January 24, 2013

"How many of you all believe that there is a movement to take away the Second Amendment?"

Democratic Senator Joe Manchin asked a group of his supporters back home in West Virginia.
About half the hands in the room went up.

Despite his best attempts to reassure them — “I see no movement, no talk, no bills, no nothing” — they remained skeptical. “We give up our rights one piece at a time,” a banker named Charlie Houck told the senator.
That's the anecdote that leads off the NYT article "Democrats in Senate Confront Doubts at Home on Gun Laws." The article ends:
During the lunch, Mr. Manchin shared a recent conversation he had with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Obama administration’s point person on gun control.

“I said, ‘Mr. Vice President, with all due respect, I don’t know how many people who truly believe that you would fight to protect their rights.’ ”

The senator added, “That’s what we’re dealing with.”
How are we to think about rights? It's good for politicians to hear the deeply engrained American attitude: We give up our rights one piece at a time. There's a long tradition — predating the Bill of Rights — of thinking like that. Here's James Madison in 1785:
[I]t is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it.
The issue there was not guns but the use of tax money to pay for teachers of religion. In the paragraph quoted above, Madison went on to say that citizens should object to the requirement of paying even "three pence" to support a religion because a government that extracts even that trifle may go on to coerce religious conformity. The small things are not small. The small things are where the people still have the capacity to fight authoritarian government.

Democrats know this. They are part of this American culture of deeply engrained belief in constitutional rights. What is different to the Democrats is that they don't believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right. They think the Supreme Court misinterpreted the Second Amendment when it found a constitutional right. District of Columbia v. Heller was a 5 to 4 decision, and the 5 are the 5 Justices, still on the Court, whom the Democratic Senators would love to have a chance to replace.

The NYT portrays the folks back home in West Virginia as misinformed, troublesome, and hysterical. That’s what we’re dealing with.

176 comments:

sparrow said...

Doesn't sound like Manchin was listening

Jay said...

About half the hands in the room went up.


Only half?

Um, maybe it is stories like this:

House Democrats on Tuesday proposed legislation that would ease current law to allow people to file civil law suits against gun manufacturers and others in the industry when they act irresponsibly.



That give people concern.

Oh wait, government, and the party of government (D), is always benevolent.

So you silly rubes stop clinging!

wyo sis said...

We're long past the point of early resistance to government overreach. We're almost to the point of revolution.

Bob Ellison said...

I can't remember who said, or quite how he/she said, something like "liberty is seldom surrendered all at once".

Welfare, regulation, taxes, erosion of institutions, real estate ownership: we've seen too many instances of piecemeal strategies from the left to believe that they'll stop at a few new gun regulations. Strong lefties will take a little here and a little there until it's all gone. In fact, when their moves don't do the job or are counter-productive (like the previous assault-weapons ban and gun control in major cities), they tend to claim the problem is we didn't go far enough in the first place. That's Paul Krugman's argument with regard to deficit spending.

jr565 said...

Exactly, if you don't think that the right to bear arms really applies to individuals then of course you're not violating anyones' rights in advocating removal of assault weapons.
But the repubs are right on the right and it's pretty explicitly laid out. Further it even says it SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Right in the constitution.

Also, lets recall how many libs view the constitution as a living breathing document and lets also note the various conversations recently from libs saying the constitution should be done away with.

The right to bear arms is inconvenient for libs because it's stated so plainly, even though there is some question (from libs) about the idea of a militia.
Just to clarify for them, we're all the militia even if we are not part of the army.

I do think some gun rights advocates overreach slightly by saying you can own tanks though. (for example with Piers Morgan's question) It's the right to bear arms. A tank is a vehicle. So would it apply?
You can't carry a tank.

Jay said...

“I see no movement, no talk, no bills, no nothing”

Huh?

Is this guy fucking retarded or what? I mean, it isn't like the President didn't give a big speech (surrounded by children of course) on the topic and call for an Assault Weapons Ban or anything.

No sireee, no bills, no movement!

Michael K said...

"The right to bear arms is inconvenient for libs because it's stated so plainly, even though there is some question (from libs) about the idea of a militia.
Just to clarify for them, we're all the militia even if we are not part of the army."

The left does not have an interest in history and does not want to allow it to influence present day law.

Jay said...

“I see no movement, no talk, no bills, no nothing”

3 paragraphs later:

On Thursday a group of Democratic senators led by Dianne Feinstein of California plans to introduce a bill that would outlaw more than 100 different assault weapons,

This guy is a total fucking idiot.

jr565 said...

Now are they trying to take away the 2nd amendment? They probably think they don't have to. Considering its all about the interpretation of the constitution as opposed to what it states, they could simply say that they don't interpret it as a right. (i.e. it only applies to militias). So they'd try to get around it without destroying it outright.

IT would end up being the same thing in either case, but they could say "See, we still have a second amendment" while denying people the right to own arms.

X said...

I see no movement, no talk, no bills, no nothing

Senator, meet Diane Feinstein. she's in the same Senate as you. same party too you lying piece of shit.

bpm4532 said...

It should be obvious to all that the left wants to take away the guns. For them to deny it, shows them to be either dishonest or ignorant.

bpm4532 said...

If you want to go somewhere you must do so a step at at time, but then your direction is obvious.

bpm4532 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bpm4532 said...

"shall not be infringed" it doesn't take a very high-SAT score to understand that.

machine said...

Meadehouse fact-free zone is fully functional....carry on.

chickelit said...

A body of law erodes at its most exposed surface. This reveals fresh and sometimes different law for corrosion.

Browndog said...

Great post.

It drives me nuts when the ruling class reassures us that they do not have the power to take our guns.

The most glaring question is never asked:

Do you seek that power?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Of course they don't want to take away the Second Amendment. That would be too obvious. They just want to hollow it out, so that it has no actual effect. Kinda like the Tenth Amendment.

bpm4532 said...

Just like the smoking bans, make it harder and harder for people, but never step up and outlaw a product - that might cut off your tax stream.

These folks will never step up and repeal the second amendment.

Moose said...

Much like any other political tool, the use of the Supreme Court is a blunt tool and subject to misapplication. I foresee - hopefully after I'm dead - that we'll see the 2nd amendment dumbed down again with a liberal majority in place. It's just the way of the world...

Molly said...

What I think about the second amendment:


The second amendment was written by a group of people that had just fought a successful revolution to throw out the existing government. Among the actions that existing government had taken to quell the rebellion was to attempt to seize weapons that could be used to stage a successful rebellion (Concord, Williamsburg come to mind as attempts to seize arms.)

Therefore, I see the second amendment as attempting to secure the right of common citizens to stage an armed rebellion to overturn the established government.

Put another way (a more provocative way) -- the second amendment was intended to protect our rights to have the kinds of weapons that could kill police and soldiers of the established government. (It was not primarily intended to preserve our rights to hunt and kill criminals.)

But that horse left the barn long ago -- everyone agreed in the 1920s tommyguns could not be owned by private citizens, and today everyone (even the NRA) (I assume) supports outlawing ownership of armor piercing bullets, and other high tech weapons that our armed forces have.

So today's second amendment is essentially meaningless to preserve our rights to stage a rebellion. Our autos are already licensed, and if I were a despot worried about a rebellion, the first thing I would do would be to take actions to limit auto use (and communications).

bpm4532 said...

"shall not be infringed" - does this mean nuclear weapons - I think it does. So if you've got the funding and know-how - have at it!

jr565 said...

bpm4532 wrote:

For them to deny it, shows them to be either dishonest or ignorant.

I think its dishonest AND ignorant.

Tank said...

In New York they have already banned most handguns by restricting them to a seven round capacity. This elimates virtually all hanguns currently manufactured. It is another instance of making honest law abiding citizens into criminals.

