Speaking of Palin...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peter,

In my understanding, after a few centuries of war with "Christian" nations, that portion of the Islamic Ottoman Empire would have considered whether it was making a treaty with a Christian nation or not to be an issue.

However, in looking at the Wikipedia entry to get background, I just saw that something. It appears this phrase, "not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion," was merely due to a poor translation: Treaty of Tripoli.

From the article:

In 1931 Hunter Miller completed a commission by the United States government to analyze United States' treaties and to explain how they function and what they mean to the United States' legal position in relationship with the rest of the world. According to Hunter Miller's notes, "the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic" and "Article 11... does not exist at all."

After comparing the United States' version by Barlow with the Arabic and the Italian version, Miller continues by claiming that:

The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.

From this, Miller concludes: "A further and perhaps equal mystery is the fact that since 1797 the Barlow translation has been trustfully and universally accepted as the just equivalent of the Arabic... yet evidence of the erroneous character of the Barlow translation has been in the archives of the Department of State since perhaps 1800 or thereabouts..." It is important to note, though, that as Miller said:

It is to be remembered that the Barlow translation is that which was submitted to the Senate (American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 18-19) and which is printed in the Statutes at Large and in treaty collections generally; it is that English text which in the United States has always been deemed the text of the treaty.

However the Arabic and English texts differ, the Barlow translation (Article 11 included) was the text presented by the President and ratified unanimously in 1797 by the U.S. Senate following strict Constitutional procedures.

However anyone wishes to interpret this, it doesn't seem like this occasion was one where there was a lot of discussion in Congress (or, I imagine, anywhere else) on defining whether the USA was a Christian nation or not, especially within the frame of the conflict modern people debate. It seems more like the phrase slipped through as part of business as usual.

Also, it's kind of amusing that the USA and Tripoli essentially signed different treaties. Here's an interesting legal problem. If there were ever a conflict between the two countries (at the time) over something in the treaty, which version would take legal precedence? The Arabic one of the English one?

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Selene,

Ah... now I get it.

You don't advocate separation either. Silly me for assuming you did. It all makes sense now.

Carry on.

Why are you being evasive?

Is it in the Constitution, or, not?

It is NOT in the Constitution. The "wall of separation" was in Thomas Jefferson's head.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[KacyRay]

"Wall of Separation" is a phrase Jefferson used to describe the purpose and intent of the Bill of Rights (1st Amendment). The fact that the exact phrase doesn't appear is irrelevant.

[KacyRay]

The Constitution doesn't mention guns either. I don't see anyone pointing out that irrelevant fact.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The Constitution doesn't mention guns either. I don't see anyone pointing out that irrelevant fact.

Kacy,

(sigh...)

What else don't you see the hypocrites on OL not doing?

Michael

[Selene]

In 2008, the U. S. Supreme Court, in District of Columbia vs. Heller, struck down a Washington, D.C. ban on individuals having handguns in their homes. Writing for a 5 to 4 majority, Justice Scalia found the right to bear arms to be an individual right consistent with the overriding purpose of the 2nd Amendment, to maintain strong state militias. Scalia wrote that it was essential that the operative clause be consistent with the prefatory clause, but that the prefatory clause did not limit the operative clause. The Court easily found the D. C. law to violate the 2nd Amendment's command, but refused to announce a standard of review to apply in future challenges to gun regulations. The Court did say that its decision should not "cast doubt" on laws restricting gun ownership of felons or the mentally ill, and that bands on especially dangerous or unusual weapons would most likely also be upheld. In the 2008 presidential campaign, both major candidates said that they approved of the Court's decision.

For the reader's information:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htm

[BaalChatzaf]

The Constitution doesn't mention guns either. I don't see anyone pointing out that irrelevant fact.

Jesus H. Kryst! What do you think the second amendment was about??????

Ba'al Chatzaf

[KacyRay]

The right to bear arms.

No mention of guns.

Oh... now suddenly the wording chosen doesn't matter? Did you mention that to Selene when he was bringing up Separation of Church and State?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kacy,

In Objectivism, concepts are hierarchical.

A gun is an arm. Note that arm is the wider concept and gun falls under it. So you not only get the right to bear guns (one type of arms), you can bear other kinds of weapons, too. There is nothing restricting what kind of arms you can bear in the language.

For the record, "arms" should be understood as in armaments, i.e., military weapons, ammunition and equipment. Not arms as in human appendages.

This is a matter of conceptual thinking, not word games.

