Based on the recent happenings of the world, especially of the United States of America, this should be an interesting topic:

If the US (or any other country) is engaged in military conflict, are the demands of national security greater than those of individual rights?

Yes. It is.

Whether or not that *should* be, though, is a very different matter.

Sometimes you have to say yes. That means that in an actual conflict or a national emergency the government has to have the right to confiscate property, draft soldiers, restrict personal freedom and the like. That's unavoidable.
In germany having open tuberculosis (coughing out the highly infectious bacteria) and refusing to be treated can bring you as fast in (hospital-) jail as an armed robbery ... The greater good of the community demands that.

However, I can't see a situation as intense as the presence of internal terrorist groups in the US atm. The war against terror was a welcome opportunity to expand the authority of government agencies in general.

When you live in the US - why do you worry? You're "made of glass" already. Your personal data are widely available for every government agency, bugging is commonplace for everything that resembles "organised crime" or "national security". And since you can end up in jail for smoking in the NY subway, or when you're 17 and leave your home after 20:00 in some places in the US, why do you have concerns about the human rights of a few hundred taliban in Guantanamo bay? :shake: Don't you have more pressing problems? :evil:

Sure, it is questionable to deny some human rights to the guys in Guantnanamo bay claiming they are POWs - only giving them the human rights granted for POWs after the geneva convention. It is kinda funny to say so because the USA never accepted the taliban government. Consequently the US gvt didn't declare war on them - but when doing so, how can they make them POWs at all? :evil:
After all that it is higly generous from the US government to grant the Taliban in Guantanamo bay POW status - how else would they have been able to keep them in jail as long as felt necessary :shake: without all the hassle with attorneys, judges, procedures and bull**** like that :evil:

[ December 12, 2002, 12:52: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Ragusa, if you ever bothered to inform yourself about ... well, about most anything, then you might be dangerous.

As it is, you just show how ignorant you are about the actual state of affairs in the U.S. and Gitmo.

Really, I'm getting tired of fighting the ignorance here. Go out and find the facts before you post. Don't rely on whatever leftist newspaper you've been using up to this point. Get some balanced perspective. Then think before you post. You'll suddenly be more coherent, sympathetic, and perhaps even accurate.

And I know it'll be hard, but try not to focus all your venom on the U.S. government. If you take the time to look about and, perhaps, compare and contrast the governments from Germany to Guatemala you'll find that we come out looking pretty good. (I'd say the best, but I know you'd get your panties in a bind.)

My apologies for beeing caustic and cynical, Shralp.

I do not accuse the US gvt of comitting human rights violations in guantananmo bay. I don't doubt the taliban there are treated properly. I just pointed out why they are treated as POWs. That denies them some human rights, that's unavoidable when putting someone in jail - but unlike someone who is in jail POWs don't have processual rights. So I also pointed out the likely motives of treating them as POWs.

I also stressed that the general trend to expand the competences of security agencies after 9/11. In some countries allied with the US in the war against terror this was used to quell opposition, defining them as terrorists. This applies to allies such as Jemen, Kenia and others.

And indeed, in comparison to Guatemala the US do look splendid. However, the expansion of gvt competences to adress perceived problems during the 9/11 investigations and prevention problems in the US since 9/11 has been notable.
I think that the USA are a pretty government obedient country, accepting laws and measures other countries of the western world would not accept in times of peace. So I picked out two striking examples:

