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]
Dude! You’re argument dead ends. Yes, we have the right to restrict the government. That is our power. But we have allowed them to acquire weapons that we cannot defend ourselves against. You are not going to beat this government with bazookas. They will drop bombs on you from 10,000 feet. What are you going to do? Fight a guerrilla war for the rest of your life eating rats and sawdust? The purpose of the 2nd was not to just survive but to win.
The only way we have to have a snowballs chance to beat back the US government is to force them to provide an F-15 in every garage or you do as the FF’s did. LIMIT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
All this chest thumping about how you’re gonna beat back the federal government with whatever weapons you can afford is irrational silliness. In it’s most extreme example, which you guys keep bringing up for some reason, the 2nd amendment is null and void because we can not beat back a determined US government to suppress us if they felt like it.
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 12:06 AM
well you have no clue the caliber of men that the FF’s were.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 11:56 PM
Yeah they actually trusted in their citizens to act like adults and have responsibility for their own actions. Imagibne that if instead of outlawing teenage drinking we threw the book at teenagers that drank irresponsibly.
unseen on January 13, 2008 at 12:07 AM
csdeven, Imagine a country like China detonating a nuclear weapon on Washington DC with all your elected officials going up in smoke with it. Then it hits the Pentagon (known as ground zero during the cold war for obvious reasons).
At the same time an amphibious assault comes from China attacking cities, raping, stealing, destroying, pillaging, killing. I would imagine that at a time like that, your local police would hope that your neighbor had a tank, bazookas, and a whole shed full of GOOD AND HIGH POWERED guns and plenty of ammunition to protect the city from the invasion.
You say it is not likely to happen that we have to defend ourselves against an invader. You say that we must not have the same weapons as the police. But I guarantee you that if there was a citizen with a bazooka, the police would appreciate if that citizen took that tank out instead of waiting for them to do it.
My issue with gun control is that I hope I never actually NEED a gun. But if I do NEED a gun, I want the best dang gun that mankind has ever created. I don’t want the government telling me that I can only have a BB gun against an invading army. I don’t expect to ever need to use one. But if I do need one, it better be a REALLY good one.
ThackerAgency on January 13, 2008 at 12:07 AM
Fixed if for ya’.
FloatingRock on January 13, 2008 at 12:07 AM
@ Mojave Mark on January 12, 2008 at 11:59 PM
Give me an m1a2 with a fully trained crew, and then pit them against myself, and two of my gun nut friends with bazookas. That tank is freaking toast. Nothing is impregnable. Just because a few savages cannot figure out how to beat a tank with heavy armor, doesnt mean a few very well educated young men can’t.
muyoso on January 13, 2008 at 12:08 AM
We should be allowed to have as many guns as we want and we should also be allowed, WITHOUT restriction, to have fully automatic guns, too!
The Founders meant us to have military grade firearms. Machine guns are military grade.
Warner Todd Huston on January 13, 2008 at 12:09 AM
@ ThackerAgency on January 13, 2008 at 12:07 AM
EVERYONE should watch the show Jericho, it basically goes over this exact scenario. And believe me, it is FULL of gun pron. Take away a lesson from the show, it is ALWAYS a good idea to stockpile guns and ammo.
muyoso on January 13, 2008 at 12:10 AM
Apologies on my slow uptake.
cdseven - maybe you might like England.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2BRoCd2I&feature=related
AZ_Redneck on January 13, 2008 at 12:10 AM
While I am certainly not worthy to have my firearm handling compared to the members of Delta Force that is pretty much it as a first step in firing a firearm.
F15Mech on January 13, 2008 at 12:10 AM
Believe it or not, there are nut job gun owners out there that need to have that said to them. He is one of them. No one needs a guy with a bazooka firing it off in a residential neighborhood with kids and dogs and schools around. It’s statements like his that lead the anti-gun whackos to say those things to ALL gun owners. I would think that you would appreciate that.
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 12:11 AM
What are now afraid off? Freedom? Rights? Self determination? Our own individual ability for good judgment?
I wonder if our founders also feared the consequences of their newly won and declared freedoms and rights?
There’s always consequences to any to every action, the consequences to an increase in freedom is always to be preferred as compared to losing freedom as we have in our second amendment rights.
I want my Constitutional Republic back.
Speakup on January 13, 2008 at 12:12 AM
Those are throw away restrictions that are not really that effective at stopping alpha male activities are they?
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 12:13 AM
muyoso on January 13, 2008 at 12:05 AM
Yes but it is my understanding that the university has some of the same powers as the local government
unseen on January 13, 2008 at 12:13 AM
@ AZ_Redneck on January 13, 2008 at 12:10 AM
That says to me that we should think of invading England. Looks to be an easy win for us.
muyoso on January 13, 2008 at 12:15 AM
@ unseen on January 13, 2008 at 12:13 AM
It is a weird situation. Since VT is basically 90 percent of blacksburg, they have concurrent laws, where VT laws supercede Blacksburg laws within 100 feet of campus. Its a really weird system. After 4 years I still didnt understand it, and I certainly didnt follow it.
muyoso on January 13, 2008 at 12:18 AM
Two scenarios:
1. New Orleans and Katrina, where the police forcibly disarmed the citizenry (for their own good, they said). Would you peacefully allow police to conficate all your protection?
