Cheney Opposing D.C. Gun Ban

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
I ask, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”

This is precisely the point of the second Amendment. We are guaranteed to have our right of self defense protected by means of our own arms.

In a free society every individual must protect himself and his own self-interest. Every individual must be on guard for his own security. Why would any rational creature submit themselves to the security of an unreliable, monolithic State?
[/quote]
Because in the 18th Century, there was no adequate security on the frontier and in the sparsely populated continent on which the Framers lived. In this regard you are right. Our world is different; even if we choose to respect the 2nd Amendment rights, we do so for different reasons as well.

[quote]
As much as I respect the discipline and skill I gained from my stint in the USMC I do not entirely trust any organization with my or my family’s well being. It’s not because I feel that they are evil just that I do not believe in the concept of common good anymore.

I would like to give a more thorough, thoughtful reply to your other posts but its getting late and I am too tired to make coherent arguments right now.[/quote]

But in this you sell yourself too short. Your arguments are coherent, and I would trust you with my well-being.

Here is why:

You were trained to sacrifice yourself, to put your self-interest last after your dedication to your mission and to the Constitution and to your buddies. You never thought twice about it. If there are bad marines, bad stuff happens to them. You were not a bad Marine.
So if you, as a Marine, had been charged with defending me–however much you may dislike me–you would do it, with little regard for you self-interest. And I–however much I might disagree with you or the Government–would be damn grateful.

42

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
The gun culture prefers to emphasize the 2nd Amendment’s second clause, but, even respecting the 9th and 10th amendments, why do we not consider the primacy of the first clause?

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State…”

The primacy of the Second Amendment is the precept for the entire argument for self-regulation of a “free State.”

A free State is one in which the People regulate and are responsible for their own security. The word free implies the absence of central authority unless called into active service by Executive authority when war has been declared by Congress. The militia of a free State is completely voluntary. Thus the DoD needs to be abolished and the DoWar needs to be reenacted.

A large active standing military was not intended by the framers as the People were to use the right of self defense granted in the Second Amendment against all enemies foreign and domestic. A “free State” demands self-regulation on all fronts. Congress does not have the authority to regulate the arms of the People.

Your points are respected, as are the ones made by Volokh in BostonBarrister’s post above.

But, Lifty, I ask you to read the other opinion, by Petitioners, in the Volokh link above. It is at least as convincing as Respondent’s brief, or more so.

For instance, in regard to Madison’s motivations and choice of words:

"The language used in the Second Amendment originated from the amendments proposed at the Virginia ratifying convention, but the wording changed during the drafting process in the First Congress. Madison, the initial drafter of the Amendment, made several changes to the Virginia proposals, notably merging the conscientious objector provision (19th) with the right to bear arms and militia provisions (17th):

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 person.

1 Gales & Seaton�??s History of Debates in Congress (�??Debates�??) 451 (1789). Although the conscientious-objector clause did not survive, the initial inclusion of the �??bear arms�?? phrase in both the first and third clauses strongly supports the conclusion that Madison understood the Amendment as a whole to relate to military service alone."

I would suggest that both interpretations are correct, and Madison and the Framers were purposefully ambiguous: they believed that the right to keep arms accrued to citizens as individuals; and the right to bear arms was limited to the utility of a free people’s militia. A free people’s militia is a regulated organ of its constituted authority, the state (they did not have the concept of “The State.”)

But nowhere, I contend–noting Jefferson’s hyperbolic appeals to “water the tree of liberty” with the blood of rebellion–does the Constitution, or The Federalist, guarantee the right of armed insurrection, and gurantee the right to bear weapons for that purpose.

As for the DoD comments, I know, Lifty, you are sincere, but, in the 21st Century, you cannot be serious.[/quote]

This thread is great. It has to be the first gun thread that I’ve read so far that is civil and hasn’t immediately degenerated into dick waving. Let’s hope it stays that way. I’m learning a lot of specific things that I’d long forgotten about. Thanks to everyone.

