Reinterpreting the Second Amendment
Kevin never addresses one of my core arguments, which is that embracing unrestricted gun access is bad politics. For a conservative, that might seem too unprincipled. After all, Republicans such as John Boehner worry about things like elections, deals, and compromises. They concern themselves with silly trifles like what other people think, how things are perceived, and how to ensure their party has a seat at the table. Conservatives, apparently, stick to principles — all the way down to the bottom of the ocean.
Nor does Kevin suggest how we might address massacres such as the one that occurred at Sandy Hook, although he does point out rightly that even the cops are bad guys sometimes, and that power corrupts. Perhaps the answer to Sandy Hook is we do nothing. They are, after all, “unusual” and “come out of nowhere.” Perhaps we are okay with the police functioning as a “janitorial service” for dead five- and six-year-olds.
I do not suggest that Kevin, or any conservative that I know for that matter, takes this horror lightly. We can debate whether more guns make us safer and whether each school should have armed guards — that may be a very viable option, although perhaps not the only one. I certainly do not accept, however, that we are powerless to do anything to lessen the chances of another Sandy Hook.
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
“Shall not be infringed” means shall not be infringed.
Othniel on December 31, 2012 at 12:39 PM
Unless a reinterpretation results in the once-and-for-all final acknowledgement that the second amendment was and is intended to provide the unrestricted right of citizens to own any and all types of paramilitary small arms, for the purposes of self-defense and forming a militia in times of foreign or domestic threat…I’m not interested.
Blacksoda on December 31, 2012 at 12:49 PM
In his first piece, Joshpe wrote:
No one who writes a paragraph like that has any claim to being a conservative.
Williamson was right to call out Joshpe.
JohnTant on December 31, 2012 at 12:51 PM
Wow, they’re really starting to unmask themselves and be more open about wanting to just discard our Constitutional protections. In another article linked here today, one professor even argues that the entire Constitution should be junked because it is flawed and, in some cases, even evil.
I suppose we should be thankful that the left — and, yes, this guy is on the left — are at least being more honest about what they want. Unfortunately, I’m not sure enough of our fellow countrymen continue to care enough about the Constitution for it to matter at this point.
Shump on December 31, 2012 at 12:51 PM
Dang. We have to go all the way to the bottom of the ocean to find decency anymore. What a sad commentary on the state of the country.
HotAirian on December 31, 2012 at 12:52 PM
Ok, let’s take this piece of crap one step at a time:
No way, Jose. Whenever you begin an argument by saying “I’m a conservative, but I think conservatives are wrong and acting in bad faith on X issue,” you admit you’re a troll akin to MeggieMac. Your argument should rise or fall on its merit and not based on a call to authority. Logic 101.
Good to know that Brett is very concerned about protecting our civil right under the 4th Amendment not to be arbitrarily declared insane and thrown into an insaneasylum. But notice how quickly he dispenses with our 2nd Amendment right to possess a semi-automatic rifle on the grounds that such a rifle is “especially deadly,” despite absolutely no evidence or logic to support the idea that Dianne Feinstein’s gun control bill would have actually stopped the Sandy Hook shootings.
The bottom line is that gun control only works if you can completely disarm the country. Banning the legal sale or ownership of the AR-15 will only prevent law-abiding citizens from having one. The criminals and mass murderers will continue to have their pick of the 200 million or so firearms floating around the country. Ditto for “high capacity magazines.”
I hate trolls like this.
Outlander on December 31, 2012 at 12:55 PM
It need to be uninterpreted. American Citizens should be able to be as well armed as any military soldier. The reason for the second amendment was to protect the “we the people” from the government.
astonerii on December 31, 2012 at 12:55 PM
Oh, yes. Nothing like the self-righteous chest beating of the “do something” Gladys Kravitz wing of the GOP. I guess Rahm Emmanuel was right.
fitzfong on December 31, 2012 at 12:57 PM
Incontinent hand-wringing in the service of mob-rule.
Our current patchwork of firearm laws is already a compromise. It’s not the NRA or firearm owners who are demanding that something must be done. It’s not law-abiding owners that have dipped their hands in the blood of murdered children in a pathetic attempt to irrevocably change our Republic.
The author is willfully ignorant if he thinks that those on the ‘other side’ of the debate want nothing less than to eliminate private ownership. His indignant promises are worthless.
chimney sweep on December 31, 2012 at 12:58 PM
Leftist Thugs and Tyrants don’t give a damn about the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments.
Schadenfreude on December 31, 2012 at 12:59 PM
Yep.http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html
davidk on December 31, 2012 at 1:10 PM
Obligatory redaction.
davidk on December 31, 2012 at 1:12 PM
Indeed. It was because of tyranny that the Bill of Rights is enshrined in the Constitution. (I know I’m preaching to the choir)
Othniel on December 31, 2012 at 1:12 PM
It wasn’t aimed at protecting hunting rights, that’s for certain. Not recreational shooting either. Like the other Amendments, it was meant to limit the power of government and protect the individual from it.
petefrt on December 31, 2012 at 1:13 PM
I really think it’s a cultural divide. Lots of folks have never handled a gun, don’t know anyone who owns a gun, and fear guns. Thus the constant rationalizations about why banning popular guns like the AR-15 is warranted because one doesn’t “need” such a gun to target shoot or hunt.
