Good news: Bush’s DOJ files brief arguing against absolute Second Amendment right
posted at 3:15 pm on January 12, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Unsurprising. Not only has Bush never been a movement conservative but his DOJ’s understandably worried about the shock to the system if every gun law in the country simultaneously becomes unenforceable next summer. So they’re arguing for flexibility: Yes, it’s an individual right, yes, the burden on the government to interfere with that right should be high — but it shouldn’t be so high as to prevent the government from interfering altogether. Behold, the dreaded ad hoc balancing test:
Although the court of appeals correctly held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, it did not apply the correct standard for evaluating respondent’s Second Amendment claim. Like other provisions of the Constitution that secure individual rights, the Second Amendment’s protection of individual rights does not render all laws limiting gun ownership automatically invalid. To the contrary, the Second Amendment, properly construed, allows for reasonable regulation of firearms, must be interpreted in light of context and history, and is subject to important exceptions, such as the rule that convicted felons may be denied firearms because those persons have never been understood to be within the Amendment’s protections. Nothing in the Second Amendment properly understood—and certainly no principle necessary to decide this case—calls for invalidation of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms.
When, as here, a law directly limits the private possession of “Arms” in a way that has no grounding in Framing-era practice, the Second Amendment requires that the law be subject to heightened scrutiny that considers (a) the practical impact of the challenged restrictions
on the plaintiff ’s ability to possess firearms for lawful purposes (which depends in turn on the nature and functional adequacy of available alternatives), and (b) the strength of the government’s interest in enforcement of the relevant restriction… Under that intermediate
level of review, the “rigorousness” of the inquiry depends on the degree of the burden on protected conduct, and important regulatory interests are typically sufficient to justify reasonable restrictions.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »
csdeven. . . suppose our government comes under attack from a foreign country. Suppose that foreign country invades and defeats Washington DC. Now we have an entire country full of armed citizens to fight against the oppressors that the GOVERNMENT could not defeat.
So yes, wouldn’t you feel safer knowing that your neighbor had a tank or a bazooka to protect your property against seizure from the rogue government that defeated your elected government? Would you rather your elected government disarm the citizens that it could not protect?
The 2nd amendment is the most important freedom that we have.
ThackerAgency on January 12, 2008 at 9:37 PM
You actually think the police are going to attack your family? Why are you so paranoid? Are you hiding something?
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 9:38 PM
Someone wrote that the US Constitution is outdated. Perhaps it is but there is a procedure to amend it if change is what the majority wants. Changing the obvious meaning of the words is NOT a proper procedure for change.
I believe that the Constitution writers intended that the people have access to the same arms as the government. How else could the people resist government totalitarianism if it came to that?
docdave on January 12, 2008 at 9:40 PM
More hyperbole.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 9:35 PM
more noninformation form someone that has no argument accept a deep seated fear of the unknown and wants security over freedom. You would make Danial Boone puke.
unseen on January 12, 2008 at 9:40 PM
You actually think the police are going to attack your family? Why are you so paranoid? Are you hiding something?
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 9:38 PM
Oh yeah because that could never happen. the police are perfect.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/11/92yearold_woman.html
92-year-old woman dies in shootout with police
unseen on January 12, 2008 at 9:42 PM
Yeah, right. We want citizens firing bazooka’s willy nilly at tanks in residential neighborhoods. The US Army doesn’t even use force that way. They are much more responsible for the innocent people who happened to be in the area.
Responsible gun owners would never fire a bazooka on a tank in a residential neighborhood. They’d end up killing more people than the tank did.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 9:43 PM
docdave on January 12, 2008 at 9:40 PM
Don’t worry docdave there has never been a government in human history that usurped the people’s freedom’s.
Oh yeah and fire never melted steel.
unseen on January 12, 2008 at 9:44 PM
Responsible gun owners would never fire a bazooka on a tank in a residential neighborhood. They’d end up killing more people than the tank did.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 9:43 PM
As a responsible gun owner, if I saw a tank running havoc in my neighborhood and I had the means to end the threat I would end the threat. I would not be like you cowering in my own filth hoping and praying the “adults” will come and save me from the crazies.
unseen on January 12, 2008 at 9:47 PM
Indeed. It assures all other freedoms.
joewm315 on January 12, 2008 at 9:48 PM
ThackerAgency on January 12, 2008 at 9:37 PM
Kind of explains why we as a country have never been invaded by a forgien force en mass.
unseen on January 12, 2008 at 9:49 PM
OK time for everyone including csdeven to put on a tin foil hat
From what you can tell, based on my S/N I used to work with F15’s and if you assume that is true reason would say I may know something about the F-15 (and have friends that know even more), and Bryan (based on some of his posts/NASA) may know something about space (and maybe have friends that may know even more).
