Power of the people is not derived from guns
By Glenn Rose
North Korea has the atomic bomb. We wanted to prevent that, but at least it lacks the religious fervor of those who might use it.
It’s the zealots in Iran who cause concern. Our country is considering military action to prevent it.
Rose is a former teacher, broadcaster and business owner living in Rockbridge County.
February 25, 2013 - 6:19 AM
No sir the power of the people is not derived from guns. The power of the people is derived from the constitution. The entire constitution as written by our fore fathers who were very intelligent people. The created the 2nd amendment to protect the people from an overbearing and over reaching government. The 2nd amendment of the constitution is very short but very meaningful if taken in it’s entirety. Read it, understand the entire wording and then tell all of us how the last words – ..”A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” So you see the power of the people is so specifically mentioned in those words. The right to keep and bear arms is as saxcrosant as is the right to speech, press, assembly. How can you say otherwise?
By saying North Korea lacks the religious fervor to use the Atomic bomb fails to realize that in North Korea communist and the government are the RELIGION there. So you see Glenn Rose right off the start you show how there are many fallacies in your comments.
“We don’t deter bad government with the threat of armed resistance. We don’t control government because we bear arms. We control it because we already bear the most powerful weapon a free people have: the right to vote.”
–
Well said Glenn Rose! Well said indeed. Thank you for being a gun owner who believes in the Constitution and America. So very many don’t.
Potstech, the power of the people is not derived from the Constitution, either. The power of the people is derived from the inalienable rights granted by their Creator, whether one thinks of the Christian God, the Jewish God, the Islamic God, or simply natural rights that are a part of being a human being on this planet. The Constitution enumerates and guarantees those rights, and through the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments) establishes that those rights are sacrosanct, and that they exist irrespective of the form of a governing document, or lack thereof.
.
In other words, human beings, just be virtue of being human beings, have the right to speak freely, assemble freely, defend themselves against ALL enemies (whether sanctioned by the state (which is NOT a guaranteed right, by the way) or no), meet their accusers and the evidence against them, not incriminate themselves, etc. This is true whether a republic, a democracy, a dictatorship, anarchy, what have you; the US Constitution is simply the first governing document of its kind to specifically enumerate and guarantee these rights by attempting to limit the ability of the state to infringe on those rights.
I cannot say it vehemently enough 89Hoo, but I disagree completely.
–
There may well be manifest rights that are “endowed by our creator” but as any people living under oppression knows, that is cold comfort indeed.
–
It is absolutely true that of the free peoples on this earth, the power of those people is derived from the government they create to ensure those rights. For those people who are not free, the power of allowing or denying those rights lays with those that rule over them. Period, end of discussion.
–
Our Constitution, has stood and will stand because it does guarantee the rights of the people, foremost among them, the right of suffrage and to have our voices be heard and obeyed. It also manifestly protects those rights not enumerated, but coming from the same right of man.
–
From the earliest human beings on earth, the “inalienable rights granted by their Creator” have been denied, infringed, revoked and refined. By rulers or by self-governance.
–
Getting all elegiac over where you think rights are devined from is just an esoteric discussion IMO. We are well aware that our rights are protected, ensured and codified by our Constitution. Our power which is a different thing, comes from being able to have a voice and a vote.
–
Our rights are not “irrespective of the form of a governing document, or lack thereof“.
–
And no, the US Constitution is not “simply the first governing document of its kind to specifically enumerate and guarantee these rights“. Further, it can only guarantee those rights with the consent of the governed.
Re: 89Hoo at 11:59 am
-
Well stated!
-
The Constitution did not establish inalienable rights, but rather confirm their existence and protect them from the authoritarians — of all political stripes.
Sandi, infringement of rights is not elimination of rights. You may support a government right to deny your liberty, you may acquiesce to having your liberties limited, you may not mind being a slave to a state, but that doesn’t eliminate those rights. Whether YOU like it or not. And that’s what the Constitution guarantees. Whether you like it or not.
