Gun rights and the federal laws.

[mockturtle]

Well said, Seraphim!

 

[John_Camping]

Firearms are very recent in human history, ranged weapons aren't. Our choice of ranged weapons has evolved over time. There is no reason to think firearms are anything more than a passing fad. We are getting hung up in cultural warfare about SPECS that won't matter anymore than the distinction between muzzle and breech loading weapons does to today's second amendment fights.

I don't know if we need the right to stacks of 100 round clips in a bunker to survive post apocalyptic warfare. But I have seen video of a bunch of machine gun enthusiasts firing at a drone that was just performing evasive manuevers. It would have been a blood bath if that drone was firing back. Imagine a remote warehouse of soldiers that grew up playing video games each controlling squadrons of them. I'm far more concerned with making sure it's one where we don't have to fight our government for the principles of freedom we surrendered while getting bogged done in a fight over one weapon.

 

[GotSmart]

I met a man in a barber shop a couple of years ago.  His Granddaughter was friends with one of my daughters.  I asked how she was doing.  He told me that she was in the USAF somewhere in Nevada.  She worked in a bunker flying drones like playing a video game, and taking pictures in Afghanistan.  She would do that a couple hours a day, then ran the computers that analyzed the "films taken"   

I have aerial Photographs taken during WWII, and the resolution was extremely fine.  I can imagine what the new military drones can do.  

In doing research, I see that they also carry weapons so the kids in Nevada can take out a target more than 7,000 miles away.  

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-10713898

It seems that a properly prepared prepper community will need the electronics wizards as a prime first defense. 

Is a drone covered in the 2nd amendment I wonder?

 

[sushidog]

My thoughts all IMO only:

1. The second amendment is clearly about defending ourselves as a community from the government not each other, it has evolved into an individual right.
2. I think the fundamental right represented in the modern second amendment is to possess and maintain all reasonable and necessary means of defending ourselves, each other, and our freedoms.
3. I don't think the second amendment has to mean "fire" arms. While they are still sometimes necessary to self defense, and may always be, I hope the day comes when lethal means aren't necessary to that end.
4. If you want to prepare yourself to overthrow an oppressive government forget your guns, an armed uprising against the modern US military is a non-starter. Train your hacking skills and drone skills.
5. The second amendment doesn't defend nor is it necessary to our liberties, it is a result of them. We defend our liberties, not by hoarding bullets but by being informed, voting, paying attention to all threats to our freedoms, and understanding that freedom's price isn't paid by soldiers, it's paid by all American's, civilian and military alike. Why the NRA and people who are vehement about defending ourselves from an oppressive government rage about magazine sizes but don't seem to see the threat in things like the TSA, Patriot Act, or abuses like the ones uncovered by Edward Snowden is beyond me.

Honestly after having watched this country's behavior since 9/11 I think we are failing as a country to defend our freedoms and the NRA is more about political power and big toys that go boom than about defending our freedom.

Great post John. I certainly agree with all you said except one thing. If, God forbid, we ever had to do the unthinkable - overthrow a tyrannical, oppressive government our weapons would not be used against our own military (and I hope our military's arms would not be directed towards the citizens who it is there to defend). They would be used against the tyrant politicians who ignore and usurp the constitution. Look at the success that other insurgencies have had of late. They do this by guerilla tactics. IEDs, drones, cyber attacks, etc. There are strategies to defeat an enemy economically, by bringing down infrastructure so a large standing army could not be supported. It's much easier and cheaper to blow up a bridge, disable an aircraft, take out a powerplant, etc. than to build one. "He who can destroy a thing controls a thing." Paul Maudib, Dune .

Chip

 

[mockturtle]

A lot of food for thought and a lot of thoughtful comments. Rather like medical technologies, weapons technologies are being developed well ahead of any ethical guidelines [for that matter, is there anyone we would trust with ethical guidelines?]. Regarding drones: How close would a drone have to be for us to be able to legally take it out? Is there a minimum air space that is our private zone? With information technology, the toothpaste is pretty well out of the tube.

 

[sushidog]

Concerning drones, I would think it would be the equivalent of me driving my car up on your lawn. You have the right to sue me for damages to your lawn, just as you could sue the drone owner/pilot for privacy infringement if he is directly over your property (in your airspace), but you can't come out with a shotgun and blast away or you would be held responsible to pay for their property you just destroyed - and some of those drones cost thousands of dollars. A camera can document the intrusion and if you can find the operator, document his act too. I won't be surprised if in the ear future all drones are required to be licensed with aircraft ID numbers displayed conspicuously.