Of course we've lost all most of our freedoms already little by little, one "reasonable" little reg at a time.

CatherineM said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
X said...

I see no movement, no talk, no bills, no nothing

cool. and you don't look like natural manure either. or do you?

Seeing Red said...

"You get to keep your insurance."

BWAAAAAAAAAAAA

Forbes has an article that rates may triple.


SUCKERS!

Gahrie said...

Look, we were able to launch the revolution, and keep fighting until the French entered, only because individuals owned weapons that were comparable to weapons issued by the military.

Up to at least the war of 1812, private individuals were allowed to build or purchase fully armed naval ships and operate them as private individuals.

Up to at least the Spanish-American War, private individuals could form and arm complete regiments, including artillery and gatling guns.

For at least the first 100 hundred years of our republic it was clearly understood that there was a right for private individuals to own modern military weapons.

You didn't seea real push for gun control until prohibition created organizied crime.

bpm4532 said...

Just because a law was passed in the 1920s or 1930s doesn't mean it was constitutional then or now. I think horses can be put back in the barn. I do it every day.

Ender's Ghost said...

Funny how Conservatives forget that it was Reagan who passed the Brady Bill and banned Assault Weapons, and Justice Scalia who upheld it as Constitutional. But the Democrats are coming for your guns. Riiiiiight. You people are the worst kind of partisan hypocrites.

I'm starting to think I may need a gun myself...not to protect myself from the Gov't but to protect myself from the right-wing anti-reality fear mongers that have taken over the Republican party.

CatherineM said...

I was listening to an old Adam Corolla episode where he and Andrew Breitbart discussed government over-reach. Adam mentioned what we have done to smokers. First it was, would you mind smoking on that side of the restaurant. Second, at the bar. Now please smoke outside. Finally, if you want to smoke, please do so 30 yards away from the restaurant. The NRA saw this and just said, we aren't budging an inch because right or wrong, once you start conceding a little here, a little there, you have given up.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that Manchin is caught here between a rock and a hard place. The Dem caucus in the Senate is pushing very hard for gun grabbing legislation, but he knows that his constituents back how would burn him in effigy, string him up, tar an feather him, and if still moving, bury him in a pile of ants, if he dared vote for such legislation.

Only 4 or 5 Dems will get to vote against the legislation in the Senate, and one of those slots is reserved for Harry Reid. This is musical chairs, with the losers likely losing their Senate seats next time they are up for reelection.

Seeing Red said...

There are no death panels.

BTW - to help balance the budget, Barry's open to cutting medicare.

There are those pesky special rules for those over 70.

And there’s a lot more, all bad. An advisory board of these Insects will be deciding whether you, at age 70, “are worth spending” the money for a hip replacement/angioplasty/cataracts/kidney replacement/etc.


–the State will decide what kind of medical care we are allowed, even within their framework some will be denied “covered” services if they see fit
–old people on Medicare will be thrown to the dogs, because the new laws have harsh punishments for hospitals and doctors who spend money on old folks (CAPITATION is baaaack, folks! but its old foes are all for it, now)

Bryan C said...

"The NYT portrays the folks back home in West Virginia as misinformed, troublesome, and hysterical."

Anyone the NYT disagrees with on any subject is misinformed, troublesome, and hysterical.

Their fearless journalists and layered fact-checkers have carefully conferred with everyone they know, and have already discovered the right answers.

How are they so certain of these right answers, you ask? Well, because the people espousing them are obviously so learned, helpful, and calm.

Seeing Red said...

Funny how the Assault Weapons Ban didn't mean a hill of beans. Superficial cover.

Sounds good.

Shouting Thomas said...

West Virginia does serve as the bogey man of primordial redneckery in NYC.

Had a boss once who, for reasons I can no longer remember, had a talk with me about a biz trip to West Virginia.

"West God Damned Virginia!" he called it repeatedly.

Jay said...

Ender's Ghost said...
Funny how Conservatives forget that it was Reagan who passed the Brady Bill and banned Assault Weapons,


You're a fucking moron.

The "Assault Weapons Ban" was enacted by Democrats in 1993.

Said Democrats went on to lose the house & senate in 1994.

Come back when you're not an imbecile. Ok?

Seeing Red said...

You are the government, Ender.

That's why we can't be infringed anymore.


You care so much your heart bleeds.

Jay said...

Ender's Ghost said...
Funny how Conservatives forget that it was Reagan who passed the Brady Bill


Note:

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Pub.L. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536) was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 30, 1993


Seriously, where do you fucking retards come from anyway?

jr565 said...

DIane Feinstein (who by the way for about ten years used to walk around with a concealed handgun) is introducing the new assault weapons band.

Supposedly it will include many pistols and shotguns along with "assault rifles".


http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2013/jan/22/miller-national-assault-weapon-ban-coming-thursday/

"The California Democrat intends to expand on the ban that expired in 2004, by including handguns and shotguns, in addition to rifles. She would decrease from two to one the number of cosmetic features on a gun to have it be considered an “assault weapon.” This means that if a gun has just one item like a pistol grip or bayonet lug, then it is illegal. Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed into law the same ban in New York last week."


Kind of sounds like they're trying to take away peoples access to guns to me.

Seeing Red said...

As my daddy said, they lived it.

Man hasn't changed.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

jr565 said...

Jay wrote:
The "Assault Weapons Ban" was enacted by Democrats in 1993.

Said Democrats went on to lose the house & senate in 1994
.


Sometimes, giving them enough rope and they hang themselves. But lets not get all wishy washy about how the republican isn't ideologically pure and start voting for the Gary Johnson's of the world next time.
Vote for the person who will give you 70% of what you want but who can win, not the guy who is so pure but has no chance in hell.
Otherwise you will vote in more people who want to restrict your 2nd amendment rights even further and lump pistols in with other assault weapons.

Ender's Ghost said...

Sorry, that should have said "...helped pass the Brady Bill".

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html

Boxty said...

Professor, didn't all nine justices agree that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to bear arms?

First two sentences of Stevens' dissent:
"The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals."

Breyer's Dissent:
(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).

Information taken from here:
http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/08/it_is_unanimous.html

Mitchell the Bat said...

All will be resolved when the law requires mandatory service in the militia.

Erika said...

Ender's ghost: I don't actually give a shit what Reagan or Alito did or didn't do; I care about principles. You may have noticed that people on the right do not make idols out of their leaders like people on the left to. You may have noticed that we are more than willing to call them out when they make bad calls, unlike members of the leftist cult.

BarrySanders20 said...

Althouse says: "What is different to the Democrats is that they don't believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right. They think the Supreme Court misinterpreted the Second Amendment when it found a constitutional right."

The same rationale applies to the Roe v Wade foes and the discovery of a constitutional right to abortion.

But assuming the right exists, every constituional right is subject to some restriction; none are absolute. You have to fight to define the scope of the right and prevent opponents from re-staking the boundaries.

As that wise 80's hair band once shouted: You have to fight for your right to PARRRR-Tay!

Erika said...

Whoops, thought Scalia, wrote Alito.

Ann Althouse said...

"I see no movement, no talk, no bills, no nothing..."

I see nothing... the old "Hogan's Heroes" tag line.

gerry said...

In the paragraph quoted above, Madison went on to say that citizens should object to the requirement of paying even "three pence" to support secular humanism or communism because a government that extracts even that trifle may go on to coerce political conformity.

bpm4532 said...

I don't have a lot of hope in the near term for protection of our various individual rights. We have so many people who have been mal-educated by our school system and media-liberal complex that excels at generating emotional crises to lay the groundwork for the elimination of our freedoms.

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DADvocate said...