Back in the day B. Arnold and the VT mountain men took a certain fort (from the Brits) and then the cannons were used against the Brits…
Anyone see a correlation here?
Just to clarify I am not advocating something like that now but if you look at history the US/UK revolution started with the US being the underdog.
Take off tin-foil hat.
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 9:49 PM
Yeah, right. We want citizens firing bazooka’s willy nilly at tanks in residential neighborhoods.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Your faith in your follow citizens amazes me. You fear the free citizens more than your own government. There is a problem there. You sure you live in the right country. sounds like you would be more at home in Russia or China.
unseen on January 12, 2008 at 9:52 PM
As a matter of fact, yes. There are an ever increasing examples of the police using swat teams and deadly force for minor incidents. No knock drug busts lead the way with a growing number of hitting the wrong address which sometimes resulting in the death of the innocent occupants. All in all, there is more to fear from ambitious politicians and overzealous cops/prosecutors than ordinary criminals.
docdave on January 12, 2008 at 9:52 PM
If the government wanted to take over Iraq the way you say the government would take over us, we would have bombed them into oblivion. Your hyperbolic arguments are a waste of time.
It is my business when my neighbors, who are so irrational that they want to USE bazookas and tanks in my neighborhood. Our communities collectively agree to create a police force to protect us. We have redress with them to make sure they are trained responsibly with the right weapons in the right situations.
Who trained you? Who are you responsible to? Who do I complain to when a crackpot sends a 300 .50 cal rounds through his walls, my walls, and the neighbors walls because he’s shooting at a bad guy who broke into his home?
Sorry dude, weak argument. We are a rational society that needs to be governed by rational laws. Thinking that the founding fathers would think you should be allowed to own a nuke is just pure ignorance of their intent. They would have opted for limiting the government to having no weapons that were unreasonable for their citizens to own. Ergo, muskets and cannons.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 9:55 PM
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 9:49 PM
I agree that if the day ever came, more than half of the army would side with freedom over tranny, at least I hope so. But for the day to be started in the first place people need to have the means to rebel/revolt if needed. Sheep do not charge the sheephearder. Bulls do.
unseen on January 12, 2008 at 9:55 PM
You actually think the police are going to attack your family? Why are you so paranoid? Are you hiding something?
Love that. If you’ve done nothing wrong,, you have nothing to fear! The government is here to help! Just ask that guy and his family up on Ruby Ridge! Well, I guess you can’t ask his wife since it was a government sniper that blew her face off. Oh,, you can’t ask his son either. Dead. Shot in the back while running away. From another government person that was there to help.
JellyToast on January 12, 2008 at 9:58 PM
That is what is so cool about the US/and our fore fathers insight.
No we don’t want that of course, I hope with proper training willy-nilly would become focused “sight alignment trigger squeeze” but that is just me.
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 9:59 PM
Any government that could beat our military would have no trouble with a bunch of local yokals that have no military training.
Your bazooka would be worthless. Same with your tank.
Meanwhile, while we wait for that day, I have a beta male neighbor just waiting to use his hardware in my neighborhood.
That makes no sense.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Oh great! So the Bush White House thinks that we should only be able to carry flintlocks? Of course I guess that also includes cannon, huh?
conservnut on January 12, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Exactly, that is were the 2nd comes into play (as our founders intended).
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 10:05 PM
Who trained you? Who are you responsible to? Who do I complain to when a crackpot sends a 300 .50 cal rounds through his walls, my walls, and the neighbors walls because he’s shooting at a bad guy who broke into his home?
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 9:55 PM
I trained myself, I am responsible for myself and my actions.
If I send a stray .50 cal bullet into someone elses walls defending my property I should be held accountable. I am an adult. I understand the firepower of a .50cal. I understand the force needed to repel an attacker from my home. I will use the correct force for the correct scenrio. Because I am an American male train in the art of freedom and personal responsibility from the time I was a baby in my mother’s arms. If my neighbors where not so trained it is not my problem until they prove that they are not responsible. Until they do show this irresponsibility I have no right, duty, or obligation to take their rights away from them “because something bad might happen”.