People often say the purpose of the second amendment is to protect citizens from an overreaching, overbearing government. I’d like to explore what that means. Does that mean that if one feels the government is overreaching, then the second amendment gives one the right to take up arms against government officials they feel are responsible for the overstep?
Whether you “like it or not” 89Hoo, twisting my words will not make your post sound any better.
–
I did not say or imply that infringement of rights was elimination of rights.
–
I did not say nor imply that I supported “government right to deny your liberty”. Whether I freaking “acquiesce” or protest to the point of being imprisoned, my “liberties” will remain “limited” by the laws of this locality, this state and this nation. So will yours.
–
It has nothing to do with “being a slave to a state” or whether we “mind” it. It is merely how society has evolved either democratically or dictatorially since time began. Go ask people in North Korea, Sudan, China or Cuba how well those “God given rights” have worked out for them.
–
YOU said, “the power of the people is not derived from the Constitution”.
YOU said, “The power of the people is derived from the inalienable rights granted by their Creator”.
YOU said, “that they exist irrespective of the form of a governing document, or lack thereof”.
–
I merely said that no, without a Constitutional (or other) legal protection they do not, or as good as do not exist. Even with the Constitution, it has been dicey more than once.
Well, NW, why don’t you refer to the Founding Fathers who included the Second Amendment for that reason. Start with Adams and Madison and Jefferson.
But let me ask you, NW, at what point would YOU consider a government to have find too far and how far would YOU go to correct the situation?
Let me ask who it is that gets to define “tyranny”?
–
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/24/1173608/-The-2nd-Amendment-and-Tyranny-Who-defines-what-is-tyrannical
I am a proponent of passive resistance and non-violent subversion. The great thing about such “nuanced” methods is that they don’t require any special equipment (only intelligence, creativity, willingness to make personal sacrifice, etc.), and because they are non-violent, the threshold for their implementation can actually be much lower.
I answered your question, now you answer mine.
#11 Couple of points. In general it has always been too late….once the citizenry has been disarmed.
IMO, specifically here, we begin down that tract as we begin to rationalize the Constitution in order to justify greater state control (and dependency on) and lesser individual freedoms.
In context of other threads above…..individual freedoms as recognized as innate rights by our Constitution.
11 – I’ll only note in passing the irony of the first person who squawks at the objectivity of sources posting something from the Daily Kos. But enough of that…
.
The blogger at Sandi’s link states:
.
There is, of course, nothing new about the idea that the 2nd amendment was put in place to guarantee the possibility of “popular” revolts. It has always been there, lurking in the dark, ugly underbelly of right-wing psychoses. Such a wild misreading of actual history and context has long been a staple on the right. But what does appear new is the seemingly easy acceptance by the mainstream media that such a misreading deserves its own day in court. Rather than being soundly blasted to the furthest edges of the fringe, this false reading of history is all too often given something approaching equal time in our national discourse.
.
Now, I’m not saying it shouldn’t be addressed and exposed for the truly odious, dangerous, malevolent false history it is. It should be. It must be. But it seems to have gained a perch as a “legitimate” point of departure, and that must change.
.
Well, I guess we have to add the Founding Fathers and their contemporaries as being possessed by dark and ugly right-wing psychoses:
.
The most effectual way to guard against a standing army, is to render it unnecessary. The most effectual way to render it unnecessary, is to give the general government full power to call forth the militia, and exert the whole natural strength of the Union, when necessary. Thus you will furnish the people with sure and certain protection, without recurring to this evil; and the certainty of this protection from the whole will be a strong inducement to individual exertion. – James Madison
.
The great object is that every man be armed … Everyone who is able may have a gun. – Patrick Henry
.
The second amendment to the federal constitution, as well as the constitutions of many of the states, guaranty to the people the right to bear arms. This is a natural right, not created or granted by the constitutions.” – Henry Campbell Black, “Handbook of American Constitutional Law,” 1895.