2. The UN and IANSA, where the UN wants the ability to tax, control and/or confiscate weaponry (small arms) and ammunition by UN peacekeeping forces in nations that agree to that by treaty. Given the attitude and direction of the Democrat party (and some Republicans), it is a distinct possibility for the US, just as Kyoto and the LOST treaty might well be ratified in the near future. If they are ratified, they become the law of the land, requiring enforcement by the US Gov’t or it’s agents (UN forces).
What then? You’ve already fed the alligator your arms (reasonable limits), hoping he won’t eat the rest of you. What do you do when he’s no longer satisfied, and you now have no way to fight back?
El Cazador on January 13, 2008 at 12:18 AM
Yeah. That means our elected representatives too.
We should throw the book at those who are irresponsible with their rights and privileges. But until you have the right to own a tank and a bazooka, I’ll do what I can to keep it that way.
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 12:19 AM
So I guess your answer is to give up all our gun ownership rights. I mean, that is where your argument heads. Why allow anyone to own any guns. They might shoot through a wall and kill and innocent.
As I said before cs, welcome to the democrat party.
conservnut on January 13, 2008 at 12:21 AM
alpha male activities are they?
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 12:13 AM
Back in the day before mama got her panties in a bunch when little johnny got in a fight. all males were Alpha.
And yes I would worry so much about the dogs in the neighbor hood before I fired my bazooka at the approaching tank. Good grief man grow a pair.
unseen on January 13, 2008 at 12:22 AM
@ unseen on January 13, 2008 at 12:13 AM
In it’s most extreme example, which you guys keep bringing up for some reason, the 2nd amendment is null and void because we can not beat back a determined US government to suppress us if they felt like it.
muyoso on January 13, 2008 at 12:25 AM
But until you have the right to own a tank and a bazooka, I’ll do what I can to keep it that way.
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 12:19 AM
Oh but I do have that right now. It is in the consitution. And the consitution is the greatest law of the land and trumps those of the federal government.
unseen on January 13, 2008 at 12:26 AM
No one needs a guy with a fully automatic AR-15 firing it off either in a residential neighborhood with kids and dogs and schools around. Let’s get rid of it. No one needs a .50 caliber Desert Eagle firing it off in a residential neighborhood with kids and dogs and schools around. Let’s get rid of it. For the children, right? Just like mandatory gun locks, right? Just like more safeties, right? Just like lawsuits against gun manufacturers, right?
Do you get it yet?
Throw away restrictions. Right. Thrown away accessories. Let me give you an example. CC is illegal in Wisconsin. OC, by Constitution and legal decision, is legal. Aside from the likelihood that a police officer will charge you for disorderly conduct or mayhem(the latter a terrorist act under the Patriot Act), upon which he will confiscate your weapon and it will be a nightmare getting it returned, it is illegal to have a loaded, uncased weapon not in plain sight in a vehicle. This means that although you can legally open carry, you have to unload it, and put it in a case in plain sight in your vehicle. If you forget and sit down for one minute, you have just committed a crime. Stupid, right?
It’s those same stupid kinds of laws that are used to deter gun ownership. Lots of guns have flash suppressors. Lots of them have barrel shrouds. Lots of them have pistol grips. Lots of guns have telescoping stocks. No person who knows a damn thing about guns could reasonable argue that they make the gun more lethal, but you would gladly give up all guns with those attachments and allow them to be labeled “assault weapons”. There, that’s done. Next, you’ll be comfortable with high-cap clips being illegal. Then night sights. Then…?
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 12:27 AM
conservnut on January 13, 2008 at 12:21 AM
Yes it becomes clear from this arguement why he does not like FRED!.
unseen on January 13, 2008 at 12:28 AM
Ah, I always love getting a real LOL from this site. Thank you. :)
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 12:29 AM
Who needs a bazooka to take down a tank. Give me a grinder, a few dozen aluminum cans, a couple dozen pieces of steel wool, and a sparkler, and the people in the tank will be melting from the heat.
muyoso on January 13, 2008 at 12:32 AM
And to take that one step further…
There was legislation in VA (thanks to the VCDL) that would have allowed residents with concealed carry permits to legally carry on college campuses roughly 6 months before the shooting, It did not pass (narrowly) and one of the statements made by the VTech president was something like…
This is a great day for VA schools firearms do not belong on college campuses.
Fast forward 6 months later…
F15Mech on January 13, 2008 at 12:35 AM
Well, all I can say at this point is thank you Mr Bush! It would be a welcome surprise if the SCOTUS would actually uphold this right. Who can say. I do not expect them to. Our property rights are being stripped,, our speech rights are being stripped, our faith is under assault, on and on and on. Of course, they do not have the power or authority to take these rights from us,, but they will do whatever they think they can get away with. The constitution is clear as day,, but they will make whatever edict they make and the protest may not be that great. Eventually,, at some point,, so many freedoms will be gone that we will no longer resemble America. I guess I am in my pessimistic mood tonight.
