although you could be right, maybe.

By the way none of this needs to be seen as conclusively anti-police (although one may detect that opinion in Tom's observations). For instance if you sympathetically view police work as being scary, the training insufficient, and the environment consisting of many dangerous surprises, we can suppose that individual police officers may be naturally prone to be looking everywhere for 'the enemy' even if they got into the job with good and pure intentions. This type of analysis doesn't necessarily have to fall into an anti-police camp.

ETA - Tom posted the post just above after I began my post, so possibly a bit of what I'm saying overlaps with that.

[Tom]

Side note: I am unaware of any authoritative public study done that offers conclusive proof of why police foot patrols are orders of magnitude more effective than all other forms of increased spending. Do you have a link?

[TheDeamon]

At a guess, foot patrols tend to accomplish two primary things.
1) It establishes physical presence in a more tangible way than just watching a Cruiser roll through at just below the speed limit. Walking patrols are going to move even slower, and being outside of the Cruiser, will "experience more" of the environment around them.

2) Getting out of the Cruiser and "walking a beat" gives the officer a chance to interact with the community in a non-confrontational context, and allows them to build relationships/contacts which can help prevent smaller problems from becoming larger problems which will turn up in a police report.

From my own force protection training back in the day, #1 is widely held to. DOD fully supports and endorses "security theater" in many cases. It works, they know from interviews of both criminals, spies, and terrorists that all three groups favor the "soft targets" and generally aren't going to bother to test to see if the security present is a bluff, or actually has teeth. The rent-a-cop doesn't seriously scare anyone who knows better, but he's still plenty effective at getting the more nefarious to look at other options instead. Basically the Police Foot Patrol is filling that role.

As to the validity of crime statistics, that can be wildly variable depending on the reporting agency. Or just who is working on the reporting within said agency. Have a sister who works in dispatch. For (small) her agency, and most in her area(even the large agencies), the dispatchers are the ones who are responsible for "coding" the police calls/activity in the region for the big FBI database that many like to use. However, the larger agencies typically have a team dedicated solely to the purpose of reviewing calls/reports and checking for/adding any relevant codes to that database as near full time jobs

Long story short, being a smaller agency, that was an "additional duty" for one of their dispatchers, and the person doing it didn’t fully understand what they were doing. That person gets replaced and they go back through the logs for the year previous as they also start on the (then) current year's reporting. After they completed the review, the result was a more than 200% increase in "reportable criminal activities" even  though the number of incidents didn't actually go up. Just the number of categories applied to each incident went up. While previously they were only logging one per incident, now they log every category that applies.

It was kind of comical to know what really happened as the local news was going nuts over the "surge in local crime."

[rightleft22]

Finding the discussion on correlation really helpful

My two cents for all its worth
I didn't read Tom's comments as anti police. Interesting how questioning assumptions is viewed as a threat instead of a opportunity to learn better to do better.
The police officers I know all struggle with the idea to serve and protect while not becoming hardened as the majority of thier integrations with the public occur when people are not at thier best.
it is understandable that in general their first approach is to view those they are interacting with as threats. The end is in the beginning so that probably isn't the most skillful approach.  That said just being conscious of that, via quality training, would probably go a long way

[Grant]

It's a fascinating contra-historical interpretation there. 

Yes, it is fascinating, isn't it?  ::yawn::

There is a bunch of stuff there, but I had to sift through it all to find what the stasis was.  IE, what was the point of contention. A bunch of the things you write I never stated a position against. 

I mean, there is a whole  bunch of word salad in there to simply say "the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the people from the government". 

I notice you are making a bunch of claims without receipts.  I will bring some if you like. 

But if you go back and read what I actually wrote, you will note that my primary point was not that the 2nd Amendment was not seen as a way to curtail the power of the Federal Government over the states, but that it was seen as a last ditch effort, and that the purpose of the militias were primarily to defend against foreign enemies, not domestic ones. 

So instead of starting with the receipts, I would rather propose some thought exercises.

1)  What exact domestic enemy were the people of the United States, or the States themselves, existed that required a militia, in 1785? 

Under the Articles of Confederation, there was no President.  Only a Legislature with next to no powers.  There was no standing army.  New Hampshire really did not have much to fear from Massachusetts.  The militias existed primarily to protect against the British, the French, the Spanish, and Native Americans.  So again, in 1785 to 1787, where was the domestic enemy? 

2)  Why did the founders not include the right to bear arms in the original draft of the Constitution?  Why is it not among the original seven articles?  What was the purpose of the Constitution and why did the framers believe that it wasn't important to add the right to bear arms? 

Firstly, most of the states already had the right to bear arms in their state constitutions.  The framers did not see the need.  The problem in front of them wasn't a Federal Government that was too strong.  The primary problem that faced the framers was a federal government that was TOO WEAK.  The solution was to build a federal government that had expanded powers.  They understood the reticence against a federal government with stronger powers, but you will notice that they did not include the right to bear arms.  Again, they did not need to because it was already in the state constitutions, and because they sought to constrain the rise of tyranny through other means. 

After all, if the only thing the country needs to prevent tyranny, why not just set up a single President without a Legislature, but just make sure that he cannot raise an army and have all the guns owned by private citizens?  That will prevent tyranny if that is the primary purpose of bearing arms, is it not?  The Constitution could have been one line: 

"Everyone gets a gun"

And that could have been it.  No more tyranny.  Hoo-rah.  Why bother with all the other words?  Why bother with separation of powers or checks and balances? 

