"There is no place for an armed militia in a democratic society."

[hardheadjarhead]

"There is no place for an armed militia in a democratic society."

-Senior Bush administration official.


Link is here:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/15/bush.hezbollah/


Most of you know I support the right to bear arms. My question is this: Does that right apply to everyone? Or merely those that agree with us?

I realize this could quickly degrade to a 2nd Amendment argument for the United States...I hope before that happens we address this issue as pertains to Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran.

Who gets to have guns?


Regards,


Steve

 

[Cryozombie]

A democratic society, being democratic should have the right to vote on wether or not an Armed militia should or should not be allowed, with the exception of those places where it is constitutionally ordained that it be allowed. In those cases, a vote should not be first and formost if it should be allowed, but wether the constitution needs to be amended to remove that right prior to taking a vote on an allowing or disallowing an armed militia.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

"There is no place for an armed militia in a democratic society."

-Senior Bush administration official.


Link is here:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/15/bush.hezbollah/


Most of you know I support the right to bear arms. My question is this: Does that right apply to everyone? Or merely those that agree with us?

I realize this could quickly degrade to a 2nd Amendment argument for the United States...I hope before that happens we address this issue as pertains to Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran.

Who gets to have guns?


Regards,


Steve

My jaw is on the floor.

I completely did not expect Bush, with his political background, to make a comment like that, which would be something "2nd Amendment means a militia" and "pro-gun" folks would obviously get upset about.

I'm halfway on the gun issue, and *I'm* stunned.

 

[Makalakumu]

Is this official commenting on Hezbollah or ALL democratic societies? It seems to me that the context of the article points to the former and not the latter.

 

[Cruentus]

The article, Bush's opinions, and all else aside;

I think that a democratic society should preserve inherent rights. The right to self-defense is an inherent right. Therefore, a democratic society should not hinder it's citizen's from carrying a weapon that enables the citizen to defend himself, whether it be gun, knife, or otherwise.

Paul

 

[mj_lover]

forgive me if i'm wrong, but isn't a militia more of a private fighting force? i would not see that as saying that individuals must be unarmed. just my take

 

[DuneViking]

I interpret the statement as equivalent to "there is no place for an armed warlord's private militia in a democratic society" as opposed to the body of the people comprising a public militia as a check against a standing army gone tryannical. I would further suggest that the idea of a public militia to be or not to be could only be applied to one's own country. That such might exist elswhere should be the right of the people of that state to decide.

 

[OULobo]

I believe that Dubya was talking the American traditional definition, as a group of armed private civilians prepared for hostile foreign attack. I am a little stunned also that our elected cheif would say something like that considering his support base, but also considering his stance on government security vs. citizen's rights, I guess it is easier to believe. Regardless, this argument has been played out a million times before, but maybe something new will hit the fan and change my opinon. This is really an entrance to the regulation of firearms, more than an opinion on the existance of an organized militia, which for the most part is non-existant in the US. My take is that this country was literally founded on the ability of the average citizen to carry and possess arms, specifically firearms. Frankly, it is the only reason we are a country today. Even if we take out the ideas of tradition and usage for sport, it is quite nicely spelled out in the Bill or Rights that we as citizens have the right not only to possess arms, but to maintain a militia. Beyond that I have to agree with Tulisan's opinion that everyone has the right to self-defense, and as such the right to bear arms in defense, even in a group like a militia. The sad fact is that as times change, the political climate tries to change laws that have been set in stone as permenant for a reason.

 

[michaeledward]

forgive me if i'm wrong, but isn't a militia more of a private fighting force?

I think there is some validity in this idea.

However, the National Rifle Association has spent so much energy combining the two clauses of the second amendment (or ignoring the first clause), that it becomes troublesome to argue for the seperation of the two clauses in this instance.

If the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is required to secure a free state, then, a free state that has a large standing army to secure the state would negate the need of the right to keep and bear arms.

How do you reconcile an individual's 'inherent right' to self-defense by firearm (to keep and bear arms), while preventing a group of individuals from joining together (a militia) to exercise that right?

Either way, it was a stupid thing for a 'Senior Adminstration Official' to say. But, not terribly unexpected from the 'Say One Thing - Do Another' administration.

 

[ginshun]

What a stupid thing for him to say. I doubt that it will cause a big hub-bub or anything, but based on the administrations suposed stance on things, that was just dumb.