JellyToast on January 13, 2008 at 12:35 AM
Guys, none thing I can tell you, you will never convince cs he is wrong. That is one of the thing I love about the guy. It makes for very long comment threads in which we all get our dander up.
Thanks cs for being you.
I am giving up and going to bed,
Good night all.
conservnut on January 13, 2008 at 12:36 AM
Next, you’ll be comfortable with high-cap clips being illegal. Then night sights. Then…?
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 12:27 AM
Believe it or not I am more at ease when there are armed people around me in public. When I take my son to a Mcdonalds or someplace it is nice to see gun hoslters sticking out of jackets of fathers/mothers sitting eating with their children.
unseen on January 13, 2008 at 12:37 AM
F15Mech on January 13, 2008 at 12:35 AM
Yes I remember that. If I was a parent I would have sued the university for taking my child’s 2nd amdement rights away.
I’m surprised that noone has yet. I think they would have a great case.
unseen on January 13, 2008 at 12:40 AM
Thank goodness you were not at Lexington 250 years ago.
AZ_Redneck on January 13, 2008 at 12:40 AM
Give it up dude! You’re making crap up now. You lost.
They had no reason to ever conceive of the weapon systems we have now so there was no conception that the government would need to be restricted.
I have no fear of weapons. I have 27 weapons and 5000 rounds of ammunition for them. I have a completely rational fear of a guy who says he would fire off bazooka rounds in a residential neighborhood and refuses to discuss reasonable restrictions on “arms”.
And yes there is a reason to restrict those weapons because they serve no purpose as you have stated it. You cannot give the government a run for their money with your bazooka. Or your towns single F-15. You’re kidding yourself and using silly arguments to rationalize your desire to have a bazooka. Like I said earlier, you want a bazooka, then say so. But don’t try to lay it on the second amendment because in your scenario, you might as well be using spit balls against the might and technology of the US government.
And with that and your accusations about grabbing your guns, I’m done with your side of this discussion. You aren’t worth trying to have a discussion with when you lie about what I have said.
But know this, I will do everything I can to keep bazookas out of the hands of people like you. You’re reckless and irresponsible.
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 12:41 AM
I guess I am in my pessimistic mood tonight.
JellyToast on January 13, 2008 at 12:35 AM
Welcome to the club. The country I knew is no more. thanks Bush/Clinton for the memories…
unseen on January 13, 2008 at 12:41 AM
I think I know what video it is, but I’m still waiting for it to load.
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 12:43 AM
Point taken, but only a great shot in the best of circumstances will take out an M1 even with an AT missile. My last couple of years in the Nat. Guard I had a chance to TC an M1A1 and they’re pretty much invulnerable to everything except incompetent privates. Clancy has a great book on the Armored Cavalry which taught me more about the M1 than all the Army manuals that I read. They really are amazing beasts. You just don’t want to have to do maintenance on them. Yuck!
Mojave Mark on January 13, 2008 at 12:44 AM
Thank goodness the brits didn’t have machine guns, tanks, and airplanes. The right to bear a musket would have been worthless.
Try staying within the realm of reality when making analogies.
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 12:48 AM
@ csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 12:41 AM
27 guns and only 5k rounds of ammo?? What are you some hippie? You should have 5k rounds PER caliber.
muyoso on January 13, 2008 at 12:49 AM
Don’t start the win/lose crap. This is the internet. Grow up.
You’re making personal judgments that are completely unwarranted. Knock it off.
Oh, and do you want to ban the S&W .600? It will go through more than one wall, including yours. It’s a pistol. What do ya say? Oh, and 9MM can go through windows, yours and mine. What do ya say? Ban?
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 12:49 AM
High cap “clips” need to be banned, I can’t possibly fit the high cap clips into my standard mag :)
Night Sights should also be banned, they are composed of materials used in nuclear reactors and one of its by products is DHMO.
F15Mech on January 13, 2008 at 12:50 AM
@ csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 12:48 AM
YOu just crushed your own point. The founding fathers INTENTION of the second amendment was to protect against ones government. As you pointed out, technology has developed in the field of firearms. Whereas a musket would have been enough in 1776 to defend against the government, more is needed today to defend against the government. The founding father’s principle still hold true, there was no provision stating the “right shall not be infringed unless the government gets some really badass arms”. Its a right that applies throughout time, and trancends technology.
muyoso on January 13, 2008 at 12:55 AM
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 12:41 AM
What the hell are you talking about? Did you go off your meds again? You are making less sense then when you are in the middle of a full anti-Fred rage. If I wanted a Bazooka I would have one. You think I would let a little thing like an unconstitutional law get in the way?
There is no reason to restrict those weapons unless you are scared. Fear drives your discussion. It is plain to see. The founding fathers would have laughed at you and your pitiful arguements.
You and your type are worse than the gun control nuts. At least they are intellectualy honest and state they want to take our guns. You hide behind schools, dogs and kids for reasons to take our guns a piece at a time.
