My son John links to an article in TNR that I clicked on mainly just to see what the author had to say about the Second Amendment, which was:
It doesn’t take specialized expertise in constitutional law to understand that current U.S. gun law gets its parameters from Supreme Court interpretations of the Second Amendment.... That the Second Amendment has been liberally interpreted doesn’t prevent any of us from saying it’s been misinterpreted, or that it should be repealed. When you find yourself assuming that everyone who has a more nuanced (or just pro-gun) argument is simply better read on the topic, remember that opponents of abortion aren’t wondering whether they should have a more nuanced view of abortion because of Roe v. Wade. They’re not keeping their opinions to themselves until they’ve got a term paper’s worth of material proving that they’ve studied the relevant case law.Well, I agree with that last part. Law shouldn't be left to the experts. But ironically, it was the people's understanding of the right to bear arms, living and breathing over time, that led to the Supreme Court's eventual recognition of that right.
Posts
115 comments:
Good news for squirrels.
If you look out on the billions and billions of galaxies with billions and billions of stars, you wonder, if we're not alone, how much gun violence there is out there.
Without seasoned editors on staff, perhaps The New Republic is aiming to give The Onion a run for the money.
Right, the Constitution shouldn't be what it is, it should be what we want it to be.
Look, even if someone considers it a noble thought, the sheer impracticability of firearm confiscation, not to mention the danger, makes it a stupid thing to advocate. Yes, stupid.
That's why it's in The New Republic.
Ban guns, all guns.
Hey I could be on board with with this. Let's begin with the Secret Service. And then Nanny Doomberg's security detail. Then Governor Andrew the Pious bodyguards.
After a few years, making sure the aforementioned examples were successful, on to the citizenry. Lastly, we could try to disarm the criminals and domestic terrorists.
It would be helpful if the opponents of private gun ownership had some facts to support their position. I am pro-choice but the explosion of abortion volume, especially in the black population, is a fact no one can ignore and call themselves objective.
"If neither the facts or the law is on your side, you pound the table"
And it was the founders understanding and intent that led to the Supreme Court to interpret things.
This should be interesting.
No one on the left has come out with a plan to disarm 100,000,000 firearm owners.
I'm all ears.
" ironically, it was the people's understanding of the right to bear arms, living and breathing over time, that led to the Supreme Court's eventual recognition of that right."
More ironic that the SC found abortion rights in the document.
It looks like Ms.Bovy might be Canadian. If so, start there. When the grizzlies or polar bears become the alpha predators contact the First Nations people. I'm sure they will rush to help the folks in Toronto.
"It doesn’t take specialized expertise in constitutional law to understand that current U.S. gun law gets its parameters from Supreme Court interpretations of the Second Amendment.... That the Second Amendment has been liberally interpreted doesn’t prevent any of us from saying it’s been misinterpreted, or that it should be repealed."
It's been misinterpreted?
Um, no. Those that wrote the 2nd amendment have the correct interpretation. and they were all about giving all men access to guns. They were quite clear about it.
If libs think it was misinterpreted, thats because they don't want to interpret the constitution the way its' supposed to be. They want to be like Posner and say it should be interpreted based on popularity, or think its a living breathing constitution, meaning we'll interpret it the way we want. Or they will poo poo the constitution as a relic of a bygone era.
Anything to get their way.
Frankly, I'm tired of liberals making arguments about the constitution being misinterpreted by gun nuts. I'm not a gun nut and don't own a gun, but I do know a bullshit argument when I hear one. And they could give two craps about the constitution and any interpretation other than that which gives them the result they want.
Which is why the gay marriage decision is so suspect. IT was clearly NOT based on an accurate interpretation of the constitution, it was just a power grab. As all their interpretations are.
The Supreme court owes its existence to the constitution, not the other way 'round.
If the supreme court found that the constitution did not authorize it to interpret the constitution, would that interpretation be constitutional?
If they are serious about banning guns, then they should be advocating for an amendment to the constitution that eliminates the second amendment. That's the only way to obtain the abolition of the second amendment legitimately.
it was the people's understanding of the right to bear arms, living and breathing over time, that led to the Supreme Court's eventual recognition of that right
Not that hard for the Court to recognize that, really, because the people themselves had already recognized it and then WROTE IT DOWN. Even without its explicit presence in the Constitution, it was already expressed in the founding document (the Declaration of Independence), as well as being the triggering event of the Revolution (the government's attempt at gun control at Concord).
If this excerpt is representative of the whole article (or the whole argument), then ugh. From its beginning NSS statement to non sequiturs to huh?, it is a mishmash of incoherence. In other words, typicaly progressivism.
Something that I had not realized until recently is that there was a segment of the population, the Jacksonians (traditionally Democrats), who believed from the very first that one of the big reasons for the 2nd Amdt. was to protect the people against a tyrannical government. We are talking actually before their namesake, Andrew Jackson, and back to the adoption of the Bill of Rights. My theory there is that this interpretation has always been a bit under the table, not completely acceptable to people like my mother's family, descendants of NE Puritans, and Yankee middle class at least since the Revolutionary War. They had long looked down on the hillbillies in the Jacksonian belt extending from VA across the top of the south, who believed this sort of thing. And, yes, the Ivy League, where fashionable thought originated is essentially located in the NE where the people also look down on those Jacksonian hillbillies (at least since Jackson's election to the Presidency).