.
To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them. – Richard Henry Lee, in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican
.
The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson
.
And do the above quotes assuage the author’s concerns about a false reading of history? Likely not, as the author sees what only what he wants to see. But the quotes – and the history – speak for themselves.
.
The author doesn’t even understand recent history, but I’ll let that lie. The question: who gets to define tyranny?
.
Of course, he doesn’t offer any help on this, except to point out that the US government has a tyrannical element or two in its past. He mentions the Native Americans and the undeniable brutality (dare we…tyranny?) the US government exercised there.
.
Would now be a good time to point out that statutes enacted as early as 1640 made it illegal to sell American Indians firearms? Any lessons there?
.
But back to the question…the author challenges us to define the term. As Sandi raised the issue through the link, I invite her contribution, though here is my stab.
.
A tyranny is an abuse of power by those in power. An abuse of power in the US means a violation of the very document designed to restrict the power of that very government. In fact, tyranny by the government is not possible without circumventing the Constitution. Since the intent of the 2nd Amendment – as the quotes above illustrate (particularly those by Black, Henry and Jefferson) – is to allow people physical recourse against such abuse, any movement to circumvent the 2nd Amendment is ipso facto abuse.
Sandi?
12 – I actually favor non-violence as well (I don’t own guns), but the beauty of a natural right is that there is no mandate that one exercises it. You just can’t prohibit others from exercising their rights.
.
As to your question:
.
Does that mean that if one feels the government is overreaching, then the second amendment gives one the right to take up arms against government officials they feel are responsible for the overstep?
.
(note: I will not take the coward’s way out and dodge the question by claiming disinterest and boredom)
.
The short answer is yes (see the quotes I cited for Sandi above).
.
Now the reality is that that likely would never happen, for a number of reasons. Someone would have to be really passionate about an abuse, and would have to motivate others similarly. Most people aren’t that passionate, lack the ability to inspire an uprising, and lack the ability to sustain the passion. That’s a nod to the incremental nature of tyranny preying on complacence (“First they came for the communists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist…”Martin Niemöller).
The US Constitution has built into it safeguards against tyranny, and not just the Bill of Rights (though the are critical). The lack of a standing army; the separation of powers; the balance between elected and appointed representatives (before the 17th Amendment); the recognition of the right of the states to nullify federal law in the Jeffersonian federalist tradition (see the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions); and several that were economic in nature, such as measures that assured sound currency and a free market. These were all designed to limit the power of the state, and many (most?) of these have been eroded away, sadly (Niemöller again).
So again, the short answer to your question is Yes, but the long answer is Yes, but you probably don’t have anything to worry about.
89Hoo, if you bothered to look at the link, there is no question of “credibility” of the “source”. The opinions offered touched on the discussion at hand and that is why I offered it in asking who is it you folks feel get to define “tyranny”. Did you answer the question?
–
Many have indeed agreed with the opinion stated in the link that “the election of Obama itself was proof of “tyranny”. Soon after, many on the right thought that the idea of helping out mortgage holders who were underwater was a form of tyranny. This is what sparked Santelli’s disgusting rant at CNBC, which set the table for the tea party. That group saw health care reform as tyrannical. Of course, for many a decade, much of the right has said that taxes are a form of tyranny — ignoring the fact that we have the lowest effective taxes on individuals and businesses in the developed world. And now, for many of these same people, any gun regulation, no matter how slight, would be grounds for an armed uprising.”
–
So, I ask again, who, especially among the gun toting right wingers, is it that gets to define “tyranny” and decide when the “militia” needs to “respond’?
Well quite obviously James Madison’s fear of an “evil standing army” is a moot point.
-
The second amendment militia was used to defend America, not to attack it. It is literally pitiful to believe that guns can protect anyone from any “tyranny” they perceive from the government and for damned sure the things some are calling “tyranny” lately.