I remember the quote being “give me liberty or give me death”. not give me some liberty if and only if I can be assured of a reasonable happy life and nothing really, really bad is going to happen..
unseen on January 13, 2008 at 12:56 AM
muyoso on January 13, 2008 at 12:55 AM
Thanks, couldn’t have said it better.
unseen on January 13, 2008 at 12:57 AM
Don’t start the clip-magazine stuff, or I’ll start up a “stopping power” debate. :P
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 12:59 AM
Take it up with the state. I’m specifically referring to the federal government.
I don’t have my CC, but I will this spring on the chance Hitlery/”dem of choice” gets elected. In my state, we are a goldstar open carry state. I can carry a firearm on my hip if I choose. And even though I would get an eyeful from a law enforcement officer at first, this town is small enough that it would be ignored in no time at all.
And no, I do have limits. What you are saying is what I am trying to get you to engage me on. What are reasonable restrictions? I think shrouds and flash suppressors are throw aways. But I would not agree to banning NV or hicap mags.
BUT, I know I can’t have it all. I have to make compromises no matter how stupid I think they are. Instead of being at loggerheads over silly stuff, I’ll fight to keep the important stuff until the atmosphere is right to go after no restrictions up to a certain point.
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 1:03 AM
LOL ok I give up
F15Mech on January 13, 2008 at 1:04 AM
Why is it when faced with having to make a rational point, you start acting like a pendulum? It’s either all or nothing with that argument and it’s weak as a day old kitten.
Why don’t you try to grow up before deciding who belongs to which party?
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 1:08 AM
Whoa, stop the presses, I agree with muyoso 100%. Cheers!
NTWR on January 13, 2008 at 1:09 AM
Be very careful about that, there have been incidents in Northern VA where police officers confiscated owners firearms for carrying legally. (They were returned the next day with an apology).
Which prompted “open carry day” in VA.
F15Mech on January 13, 2008 at 1:13 AM
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 1:08 AM
The 2nd amendment is an all or nothing arguement. It is there for one reason and one reason only, to protect the citizens from courrpt government/invasion. If that is the reason behind the amendment than logically you must allow the citizens to have all the available fire power to accomplish that goal if it becomes needed. Therefore any reasonalbe restrictions on arms makes the 2nd amendment null and void for its intended purpose.
If that is so then it becomes a very short hop, jump and skip to doing away with the right all together.
unseen on January 13, 2008 at 1:14 AM
I can make a hell of a lot better argument against hi-capacity magazines than I can against barrel shrouds. More bullets means “unusual lethality”. More bullets means more potential to “spray bullets”. More bullets mean poor children and puppies and kittens could get hit by stray bullets not hitting their targets.
Are all these arguments total nonsense? Yes, but that doesn’t stop groups like the Brady Bunch. They were banned for a while, if you’ll recall. They could easily be again.
You talk about throwaways, and they see that you cave. Amendments to the constitution are not supposed to be negotiable, but they are based on mitigating circumstances and how central to the basic rights of Americans. As I’ve repeated, all amendments are null and void without the second. Therefore, the second should be the least negotiable and, in my opinion, non-negotiable.
Now let me pose you a question. You said that Thomas Jefferson couldn’t conceive of the technology we have today. Could he conceive of the million mom march? Could he conceive of people suggesting we limit the amount of rounds someone could have in their weapon? Could he conceive of people banning pistol grips? You’re basing the core of your argument on what the FFs could conceive of, and my counter to that is that they couldn’t conceive of how cowardly, spineless, narcissistic, and pathologically suicidal some minds are in this country in this day and age. They couldn’t conceive of people calling for all guns to be banned. They couldn’t conceive of people who thought the government should take all guns away.
However, those people exist. So, doesn’t their inability to conceive of that overall attitude mean we should ban that attitude which, to a lesser extent, is yours?
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 1:16 AM
Then you missed the analogy.
The British Empire held the largest, strongest and best trained (and most feared) army and navy in the world at that time.
At that time, having British naval and land forces coming to ’straighten out’ the colonies was (by analogy) akin to machine guns, airplanes, … and some simple farmers stood up against them.
I also implied that you, if present at that time, having observed the arrival of the great British fleet and the King’s troops landing would have soiled your pants and sought the local magistrate to protect you while the others around you were busy preparing their muskets.
AZ_Redneck on January 13, 2008 at 1:21 AM
Honestly what is wrong with night sights, and supposed called hi-cap mags (before the Clinton ban they were the STD mag size)?
What point does banning 13 rounds vs 10 in a .45 mag serve?
What is the opposition to Night Sights?
F15Mech on January 13, 2008 at 1:26 AM
Those are proper points, but very unlikely. You and I could handle owning a bazooka, but as we have seen here tonight, there are those who shouldn’t be trusted with it until they’ve had a psych eval.
I have yet to hear a rational counter-argument on what the FF’s would think if they knew what a nuke was. I hear a lot of wishful thinking from people who are real hardup to shoot a bazooka in their neighborhood. But I digress…
My point is this.
The FF’s were at least as rational as any of us and more likely more so. Neither you nor I would advocate the unrestricted ownership of nuclear weapons by the populace. Not even small tactical nukes are a consideration (this would include chemical and biological agents too). The FF’s would not have allowed it either.