On some level, the point is valid. You could target shoot or hunt with an 18th Century musket. Likewise, I don’t “need” a 55 inch LED HDTV to watch TV; any 1940s black and white tube television will do. Nor do I need a car with a 300hp motor, since any old 140hp motor will get me from point A to point B.
But none of those options is desirable. And, if you are going to block people from enjoying the fruits of a century of technological innovation, strikes me you better have a good reason for it. Joshpe offers none.
Outlander on December 31, 2012 at 1:13 PM
Well at least feinstein has told us what she would/wants to do with our guns! WE better wake up and see this doesn’t happen people!
http://www.infowars.com/video-dianne-feinstein-says-prepare-to-turn-in-your-guns/
L
letget on December 31, 2012 at 1:16 PM
This quote (from your link) is awesome:
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”
– Adolph Hitler, Hitler’s Secret Conversations 403 (Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens trans., 1961)
Outlander on December 31, 2012 at 1:17 PM
They care about REMOVING THEM. A well armed population is the surest guarantee of liberty.
dogsoldier on December 31, 2012 at 1:21 PM
Start with 2 ounces additional defense of ad hominem and authority, add two cups Loose Change, two cups of non-fat substance, and a tablespoon of irrelevancy.
Mix until lumpy.
Dusty on December 31, 2012 at 1:22 PM
I would go a bit further than you do, actually.
When you start putting rights in context with “need,” you’ve already made the philosophical leap that government exists to manage your choices for you. Put another way, it says that if you can’t come up with a persuasive argument as to why you “need” something, government enjoys veto power over your choice. This is particularly offensive because government is then cast as the entity deciding if something is a genuine “need” or not, especially on issues potentially against its interests (eg free speech, press, and yes, RKBA.).
Taken to its logical end (and paraphrasing Ace from another subject), really all people “need” is to eat, sleep, and work. If “need” is the basis of recognizing inherent rights, then presumably Joshpe is just fine with having people work, go to their sleeping cubicle for a meal, then popping a sleeping pill until it’s time for the next work period.
No conservative would ever take an inherent right and seek to limit it based on “need.” That’s why Joshpe is at best confused about what he is.
JohnTant on December 31, 2012 at 1:24 PM
Since the 2nd Amendment is intended to protect “we the people” from excesses of government, the inference is that any gun the government is allowed to use, the people should be allowed to use also.
I’m not sure how far I go on this road, but it’s certainly a tenable position.
petefrt on December 31, 2012 at 1:24 PM
The writer seems to think that being a Republican makes him a conservative. He couldn’t be more wrong.
single stack on December 31, 2012 at 1:26 PM
And if those regulations do nothing and more people die, will there be more regulations?
Joshpe is an enormous fool for not being to recognize that restricting more weapons is just another stretch of the slipperly slope that we’re already on, and everybody knows that slippery slope arguments aren’t fallacies if you’re already on the slope.
mintycrys on December 31, 2012 at 1:27 PM
You have two choices:
1) Freedom at current levels.
2) Less freedom.
There are no other choices.
rogerb on December 31, 2012 at 1:28 PM
So he engages in fallacy of emotion by talking about the police mopping up (as in a janitorial service) after a massacre of grade schoolers, but then says he’s not implying that others are taking this lightly.
Stuff like this kneejerk highly emotional think of the children bunk is why you’re not taken seriously. To think of it soberly (and thereby take it with suitable seriousness) is to address the entire issue, which includes more than simply that firearms were used.
Sgt Steve on December 31, 2012 at 1:33 PM
Well it seems we finally get the truth from this old harpy?
http://www.infowars.com/video-dianne-feinstein-says-prepare-to-turn-in-your-guns/
L
letget on December 31, 2012 at 1:34 PM
davidk on December 31, 2012 at 1:46 PM
Don’t proudly announce that you are a “gun free” zone. Don’t make it a federal law that makes schools “gun free” zones. In other words don’t have gun free zones or at the very least don’t advertise them.
Dr. Frank Enstine on December 31, 2012 at 1:47 PM
Three reason to own a weapon:
1. The government
2. Bad guys
3. I want to.
davidk on December 31, 2012 at 1:48 PM
I generally agree with your point except that not all statists are on the left. The far-right are statist too, neocons being among the most prominent.
FloatingRock on December 31, 2012 at 1:53 PM
It’s not the government’s business to decide what I need. That attitude is exactly what leads to tyranny, and it’s no coincidence that an arbitrary determination of what you need forms the crux of the Communist Manifesto.