as for smoking in the NY subway:
http://www.baltech.org/lederman/614crime.html ...As if those arrests weren't useless enough, Giuliani has now decided that smoking cigarettes and standing over the yellow line in subway stations are additional crimes deserving his special attention... ...While murder is up in NYC, the Mayor's focus is as always on the lowest level misdemeanors. He's promoting a devilishly clever plan whereby three misdemeanor convictions automatically become the equivalent of a felony conviction. Three felony convictions make one eligible for a life sentence in prison...http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n1052.a04.html
Most of those arrested today are held for arraignment and may spend 16, 24, even 36 hours in custody before being released, in sharp contrast to the past, when those arrested on low-level possession charges were often given a summons and released.That also applies for normal smoking since, as the transport authority points out, this is also considered a violation where prohibited.
http://transit-safety.volpe.dot.gov/Security/Newsletters/html/Vol15/default.htm
Transit Authority statistics show that tickets for such violations as fare evasion, smoking, obstructing doors, taking up more than one seat, littering, alcohol use, smoking, riding outside the vehicle, selling, harmful acts, having no identification, being in restricted areas, and other such offenses increased nearly 41% in 1998.In combination that could be like: 3x smoking = 1 felony, 3 felonies = life sentence. Or like 6x false parking + 3x smoking ... pretty harsh IMO. I feel tempted to say that the seriousness of the deeds committed is beyond any proportion to the penalty.
. and for the curfew for juveniles, a controversial collection of links:
http://enquirer.com/editions/2002/07/07/loc_police_pick_up_132.html
http://www.provo.org/ppd/Community_Policing/Curfew/curfew.html
http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/newengla2002/me__curfewproposal_2002.shtml
http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/110596/post.htm
http://www.ci.shreveport.la.us/code/ords/22804000.HTM
(... just the few first links I found on google for *juveniles* and *curfew*)
Personally I consider a curfew in times short of disaster, actual war or desease as a serious restriction of my personal freedom.America is pretty repressive here and then - and not always as free as the land of the brave claims to be.

PS: Still searching links for the personal data stuff, stay tuned.

How much will people be willing to sacrifice for safety? That depends on what rights we'll lose. As a non-smoker, and not a resident of New York, I do not see a problem with that law. Someone who is a smoker on the subway may.

The government is attempting to reduce second-hand smoke by reducing the cigarettes on such a crowded transit system. A worthy endeavor, IMO.

However, when it comes to other things, such as the ridiculously stringent rules on the airlines and the proposed gun control plans, I do not stand by our government. They should not be able to take away civil rights.

When they do, our nation should scream out "hypocrisy!". With how fervent our government attacks foreign nations for violating civil rights, they should set an example by not denying us any of ours.

Well, the point is what you want to pay for safety and freedom of fear. In the 1970s and 80s we in germany had a very real and brutal terrorist threat. The extreme left RAF asassinated a couple of high ranking politicians, business leaders, policemen and military personnel claiming they were part of a fascist apparatus supressing the people.
The result was the introduction of anti-terrorist laws, meant to improve the abilities of the government to fight them. It included longer time in jail without attorny contact for terrorist suspects and terrorists. Immediately, political activists protested, caring for the treatment of these fanatic murderers. From a rights point of view that was understandeable, however, democracy was defending itself. The restriction of rights, to fight people who use the open, liberal societies we live in against us, is unfortunately unavoidable if we don't want to be helpless against terrorists.

To counter the terrorist threat the monitoring of phone lines was expanded, and data-fusion was introduced. The data fusion works like that: Terrorists behave like *that* - who did behave *that* way recently? Checking all sources they perhaps find a school record indicating you have said something weird in a juvenile age, or that you prefer to pay for your flat in cash, making you a suspect. This brought pretty good results but, unavoidably, also resulted in a rather high number of innocent people on the wanted list, and included inconveniences for them - such as arrest and house searches. This approach is indiscriminate and can easily ruin a life.

I am pretty sure the US government as well includes these measures, and more, in it's current investigations and that 9/11 has expanded the tools on their disposal.

Pretty interesting was the side-effect on the public: In reaction to the killings of politicians and to fight the terror from the left, politically left oriented teachers were fired, the same applied to government employees and others.

