summercomfort | National Convention!

Dude, how cool would it be to have a National Convention again! Apparently, if 3/4 of the states want an amendment, they can call a national convention. That'd be totally awesome. We'd have to decide on like, delegates to represent us and everything.

What else would have been totally awesome? To have been around in, like 1805 or something, when the Framers of the Constitution were still alive. People would be like "I think the Constitution should be interpreted as such and such". And one of the Framers would be like "um, no? *We* meant for it to mean *this*"
People: pssh, that's silly.
Framers: Yeah, well, it was one of those embarrassing compromises
People: and what did you mean right here?
Framers: Did we right that? Oops? Um, maybe we should amend this thing
People: And you say this is better than the Articles of Confederation. Bah!

XD. Versus nowadays which is like "OMG THIS IS HOLY, NO TOUCHY"

I mean, can you imagine Marshall trying to assert his judicial review and Hamilton going "um.. whatcha doin' that for? I was there, yo! And I *know* what I meant with the commerce clause!"

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

People: Okay, guys, about the Second Amendment...
Framers: Oh, that's a beaut, huh?
People: Not exactly. Is only a well-regulated militia allowed to bear arms, or what?
Framers: Oh, that. It's "intentionally vague."
People: The fuck?
Framers: Well, it was Franklin's fault really...
People: He didn't think the people should know whether they're allowed to bear arms?
Framers: No... he thought the people should be allowed to bear arms so they could defend themselves against their own government if it became tyrannical. It was kind of a safety clause. But Hamilton didn't want the people to know they could do that, since it could breed unrest, and...
People: Can we bear arms against you guys now?
Framers: You'll have to catch us first.

naisu.

Although I think in 1800's, there wasn't much question about that. I mean, States: you want me to give you not only power to coin money and deal with foreign nations, but give up my army as well? What are you, on drugs or something?

I personally think the arms thing... should just have a level playing field. I mean, it's hardly fair the drug runners and gangs have better guns than the police and law-abiding citizens. So you should either regulate the arms so that there's no black market arms, or that you give those guns to the police. Of course, I prefer the former, since escalation is a bitch, but I also know that there will always be a black market.

I dunno... after reading V for Vendetta... there should always be a way to challenge the government. And yet, the Civil War... Wonder what would have happened if we'd just let the South secede.

Secession is an incredibly, incredibly, incredibly charged issue, as you know perfectly well. I really do think that the logic of my fictional Framers is more or less what went on in the convention hall, and I think I agree with them. And I think Franklin would be perfectly justified in saying to your first solution "then the State controls the people's access to weapons, if not their right to bear them," and to your second "then the policemen have AK-47s and my wife Deborah has a Saturday Night Special."

Who decides whether the government has turned evil? How can the people reasonably be as well-armed as their government in this daynage? If they could be, how could we stop some psycho from going berserk with his AK-47 on the steps of the Capitol? I am 100% behind the idea that there should always be a way to challenge the government, but I have no idea how to implement such an idea without destroying ourselves.

Yeah, this is all really a very touchy thing. I mean, on one hand, the argument could be that "now all the 'bad guys' have AK-47s and none of the 'good guys'". And on the other hand, the very presence of AK-47s is onerous, and threatening, and escalation is oh so very very bad. I mean, it could end up being the bad guys have nukes, and so? the good guys should have nukes, too? >_<

So, from two standpoints:
-> Maintaining Order
Black market arms trafficking will always happen. As long as we're attached to the rest of the world, and as long as the government has weapons that are more advanced than the civilians, it will be possible to buy it in the black market. Of course, making it much harder to get those would be helpful for the cops who have to deal with this in real life, and more importantly, the people who end up in in the crossfire. I mean, we really don't want streets turning into trenches (danger of machine guns). So in one way, a question may be "how powerful must the weapons be before everyone's too scared to fire them?" For nations, it's nukes. For people? dunno. But no matter what, we don't trust dangerous weapons in the hands of emotional/irrational people. We somehow have this belief that the mass bureaucracy-ness of the government makes it much harder to "fire" a weapon irrationally.
And then there's the question of: "what's the minimum level of weapons technology that is needed for a casual citizen to defend against these rogue elements?" I mean, does it really help if the 70-year-old grandmother knows how to use an AK-47? Or is it simply enough to have a handgun to wave around and scare off burglars? What about businesses? It definitely would not do to have someone charging into your shop with some crazy weapon that you basically have no chance against. But I think in this case, one of two things happen: 1) you're screwed because really, who has time to undergo training on how to disarm someone, or have the counter-weapon that would scare the shit out of your attacker? or 2) You do have the mad skillz and either scare the guy away or commence shoot-out. In the first case, you resort to police action. Most places have alarms that makes the police come, and when the police comes, it's an issue of police training and weaponry. In the second case, it'd basically be as if the police came. Except without the law, which is bad.
So really, the average citizen does not need really advanced weapons, because if we get caught in the crossfire, we're screwed anyway due to lack of training. But there needs to be an equality of black-market vs. police weapons, and as a general matter of civil order, the lower-tech the weapons, the better. (again I raise WWI as an example of excessive technology. Yes, axes and machetes kill people, too, but it's a one-on-one ratio, not a one-for-ten ratio)

-> Challenging the Govt
Here, I say that having an AK-47 is a moot point, because if you're firing it in front of the White House, the top echelons of the government would totally pwn your ass. Cause really, the weapons pecking order is Govt>black market>police. I mean, you've got the army, the secret agent folk, everything. So unless you walk up with a bazooka when all the secret service are takin' it easy... advancement of weaponry is moot.
In addition, we've been proven once and again that one does not need advanced weaponry to cause civil unrest. Home-cooked bombs, box-cutters, I mean, you name it... (and suddenly I'm wondering how many censors I'm triggering). It's quite difficult to stop suicide bombers and all that. I mean, a terrorist/dissenter would probably have as much chance setting fire to the place as marching in with an AK-47. So I think technology in terms of challenging the government is moot.... as long as there is a basic level of availability in the market.

So really, I'm not asking for the people to be as well-armed as the government, and as a general matter, lower-tech weapons on the streets = better. But it can't be that the govt has it all while we have nothing (I mean, I think the Framers basically wanted to guarantee that if the govt suddenly turns on the people and started marching in the streets enforcing martial law for no reason, people aren't fighting bare-handed. The more successful battles of the Revolution were using guerilla tactics, so I think the framers knew a little about the power of the few against the many). Nor can it be that the gangs/black market have everything and the police have nothing.

So yes, it basically boils down to a rather liberal stance that the weapons market should be controlled, but everyone has a right to a concealed weapon.

Wellll... you know, that raises an interesting point :D I suspect that if the military were in fact marching through the streets enforcing martial law, the most effective resistance would be mounted by the gangs and the black market! And the Mafia, if such a thing still exists in America, and possibly by redneck Appalachian militia groups, though that one's a stretch.

Me, obviously.

All true. What a horrible thing that one would have to conduct a terrorist campaign these days to bring something like that off. I have an uncle who sincerely believes that sometime in the next couple decades, probably when and if a Democrat is elected, there is going to be a military coup of the government. I suspect that's far from the truth, but it's not entirely unrealistic, and one would need access to the terrorist weapons to counteract it. You're probably right, though, that these days the right to bear arms arms doesn't do us civilians much good.

National Convention!

no subject

no subject

no subject

thinking this out as I go along...

sorry, had to cut this in two b/c too long

Re: sorry, had to cut this in two b/c too long

Re: sorry, had to cut this in two b/c too long

Re: thinking this out as I go along...