But, as has been proper pointed out, the purpose of the 2nd is to allow us to defend ourselves from our government. The only way to do that is to ensure that we could have a fighting chance to beat them back. Well, without tactical nukes at our disposal, we can’t do much can we? So, what’s the use of a second amendment if it is effectively null and void?
The FF’s were smart enough to get to that point HAD THEY CONSIDERED IT A POSSIBILITY. Their assumption was that the citizenry would always have access to the same technology that the government does. That isn’t true anymore.
So, we’re in a quandary. How do we square it with the intent of the constitution? The most logical choice, and it just so happens to fit the over-riding theme of putting limits on the government, is to limit the government. The FF’s would have stated that the government could not have any weapons that the common citizen could not acquire.
BUT, we can’t do that can we? The nuclear genie is out of the bottle and it’s never going back in. We cannot limit our country’s ability to defend itself by limiting our military might.
That is the state of affairs we are in today. And as I started out, the discussion is not if there are restrictions, but rather what those restrictions should be.
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 1:26 AM
First question: none. It was done before though, for the reasons I listed.
Second: There is none. Just wait. They’ll come up with something, just like for hi-caps.
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 1:30 AM
Considering that you’re making judgments of other’s handling of weapons based on internet discussion, I’d say you shouldn’t be trusted with it until you’ve had a psych eval.
Oh, by the way, you sound just like Joe Biden when you say that.
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 1:31 AM
Oh gee are you saying that this country was born by defeating a major Army/Navy at the time?
Damn farmers and their weapons how dare they, who gave them the right.
F15Mech on January 13, 2008 at 1:33 AM
No doubt that Shakespeare had no reason to ever conceive of the human condition as it exists today. Everything he wrote about the human condition is irrelevant in modern society, right CSDeven?
FloatingRock on January 13, 2008 at 1:34 AM
As usual, your bias interferes with being intellectually honest.
The colonists had access to all the same technology. The brits had more, and were better trained, but the technology was the same. In order for your analogy to make one bit of sense in the context of today, you would have to have an F-15 in your garage. A nuclear sub at the marina. A tank behind the barn. AT-4’s. Bradley’s. M2’s. And every other piece of military hardware that our military currently has. There was no real technological gap.
Now I’m sorry I have deflated your usual arguments for unrestricted 2nd amendment rights, but those are the facts and we do not have the capacity to fight off a determined US government. So, essentially, the 2nd amendment for the purpose of the context cited, is completely worthless except to make us feel like we have some power left.
Now, don’t make the mistake that some of these other folks have made and accuse me of being anti-gun. I’ve probably got more guns than most of you AND the ammo to use in them. The only thing I am anti of is ignorance and wishful thinking. The second really only helps us in our own homes and thats good enough for me. Why is it good enough for me you might ask? because I trust my neighbor who flies the F-15. And if that fails, I trust our resident F-15mechanic to sabotage any F-15 that was going to carry out an unconstitutional attack on his fellow citizens.
I am the ultimate optimist because I am positive that my fellow neighbors are as patriotic as I am and when push came to shove, they’d do the right thing.
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 1:38 AM
You and I could handle owning a bazooka, but as we have seen here tonight, there are those who shouldn’t be trusted with it until they’ve had a psych eval.
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 1:26 AM
You handle a bazooka? Only if there were no dogs around. And the consitution does not say that csdeven shall decide who gets a bazooka. You have no right to say who gets one and who doesn’t.
The FF’s were at least as rational as any of us and more likely more so
I would say light years ahead of you but I digress…
Oh yeah equate a bazooka with a tactical nuclear weapon. Yeah right. Nothing like setting off a nuke in your own country to rally the population to your side. Are you really this thick?
there is no quandray here. except for the weak kneed among us that do not trust the American people with the full might of our miltary stockpile.
The discussion is not what restrictions should there be but how this country become so full of beta males that do not know one end of a gun from another, or worry about dogs getting caught in the crossfire of a tank and a bazooka.
unseen on January 13, 2008 at 1:38 AM
Are you saying I shouldn’t take the guy on his word? He’s reiterated it several times. If he was just talking out of his ass, he ought to just fess up.
Extrapolating from your comment, when you get passionate about something I should just pretend that you really don’t mean it?
Riiiight. Do us a fav huh? Don’t quit yer day job. Psych evals aren’t your forte.
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 1:42 AM
Not true:
This is pessimism, and defeatism. As you recognize, the purpose of the context was why the 2nd was conceived, and that’s why statements like this:
…are frightening. You just admitted to being a sheep, accepting that the constitution holds no check over the government, and therefore the concept of the United States as it was formed is null and void, and essentially we live at the mercy of our government. You admitted to being, essentially, accepting of that. How in the world is that optimistic, and do you really think there weren’t others like the two of us in our viewpoints 230 years ago?
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 1:44 AM
Whats wrong? Can’t find a relevant analogy for the FF’s and you figure WS is a decent enough substitute?
Puleeezzzze. There’s plenty enough written about the FF’s to use them as your source. I suggest you start with the constitution and it’s flavor and intent. Limited government, power to the people. Everything needs to square in that context.