Manchin is lying. Just today it is reports, via Insty, House Democrats are introducing The Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act, which would open up gun makers to civil liability. This would make it too expensive and risky to manufacture and/or sell guns in the U.S.

Plus, did Manchin not read Obama's executive orders? Does he not read the newspaper or watch any TV news. CNN and MSNBC are running a hardcore propaganda campaign against gun rights.

Just another lying, Democrat POS who thinks we are all here to serve the government.

traditionalguy said...

The Obama method demands that we live by grade B illusions until the American Middle class has been robbed of its savings and the destitute death paneled or rounded up and interned in concentration camps for their own good.

The Obama Progressives first have to round up the middle class red necks weapons and ammo.

The NYT's message is, and will be, that resistance is futile!

Bruce Hayden said...

Molly - a couple of things to moderate your position a bit.

First, tommy guns were not actually banned, and I knew someone who somewhat legally owned one for awhile (he had put it together from parts from guns being destroyed, when he was in the Marines, but then was able to register it with the feds, along with a BAR). Highly regulated, and no new machine guns can be added to the register. If you want to fire one, or pretty much any other machine gun, fly to Vegas, and look for the signs at the airport showing machine guns (and, in particular, the one with the bosom women carrying one).

Also, this country is fairly heavily armed, when it comes to handguns, semiautomatic rifles, and shotguns. More than one gun per person. And, both guns and ammo are flying off the shelves right now, with huge backlogs getting worse and worse. Pretty much the only boom business during the Obama recession, except, of course, for the government and its hanger ons.

And, while the police and military have fully automatic (or at least burst fire) weapons, one of the big reasons that our military moved from full auto M-16s to selectable 3 round bursts for most of their troops was the insane amount of ammo that could be wasted when firing in full auto mode.

Finally, keep in mind that the military in particular, and the police too, to some extent, are more likely to sympathize with gun owners than with gun grabbing. The gun owning public is more heavily vets than the general public, and an outsized percentage of military recruits come from the parts of the country most sympathetic to gun ownership.

Furthermore, the military is legally prevented from most armed action w/i the U.S. Sending U.S. troops out to seize guns likely won't be legal, and is likely to be quite unpopular with the troops. And, National Guard is worse in most states, as are mostly under state control. Which leaves the police, who are probably outnumbered 100 to 1 by gun owners, and are likely to be unsympathetic too.

Seeing Red said...

Now if we could open up Congress to civil liability, we'd be getting somewhere.

Broomhandle said...

The ridiculous "cosmetic" features clause is all the proof you need of the Donk's bad faith. When was the last time a civilian killed another civilian with a bayonet attached to a rifle? The Indian Wars? What an unserious bunch of grasping little fascist creeps.

Ender's Ghost said...

Erika: Switch Left and Right with everything you just said and you have exactly how I feel. Who is right? Maybe both. I'm not discounting that there is hypocrisy on both sides.

Moose said...

You know this discussion of how the militia was meant to be armed (muskets - that line of thought) can really whipsaw on the Left. The fact is that muskets were state of the art at the time, and by that reasoning fully automatic "assault rifles" should then also be legal and without restriction.

Just sayin'

Seeing Red said...

They're only leaving us with bayonets, they're covering all bases.

The armed forces got rid of their bayonets.

Bruce Hayden said...

BTW - to help balance the budget, Barry's open to cutting medicare.

Already did that with ObamaCare - some $600+ billion, if I remember right. Had to do it to make the figures work. Now, everyone assumes that they will continue the "Doc Fix" to plug this, but, I question for how long. A bit scary for those of us facing Medicare in another couple of years, with the expectation that the real fix to this hole will be Palin's Death Panels.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

"You people are the worst kind of partisan hypocrites."

You are right, we are name-calling partisans of the worst kind, and you are something else.

Thank you for your valuable insight and contribution.

bpm4532 said...

I'm sure Obama can make an argument for suspending Posse Comitatus should it suit his needs. Obama likely believes in a Pirates of the Caribbean constitutional framework: "...more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules."

Nichevo said...

Ender you jerk, Orson Scott Card craps bigger than you. The law you are thinking of, the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, was subverted at the eleventh hour by jiggery-pokery, sneaking in the Hughes Amendment (banning civilian sales of automatic weapons manufactured after the cutoff date in 1986) literally just before President Reagan set pen to paper. "Pretty sneaky, sis," but so are all of you.

As for the Brady Bill, let's agree that wasn't Reagan's best moment, anymore than Bitburg was. I suppose when you have actually been shot you are entitled to a point of personal privilege, but it doesn't make you right.

bpm4532 said...

Of course, Obama said we have fewer horses and bayonets that in the first world war. Being half-right is enough for a passing grade in ObamaWorld.

sparrow said...

I don't think Manchin is an idiot rather I think that he's trying to dishonestly minimize real fears by pretending that the gradual intrusion of the state is not infringement. How do liberals manage the cognitive dissonance between supporting a completely artificial judge-created right (abortion) and ignoring the clear language of the second amendment? Is there simply no real concern for liberty and the rule of law? Is the Constitution just a barrier to the power they crave; praised only to preserve appearances? I often wonder how much of this is conscious power grabbing and how much is self-delusion.

Brew Master said...

Vote for the person who will give you 70% of what you want but who can win, not the guy who is so pure but has no chance in hell.

Sadly, every 30% given away is another nail in the coffin. The strategy is incrementalist is nature, one small step at a time.

Why should we vote for someone who will give up that 30%, when over the long run we end up in the same place, albiet just in smaller steps?

Over the last 100 or so years, that 30% concession has led us to the point we are in now, a financially unsustainable welfare state, federal government can now tell you what you must buy or be taxed, wars prosecuted without declaration, on and on.

Voting for those that will support your 70% have led to what we have now, I will not do so anymore. Frankly, there is no party out there that is willing to stand up to reverse the decaying trends that have been established. It has pretty much become a time to vote for the worst of the worst just in order to hasten the collapse.

Paul said...

Senator Joe Manchin is just a mouthpiece for the liberals here.

Boxer just introduced a big 'assault rifle' ban that includes shotguns and handguns.

NY just went to a 7 shot limit on guns (and gun confiscation.)

So any talk about them not wanting to take all the guns IS A LIE. A BLANT LIE.

Seeing Red said...

Some are speculating a new growth industry will be facilitators to get you in faster, in to see the doctor, in for surgery.

What's better, even if you can pay for the surgery, isn't that disallowed?

I thought doctors won't be able to accept cash for services, either?

I'm really happy Canada no longer has single payer, it would be a smart move on their part to start building facilities on the border.

I wonder how many Canadian physicians will go back?


The tribes are sovereign nations as well, I've thought for a few years they should build facilities on the reservations.

Casino & medical care, match made in heaven. Slots in the waiting room to pass the time.

Conrad Bibby said...

As with all rights, there's always some wiggle room in which the govt can impose reasonable regulation (e.g., you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater). Seems obvious that the govt could outlaw private ownership of nukes or any other weapon that has a high probability of killing or injuring persons other than the person it's actually aimed at. The NRA is wise to oppose an "assault weapon" ban, but I'm not sure a proper consitutional analysis would conclude that the banning of one particular kind of gun -- leaving others alone -- would really infringe on someone's right to bear arms. They would still have the right to be armed, just not to own such-and-such specific gun.

The real question, for me, would be whether there's really any rational basis for outlawing "assault weapons" OTHER THAN as part of a scheme to eliminate gun ownership one weapon at a time. From what I've read, there doesn't seem to be any reason to think "assault weapons" present significantly more danger to society than other weapons. (Are a lot of crimes being committed with "assault weapons"?)

Bryan C said...

Molly, it's clear that you've given this some thought. But you're mistaken both in fact and in interpretation.