We create a police force to keep the peace and to enforce the laws. We do not create a police force to ptrotect us every minute of every day. When the police force can not keep the peace or enforce the laws we has free peoples have a duty and a right to impose that peace and enforce that law
unseen on January 12, 2008 at 10:06 PM
Do you believe that they, a people who didn’t even know what a friggen light bulb was, could have imagined a weapon that could destroy entire cites? If they had one single clue of that, they would have restricted the government from owning those weapons, not the people. Unfortunately, that genie is out of the bottle, and it’s insulting to their memory to suggest that they would think citizens could own WMD’s. Truly insulting.
Like I said, and a lot of you would be smart to re-think the intent of the founding fathers, they would have limited the government from having those weapons. But they had no clue, so their view isn’t up to date with the times. We need to learn by their example and be the rational ones now.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 10:06 PM
cs, you are sounding very “nanny-stateish” tonight.
The constitution is very clear on this subject. And the intent of the forefathers is as well.
By your reasoning every arm invented since 1786 or so should be outlawed.
conservnut on January 12, 2008 at 10:09 PM
We need to learn by their example and be the rational ones now.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 10:06 PM
Yeah way to use hyperbolye. How you got from bazooka to atomic bomb I will never know.
your betaness is showing.
unseen on January 12, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Then IMO, you are not a responsible gun owner. If you were, you would know that stopping a tank running amok is not your responsibility to try and stop. If the police wanted RPG’s used in residential areas, THEY’D be using them.
Tell you what, why don’t you take your hyperbolic argument up a notch? Lets talk about the Chinese nuking us and how you’re gonna stop them using your nuke? Do these kind of justifications make you feel better? Why don’t you make an argument for gun ownership that has a rational chance of happening? Like a guy breaking into your home? Or a car-jacking?
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Oh I think they did have a clue. Explosives and cannon as well as many other new weapon systems had been developed by that time. Yet the founders did not outlaw any of them. They did not say “you can own a squirrel gun and nothing else” “The said the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
They were more than clear about that. And I don’t think you should sell these guys short on their vision!
conservnut on January 12, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Do you really think the guys you work with would follow an order to bomb his neighbors?
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Damn that sort of logic makes me think you are from Vulcan.
You are responsible for your own actions, and will answer for them? Damn what a thought.
*salute*
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 10:19 PM
No. I fear crazy people who think the government is out to hurt them.
Good gravy! Do you hear yourself? What you are saying is that every single member of every police force and the military, YOUR FRIGGEN NEIGHBORS, would turn their weapons on you?
No I am the one who has faith in my fellow man. You, I got no idea where you get your delusions. But for you to look at every person in your community as a threat is a belif that is not grounded in reality.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Why don’t you make an argument for gun ownership that has a rational chance of happening? Like a guy breaking into your home? Or a car-jacking?
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 10:13 PM
because those arguments while correct is not the intention of the 2nd amendment. A case could be made however wrongly that the police can protect us from a break in, that homeowners can have security companies protect them, that cars can be stopped from working if the owner is not behind the wheel. All those arguments can lead but to one place that the 2nd amendment will not be needed in the future. It is a strawman’s argument.
The one thing that can not be wished away or changed is why we have the 2nd amendment in the first place and that is to defend us form invasion and governmental usurption of our God Given rights and freedoms. there is no protection from that but one and that is ARMED rebellion. No voting box, no peaceful march can stop a government hell bent on grabing power. Nothing but a well armed citizenry.
And in point of your arguement, It is every American’s responsibility, and duty to protect fellow citizens from nutcases if able to.
And if a tank is bearing down on you and I am standing in its way with a RPG. I am sure you will say no don’t fire on it. Let it run me over because only the police are trained to protect me. What are you smoking/drinking tonight because it seems to be really strong stuff.
unseen on January 12, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Opposed to a governments order to suppress the people?
Every one in the military takes an oath to defend the US Constitution, not to protect/defend an certain administration…
That is what is so cool about the US and to answer your question they will fight/defend the US Constitution first.
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 10:25 PM
That may be, but your bazooka isn’t going to stop them. That is why we have system of laws based on civil rights. The 2nd is certainly one of those rights, but trying to equate it to rogue tanks and secret government conspiracies is what makes rational guns owners look like nuts.
