Bob Costas and the 2nd Amendment

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
263

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I think there’s common ground between you and I though: you mentioned something about all firearms being legal but keeping them out of the hands of the certifiably insane. I’d be in favor of fairly weak gun control legislation if we were to take the notion of the background check and the privilege to ownership very seriously.[/quote]

Then start with basic premise of freedom and its constitutional protections and work in the direction we need to go and not the other way around where we decide what weapons are simply “too much” and work our way backwards until the basic premise of freedom is whatever we decide it shall be at the time.[/quote]

Are you implying that there are no weapons that are simply “too much?” Does this include explosive material and heavy ordnance?[/quote]

I’ll be honest, I don’t exactly know where “too much” is in precise terms.

[/quote]

Fair enough. We disagree on the (by definition arbitrary) location of the red line, but in principle I think we tend to agree:

  1. The Second Amendment unequivocally protects the right of American citizens to own weapons in general

and

  1. Certain weapons should not be owned by American citizens
264

By the way, the price of having a prohibitive, hegemonic military, with more destructive power than any other in history–and the ability to essentially reduce life on planet earth to some deep-sea fish and a few million cockroaches scrambling through ash–is that “a citizen militia whose power can rival that of the Federal government” cannot exist. An existential threat to a unified United States military would end in annihilation for those who posed it.

266

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I’ll be honest, I don’t exactly know where “too much” is in precise terms.[/quote]

Wait, what? Don’t you have to?

[quote]What I do know is that everything we know about the latter half of 18th century political thought and natural rights indicates a strong, well-armed populace that was capable of defending itself against an aggressive, rights-trampling centralized government was highly prized.

And, Mr. Bolt, that includes the actual centralized government that Madison, Jefferson, et al, had just got done crafting. They were not fooled by some illusion that they had created a perfect government that could be perpetually perfected entirely through the process they had created. They knew it was a creation of man and they knew man was more than capable of screwing it up. And we as a nation have certainly done that.[/quote]

No one is really arguing any differently - the problem is trying to make sense of the real Second Amendment and its relationship to state laws, not the imagined one.

States - as a matter of, that’s correct, states’s rights - have historically enjoyed the right to regulate the ownership and carrying of arms. The Second Amendment did nothing to interfere with those states’ rights - the Constitution contemplates states will handle it on the own. As such, the “original intent” was to prohibit the federal government from denying the right to keep and bear arms and leave the states to do it as they wanted, which would naturally mean that, yes, states would predictably allow people to have arms, and yes, the citizens would not be powerless to defend themselves against Indians, fellow citizens and even overbearing government. There was no serious worry that states would outrightly prohibit ownership of arms. Regulate? Yes. But prohibit? No.

Fast forward to the 14th Amendment and incorporation. Now is the hard part. Does incorporation of the Second Amendment to states now mean that the state’s traditional ability to regulate ownership and carrying of arms as a matter of, yes, states’ rights - that it has always enjoyed up until the 14th Amendment - get completely erased by the Second Amendment?

That seems to be a hard circle to square in light of the fact that the Second Amendment, as originally conceived, conceded there was nothing wrong with state regulation of arms - i.e., “original intent” isn’t necessarily on the side of an absolute, uninfringeable right.

These are tough questions, and they aren’t answered with lazy rhetoric about “the Founders were a-feared of tyranny, you know! They fer sure wanted us to have bazookas, there’s no doubt!”.

271

Also, that is why the 14th Amendment and what followed in its wake so schizophrenic and messy. The point of the 14th Amendment was to extend certain federal rights to blacks - being newly freed slaves - who would no doubt face discrimination at the hands of states and state legislatures unless federal protections were extended over the heads of states. Thus, the point of extending “federal” rights to these citizens was to insure they weren’t denied certain civil rights.

Was one of the constitutional civil rights the people of the states were denied the right to keep and bear arms? Well, in the broad sense, no - prior to the enactment of the 14th Amendment, there was no serious argument that states were infringing on the civil right to own a gun with state regulations. (To the extent someone was barred from owning a gun and they were black, yes, but that is a different kind of rights violation.). The 14th Amendment - by extending federal rights to the states - was not trying to solve that problem, that is, state infringement of the right to bear arms.

But the 14th Amendment sweeps broadly, and basically incorporates (basically) all the federal rights, even the ones that were not being historically viewed as being infringed upon by state laws - such as the right to keep and bear arms.

This mess, by the way, has also created a mess for the First Amendment, which suffers from the same issue with respect to state regulations on speech prior to the 14th Amendment.

273

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Oh yes you are. No doubt about it. Your thoughts on this forum over the years show you to be the Carefully-Follow-Case-Law-and-Don’t-Ever-Forget-the-Federal-Government-is-Your-Daddy-Obey-Him-at-All-Times Guy.[/quote]

C’mon, enough of this sniveling. You sound like a child, you’re better than that. I don’t have that position about the federal government, and never have. And to the point, no, I am not arguing that people don’t have the right to keep and bear arms - but your poorly-informed libertarian revisionism doesn’t provide you the cover you want because you don’t get to conveniently ignore information that hurts your argument.

That’s the difference - I pay attention to it, you whistle past it and hope no one notices that you are avoiding it. Well, that person isn’t me.

Well, no you don’t understand, quite obviously - you’ve been trying to pretend for pages that the Bill of Rights has always applied to the states. That is exactly the issue - you don’t understand, and you don’t seem to be in any hurry to correct your misunderstandings.

Not exactly, some things I like about Hamilton, but I’m not really in his camp.

And you think you’re in the camp of Jefferson and Madison - but which part? The Jefferson that prosecuted Aaron Burr for attempting quasi-secession? The Madison that re-upped on the national bank?

No, they weren’t necessarily, and I didn’t lose that argument now or any other time. But I’ve already explained it - the Founders were concerned about internecine rebellion and the like - it was a reason some Founders wanted to replace the Articles with the Constitution. Further, the Founders were worried about the so-called tyranny of the mob as well as the tyranny of despots. You’ve got an internet connection and a search engine - go explore.

Here is the problem - you have a view of the Founders stuck in your head that supports your “libb-uh-turr-ee-un” ideology, and it’s a false view, and one you made it up (in the same way you made up the claim that the BOR aplied to the states and always has), but you can’t be bothered to go learn the truth.

That’s why you keep getting into trouble in these debates.

274

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I’m having fun here, Monsieur Bolt, and I respect you still.

But it’s OK to respect folks who are wrong once in awhile.

:wink:

For instance, I will say Doc Skeptix and I disagree on a number of things and I consider him one of my very best friends in this world.[/quote]

No worries at all, mate. I know you don’t mind mixing it up - that’s what I like about you. It’s not personal, and the debates get really deep and interesting.

Although, I am serious - lock yourself in a library overnight and get up to speed. If we go any further I’ll be obliged to start charging you tuition, amigo. :>

275

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Disposing of the state of Texas, were it to revolt for instance, by dropping nuclear bombs from the Gulf of Mexico to the Red River is NOT what’s going to happen, my friend. Just aint happenin’.[/quote]

I’d like to think you are correct, but, when push really comes to shove, I’m not 100% certain on this point. It depends on how crazy things get; the person who is actually in command when the shoving starts; and the quality of the communication up and down the chain of command at the time. Crazy things happen when things get crazy.

278

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
By the way, the price of having a prohibitive, hegemonic military, with more destructive power than any other in history–and the ability to essentially reduce life on planet earth to some deep-sea fish and a few million cockroaches scrambling through ash–is that “a citizen militia whose power can rival that of the Federal government” cannot exist. An existential threat to a unified United States military would end in annihilation for those who posed it.[/quote]

Read the book I mentioned earlier.

This oft repeated mantra is a non sequitur in likely, valid, real life scenarios.

Disposing of the state of Texas, were it to revolt for instance, by dropping nuclear bombs from the Gulf of Mexico to the Red River is NOT what’s going to happen, my friend. Just aint happenin’.[/quote]

I’m not entirely convinced of this, if things got bad enough. I would have believed the same thing about dropping the bomb on Japenese civilians until the mid-forties.

And in any case, you’re the one who’s supposed to assume the worst when we’re talking gubment folks.

Even if nuclear weapons didn’t come into play, the US military has at its disposal enough non-radioactive ordnance that my original sentiment stands.

I will look into the book though, as these things interest me.

279

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:<<< Crazy things happen when things get crazy. [/quote]We Americans have deluded ourselves into thinking this country is eternal just because we live here. We think all the insane upheaval we see around the world cannot happen here and the grocery store will always be there full of food just because. It’s coming. Watch. Somebody will always live on this continent until the end of the age, but this already isn’t the United Sates anymore. Our bottle rocket history is coming to an end, barring a literal miracle. I’m betting it’s gonna be loud n ugly and probably bloody. Not tomorrow… or next week… or next year, But it’s comin. We will NOT be the exception.

280

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I still posit that it is nonsensical to bring up nuclear weapons when we are discussing assault weapons and magazine capacity.[/quote]

It’s only made necessary by the fact that opponents of arms control begin by questioning the notion that any weapon at all can be restricted. The nuclear weapon is the logical rebuttal.

But I wasn’t bringing them up in that context anyway. My point was that the US Government has them and therefore a “civilian military capable of rivaling the government’s power” is absolutely, comically ridiculous.