The people who wrote the Bill of Rights were very, very familiar with the difference between a militia of armed private citizens and a well-equipped professional army with international reach. If Gen. Cornwallis' men rolled a cannon up to your front door, then, no, that flintlock wasn't much of a match. But they'd have an awfully hard time getting it there in the first place if everyone they met along the way also had a flintlock. The same balance of power holds true today.

The entire Declaration of Independence, Constitution, etc. were written within that same context. You could just as well ask why we really need that silly ol' First Amendment. After all, it makes a lot of people all around world awfully uncomfortable when those barbaric Americans say those awful things.

And the First doesn't really serve the original purpose anymore, since today the Federal government could easily exert control over our broadcast, print, and Internet traffic if they decided to. Right?

Of course, the Constitution doesn't give us rights. It merely obligates the government to observe the rights all of us already have. That includes freedom of speech, and it includes the right of self defense.

bpm4532 said...

You CAN yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater - IF there is a fire.

bpm4532 said...

To democrats, rational basis = fear.

Jay said...

(Are a lot of crimes being committed with "assault weapons"?)


No.

FBI data shows that 323 murders were committed with rifles of any kind in 2011. In comparison, 496 murders were commited with hammers and clubs, and 1,694 murders were perpetrated with knives.


So, the use of "assault weapons" in US homicides is statistically insignificant - knifes killed 4 times as many people as rifles in 2011- so of course leftists want to ban them.

chuck said...

The ability of people to rationalize their beliefs to justify pretty much any thing is another reason to take a stand on the small things. To my mind, the stance of the NYT is a rationalization of their desire to see guns controlled. Many other rights can similarly be rationalized away.

The powers of rationalization grow with the power of the mind, so the highly intelligent are just as susceptible as the average person, maybe even more so. Fighting rationalization is more of an ethical job than a thinking job, and we live in a time of small ethics.

bpm4532 said...

Interesting use of the term "assault weapon" in a law. When you assault someone, you don't actually harm them by threaten harm or make them fearful of being harmed. Battery, is the harm.

It's all about fear.

bpm4532 said...

In England, they did ban knives.

Bruce Hayden said...

The ridiculous "cosmetic" features clause is all the proof you need of the Donk's bad faith. When was the last time a civilian killed another civilian with a bayonet attached to a rifle? The Indian Wars? What an unserious bunch of grasping little fascist creeps.

I think that the real feature that they are aiming at is the pistol grip. Many modern long guns have pistol grips these days for the same reasons that pistol grips are put on so many other tools - it increases precision and control.

For the Feinsteins of this world, the goal is not really to ban scary looking guns, but rather, to grossly cripple the effectiveness of the guns available to the public. Banning scary looking black guns effectively bans modern semiautomatic rifles, relegating the general public to 50+ year old technology. They are black, modular, have pistol grips, etc. because they are built with modern materials using modern manufacturing techniques, and take advantage of those 50+ years of innovation and research. Heck, some of the proposals would push back gun technology 100 years for the civilian population.

So, keep this in mind - when they are talking about banning "assault weapons", or even "assault rifles" (which are, of course, have been heavily regulated by the federal government since 1934), what they are really saying is that they want to ban modern firearms for civilian use. Nothing more, and nothing less. And, that is the meme that needs to be pushed - when they say "assault weapon", reply with "modern semiautomatic rifle".

AllenS said...

DADvocate said...
Manchin is lying. Just today it is reports, via Insty, House Democrats are introducing The Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act, which would open up gun makers to civil liability. This would make it too expensive and risky to manufacture and/or sell guns in the U.S.

Can they do this? Does the person have to actually buy it from the manufacturer? What if there was a middleman? Can this apply to the sale of alcoholic beverages when there is a deadly accident?


Freder Frederson said...

"shall not be infringed" it doesn't take a very high-SAT score to understand that.

Let's recite the entire amendment: "A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Now five supreme court justices decided just to ignore the first phrase. Althouse may claim that "Democrats is that they don't believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right," but she is demonstrably wrong. Many Democrats (but certainly not all--and believe it or not some Republicans), and I, believe that the first phrase has some meaning, especially the "well regulated" part.

Jay said...

eder Frederson said...
Many Democrats (but certainly not all--and believe it or not some Republicans), and I, believe that the first phrase has some meaning, especially the "well regulated" part.


You have not one utter fucking clue what "Well Regulated" in that Amendment means.

Jay said...

Now five supreme court justices decided just to ignore the first phrase.

Um, no, no they did not.

AllenS said...

Two separate entities are being talked about in the 2nd amendment. "A well regulated militia" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". Two different groups of people separated by a comma.

BarrySanders20 said...

Conrad's point is a good one. The abortion rights folks know all about fighting the incremental restriction of rights. Modifying his words about guns to abortion, we get:

"I'm not sure a proper consitutional analysis would conclude that the banning of one particular kind of [abortion] -- leaving others alone -- would really infringe on someone's right to [abortion]. They would still have the right to [abort], just not to [partial-birth abortion]."


Abortion supporters defended the barbarous partial birth procedure for the same reason why gun rights supporters must resist the assault weapons ban. For either side to pretend that other, larger motivations and desires do not exist (the wholesale revocation of the right in question) is laughable.

This is the same game. We know it. They know it. And we both know the other side knows it.

Darrell said...

Because everyone reading it at the time knew that every able-body adult male was in the militia--and that they and their privately owned firearms would be the first responders in the event of an invasion or an attack by organized hostile forces (Indians). The skills they developed hunting and in self-defense was the training they received. Their private weapons were the weapons they would use when they reported for duty.

AlanKH said...

For decades there was an effort to take away the Second Amendment via the con job that the amendment protects the states' authority to organize militias, and does not enumerate the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

Seeing Red said...

Barry feels The Constitution is full of negative rights, guns are negative and they have to go.

Then we just have lots of "bad luck."

And no one will really connect the dots that part of that "bad luck" is because of a bad law.

Dr Weevil said...

No need to call Manchin a liar. He could be telling the literal truth when he says "I see no movement, no talk, no bills, no nothing". All he has to do to stay (technically) honest is close his eyes and keep them closed whenever he thinks someone's about to do any of that. An experienced politician can be very good at closing his eyes.

X said...

freder, who does "the people" refer to in the 2nd? the people or the militia?

anyone who tries to infringe on the 2nd without amending the constitution is guilty of attempting to deny the people their civil rights and should be prosecuted.

Yu-Ain Gonnano said...

Gee, I wonder where his constituents got the idea someone was trying to infringe on the 2A?

http://www.pagunblog.com/2013/01/15/joe-manchin-lying-sack-of-shit-on-guns/

Maybe because he, himself was.

Also make note of the threat of media water carrying.

Oh and Ender, just because Reagan supported something doesn't make him right. There are also some strongly pro 2A Dems. But just because they have a "D" behind their name doesn't make them wrong.

Seeing Red said...

Freder, you're not an American. You don't get it.

What happened in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy is a microcosm of it.

You're not scaling up to a big event.

Bruce Hayden said...

Now five supreme court justices decided just to ignore the first phrase. Althouse may claim that "Democrats is that they don't believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right," but she is demonstrably wrong. Many Democrats (but certainly not all--and believe it or not some Republicans), and I, believe that the first phrase has some meaning, especially the "well regulated" part.

It may, but it probably didn't mean what you think it does when written. It has nothing to do with regulating guns, but rather, that the militia needed to be trained, and guaranteeing the right to be keep and bear arms made having a trained militia much easier at the time. And, keep in mind what they meant by militia - they had just won a war that was initially fought on our side by private militias - civilians who trained together, and then fought together, with no ties to the government. Think the Minute Men at Concord, etc.

mikee said...