Rastor, As for the secondary smoking: Doesn't it bother you that triple smoking in the subway equals a felony, like fraud or theft? With all the consequences under the "three strikes and you're off" law?
. What always strikes me about right-wing americans is that they seem to equal freedom with their right to own all the firearms they want. Opposing all firearm restriction and gun control some insist in their perceived *right* - to be prepared "when all else fails".
.
It is interesting to reflect about what "when all else fails" means. In the essence it means that a disappointed minority feels justified to go out and kill someone with whom it disagrees when it is disappointed enough. They are putting democracy away for the sake of their (democratic) constitution. A questionable point of view IMO.
.
They often quote Jefferson's "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of partiots and tyrants" - Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, had that sentence on his t-shirt when he was arrested. That interpretation would mean to feel justified for straight murder. What else is that if not a terrorist's mindset?Maybe Michael Moore is right in "Bowling for Columbine" when he sais that america is a land of people who are primarily busy with beeing afraid of something - be it the blacks, chinese, hispanics, the evil arab - or the evil government they, as a people, elected themselves.

[ December 13, 2002, 13:21: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Since when is smoking a civil right?!

Since never. Would you have read the posts above you would know it was mentioned in a context - in a context with repressive reaction on it as a violation. The line of thought was: When you accept so severe restrictions for *nothing* in your everyday life - what will you justify in face of a serious danger like terrorism?

So basically it is about how free the US have been before and after 9/11. The civil right highlighted in the example I mentioned is not smoking - the right in discussion is the personal freedom when beeing arrested for it.

As for the civil rights part. We've had a lot of discussion here in Finland on multiple boards about what is our take on the Finnish defence forces (army) and the it's functions in the possible case of a war in the future.

Well personally, I can see why this army of ours is needed. It is a preventive method afterall. And as they say, a hired army would be a pretty difficult thing to arrance in a back-hill (as in, small) country such as Finland. But...

I believe in that (meaning, I see that this is the way it is, to me this is obvious... some actually disagree) laws are there to give out the general rule of how anyone should behave. They exist because they serve the community, not the individual, but in a small way even the individual has to be supported, because afterall the community is built of these individuals. At the event of a crime, you are not protected. At the event of a crime where you defend yourself with force and get condemned for prison because of it, you are not supported. Neither is the criminal, as seems to be the misthought of many a Finnish person. What gets supported is, that's right, the community. I'll not go into details as anyone can, if not agree, at least see why i think the way I do.

Now then, about war. In war, it is a question of the same thing, preserving the community. The culture, the land, the people, the resources. Evertything that is the community. Because of this, it is not seen as a lightly-to-be-taken thing that an individual might no want to fight a war. So anything that is possible to do, to the point of imprisonment or sentence to death, on site if need be, will be done to prevent the deterioration of the community, the country. To make a long story short, if the war comes, and you wish to leave with your family or otherwise, your own country will become your own enemy.

In my case, assuming things will go as they did around the WW2, the enemy of our country will be the Russians. However, the modern day world is not as simple as it used to be. A highly educated person can find a new home and a new life just about as easily abroad as he could in his own home-country. In case of us Finns, this is even easier due to above average education and below average wages, which results in a good quality of work with a lower monetary loss than normal.
So, we're attacked by the Russians. In this situation the Russians would be the enemy of our country, and any person representing this country out of own free will. But IF I were to move out of here, not fight for a country because I deemed my own life and the lives of my loved-ones more important, then which is more of an enemy? The Russians behind the lines on the opposite direction of where I'm about to leave to, or my own countrymen, all around me and ready to fire if I'm trying to leave the place where I will most certainly die?

I said in the beginning of this little novel that laws are a general ruleset. They don't apply for an individual. Use your own sense, if you're attacked by a gang with knives, are you going to wait until they've sliced at you enough so you can clearly prove the court that you were actually about to die? Or will you take out that Desert Eagle (assuming you had one) and fire away. Even if you gave a warning shot first, I can guarantee (because I work in the business) that you'd be put to jail if they didn't stop. Still, which do you want? To die by their knives, or at least pay them back and protect other good people by killing a few of them before you go, or just shooting some of them (preferably not aiming to kill) as soon as you were pretty sure your life was in danger and just take the damn prison. At least knowing that you did what was right, and healthiest for yourself.
Same thing in a war. Yes, the country has to have the ability to disable civil rights because it cannot survive in such a situation otherwise. Anyone even slightly familiar with history, and the simplest of basic strategies of war know that the power cannot be divided, but focused on an organ as small as possible. Ultimately, one person. People do panic and act stupidly, but also.. people do not think of the benefit of their own country in a situation like that. So if a war came, and I had better things to do than suffer months in the woods and then die for nothing, I would take my friends and family and leave. I would shoot at the enemies known as my countrymen with no regret and kill every last one of them who would prevent me from leaving. And if I survived, I would forgive them for I would still understand them.