–
IMO, the founders were speaking of tyranny in the vein of those listed in the Declaration of Independence, not those the GOTP is whining about now.
–
THAT is what they meant when the spoke of preserving liberty as well, not any form of “every man for himself” anarchy.
–
In other words, nothing in your “tyranny” rant applies. Not then and not now IMO.
#13: Couple of points. In general what has kept us free and functional has always been using the power codified in our Constitution, most especially the power of suffrage,
Your post IMO, shows the “light and transient causes” many like to claim as “tyranny” and use to demonize the Obama administration with no prayer of proving any such thing or being able to manifest any justification for the complaints.
16, 17 – I answered your question, Sandi, and ask again if you will afford the courtesy of answering your own question.
18 – Sandi, I am pleased to know that you defended (or were as blind to) the unconstitutional excesses of the previous administration(s) as vigorously as you do those of the current administration. Those of us who railed against them with equal fervor loathe hypocrites.
I think the national motto and the pledge of allegiance are forms of tyranny. And I reserve the right to claim lack of interest (not “disinterest”) when the thread is a week old and nobody has anything useful to add.
“Those of us who railed against them with equal fervor” are not people I am at all familiar with; so you calling me a hypocrite is just as useless. If I believed that the Obama administration had committed acts of tyranny, or that were unconstitutional, I would weigh that against the actions of the last administration that I deemed unconstitutional and tyrannical and the reaction it received…and I think we all know that was not a high bar. Holding Obama to a higher standard is very convenient for some people.
–
I believe I have answered the question.
–
I do not believe that anything the gun nuts and right wingers are screaming “tyranny” over, even come close.
Sandi you prove my point. Thank you.
21 – NW, as I explained above you are merely exercising that right. It doesn’t need to be reserved as it is one of those inalienable rights that the Constitution guarantees. The right to free speech includes the right to not say anything at all; it also includes the right to look foolish doing so
#23 “Sandi you prove my point”
And you, 89Hoo, prove Sandi’s point, so I guess that makes it even.
I disagree that it is your point I have proven, but certainly your anonymous opinion is what matters here.
–
Yes, Americans have and use the right to be stupid quite often. Blog anonymity only acts as an enabler.
Sandi, you made my point by not even understanding it. It doesn’t matter who is in the White House, the Constitution has been breached and abused over the last several Presidents, and we should all be railing against that, irrespective of whether you support the current President and his policies or not. YOU were the one who has defined tyranny as the product of those opposing President Obama. I won’t argue with you that those who do so without being equally hypocritical of his predecessor are those who support (and are blind to the excesses of) one over the other.
.
You said, as near as I can tell, that in your opinion, the founders “…were speaking of tyranny in the vein of those listed in the Declaration of
Independence…”
.
Okay.
.
First, how will strict gun control prevent abuses like those in the Declaration? Those abuses were at the hands of the British, whose first act was to try to sieze all the firearms in the colonies (the redcoats were headed for the armories in Lexington and Concord). How, exactly, would banning ownership of firearms prevented that?
.
Among the other excesses of King George III:
.
he interfered with the representative process by rejecting legislation proposed by the colonies (the basis of states’ rights and federal nullification);
.
he interfered with the representative process by dissolving colonial bodies of representation (the recognition of the states as sovereign entity and states’ rights);
.
he interfered with the representative process by replacing colonial governments with his appointed ministers, and interfering with the naturalization of citizens in new regions (more states’ rights issues).
.
How is this different from Abraham Lincoln’s suspending the Maryland legislature, suspending habeas corpus, imprisoning opposing journalists and legislators? How is it different from mandating from Washington that states and localities comply with federal laws or risk loss of funding? And how will gun control correct those abuses?
.
King George interfered with the objective judicial processes and the civil rights of the colonists.
.
How is this different from wireless wiretaps, the PATRIOT Act, NDAA, spying with drones? And how will gun control correct those abuses?
.