The Heller decision was 9-0 on the right to keep and bear arms being an individual right, it was 5-4 on the question of the ban on handguns in DC infringing that right.

This is an important disctinction. The conservative 5 on the court pointed out in rebutting the dissent that constitutional rights actually mean what they say in that document.

The liberals, while unwilling to state outright that the right does not exist, merely gloss over that inconvenience by going on to say that the right is meaningless.

bpm4532 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jay said...

It is beyond comical freeper and her silly, ignorant ilk think "Well Regulated" means regulated by the government.

bpm4532 said...

Freder Frederson: Um, no the justices did not ignore the first part, they understood the whole part. Sentences, words, clauses, punctuation - these all go into the meaning of the law.

Leftists must be small-brained and unable to complete reading or writing a complete sentences as their cognitive processing ability must be flooded to capacity after 11 words.

The constitution dealt with militias, armies and a navy in the body of the constitution. The second amendment, like the whole Bill of Rights, dealt with individual rights.

Nonapod said...

"A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Now five supreme court justices decided just to ignore the first phrase


That's because the first phrase has little bearing on the existence of the second phrase. The first phrase is descriptive, not determinative of the second.

I Callahan said...

Now five supreme court justices decided just to ignore the first phrase.

No they didn't ignore it. They kept it in context with the ENTIRE SENTENCE.

I, believe that the first phrase has some meaning, especially the "well regulated" part.

The term "regulated" seems to be where you're stumbling. This DOESN'T mean that the government gets to regulate it. It means that all of the people were considered "regulars"; so well-regulated means non-military.

That was the original meaning of the term "well-regulated"; it has nothing to do with government control, which would have been anathema to the founding fathers in the first place.

Bruce Hayden said...

For decades there was an effort to take away the Second Amendment via the con job that the amendment protects the states' authority to organize militias, and does not enumerate the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

Wishful thinking on the part of the left, or at least reinterpreting the "living" Constitution in a manner consistent with their goals. The historical sources are pretty clear what was meant by the phrasing of and terms in the 2nd Amdt. They just wanted to redefine them to their own ends. Contrary to Freder's wishes and desires, the militia phrase, using standard legal interpretations, merely sets out one reason to support the right to keep and bear arms. It was never intended to be a limitation, but rather, was a justification.

Jay said...

bpm4532 said...
The second amendment, like the whole Bill of Rights, dealt with individual rights


No way, man!

Those framers were stooopid and stuff and decided to stick a collective right in there while the 9 other ones expressly dealt with individual rights!

Really, they did!

bpm4532 said...

nonapod: Nice to see someone remembers junior high school sentence diagramming...

Bruce Hayden said...

That's because the first phrase has little bearing on the existence of the second phrase. The first phrase is descriptive, not determinative of the second.

Close, I think, but maybe not exactly correct. I don't think "descriptive" is exactly the right word. Rather, I think that the more appropriate terms is "precatory", which essentially means expressing a wish. It may be easier to understand if the word "because" were inserted at the beginning of the Amendment.

Paul said...

eder Frederson,

The 2nd Amendment says, "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."

It says the PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms, not the Militia's, not the STATE'S, not the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S, but the PEOPLE's right as in WE THE PEOPLE.

The first part of the Amendment was to give a REASON for the second part. That is why the PEOPLE should have ARMS.

Second Amendment supporters historically have opposed gun registration, fearing that it could ultimately lead to confiscation, something that has actually happened in places such as Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Russia, China, Cuba, Burma, Indonesia, California, New York City, and well an awful lot of countries.

And here is what the founding fathers wrote!!!

”Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote.”
~Benjamin Franklin

”This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it.”
~Abraham Lincoln

That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; 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…”
~George Mason

”Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense.”
~John Adams

”The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”
~Thomas Jefferson

.”The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…”
~James Madison

.”The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
~Thomas Jefferson

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

In a nation governed by the people themselves, the possession of arms to defend their nation against usurpers within and without was deemed absolutely necessary. This right was protected by the 2nd Amendment. --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

furious_a said...

Feeder: €A well regulated militia being the security of a free state...

A well regulated militia doesn't mean what you think it means. In the common usage at the time the Amendments were drafted, "regulated" referred to the distinction between "regular" (standing army) and "irregular" (militias). The intent was to ensure that the militias were proficient in close-order drill and musketry, not dictated to (as individuals) as to which weapons they could own.

So, five justices simply refrained from re-stating the obvious (well, not obvious to you).

Freder Frederson said...

Those framers were stooopid and stuff and decided to stick a collective right in there while the 9 other ones expressly dealt with individual rights!

Except of course for the tenth.

AllenS said...

If the 2nd Amendment said: "A well regulated militia being the security of a free state shall not be infringed."

Then the gun grabbers might have a good reason to think that they could confiscate individual weapons. But, it doesn't say that.

Jay said...

Freder Frederson said...
Except of course for the tenth.



Right!

Because "Or to the People" is collective too!

Idiot.

PS: To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia

-Federalist 29

If only Alexander Hamilton was like as smart as Freeper and stuff!

Big Mike said...

I think we need a new constitutional amendment to clarify matters by removing the first clause of the Second Amendment, leaving its revised text to read only "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That fixes it for everybody.

As to Joe Manchin, I think he knows what's what and I rather ted to believe that he is aware of Feinstein's grandstanding. I think he was trying to pass a message to lonesome Joe Biden.

Birches said...

I just finished reading Gunfight, which is about Heller. Mikee is right on his 9-0. It was funny seeing how the "living, breathing constitution" crowd turns into originalists when it suits their purpose.

I'm not sure any new gun laws will hold up because of Heller (as long as the makeup of the SC remains the same) and here's why.

The interesting thing about reading Gunfight was Scalia's masterful opinion. Many gun rights people didn't like it because it didn't really change any existing laws (except in DC and Chicago). But in that way it was the opposite of Roe and that's why its smart. Incrementally, over time, laws will change to reflect the correct interpretation of the 2nd amendment. If the thing is done gradually, the opposition won't have a bloody flag to throw around.

I think that perhaps this is the same tactic John Roberts is doing with Obamacare, because the same thing happened with campaign finance. The first lawsuit favored the Feds; it was only after Citizens United illustrated their own personal harm was the whole law thrown out.

Big Mike said...

I rather tend to believe.

Sorry, Ted.

Jay said...

So to make this clear for freeper since she has trouble reading. The 2nd Amendment stating:

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

Means: you are expected to have arms and be well versed in how to use them. The government has no authority to infringe on this right.

Thanks for participating.

AllenS said...

Big Mike beat me to it.

Sunslut7 said...

Fellow gun owners:
The first thing we do is cut off food and energy supplies to the northeast. Stop the passage of trucks through the Appalacians and up an down route I-95. see if that sobers them up a bit.
We can sell our bounty to China at a discount payable in Yuan or PMs.Imagine a foode shortage panic in NYC!

Seriously, I sense that we as a nation are drifting towards armed conflict. Obama's lust for global power knows no bounds. If these keeps going on the current path then I foresee dreadful consequences. RED DAWN REDUX !

virgil xenophon said...

The tactics the left is using in forcing incremental change to 2nd amend rights is known in poli-sci circles as "salami tactics," the psychology of which goes like this:
"Hey he's only slicing-off 2% of the salami, your still in possession of 98% of it, what are you griping about?" This logic continues to excuse the incremental disappearance of one's salami until one has lost 51%--at which point the logic of those excusing incremental depredations against the salami shifts to "Hey, they've already got the majority of the thing, it's not worth fighting about." And so on, until the entire salami is gone..

edutcher said...

Manchin has developed quickly into somebody who can jump to either side of an issue depending on whether the election is spoken of as past or future tense.

Ann Althouse said...

Democrats know this. They are part of this American culture of deeply engrained belief in constitutional rights.