I would respectfully suggest that you are mistaken Dr. S. I hate doing this, but I’m going to argue semantics (I do think this is a valid point though…)–The semicolon is a punctuation mark traditionally used to link together two related but independent thoughts, whereas the colon is used to show dependence on, and/or contrast from, the clause immediately preceding the colon.

It is highly unlikely that this would have escaped Madison or the founders because of their high education and the prevailing grammer of the time. Thus, Madison’s use of the semicolon is suggestive that he agrees with the interpretation of the time (as stated previously by Volokh, et al).

Also, while you may be right that Madison and founders believed that the right to bear arms was limited to militia, you still have to concede that the prevailing definition of militia to which they alluded was that previously described by BostonBarrister, Volokh, etc–“the citizenry at large”. You would also have to concede, pursuant to the definition of militia then used, that the militia was both supposed to defend a free state from threats and oppose a free state from overstepping its bounds and restricting freedoms of the citizenry.

Sorry for descending into semantics (it hurts me to think about it), but I felt that this was a rare time where it was useful and not superfluous. I do not think Madison and co. were sloppy with choice of grammer. Regardless, I feel that the second part on the definition of militia still stands. I agree that the right for bearing arms with the purpose of insurrection is not guaranteed.

The exception of course is when all other means of retaining liberty have failed, but the State would be too far gone in that case to recognize the right to bear arms, so the point is moot.

I tend to agree with Lifty (except on the DoD) and Barrister on this issue.

43

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
The gun culture prefers to emphasize the 2nd Amendment’s second clause, but, even respecting the 9th and 10th amendments, why do we not consider the primacy of the first clause?

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State…”

The primacy of the Second Amendment is the precept for the entire argument for self-regulation of a “free State.”

A free State is one in which the People regulate and are responsible for their own security. The word free implies the absence of central authority unless called into active service by Executive authority when war has been declared by Congress. The militia of a free State is completely voluntary. Thus the DoD needs to be abolished and the DoWar needs to be reenacted.

A large active standing military was not intended by the framers as the People were to use the right of self defense granted in the Second Amendment against all enemies foreign and domestic. A “free State” demands self-regulation on all fronts. Congress does not have the authority to regulate the arms of the People.

Your points are respected, as are the ones made by Volokh in BostonBarrister’s post above.

But, Lifty, I ask you to read the other opinion, by Petitioners, in the Volokh link above. It is at least as convincing as Respondent’s brief, or more so.

For instance, in regard to Madison’s motivations and choice of words:

"The language used in the Second Amendment originated from the amendments proposed at the Virginia ratifying convention, but the wording changed during the drafting process in the First Congress. Madison, the initial drafter of the Amendment, made several changes to the Virginia proposals, notably merging the conscientious objector provision (19th) with the right to bear arms and militia provisions (17th):

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 person.

1 Gales & Seaton�??s History of Debates in Congress (�??Debates�??) 451 (1789). Although the conscientious-objector clause did not survive, the initial inclusion of the �??bear arms�?? phrase in both the first and third clauses strongly supports the conclusion that Madison understood the Amendment as a whole to relate to military service alone."

I would suggest that both interpretations are correct, and Madison and the Framers were purposefully ambiguous: they believed that the right to keep arms accrued to citizens as individuals; and the right to bear arms was limited to the utility of a free people’s militia. A free people’s militia is a regulated organ of its constituted authority, the state (they did not have the concept of “The State.”)

But nowhere, I contend–noting Jefferson’s hyperbolic appeals to “water the tree of liberty” with the blood of rebellion–does the Constitution, or The Federalist, guarantee the right of armed insurrection, and gurantee the right to bear weapons for that purpose.

As for the DoD comments, I know, Lifty, you are sincere, but, in the 21st Century, you cannot be serious.

This thread is great. It has to be the first gun thread that I’ve read so far that is civil and hasn’t immediately degenerated into dick waving. Let’s hope it stays that way. I’m learning a lot of specific things that I’d long forgotten about. Thanks to everyone.