 

[loki09789]

Is this official commenting on Hezbollah or ALL democratic societies? It seems to me that the context of the article points to the former and not the latter.

I think the idea is to develop nationalism in places where tribalism/regionalism/factions rule pockets and engage in skirmish level wars, black marketeering, strong arm tactics..... that undermine a national stability.

Look at Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia....

I would agree with UpN that the context needs to be considered.

I don't know how stable our nation would be if the 'gang/militia' of the cripts, bloods, aryian Nation, White Brotherhood, Black Panthers....were tolerated and acceptable ways of waging political influence within our national borders.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I think the idea is to develop nationalism in places where tribalism/regionalism/factions rule pockets and engage in skirmish level wars, black marketeering, strong arm tactics..... that undermine a national stability.

Look at Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia....

I would agree with UpN that the context needs to be considered.

I don't know how stable our nation would be if the 'gang/militia' of the cripts, bloods, aryian Nation, White Brotherhood, Black Panthers....were tolerated and acceptable ways of waging political influence within our national borders.

But, in our society, they are allowed to be armed.

 

[raedyn]

"There is no place for an armed militia in a democratic society."
Coming from an American official, this was not a well planned sentence. It is should have been obvious how this statement would ruffle feathers at home. But in context, it's clear it wasn't his intention to say that citizens should not be armed but that "there is no place for an armed warlord's private militia in a democratic society" as DuneViking put it. And loki's point about armed rebel groups in North America that aren't tolerated is salient. I wouldn't consider a system where political influence was bought with force a democracy. OTOH -

Thought experiment:
Organized armed group decides they feel the election was a fraud and they storm the White House and Congress, and toss out Bush&co. Maybe they have to shoot a few people to get there. Would you support the group that staged the coup? Why or why not? They feel they've exhausted the non-violent channels to protest the results but the system (in their minds at least) is rigged against them with a corrupt system stacked to keep the current ruler in power. Would you support Bush&co's choice to have the Armed Forces surround Capitol Hill and the White House to forcibly take back control then charge and jail the protestors? Why or why not?

If you don't support the armed coup, but you do support the military removal of the forces, what's the difference? Why is one group's armed response okay but the other is not? Just because you agree with them? Is violence ever acceptable? If you say only in the case of defence, how do you define defence? To those staging the coup, they likely believe they are defending themselves against a corrupt government. How do you differentiate?

*disclaimer: I do not claim that I have all this sorted out to the 'right' answers. But this thread has made me think about this topic and I'm interested in hearing other people's thoughts.

 

[loki09789]

But, in our society, they are allowed to be armed.

As a form of individual right. THat right to bear arms does not allow citizens to unlawfully form armed associations that will use violence to include firearms to further personal or private organizational agendas.

I know that in Bosnia while we were there, the issue of firearms ownership was a touchy topic. Citizens could own/keep firearms with permits that were for the purpose of hunting or such activites that were legally acceptable.

As more stability is established and as more nationalism is established, the issue of firearms ownership could be brought up in democratic government for ammendment/change.

 

[michaeledward]

As a form of individual right. THat right to bear arms does not allow citizens to unlawfully form armed associations that will use violence to include firearms to further personal or private organizational agendas.

I know that in Bosnia while we were there, the issue of firearms ownership was a touchy topic. Citizens could own/keep firearms with permits that were for the purpose of hunting or such activites that were legally acceptable.

As more stability is established and as more nationalism is established, the issue of firearms ownership could be brought up in democratic government for ammendment/change.

What would make an association 'unlawful'?

Are you proposing that the right of assembly is not an 'inherent' right?

Or is the right of assembly waived if those assembling are exercising their individual 'inherent' right to self-defense?

What would constitute sufficient 'stability' to restore the right of assembly or association? But, if the right requires stability, doesn't that negate its function as an 'inherent' right.

Curious.

 

[loki09789]

1. What would make an association 'unlawful'?

2. Are you proposing that the right of assembly is not an 'inherent' right?

3. Or is the right of assembly waived if those assembling are exercising their individual 'inherent' right to self-defense?

4. What would constitute sufficient 'stability' to restore the right of assembly or association? But, if the right requires stability, doesn't that negate its function as an 'inherent' right.

Curious.

1. Let's see.... an association that exists to support/fund/plan the destruction of the government, a specific race/religion/ethnic group would be 'unlawful' in my mind. Look at the terror cells the 'assembled' to plan the 9/11 attacks. Look at Unit 900 of the KKK from 1981. They killed a black boy to make a point about white superiority, the murderer and accomplices got caught and Unit 900 was sued in civil court by the boy's mother and folded because of the monetary strain....unlawful could be called 'conspiracy.' 'Assembly' isn't just public.