You are, of course, joking.

The party of Woody Wilson?

What is different to the Democrats is that they don't believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right. They think the Supreme Court misinterpreted the Second Amendment when it found a constitutional right.

Right about the Second, wrong about the right.

AMENDMENT IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


People had guns to protect themselves from varmints, Injuns, and other assorted threats long before the Constitution.

virgil xenophon said...

**"YOU'RE" viz "your"
damn...

furious_a said...

by removing the first clause of the Second Amendment, leaving its revised text to read only "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Naw, leave in,the first clause, so that every time they cite it the Freders demonstrate they haven't the first clue what it means.

Larry J said...

AllenS said...
DADvocate said...
Manchin is lying. Just today it is reports, via Insty, House Democrats are introducing The Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act, which would open up gun makers to civil liability. This would make it too expensive and risky to manufacture and/or sell guns in the U.S.

Can they do this? Does the person have to actually buy it from the manufacturer? What if there was a middleman? Can this apply to the sale of alcoholic beverages when there is a deadly accident?


Why stop at guns? Why not pass the Lawyers' Full Employment Act and expand the coverage to other things as well. Hurt in an auto accident? Sue the manufacturer. Was the other driver drinking? Sue the liquor company as well? Cut yourself with a knife? Sue the manufacturer. Hit your thumb with a hammer? It was obviously defective so sue the manufacturer! Hurt by a corrupt lawyer? Well, too bad.

Lem said...

The NYT portrays the folks back home in West Virginia as misinformed, troublesome, and hysterical. That’s what we’re dealing with.

Why, what could West Virginia citizens possibly worry about?

Strelnikov said...

The major flaw in Leftist thinking on Constitutional points is that they think they can determine not what the language means but whether or not it even exists. As you put it, they don't believe the Second Amendment says what the plain language does say and, because they don't believe it, it doesn't exist.

AllenS said...

Larry, how about if you go to law school, graduate and cannot find a job, sue the professor who taught you?

Seeing Red said...

Drudge links to an article that says Oregon will make cigarettes prescription only.

Another link is that smoking shortens life by 10 years.

Obamacare - 70 and you're out.

What's the point?

Yu-Ain Gonnano said...

Well-regulated, at the time, most closely meant "well trained", "well prepared", or "well equipped" than "beset by laws".

When citizens were called up to serve in a martial capacity, they were expected to arrive, often with their own weapons, and to already be proficient in their use.

This is why tanks and cannons would not be included in 2A protection. One would not be expected to show up to service with your own cannon. If you did, great (as a good many people, in fact, did), but it wasn't expected of the standard infrantry soldier.

So an honest reading of the first part of the 2A would demand that you accept that a real full-auto (or burst fire) M-16 is exactly the type of weapon protected by the 2A. It is the standard firearm of the common infantry soldier.

A weapon, that should it be necessary to call up large numbers of soldiers quickly (whether due to internal or external threats), would be handy that people already knew how to operate safely and maintain.

Strelnikov said...

And when Manchin is safely back inside the Beltway he'll go back to displaying how he has grown in office. Until re-election time, when he'll resume shooting bills with his rifle.

Seeing Red said...

Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s office confirmed that she will be introducing in the Senate Thursday a new version of the so-called assault weapon ban. A spokesman said the full text will be released at a press conference on Thursday.


The California Democrat intends to expand on the ban that expired in 2004, by including handguns and shotguns, in addition to rifles. She would decrease from two to one the number of cosmetic features on a gun to have it be considered an “assault weapon.” This means that if a gun has just one item like a pistol grip or bayonet lug, then it is illegal. Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed into law the same ban in New York last week

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2013/jan/22/miller-national-assault-weapon-ban-coming-thursday/#ixzz2IuUsi6yB
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2013/jan/22/miller-national-assault-weapon-ban-coming-thursday/#ixzz2IuUl3YLv
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Seeing Red said...

Via Insty recently:

JACOB SULLUM: “Universal background checks” could unjustly deny millions of people the right to armed self-defense. “Although Obama did not mention that little detail last week, The Washington Post reported earlier this month that the administration was ‘seriously considering’ creating a system that would “track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database.” Second Amendment supporters historically have opposed gun registration, fearing that it could ultimately lead to confiscation, something that has actually happened in places such as Canada, Great Britain, Australia, California, and New York City.”

Marshal said...

What is different to the Democrats is that they don't believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right. They think the Supreme Court misinterpreted the Second Amendment when it found a constitutional right.

I don't think this is true. I think they don't want it to be a constitutional right and justify themselves by claiming the SC misinterpreted and/or the constitution means whatever the good leftists believe it should mean.

Seeing Red said...

Notice how the usual suspects don't really show up again?

Certain topics they stay far away.

virgil xenophon said...

Yu-Ain Gonnano is TOTALLY correct in terms of the historical background of what "well-regulated" meant and the conclusions that he draws therefrom..

Bruce Hayden said...

“I can take my A.R.,” Mr. Johnson said, referring to his assault rifle, “load it, put one in the chamber and throw it up on this table, and the only way it’s going to hurt anybody is if I miss and hit someone in the head. The gun doesn’t hurt anybody. It’s the person pulling the trigger.”

The NYT again shows its biases and apparent lack of knowledge. You would almost think for that that "A.R." means "assault rifle", and not Armalite design, esp. with the insertion of the periods. And, odds are that this guy wouldn't throw a real "assault rifle" on the table, because he most likely doesn't have a license for one, being that they are heavily regulated and licensed by the 1934 NFA. It was maybe a bit too clever, trying to make the initials for the AR-15 semiautomatic rife stand for already regulated assault rifles.

Of course, most here know better. But, this last election was won by the Dems mobilizing ultra-low-information voters identified through extensive data mining, and that is more likely who this aimed at - people who don't know enough about the subject to know the difference and to spot the big switch.

Nichevo said...

If anything, the Second Amendment reminds us of the founders' objection, not to the people being armed, but to STANDING ARMIES.

It may be that times have changed and we really can't do without a million-man army for all the infrastructure and specialization, but originally the militia WAS to be the army; there had to be some navy to keep the world at a distance, but navies don't bankrupt and tyrannize a country.

I guess in 1776 daily lifestyles, e.g. hunting for meat, ensured broad proficiency without need for a draft. Likewise today, arcades, flight sims, Wii, etc., would ensure to a degree that we can drive tanks, fire Javelins (which I guess we would collect at need from the local armory), clear rooms, etc. But there's no substitute for live fire.


Just this need to be wiseasses! Taking wrong, and adding mean and loud, doesn't turn it into right!

I'm with John Ross. Roll it back to 1934.

EnigmatiCore said...

"What is different to the Democrats is that they don't believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right."

Untrue.

Democrats believe that there is such a right. However, they don't believe there should be such a right and as such keep trying to change definitions, move goalposts, and appoint judges who will ignore and/or twist the words in the Constitution and its amendments to fit the goals of Democrats.

EnigmatiCore said...

To clarify-- they know what it says but they don't like what it says so they pretend it doesn't say what it says.

You want to give them the benefit of the doubt regarding their good intentions. You should not.

Larry J said...

AllenS said...
Larry, how about if you go to law school, graduate and cannot find a job, sue the professor who taught you?


Oh, goodness no! Suing lawyers is always bad! The goal of the Lawyers' Full Employment Act is to create so many new job openings that every law school graduate, even last in the class from a bottom-tier school, can find work. Since ignorance of the law is no excuse (bullshit!), we need to have everyone consult a lawyer before doing anything. Any negative consequence, other than those caused by lawyers, should be the grounds for a lawsuit. Lawyers, and most especially law school faculty, will be the exempt ruling class immune from all this.

Hammond X Gritzkofe said...

