Heller v. DC - Your Gun Rights Case

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
83

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I don’t care if one is a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, et al, as soon as I hear the word “hunting” or “sportsmen” interjected into ANY 2nd Amendment debate I dismiss them out of hand as a lightweight not worthy to have their ideas included in the debate. That goes for Presidents, presidential candidates, Senators, Congressmen, city councilmen, and dog catchers.[/quote]

Push, if you haven’t read the decision yet, take a look at page 26 of the majority decision. Scalia addresses reason why the Second Amendment appears in the constitution:

“It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizen’s militia by taking away their arms was the reason the right - unlike some other English rights - was codified in the written Constitution.”

84

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
pushharder wrote:
This bothers me to no end. Anyone who has read my posts on this subject knows my zeal when it comes to “the concept of the Second Amendment as a bulwark against an overly oppressive government.”

That is practically all the 2nd is really about. Sorry, but it, the 2nd, has nothing to do with hunting. It has nothing to do with recreational target shooting. It has practically nothing to do with “home protection” from common criminals.

It has everything to do with home protection from government criminals. When are people including the four imbeciles who voted against this decision ever going to get this through their heads?

BB, I didn’t read the decision. Can you tell me if this most basic of concepts about the 2nd was even remotely alluded to in the decision? If it wasn’t then this decision was really only a lateral improvement in the battle of ideas.

I’ve seen your zeal, yes, and I hope you don’t mind that I’ve borrowed some of it at times. My time at T-Nation has convinced me that the 2nd amendment is just as important as the others.

I got into a large argument with my father today about this very concept. My argument was very similar to yours though with slightly less zeal, his argument was thusly:

~If the government wanted to create a police state, they could do it whether we have guns or not via communication control and power control. [/quote]

And how exactly would that work? How would the authorities stop people armed with guns from talking to each other? Power control?!?! Does he mean the government would send armed officials to control us?

Why would he think that the same government that has not been able to subdue Sadr city would have such an easy time with the entire US which has over 300 million people? Or does he mean to say that once we are all disarmed it will be no problem?

When Hitler came to power one of the first things the Nazi’s did was enact gun control laws. Does your dad believe the Nazi’s didn’t know a thing or two about how to run a police state? If every Jew had a gun and shot and killed just one Nazi each it would have more than doubled Germanies WW2 losses.

[quote]
~Guns do more harm then they are worth if they are only worth having to protect us from a possible, and in his words, highly unlikely revolution. [/quote]

A well armed minority can easily control a disarmed majority. The people being armed puts a very real, tangible, limit on governmental abuse of power. The government is much less likely to push it’s luck with a people who are very capable of armed revolt. This is why all of histories tyrants have considered disarmament the most important first step in the pacification and subjugation of conquered peoples. Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it’s mistakes.

The right to bear arms is exactly what has made a revolution here unneeded for the last two hundred years. People like your father have been lulled into a false sense of security by this status quo that the right to bear arms has created.

Using the favourable status quo that the 2nd amendment has created as an arguement against the 2nd amendment is an absolutely absurd piece of twisted logic.

This arguement uses the same logic they used when Titanic was built. The logic the designers used was the ship is unlikely to sink, so we don’t need enough lifeboats for all the passengers.

Hubris is a bitch and overconfidence comes right before a fall.

[quote]
~Having a gun does not help you protect your home (yeah, I didn’t get it either). [/quote]

Do you guys by any chance live in a nice, safe suburb? The kind of place where dialing 911 immediately gets you in contact with a human not a prerecorded message like “thank you for calling Detroit 911, your call is important to us, so please remain on the line and your call will be answered in the order in which it was recieved.”

When you do get 911 do they immediately divert police services from enforcing speed laws to deal with a real crime? Or do you have to spend time arguing with a dispatcher (who is safe in a bunker somewhere) that you really are in danger of losing your life and time is of the essence?

People like your father amaze me. They think that in a real life, self defense situation, time is an abundant expendable commodity. They think that criminals are going to give plenty of forewarning of their actions and when they make their move there will be plenty of time before it becomes life threatening.

In the real world (which you father isn’t living in) self defense situations can begin and be over with in seconds. Miiliseconds can make the difference between life and death. Even if the police had the fictional transporter technology from Star Trek they would not always be able to get there in time.