Do you need all the money you make? How about the car you drive or the house in which you live? After all, no one needs a ‘military style’ Jeep or Humvee to go to work or the corner store. And they sure as hell don’t need a Corvette. The federal government already tells you what kind of toilet you can have, so none of this is much of a reach.
But autos and most other things are not covered by an amendment to the Constitution. No, the Second Amendment is there for when the citizenry gets fed up with the government taking our property, telling us what to do, and what we need. So, what do we need for that eventuality?
RadClown on December 31, 2012 at 1:53 PM
The far-right needs to disarm the people and strip away our rights to achieve their objectives, same as the far left. Another example of this is their support of the unconstitutional provisions of the NDAA and other fascist police-state activities. Another example is neocon support for the Kelo verses City of New London decision, in which the SCOTUS ruled that US governments can confiscate private land and give it to their cronies who financed their campaigns. William Kristol of Fox News, far-right neocon fascists, supported the decision saying it would be “good for business”.
Romney is the far-right neocon who also supports the NDAA and other un-American police-state measures and was the leader of the “Assault Weapons Ban”, the first politician in America to promote and sign the AWB.
So small-gov conservatives need to be cognizant that their are enemies to the right of them as well as the left.
FloatingRock on December 31, 2012 at 2:00 PM
Then why are you whining? We haven’t had unrestricted gun access for several decades now.
xblade on December 31, 2012 at 2:04 PM
“The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it’s good-by to the Bill of Rights.”~H.L. Mencken
davidk on December 31, 2012 at 2:05 PM
And food if/when the SHTF.
davidk on December 31, 2012 at 2:05 PM
Yes, because the US government did so well doing that in Vietnam and Afghanistan.
Why do so many assume that “We the People” would mean individual, house-to-house when we’ve seen how that doesn’t exactly happen elsewhere? Why would pointy-heads believe that millions of Americans would sit idly by as the government confiscated their neighbour’s guns knowing that they would soon be next?
Some of us know Pastor Niemöller’s poem by heart and the government would be wise to remember that.
Resist We Much on December 31, 2012 at 2:10 PM
“It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error.”~Robert Houghwout Jackson, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and Chief Judge at the War-Crimes Tribunal in Nuremberg
davidk on December 31, 2012 at 2:10 PM
Silly boy, didn’t you know it is called “The Bill of Needs” instead of “The Bill of Rights”?
Romney is a lot of things, but far right isn’t one of them. And I’m pretty sure the first politician to sign the AWB was Bill Clinton.
xblade on December 31, 2012 at 2:15 PM
That’s why people need to organize locally, preferably off the Internet, (because the Internet is the easiest way for the feds to find out and infiltrate), so that when fascists come to one home to collect weapons they’ll be taking fire from all the homes. The jackboots are going to have to cordon off neighborhoods and treat Americans like Iraqi’s in Falujah to try to take our guns, and they will fail.
FloatingRock on December 31, 2012 at 2:24 PM
Good quotes there.
petefrt on December 31, 2012 at 2:32 PM
Where I live the disarming of citizens would come at a very great cost to those bent on disarming us. They might eventually win but it won’t be easy.
chemman on December 31, 2012 at 2:55 PM
Romney is a far-right crony-corporatist who spearheaded the Assault Weapons Ban and the un-Constitutional Romneycare mandate that forces people to buy expensive services from Romney’s (and most other politicians) corporatist cronies.
FloatingRock on December 31, 2012 at 2:56 PM
If fascists cordon off a neighborhood to confiscate all the guns then probably thousands of supporters will show up from all over the country to tear those barriers down and prevent the jackboots from operating.
And if jackboots push it too far in one or a few neighborhoods and thus declare war on the American people, there is one fact that the founding fathers knew that modern day jackboots seem to have forgotten: an armed citizenry has a huge advantage over jackboots, because jackboots are clearly marked. If they don’t have some sort of uniform they automatically lose a lot of their power.
The only way the jackboots win is if they turn American into a totalitarian state overnight or can convince Americans to give up their guns voluntarily.
People like Brett Joshpe don’t know what they’re talking about if they think an armed population of pissed off American’s are essentially helpless.
FloatingRock on December 31, 2012 at 3:07 PM
It doesn’t take a genius to know that the founders intended for the people to maintain their sway over their duly elected government.
It’s too late.
The Beast that the federal government has become in these wonderful United States has become an overbearing, overpowered, monarchistic killer of dreams and denier of the true meaning of freedom.
Just wait. The fun is just beginning, with a lame duck at the helm.
hillbillyjim on December 31, 2012 at 3:07 PM
This.
Thank you, sir.
hillbillyjim on December 31, 2012 at 3:10 PM
Kansas Bill of Rights:
Would an Executive Order override the Kansas Constitution? Would a Federal Law override the Kansas Constitution? The Federal Constitution backs up the Kansas Constitution, so unless there is an Amendment, can’t we tell the Feds to F off?
cptacek on December 31, 2012 at 6:13 PM