2. The right to 'peaceful public assembly' is a constitutional right in America, but you still have to file for a permit so that your assembly is lawful. The idea that a right is 'inherent' or not is philosophical and supported by our constitution. Other democratic structures might not specify it or apply it the same way. I doubt that a permit would be given to a group of hate based people waving loaded guns around.

3. Self defense, whether individual or group, is a JUSTIFICATION for the use of force as a DEFENSE in the eyes of the law after the fact. That means that after the dust settles, you are going to be held accountable and it will be determined if that 'self defense' is reasonable.

Name me a single example of when a militia, armed and actively engaging in a shooting skirmish has been deemed totally justified in doing so. Even our own American Revolutionary origins can't be totally justified by people as reasonable and acceptable - during the time or after.

4. If your asking me for an absolute 'master definition' of stability that would fit all situations your not going to get one because there isn't one. It would have to depend on the situation at hand. I never said the 'right requires stability' but if the institution of that 'right' is going to create more instibility at a particular point in national development, why would you offer it?

That is like saying that students in a classroom have the 'right to express themselves' and that 'no talking rules' are unfair...well there are times when 'no talking' is right for the moment and is enforced and there are times when it is not right. Or, there are times when telling a student to be quiet when they are 'just expressing themselves' to the point of taking the class off task or out of acceptable language or topics is appropriate because the goal is to accomplish a goal AND maintaining stability is a way of doing that.

 

[michaeledward]

But I thought the argument put forth by the Gun Owner Rights groups is that the bill of rights spells out rights that exist within the populace, as opposed to rights that are granted by the government. The function of the Bill of Rights is to define the rights, not to grant them.


The right of the populace to defend itself is why the right to bear arms is codified (not granted) in the Bill of Rights.

But the right to assembly is not given this same stature? The people need to be granted the right to assemble? The people need to petition the state to exercise that right?

The arguments by some are that the rights exist prior to the existance of governments, and thus laws. Surely, laws can not be enacted in the absence of a government.

Arguing that school rules can not apply, or can only apply in situation X or situation Y is not relevant to the idea that a 'right' is 'inherent'; that the right exists before the establishment of authority. This is the position the anti-gun control crowd (NRA, for instance) take concerning the 2nd Amendment. School environments are established heirarchial structure (similar to government) which can define, grant, and deny rights in specific situations.


Does the 2nd Amendment grant the right to keep and bear arms, or does it define the right to keep and bear arms exists?

 

[sgtmac_46]

"There is no place for an armed militia in a democratic society."

-Senior Bush administration official.


Link is here:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/15/bush.hezbollah/


Most of you know I support the right to bear arms. My question is this: Does that right apply to everyone? Or merely those that agree with us?

I realize this could quickly degrade to a 2nd Amendment argument for the United States...I hope before that happens we address this issue as pertains to Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran.

Who gets to have guns?


Regards,


Steve

I think the wording was bad. I think it would have been better phrased "there is no room for roaming bands of armed thugs, shooting people and blowing things up, in a free society" because that is what hezbollah is. Other than that, i'm as pro-gun as anyone in this room.

 

[sgtmac_46]

What would make an association 'unlawful'?

Are you proposing that the right of assembly is not an 'inherent' right?

Or is the right of assembly waived if those assembling are exercising their individual 'inherent' right to self-defense?

What would constitute sufficient 'stability' to restore the right of assembly or association? But, if the right requires stability, doesn't that negate its function as an 'inherent' right.

Curious.

The right to forcefully attempt to over throw the government is not protected. The key is "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Nothing peaceable about a roving armed band of thugs intimidating and threatening the public for political gain.

 

[Loki]

I don't know how federal regulation works exactly, but IMO it's far too easy to get a hold of a gun in America. I'm arguing from ignorance in part, but gun control exists in Israel and not only is there a lower mortality rate due to firearms accidents and killing sprees, no one seems to have a problem with gun control. Israel is also a bit more dangerous than America on average, so I think people should be a bit more practical and not disregard gun control as interference with their rights.

I'd also like to state that I have no bias in Israel's favor in general. The education system is something that is severely lacking in Israel and should definitely adopt the American school system as a model.

~ Loki