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 1:46 AM
Are you saying I shouldn’t take the guy on his word? He’s reiterated it several times. If he was just talking out of his ass, he ought to just fess up.
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 1:42 AM
Yeah your right. I changed my mind. If I was between you and a tank with a bazooka protecting you I wouldn’t fire it in such a dog rich environment. I would instead step aside let it run you over. Let it run over 10 or 15 dogs than think about taking it out.
I mean the dog catcher could probalby get all the dogs rounded up and out of harms’s way before any serious harm befell the canine population.
unseen on January 13, 2008 at 1:47 AM
Why do you have to talk like a jackass to people who are paying you intellectual respect? I see you acting like the first person to resort to non sequiter comments for the sake of your ego, while you say that others need psych evals. Does the irony of that situation fly over your head? Oh, and tip for you, Mr. Freud: Passion does not equal mental illness. If it did, your old rants about Fred would label you less stable than Charles Manson.
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 1:47 AM
Would you like to give me a scenario where you and your bazooka are going to take out a MOAB dropped from 5000 feet right on top of your home?
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 1:49 AM
Puleeezzzze. There’s plenty enough written about the FF’s to use them as your source. I suggest you start with the constitution and it’s flavor and intent. Limited government, power to the people. Everything needs to square in that context.
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 1:46 AM
You do have problems with nuance don’t you and analogies. The human condition hasn’t changed and will never changed. All the reasons the founding fathers placed everthing in the document is relevant today because of the constant of the human condition. It matters not what technology is employed. If the founding fathers trusted the population to be adults with muskets they would have trusted the population to be adults with anti-tank missles, machine guns, grandaes, C-4 explosives etc. Of course there are needs for secrets and to keep eneimes form gaining technolgy that could be used against us but I don’t think they would have had any issue at all if Danial Boone wanted to take a .50cal with him into the woods. Maybe if there where a lot of dogs there the Founding Fathers would have thought differently. I don’t know…
unseen on January 13, 2008 at 1:53 AM
You tell me I sound like Joe Biden instead of dealing with the reason why the guy with his gun is considered a nut job , and you call that a compliment?
Try pulling someone else’s legs. Mine are long enough.
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 1:55 AM
Ignore the linked video if you like, but you know exactly what I meant. Biden made the EXACT same conclusion you did. Don’t pretend you didn’t know. Admit you went over the line questioning the sanity of a debator who was making legitimate points, and move on.
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 1:57 AM
Would you like to give me a scenario where you and your bazooka are going to take out a MOAB dropped from 5000 feet right on top of your home?
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 1:49 AM
No but if I survived it would work wonders on those comin g to check for the kill.
Or it might work well when that bomb is droped and I’m instead of being at home playing catch with my dog, am out firing on the convery caring fresh ammo to the front.
unseen on January 13, 2008 at 1:57 AM
You pretty thick aren’t you? I’m done with you and your BS.
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 1:57 AM
Sad to see you revert back to your old self, I must say.
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 1:59 AM
Firing a bazooka in a residential neighborhood is not a legitimate point. He was serious when he said it. Now perhaps he has had cause to pause after reflecting on just how crazy that is. But if so, he ought to say so and you should stay out of it unless you are his sock puppet.
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 2:00 AM
Ok, you two have degraded this topic to nothing but personal insults.
Have at it.
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 2:01 AM
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 1:57 AM
He can’t refute the arguement, therefore he has to turn to name calling, changing the subject matter, and changing the entire debate thread. when all that fails to work, he ignores the entire argument and trys to reframe it with someone else hoping that their arguements are no as strong. Finally when even that gambit fails he leaves the thread. Its his MO still it was worth defending my right to a bazooka.
unseen on January 13, 2008 at 2:02 AM
Gun control isn’t about guns, it’s about control.
P. James Moriarty on January 13, 2008 at 2:06 AM
Now, let me get this straight. A populace armed with only small arms could never, under any circumstances harm the U.S. military.
Was that your point?
The hypothetical U.S. Military vs. U.S. Civilian war wouldn’t likely be a “war of annihilation” would it? So an insurgency might be a valid method? Being armed might not be of any use against airstrikes, but against a totalitarian police action… maybe it’d be worth rethinking?
Or do you have some hypothetical situation where a Dictator takes over the U.S. Government, not in order to run the U.S. as his personal empire, but to have the military engage in killing off the populace?
I can think of countries that were taken by a dictator because the populace was unarmed, or functionally unarmed; and the Government took over and “removed” malcontents. I can’t think of any dictator who did so to simply kill off all the civilians in a military action…
So, from the probabilities (ok, given the whole thing is wildly improbable to start with, but still) the probability would be that small-arms could be sufficient for insurgency against the police state.
gekkobear on January 13, 2008 at 2:06 AM
Thick? Psych evals? Sock puppet? Drop the act. You really have returned to the same kind of irrelevant baiting and dodging you did when you insulted Fred’s wife’s looks.
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 2:07 AM
Firing a bazooka in a residential neighborhood is not a legitimate point. He was serious when he said it. Now perhaps he has had cause to pause after reflecting on just how crazy that is. But if so, he ought to say so and you should stay out of it unless you are his sock puppet.