There is no movement to take away the Second Ammendment. The plan is to re-define it into meaninglessness.

Molon Labe.

AllenS said...

I'm thinking about suing everyone on this blog that disagrees with me. Because shut up.

jr565 said...

And now dems are trying to open gun makers for civil liability:

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/278923-dems-propose-opening-gun-makers-to-civil-liability

Darrell said...

And now dems are trying to open gun makers for civil liability

That's one of the first things that Mayor Daley (Richard II) tried in Chicago. He thought it would be a big payday like the original tobacco settlement. It didn't fly.

Paul said...

Hammond X Gritzkofe said...

"There is no movement to take away the Second Ammendment. The plan is to re-define it into meaninglessness."

Just one of their avenues. They will try to ban ammo, force ammo to be 'green', ban magazines, ban transfers of guns or tax them into oblivion, ban shipment, ban.. ban.. ban.. tax.. tax.. tax..

Just anything to get rid of weapons so us subjects.. I mean citizens.. will just have to take whatever medicine the holy government decides we need to take.

And for them, the FIRST Amendment is ONLY for the press, the press the liberals own that is.

Big Mike said...

Feinstein released her list of guns to be banned today. I find it interesting that she includes the Beretta CX4 Storm by name, since it's really just a Beretta semi-automatic pistol with a longer barrel and a shoulder stock intended for home defense. Anyone looking for evidence that the crazy lady from San Francisco thinks that if it looks wicked it must be bad, need look no further.

S. said...

"We give up our rights one piece at a time"

Reminds of a piece of (edited) dialogue from the film Broadcast news. Ironic how fitting it is...

"What do you think the Devil is going to look like if he's around? Nobody is going to be taken in by a guy with a long, red, pointy tail! He will be attractive! He'll be nice and helpful. He'll get a job where he influences a great God-fearing nation. He'll never do an evil thing! He'll never deliberately hurt a living thing... he will just bit by little bit lower our standards where they are important. Just a tiny little bit. Just coax along flash over substance. Just a tiny little bit."

traditionalguy said...

The fear of commoners rebelling and shooting the Aristocrats in the Manor House. But that is a British nightmare only. Why are our Progressives peddling it here?

Because we are being pushed like a square peg into a British Empire round hole. We must be really scary to our new Aristocracy of world environmental governance folks.

I still remember why Major Hassan easily shot 15+ soldiers at Ft. Hood...because the Army base was a gun free environment for fear of the common soldiers shooting people. Wow!



Darrell said...

UN troops won't come here to enforce Climate Change taxes and such as long as they have 200 million guns pointed at them. It messes with the libido, you know.

Molly said...

thanks to Bruce Hayden, Bryan C, and others for replies.

I'm inclined to see the first amendment as the first line of defense (facilitating the removal from office through voting or impeachment), and the second amendment as the last line of defense against tyranny (facilitating the removal from office through armed rebellion).

So if the gov't passed and tried to enforce a law that said, basically "the 1st amendment protects your right to pornography, but criticizing the president is punishable by imprisonment" the court would find this law unconstitutional. (I know we can only speculate). But the point is we probably could preserve our ability to speak about and urge people to vote against anyone (even to speak illegally and anonymously); the internet expands this ability.

The ability to stage an armed rebellion against the US government is something we no longer have and can never expect to regain -- the power of the US military and police is simply too strong compared with anything a group of citizens can hope to put together.

I'm slightly rueful about this, but not really upset, because I believe US history shows that the ballot and civil society and the Constitution are strong enough to protect us without armed rebellion.

So when it comes to a debate about whether to repeal the second amendment, I just don't think it's worth fighting for.

Rusty said...

furious_a said...
by removing the first clause of the Second Amendment, leaving its revised text to read only "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Naw, leave in,the first clause, so that every time they cite it the Freders demonstrate they haven't the first clue what it means.


The first clause is the subordinate clause. Written in the convention of the time.
A more modern reading would look like this;
The right of citizens to keep and bear their own military arms shall not be infringed, a well prepared militia being necessary for a free state.

Rusty said...

DADvocate said...
Manchin is lying. Just today it is reports, via Insty, House Democrats are introducing The Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act, which would open up gun makers to civil liability. This would make it too expensive and risky to manufacture and/or sell guns in the U.S.

It opens up a huge black market. Economics is something progressives seem to have little understanding of.
Any need can and will be fulfilled.

McTriumph said...

Molly
Respectfully, what historical parallel universe have your history books been written?

Colonel Angus said...

That movement has been going for the better part of half a century. This isn't a revelation to anyone whose been paying attention.

JL said...

Many Democrats (but certainly not all--and believe it or not some Republicans), and I, believe that the first phrase has some meaning, especially the "well regulated" part.

Of course it has meaning. In order to have a militia that is well regulated, i.e. properly functioning, you need a citizen population that is armed and knows how to use them. The first clause warrants the second clause.

Revenant said...

In other news, just today Dianne Feinstein finally got around to announcing her bill to curtail second amendment rights.

Revenant said...

I, believe that the first phrase has some meaning, especially the "well regulated" part.

Of course; it is the reason for not restricting civilian access to firearms.

JL said...

The term "regulated" seems to be where you're stumbling. This DOESN'T mean that the government gets to regulate it. It means that all of the people were considered "regulars"; so well-regulated means non-military.

Exactly.

Some (maybe not Freder; I don't know) seem to think a well regulated militia means that the govt. should impose restrictions on it. That would mean our founding fathers made an amendment that gives the people the unrestricted right to bear arms; and in the same amendment, allows the govt. to regulate away that right. That makes no sense.

Big Mike said...

I noticed something else in Feinstein's list. She wants to ban a specific model of the Ruger Mini 14, which as it happens has an adjustable stock and looks very much like an AR. But the ones she doesn't include in her list use the same magazines, have the same receiver, and same barrel. They fire the same cartridge. The only difference is that the others have a conventional stock made of wood or polymer while the one she wants to ban has a hand grip and a stock like the AR-15.

If it looks wicked it is wicked.

Dumb shits.

Big Mike said...

Hey, Rusty. furious_a didn't say that. I said it first (9:47)

Methadras said...

Of course there is a movement to abolish the 2nd amendment. Anyone who doesn't see this is a willfully ignorant moron. Or a leftist.

Revenant said...

"Regulate" originally meant "to make regular", not "to control". Well-regulated militia thus simply means, in context, "a militia where everyone can fight".

Thus, the attempt to ban weapon possession by civilians is an attempt to make the militia poorly regulated. :)

Colonel Angus said...

But that horse left the barn long ago -- everyone agreed in the 1920s tommyguns could not be owned by private citizens, and today everyone (even the NRA) (I assume) supports outlawing ownership of armor piercing bullets, and other high tech weapons that our armed forces have.

So today's second amendment is essentially meaningless to preserve our rights to stage a rebellion.


When I see comments like this I have to assume people aren't paying attention to current events. The Taliban has done a fairly good job of maintaining a rebellion aganist a superior armed force for a decade. In fact once we leave in a year, they shouldn't have much difficulty in reasserting themselves.

Rusty said...

Big Mike said...
Hey, Rusty. furious_a didn't say that. I said it first (9:47)

Oh.
Sorry.
Mia culpa

Crunchy Frog said...

It's a slow fade
When you give yourself away
It's a slow fade
When black and white are turned to gray
Thoughts invade
A choice is made
A price will be paid
When you give yourself away
People never crumble in a day
It's a slow fade

Seeing Red said...

I wonder how many more people this ban will add to the unemployment line?

McTriumph said...