I follow laws because it is for my own good to do so. But if the law proves to be wrong, then I will break it. If my own life or the life of my loved-one is set at a lower place in hierarchy than the law, then the law must fall. In the end, the civil rights do not matter much.

First, to just get it out of the way, I believe that the government here in tue US has the rite to limit some of the freedoms an individual has but only during a war time situation.
As for the whole thing about MYC and the new system going in to place (or is it already there?) I'm not overly concerned yet. It's only when other freedoms are attacked (if they want to limit smoking on the subway they're more than welcome too.) I'm not sure what to say about the system itself (the three felonies and you are in for life) I don't know enough about it to make any logical conclusions.

Excuse me, but I DID read all the posts and I DO understand the overriding concern. Part of my point is that most Americans have to learn to draw the line between privileges (e.g., smoking, curbside baggage check-in, unlimited body piercing) and rights (e.g., unhindered self-expression, choice in worship, voting).

Am I willing to curtail privileges for the sake of protecting basic rights? Yes. Should the government be held accountable when citizens' rights have been infringed during the pursuit of security? Also yes, but while this doesn't excuse Ashcroft for arresting Santa because he wears a funny hat and a beard, it still may have to come in the form of recompense instead of prevention. Lastly, should citizens use common sense (hypothetical thing that it is) and discretion when exercising their rights? For the third time, yes.

And we're back to that universal theme of people taking responsibility for their own actions...

Ragusa,

I appreciate your well thought out arguments. However (you knew that was coming) you miss the point of the right bear arms and Jefferson's quote. The reason that many Americans equate freedom with firearms is because that without the ability to defend oneself, there is no way to maintain freedom. And Jefferson's quote is part of that reasoning. In defending one's self and one's rights, occasionally someone will test to see if people are really going to defend themselves, and blood may spill. :sosad: This is very sad, but the American founding fathers realized this. What McVeigh did was not an act of patriotism as defined by our founding fathers. McVeigh was a terrorist. He died for a pointless and useless attempt to make a political statement that ended in the death and mutilation of innocent people who were in no way trying to trample with his rights. (I live in Oklahoma, and I have seen the Bombing Memorial, and it will make anyone short of a psychopath cry) This is not what Jefferson meant, and Jefferson's words should not be judged on the actions of those people who twist them to justify their immoral actions. The rightful use of arms to defend someone’s rights is justified, and morally correct only if used against those who are the oppressors or their direct agents.
Our rights should not be trampled to defend us from terrorists. Sacrificing freedom for security was unacceptable to the founding fathers of America, and should be unacceptable to all Americans today. Besides the fact it is unnecessary. If political correctness would be ignored, we wouldn't have to give up even the smallest portion of our liberties. :bang:

[ December 13, 2002, 16:23: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

Thomas Jefferson said that in a time when america was struggling in an independence war. I doubt it can be adopted unchanged to the situation today. Thomas Jefferson was thinking about an agressor from outside, England, not the so much about an enemy inside (except the indians maybe :rolleyes: - and how long you however search, you won't find a comparable enemy inside the US today).

He was one of the fathers of the US consitution; he participated in creating the rules for the country to be, including an democratically elected government. He was an idealist, suggesting he has seen arms as a measure to overthrow the own government "when all else fails" means misunderstanding him - it is unlikely he didn't trust his own invention of democracy. Citing him can't replace a proper argument.

The tyrant Jefferson had in mind and whose blood was to spill was the King of England - not a US government that has an healthy interest in controlling weapons in its borders.