I know the Constitution was not made using formal Objectivist epistemology, but there were wider concepts back when it was written, and narrower ones too , and there were hierarchies of organizing knowledge. It's more than reasonable to conclude that guns were included in the concept "arms," especially since that's the way they used the language back then.

Michael

[Selene]

FYI - it is also about the two (2) commas and their placement which offsets "the people" as the invividual citizen. It is also the third/or/fourth place in the entire 4,400 words where the phrase "the people" was used.

Here are the underlying state Constitutional references wherein the State and the people are distinct and separate concepts:

Text of the Second Amendment and Related Contemporaneous Provisions

Second Amendment: 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.

English Bill of Rights: That the subjects which are protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law (1689). 1

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818). 2

Kentucky: [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792). 3

Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence (1780). 4

North Carolina: [T]he people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty,

they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power (1776). 5

Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power (1776). 6

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1790). 7

Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (1842). 8

Tennessee: [T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence (1796). 9

Vermont: [T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power (1777). 10

Virginia: 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; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. 11

Five of the states that ratified the Constitution also sent demands for a Bill of Rights to Congress. All these demands included a right to keep and bear arms. Here, in relevant part, is their text:

New Hampshire: Twelfth[:] Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.

Virginia: . . . Seventeenth, That the people have a 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 defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.

New York: . . . That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of War, Rebellion or Insurrection. That Standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power.

North Carolina: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people, trained to arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms."

Rhode Island: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people capable of bearing arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms," and with a "militia shall not be subject to martial law" proviso as in New York.

The people rest...

[KacyRay]

Kacy,

In Objectivism, concepts are hierarchical.

A gun is an arm. Note that arm is the wider concept and gun falls under it. So you not only get the right to bear guns (one type of arms), you can bear other kinds of weapons, too. There is nothing restricting what kind of arms you can bear in the language.

For the record, "arms" should be understood as in armaments, i.e., military weapons, ammunition and equipment. Not arms as in human appendages.

This is a matter of conceptual thinking, not word games.

I know the Constitution was not made using formal Objectivist epistemology, but there were wider concepts back when it was written, and narrower ones too , and there were hierarchies of organizing knowledge. It's more than reasonable to conclude that guns were included in the concept "arms," especially since that's the way they used the language back then.

Michael

MSK,

Yes, I understand everything you're saying. I am already on board with Objectivist Epistemology. In fact, that is probably the aspect of Objectivism I find most relevant to my life.

Now, does the right to bear arms mean that all citizens have the right to bear any kind of armament they desire? In 1789, that *may* have been true, but there's no way to validate that.

What we do know is that since that amendment was written, weapons that the men who wrote that amendment could not possibly have imagined have been created.There was no such thing as a weapon that, in the wrong hands, could destroy entire countries. That means that the men who wrote that amendment could not possibly have made provisions for such weapons. They could not have stipulated it.

So those of us who live in the future (relative to the founders) have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, right? Citizens have the right to bear arms, but what kind of arms citizens are allowed to bear is not specified.

So either you support citizens' right to bear *any kind of arms they like*, or you support a line in the sand. On one side of the line are arms citizens may bear, and on the other side are arms that only law enforcement or military may possess.

If you support the former case... okay, then that's a different conversation.

If you support the latter case, then the next step is to determine exactly where that line is. And there is no place codified in the Constitution where that line should be drawn.

Therefore it is for those of us alive today to decide.

If Selene is going to bring up the fact that "Separation of Church and State" isn't in the Constitution, then it is perfectly legitimate to bring up the fact that the constitution doesn't mention guns. The government could conceivably permit everyone to carry a knife and outlaw guns and still be well within chapter and verse of the Constitution, if you want to play the "letter of the law" game.

Or, we could dispense with those playground tactics altogether and have a real conversation about theocrats and their agenda.

[Selene]

Therefore it is for those of us alive today to decide.

Correct. You and your progressives, you did self identify with them on the thread where I posted their utopian pamphlet, get out there among the people and you amend the Constitution by modifying the Second Amendment.

Move along now.

If Selene is going to bring up the fact that "Separation of Church and State" isn't in the Constitution, then it is perfectly legitimate to bring up the fact that the constitution doesn't mention guns.

This of course is a fallacy.

However, your interpretation of the concept of a "wall of separation" between Church and State deserves deliberation.

Please contrast the concept behind the wall of separation and the crystal clear meaning of the First Amendment which clearly states that Congress shall makd no law respecting the establishment of religion, or, the free exercise thereof.