[quote]
~The second amendment is archaic, and only applied in the 18th century when tyranny had to be held at bay by everyday citizens. [/quote]

The man is ignorant and in denial. Does he really believe that there has been no incidents of government tyranny since the 18th century? Slavery existed in the US until past the middle of the 19th century. What about Jim Crow? Your father needs to watch Missisipi Burning. Those civil rights workers were murdered by the police. The first combat use of the B17 bomber was to put down a race riot in Oklahoma.

[quote]
A lot of his argument makes no sense to me, but I do see some of the logic. I know you have a lot of passion for this, care to help me with my rebut?[/quote]

His logic contradicts itself,is grossly ignorant of history and a displays total lack of understanding of, or experience in the real world.

The only reason why it makes any sense to you, is you are young and haven’t had enough time to experience it’s glaring flaws. That and he’s your dad. He’s taking advantage of your respect.

87

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Far be it from me to disagree with a conservative icon like Scalia but the Founding Fathers’ numerous observations about tyranny and the right AND DUTY of citizens to rise up against it and sever its monstrous head give me reason to advocate the individualist concept more vigorously than the militia angle. Having said that, it is crystal clear that the citizens’ militia was protected too.

The individual and the militia were both intertwined and yet entirely separate. Those who know their history know what I am talking about.[/quote]

You and Scalia are on the same page. The militia that is the beneficiary of the Second Amendment is the citizens militia that is the safeguard against tyranny (page 27).

89

You see, my father DOES want the second amendment repealed. I think he’s insane.

I can argue to death that it’s in the damn constitution, and he’ll continue to argue it needs to be repealed.

@ Sifu - Well done. Mind if I err… borrow some ideas :P? Me and my dad argue a lot… though I argue a lot with everyone. I prefer taking the “gadfly” side, even if it means playing devils advocate. I’ve honestly come to believe in the 2nd amendment, and what it represents however.

Just one more issue that my time at T-Nation has had a major influence on. =D

90

When hunting is brought up in reference to the 2nd amendment, it should be attacked. Because the hunting arguement is an angle of attack on the second amendment.

If the 2nd amendment is ever reduced to being about hunting it then becomes dependent upon hunting being legal. ie you only need a deer rifle during deer season and you only need a bird gun during duck season. So if the PETA ever get their way and “blood sports” are outlawed then the second amendment becomes dead.

So don’t ignore people when they mention hunting in context to the second amendment, challenge that idea, because it is the slipperiest of all slopes.

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:

�?? 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.

To me the most important part of the second amendment that clearly, unambiguously explains the reason for it’s existance, and which defines what limits can be put upon it is the part that says “being necessary to the security of a free state,”.

“security of a free state” is the very essence of the second amendment. This is an individual right that is intended to allow the individual or a group of individuals to be able to secure a “state of freedom” for themselves.

The question then is what rights can we secure in a free state with the right to “keep and bear arms”? The first set of answers is right here in the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The full measure of the first amendment rights should be used in any future appeals. Because they give the rational for not only “keep” but also “bear”. For the sake of this arguement “Bear” means carry.

Lets look at how the “bear” part of the second amendment relates to freedom of assembly. In order for people to assemble freely there are prerequisites. First they need an assembly point, at which they will assemble. But before they can assemble, they must first travel to the assembly point.

So in order to be able to freely travel to an assembly people need to be able to secure a state of free passage. Because freedom of assembly is useless if you can’t get to the assembly point. This is why the KKK (often with police colusion) used to attack and sometimes murder people traveling to civil rights rallies.

So the ability to carry a gun that you can use to defend yourself traveling outside the home is “neccessary to secure a free state” of assembly. It is also needed to secure ones travel back home from the assembly.

The same applies to freedom of religion. If you cannot secure “a free state” of travel to assemble at a church, or synagogue or mosque and then return in “a free state” this important first amendment clause cannot be excercised in “a free state” of security.

Catholics would not be able to recieve the Holy sacrament, nor give confession or communion. Jews would not be able to assemble at their temple in sufficient numbers to form the quarum needed to have a synagogue. Muslims would not be able to assemble at the mosque. Also without the right to “bear arms” at their respective houses of worship during the services they would not be able to secure for themselves a “free state” of worship.

Last but most certainly not least there is the most cherished of all the freedoms in the first amendment, freedom of speech. If after speaking your mind you cannot “secure a free state” of travel and go out in public, this most important clause of the first amendment can be undermined.

For all these reasons then the first amendment should be used to challenge gun carry laws.

92

Beowolf, I know others already offered some good suggestions, I’d add my own take below:

Irrelevant to whether there is a right to bear arms. What the government is capable of as a “power” doesn’t matter. A government turned against its people could win in a rout against the citizenry, or it could lose big - and it is irrelevant to our right to find out.