And think about it, the armed population has not prevented 9/11, nor has it prevented McCarthy's reign of fear - and he was someone who really pissed on civil rights. Times are changing and today we settle rights conflicts politically, the system allows that - that's what elections and democracy are there for. Another thing democracy is there for is to grant the constitutional rights - without a government they are kinda useless. That's why a government has police agencies, courts and laws.

Seeing gun ownership as the key to maintain the own civil rights is a misperception. The civil rights of the others go to hell when you enforce yours with a gun - in the result that would mean that the strongest, with the highest firepower has the most civil rights. The monopol of power of the government, the reason why courts and police are there to settle conflicts, is in the long run the only way to ensure a stable society.

Forashi, this doesn't even exclude gun ownership (as for self defence, hunting, sporting - within the appropiate limits for the weaponry*) in general but is thought to counter the gun - constitutional right part as an argument to refuse gun control in general.

Think about the revolutions we had in europe during the 1990s - all people were facing a well armed communist government with a sophisticated supression apparatus - and all revolutions were mainly peaceful - and sucessful.

*as discussed and pointed out in the last gun thread.

[ December 13, 2002, 18:18: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Never. Taking away a people's civil rights to protect a nation automatically makes the nation and its government not worth protecting.

I, at least, believe that gun control is not the right that needs to be worried about. Invasion of privacy to "protect" citizens is. The [US] government making split decisions to search homes is. The government deciding to arrest innocent people because they go to certain websites is.

Really Ragusa, so what you are telling me is that when someone breaks into my home and threatens my family, they are not taking away any of my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? You also claim that gun ownership does not stop terrorism. Do you know how many armed Israeli citizens have shot so called "Palestinian" terrorists before any instrument of the government has even shown up? If the pilots would have been allowed to have handguns on the airplane, or if the advise of many security experts that wanted cockpits hardened would have been followed, 9-11 would never have happened! We also would have been 6 years closer to making the world a safer place if the socialist party in this country (known as the Clinton democrats) would have taken action when the Cole was attacked. It is so typical of Euros to think that the government is better at everything than private citizens. What it the price that you pay for your social programs? What is the tax rate in Germany these days? Another thing, America is NOT a democracy. The founding fathers of this country were terrified of a democracy because democracy=majority rule=mob mentality. In any society that has ever existed there are a majority of middle and lower class and a minority of upper class (and I am in the middle class). If the majority rules, the lower/middle class can just vote themselves the rich's belongings. The poor are poor because they choose to be, and the rich are rich because they work their butts off for it. AMERICAN IS A REPUBLIC. Now if only lower and middle class Americans would realize it, but they won't as long as the Socialists (ie Democrats again) continue to pander to them and buy their votes.

Also I never mentioned overthrowing the government with small arms. The government is not the only way that a person can loose their rights. And as far as that peaceful overthrow thing in Europe, how is Yugoslavia working out for you? Real peaceful like! And as far as that "whoever owns the biggest gun wins" thing you are talking about, how is that ruling Russia thing working out for Germany? Oh yeah, the Russians ran Germany all the way back to Berlin. Who had the biggest guns in that little fracas? Oh and as far as your statement of all the Soviet Republics overthrowing the USSR power, everyone knows that the Russians were the main force behind the Soviet Union, and that the eastern block countries were providing very little worth fighting for, so the Russian's let them go, however areas like Kazakhstan are still under the heel of the Russians. They don't want to be, but the Russians need their oil. According to your theory, they should have already thrown off the yoke of their Russian oppressors through political means. So I would say that the force of arms and the threat of violence actually did win the freedom of the former Soviet Republics, even if it was only because Russia literally couldn't afford fight all their former provinces at the same time, especially knowing that America (I would say NATO, but the Euros have pretty well made it meaningless) would provide support against Russia. Politics did not free these countries, Russia not being able to afford to fight them did.

