…from the editorial board of the LA Times:
…if the court would identify an important individual right — in this case, the right to bear arms — and then deny that it applied to the states, those who never accepted the incorporation doctrine might try to “de-incorporate” other rights. That’s not a risk worth taking.
A lot of the gun grabbers want to have it both ways — that the Second Amendment shouldn’t be incorporated, but that other rights do. At least the Times recognizes the inconsistency of this, even if they don’t understand the meaning and purpose of the amendment.
I was amazed at the “technicality” I heard yesterday from a Brady Bunch lawyer. His take on the SCOTUS ruling last shows that the 2nd Amendment just gives the right to bear arms in federal enclaves, and does not ‘really’ [his word NOT mine] and does not ‘really’ apply to all the states. I might accept that, but there were no such federal enclaves when the Bill of Rights was written.
The other item was on CNN. They started out by running a piece about a woman who runs an anti-gang group in Chicago. She, and the CNN reporter said ALL the African-Americans in Chicago understand the need for the tight gun rules, it keeps guns out of MORE gang hands.
Then they talked to the man who started this suit to over turn the Chicago laws like the one struck down in D.C. After hearing that ALL the AA’s in Chitown were in agreement over banning guns and keeping the existing laws intact, I was more than shocked to see that the gentleman IS black too.
Odd that, IMHO.
I thought we were “endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights” among which are life, liberty and thus lgically, the means to preserve both life and liberty.
Since these fundamental natural rights are given to all men, how can a government which is the fruit of this declaration even think to restrict them?
Incorporation matters not.
DocBrown, I believe that nuclear weapons have done a lot to preserve my life and liberty over the years. However, I think I could do a better job than the Federal Government in deciding exactly what deterrent profile would work best. So I am against restrictions on the private ownership of nuclear weapons. You are too, right?
More seriously, since the US Constitution explicitly guarantees your right to keep and bear arms, why appeal to a non-specific text in the Declaration of Independence? I suppose the drawback for a gun rights supporter in appealing to the Constitution is that it can be changed by democratically elected representatives, but the drawback for a gun rights supporter in appealing to the Declaration is that it has no legal status at all (or at best, people do not agree on its legal status.)
I was more than shocked to see that the gentleman IS black too.
Gun control in Chicago was intended to keep guns out of the hands of blacks.
Gun control in Chicago was intended to keep guns out of the hands of blacks.
In the south, too. It’s OK to have a gun while black in Chicago, though, as long as you work for the government.
Oh geez, the old “you can’t own a [insert massive weapon system]” argument is almost like Godwin in gun debates. Yet, private owners can have tanks, military aircraft, and naval vessels.
Private ownership of nuclear weapons are cost prohibitive. The free market works again.
Once private nuclear weapon ownership is properly encouraged (or at least, as soon as the damn statists get out of the way and let people be free), market forces will drive the price down. Also, without repressive regulation and control, the cost of biological WMDs will come down sooner. Besides, if city-destroying weapons are outlawed, only super-empowered outlaws will have city-destroying weapons.
Biological WMDs are already affordable. Perhaps you missed all the Anthrax attacks after 9-11. And during the investigations, it wasn’t that people possessed Anthrax, but they used it an illegal manner.
I wish I had a nuclear weapon. If I had a nuclear weapon I guarantee you that no one would f#ck around with me, not my neighbors, not the HOA, not the police, not the federal government, not anyone. The year I get my nuclear weapon is the last year I fill out a 1040. Yippee!
Private ownership of nuclear weapons are cost prohibitive. The free market works again.
So if you could afford them, it would be ok to have them? I have little doubt some private concern could have them if they wanted to. I mean North Korea managed to make some and they are not exactly swimming in money. The cost has been decreasing over time as technology gets developed.
IMO most people agree there should be a limitation on the kinds of weapons a private citizen could have. Everyone also agrees some kinds of weapons or weaponizable technology should be available to the public. The discussion is a matter of degree.
Anthrax is like a .38 special — potentially deadly, but not large enough to create the WMD deterrent effect that will preserve my life and liberty. If I have to go the biological route, I want to just break open a vial and boom, a month later everyone is infected worldwide — that’s the kind of threat that’ll keep ’em off my back!
Anyway, Leland, I wasn’t trying to dredge up this argument in response to the general topic gun control – I just wanted to point out to DocBrown why I think his reasoning is overly general.
I just wanted to point out to DocBrown why I think his reasoning is overly general.
And yours isn’t?
Godzilla, there are consequences to any weapon ownership. The question is why would a private owner want one. Since he provides one, let’s use Jardinero’s example. Simply owning a nuclear weapon or a small firearm might deter the HOA from complaining about his grass not being mowed or watering his lawn everyday. But only if he simply possessed it and let them know about it. However, if he ever threatened them with the use of the weapon then he will have broken laws in many jurisdictions. The Constitution does not provide the right to use arms.
Also, an American purchasing a nuclear weapon from North Korea will have violated several other laws.
And, of course, the correct answer to Bob-1’s parody of leftist gun-grabber thought is that the 2nd amendment actually does not permit ownership of nuclear weapons, or artillery, or any other large-scale military weaponry hoplophobes like to use in their idiotic arguments.
“Arms” very specifically refers to personal-scale weapons, pistols, rifles, and the like. Squad-based and heavier weapons are “ordnance.”
John,
The Founding Fathers were quite happy for private citizens to own cannon and warships (and, as authorized by the Constitution, they issued letters of marque which would be useless without such weapons).