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 2:00 AM
Let’s see. I have a bazooka, a tank is coming towards me or is threatening my neighborhood. I have a chance to stop the nutcase in the tank. I could a) fire the bazooka at the tank or b) let the tank continue on its destruction hoping and praying that “someone” in authority will protect me and my loved ones. Hmmm decsions decsions….
I think I will go with A.
I think anyone that has the ability to protect themselves, their families and does not use that ability because of some unknown fear of something maybe going wrong is the problem not the solution and that person is stuck on stupid.
unseen on January 13, 2008 at 2:08 AM
Since some have complained about bazookas doing “squat” to an Abrams, might I suggest instead using the term LAW?
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 2:10 AM
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 2:10 AM
But the word bazooka is just so cool. lol
Fine a LAW it will be or anti-take missle, or rpg or whatever.
unseen on January 13, 2008 at 2:15 AM
gekkobear on January 13, 2008 at 2:06 AM
good points so the more dangerous those small arms are i.e LAWS, claymores, granades, rpgs, C-4, the better the chance of an insurcency winning right? And if so than therefore it is in freedom’s interest to enable the population to be so armed.
unseen on January 13, 2008 at 2:19 AM
yeah the government would never take away our freedoms…
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/12/brits-ready-to-presume-consent-to-organ-donation/
unseen on January 13, 2008 at 2:21 AM
Speaking for myself, if I have to act in the capacity of somebody’s sock puppet to further the cause of freedom and liberty, I will gladly do so. It’s too bad you don’t feel the same way, CSDeven.
Thanks for your efforts, Unseen. Nice to see you back here again.
FloatingRock on January 13, 2008 at 2:49 AM
@ MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 2:10 AM
A “bazooka” would do plenty. Take out the tracks of the Abrams, and it becomes a sitting duck. Then either weld the door hatch closed, or ignite thermite on top of the turret. Problem solved.
muyoso on January 13, 2008 at 11:02 AM
And this would be bad because?
jdkchem on January 13, 2008 at 11:41 AM
After reading through this thread a second time, it is obvious that some here do not fully understand what the 2nd Amendment actually says.
Which part of “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed“ do you not understand?
Only a historically ignorant fool would fail to fear a government that does not want its citizens owning firearms.
And shame on George W. Bush for allowing his DOJ to make this argument.
If they would spend more time enforcing our nation’s immigration laws instead of sticking their noses in places they don’t belong, we would all be better off.
Dave R. on January 13, 2008 at 11:47 AM
CSDEVEN, I am with you.
Seems we’re allowed to own single shot black powder guns easier than anything, or are allowed to “hunt” as much as we want and be registered and tracked etc. Everything we own has a number affixed to it for tracking. You can’t drive your car, legally own a gun [hold that thought], use your computer, or make a phone call without some sort of monitoring. Sure some of this is to track the crime, but thats a convenient by-product of tracking US.
Is there anything such as “legally owning a gun”? As a citizen you can own arms . Its your right. Why do we have to explain why we would want to have a hi-powered weapon in our home? I dont know where ya’ll live but around my area home invasion is not a new phrase. The police have all moved their radio frquencies where we can’t hear what they are doing, and if you ask them they want to know why YOU want to know. I used to be able to ask a cop, “hey what went on at the shopping center the other day?”, and he’d tell me. Now they can’t talk about anything.
One last note. Look at all of your big street intersections folks. Are there THAT many accidents that we need all of those intersection cameras? And who is storing this information? If you dont have cameras all over the place near you, its coming. We have them now in intersections all over this small little town I am in. WTF? Walmart is still getting robbed everyday. So what are the cameras doing for me?
Sorry folks, but I see all of this terrorist protection, being double-edged with a growing lack of privacy for us to the point police can look into my car to see if I have my seatbelt on, but thats not all they are looking for. They now have the ability to stop you, search you, violate your rights, and after the illegal search, they can leave you to pick up your things while they skate off and eye another would-be suspect of their choosing.
As far as the 2nd ammendment, if a criminal can walk in my house with the possibility of taking my life, then I’m going to have the right to be sitting waiting with appropriate weaponry required to stop the intrusion, presuming a mans home is still his castle, or do we dial 911 and wait? mmmm the wrong person will be found dead on the floor by the time these super-empowered cops show up.
johnnyU on January 13, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Are there THAT many accidents that we need all of those intersection cameras? And who is storing this information? If you dont have cameras all over the place near you, its coming. We have them now in intersections all over this small little town I am in. WTF? Walmart is still getting robbed everyday. So what are the cameras doing for me?
Politicians have done more to harm this society than all of it’s foreign enemies combined. Child abuse?? Roe vs Wade was the ultimate form of child abuse. It was the seed for all the child abuse that followed. That decision has been responsible for more mothers dropping their babies in toilets and fathers throwing their kids off of bridges than anything else ever could be!
That decision, as well as a host of others giving special rights to criminals, weakening marriages, destroying property rights, and on and on, come not from some poor old uneducated religious nut, quoting scriptures, living in a bunker out in the woods somewhere,, No,, those decisions come from what are suppose to be the best and brightest among us. The so called smartest, most educated among us!