Germany can hide behind Schroeder, and appease the terrorists and dictators of this world, but when it comes time to pay the piper, don't ask us for help. There will come a day when the countries that your government sold instruments that can be used to make chemical/biological will turn and use them against you, just like Iran and Afghanistan did to us with the stinger missiles and fighter aircraft we sold them.

[ December 13, 2002, 20:16: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

Aside of the fact that I haven't voted for Schröder and have good reasons to dislike his policy (or lack therof) I doubt you have fully understood what I was talking about.

Besides, you cannot compare Israel with the US. Israel is a country that is at war since 1948. The enemy is actually some 60 min away, by car - 10 minutes by air and 3 hours by tank. AFAIK the USA are not at war with an immediate neighbour atm. You're mixing up crimefighting in a land at peace with fighting terrorists in a land at war.

That wearing uzis in israel has stopped a few suicide attacks is an astounding argument to justify gun carrying in the US.
I find it amazing you believe in a hardware solution for a mindset problem - would they have had guns, that would have never happened - you frequently say so. Following your displayed way of argueing I could reply: Would there be less guns, then there would be less gun crimes eliminating the need of civvies carrying guns "when all else fails" - try to proove the opposite :rolleyes: Any statement like that is hardly a useful contribution for a discussion :rolleyes: Calm down and come back with arguments.

Your theory of the USA not beeing a democracy is, in word, surprising, please explain further.

[ December 13, 2002, 21:29: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Ragusa,

Thomas Jefferson was thinking about an agressor from outside, England, not the so much about an enemy insideAt the time of the revolution, we were part of England. As colonies. That was our government. We paid taxes to them (do you pay taxes to foreign governments?). It was the enemy inside.
The spirit of the right to bear arms is to provide a civilian balance against internal tyranny. The military exists to deal with outside threats.

As history showed the americans didn't seem to identify themselves too much with the english crown. At least after the decleration of independence England *was* *outside*. I was well aware of that and chose the term to better illustrate my line of argument. So we are splitting hairs here.

And again: Is it really so that the right to bear arms was originally intended as a counterballance to internal tyranny? As I pointed out above I doubt the founders of the constitution had it's failing in mind when they made it. I kinda find it more likely that this was meant as a means to ensure the ability to quickly mobilise a force in case an english army showed up.

And given this humble thought is right, the whole armed polulation/ militia stuff would be just a silly misinterpretation of the constitution, that is at least worth a thought :p

[ December 13, 2002, 21:38: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Ragusa, this has gotten totally of topic. We have every right to defend ourselves against an attack, and I hope and believe that we will do so regardless of the UN or world opinion. I am glad to hear that you are not a supporter of Schroeder (sorry about the spelling but I do not know how to get the special "o", so I will use the Anglicized version), and hope that he is the Bill Clinton of Germany and will soon fall in shame. I am of German descent and have become somewhat ashamed to admit is due to recent German political policies.

Does the government have the right to suspend civil rights? Technically yes, if the situation warrants. Does this situation warrant it? No, and I will vote accordingly.

Regarding what the founder thought about the Second Amendment, yes Ragusa, I think there is strong evidence that the 2nd Amendment was intended for protection internally as well as externally:

In the colonies, availability of hunting and need for defense led to armament statutes comparable to those of the early Saxon times. In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless the were "well armed"; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and "to bring their peeces to church." In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so. In Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered that not only freemen, but also indentured servants own firearms and in 1644 it imposed a stern 6 shilling fine upon any citizen who was not armed.

When the British government began to increase its military presence in the colonies in the mid-eighteenth century, Massachusetts responded by calling upon its citizens to arm themselves in defense. One colonial newspaper argued that it was impossible to complain that this act was illegal since they were "British subjects, to whom the privilege of possessing arms is expressly recognized by the Bill of Rights" while another argued that this "is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defense." The newspaper cited Blackstone's commentaries on the laws of England, which had listed the "having and using arms for self preservation and defense" among the "absolute rights of individuals." The colonists felt they had an absolute right at common law to own firearms.