He’d need to substantiate this, and I am certain he can’t. The part about the likelihood of a revolution is, again, irrelevant to whether the right exists or not.

Doesn’t warrant much of a response.

Ask your father which parts of the Constitution are “valid” to a modern society and which are not, and who gets to decide. Inform him the Constitution is not a buffet, and picking and choosing what parts are valid and what parts aren’t based on modern, fashionable sentiments isn’t the rule of law at all, it is the rule of men.

Ask him about the 3rd Amendment - the one about having troops quartered in your home - clearly a relic of another time, and not one single case has arisen under a fact situation where the government tried to put troops in a citizen’s home. Now, the 3rd Amendment is most certainly “archaic”, moreso than the 2nd I would argue, but ask your dad that if President George W. Bush decided to quarter troops in his home, whether the 3rd Amendment would be alive, well, and zealously defending his right against the tyranny of an out-of-control executive or whether it should be ignored as an 18th century waste of time.

93

[quote]vroom wrote:
It’s a good decision as long as the constitution isn’t amended… and that’s not likely to happen.

However, as I’ve argued before, look for gun ownership or usage to eventually become subject to regulations – similar to how driving a car is available to everyone, but regulated.

One of these days maybe the government will figure out that it’s job is a to help the law abiding and inconvenience the criminals, not the other way around!
[/quote]

The government’s job is to make this country safer. Part of that is allowing people to protect themselves. Which is why this is a good ruling. That doesn’t mean any and all regulation is bad. Because not any and all use of guns leads to less risk and less death. For example, someone who is negligent and careless and leaves their guns laying around the house forefeits their right to be licensed. Just like a negligent driver who causes accidents should lose their right to drive.

94

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
vroom wrote:
It’s a good decision as long as the constitution isn’t amended… and that’s not likely to happen.

However, as I’ve argued before, look for gun ownership or usage to eventually become subject to regulations – similar to how driving a car is available to everyone, but regulated.

One of these days maybe the government will figure out that it’s job is a to help the law abiding and inconvenience the criminals, not the other way around!

The government’s job is to make this country safer. Part of that is allowing people to protect themselves. Which is why this is a good ruling. That doesn’t mean any and all regulation is bad. Because not any and all use of guns leads to less risk and less death. For example, someone who is negligent and careless and leaves their guns laying around the house forefeits their right to be licensed. Just like a negligent driver who causes accidents should lose their right to drive.[/quote]

Can you show me where driving is an enumerated right in the constitution?

If I had to get a license from the government before I were permitted to practice free speech, would you still consider it a right?

If I had to get a license from the government before I were permitted to vote, would you still consider it a right?

95

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
The government’s job is to make this country safer.[/quote]

Re-read your Constitution.

96

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
vroom wrote:
It’s a good decision as long as the constitution isn’t amended… and that’s not likely to happen.

However, as I’ve argued before, look for gun ownership or usage to eventually become subject to regulations – similar to how driving a car is available to everyone, but regulated.

One of these days maybe the government will figure out that it’s job is a to help the law abiding and inconvenience the criminals, not the other way around!

The government’s job is to make this country safer. Part of that is allowing people to protect themselves. Which is why this is a good ruling. That doesn’t mean any and all regulation is bad. Because not any and all use of guns leads to less risk and less death. For example, someone who is negligent and careless and leaves their guns laying around the house forefeits their right to be licensed. Just like a negligent driver who causes accidents should lose their right to drive.

Can you show me where driving is an enumerated right in the constitution?

If I had to get a license from the government before I were permitted to practice free speech, would you still consider it a right?

If I had to get a license from the government before I were permitted to vote, would you still consider it a right?[/quote]

Constitutional rights are not unlimited. They are circumscribed. We have liberty rights too. You FORFEIT those rights by committing crimes. You forfeit your right to bear arms by leaving a loaded gun on the coffee table for your 5 yr old to pick up. That’s what I’m talking about. And this actually considered criminal negligence in most states. If something bad happens because of your act, you lose right to keep a gun. At least for a time. As it should be. By the way, marriage is considered a fundamental right. You still have to get a marriage license.

Just because you have a right to something, doesn’t mean you can or should be able to do it absolutely in the way you want with no requirements and no strings attached. Read your constitution. There is a fundamental need for gun licensing to make sure dangerous felons or the mentally incapacited can’t use guns. And I assure you it’s a good thing.