I would respectfully suggest that you are mistaken Dr. S. I hate doing this, but I’m going to argue semantics (I do think this is a valid point though…)–The semicolon is a punctuation mark traditionally used to link together two related but independent thoughts, whereas the colon is used to show dependence on, and/or contrast from, the clause immediately preceding the colon.

It is highly unlikely that this would have escaped Madison or the founders because of their high education and the prevailing grammer of the time. Thus, Madison’s use of the semicolon is suggestive that he agrees with the interpretation of the time (as stated previously by Volokh, et al).

Also, while you may be right that Madison and founders believed that the right to bear arms was limited to militia, you still have to concede that the prevailing definition of militia to which they alluded was that previously described by BostonBarrister, Volokh, etc–“the citizenry at large”. You would also have to concede, pursuant to the definition of militia then used, that the militia was both supposed to defend a free state from threats and oppose a free state from overstepping its bounds and restricting freedoms of the citizenry.

Sorry for descending into semantics (it hurts me to think about it), but I felt that this was a rare time where it was useful and not superfluous. I do not think Madison and co. were sloppy with choice of grammer. Regardless, I feel that the second part on the definition of militia still stands. I agree that the right for bearing arms with the purpose of insurrection is not guaranteed.

The exception of course is when all other means of retaining liberty have failed, but the State would be too far gone in that case to recognize the right to bear arms, so the point is moot.

I tend to agree with Lifty (except on the DoD) and Barrister on this issue. [/quote]

Respecting your parsing of the language, I do not necessarily disagree. I am not sure that I have a fixed opinion yet in all this; I was presenting a convincing argument by the Petitioners.

The position which troubles me is the one that contends, freely, that the Framers wanted yeoman farmers to bear arms in order to combat their own legally constituted governments.
Can someone show me–in the constitution, in Madison, or in the Federalist, for example–the Framers encouraging rebellion in this fashion? Next, has any Court agreed with this contention? (I would be surprised, to say the least.)

(T Jefferson does not count…he was a loose cannon on many subjects. The Declaration of Independence is an apologeia in this regard, a justification for rebellion from a illegitimate government. In theory–TJ is an inspiration; in practice–well, let’s just say that his own practice was at odds with his own theory.

(Which reminds me of a Yogi Berra comment: In theory, there should be no difference between theory and practice. But in practice…there is.)

44

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
I’m not particularly worried about black helicopters, Doc. Abrams tanks, on the other hand, might pose a problem.

And in answer to your question, I submit Plato’s answer that we must instill in the watchers a distaste for power. Or at least a distaste for the consequences of the abuse of power. An armed citizen is in a better position to do that than an unarmed, or worse, disarmed subject.

Oh, and you should know that a man needn’t be either a member of the “gun culture” or a conspiracy freak in order to want to remain armed and free.

Agreed in every point.

The watchers must have a distaste for power. It is in my memory that, not federal troops, but well-regulated state militias were a bigger threat to personal freedom. Whatever one’s politics, the examples I choose are: State troopers in Little Rock, state police in Kent State, various state authorities in Birmingham and Jackson. I do not put responsibility entirely at the feet of the Governors of the time, but in several instances it was Federal power that protected individual liberties.

So I asked the question, “who watches the watchers” with ambivalence: the Feds watch the state militias, sometimes. Citizen soldiers may be misguided in their suspicions about the Federal government. I submit there is more to fear from a posse comitatus, the KKK, and other self-appointed armed Guardians of Liberty; I want to be protected from them.[/quote]

Excellent point.

45

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
I submit there is more to fear from a posse comitatus, the KKK, and other self-appointed armed Guardians of Liberty; I want to be protected from them.[/quote]

Then protect yourself. That is your responsibility. Your right to own guns (as personal property) is ensured so that you can protect yourself.

I am not saying you cannot have faith in the goodness of other individuals for your protection. Moral people will always be around to defend the defenseless. My point is that you cannot expect it; especially from government.

Waco, Katrina, 9/11 – these should stand in your mind as government failures to protect the People. If the People behave like sheep they will be slaughtered like sheep.