All the proposals called for a general duty of all citizens to be armed, although some proposals (most notably von Steuben's) also emphasized a "select militia" which would be paid for its services and given special training. In this respect, this "select militia" was the successor of the "trained bands" and the predecessor of what is today the "national guard". In the debates over the Constitution, von Steuben's proposals were criticized as undemocratic. In Connecticut on writer complained of a proposal that "this looks too much like Baron von Steuben's militia, by which a standing army was meant and intended." Richard Henry Lee, in his widely read pamphlet "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican" worried that the people might be disarmed "by modeling the militia. Should one fifth or one eighth part of the people capable of bearing arms be made into a select militia, as has been proposed, and those the young and ardent parts of the community, possessed of little or no property, the former will answer all the purposes of an army, while the latter will be defenseless." He proposed that "the Constitution ought to secure a genuine, and guard against a select militia," adding that "to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

The suspicion of select militia units expressed in these passages is a clear indication that the framers of the Constitution did not seek to guarantee a State right to maintain formed groups similar to the National Guard, but rather to protect the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms. Lee, in particular, sat in the Senate which approved the Bill of Rights. He would hardly have meant the second amendment to apply only to the select militias he so feared and disliked.

Other figures of the period were of like mind. In the Virginia convention, George Mason, drafter of the Virginia Bill of Rights, accused the British of having plotted "to disarm the people — that was the best and most effective way to enslave them", while Patrick Henry observed that, "The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun".

Nor were the antifederalists, to whom we owe credit for a Bill of Rights, alone on this account. Federalist arguments also provide a source of support for an individual rights view. Their arguments in favor of the proposed Constitution also relied heavily upon universal armament. The proposed Constitution had been heavily criticized for its failure to ban or even limit standing armies. Unable to deny this omission, the Constitution's supporters frequently argued to the people that the universal armament of Americans made such limitations unnecessary. A pamphlet written by Noah Webster, aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, observed:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.

A third and even more compelling case for an individual rights perspective on the Second Amendment comes from the State demands for a bill of rights. Numerous state ratifications called for adoption of a Bill of Rights as a part of the Constitution. The first such call came from a group of Pennsylvania delegates. Their proposals, which were not adopted but had a critical effect on future debates, proposed among other rights that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or a real danger of public injury from individuals." In Massachusetts, Sam Adams unsuccessfully pushed for a ratification conditioned on adoption of a Bill of Rights, beginning with a guarantee "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms...." When New Hampshire gave the Constitution the ninth vote needed for its passing into effect, it called for adoption of a Bill of Rights which included the provision that "Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion". Virginia and North Carolina thereafter called for a provision "that the people have the right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state."

When the first Congress convened for the purpose of drafting a Bill of Rights, it delegated the task to James Madison. Madison did not write upon a blank tablet. Instead, he obtained a pamphlet listing the State proposals for a Bill of Rights and sought to produce a briefer version incorporating all the vital proposals of these. His purpose was to incorporate, not distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania minority, Sam Adams, and the New Hampshire delegates. Madison proposed among other rights that:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service."

In the House, this was initially modified so that the militia clause came before the proposal recognizing the right. The proposals for the Bill of Rights were then trimmed in the interests of brevity. The conscientious objector clause was removed following objections by Eldridge Gerry, who complained that future Congresses might abuse the exemption for the scrupulous to excuse everyone from military service.

The proposal finally passed the House in its present form: "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." In this form it was submitted to the Senate, which passed it the following day. The Senate in the process indicated its intent that the right be an individual one, for private purposes, by rejecting an amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to bearing "for the common defense".

Subsequent legislation in the second Congress likewise supports the interpretation of the Second Amendment that creates an individual right. In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined "militia of the United States" to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. This statute, incidentally, remained in effect into the early years of the present century as a legal requirement of gun ownership for most of the population of the United States. There can by little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of a "militia", they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard. The purpose was to create an armed citizenry, such as the political theorists at the time considered essential to ward off tyranny. From this militia, appropriate measures might create a "well regulated militia" of individuals trained in their duties and responsibilities as citizens and owners of firearms.

