Bob Costas and the 2nd Amendment

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
541

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[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?[/quote]

I’m on my phone so I apologize in advance. I think drawing a line in this situation is damn near impossible. An F-22 is as much a vehicle as it’s a weapons system. I could mount two AK-47s on a jeep, should we outlaw cars? You can own a plane, why not a jet? My point is the line is blurry at best and I thik many of us would rather air on the side of less restriction because it gives us the opportunity to defend against anything if need be. Will a fringe element take advantage of this and hurt other? Of course, but should we stifle rights via regulation? No, look no further than steroids. Illegal almost 100% because congress doesn’t understand them or mafe tjem illegal for the wrong reasons (fainess in sports).

Do uou trust the gov to restrict gun ownership in a way thay betters society? I persomally don’t.

542

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[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?[/quote]

I’m on my phone so I apologize in advance. I think drawing a line in this situation is damn near impossible. An F-22 is as much a vehicle as it’s a weapons system. I could mount two AK-47s on a jeep, should we outlaw cars? You can own a plane, why not a jet? My point is the line is blurry at best and I thik many of us would rather air on the side of less restriction because it gives us the opportunity to defend against anything if need be. Will a fringe element take advantage of this and hurt other? Of course, but should we stifle rights via regulation? No, look no further than steroids. Illegal almost 100% because congress doesn’t understand them or mafe tjem illegal for the wrong reasons (fainess in sports).

Do uou trust the gov to restrict gun ownership in a way thay betters society? I persomally don’t.
[/quote]

Good post. I do think the government needs to restrict arms ownership. The nature of those restrictions is debatable, but it is clear that certain weapons are not appropriate for civilian ownership and/or use.

My intention is to highlight the fact that this is a nuanced debate and it is nowhere near as black-and-white as Push averred at the outset of this discussion. It’s also meant as a protest of that slippery bastard’s impressive but not altogether fair ability to argue multiple positions in one thread.

543

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[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?[/quote]

I’m on my phone so I apologize in advance. I think drawing a line in this situation is damn near impossible. An F-22 is as much a vehicle as it’s a weapons system. I could mount two AK-47s on a jeep, should we outlaw cars? You can own a plane, why not a jet? My point is the line is blurry at best and I thik many of us would rather air on the side of less restriction because it gives us the opportunity to defend against anything if need be. Will a fringe element take advantage of this and hurt other? Of course, but should we stifle rights via regulation? No, look no further than steroids. Illegal almost 100% because congress doesn’t understand them or mafe tjem illegal for the wrong reasons (fainess in sports).

Do uou trust the gov to restrict gun ownership in a way thay betters society? I persomally don’t.
[/quote]

Good post. I do think the government needs to restrict arms ownership. The nature of those restrictions is debatable, but it is clear that certain weapons are not appropriate for civilian ownership and/or use.

My intention is to highlight the fact that this is a nuanced debate and it is nowhere near as black-and-white as Push averred at the outset of this discussion. It’s also meant as a protest of that slippery bastard’s impressive but not altogether fair ability to argue multiple positions in one thread.[/quote]

One other thing worth mentioning is that many of these advanced system are not only expensive, but also difficult to use. You don’t just buy an f22 and fly away. Someone has to train you to fly it and fix it. Uranium is kind of hard to come by and weaponizing it is so challenging entire nations have failed to do so. Point being this debate is largely theoretically.

I for one am not for restriction at any level, but I can appreciate the argument. Ultimately I think it’s a step away from freedom.

547

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” --Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

548

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” --Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787[/quote]

bazzinga

550

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

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

[/quote]

Well, that would’ve bit you in the ass, no?

How could it possibly work as evidence against?[/quote]

Against your bearable arms interpretation, obviously. I know you’re a strong motherfucker but I doubt you could shoulder a frigate and go for a stroll.

I see a lot of posts, some genuine insight, and yet you haven’t (to my knowledge) taken a position on some of the basic elements of this discussion. For example, the following question should be considered fundamental in this particular argument:

[I’m asking what YOU believe here.]

Per the Second Amendment, is any restriction on any extant or conceivable weapon unconstitutional?

If not: what restrictions are acceptable and what are appropriate criteria in choosing those restrictions? Is public safety one of them? Can fervid originalism divine James Madison’s opinion of MPADS?

553

[quote]pushharder wrote:

In regards to your contention, and Marshall’s for that matter, that the BOR does not apply to the states…[/quote]

It isn’t really my contention, or Marshall’s (the opinion ruling that way was unanimous, so every Supreme Court justice agreed with the “contention”). It is a historical and legal fact that is not in dispute.

[quote]…could you comment on the Sixth Amendment – In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The language seems clear to me, “all criminal prosecutions….” I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around this one. I can’t seem to make it work that this means just “all” federal criminal prosecutions. There were practically no federal crimes on the books back in that day save treason.[/quote]

Read the whole text. See the reference to “district”? That is a direct reference to federal judicial districts. By way of application, the Sixth Amendment is saying if you are accused of a federal crime in, say, the state of New York, you are entitled to a a fair trial, etc., by an impartial jury in New York in the district where the crime as committed, i.e., the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District, Western - whichever one applies.

The reference to “district” is not superfluous, and in fact, not all of the Sixth Amendment has been incorporated to the states because of some of this language.