The Second Amendment in no way restricts citizens, it restricts government. Only a statist would argue otherwise. Only a statist would advocate making millions of law abiding citizens criminals at the stroke of a politician's pen. These statist libs are Wilsonian, the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and the US Constitution are an impediment, the enemy, to their vision of "good Government". There is no difference between their vision and that of monarchist. Obama says we can't act alone, no share croppers don't act alone, nor do slaves.

Revenant said...

today everyone (even the NRA) (I assume) supports outlawing ownership of armor piercing bullets, and other high tech weapons that our armed forces have.

"Armor-piercing bullets" is a meaningless term. If you go into a gun store and say "I'd like to buy some armor-piercing bullets", you'll get a blank stare. Or perhaps an eye roll and head shake.

For example, that rifle you use for deer hunting? The ordinary, deer-killin' ammunition for it will punch right through a typical policeman's "bulletproof vest".

Howard said...

This is a stupid issue for democrats. They are putting the senate back in play for the republicans.

This is a huge minority civil rights issue that is even more important than the gay marry deal. It's too bad the gay socialists and the gay teabaggers don't get together for some mutual support.

ampersand said...

Mitchell the Bat said...

All will be resolved when the law requires mandatory service in the militia.



From the Illinois Constitution:

ARTICLE XII
SECTION 1. MEMBERSHIP
The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons
residing in the State except those exempted by law.

Big Mike said...

@Rusty, I know Mia. Doesn't she work downstairs in accounts receivable?

Big Mike said...

@Rusty, I know Mia. Doesn't she work downstairs in accounts receivable?

30yearProf said...

The slippery slope exists. Tying in a belay line before even looking over the edge is a sound Americam habit. I don't have the quote but the founder of Handgun Control made a big point of taking a little bit of freedom but doing it continuously.

Joseph E. Olson and David B. Kopel, All the Way Down the Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition in England and Some Lessons for Civil Liberties in America, 22 HAMLINE L. REV. 399 (1999).

harrogate said...

A banker in America worries his rights are being taken away "one piece at a time." That's a great setup for a joke.

1charlie2 said...

@Molly

The ability to stage an armed rebellion against the US government is something we no longer have and can never expect to regain -- the power of the US military and police is simply too strong compared with anything a group of citizens can hope to put together.

I suspect you have never studied insurgencies, nor do you understand the military or law enforcement all that well.

We have been fighting an insurgency, one that is mostly poorly equipped compared to US gun owners, for 10 + years now. With the full power of the US military being available (though not unleashed, due to political considerations). Without being able to definitively put down the rebellion. Not to be insulting, but you remind me of some people who thought that just because the Northern Alliance and US SOF troops ended open Taliban opposition so fast that pacifying the entire country would be easy. After all, we had the technology, the money, and besides God was on our side. Didn't quite turn out that way.

Why in the name of green garbage bag ties do you imagine a despotic US government (should one ever arise) would somehow do so much better against their own citizens so long as those citizens are not already disarmed ?

We have perhaps 1 million military under arms. And about 600,000 - 700,000 law-enforcement. Let's ignore the near certainty that at least half of them would be in rebellion themselves if asked to fire on otherwise law-abiding US citizens. Oh, and a large chunk of them are not direct combatants -- remember the cooks, truck drivers, mechanics, and all the other vital services.

Call it 1 million effectives in the service to this hypothetical despot.

Arrayed against them,we have perhaps 50 million firearms owners. Perhaps 10-15% former military ? If one in 50 of them kills one member of the pro-despot forces, the game is over. And understand that very few military units can sustain even 35% losses without trashing their combat effectiveness. Oh, and the HOO-YAH! ones that can sustain those losses are most likely to be in rebellion themselves.

And I am not taking into account the 1% of that 10% of firearms owners who rank as "hard-core" veterans. Hard-scrabble hunters in the south-east who grew up shooting game in the backwoods from their childhood. Others who have already planned for doomsday -- laugh as you wish at the funny 'preppers' but recognize the obstacle they present to this hypothetical despotic government. Others are veterans of the special warfare community, DA, UW, or what have you. They know more about asymmetrical warfare than most line grunts or commanders do, and would be the absolute beast to fight against.

Do I say such a rebellion would automatically succeed ? Not at all. But its defeat, even if possible, would be astonishingly expensive.

Of course, our liberty is, from a historical perspective, most likely to be given away by us, rather than taken by force. But for now, if some end-of-the-world tyranny somehow took over the US and moved directly against firearms owners using the current military and LEO, they would not enjoy the outcome.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

The NYT is misinformed, troublesome, and threatening. Not only does the Second Amendment intend to arm citizen "soldiers", a function separate from a standing army, it also recognizes a practical concern: individuals and cooperatives, both public and civil, who act with criminal intention, do not have their behavior constrained by proscriptive language. They are only deterred and held accountable with equal force. It is only through empowered competing interests that involuntary exploitation committed by a minority interest can be kept in check, and the security of a free State, and, in following, a free People, is possible.

So, we know that criminals are more than a figment of our imagination, and they do commit acts of murder, rape, and redistributive change. We know that authoritarian interests may suffer from momentary or permanent delusions of grandeur, which lead them to exceed their granted authority, and it is the duty of citizens to prevent them from running amuck. We know that around one million aliens illegal enter this nation annually, and that that they are not bound by proscriptive laws. We know that our federal government sold arms to a drug cartel, which resulted in the murder of hundreds of Mexicans and at least one American.

What, exactly, does The NYT not understand? Surely, they cannot be so ignorant or naive. And, if they are not, then they possess ulterior motives which they fail to disclose.

n.n said...

wyo sis:

We need to control the flow of illegal immigrants (address symptoms and causes), and limit legal immigration to not exceed the rate of assimilation. We need to moderate our base desires, curb our dysfunctional behaviors, and stop murdering our children. We need to revive morality in our culture, reject redistributive change, and recognize an intrinsic value of human life. We need to act reasonably and with reason.

Molly said...

Col. Angus and 1charlie2 make the point that a relatively poorly armed insurgency can "succeed" (my word) against an army with much more advanced weapons, and that is proven by recent experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's probably a valid point if "success" means "survival" as an insurgency; but American revolution was successful in a different sense -- overthrowing the existing power structure.

Rusty said...

Seeing Red said...
I wonder how many more people this ban will add to the unemployment line?

What they aren't seeing is the unintended consequences of their action.
With a stroke of a pen they will make millions of citizens criminals. Some will comply. Most, who are heavily invested, won't. The black market for arms ammunition and magazines will be huge.

Jay said...

Molly said...
Col. Angus and 1charlie2 make the point that a relatively poorly armed insurgency can "succeed" (my word) against an army with much more advanced weapons, and that is proven by recent experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Um, you simply asserting the military and police are super duper powerful and can't be defeated isn't an argument, nor is it persuasive.

It's actually stupid.

Revenant said...

That's probably a valid point if "success" means "survival" as an insurgency; but American revolution was successful in a different sense -- overthrowing the existing power structure.

Well, no. The existing American power structure *led* the rebellion. The governments of the states were pro-rebellion. But if you don't like the American example, look to Ireland. Insurgents defeated a neighboring superpower.

Anyway, you're not thinking things through. First of all, while the US army does have things like fighter jets, bombers, and tanks, you can't use any of those things against insurgents without killing a lot of innocent civilians.

Who do you think is flying those bombers and driving those tanks? Yep, that's right: the friends, sons, brothers, and fathers of the civilians getting slaughtered. You think they're going to obey an order to bomb Houston or Denver? Please.

Plus, of course, you can't live in a tank or a fighter. Say you start slaughtering civilians -- now you're in a situation where members of the military are identified as mass-murderers of Americans. They can't safely leave their bases anymore except under armed guard. Every block of every city in America will have people who want them dead and own guns.

It just doesn't pan out. You can't use bombs and artillery to occupy a nation.