The library up in MT where we spend the warmer half the year has a western novel collection, and, Louis L'Amour has pride of place. So, a couple years ago, I read the Sackett series (and realized that part of the reason that the TV series was so confusing was that they had merged books). Turns out, the Sacketts were the quintessential Jacksonans, fleeing here in the 1600s to escape Royal persecution, quickly moving to the Jacksonian belt, and then moving mostly across the top of the south into (mostly) southern Colorado (where he spent much of his life). Always self-reliant, they were quiet, quick to take offense, and quick to draw their guns. Mostly poor, they tended to look down on wealth, and, esp. ill-gotten wealth. Very different from those esp. in New England who look down on them still today.
So, what I think we had was elite legal thought based in the NE, and esp. New England, that looked down on the Jacksonians (and their love of guns, and dislike of government). That part of the country is much more urban, and much more communal. Which means that much of the population had been disarmed not long after Jackson was President. Those who still clung to their Bibles and their guns were looked down upon. And, since elite legal thought was centered in that part of the country, it forgot that one of the major strands in the adoption of the 2nd Amdt. was the Jacksonian distrust of government. Those in the NE had to like govt. because they depended on govt. to protect them in their ever bigger cities. Not so most of the rest of the country.
I think that I am somewhat sensitive to the Jacksonian trends because my father's family followed them across the top of the South, from VA to OK, and then up to CO. So, you would never see firearms in my mother's family, they were part of life in my father's family. Which, also, is where I understood that the descendants of the NE Puritans looked down on the Jacksonians so much - with my mother's family seeming to believe that only stupid, uneducated people have guns, and my father's family believing that they were necessary to keep the population of rabbits, etc. under control.
In any case, when legal scholars started to seriously study the subject, and go beyond the conventional wisdom taught at elite schools in the NE, it turned out that different parts of the country, and different demographic groups in this country had different views about the 2nd Amdt., and that they had had such even from the time of adoption. And, yes, that a surprisingly large percentage had had the anti-govt. view.
Now for the problem - the same Scotts-Irish demographic who made up the original Jacksonians have long been the ones in this country who sign up first to fight for our country. They form a large percentage on the tip of the spear even now. Serving in the military is still seen as highly honorable. And, they also have a large presence in law enforcement. They tend to own guns and know how to shoot them. And, they are descended from a tradition where guns are necessary both for self-reliance (including both self-defense and hunting), as well as protection from government. Who is going to take their guns away? The pointy headed liberals in those elite universities in the NE? The problem isn't just that there are more guns in this country than people, but it is also that many of those guns are in the hands of the demographic that has least use for government, and most likely to take offense at any attempts to take those guns away. And, know deep down that the 2nd Amdt. was enacted to a great extent to protect them from govt. and govt. confiscation of their guns.
I may surrender my firearms only after I turn in my stock of ammunition. The gun grabbers will have to come to my home to receive it, administered one round at a time delivered center-of-mass.
Anyone who announces that they have come to seize my firearms will have to be killed immediately without remorse because they have come to take away my rights as a citizen. Remember, kids, politicians and terrorists prefer to deal with unarmed peasants.
But saying the interpretation on birth right citizenship is wrong is just beyond the pale.
Charles Cooke had the best response to all this in August:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423183/rant-second-amendment-repeal
I would fun to see Democrats add repeal of the Second Amendment to their platform.
Any idiot can get political traction from ending Samuel Colt's poison from the pure and harmless American people. Guns scare other people who are not armed.
I want to see the TOTAL ban of Knives. The big ones like Mohammedan's scimitars and the small ones that hide on key chains. And Jim Bowie be damned.
No one needs knives. Just bite off YOUR food with incisor teeth and chew it. And grow beards and body hair naturally.
WE ARE THE PROGRESSIVES !
A legal, and, in fact, moral right to self-defense, is not comparable to elective and actually premeditated abortion of wholly innocent human lives, unless someone pulls their faith out of a penumbra, denies the physical and biological process of evolution, and sincerely believes in spontaneous conception of human life.
The author is Canadian...making her opinion worth less than a warm cup of piss
The author lives in Canada and has a Ph.D. in French. I'm sure a lot of deep thought went into the article. Or not.
Michael K:
pro-choice but the explosion of abortion volume, especially in the black population
That's an argument for a moral/legal philosophy based on class rather than individual diversity.
While it's meaningful to identify and practically resolve class disparities, it avoids addressing the larger issues: reconciliation of moral principles and natural imperatives, and mitigation of corruption stemming from indulgence in human weaknesses including immature or impulsive orientations and behaviors.
I don't have any guns and I don't have any ammunition so I have nothing to turn in and there will be nothing here if you come search. I swear.
I subscribed to The New Republic in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It was my favorite magazine.
I don't remember when and why I stopped reading it.
I appreciate the logic of securing environmental stability through population reduction, especially abortion of unwanted or inconvenient human lives that would likely suffer from their parental neglect or indifference; but, what are the side-effects stemming from normalization of this policy and choice, including incentives for development of peculiar orientations and behaviors?
What are the side-effects stemming from the advocacy and promotion of scientifically incongruous arguments in order to reach or force a [social] consensus?
Why isn't the logic applied uniformly and consistently?
The argument to deny the right of self-defense follows from a pro-choice doctrine where the primary interest is not human life, human rights, human dignity, etc., but rather environmental stability. The paradox of advancing policies that promote environmental disruption and destruction can be understood from the dynamic of competing interests seeking to marginalize or eviscerate the other's leverage.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is really so hard to understand?
If you don't like it you can try to amend the constitution. Otherwise you're hoping what? That the 9 in robes will just decide on "better" policy like they did with gay marriage?