Chip

 

[mockturtle]

If you drove onto my lawn [if I had one] by accident, you might just pay for damages. But if you did it with malicious intent, that's a different story. A neighbor could accidentally let his drone fly into 'my' airspace or he could be deliberately spying. I think I should be able to shoot it down or capture it, like a spy plane that flies behind enemy lines.

 

[GotSmart]

At what point does looking become spying?

 

[Seraphim]

If you drove onto my lawn [if I had one] by accident, you might just pay for damages.  But if you did it with malicious intent, that's a different story.  A neighbor could accidentally let his drone fly into 'my' airspace or he could be deliberately spying.  I think I should be able to shoot it down or capture it, like a spy plane that lands in behind enemy lines.

You can't.  If someone intentionally drove on your lawn, you can't legally shoot them or their car.

Just read a case where someone shot down their neighbors drone. Originally, the neighbor just asked for damages. The guy refused. Went to court. The victim got more than he asked for. Judge advised offender he had no right to damage another's property.

This particular drone had no recording equipment but that doesn't appear to relevant anyways.  You can't destroy another's property

 

[Seraphim]

At what point does looking become spying?

When privacy laws are broken.

In a yard with a privacy fence, the residents have an expectation of privacy. In a yard with a chai link fence, where outside observers could see anyway, there is no expectation of privacy. That expectation is a determining factor.

 

[Seraphim]

Using a drone, or binoculars to see where you normally cannot, can also be defined as violating ones privacy. Two city workers here used a cherry picker to to look over a fence where a couple of topless sunbathers were alleged to be. They were fired and criminally charged.

 

[highdesertranger]

great thread. when I first read the title I thought, oh no here we go, but it hasn't gone there. btw I am pro 2nd amendment. highdesertranger

 

[John_Camping]

Firearms are very recent in human history, ranged weapons aren't. Our choice of ranged weapons has evolved over time. There is no reason to think firearms are anything more than a passing fad. We are getting hung up in cultural warfare about SPECS that won't matter anymore than the distinction between muzzle and breech loading weapons does to today's second amendment fights.

I don't know if we need the right to stacks of 100 round clips in a bunker to survive post apocalyptic warfare. But I have seen video of a bunch of machine gun enthusiasts firing at a drone that was just performing evasive maneuvers. It would have been a blood bath if that drone was firing back. Imagine a remote warehouse of soldiers that grew up playing video games each controlling a squad of semi-autonomous drones. I'm far more concerned with making sure it's one where we don't have to fight our government for the principles of freedom we surrendered while getting bogged done in a fight over one weapon.

I wrote the above post then my connection conked before I could send. The direction the conversation has gone since then is interesting. My own continued thoughts on my own post is that we are getting bogged down in fighting over the rights and weapons of the past century while blindly surrendering vital rights in the digital age.

The government has more legal rights to monitor and track us than we do to monitor our own government. Someone mentioned license plates on drones. License plates on cars are a privacy nightmare that most people don't even know about, thanks to modern OCR technology. The comment about using guerilla tactics in asymmetrical warfare was insightful, however I don't think it makes the gun debate anymore central to the future of our freedoms(or the future of the 2nd amendment). As the comment itself points out insurrection does not require robust gun rights. It does however require robust privacy and anti-surveillance capabilities.

Sorry if I'm wandering around I'm just piecing thoughts together and thinking much faster than I'm typing. I stop here for this post, pick apart at will.

 

[mockturtle]

My own continued thoughts on my own post is that we are getting bogged down in fighting over the rights and weapons of the past century while blindly surrendering vital rights in the digital age.

Exactly!

 

[John_Camping]

How do you derive "missile launchers" from small arms?  First you need a refresher on weapons terminology.  Then reread the Second Amendment.  Read what it SAYS, not what you wish it said.  it is quite simple.

I'd like to fish back and derive "missile launchers" from small arms. Reading what it says...

[font=Verdana, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[/font]

The original draft read this way.

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.

With or without, the original draft it is clear the intent was for the citizenry to maintain some battlefield capability against an organized military. Back then I can't think of a single weapon private individuals didn't have that the military did(enlighten me?). Guns? check Bladed weapons? check Horses? check Ships? check I had thought cannon, then remembered private ships back then were often equipped with... cannon to defend against pirates. We maintained some degree of battlefield parity with slowly decaying experience parity until the invention of machine guns, tanks, fighter jets, ect.