Fear? Wait until your crazy neighbor who is waiting for WWIII gets a hold of a tank he’s just itching to use. Rational people accept rational restrictions on their rights. Some of these guys sound like they’d advocate yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater just because they don’t want anyone sticking their nose into their business.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Kinda fits this argument huh cs?
conservnut on January 12, 2008 at 10:26 PM
So do you agree? A military take over by this country isn’t gonna happen.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 10:28 PM
Here’s another quote for you.
conservnut on January 12, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Exactly! And for that reason you do not NEED a .50 cal to defend your home. You may need it for your ego. You may want it to make you feel like you can protect the neighborhood from the next tank that comes barreling down the street. But you know as well as I that any responsible firearms training would tell you that you cannot fire off an RPG or a M2 in a residential neighborhood! So stop making that argument. It’s irrational.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 10:34 PM
No. I fear crazy people who think the government is out to hurt them
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Yeah your right, because you know government is not a neccasary evil that should be limited in its power to protect the freedoms of the people they rule. Those people that think that way are just crazy because you know it has never happened in the entire human history.
Oh wait a minute. Scratch that it HAS happened in EVERY government ever formed throughout human history but you know maybe this time things will be different and the elites will just let go of their power and lie down by the campfire and we could all have a good sing/cry together.
I am not telling my fellow citizens what they can own and what they can’t that is your arguement, you are the one afraid of their actions and would rather trust the government then you neighbors. People do things all the time for greed, power, sex, etc. Will some in government turn against their own neighbors if they can have more power, more money? You bet your beta male ass they would. Knowing this should we try to stop them from doing this? That would be like trying to stop the tide from coming in because human nature is human nature. No. You defend from the possiblity of it happening not try to stop it from happening.
unseen on January 12, 2008 at 10:34 PM
Aren’t you the one that said “no restrictions”?
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 10:35 PM
Really? Show we where it addresses even the HINT of WMD’s.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 10:37 PM
No I could not completely disagree with you more.
I am saying that me and my friends took an oath to protect the Constitution and will always act accordingly.
A military take over is not warranted/even on the scope at this time.
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 10:38 PM
I don’t think you should sell them short on their intelligence by claiming that there should never be a restriction on “arms” considering we now have weapons that can destroy entire cities.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Do so. Remember Carolyn McCarthy? The one Michael J. Fox shilled for? She helped push it, and Chuck Schumer is gushing that he’s been able to keep guns out of that increasing numbers of diagnosed depressives. Meanwhile, state governments like Illinois are forcing schoolchildren to take Ritalin(and punishing parents who dare think they know better), so how long before every citizen can be attributed a mental illness? Not trying to sound paranoid, but this is a startling bill. Now that they’ve won that one, they’re after gun shows. Funny, since I just read an FBI study that determined cop killers obtain their weapons from gun shows something like three or four percent of the time. Gotta keep those guns in check!
Yes. Unfathomable as it may be in this day and age, it is the WHOLE REASON the second amendment exists. After what happened in New Orleans, it’s becoming a frightening reality. If we accept that we are completely at the mercy of our government, the constitution is totally null and void. The second amendment is meaningless unless citizens have the courage to use it under circumstances considered possible by the founding fathers. Hell, Thomas Jefferson suggested armed revolution every 20 years. Look for a quote about how the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Now, that said, I have a good life. I’m gainfully employed, living in a low-crime city, effectively married, and content with my lot. If the ATF came to my door tomorrow and demanded any weapons I owned, would I fight to the death for them? Admittedly, probably not. By the same token, that probably won’t happen tomorrow. However, the precedent must remain there for us to exercise should it occur. It is about having that established system of checks and balances within the power of the people, which deters the government from implementing totalitarian policies. While we may never need to exercise those rights, they need to exist.
MadisonConservative on January 12, 2008 at 10:40 PM
That is what I said. The US government is not going to take over their citizenry. Because they would violate the constitution to do it, and like you said, you all took an oath to uphold it. It’s simple.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 10:41 PM
Watch this before you make any more silly dismissals of that idea. No, it’s not nut-stuff…it’s a video put out by the NRA, unless you consider them crazy.
MadisonConservative on January 12, 2008 at 10:43 PM
csdeven,
You don’t seam to understand the difference between a flag or a simple piece of paper like the Constitution vs some people in Washington DC.
I find that sad.
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 10:43 PM
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 10:34 Pm
On a normal day I would not need a pistol, nor a shotgun, on a normal day I would not need to defend my neighbors from a corrupt government. This has nothing to do with ego. why do you equate owning a gun to male ego? No responsible gunowner I know equates the two. A gun is a means of defense, to put food on the table it does not compensate for lack of ego. It would seem you equate the two for some reason. Why is that?
unseen on January 12, 2008 at 10:43 PM
More to chew on,
A little more Jefferson for you, understand the intent here!