I don't care if you favor gay marriage or not. Be careful what you wish for. If those 9 can make up rights that you like, they can make up rights and obligations that you don't.
Do people really have that massive an ignorance of American history? Until Prohibition and the rise of organized crime, anyone could buy any weapon they wanted to. they used to advertise Tommy guns in the newspaper and send them through the mail. People used to build and equip privately owned warships that were equipped with the latest in military hardware. If we were still honoring the original meaning of the Amendment, people would be able to privately own fully functional tanks and warplanes.
Remember, the people who wrote the Second Amendment, also wrote the laws that prohibited a standing army in time of peace. They were depending on an armed American populace being able to defend itself while the army was organized if we were attacked.
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms"; "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"; "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"; “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. LET THEM TAKE ARMS.” "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They 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." (President Thomas Jefferson)
Sal
The author lives in Canada and has a Ph.D. in French. I'm sure a lot of deep thought went into the article. Or not.
Which points out that a number of academics assume their expertise in some arcane area of knowledge means that they have the same level of expertise on some entirely unrelated political issue.
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms"
There is an interesting undercurrent here. The "Militia" excluded slaves and I see blacks starting to join the NRA and to recognize the role of gun ownership in self defense. Can this be the first step to recognition of their own best interests, which are not congruent with the Democrats?
What part of "shall not be infringed" is really so hard to understand?
I dunno. Maybe the part that doesn't allow incarcerated inmates to "keep and bear" arms. I'm tired of ideological masturbators not getting that point. Even the right to free speech we don't "infringe" when it comes to incarcerated inmates, and yet, time place and manner restrictions are a part of the game. But gun nuts want to prevent recognition of restrictions even that limited. Time, place, manner restrictions on speech but not on guns, say The New Militia! The New Militia that I, as one of the people, didn't ask for and didn't want. But I guess my individual right on that doesn't matter.
I'm a gun nut. I imagine how the evening news would sound if my house ever got raided-- "The home contained dozens of rifles, handguns and shotguns, and thousands of rounds of ammunition."-- you've heard it all before. On the other hand, my interest is mostly in the historical, engineering, and aesthetic aspects of firearms. The only time I ever kept a loaded gun handy in my home was when Richard Ramirez was night stalking in SoCal.
I am not particularly brave, or particularly insane, but I tell you this: If I have half a chance I will fight, and die if necessary, to prevent the government from abrogating my natural right. It would be a good death. I would regret killing any law enforcement officer who would be so thoughtless as to make the attempt, but they should know better. In all likelihood, though, they would come at 3 am and break down the door and it would all be over before I could lift a finger. That's how the KGB worked, and they were very effective.
Ms. Bovy doesn't scare me. It has been obvious to me for years that the liberal left will never be satisfied with "reasonable" gun laws. They know--at least those who aren't Ms. Bovy know-- that an outright ban is impossible, so their strategy has always been to nibble around the edges, making laws with emotional appeal but zero practical effect. Each new regulation is a stepping stone to the next, harsher regulation. It's called the ratchet effect.
Ms. Bovy doesn't scare me, but the idea that her idiotic screed might even be published constitutes fair warning. In the cant phrase, she has let the mask slip. The battle will come some day, and if you value the Constitution I advise you to take this seriously. Buy a rifle and learn how to use it. Stand up for your rights. Governments always expand to take away your rights. Governments always have to be changed by force. I would rather be a participant than a spectator.
A poorly regulated band of vigilante wanna-be's, being necessary to rattle the already unstable mental state of the clinically paranoid, the right of any single person to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, anywhere, at any time, under any conditions. No questions asked.
The test case on the scope of this newly innovated individual right to bear arms should soon be brought to the Supreme Court. I envision Charles Manson petitioning the court to overturn any ban on his own individual right to bear such arms, with an amicus brief filed on his behalf by Dr. Michael K.
The only thing standing in the way of his gun ownership is tyranny and liberals.
When progressives speak of the government "banning the guns," I think it would be constructive to first work through the actual mechanics and potential consequences of attempting to implement such a ban. And, the first mechanic would be who is going to be tasked with collecting the guns and enforcing that ban? The military? No, not unless you can convince them that the 2nd Amendment is not part of the constitution because the military, every last one of them, is sworn to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC, and to bear true faith and allegience to the same." They do not swear to protect "the government" against enemies, other than in so far as the government is true to the constitution. They do swear to obey the orders of "the officers appointed over" them, but only those orders that "conform to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." Members of all federal law enforcement organizations such as the FBI, swear a similar oath to the constitution, not to the government. I assume many state law enforcement agencies do the same.
If the government is going to order the military to collect the guns, the 2nd Amendment is first going to need to be repealed, or the government will need to somehow convince the military that their oaths to the constitution are inoperative. If law enforcement agencies are going to go about forcibly collecting those guns, then those agencies would be well served to first ascertain whether the military would then consider they, themselves, in so doing to be a "domestic enemy" of the constitution. Personally, I don't know a single member of the military that would participate in such a confiscation, but there probably are some. On the other hand, I personally believe a great number would actively and violently oppose it if they strongly believed such orders to be illegal and a direct threat to the constituion. After all, no one is talking about a subtle court interpretation of some obscure article here, they're talking about a dirct, tyrannical assault on the constitution for political expediency. Bottom line is this gun ban would need to be done the right, constitutional way or people should just STFU about it, because they don't really want to go there.
How about a simple gun license for individuals?
