Nelson Mandela is not a terrorist & the US High Court rules on weapons

[Guest]

.

[Dagfinn]

Yesterday the US senate voted yes to remove Nelson Mandela off their list of terrorists USA must protect themselves from!  The reason for viewing him (and all the others) as a terrorist was that ANC (the freedom movement) at one point used guns to fight for their freedom.

Earlier this week the US High Court ruled that their citizens are each every one entitled to a gun to defend themselves.

Food for thought - hmmm . . .


Take care all, Dagfinn A.

[Soriak]

I don't think the ANC owning guns was the issue... they mined roads, carried out bombings, kidnapped and tortured people and of course also assassinated people. Hundreds of dead, many more injured. They also carried out lynchings of suspected criminals (without a trial) and ran their own prison camps.

Not to say that violent resistance isn't justified in some cases, but it wasn't a "clean" campaign either.

[Sengbe Pieh]

Hi Dagfinn,

I gather from your post that these two events strike you as odd to say the least. 

While the rest of the world celebrates Nobel Peace prize winner Nelson Mandela's 90th birthday with a huge concert in London to pay tribute to his enduring legacy, the U.S. Congress finally, parsimoniously votes to remove him from the list of international terrorists.

 

And as the Supreme Court showed unusual alacrity in upholding every American's Second Amendment rights, I hope they will be equally forthcoming in upholding the remainder of the Constitution, especially the 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9th Amendments.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

It is interesting to consider that by todays U.S. government standards & recent law (the Orwellian named Patriot Act), George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, James Madison, Paul Revere, Nathan Hale, James Monroe, Patrick Henry and all the signers of the Declaration of Independence would be considered terrorists! They would be hunted down, arrested, held in secret prisons with no habeas corpus right, subjected to "enhanced" interrogation and tried by military tribunals without even the right to effective legal counsel.

Gives a different twist to the saying "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Just examine the life of another Nobel Peace prize winner Menachem Begin.

                                                               

Soriak, although I empathize with & share your disgust at almost everything that takes place during war or armed struggle, I would direct your attention to other examples in the past: the French Resistance against Nazi occupation and the collaborationist Vichy Regime during World War II and Jewish military resistance to the British Mandate of Palestine. Neither one would meet the standard of a "clean" campaign, even though today they are considered by some great victories for freedom.

                                                                                                                                                       

One final thought:

                           

    IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States........

[Diane R]

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Hear, hear.

Some of us Americans have used our votes in Presidential elections to choose the candidate most likely to nominate the best Supreme Court Justices during their tenure.  Sadly, some Americans never give the Supreme Court a second thought, although it among all institutions is likely to have wide-ranging effects on our grandchildren's grandchildren.

--Diane.

[abc]

Oh don't even get me started. We're holding our breath.
SCOTUS has become the watchword in our household.

Interesting, also, that the stolen elections in Zimbabwe are
being castigated by the administration in D.C.

Okay. That's my soapbox.

Back to my glass of red wine and hunks of runny Irish cheese.

xo

[Diane R]

(For the non-Americans in the room, SCOTUS is an abbreviation for Supreme Court Of The United States.)

--Diane.

[Soriak]

                                                           

Soriak, although I empathize with & share your disgust at almost everything that takes place during war or armed struggle, I would direct your attention to other examples in the past: the French Resistance against Nazi occupation and the collaborationist Vichy Regime during World War II and Jewish military resistance to the British Mandate of Palestine. Neither one would meet the standard of a "clean" campaign, even though today they are considered by some great victories for freedom.

 

I'm with you on this - I just wanted to point out that it wasn't as clean a campaign as I felt Dagfinn indicated. It just made me think of what Cornell West called the "santaclausification" - though he said it regarding Martin Luther King. People who did great things are getting cleaned up to become family-friendly heroes.


As for the second part of the thread topic: I have been following decisions from the supreme court a little and this session seems very pleasing so far. Rights to fair trials for detainees in Guantanamo Bay was a big thing (though not the topic of this thread) and the affirmation of the right to own guns is comforting. I'm probably biased on the latter though, living in Switzerland.

For those who don't know: Most men here are part of the militia (some do civil protection instead, this doesn't apply to them) and at the end of your training (somewhere around age 18-23) you're handed the standard assault rifle & ammunition. You are then required by law to keep the weapon accessible at home and bring it with you to training camps and shooting practice. So if you could link gun possession to crime rate, this would be the most dangerous country in the world to live in - not one of the safest. Some recruits also take home a "souvenir" - an artillery shell or even a hand grenade. Of course this is illegal, but apparently not always caught. Someone could do some very serious damage with those tools, but there has never been an incident with either.