King George III further established tyrannical control by maintaining a strong military presence under his direct command; he maintained a standing army during a time of peace, made the military power superior to the civil government, and forced the colonists to support the military presence through increased taxes.
.
Do I need to draw the parallels to today? If you feel the Founders were responding to these abuses, surely you feel that such are still abuses? And how will gun control correct those abuses?
27 – yikes – need to clean up my typing.
I won’t argue with you that those who do so without being equally hypocritical of his predecessor are those who support (and are blind to the excesses of) one over the other.
SHOULD read
I won’t argue with you that those who do so without being equally critical of his predecessor are as hypocritical; as those who support (and are blind to the excesses of) one over the other.
Well since I cannot even “understand” you, no need to keep trying to discuss anything with you. Move on to the obviously more intelligent people who can grasp your deep concepts.
Let’s keep it down to a dull roar, please. Thanks.
Apologies, Sandi, and Christina.
Sandi, please see the remainder of my post #27.
#29 Sandi, “Well since I cannot even ‘understand’ you, no need to keep trying to discuss anything with you. Move on to the obviously more intelligent people who can grasp your deep concepts.”
–
The way this blog works is that already well-polarized positions become increasingly strident, and analogies and examples become irrelevant. But if you declare yourself to be bored and indicate that you would prefer to move on to fresher threads, you’ll be accused of cowardice and your opponent will claim victory by default.
–
Somehow this thread reminded me of John McEnroe’s famous “answer the question” outburst, which you can find on YouTube.
32 – I find it interesting that you assumed I was talking about you, NW. In fact, I was referring to the times I have been accused of ducking the issue or of cowardice. A little projection on your part, perhaps. (I also have been excoriated for exercising my right to remain anonymous, but I will continue that).
.
A solution, then is to simply answer the questions asked. Take it from one who knows.
“I find it interesting that you assumed I was talking about you.”
–
Likewise.
Now let’s be honest here, have you been “excoriated” for being anonymous or for attacking someone from the safety of that anonymity. Big difference IMO, so do be clear.
Okay.
.
Sandi, I know you and I rub each other the wrong way most of the time (not always; we’ve had moments of comity), and for my part I apologize. I’m not a confrontational guy, really I’m not, and I don’t like antagonizing you (or most other people). I much prefer a good, robust honest discussion, even where there is minimal agreement.
.
I apologize also for implying you are unintelligent; I meant to say that I was not doing a good job of making myself clear, and I stated it poorly. I don’t consider you unintelligent at all. I enjoy discussions with you, because you are well-informed and articulate and passionate and you present your position well.
.
And you are not of the “lob and leave” variety, meaning you thoroughly answer questions and don’t duck issues. I truly appreciate that.
.
I don’t care about, or like, political parties; certainly not the big two; I’ve expressed numerous times how little there is to distinguish them. My criticisms of Washington are criticisms of Washington, and I’m usually careful to ensure that everyone knows I am as disdainful of one side as of the other. I usually don’t talk in terms of one specific politician or another except as being representative of, and in the context of, the venality of democrats, republicans, and Washington.
.
I don’t dislike democrats any more than I dislike republicans, and I don’t dislike President Obama any more than I dislike(d) his immediate predecessor. I also don’t like democrats any more than I dislike republicans, and I don’t dislike President Obama any more than I like(d) his immediate predecessor. If it seems I pick on the democrats and Obama more, I apologize for that, too; but they are ones currently in power and are therefore the easiest and most visible targets, though I do try to make it clear that the other side is no better. You will have to take my word that when the political parties roles are reversed, and the republicans and their leaders are the easiest and most visible targets (as with President Bush), I am just as hard on them as I am now on Obama. And I try to make it clear that the other side is no better. My goal is to get people to look beyond parties; as I have said, in terms of governance, there is little to distinguish.
.
I say all the above just to give you an idea of where I come from.
35 – for being anonymous.
36 – I mangled that last paragraph a little, but I think the intent is clear….