An individual would pass a background check pass a safety course and be issued a license. This License would permit them to own any legal gun purchased from any gun store or gun owner. It would not register any particular gun only the individual as legally permitted to have a gun. Make it federal and allow it to cross state lines.
john henry
I've read the constitution and the amendments. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, I read that, what I didn't find was "the right of the people to kill their babies" written anywhere. Sorry, there I go with my 8th grad education again.
Does any other constitutional right establish itself on the basis of a prefaced justification, such as "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"?
But I guess my individual right on that doesn't matter.
The First Amendment to the Constitution gives you the right to object to my right to own a gun.
The Second Amendment gives me the right to ignore you.
Unlike you R&B, our Founding Fathers did not desire to be serfs.
If "a term paper's worth of material" proving that you've studied the relevant case law is too burdensome a prerequisite, I don't think stamping your feet is going to move the Supreme Court to overcome centuries of precedent.
But I think the Council of Democrat Mayors of American Shithole Cities has the relevant jurisdiction to declare martial law and suspend that silly old Constitution, right?
The comment about Prohibition is apt. Too bad Mr. Balls missed it.
Google the author's other screeds if you want to understand where this childlike stupidity comes from. Her points about fashion, marriage and feminism are particularly scoff-worthy.
Who will enforce the ban? Those nice policemen who are so well-respected by the author and her ilk? The ignorant hillbilly military?
Ritmo,
Are you saying you want actual prisoners (not people who have served their sentences, but people currently serving) armed? Color me surprised. Prisoners give up a large number of rights, beginning with the right to walk out the door and down the street. That would be "liberty," supposedly unalienable.
Of course, large numbers of them may be armed already. Considering that rape on a massive scale, and drug abuse ditto, currently occur in our most (allegedly) secure and scrutinized environments, I don't see why the odd firearm mightn't also find its way in. Shivs certainly do.
Blogger Rhythm and Balls said...
"The New Militia that I, as one of the people, didn't ask for and didn't want. But I guess my individual right on that doesn't matter."
It is certainly your individual right not to be a member of the militia. It's also your right to rely upon the police to protect you from all the things police won't protect you from. I think you are the one who wants to impose his own pig-headed choices on his betters. I have guns, and they are no threat to you, unless you are a threat to me. In which case, why would I be concerned about your wishes?
I would like to think that intelligent and intellectually honest people would see the liberal play for "banning all guns" for what it is; a revelation of true feelings about guns.
Forget the Democrat party posturing about "common sense gun regulation." The base doesn't care about common sense and at the same time protecting legal gun ownership and use. The base just hates guns and gun owners and would like to criminalize all of it.
And so the gun rights advocates who fear confiscatory laws aren't crazy, and they aren't overreacting. Democratic politicians have lied before on similar social-issue matters. Democrats swore that they believed in traditional marriage definitions, right up to the point where they found it useful to allege that Republicans were bigots for not supporting same-sex marriage.
If the Democrats suddenly realized that it was a polling winner to confiscate every gun in America (that certainly is not the case), they'd introduce the legislation tomorrow. That's how they roll.
one of the big reasons for the 2nd Amdt. was to protect the people against a tyrannical government.
Of course. That's the design and purpose of the Bill of Rights. It's certainly not about hunting! Or even crime. Consider that the Bill of Rights does not mention murder or rape or all the other crimes. The Bill of Rights is not there to protect us from criminals. It's there to protect us from a tyrannical government.
Or, to put it another way, the 2nd Amendment is the enforcing mechanism to make sure that the 1st Amendment is respected.
And I do not think that the Framers had assassination in mind. They did not plan for individuals to use guns to attack the government. But they did have a plan in mind for armed groups of citizens (militias) to attack the federal government if necessary. In other words, armed revolution might be needed in our future. This is hardly a shock, as the people who wrote and ratified this Constitution had just fought an armed revolution.
Note that if you follow this logic, the idea that the right is an individual right is weaker. For instance, why does the 2nd Amendment refer to a "well-regulated" militia? Who is to regulate this militia? And the obvious answer is, the states. The framers and ratifiers of the Constitution had much more confidence in local government than they did in a strong national government. Thus, one might argue, the right should not have been incorporated as an individual right held against state governments.
Under this reading, North Carolina can regulate gun ownership, Mr. Obama cannot. Note that this reading makes a lot of sense when you consider that crime is a state issue, not a national one. But liberals failed to make this sort of federalist argument because liberals hate federalism, and state's rights, almost as much as they hate the right to bear arms (and, increasingly, the right to speak and the right to due process--liberals are shockingly illiberal now).
The 2nd Amendment does not grant, confirm or convey the right to keep and bear arms, it acknowledges the right exists. The Liberty Bell could be turned upside down and used as a fire pit to burn the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That would change nothing.
Do you an I have the right to defend ourselves? If so, what is the best way to do it?
Does any other constitutional right establish itself on the basis of a prefaced justification, such as "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"?
Perhaps not.
But surely such a right is still more legitimate than a right based on an emanation from a penumbra?
"A writer living in Toronto."
Fuck her. Maybe Donald Trump will keep her out of the country, too.
The First Amendment to the Constitution gives you the right to object to my right to own a gun.
The Second Amendment gives me the right to ignore you.
Oh really? Explain how this works. Kind of like how Adam Lanza ignored the screams of all those kids in the school or how James Holmes ignored the pleas of all those people in the theater in Colorado? Or how the San Bernardino shooters ignored everyone they went after.
But keep trying to pretend that you NRA gun nutters are not just violent psychopaths defending the newly invented "rights" of other violent psychopaths.
Does the Left really care about any actual amendments?
If so, what is the best way to do it?
Not the way they're doing it. More gun-owning gun nuts like gahrie (and others) are using their guns to kill themselves than to kill others. So there's that to be thankful for.
And remember - they're not violent or psychologically unhinged. Just using their favored devices to commit suicide at a rate greater than the gun homicide rate. But not violent or unstable.
When they want to convince society that they're doing us a favor, it's likely that they are. By removing the violent tyrants from society.
Humperdink:
I don't understand your timeline. First you said disarm the politicians. Then you said disarm the criminals.
Do you see the problem?
Blogger Rhythm and Balls said...
A poorly regulated band of vigilante wanna-be's, being necessary to rattle the already unstable mental state of the clinically paranoid, the right of any single person to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, anywhere, at any time, under any conditions. No questions asked.
And I'm once again disappointed. You're much more intersting when you're not channeling your interior garage mahal.
It was always intended to be an indvidual right. With the militia in possesion of arms comperable to those carried by an individual infintryman.
"Newly invented" right to protect yourself from tyranny that "Rhythm and Balls" would impose on we free peoples.
Molon Labe.
Try to ban guns. We won't turn them. We will not comply.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Does any other constitutional right establish itself on the basis of a prefaced justification, such as "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"?
Tat's the subordinte cluse. The next sentence or phrase ids the dominate clause.
"The New Militia that I, as one of the people, didn't ask for and didn't want. But I guess my individual right on that doesn't matter."
If you don't own a weapon you're not a member of any militia. See the militia act of 1903.
Rusty,
No other right in the Bill of Rights is a right of groups. That is the purposeful misreading "Rhythm and Balls" attempts.
The 2nd Amendment does not grant, confirm or convey the right to keep and bear arms, it acknowledges the right exists. The Liberty Bell could be turned upside down and used as a fire pit to burn the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Preach. The government does not give us our rights. Nobody gives us our rights. We have them because we exist.
@Rhythm and Balls seems to acknowledge the right of self defense without naming the best tool. Ask the President, he knows.
Lets get rid of knives and forks too...maybe..if we play nice, we will be allowed sporks in This New Republic.
damikesc said...
The author is Canadian...making her opinion worth less than a warm cup of piss
---
Don't underestimate piss power
"Folks who do not like guns [are] fine. But we have millions of people who are gun owners in this country — 99.9 percent of those people obey the law."
Feel the Bern.
Interesting to see his supporters, who often have absolutist views like the author, squirm around when presented with his quote.
If I get a response at all, they suggest Bernie will "do the right thing" once in office. Then when I ask if that's lying, no further response.
News Flash to Ritmo/
Even lefty constitutional lawyer Larry Tribe holds that the right to "bear arms" is an individual right. "Because," he has said, "Without that you don't get Lexington and Concord."
@Rhythm and Balls seems to acknowledge the right of self defense without naming the best tool. Ask the President, he knows.
Nuclear arms and bazookas are defensive arms that can be kept and borne, also. Just ask Harry Truman. As are dirty bombs. Just ask al Qaeda.
Try to ban guns. We won't turn them. We will not comply.
Something similar was said to Janet Reno in Waco Texas. It would be fun to watch that play out in the manner you hope for.
No other right in the Bill of Rights is a right of groups.
Congress shall make no law.. abridging ...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Ever read the Bill of Rights?
Ever think about what it means?
Blogger Rhythm and Balls said...
"But keep trying to pretend that you NRA gun nutters are not just violent psychopaths defending the newly invented "rights" of other violent psychopaths."
You are aware, right, that despite the violent psychopathology you suppose us NRA gun nutters to suffer from, we almost never use our weapons to commit crimes? There are large numbers of crimes committed by people with guns, but almost none of those people have concealed carry permits. We are, in fact, a rather well-regulated bunch. I suppose we could be a little more careful about letting our guns get stolen, since that is where the criminals get a lot of the guns they use in their crimes. Believe me, it's a problem I think about often. You can't take it into work with you, because it's a self-defense-free zone. But if you leave it in your car...
It's easy to get caught up in this, even if basically an impracticable proposition..unless possible by executive order. At the top, it serves the purpose of whipping up bases while distracting from what is going on or about to go on.
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.
Th Second Amendment recognizes an unalienable Right: the right of people to keep and bear Arms (e.g. self-defense, hunting); a secondary function: a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State; and a legal right: shall not be infringed.
Birkel said...
Rusty,
No other right in the Bill of Rights is a right of groups. That is the purposeful misreading "Rhythm and Balls" attempts.
Given the available history of the document and all the comentary published then and through the years, it's fun to watch the left tie themselves in knots over this. They have no anwers except ,"guns are bad mkay." without a whit of logic to back any of their absurd claims. As we speak himself and the other usual suspects are typing furiously, like masterbating monkeys, to google something that proves their point. Well. I'll save then some time. They won't find anything in the founding documents.
Rhythm and Balls said...
@Rhythm and Balls seems to acknowledge the right of self defense without naming the best tool. Ask the President, he knows.
Nuclear arms and bazookas are defensive arms that can be kept and borne, also. Just ask Harry Truman. As are dirty bombs. Just ask al Qaeda.
It means the same then as it does now. Those weapons that an infintryman of a regular army would have. IOWs the militia man would have his M4 and a side arm at home along with 300 rounds of ammunition.
Another liberal fool espousing foolishness. Nothing new here to see. More interesting would be if one or more states refuse to recognize SSM licenses from states that don't recognize their CCW licenses. Or driver's licenses from states that permit illegal aliens to obtain licenses.
R & B froths at the mouth about banning guns but offers no plausible explanation of how it is that guns will be banned. By an Act Of Congress? Does he really think any Congress that is composed of officials elected in part by the one third of the population that owns guns is ever going to outright ban them? And if the gunner banners somehow managed to get such a law passed who is going to enforce it? And what will they do when those tasked to confiscate the guns refuse to do so? Logic isn't strong with the gun banners.
Whether a clause in a sentence is primary or "subordinate" (you guys really seem to like dominating hierarchies in how you even think of grammar) has nothing to do with the purpose of the clause or how it is further explained. If militias are the purpose of a well-armed population, it is up to the states regulating those militias to decide who would or should not be a member. Not the douchebags at the Walmart gun counter or NRA, or the yahoos here agreeing to that priority.
Rhythm and Balls said...
"Try to ban guns. We won't turn them. We will not comply.
Something similar was said to Janet Reno in Waco Texas. It would be fun to watch that play out in the manner you hope for."
I'm atraid he's right, ritmo. There are far,far more firearm owners than there are federal employees to enforce the law. The National Gaurd and Armed forces are out due to posse commitatus. Just one percent is over a million citizens not complying. Te police aren't going to help. They're going to be part of the million. How many divisions does Homeland Security have? The funny part of all of this is, because of your fear of guns, you're going to rely on other people with guns. Most of whom are less well trained than your average gun owner.
The only way this is going to work for you, ritmo, is the repeal the second amendment. And that. My nervous little friend. Will never happen.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Try to ban guns. We won't turn them. We will not comply.
Something similar was said to Janet Reno in Waco Texas. It would be fun to watch that play out in the manner you hope for.
12/13/15, 2:26 PM"
You missed the part that the raid occurred after these whacko's in Waco shot at the federal agents who were to stupid and arrogant to arrest Koresh when they had the opportunity to do so safely when he was out of the compound and the second raid that resulted in the government burning eighty people to death including the very children the government stated the raid was supposed to save. More likely a total gun ban attempt will result an Allende outcome.
R&B:
Why do you long to be a serf? Or do you imagine you will be one of the lords?
R & B froths at the mouth about banning guns but offers no plausible explanation of how it is that guns will be banned.
When did I once argue in favor a blanket ban on all firearms?
Logic isn't strong with the gun banners.
And reading isn't strong with yours. Starting with the Bill of Rights.
I'm atraid he's right, ritmo. There are far,far more firearm owners than there are federal employees to enforce the law.
A few JDAMs, MOABs and other massive ordinance will take care of that. It's hilarious to see how much faith the "Red Dawn" crowd here has in small munitions and other non-artillery. It must give you a thrill of orgasmic proportions to believe you can take on the U.S. military. (And I mean the kind of military that FDR led, not the kind that Nixon, Reagan and W. led to ignominious defeats).
...because of your fear of guns...
Ahh. "Fear" of guns, you say. Is that like the made-up term of "Islamophobia"?
Let's be clear, I think the gun-nutters and Islamists are both bad and dangerous to law-abiding decent people (unless you think high gun homicide rates are a good thing that should be celebrated), but they both contain the seeds of their own destruction. Islamists like martyring themselves and have anti-liberal doctrines that will hasten the pressure for reform (assuming idiots like Trump butt out) and gun-nutters like you are more likely to use your fetish object to kill yourself than it is that it will kill someone else.
Both good things.
Birkel said:
"Humperdink:
I don't understand your timeline. First you said disarm the politicians. Then you said disarm the criminals.
Do you see the problem?"
Birkel, You apparently have failed to pick up sarcasm or I am misreading your response.
Yeah, I will turn my guns when the politicians do (of course they will never do this).
Secondly, the crooks and terrorists will be expected by the aforementioned politicos to turn theirs guns in also (of course they also will never do this).
The only group likely to turn their weapons in are the law abiding citizens. In this toxic environment, this is iffy at best.
Yes, clown show. I know each individual has a right to come together (i.e. assemble) but are you arguing assembly is not an individual right?
Seriously, "Rhythm and Balls" is about as fucking stupid as can be managed while still typing in a recognizable language.
Interesting clip with Trey Goudy
Governments don't typically ban assembly by telling individual people where they can and can't go. They declare certain places off-limits to large groups because they know they are used for that purpose. Hence, Tienanmen Square is not a ghost-town. It is just forbidden to congregate and stage protests there. But it does not ban any individual from walking through it.
Thanks for stupidity.
Humperdink,
I was calling politicians criminals.
I was making an additional joke.
Shoot!
(Pun intended.)
R&B said
"A few JDAMs, MOABs and other massive ordinance will take care of that. It's hilarious to see how much faith the "Red Dawn" crowd here has in small munitions and other non-artillery. It must give you a thrill of orgasmic proportions to believe you can take on the U.S. military. (And I mean the kind of military that FDR led, not the kind that Nixon, Reagan and W. led to ignominious defeats)."
LOL, we don't use these weapons enough against enemies on the other side of the globe, what makes you think that policy and the Americans themselves at the triggers will use them against their own neighborhoods?
"And reading isn't strong with yours. Starting with the Bill of Rights."
No. Everyone else hae pretty much given the correct hitorical definition. Yours however is a rather modern one. Promulgated by gun control inc.
"Ahh. "Fear" of guns, you say."
Of course you're afraid. Othrwise you wouldn't be bleating on about it.
According to the CDC the United States ranks 111 out of 218 countries in homicide by firearm. Or 4.5 per 100,000 people. When corrected for drug related homicides by firearm the United states falls to 1.0 per 100,000.As per the FBI stats. More than Denmark but less than Italy. Most of those homicides are committed by people who can't legaly own a gun. so your "common sene" gun laws wouldn't have done anything.
But you keep on swingin there sparky.
@Birkel, Thick meet Brick (me). Ha.
I missed it because I usually associate politicians with financial criminality, not violent crimes.
Of course, that obviously excludes Team Clinton. "They're easy to track, they leave dead bodies where ever they go."(The movie The Outlaw Josie Wales)
Remember, the people who wrote the Second Amendment, also wrote the laws that prohibited a standing army in time of peace.
Yeah, sure. But the good news is that they did not put anything about standing armies in the Constitution. O those wise founding fathers!
Even the right to free speech we don't "infringe" when it comes to incarcerated inmates, and yet, time place and manner restrictions are a part of the game.
I could be reading this wrong. The comment seems to be saying that since free speech is ‘restricted’ that guns should be ‘restricted’ in some manner as yet undefined by the commentor.
But readers, just how many restrictions are there on speech? The answer is not many, not many at all. The Left, the Establishment and various other groups keep trying to restrict speech but the SCOTUS keeps allowing it. Thanks to the Constitution and the SCOTUS I am free to say practically any damn thing I want to say.
And so the anti-gun folks keep trying to disarm the citizens but the Constitution and the SCOTUS keep stubbornly allowing citizens the right to bear arms. This situation causes much consternation to those who want to make others do their bidding.
But not to fear. Going against the 2nd Amendment is political suicide for most Democrat politicians(those that are left in Congress). And they know it.
For instance, why does the 2nd Amendment refer to a "well-regulated" militia? Who is to regulate this militia?
“Well-regulated” to the founding fathers meant the same as “well organized,” or “well drilled.” The phrase had nothing to do with the state restricting the right to bear arms.
https://tinyurl.com/926tb
Rusty, lift the visor and show your face before you go on about who's afraid of what. Most gun zealots are afraid of the government or of armed criminals, hence the need they feel to have a gun.
But they're not afraid of killing themselves with the weapon, which is apparently a good thing given how often they do it. (64% of all gun-related deaths in 2012 were suicides).
My proposal is to confiscate the firearms of all gun-owners who kill themselves, since they seem to prove that they can't be trusted with a deadly weapon.
I'm not afraid of you killing yourself with your guns, Rusty. (The possibility of you going postal is another matter). Which route you go is something you'll have to clarify.
And I love the sanctimony of calling your opponents fear-mongerers. You need to levy that charge against the parents at Sandy Hook, Aurora, San Bernardino. I understand you prefer the more cowardly route of calling me a fear-mongerer. Let's go see you say that to the people whose loved ones were actually gunned down. Assuming you can first bring yourself to acknowledging that they exist and have rights.
Of course, you won't do that. You prefer to do your bullying with people who can stand up to you and don't make you look like as much the bully that you really are. Sure, you wish you could call the loved ones of the victims at Sandy Hook and Aurora and San Bernardino cowards, but you won't do that. You'd like to, but instead you only show your true colors like that to me.
It's ok. I'll point it out to them. Give me your address and I'll forward it on to all the victims' families. You can tell them that they're the ones who are cowards with an excessive fear of guns.
Go on. Do it.
If militias are the purpose of a well-armed population, it is up to the states regulating those militias to decide who would or should not be a member.
Like it was up to the lawful government of the time to decide who would or should not be a member of the Massachusetts militia in 1775? That is, the government of His Royal Majesty George III?
The militia is not a unit of government. It is not a subset of government. The militia is not under the government. The militia is a unit of society, separate and distinct from, yet parallel and related to, government.
Remember, Althouse commenters, "Rhythm and Balls" thinks the right to Assembly is a collective right. It's shoved in there with speech and religion so "Rhythm and Balls" assumes but cause multiple individuals exercise this right simultaneously it is a group right.
By this logic "Rhythm and Balls" must think freedom of religion is a group right or the list makes no sense.
Collectivists hate individuals. Collectivists hate individuality. Collectivists hate individual rights. Fucking fascists, the lot.
Well..that was a fun read. But Monday is coming and it's prudent to resume your meds R&B.
"But gun nuts want to prevent recognition of restrictions even that limited."
Because we know those "reasonable" restrictions are not made in good faith, and will be used to make an end-run around our right to self-defense.
Calling us "gun nuts" only reinforces our distrust and contempt for you.
And these calls to "save lives" are just more bullshit. You don't care about all the lives murdered by Planned Parenthood. You don't care about all the black lives lost to ghetto violence by other blacks. You don't care about the innocents killed by muslim terrorists in our own country. So spare me this appeal to "saving lives" because that's not your real motive.
"If militias are the purpose of a well-armed population, it is up to the states regulating those militias to decide who would or should not be a member."
If you want to know where the 2nd amendment came from, read "Heroes and Hunters of the West" (John Frost, 1860). It is basically a collected folklore history of the settling of the near West before 1820. Lots of small skirmishes between Indians, bandits, and settlers. It was critical, in those days, for these small, isolated communities to defend themselves collectively, and for individual settlers to defend themselves and their families.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26965
As my daddy always said, "The a Founders lived it."
ritmo.
You have a reading comprehension problem. Probably agravated by your confusion and fear. No need to be afraid ritmo. or go ahead. be afraid. your call.
Lol. After all his flailing, the best "Birkie" can come up with is the idea that an assembly can be composed of a single person.