En garde!

46

Dr. S.

Ah, I see. Well it is an interesting argument. One which I think is doubtful for the reasons I stated, but interesting. I think I’ve inherited a little bit of the analytical philosophy bent sometimes with the language parsing. Those old readings catch up to me occasionally.

47

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
I submit there is more to fear from a posse comitatus, the KKK, and other self-appointed armed Guardians of Liberty; I want to be protected from them.

Then protect yourself. That is your responsibility. Your right to own guns (as personal property) is ensured so that you can protect yourself.

I am not saying you cannot have faith in the goodness of other individuals for your protection. Moral people will always be around to defend the defenseless. My point is that you cannot expect it; especially from government.

Waco, Katrina, 9/11 – these should stand in your mind as government failures to protect the People. If the People behave like sheep they will be slaughtered like sheep.

En garde![/quote]

Great points! It really isn’t the gov’t job to protect anyones life. Waiting for someone to protect you is a death sentence. Good luck waiting for the cops when someone breaks into your house with bad intentions, hell the cops may not even show up when you call. “Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither”

48

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
The position which troubles me is the one that contends, freely, that the Framers wanted yeoman farmers to bear arms in order to combat their own legally constituted governments.

Can someone show me–in the constitution, in Madison, or in the Federalist, for example–the Framers encouraging rebellion in this fashion? Next, has any Court agreed with this contention? (I would be surprised, to say the least.)

(T Jefferson does not count…he was a loose cannon on many subjects. The Declaration of Independence is an apologeia in this regard, a justification for rebellion from a illegitimate government. In theory–TJ is an inspiration; in practice–well, let’s just say that his own practice was at odds with his own theory.

[/quote]

Well, if you don’t like Tommy Loosecannon, how about the Father of Our Country, whose birthday is just around the corner:

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people’s liberty teeth keystone… the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable… more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour.”

And my personal favorite, with which Tommy Loosecannon would agree wholeheartedly, as do I:

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

49

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
I submit there is more to fear from a posse comitatus, the KKK, and other self-appointed armed Guardians of Liberty; I want to be protected from them.

Then protect yourself. That is your responsibility. Your right to own guns (as personal property) is ensured so that you can protect yourself.

I am not saying you cannot have faith in the goodness of other individuals for your protection. Moral people will always be around to defend the defenseless. My point is that you cannot expect it; especially from government.

Waco, Katrina, 9/11 – these should stand in your mind as government failures to protect the People. If the People behave like sheep they will be slaughtered like sheep.

En garde![/quote]

OK. Understood. I should protect my home from criminals in the event of earthquake or other natural disaster. Then let’s take the discussion a point farther.

In my neighborhood, a posse comitatus forms. I don’t like their politics, they physically threaten me and some of my friends. I join with armed friends and form an anti-posse. Let’s call it the “Pussy Comitatus,” appropriate to my level of pacifism. So now we have two–or more–well regulated armed bands, one rebellious and one defensive, Posse versus Pussy, both with rights to keep and bear and use arms, with ensuant violence.
Why this seems like the Hobbesian jungle (Thomas, not Calvin &)!

(If the scenario seems ridiculous think about: Bloody Kansas, Tombstone, the KKK, the lynchings of the 1920’s and 1930’s. Remember, for this discussion, it is not the Federal Government and Abrams tanks I fear: it is the hostile armed neighbors across the creek.)

So I understand your love of the right to bear arms. Perhaps you understand the reason I love the US, with its government of law and not of men, where I may live by the protection of the law, and do so were law, and not armed might, is sovereign.

50

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
The position which troubles me is the one that contends, freely, that the Framers wanted yeoman farmers to bear arms in order to combat their own legally constituted governments.

Can someone show me–in the constitution, in Madison, or in the Federalist, for example–the Framers encouraging rebellion in this fashion? Next, has any Court agreed with this contention? (I would be surprised, to say the least.)

(T Jefferson does not count…he was a loose cannon on many subjects. The Declaration of Independence is an apologeia in this regard, a justification for rebellion from a illegitimate government. In theory–TJ is an inspiration; in practice–well, let’s just say that his own practice was at odds with his own theory.