Liars, thieves and traitors in courts and congress, and sometimes sitting in the oval office, have destroyed our education system, attacked our religion, our property rights, our business, freedom of speech. They release criminals from prisons, allow illegals from other countries to roam freely our streets, while feverishly passing laws or making edicts preventing children from saying the name of Jesus in school or acknowledging Fathers or Mothers day.
As for the increase in cameras,,, it symbolizes something. Something evil. It says,, we are the ones that need watching. We cannot be trusted. We need to be under the microscope. No one knows who is on the other side. Some faceless entity that can’t be seen,, but they see our faces. They watch our moves.
One of the guiding principles about his nation when it came to crime, was the ability to face your accuser. The cameras remove that. And, it seems, for now, we are accepting it.
Well,,, I will just end with this,,, if anyone needs watched and deserves to be mistrusted it is congress, judges and anyone in elected office. Politicians can effect and destroy the lives of millions with the stroke of a pen. Judges can kill millions, as in Roe V Wade, with a single edict. If there should be cameras anywhere, it should be in the innermost halls of congress. That is where all the real crime is committed.
JellyToast on January 13, 2008 at 1:54 PM
without the 2nd and the right to own firearms, how would this ever be possible. Any discussion of whether the 2nd pertains to the individual ends right here:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
rgranger on January 13, 2008 at 3:37 PM
In case this link hasn’t shown up here yet….
http://www.savethesecond.com/
A petition to protect our 2nd amendment rights.
Aggie85 on January 13, 2008 at 3:37 PM
The only problem is that the odds are you’ll never have to shoot at a tank in your lifetime, but instead that your kid will find the bazooka and accidentaly launch it by mistake. Or that some other unfortunate accident will happen.
If you think we need to all have bazookas, I think we are better off either: 1- drastically expanding the size of the army/national guard or 2- making military service mandatory for everyone.
mycowardice on January 13, 2008 at 10:47 PM
The only problem is that the odds are you’ll never have to shoot at a tank in your lifetime, but instead that your kid will find the bazooka and accidentaly launch it by mistake. Or that some other unfortunate accident will happen. mycowardice on January 13, 2008 at 10:47 PM
Yeah Let the government save us from all mishaps. Because you know we are not adults, we can not possiblly handle weapons in a safe secure manner. Let’s all sacrifice our freedoms because maybe, something bad might on an off chance happen due to that freedom. The government knows better than us. They would never place weapons in an unsafe manner. Like nuclear warheads would never ever be placed live on an airplane and flown across the entire friggin country because our government are the adults we are the children
unseen on January 14, 2008 at 12:38 AM
I understand the temptation to point out a mistake the government did as a way to discredit the government as a whole. Regardless, it’s not because doctors sometimes make mistakes that we suddenly should all be going through med school. Or that we try to be doctors when our loved ones get sick.
If you think the government isn’t doing a good enough job with regards to national security, then I think the best solution isn’t to give everybody a bazooka and a suitcase nuke but instead to try to fix the army or the government.
mycowardice on January 14, 2008 at 10:57 AM
I happen to think that the Second Amendment means what it says: the government has no business infringing (i.e., regulating, limiting or banning) the people’s right to bear arms.
Unfortunately that has a number of unintended consequences.
1) The TSA has no business restricting your right to bear arms aboard commercial aircraft. That means, of course, that Ahmed in seat 4B can carry his bazooka on board (hoping he can fit it in the overhead bin).
2) The TSA has the right to confiscate your 3.5 oz bottle of shampoo, but if you explain that the shampoo bottle in fact contains liquid explosives, you have a second amendment right to carry that stuff on board.
3) When you enter the country and the customs guy asks you about the five pounds of glowing reddish powder in your suitcase, you should answer very carefully. You should explain that the radioactive material is a replacement part for a dirty bomb (which makes it legal) as opposed to being just stuff you plan on using for your home power plant (which requires all sorts of federal, state and local licenses).
4) While their gas mileage sucks, tanks are an excellent choice of conveyance for short trips. Since they enjoy a second amendment exemption from licensing, emissions, insurance and drunk driving laws, they are perfect for a trip to the bar. Also a tank is a really safe vehicle for your teenagers to get driving experience before they get their drivers license. Just remember: it’s not a weapon unless the gun works, so always keep a couple of rounds in the turret for that pesky cop demanding a test shot.
factoid on January 14, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Regardless, it’s not because doctors sometimes make mistakes that we suddenly should all be going through med school. Or that we try to be doctors when our loved ones get sick.
mycowardice on January 14, 2008 at 10:57 AM
No but the government does not restrict my ability to change doctors either. I’m stuck with the police force I got.
unseen on January 14, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Unseen, if you worry about a tank coming at your door, it’s not the police you should be worried about, but the army.
So let me understand your limits. Would you really forbid any type of government control. How about the situations described by factoid? I just want to understand how far you would stretch the “no interference” argument.
mycowardice on January 14, 2008 at 10:45 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 [4]