Well, it isn’t a “theory”, it’s a fact. Now, states typically had their own analogs that protected rights similarly, as many state constitutions were based on the federal constitution, and states most often had their own common law that recognized these rights (and provided the source of them in written constitutions). But were states bound to protect these rights as stated in the federal Sixth Amendment? No. And if you were an aggrieved detainee, you wouldn’t have been able to claim your federal rights had been violated in state court.

And, best evidence of this? Federal habeas review wasn’t even enacted until 1867, meaning state prisoners could not petition a federal court for review claiming their rights under the federal constitution had been violated until after the Civil War. They were otherwise stuck at the state level - what the state court said, you had to live with it.

So, yes, states could theoretically do the things you were sure they couldn’t under the BOR up until Reconstruction.

That, of course, was one reason - the main reason - for the 14th Amendment: to make sure that states didn’t use these broad powers that they previously enjoyed to deny these important rights (in the BOR and others) to black people after the abolition of slavery, which absent federal protection, states could have done.

Yep. States were not constrained by the federal BOR to do otherwise, as a full part of - that’s right - “states’ rights”.

555

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I figured you might say as much. Fair enough. Seriously.

I disagree with your analysis…[/quote]

See, that’s the thing - I’m not giving you analysis, I’m giving you history. You can’t “disagree” that the Sixth Amendment didn’t apply to the states - there really is no basis for disagreement when you look at the language, intent and history of the BOR.

This is in line with my continued puzzlement at libertarian historical revisionism - libertarian-types often just simply ignore history and re-write or argue that history really did unfold according to their ideological preferences, despite obvious evidence to the contrary. As in, this idea that “no, really, the BOR really did apply to the states from the outset, it’s just every state in the Union and the Founding Fathers got it all completely wrong back then.”

Not trying to pick on you in particular, and I get it - it hurts the libertarian desire for an “absolute” right to arms under the Second Amendment to admit that the BOR didn’t apply to the states and, yes, states had authority to restrict this “absolute” right under state police powers up until incorporation. But that doesn’t make the actual history any less true, and “asbolutists” have to advocate in the context of that history.

Yep, I may have some time today.

557

[quote]pushharder wrote:

You keep tossing out “libertarian” as a pejorative when no matter how you slice and dice it the modern libertarian view is THE closest philosophy to 18th century classic liberalism - the predominant view of the founding fathers.[/quote]

Modern libertarianism, whether the “anti-gummint” yahoos in the Pacific Northwest or the modern Hippies of the Right? Nope. Wasn’t.

Nonsense, you know squat, and this is the same lazy crap you always fall back on when you realize that someone has gotten your goat on this stuff (see debate on nullification). I don’t think the federal government is limitless, but “mitigating that greed for power” is precisely done at the ballot box, as intended by the Founding Fathers, as opposed to your juvenile revenge fantasies against the ATF.

If you knew your constitutional history - and it’s clear you don’t - the big questions on the constitutionality of acts under say the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause are just as much vested in Congress and the executive branch, which makes eminent sense, because they are inherently political questions that don’t have precise boundaries.

Want to fix that? Call your Congressman. Or run for office. The rest is just noise.

The “king” of the amendments? I don’t even know what that means. And, there is no “incorporation” clause in the Amendment, just FYI. If you recall, I’m that noted the incredible mess the 14th Amendment created re: the BOR. The 14th Amendment helped lots of things, but created a lot of other problems.

In any event, I don’t think any of one of the amendments is “king”. But I am surprised at your denigration of the 14th Amendment, since it is the only way the Second Amendment gets directly incorporated to the states - you should be its biggest fan, on that basis, but it’s clear you haven’t thought it through.

Good Lord - what fantasy world do you live in, Push? Seriously?

I didn’t say states “legislated gun control anywhere and everywhere”, but they certainly regulated arms and have always had the historical right to. You say it’s bullshit, but you know better. Well, you should, I should say, if you’d bother to use Google or a public library.

States had all kinds of regulations related to hunting, militia, crime and disloyalty prohibitions. This isn’t news, and it isn’t controversial. Early arms prohibitions had racist elements - i.e., refusal to allow blacks, even free ones, to have guns. In some cases, states required people to own arms, and if they couldn’t afford them, the local government provided arms to them if needed.

Point is: states had broad power to regulate as they saw fit, including the right to restrict. That broad power cuts both ways. Want to ignore history because it doesn’t fit your pre-conceived ideological outcome? Not my problem to fix.

And, you and I both know, I didn’t run from any point you made. Quite the opposite - I have basically drafted a treatise here, and half the time I was trying to get you up to speed on basic history that someone who boasts as much as you should know - for example, that states actually have broad police powers to regulate in the name of public safety (which is why felons are restricted from owning guns in some places and why you can’t take a gun into a school or a church), and that the Bill of Rights didn’t apply to the states prior to the Civil War.

Far from running from your points, I should send you a bill for tuition.

Look, we all get it. The big-talkin’ guns-rights guy is exposed as somebody who really hasn’t done much reading on the subject and has had to realize that history and practical common sense snarls up the reductionist desires of libertarians to simply declare “hey, I can own any gun I want, and by gum, the Founding Fathers thought so too!”.

Why should I? If I up it any more, you’ll have to forfeit due to the skunk rule.