And this quote I love, from Noah Webster in 1787.
You want to talk about intent? Well the intent of the founders was that the government did not even have the firepower that the people had. And therefore could not trample our rights.
So, that begs the question, where are we now. And how far have we departed from the framers intent for this nation?
conservnut on January 12, 2008 at 10:43 PM
csdeven,
My bad I apologize, I did read your comment wrong.
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 10:46 PM
BS! Well armed with F-15’s? M1A Abrams? This isn’t the day’s of cannons and muskets. Technology today is so expensive that you’d be hell bent to get up enough money for your city to buy one single F-15. Or do you think the government should give everyone a F-15 just in case? C’mon. There is no way you should have a F-15, a tank, a nuke, or any other highly lethal weapon at your whim. You’ve already said you would unleash hell on a tank in your ‘hood.
THAT is the kind of attitude that DOESN’T have the temperament to own such weapons and as a citizen in your neighborhood, I have a right to make sure you aren’t a danger to me and my family. I don’t have to wait for you to blow my house up before I can say anything.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 10:49 PM
conservnut on January 12, 2008 at 10:43 PM
We have gone very far afeild and have lost most of our freedoms. All have been given for a false sense of security. Yet still we do have some freedoms left and those freedoms, the freedom of the press, the freedom to be armed, the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures should be defended that much more so.
unseen on January 12, 2008 at 10:52 PM
We were doing so good, and you go and drop the typical gun-control argument. Brady lovers always talk about their right not to live next to an armed man, and you know what? People listen to that garbage.
Yes, you have a right to ensure the safety of your family, and it does not involve infringing on the rights of others. Capiche?
MadisonConservative on January 12, 2008 at 10:53 PM
Hyperbole.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 10:53 PM
If we could ratchet back a little….
When I look at 2A scholarship and history, it seems to me the intent behind the amendment is to safeguard the individual ownership of guns in an unorganized militia context. That’s to say, so an average Joe can arm himself and defend town, county, state, or country if/when needed, without the big s State having to maintain an armory for such a thing. Indeed, the Framer’s experiences in the early stages of the Revolutionary War (when the Brits were going after all the arsenals) may have contributed to this mindset. It’s harder to confiscate a distributed arsenal.
That said, I’m taking csdeven’s point when he’s talking tech. I think the 2A is intended to safeguard private ownership of the kinds of weapons an ordinary soldier would be expected to take into ordinary combat (for lack of a better phrasing.). Most soldiers do not carry machine guns. Most soldiers do not carry anti-tank weapons. But most soldiers do carry automatic rifles and grenades.
If the intent of the 2A is to ensure an unorganized militia that is at least competitive (or “well regulated”), which I think it’s clear it does, then I don’t think weapons above the ordinary soldier standard are protected.
OK, putting on the flame suit now.
JohnTant on January 12, 2008 at 10:54 PM
The independence of our nation was won through force of arms. The 2nd amendment was never intended to be limited to hunting and/or self-defense. There is no evidence whatsoever that mankind has evolved beyond the scope of history, as liberals would have us believe.
Unseen reflects my opinion on this issue. Unseen +1.
FloatingRock on January 12, 2008 at 10:54 PM
“Well armed with F-15’s?”
I would not have a problem with that :)
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Unseen +2
FloatingRock +1
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM
See, this is the problem. I never advocated removing that right. I am advocating reasonable restrictions. The threat of our government acting in a way that we will need nukes or tanks or bazookas is so minimal it is a ridiculous argument. We are secure enough that we can get by with reasonable restrictions to certain arms.
Not yours, but many responses we have seen here tonight is why every gun owner is looked at as a crackpot sitting in his basement petting his AR-15 and calling it “Baby” just waiting for the black helicopters to come and take him away.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 10:58 PM
I have a right to make sure you aren’t a danger to me and my family.
I don’t have to wait for you to blow my house up before I can say anything.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 10:49 PM
You have no such right and yes would have to wait. I have sevral guns now. At no time in my life have I even though of loadiung those guns and firing willy nilly at my neighbors house. I have on occasion thought of what I would do if some stupid person come into my house uninvited in the middle of the night. I’m sure many of my neighbors also own guns. I hear them firing them during hunting season. At no time have I lived in fear that they will come and shoot me.