The 1st amendment addresses the right of "the people" to peaceably assemble. As with the 2nd and the way it was interpreted all the way up until 2008, it's a collective right. Those clauses preceding it simply say "Congress shall make no law respecting... prohibiting... or abridging..." abstract things. So those things cannot apply in any other way but to individuals, because no laws affecting speech would apply but to individuals. You can't accuse a collective of violating a law, only an individual or incorporated entity.
There is no way of violating a law against assembly, because assembly is a group phenomenon. Look up the definition. A single person cannot "assemble". When groups acquire permits for assembly in public spaces, they apply to groups of people.
But Birkel will commit jihad upon the dictionary and upon the way the 1st amendment is worded and against common sense to make his 2nd amendment mean what he wishes it could mean.
Again, if the 2nd amendment is an individual right, then it would apply to everyone, as the speech and religion clauses of the 1st do. That would mean no infringing the right of the incarcerated inmate - he gets a 2nd amendment right also. Or the mentally ill (like Rusty) - they get uninfringeable 2nd amendment rights also.
We do not infringe upon these 1st amendment rights for inmates or the mentally ill because they are necessarily individual rights. But the 2nd is worded in the same way the group right of assembly is. Again, are assembly permits granted to individuals or to organizations?
Birkel represents the anger of a gun-nut coming to terms with the fact that not every trial can be settled with violence. He just lost this little test without a shot fired, and it makes him irate enough to want to shoot someone.
Poor Birkel.
You can't address the argument either, walter.
Calling us "gun nuts" only reinforces our distrust and contempt for you.
Oh, I'm sure you'll figure out how to distrust and be contemptible to something else, if it weren't for me.
Too bad distrust and contempt aren't coherent arguments.
And these calls to "save lives" are just more bullshit. You don't care about all the lives murdered by Planned Parenthood.
Oh I forgot. You only care about the lives of the brain-dead. Those who haven't developed brains yet.
It's the only kind of life you identify with?
You don't care about all the black lives lost to ghetto violence by other blacks. You don't care about the innocents killed by muslim terrorists in our own country. So spare me this appeal to "saving lives" because that's not your real motive.
Are you sure you're finished? No kitchen sink? Anything else you want to accuse me of? How about the extinction of the dinosaurs? Maybe I did that also.
Obviously you don't care about everyone gunned down in every U.S. massacre we've had, though. That much is for certain.
Yup. Ritmo kneejerked, as expect. Must mean I am on target.
And one more idiocy noted:
A single person can gain a permit to exercise Assembly, "Rhythm and Balls". Your attempt to define the First Amendment as a set of group rights is foolish, goes against the history and the interpretation of the rights enumerated. You are a fascist fool.
"Again, if the 2nd amendment is an individual right, then it would apply to everyone, as the speech and religion clauses of the 1st do. That would mean no infringing the right of the incarcerated inmate - he gets a 2nd amendment right also. Or the mentally ill (like Rusty) - they get uninfringeable 2nd amendment rights also.
We do not infringe upon these 1st amendment rights for inmates or the mentally ill because they are necessarily individual rights. But the 2nd is worded in the same way the group right of assembly is. Again, are assembly permits granted to individuals or to organizations? "
You seem to miss the fact that prisoners have their civil rights curtailed or limited and that includes freedom of speech among others. The limitation of rights of prisoners is even mentioned in the Constitution. The mentally ill can have their civil rights curtailed in certain circumstances but that argument isn't going to fly with Congress or the courts when it comes to a third or more of the adults in the nation regarding guns. However it is nice to note that you recognize that rights are individual and the collective that you refer to is only individuals expressing their individual rights in concert. It took an amendment to the Constitution to tax income and it will take an amendment to ban guns as you are advocating.
The Founders wrote "the right of the people."
They could have written "the rights of the States," or "the right of the organized militia," or "the right of landholders." They could have assigned that right to anyone they chose. They didn't. They wrote "the right of the people."
The subordinate clause that illiterate handwringing mouthbreathing imbiciles like Ritmo keep harping on does not negate the word "people."
As with the 2nd and the way it was interpreted all the way up until 2008, it's a collective right.
Since when? Because it was never written as a collective right.
So religion and speech are group rights, or the list makes no sense.
Assembly is a group right, not atomistic** individuals making separate decisions to exercise Assembly.
You are a fascist and I am armed. Good luck.
Molon labe
**corrected the autocorrect screw up
A religion is someone's matter of personal conscience.
Speech is what comes out of someone's individual mouth. (Unless it's Birkel's mouth. Everything he says is just parroted from something he heard someone else say, as he has no original thoughts).
Assembly requires more than one person. There is no expression for "one person assembled." Or "one person gathered (intransitive sense)." Try putting those phrases into writing and getting published anywhere. Won't happen.
A militia of one person is called a vigilante. Militias are groups of people who act in a coordinated fashion.
You seem to have a lot of trouble with the English language. Would you like a recommendation for a tutor?
Militias were drawn BY THE STATES from the people. Just as they had a right to determine militia membership, they had a right to determine which of the people were fit to keep and bear arms. All of Jason's mouth breathing doesn't change that.
"Molon labe"
As much as I can tell you'd like me to, I'd never even think of touching your penis.
So that's a no on the invitation to come and get it.
You'll have to find someone else.
So the rest of the list is about individual rights? But the Founders stuck that oddball group right into the middle of the list?
But don't you worry. You are wrong, have no support in any case law and no idea how stupid you show yourself to be.
(Did you ever imagine it odd that an Assembly cannot happen without one person starting it? No? Rest easy in your ignorance.)
Post a Comment