Don't you think that in the last, let's say, 200 years, a few changes in circumstances have taken place? The americans no longer live in the wilderness, surrounded by dangerous indians. The war with britain is over too. Mexico and Canada are friendly neighbours. In the end the only enemy you'll find to use the arms against is the common street thug - and not the government.

This could be a reason to re-think if the second amandment, and the right to bear a firearm, still make sense. Even though the availability of guns may have an impact on the way crimes are carried out, they aren't the actual reasons. The reasons for crimes are social and are to be adressed politically (maybe by creating something as left as a social system) and by the police - just arming up the civvies, constitutional right or not, to win the arms race with the thugs is use- and pointless, a waste of resources.
So argumenting with crime to justify the constitutional right for any (type of) gun hardly makes sense.

And considering the US are a democracy, with elections and a ballance of power between the congress and president, the right to have a gun "when all else fails" is just as questionable. I pointed out why exactly earlier.

Times are changing and traditions are not a value in itself, that you have done something for and since 200 years doesn't mean it is still useful today. Perhaps it causes more trouble than that it helps. One of the few other countries, except switzerland, where it is still a perceived right to own a gun is afganistan. Just a thought.

[ December 14, 2002, 12:04: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Well, I don't have time to debate much right now but earlier you were skeptical about the intent of the framers regarding the 2nd Amendment. I was responding to this. The "times have changed" argument is different than what I was responding to.

I know, no pun intended.

Ragusa,

You are just encouraging this. The next arguement that will come out is that handguns in America save vastly more lives every year than the cost.

But please stop. This is so far off topic that it is stupid! I am sorry contributed to the whole thing. Ragusa, you are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. Everyone else, you are entitled to yours. No one here is going to convince anyone to switch their side on this one.

America is quite a bit different socially than just about anyplace else. Anyone can say anything they want to about this topic, but I am done with it. I would enjoy reading arguements about the suspension of civil rights, but no more gun control debate! It has all already been said.

How would suspension of the civil, constitutional right to hold certain arms sound to you? I'll give you an example you surely won't like to read:

IIRC gun control is one of the things the current right wing, non socialist, government has thought of - for weapons like .50 BMG rifles (available unrestricted and afaik not under the regulation of the National Firearms Act) - in a response to the situation after 9/11 - even more after the recent sniper drama (you may have noticed that).

Considering the potential of the .50 BMG these guns are dangerous enough in the hands of a civilian - but they would be absolutely lethal in the hands of a determined terrorist. When a civilian can get it a terrorist will get it too if he wants it. Costs have never been a hindrance for terrorists.

And the possibilities are infinite: Think about shooting a starting, standing or taxiing Jumbo on fire - with 50.000l kerosene in its tanks and 400 passengers on board, or an industry gas tank in a populated area - from a safe distance of aprox 1800 yards (all large targets, easy to hit - and no longer a need for suicide) - or perhaps killing someone through a brick wall in his house - and so on. Heartwarming.

Of course there are other means to wreak similar havoc, but a heavy sniper rifle is a comparably easy and safe way for a terrorist. This is not utopic: IRA terrorists have used .50 cal rifles (likely from US sources btw) to assassinate british soldiers who were wearing heavy bulletproof vests - from a car. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Don't you think this could justify, in face of a very real maniac and terrorist threat, the restriction of the civil right to hold *certain* arms? After 9/11 you have to face it that gun control could be included in the restriction of *civil rights* - even if this would mean shortening the horns of your holy cow.

[ December 14, 2002, 13:50: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

In World War 1 and 2, the govt. established censureship. It worked, and those damn "wobblies" needed shutting up. Regardless, in times of National Crisis(war or not, not necessarily war, b/c desert storm was not that big a deal) some rights must be suspended for the betterment of the nation. Mostly because of the damn liberal press(ever see "we were soldiers"?) always ****s stuff up, excuse my french. Only if we were fighting for our way of life, although the suspension of rights in that case would be ironic, somewhat.