Why are you so scared of your fellow citizens having weapons? Yet at the same time you are not afraid of giving your freedoms and self defense to a government removed from the cares of the world, ruling in a bubble.
unseen on January 12, 2008 at 10:59 PM
I am advocating reasonable restrictions
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 10:58 PM
And who determines the reasonable restrictions? The government the amendment is meant to be used against. Kind of having the fox rule the chickenhouse wouldn’t you say. Never did I mention WMD. That is a strawman you created .
unseen on January 12, 2008 at 11:06 PM
And why wouldn’t they when we have people here demanding that there be no restrictions on the type of arms they be allowed to have AND that they would take it upon themselves to use those weapons in our neighborhoods.
And yes we were doing well and you go and drop the typical pro-gun hyperbole that make us all look like were crazy gun nuts……
I’m not infringing on anyone rights. I’m advocating that we do not allow people like that access to bazookas and the likes.
You guys have escalated this from reasonable restrictions to a total ban on guns. I never said any such thing.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 11:06 PM
So, I take it that you believe the constitution is a “living, breathing document” subject to changes as the times change and as those “in power” believe it is in the best interests of the “collective good”.
Gee cs, welcome to the democratic party!
conservnut on January 12, 2008 at 11:09 PM
This is where I don’t get your logic. Regardless of the nearly impossible odds if we had to resist government aggression (which, if you’ll recall, were the same odds 230 years ago) the intent of the founders in creating the second amendment was, in essence, permission to do it all over again. The odds are moot.
Given that, you claim we are “secure enough to get by” while at the same time telling us we’re screwed if we do need to resist. That’s a contradiction from a theoretical standpoint. The most effective weapons we could use against such aggression, the weapons that could actually provide enough firepower to counter government war technology, are the ones you are demanding we be rid of.
So, when you say we should give up what we would need to fight government war technology, because of the low chance of needing to fight it, you are reducing the small chance we would have to zero, and thereby challenging the whole point that the second amendment was conceived: that of resistance of government aggression.
And to follow up on an earlier point: My point was that if you don’t love gun porn, you’re a beta. Nothing gets me going like the luscious image of a cold carbonized H&K USP 9MM tactical. God bless America.
MadisonConservative on January 12, 2008 at 11:10 PM
The really cool thing about the US military is that the oath they take is to a single bit of paper (which liberals will say means nothing) and not a government or a head figure. AKA it is the ideals contained in that paper that means something and not the governments actions.
Same thing as the flag.
How cool is that.
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 11:12 PM
9mm?!?
.45 all the way, you beta! :)
JohnTant on January 12, 2008 at 11:12 PM
Ahhhh. Now we can have a rational discussion. thanks!
Who decides? Rational people that’s who. The people we elect with input from us. And if you voted to put the fox in charge of the chicken coop, take it up with the founding fathers, they set the system up that way. Just because you used it wrong isn’t their fault.
I went back and checked and it wasn’t you who said no restrictions. I apologize. But, we still are at odds because I’m not willing to direct my representatives to expand the right to own arms to include bazookas and tanks.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 11:13 PM
I’m not infringing on anyone rights. I’m advocating that we do not allow people like that access to bazookas and the likes.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 11:06 PM
Yes you are by advocating what you are advocating.
Let’s say I don’t think people like you should have a keyboard. I don’t trust you not to advocate for the distruction of my right to bear arms. So I think we should just take your keyboard away. If we ended up taking your keyboard away for the “greater good” would I not be infringing on your right to free speech. After all you can still yell it from you rooftop. The keyboard is in technical terms an advanced form of free speech that our founding fathers could never dream of. They could not possibly mean to allow every crazy with a half a brain to sit in his basement typing crazy thoughts that my harm untold hundreds of thousands of people with his craziness. could they.
unseen on January 12, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Very well said my friend! Very well indeed!
conservnut on January 12, 2008 at 11:14 PM
One problem H&K is not a US company, but the USP it is a damn good firearm.
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 11:16 PM
csdeven, I don’t think bazookas are part of this case.
funky chicken on January 12, 2008 at 11:19 PM
Damn, you’re good!
conservnut on January 12, 2008 at 11:21 PM
It is long past time for GWB to amble on back to Crawford.
-Before he does any further damage to this great but crumbling nation.
Good riddance, George, and don’t let the door hit you in the a$$ on the way out.
As for my guns, I’ll be keeping those, thank you very much.
God, what a disaster he has been!
Dave R. on January 12, 2008 at 11:23 PM
Several points.
1) Being resonable people,can we agree that an American citizen will never own military technology?