Well, if you don’t like Tommy Loosecannon, how about the Father of Our Country, whose birthday is just around the corner:

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people’s liberty teeth keystone… the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable… more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour.”

And my personal favorite, with which Tommy Loosecannon would agree wholeheartedly, as do I:

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

[/quote]

Good ones, thanks!

But did GW say this before or after putting down the Whiskey Rebellion?

(Oh, and I like TJ very much. But, he is often self-contradictory, and like the Bible, or the ocean: so shallow at the shore that a child can play safely, and so deep that whole ships can be lost in it.)

51

I think the Bush Administration’s overall position on this is about right. The 2nd Amendment is a personal right, not a right of the States, but like the First Amendment there can be reasonable restrictions placed on that right that don’t burden the underlying purpose of that right.

BTW, the point I find most convincing regarding the construction arguments is just the simple fact that a couple of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights specifically talk about the right of the people, and it’s clear that these are individual rights:

1st Amendment: “…;or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

4th Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”

Giving a reason why the people should receive this right doesn’t seem a limitation to only that circumstance.

Also, here’s another excellent Volokh article, focusing on the use and meaning of “free State”: http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/freestate.pdf

52

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
In my neighborhood, a posse comitatus forms. I don’t like their politics, they physically threaten me and some of my friends. I join with armed friends and form an anti-posse. Let’s call it the “Pussy Comitatus,” appropriate to my level of pacifism. So now we have two–or more–well regulated armed bands, one rebellious and one defensive, Posse versus Pussy, both with rights to keep and bear and use arms, with ensuant violence.
Why this seems like the Hobbesian jungle (Thomas, not Calvin &)!

…

So I understand your love of the right to bear arms. Perhaps you understand the reason I love the US, with its government of law and not of men, where I may live by the protection of the law, and do so were law, and not armed might, is sovereign.
[/quote]
Law lies in the rights of men. Not in government protection.

I’m not so sure about your Hobbesian argument. Hobbes argues for the government as protector (Leviathan). Government is a man made creation; a construct. Who protects government? Government has to be enforced by man. There is no inherent government that can exist with out man. Man is above everything; that includes government.

There in no such rightful notion as the social contract. There are only contracts between individuals – and they must be voluntary. The social contract as defined is not voluntary. In the Hobbesian sense of the social contract, the individual gives up his natural rights for protection.

As for having to defend yourself, that is just the way it is. No creature in nature has protection without its own vigilance.

I prefer Bastiat’s rendition (without the divine):
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G1409
[i]
"We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life – physical, intellectual, and moral life.

But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.

Life, faculties, production – in other words, individuality, liberty, property – this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."[/i]

53

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:

…

So I understand your love of the right to bear arms. Perhaps you understand the reason I love the US, with its government of law and not of men, where I may live by the protection of the law, and do so were law, and not armed might, is sovereign.

Law lies in the rights of men. Not in government protection.

[/quote]

Ok. I undestand that this constitutes a personal philosophy, or a theory, if you will. For the time being I respect that; lets agree to disagree here. Remember that one day you, too, Lifty, might be weak and infirm, or part of a minority, and subject to the abuse of a an “armed militia.” You may not be always able to defend yourself by force of arms. And then, would you find value in the protections of Law? I think so, and I think you will agree. But may that day never dawn.

But where does this take us in understanding the law of the 2nd Amendment?

Boston Barrister’s post makes sense to me, but I will need time to comb through the Volokh brief cited. (MEGO).

I revert to my last concerns about “uninfringed” right to bear arms.
Is there a legal precedent in which the Court concurs with the legal right of an armed group to rebel against the legally constituted government?

I submit, no. The rule of law prevails, and not the strained interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I cannot even conceive of California’s 9th Circuit, agreeing, that, yes, the Symbionese Liberation Army has a right to keep and bear arms in the conduct of its rebellion. (Perhaps the Volokh brief will enlighten me.)