If the original intent of the second amendment is the ability of the citizenry to band together and oppose an army hostile or domestic, does it not stand to reason that the second amendment does include at a minimum reasonable weaponry to counter modern military hardware? Why don't I have a second amendment right to keep a tank in my garage, just in case?

Is a drone covered in the 2nd amendment I wonder?

How about code to hack or take down computer networks? Or more crucially, is a firmware restriction against a 3d printer making gun parts a 2nd amendment violation? How about strong encryption, is that a 2nd amendment right? It's a digital weapon, but you can't use a gun to fight an electron.

Great post John. I certainly agree with all you said except one thing. If, God forbid, we ever had to do the unthinkable - overthrow a tyrannical, oppressive government our weapons would not be used against our own military (and I hope our military's arms would not be directed towards the citizens who it is there to defend). They would be used against the tyrant politicians who ignore and usurp the constitution.

Regardless of how we feel about the outcome or causes of the civil war, Americans already felt they had to do the unthinkable and overthrow a tyrannical, oppressive government and they did fight their own military. It is possible the military would side with the people, it's possible they would side with the tyrant politicians(aka their chain of command), it's possible the military would be split. Yes, the Egyptians threw out a dictator without facing soldiers in battle. Not to diminish the deaths on the ground, but the Egyptian revolution was information warfare. It was fought in the battle over the flow of information and won as activists found ways around government attempts to silence their message and disrupt their communications. Which only exemplifies the second amendment implications of digital rights.

ps. Wow, that was long...

 

[Seraphim]

When a vehicle is operating on a public road, its actions do not fall under any expectation of privacy. I'm familiar withe the equipment which records and files license plates, times and location in a searchable database for possible reference in later investigations. Suspect states he was nowhere near the area at the time of the crime, yet his license plate was recorded two blocks from the scene. If you're in public, there's no expectation of privacy. You can be photographed, videotaped by anyone . Doesn't need to be digital equipment either *grin* - I know that's not what you meant.

I don't think there's any concern about any significant parts of the population engaging in armed conflict against the government, and if it did occur, they would not stand a chance. Most civilians couldn't afford an F16, wouldn't have access to aviation fuel, and couldn't fly the durn thing even if they did. And talk about difficulty getting ammo for one! And if you didn't have an F16 - or a fleet of them - not much chance of you defeating the military. Not much chance even if you DID have a fleet.

Even robust privacy and anti-surveillance capabilities, in the long run, will have no effect. The government has more resources for tracking "us" than we do "them". Such is life. They can track me all they like - be a damned boring exercise in surveillance for them. But I really don't distinguish between 'us' and 'them'. Serves no useful purpose. Armed conflict against the government over perceived rights seems like an exercise in futility and/or ignorance, IMO. If you don't like the way the country's run (and the 'you' was not directed at John, but a general pronoun) go elsewhere. Find out exactly how many rights you have in other countries.

 

[mockturtle]

Ah, but the military may or may not side with the government.

 

[Seraphim]

I wrote the above post then my connection conked before I could send. The direction the conversation has gone since then is interesting. My own continued thoughts on my own post is that we are getting bogged down in fighting over the rights and weapons of the past century while blindly surrendering vital rights in the digital age.

The government has more legal rights to monitor and track us than we do to monitor our own government. Someone mentioned license plates on drones. License plates on cars are a privacy nightmare that most people don't even know about, thanks to modern OCR technology. The comment about using guerilla tactics in asymmetrical warfare was insightful, however I don't think it makes the gun debate anymore central to the future of our freedoms(or the future of the 2nd amendment). As the comment itself points out insurrection does not require robust gun rights. It does however require robust privacy and anti-surveillance capabilities.

Sorry if I'm wandering around I'm just piecing thoughts together and thinking much faster than I'm typing. I stop here for this post, pick apart at will.

I'd like to fish back and derive "missile launchers" from small arms. Reading what it says...


With or without, the original draft it is clear the intent was for the citizenry to maintain some battlefield capability against an organized military. Back then I can't think of a single weapon private individuals didn't have that the military did(enlighten me?). Guns? check Bladed weapons? check Horses? check Ships? check I had thought cannon, then remembered private ships back then were often equipped with... cannon to defend against pirates. We maintained some degree of battlefield parity with slowly decaying experience parity until the invention of machine guns, tanks, fighter jets, ect.