2) The founders intent never included the weapons we need to defend ourselves against the technology that the government has now.
3) A careful study of the founding fathers mindset would tell you that had they even envisioned the world we live in now, they would have restricted the US government from owning any weapons that the average American couldn’t get his hands on. Even if we could own an F-15, we could never afford it. So, the right to own it is a dumb right to give to the people. The more logical step would have been for them to RESTRICT the government. THAT is federalism.
So, my suggestion to you guys is to lobby your congresspersons to draft a bill restricting the government from having any weapon systems that we can’t get our hands on. That way the true intent of the founding fathers would be in full effect and the 2nd would actually have some teeth in it.
I don’t NEED gun porn is what I said. Some guys (betas) NEED it because they are making up for NOT being an alpha.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 11:23 PM
Ask unseen. He said they are.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 11:23 PM
Who decides? Rational people that’s who. The people we elect with input from us
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 11:13 PM
Wrong. That is why the founders put it in the consitution. So that “rational people” could not on a whim do away with a basic human right. You want to do away with it? Fine follow the path of the consitution amendment procedure. Which the founders made exceedingly hard to accomplish for the very reason that rational people could not force something down the “irational” people’s thoart willy-nilly. Until that time you can not simply read something that isn’t there into the document that people that did follow the procedure agreed upon.
unseen on January 12, 2008 at 11:24 PM
I want what’s dropped by armed forces should it occur. Plus, no ever confirmed “stopping power” in .45 over 9MM or .40 ;)
I was referring to the right and not the actual brand. Plus, apart from Beretta and Browning (my third and second favorites) too many gun companies have started including more and more safety devices that take longer to deactivate in pressure situations.
Huckabee versus Obama.
MadisonConservative on January 12, 2008 at 11:24 PM
Tell you what, CSDeven, if it helps your argument any, let’s talk about alien invaders from another planet. It changes nothing. If they kill us all, they kill us all. But if they would keep us alive for whatever reason, our being armed makes their domination over us far more difficult.
FloatingRock on January 12, 2008 at 11:26 PM
But what you do with it is still reasonable restricted.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 11:33 PM
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 11:23 PM
Being resonable people,can we agree that an American citizen will never own military technology?
No we can not agree on that in times of revolt/war rational people become an threatened species.
The founders intent never included the weapons we need to defend ourselves against the technology that the government has now.
That was exactly the founders intent. They did not trust government. They viewd government has a snake willing in a flash to swallow the freedom that they fought and died for. They wanted the snaked caged and always hunted so that it could not do want it wanted to do.
A careful study of the founding fathers mindset would tell you that had they even envisioned the world we live in now, they would have restricted the US government from owning any weapons that the average American couldn’t get his hands on. Even if we could own an F-15, we could never afford it. So, the right to own it is a dumb right to give to the people. The more logical step would have been for them to RESTRICT the government. THAT is federalism
Wrong again. The founding fathers agreed that a strong national defense was important. They would have never restricted the government from the ability to portect its citizens. They would have envisioned something like a amorory where in times of need the avg citizen could go and get those weapons rapidly and use those weapons perofienctly against the snake. If the citizens could not afford those weapons the founders would have ensured those weapons were avasilable to the citizenry and would have offered free mandatory classes in how to use said weapons.
So my suggestion is to require every citizen to own a gun and know how to use it and to take monthly classes in advanced weapon training,
unseen on January 12, 2008 at 11:34 PM
In terms of free speech, explain how. I think we’ve discussed before the problem of anonymity, but that problem highlights the fact that in terms of free speech, there IS no restriction.
MadisonConservative on January 12, 2008 at 11:35 PM
But what you do with it is still reasonable restricted.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 11:33 PM
yes and so is what you do with a gun. However there is NO restrictions on owning a keyboard, a computer, a super computer, a printer, etc. I mean why would your avg citizen need a super computer? He probably can’t afford one anyhow. So let’s just outlaw the owning of all super computers by private citizens. They don’t need access to that kind of power, they may hurt someone, or they may reveal some secret that is best kept in the hands of those responsible enough to use it. they may even use it to attack the governments information services. We can’t have some crazy sititng in his basement patting his computer and calling it “Big Betty” now can we?
unseen on January 12, 2008 at 11:40 PM
Are you INSANE, MAN??? Who do you think you are? Switzerland? Come on, they get attacked all the…
…wait a minute.
MadisonConservative on January 12, 2008 at 11:41 PM
In that context God bless America
As far as satey devices go I got to confess I love my Glock safe action system.