Here’s a thoughtful discussion of what “arms” meant in the founding fathers’ day, and why the 2nd amendment covers military weapons:
http://brainshavings.com/supplements/arms/iii.htm
There are many other discussions of this issue on the web as well – some scholars do agree with you, but many, and perhaps even most, do not.
Furthermore, please note that today Americans legally own modern artillery, as well as tanks and other large and modern weapons of war. For example, here’s a video of some proud Americans firing their privately owned T8 90mm anti-tank gun:
“www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7_M4ejKJV0”
I think it is more common to own tanks, such as this privately owned one:
“www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCioYnXBhAY”
(I don’t know if the gun on that one was operable, but as any “tank vs car” video demonstrates, a tank is a weapon regardless.)
And, Bob-1, there are laws that allowed and allow private possession of ordnance. These are separate and within Congress’s power outside of the 2nd amendment.
As for what scholars agree or disagree on, considering the state of academia these days I’m more happy with a reasonable minority in agreement with me than the herd of tenured groupthink specialists.
Here’s Glenn Reynolds on the subject:
Reynolds, Glenn H. and Kates, Don B., “The Second Amendment And
States’ Rights: A Thought Experiment,” William and Mary Law Rev.,
v.36 pp. 1737-1768 (1995)
In summary: The Second Amendment protects all arms, though as is
mentioned elsewhere (see 3.3), those arms which have some relationship
to a well-regulated militia are better protected than those which do
not, at least according to legal precedent. Many people (at least for
the sake of argument here on t.p.g.) are justifiably distressed at the
thought of private individuals owning such indiscriminately destructive
and persistently dangerous weapons. Some supporters of the civil right
to keep and bear arms, as a result, seek to interpret “arms” as meaning
“personal arms” (i.e. those which can be carried and used by an
individual against another individual). However, in researching the
era during which Amendment II was drafted, it is possible to find
individuals who owned cannon and privateer ships, much as it is possible
today to find people who own tanks and planes from the World War II era
(and later), some with functioning guns. Civil War re-enactor companies
today sometimes own cannon and other weapons which were state-of-the-art for_that_period.
If one attempts to “creatively interpret” the Second Amendment today
to say that it should now only apply to “personal arms” (in the absence
of any textual or historical basis for that interpretation), what
legitimate objection can one have to others who “creatively interpret”
it to say that it now applies only to the National Guard, or even to say
that it’s entirely outmoded and can be totally ignored? (See 2.0)
Any of these is an arbitrary selective interpretation, and all are
equally unsupportable, as would be any attempt to limit the First
Amendment protection of a free press only to, say, presses like those
used by Benjamin Franklin, and not the unimaginably more powerful
telecommunications devices of today. It is perhaps not surprising,
however, that the power which modern telecommunications gives to the
individual is similarly opposed, out of fears of what can possibly be
done with it (see also 4.0).
…
The Second Amendment was indeed written to protect all arms, and thus
nuclear weapons are included. If multibillionaires (or wealthy state
militias!) funding their own private bomb development efforts seem to
be a problem worthy of serious consideration, what’s the solution?
Follow the procedure that the authors of the Constitution provided for
modifying the Constitution to adapt to changing times –amend it by
following the procedures in Article V. The people who wrote the
Constitution did not intend for it to be selectively interpreted in
order to fit changing conditions. They planned that if conditions
“did_change enough to warrant an alteration in a provision of the
Constitution, it should be done with due care and consideration,
and only upon the agreement of two thirds of each house of Congress,
and three fourths of the legislatures of the states. “This_is the
proper way to react to changing times– through the amendment process,
and not by arbitrary denial of the plain language of the Constitution,
by whatever branch of government (see 2.3).
Bob-1:
I’d set the “threshold” at the level the actual police are allowed.
Police don’t (or at least, shouldn’t!) have artillery, land mines, grenade launchers, machine guns, sizable bombs, nuclear devices, or chem/bio weapons (meaning: lethal/maiming as opposed to tear gas).
So.. neither should most civilians. (Most doesn’t mean all though – manufacturers, testers, building demolitions, mining, there can be civilian uses that do get more scrutiny.)
But if the police think a particular pepper spray works well – civilians should have the same less-than-lethal options the police have. As with tasers.
“machine guns”
Most PD’s at least have an old DRMO M-16A1, an MP-5 or modern M-4 Carbines.
i am all in favor of SWAT and TAC teams having an overmatch level of firepower if their use is limited to real need and not serving petty Warrants.
Bob-1, I respectfully disagree with Glenn Reynolds on that subject. Along with a few others, though not so many.
So your cut-and-paste served no useful purpose. You still have been posting the classic unthinking hoplophobic reductio ad absurdum fallacy, rather than any substantial argument. In fact, in your arguments to me, you’ve promoted the 2nd amendment as written.
Which is why I stated initially you were parodying the anti-gun argument, not making a serious one yourself.
I actually agree with Rand that the Constitution should be taken seriously.
John,
You don’t say why you disagree with Glenn Reynolds, nor do you address the “letters of marque” argument, nor do you say why you think the 90mm anti-tank gun owners are not covered by the 2nd amendment.
I think that last case is the most interesting, because private citizens who own tanks and anti-tank artillery and such are quite heavily regulated, and those regulations aren’t criticized by the 2nd amendment advocates who comment here, even though their rights are somewhat infringed.