There was some suggestion to no longer let people keep assault rifles at home, but the implications make it very unlikely this will ever come to a popular vote. (much less pass it) Disarmament of the population has always been the first step in authoritarian regimes. It's not that people can pose a serious challenge to their own military, but it's a massive psychological difference for soldiers if they just have to cuff people (even police does it!) and send them to some camp or if they have to go to cities knowing they have to shoot and kill their own countrymen. The latter would be so devastating to morale, that simply knowing people do have weapons at home can keep a government in check.

[abc]

Oops. Sorry and thanks, Diane.
I just learned these phrases  -- SCOTUS for Supreme Court,
POTUS for President of the US -- and now I see them being
used everywhere. But I should not assume. I'm enough
of an ass as it it.

[Dagfinn]

Thank you for replies - they have been enlightening.  Yes these two events indeed strike me as odd and as I always try to put things in perspective I strive to learn what it tells me about the world at large and where to put myself in it

I have no doubts that Nelson Mandela have a darker side to his past but to me at least, I have found no trace of him being violent except for the fact that he was the first leader of their armed resistance.  From what I understand it started out as a desperate measure to counter that the South African authorties at that time slaughtered a peacefiul march of non violent and unarmed people. Also they were labeled terrorists purely on political grounds and quite a few countries followed suit without hesitation.  That this would last even decades after it is proven as democratic is my concern.

As the Swiss we have armed homeguard as part of our military structure but I see a difference between rifles and handguns where to what I understand one can shoot first and ask later.  Maybe the media I have seen present it wrong - which actually would be a relief, it smell double standard to me.

If one look at what Nelson Mandela and many others was up against from the government I believe most people would acknowledge their struggele as a freedom fight.  To take it one step further, do the Israeli's qualify on the terrorist list?  My guess is that they are not on and that their current deeds on the Gaza strip to take just one example is in reality improved by the US.

Which makes me particularly saddened by my own country as we more or less blindly go along with what our big brother tells us to do or not do.  So that is my reason to fund loans for Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan as I strongly feel Norway also have blood on their hands.  And even more troubling is that we dissaprove of the Afghan war effort by not participating in the riskiest zones but place ourself on the outskirts letting USA take the heat with the aid of Canada if I remember right - that is not double standard but tripple.  We even do not call it a war but warlike activities - as if the Afghan that dies from a Norwegian bullet are fortunate he was not shot by a US . . .

aah - there is so much I do not understand and that I am unaware off, which makes me come back to what I believe is the best part of Kiva - individuals reaching out from both sides across people weave bonds between them, I rate it a firstclass peace effort I am thrilled to be a small part of.

Again, thank you for widening my horizon dear KF's


Be well, Dagfinn A.

[RichardF]

United States Bill of Rights December 15, 1791 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.

• Supreme Court of the United States - 2007 TERM OPINIONS OF THE COURT
  
  • District of Columbia v. Heller (pdf)
    June 26, 2008
    
    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    
    Syllabus
    
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
    
    CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
    THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
    
    No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008
    
    District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime
    to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of
    handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed
    handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses;
    and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms
    unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.
    Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register
    a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused.
    He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin
    the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing
    requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in
    the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the
    use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed
    the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second
    Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and
    that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that
    firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for
    self-defense, violated that right.
    Held:
    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
    firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
    traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
    Pp. 2–53.
    (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
    does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
    clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
    connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
    (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
    
    2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
    
    Syllabus
    
    of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
    capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
    feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
    order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
    army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
    power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
    arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
    Pp. 22–28.
    (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing
    rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
    followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
    (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious
    interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
    that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
    Pp. 30–32.
    (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
    and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
    late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
    (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
    Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
    Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights
    interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
    limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
    limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
    the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
    It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
    manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
    weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
    or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
    doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
    felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
    in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
    laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
    arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
    “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
    of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
    Pp. 54–56.
    3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
    self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
    on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
    entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
    lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
    the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
    
    Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 3
    
    Syllabus
    
    prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
    of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
    muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
    home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
    for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
    is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
    that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
    and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
    his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
    Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
    rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
    must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
    478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
    SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
    C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a
    dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ.,
    joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS,
    SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.
    

[KivanSteven]

In a few books I read up on recently, Thomas Jefferson for one was quoted, as I paraphrase, that the right to bear arms is intended for protecting yourself from your government (the same government that we ironically expect to uphold that right), and to be contained to the location of one's property for the purposes of protecting it.