You somehow conflate these two distinctly different Constitutional concepts.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kacy,

Your premise is that the government permits individual rights, it grants them, it permits what it will and it removes permission for what it will.

My premise is that the individual permits the government to exist as protector of individual rights, but the government has no other control over them.

I'm talking about the fundamental level, the starting point, not what develops from it.

This is basically a power thing and we differ at the root.

Humans have to have leaders. That seems to be a human condition.

But you like your leaders on top dictating the rules. I like to keep them hamstrung with very little possibility of action.

If you're worried about powerful weapons being in the hands of the individual, I'm more worried about them being in the hands of a government bureaucrat and not having any way to protect myself if that person (or people) goes south.

That's kinda been known to happen in human history...

You're free to disarm yourself. That's your choice.

But you are not free to disarm me and I will not let you.

Michael

[KacyRay]

Correct. You and your progressives, you did self identify with them on the thread where I posted their utopian pamphlet, get out there among the people and you amend the Constitution by modifying the Second Amendment.

Move along now.

Gosh... wasn't prepared for such a strong argument. Excuse me while I go lick my wounds.

KacyRay, on 21 Dec 2013 - 7:05 PM, said:

If Selene is going to bring up the fact that "Separation of Church and State" isn't in the Constitution, then it is perfectly legitimate to bring up the fact that the constitution doesn't mention guns.

This of course is a fallacy.

No, it isn't, which is probably why you didn't name the fallacy. And i decline to jump through your hoops. If you don't know that the first amendment prohibits government endorsement of a religion then you're the one who needs to do homework, not me. But don't worry... keep on listening to mommy Palin and daddy Beck and you'll be fine. I hope one day you find yourself enjoying the theocratic utopia that those two have in mind for us one day, so long as it ain't in America.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Or, we could dispense with those playground tactics altogether and have a real conversation about theocrats and their agenda.

But don't worry... keep on listening to mommy Palin and daddy Beck and you'll be fine. I hope one day you find yourself enjoying the theocratic utopia that those two have in mind for us one day, so long as it ain't in America.

Heh.

A "real conversation"?

That's a "real conversation"?

Dayaamm!

(You think I'm going to take this seriously? Jeez... Whaddya say to that?... The bar is not low, it fell off the supports... )

Michael

[KacyRay]

Kacy,

Your premise is that the government permits individual rights, it grants them, it permits what it will and it removes permission for what it will.

That's actually the exact opposite of my premise. My premise is that a government should prevent its citizenry from harming each other. All else is fair game.

My premise is that the individual permits the government to exist as protector of individual rights, but the government has no other control over them.

Yeah, me too.

If you're worried about powerful weapons being in the hands of the individual, I'm more worried about them being in the hands of a government bureaucrat and not having any way to protect myself if that person (or people) goes south.

Really? So I'm gathering from this that you take the first position I spoke of... that any citizen ought to be allowed to have any weapon it chooses. Is that accurate?

In other words... if the mid-eastern guy next door wants to build a dirty bomb in his basement, that's fine, right? After all, he isn't a bureaucrat.

You're free to disarm yourself. That's your choice.

But you are not free to disarm me and I will not let you.

I'm not talking about arms. I'm talking about guns. You see, that's a subconcept that falls under the concept of "arms"....

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm not talking about arms. I'm talking about guns.

Kacy,

Then let me rephrase.

You are not free to disarm me of any of my arms, including guns. I will not let you.

Is that line in the sand clear or is there some other hair to split to make my meaning understandable?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

The 2nd Amendment is not a primary but contingent right. It is a partial legalization of the right to act in self defense. If you have the right to defend yourself you have the right to defend yourself with something. Natch. This does not include making bombs in your basement and accidentally blowing up the house.

The right to bear arms means the right to own and possess them, specifically as a possible means of overthrowing or preventing tyranny or defending a proper government or state. Hunting has nothing to do with any of this. There is nothing in the Constitution about a farmer's right to bear plows.

The purpose of the Constitution is to structure and delimit the state and control the politicians et al. within. To change it you've got to do much more than pass a bill.

--Brant

"Bang, bang, I shot him down!

Bang, bang he hit the ground!

Bang, bang, I shot my baby down!

Bang, bang."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

People who only think in terms of authority figures handing down decrees for others to obey about who is allowed to do what and when don't understand the individualist mindset.

The individualist does not turn to government by default to permit or prohibit things. He resolves things himself.

For example, he doesn't need government handouts to the poor and needy. He is the most charitable being on earth.