Another word on philosophy.
I was not being only gratuitous and jocular in my response to Varqanir. GW and TJ said many things of fundamental importance, but context dictates meaning, and deeds trump words. Shay’s rebellion was one reason that GW supported a more centralized government of the Constitution (compared to the Articles of Confederation.) TJ was a cabinet member when GW put down the Whiskey Rebellion, and to my knowledge did not resign or voice principled opposition.

When the Fathers and Framers are cited, consider, too, whether their actions speak as convincingly.

54

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Ok. I undestand that this constitutes a personal philosophy, or a theory, if you will. For the time being I respect that; lets agree to disagree here. Remember that one day you, too, Lifty, might be weak and infirm, or part of a minority, and subject to the abuse of a an “armed militia.” You may not be always able to defend yourself by force of arms. And then, would you find value in the protections of Law? I think so, and I think you will agree. But may that day never dawn.

But where does this take us in understanding the law of the 2nd Amendment?

[/quote]
I imagine the framers never foresaw government growing to the size it has and thus never would have imagined the idea of self defense ever needing to be argued for or against. Self defense goes hand-in-hand with self-government.

One point of argument, if I am honest with my self, I do not even own a fire arm. I am one of those individuals that would have to rely on the kindness of a stranger in the event of a real transgression. Luckily, my compliance with the non-aggression principle has kept me out of trouble but in the event of a home invasion in the middle of the night let us hope that Louisville is batting 1.000.

I must admit, again if I am honest with myself, reality does often side with pragmatism. Though I am heavily steeped in the philosophical ideas of liberty I know they aren’t always pragmatic; this does not mean I abandon the philosophical principles that they are based on. Conversely, pragmatism often times forces us to forget our principles which only makes it easier to continue to accept the debasement of them, in the name of Utilitarian dogma, for example, unknowingly and slowly siding with evil.

I think of this country as a great experiment that has failed. I think that the framers had only the choice of swallowing two pills but instead decided to opt out altogether. On the one hand there is the pill of tyranny that they were fighting against which would not go down. On the other hand is the pill of anarchy that was completely inconceivable coming from a tyrannical past so was not even considered.

Knowing that government was the biggest problem to the ideas of freedom they concocted this experiment known as the United States of America. It would be a pragmatic society based on the idea of self government and individual freedom. Pragmatism does not work in the long run because it never addresses problems of the long run. To answer why we must undoubtedly come back to the philosophy of liberty.

Once again we are on the doorstep. There are two pills to swallow – which one will it be? I am fearful we will keep moving in the direction of tyranny when instead it should be further away from government and more toward anarchy.

Sorry for the Matrix metaphor but sometimes structuring arguments into polemic dichotomies makes them easier to distinguish – and it was the best one I could think of.

55

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
…

I must admit, again if I am honest with myself, reality does often side with pragmatism. Though I am heavily steeped in the philosophical ideas of liberty I know they aren’t always pragmatic; this does not mean I abandon the philosophical principles that they are based on. Conversely, pragmatism often times forces us to forget our principles which only makes it easier to continue to accept the debasement of them…
[/quote]

Apologies to William James, but when Charles Sanders Pierce coined the term “pramatacism,” he did so because it was a word “ugly enough to be safe from kidnappers.” So I, too, prefer to be pragmatic.

The concept need not be so ugly. Do not abandon a single principle, Lifty, just consider what results it would have before marrying it. (A far cry from another stance, deduction from “self-evident truths.” Ain’t no axioms here.)

I cannot suffocate this thread without a thanks to Boston Barrister and his posts which I have found provocative and instructive. I do not know who Eugene Volokh is, other than a mentor, perhaps, but I found helpful his clear brief on the meaning of “Free State.” In short, the Framers, he says, were thinking about a non-despotic country, not a state as we know it, or a government, when they wrote the 2nd amendment.

But even respecting Madison inter alia and their fondness for Blackstone and Montesquie, perhaps by “Free State” we today would translate it, “democratic polity.” Now we have something worth protectin’…