If the original intent of the second amendment is the ability of the citizenry to band together and oppose an army hostile or domestic, does it not stand to reason that the second amendment does include at a minimum reasonable weaponry to counter modern military hardware? Why don't I have a second amendment right to keep a tank in my garage, just in case?


How about code to hack or take down computer networks? Or more crucially, is a firmware restriction against a 3d printer making gun parts a 2nd amendment violation? How about strong encryption, is that a 2nd amendment right? It's a digital weapon, but you can't use a gun to fight an electron.


Regardless of how we feel about the outcome or causes of the civil war, Americans already felt they had to do the unthinkable and overthrow a tyrannical, oppressive government and they did fight their own military. It is possible the military would side with the people, it's possible they would side with the tyrant politicians(aka their chain of command), it's possible the military would be split. Yes, the Egyptians threw out a dictator without facing soldiers in battle. Not to diminish the deaths on the ground, but the Egyptian revolution was information warfare. It was fought in the battle over the flow of information and won as activists found ways around government attempts to silence their message and disrupt their communications. Which only exemplifies the second amendment implications of digital rights.

ps. Wow, that was long...

The Civil  War was not an attempt to overthrow the government, it was an attempt to secede from it, and escape federal restrictions over state policy. It had nothing to do with an oppressive, tyrannical government. Southern states just didn't want the federal government sticking it's nose in their businesses.

 

[John_Camping]

I don't think there's any concern about any significant parts of the population engaging in armed conflict against the government, and if it did occur, they would not stand a chance.

Armed conflict against the government over perceived rights seems like an exercise in futility and/or ignorance, IMO.

I pretty much agree, although I think an informed populace that actively considers their rights; and the tools, information, and risks necessary to secure them is vital to ensuring this remains a theoretical discussion not a battle plan.

Even robust privacy and anti-surveillance capabilities, in the long run, will have no effect. The government has more resources for tracking "us" than we do "them". Such is life.

I disagree, our rights impose costs on surveillance, both in terms of the actual resources required to break, and the willingness to use the information against us. However it is certainly not adequate, those are defensive weapons, freedom of information, free speech(I’d argue encryption and anonymity rights are vital tools of free speech) are the offensive weapons of a free society. We need the tools to keep monitor our government and keep it honest.

The Civil War was not an attempt to overthrow the government, it was an attempt to secede from it, and escape federal restrictions over state policy.

I can see how the distinction mandates the split military of that example, but I think the point that the military is neither monolithic nor guaranteed to side with the citizenry isn’t weakened by the flaws in the example.

 

[Seraphim]

I'll think about a response to your surveillance post.

The Civil War, however, represented a clear geographical split., and a clear economic split along those lines. There was no capability for instant military response - the southern states had time to gather resources. There may have been no war at all, if not for Fort Sumter. Had Anderson not occupied Sumter without orders, history might have been very different. Another topic.

Any modern conflict will not have such clear cut boundaries: no such cleanly split sense of geographic, economic and cultural pride as the south possessed, which held them unified. Any attempts at insurrection can be instantly responded to. And frankly, the U.S. people, whatever their lifestyle, are too deeply ensconced in their comforts, their entitlements, their middle class lifestyles - whichever - to jeopardize what they have. In the civil war, decisions about secession were made by the privileged land owners, and everyone else had little choice - even those not under the charms of patriotic fervor. The militas pretty much served around their home territories, and it was easy to divide. And frankly, I don't think anyone in the civil war thought things would go so far. One single move pulled the trigger. No, the civil War IMO is not going to make the point that the modern army would or can just split and take opposing sides.

Any future violence in the U.S. of a significant nature IMO would be along class lines, not strictly cultural as in the civil war. It would be sporadic and split, geographically with no mutual supply lines, and easy to isolate and contain. And I don t see entire commands of the military splitting off to join the protesters. In the civil war, units were pretty much people from the same areas, so if a commander decided to secede, his troops followed right along with him. Won't happen today that way. Won't happen at all, IMO. It would be a rather one sided war, even if a significant enough number of people decided to rebel, which I doubt would happen. The world is no longer isolated as the south was, nor as ... Condensed is the wrong word. The people in power just shared all the same ideas and sense of aristocratic southern pride. You don't have that, today, in that proportion. Poorly worded, but I hope I get the thoughts across.