But to the thorny issue, I'm ambivalent on the federal government prohibiting private ownership of bombs and weapons of mass destruction. I realize that there is a reality of practicality, but I don't like the federal government futzing around with the 2nd Amendment. It always seems to err on the side of taking individual rights away when it does that.

I know I, as an individual, would not tolerate someone next door having a bomb. And if someone did, I would gather a group of other individuals in the neighborhood and do something about it. The person simply would not have a bomb.

If a person lived all alone in the middle of the desert and wanted to own a bomb, I wouldn't care. Although in a society of good people, i.e., those who are concerned about being good (which is the ONLY way freedom works), I don't know why a person would make such a choice. And even then, I would organize with others to keep an eye on him.

This is the major point people who clamor for more gun control miss. They want to imagine a society of scumbags and make laws to rule those folks, then apply such laws to a society of good people. I agree that if only scumbags existed, they would need hardass authority figures over them just to get them to stop killing each other.

But good folks? I can hear the question, how do you guarantee people will be good? And the answer is that no government on earth can guarantee that. Ever. Only the individual can. Individual by individual. That's what churches are for. That's what philosophy is for. That's what forums like OL are for. That's what much art and entertainment is for. People trying to be good, discussing it, analyzing it, arguing about it, portraying it, etc. In other words, people not just trying, but actually interested in being good. So long as all this exists, you don't need guarantees.

A government that emerges from good folks should reflect that. Call a tyrannical government that rules over good folks anything you want, but you can't call it freedom. And try to find a group of good folks who don't want to live in freedom. Who will accept the boot on their neck and say that's the way they like to live? You won't be able to find many good people who will say that.

So like good individualists, if they start to live under absolute tyranny, they will do something about it. Even if it means obtaining bombs themselves and using them.

But that's the extreme. Even so, no government has a "right" to become a dictatorship. When the citizens are good people, it does so under its own peril.

And one thing is for sure. If a person next door to me had a bomb, I would much rather have a bunch of neighbors armed to the teeth to help me persuade the dude to get rid of the damn thing than a bunch of disarmed neighbors.

I'll keep my freedoms. I want nothing to do with a strong federal government dictating anything to me through its bureaucrats.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

You and your neighbors have created an ad hoc de facto government to "secure your rights."

--Brant

with no legal objectification enabling basic, peaceful social interaction within such shell--i.e., anarchy

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

An "ad hoc de facto government"?

Correct.

An ad hoc government that emerged from good people dealing with a particular situation that needs dealing with.

And one that goes away after the problem is solved.

Not a power structure lording over all and making up contextless rules to ram down everyone's throats.

(btw - This situation does not deny the role of the federal government in securing rights.)

I don't mind ramming a big fat "NO" down the throat of a dork who wants to own a bomb in a residential neighborhood. Even if he's well-intentioned (which is hard to imagine), he could still blow up everybody by mistake.

I do mind ramming it down the throats of good people who want to live and let live and are a threat to no one (except those who would attack them).

If people can't see the conceptual difference between those two, they need to do some serious thinking about human nature.

Michael

[KacyRay]

For example, he doesn't need government handouts to the poor and needy. He is the most charitable being on earth.

Okay, how in the world do you get from "individualism" to this? What feature of individualism necessarily leads to this statement? I'm pretty sure one can be a stingy individualist.

I wonder if you could simply answer with clarity - do you believe that there are armaments that private citizens should not be allowed to own/possess/purchase/create?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's another case.

If a homeowner wanted to let his five-year old kid walk around the front yard wielding a loaded gun, that's an immediate problem to solve. The Federal government's role is not to protect the right of that five-year old to bear arms, nor the right of his parents to let him do so.

But it's also not the government's role to make up a barrage of laws telling people they can't teach their kids how to shoot.

There are two very distinct concepts operating here.

Michael

[KacyRay]

I'm not talking about arms. I'm talking about guns.

Kacy,

Then let me rephrase.

You are not free to disarm me of any of my arms, including guns. I will not let you.

Is that line in the sand clear or is there some other hair to split to make my meaning understandable?

Michael

Sure, the line you're drawing is clear. And it is also arbitrary. Do you recognize that?

The constitution says "arms". It does not say what kind. Therefore you're either supporting the rights of citizens to bear any kind of armament whatsoever or you're drawing an arbitrary line in the sand.

Grandstanding about how you're not going to permit me to take away your guns is amusing since I'm not trying. But it's besides the point, isn't it?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kacy,

Individualism to me refers to human beings, not premises with feet (to cop a phrase from Robert Bidinotto).

Think about it.