Do you really want the first line of defense against domestic tyranny to be an armed population?  That's like saying you should never buy locks for your house, or pay taxes for a police force, or get cameras, or move to a safer area.  JUST BUY GUNS! 

Instead, the framers spent a great deal of time BUILDING A FRAMWORK OF A GOVERNMENT.  They didn't spend a bunch of time planning what to do when the house they were trying to build collapsed or caught fire.  They spent their time planning a house that would not collapse or catch fire.  They had a hierarchy of control, and guns were the last in line, and it's easy to see why.  They spent their time balancing the powers and separating the powers of the executive, the judicial, and the legislative.  They spent days debating on how tyrannies arose and how governments failed.  They never said, "well all they needed were more guns".  RNGesus! 

One of the chief powers that the constitution would give the new government was to ALLOW IT TO RAISE A STANDING ARMY.  Now, this was something that indeed made many of the anti-federalists freak the *censored* out.  A bunch of those state constitutions specifically had in their right to bear arms the idea that standing armies are dangerous, the right to bear arms defended against them, and that the army must always be under civilian control.  BUT THAT WAS IN THE STATE CONSTITITIONS.  The Constitution as written not only gives the federal government the right to raise a standing army, but it gives the duty to arm the state militias and provide training to the same federal government.  Does it sound to you like the founders of our country were terribly worried about the army becoming a tool of a tyrant? 

Now, obviously some people were freaked out.  But they were the losers.  They didn't create the United States of America.  They didn't create anything.  They would have stopped the creation of the country.  People like Patrick Henry faded into the sunset, while people like Monroe and Clinton were brought around. 

Obviously the militia was very important to the framers.  Otherwise, why give the duty to the federal government in arming and training them?  But again, the purpose of this was to strengthen the militia in it's primary mission of defending against foreign aggression, not domestic tyranny.  The same goes for the formation of the army.  The army wasn't meant to suppress the people.  It wasn't meant to be the tool of a tyrant.  And the framers spent their time setting up a government that made tyranny very difficult. 

It's in vogue amongst some that the Presidency is toying with tyranny.  That is crossing the line.  Etc Etc.  Yet in most of these cases when the Presidency oversteps it's bounds, it is the law and the constitution that stops tyranny.  Not people with guns.  You see, the guns are there to serve the law, not the law there to serve the guns.  The guns are in themselves not a good. They are there to support a good.  The common defense.  Lawyers have done more to prevent domestic tyranny than yahoos with rifles.  When the yahoos with rifles try and sort things out themselves, you have things like the Civil War.  Didn't really work out well. 

Obviously things like the 2nd Amendment were added after ratification because there was a sizable portion of the population that was concerned about the possibility of a standing army being a tool of tyranny.  But it was an afterthought.  IT WAS!  It wasn't even included at first!  Most of the states ratified it WITHOUT IT!  Because again, the states already had it in THEIR CONSTITUTIONS.  Again, the primary purpose of the Constitution was to create a stronger federal government, and to protect against that stronger federal government with checks and balances and separation of powers, not with militias. 

I'm not making this up.  I'll bring the receipts.  And you can find yahoos like Patrick Henry who didn't like it, but he's not really a founder is he?  He didn't really write anything in the Constitution, did he?  Or the rest of the Anti-Federalists.  They couldn't create jack *censored* because they were too paranoid and couldn't trust anybody. 

[Fenring]

Obviously the militia was very important to the framers.  Otherwise, why give the duty to the federal government in arming and training them?  But again, the purpose of this was to strengthen the militia in it's primary mission of defending against foreign aggression, not domestic tyranny.

If this is true, do you really think the Founders expected foreign aggression to come to U.S. soil such that these militias would be necessary? History has shown that approximately zero powers have ever attacked the U.S. on its own soil outright with the idea of full invasion (we can put aside skirmishes with Canada in the War of 1812). Was this a misjudgment on their part? I know the U.S. originally had no navy, so I guess they could have been paranoid that a seafaring power could land on their shores. But realistically this would be very difficult, for logistics reasons and many others. It doesn't seem to me the Founders would have confused the Revolutionary War with being a war of aggression by a distant kingdom; England was all around them in their own territory, since it was an English colony.

[DJQuag]

Why are we ignoring the war of 1812? They literally walked into Washington DC and burned down the White House.

[Fenring]

Why are we ignoring the war of 1812? They literally walked into Washington DC and burned down the White House.

Mainly because it didn't consist of Canada trying to conquer the United States, and because it was a war the U.S. declared to push the U.K. out of their waters. No one was coming to mainland USA to topple the government. I am assuming through this that the contention is that the state militias were deemed necessary to defend against mainland invasion by a foreign power. I've not heard anyone say yet that there was some expectation that state militias would be used aggressively outside of U.S. borders.

[DJQuag]

Why are we ignoring the war of 1812? They literally walked into Washington DC and burned down the White House.

Mainly because it didn't consist of Canada trying to conquer the United States, and because it was a war the U.S. declared to push the U.K. out of their waters. No one was coming to mainland USA to topple the government. I am assuming through this that the contention is that the state militias were deemed necessary to defend against mainland invasion by a foreign power. I've not heard anyone say yet that there was some expectation that state militias would be used aggressively outside of U.S. borders.

And the militias did *censored* all to defend the US. The last battle in Louisiana aside, the war of 1812 was an unmitigated asskicking for the United States. They literally refused to get involved with international warfare for sixty years after it.