Where my brain/finger/training is the safety.
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 11:41 PM
Heh
conservnut on January 12, 2008 at 11:43 PM
LOL :respect:
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 11:43 PM
MadisonConservative on January 12, 2008 at 11:41 PM
amazing how reality sneaks up and bites the gun control/gun restriction nutjobs in the rear isn’t it.
unseen on January 12, 2008 at 11:44 PM
You are just plain scary sometimes dude…
doriangrey on January 12, 2008 at 11:44 PM
Like the Delta Force guy in BlackHawk Down. Curling his index finger “here’s my safety right here sir”
conservnut on January 12, 2008 at 11:45 PM
God bless you sir, you have read the US Constitution and understood the intent of our founding fathers indeed…
doriangrey on January 12, 2008 at 11:46 PM
Where my brain/finger/training is the safety.
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 11:41 PM
I would trust in that safety 6 times more than any supossed safety from my government.
unseen on January 12, 2008 at 11:47 PM
Your right to carry a bazooka is restricted and rightly so. We do not need you shooting your gun off all over my neighborhood.
You refuse to admit the limitations the FF’s were working under and so you want to force their intent to line up with yours.
The FF’s were not morons. There is no way in hell they would have allowed citizens access to any and all arms. But their intent was to give the citizens a fighting chance to beat back the government. Well, those two concepts are at odds with each other. SO, now listen up and learn, they would have restricted the GOVERNMENT from possessing any weapons the citizenry could not acquire. PERIOD.
So, if you’re so hard up to be able to beat back the US government, petition your representatives to deny the government all that technology. THAT is what the FF’s would have wanted.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 11:49 PM
Your arguments are going in circles cs. You admit that the founding fathers said that we needed to be armed to throw back the overbearing power of a federal government, but say we should instead petition that government to play more fair.
dude, really!
conservnut on January 12, 2008 at 11:55 PM
You need to get off the standard 2nd hyperbolic talking points.
The FF’s would have restricted the government from having weapons that the citizens could not acquire. They were all about restricting government and if you are going sit there and try to tell me that they, after seeing the lethality of weapons these days, would have allowed the citizens to have those weapons, well you have no clue the caliber of men that the FF’s were.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 11:56 PM
You just recited the standard slander of every single gun owner mouthed by anti-gun acolytes every day in this country. I personally have been told those words by more than one person(often when they tell me why it’s good Wisconsin doesn’t have concealed carry), and each time I just pretty much shake my head and end the conversation.
MadisonConservative on January 12, 2008 at 11:57 PM
Naahhh… the governemtn would never come to take your gun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4
AZ_Redneck on January 12, 2008 at 11:57 PM
The FF’s realized that petitioning people with tanks to get rid of their tanks causes the people with the tanks to laugh their collective asses off. Aim a LAW at their tank and they stop laughing.
MadisonConservative on January 12, 2008 at 11:59 PM
A bazooka wouldn’t do squat to an M1A2 other than piss off the crew. There’s lots of dead Islamists who would tell you that it’s just not a smart thing to do
Mojave Mark on January 12, 2008 at 11:59 PM
Already posted, and CSDeven has yet to comment on it, and his claim that it would never happen.
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 12:00 AM
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 11:49 PM
You are so wrong it is laughable. the main reason for forming the USA was for national defense. There is no way the founding fathers would have restricted the governments ability to defend our nation.
You have this unfathomable fear of weapons. A weapons is nothing but a means to an end. There is no reason to restrict law abiding citizens from obtaining weapons that can give the government a run for its money in a fight. There is also no reason what so ever for your fear of a bazooka or of your neighbors being well armed. You fear is misplaced. I feel bad for people that live in fear of their neighbors and in fear of freedom. There is no and will never be any justification to outlaw guns. As the victims in Va Tech found to their sorrow. If their rights were not taken from them by a “rational caring government” many would probably be alive today.
unseen on January 13, 2008 at 12:02 AM
Mojave Mark on January 12, 2008 at 11:59 PM
Yes I know but that’s the way the arguement bounced. so we talked about a bazooka instead of a anti-tank missle. Just shorthand I guess.
unseen on January 13, 2008 at 12:04 AM
@ unseen on January 13, 2008 at 12:02 AM
Actually their rights were taken away by a “rational caring university”, the state government allows conceal carry and open carry. It was the stupid university which banned them.
muyoso on January 13, 2008 at 12:05 AM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »