Bob Costas and the 2nd Amendment

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
522

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

No sir. That is NOT what I’m suggesting. I’m suggesting the 2nd amendment may have originally allowed for the private ownership and use of weapons whose modern equivalents could not possibly have been foreseen and subsumed under that original intent. It’s weaponry that has evolved. Not the constitution. [/quote]

I don’t have a problem with this, this is absolutely true. The Framers didn’t envision modern global industrial warfare. And that is why this is a thorny issue from a public policy perspective. The US had to “keep up” in the arms race since WWI, which meant the US had to invest in tanks, planes, missiles, all that stuff. The needs of national security quite obviously drove weaponry in this direction (on a massive scale) and the US government had no choice but to arm itself in this way.

So, as a function of national security, to protect itself from the world, the US government is the proud owner of all these weapons the Founders never envisioned. Well, has the need of the US government to own all of these weapons to defend itself created an entitlement to US citizens to own all of them as well out of some constitutional requirement that the private populace always be in a position to win a war against the federal government?

That’d be an odd result - geopolitical/national security concerns now “define” what kinds of weapons an American private citizen is entitled to own in civil society. During the Cold War, the US was forced to get an arsenal of nuclear missiles - well, does that reflexively mean that if Apple, Inc. wanted to buy a nuke, they could? National security needs dictate what weapons we can privately own?

That’s where the “rival” theory ends up, which I think is a preposterous result. And I don’t think the Founders intended for such an odd result. [/quote]I do believe I find this to be a compelling a line of reasoning. Undeniable actually, which leaves us with a knotty problem, but no ready solution.

523

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

No sir. That is NOT what I’m suggesting. I’m suggesting the 2nd amendment may have originally allowed for the private ownership and use of weapons whose modern equivalents could not possibly have been foreseen and subsumed under that original intent. It’s weaponry that has evolved. Not the constitution. [/quote]

I don’t have a problem with this, this is absolutely true. The Framers didn’t envision modern global industrial warfare. And that is why this is a thorny issue from a public policy perspective. The US had to “keep up” in the arms race since WWI, which meant the US had to invest in tanks, planes, missiles, all that stuff. The needs of national security quite obviously drove weaponry in this direction (on a massive scale) and the US government had no choice but to arm itself in this way.

So, as a function of national security, to protect itself from the world, the US government is the proud owner of all these weapons the Founders never envisioned. Well, has the need of the US government to own all of these weapons to defend itself created an entitlement to US citizens to own all of them as well out of some constitutional requirement that the private populace always be in a position to win a war against the federal government?

That’d be an odd result - geopolitical/national security concerns now “define” what kinds of weapons an American private citizen is entitled to own in civil society. During the Cold War, the US was forced to get an arsenal of nuclear missiles - well, does that reflexively mean that if Apple, Inc. wanted to buy a nuke, they could? National security needs dictate what weapons we can privately own?

That’s where the “rival” theory ends up, which I think is a preposterous result. And I don’t think the Founders intended for such an odd result. [/quote]I do believe I find this to be a compelling a line of reasoning. Undeniable actually, which leaves us with a knotty problem, but no ready solution.
[/quote]

I agree with both of you, completely.

526

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

No sir. That is NOT what I’m suggesting. I’m suggesting the 2nd amendment may have originally allowed for the private ownership and use of weapons whose modern equivalents could not possibly have been foreseen and subsumed under that original intent. It’s weaponry that has evolved. Not the constitution. [/quote]

I don’t have a problem with this, this is absolutely true. The Framers didn’t envision modern global industrial warfare. And that is why this is a thorny issue from a public policy perspective. The US had to “keep up” in the arms race since WWI, which meant the US had to invest in tanks, planes, missiles, all that stuff. The needs of national security quite obviously drove weaponry in this direction (on a massive scale) and the US government had no choice but to arm itself in this way.

So, as a function of national security, to protect itself from the world, the US government is the proud owner of all these weapons the Founders never envisioned. Well, has the need of the US government to own all of these weapons to defend itself created an entitlement to US citizens to own all of them as well out of some constitutional requirement that the private populace always be in a position to win a war against the federal government?

That’d be an odd result - geopolitical/national security concerns now “define” what kinds of weapons an American private citizen is entitled to own in civil society. During the Cold War, the US was forced to get an arsenal of nuclear missiles - well, does that reflexively mean that if Apple, Inc. wanted to buy a nuke, they could? National security needs dictate what weapons we can privately own?

That’s where the “rival” theory ends up, which I think is a preposterous result. And I don’t think the Founders intended for such an odd result. [/quote]I do believe I find this to be a compelling a line of reasoning. Undeniable actually, which leaves us with a knotty problem, but no ready solution.
[/quote]

I agree with both of you, completely.[/quote]

Fully realizing I am breaking my own pledge that I’m too busy to post anymore (and this is the last one, yall can debate this amongst yourselves, if you like), this “rival” theory or something close to it forces a reading of the Constitution whereby the Second Amendment actually hamstrings the federal government from its number one constitutional duty - national security.

Imagine a situation where policymakers need to invest in massive industrial weaponry because the nation’s enemies are. If the “rival” theory is true, these same policymakers would be forced to make these choices all against a backdrop of “well, if we invest in a missile, the Second Amendment means private citizens are entitled to the same missile, too”, which forces them to make choices they shouldn’t have to make when considering national security, i.e., they might forego investing in the weapons truly needed to win out of fear of loosing those kinds of weapons in civil society.

That could not have been the Founders’ intent - to have the Second Amendment serve as a limitation on the federal government’s ability to do its number mission: protecting the people from external threats. As has been stated by others, the constitution is not a suicide pact, and I will leave you with Jefferson’s thoughts on that way of thinking:

“[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.”

527

Breaking news: In the cases of Moore and Shepherd, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled that Illinois? ban on concealed carry violates the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. From the decision [click here to read]: ?The Second Amendment states in its entirety that ?a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed? (emphasis added). The right to ?bear? as distinct from the right to ?keep? arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of ?bearing? arms within one?s home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.?

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/NY0PP63Y.pdf

528

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

they might forego investing in the weapons truly needed to win out of fear of loosing those kinds of weapons in civil society.

[/quote]

Governments don’t hold back from a position of fear.

If the Government is for the people they have no reason to fear the people.

The above is like saying my husband won’t buy me a gun for fear I turn against him:

Or that my husband won’t arm himself properly for fear of arming me with the same weapons but he is fine with the rapist and the criminal having such weapons to violate our family.

531

I’m going to post some text from the Moore and Shepherd decisions because the language is germane to this thread.

"The Second Amendment states in its entirety that ?a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed? (emphasis added). The right to ?bear? as distinct from the right to ?keep? arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of ?bearing? arms within one?s home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home . . .

Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians. But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower. A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a protective order against a violent ex-husband is more vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under her mattress. But Illinois wants to deny the former claim, while compelled by McDonald to honor the latter. That creates an arbitrary difference. To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald . . .

A blanket prohibition on carrying gun in public prevents a person from defending himself anywhere except inside his home; and so substantial a curtailment of the right of armed self-defense requires a greater showing of justification than merely that the public might benefit on balance from such a curtailment, though there is no proof it would . . .

We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home. The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside. The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense. Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden. "

539

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Was private ownership of cannons permitted by the founders?

“Yes. The letter of Marque and Reprisal against the Barbary Pirates was to authorize the Federal Government to PAY privateers, share in the spoils, and to allow them to ‘hunt’ pirates legally. Those letters quite clearly did not, as some here have suggested, make it legal for them to arm their ships in the first place. In fact, the reason the FedGov hired so many privateers was BECAUSE they were already armed.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1172715/posts[/quote]

Push, debating you in this thread is like trying to box a pile of hair gel.

I was going to bring up Article 1 Section 8 as evidence against you earlier in the thread.

You provided what I presumed to be your interpretation of the Second Amendment here: “any weapon capable of being handled by the common man, in other words any weapon that the common man could/would “bear” would be guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment so that such man could defend his life and property, AND together with his other fellow men, pose a formidable force, a deterrent, against a rogue government.”

This position seemed a rather comfortable one for you because it provided for the protection of what federal legislation in the 90’s referred to as “assault weapons” without allowing for private ownership of, say, a Scud missile or an Apache helicopter. It did seem to allow the sale and distribution of MPADS, which in turn seemed to make you slightly uncomfortable, but all in all it buttressed your position fairly well.

However, that the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to issue letters of Marque and Reprisal would seem to cast doubt on this interpretation through a strictly originalist prism. The argument could, of course, still be made that one does not “bear” a warship and therefore warships are not specifically protected by the Second Amendment regardless of their other cameo in the US Constitution. But you don’t seem to be making that argument here. You seem to be entering Article 1 Section 8 as evidence in support of a new interpretation, one that revises its estimate of the founders’ intent so as to accommodate vessels of war.

But, of course, you’ve also admitted the following in this thread:

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

Which carries the implication that you do in fact believe that “too much” (i.e., weapons of such high potency that the Second Amendment does not allow for private ownership of them) exists.

So: a red line exists, but you’re not sure where to put it. At the same time, the letter of the law seems to protect only handheld weapons and yet precedent exists for the private ownership of warships, whose contemporary analogs are destroyers at least but could also be argued to be any sort of armored vessel maneuvered through fluid–the F-22, perhaps?

540

Video related to thread