97

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
The government’s job is to make this country safer.

Re-read your Constitution.
[/quote]

I should clarify-STATE governments jobs are to make us safer. State governments have plenary power to act for the general health and welfare. We’re talking about state regulations here. Not federal regulations.

98

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.

You guys need to re-read the second. amendment. Because the use of the word STATE in the 2nd amendment is not being used in the governmental sense at all. The word STATE in the 2nd amendment means CONDITION. That is why the 2nd amendment is written the way it is. It is grammatically correct if the word STATE means CONDITION. It is not gramatically correct if STATE means THE STATES. We don’t call THE UNITED STATES, A UNITED STATES, do we? You can substitute condition for state in the 2nd amendment and it still makes perfect sense in establishing a right of the people that is independent of THE STATE.

What is happening here is the government is trying to reinterpret the wording of the 2nd amendment so that it is now THE STATE that is referred to, instead of a CONDITION. This is why the courts are having such a time now trying to decipher the meaning of the 2nd amendment. Because they have changed the meaning of the word STATE to mean a NATION STATE. When you use that wrong interpretation of the word STATE the 2nd amendment becomes gramatically incorrect, vague and hard to interpret.

Also at the time of the constitutions writing, the term FREE STATE could also refer to the states where slavery was illegal. It doesn’t make sense that this right would only refer to the FREE STATES while the SLAVE STATES didn’t have a similar right. Why wouldn’t a SLAVE STATE want the same rights as a FREE STATE. After all the SLAVE STATES had slaves they needed to keep under control.

If you apply the NATION STATE interpretation to the term A FREE STATE, it becomes vague. A STATE is ambiguous, it could mean any STATE anywhere in the world. It doesn’t make sense that the 2nd amendment was intended to be applied to all of the world. This is why the use of state is not gramatically correct if it means THE NATION STATE.

Another thing is the first ten amendments to the constitution are known as the bill of rights. The bill of rights is meant to empower the individual against the power of THE STATE. It doesn’t make much sense that the founding fathers would make an amendment that can be used to empower THE STATE against the people as the second amendment.

Also if you look at the 1st and 2nd amendments as individual rights against the state, then the phrase “A well regulated Militia” dovetails real nicely into the 1st amendment “right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” What they are saying is the people have the right to assemble armed to peaceably petition the government for redress of grievances.

But not only do the people have the right to assemble armed, but they have an additional right for their armed assembly to be organised and under the control of a command structure with leadership, or in other words “well regulated”. This means THE STATE can’t try to undermine the power of an armed assembly (militia) by arresting individuals by making it a crime to be “ring leaders”. Like the British did to ringleaders who were organising rebellion against the crown in the 13 colonies.

The well regulated militia clause is another example of where the government in trying to extend it’s writ into a right of “the people”. Because they are trying to use that right of the people to justify regulating gun ownership and put limitations on the right of the people to peaceably assemble armed.

99

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
The government’s job is to make this country safer.

Re-read your Constitution.

I should clarify-STATE governments jobs are to make us safer. State governments have plenary power to act for the general health and welfare. We’re talking about state regulations here. Not federal regulations.[/quote]

State government can’t violate my enumerated constitutional rights, even under the guise of doing so in the interest of the “general health and welfare”. Fundamental Liberty takes precedence over safety.

100

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Constitutional rights are not unlimited. They are circumscribed. We have liberty rights too. You FORFEIT those rights by committing crimes.
[/quote]

Strawman. That isn’t what I was arguing. You said:

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
For example, someone who is negligent and careless and leaves their guns laying around the house forefeits their right to be licensed.
[/quote]

Again, read your constitution. The 2nd Amendment protects my right to keep and bear arms, not to “be licensed”. There is no right “to be licensed”, only to keep and bear arms.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
By the way, marriage is considered a fundamental right. You still have to get a marriage license.
[/quote]

No, you don’t. You can get married anytime and to anyone you please. No “license” necessary.

Now, if you want the government to recognize your marriage, you need a license. And you do not have a fundamental right to have your marriage recognized by the state. Just like you do not have a fundamental right to drive. That’s the second “fundamental” right you’ve created out of thin air.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Just because you have a right to something, doesn’t mean you can or should be able to do it absolutely in the way you want with no requirements and no strings attached.
[/quote]

Of course not. This is a strawman and has nothing to do with licensing. I have a right to keep and bear arms, but I cannot abuse that right in order to violate the rights of others.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Read your constitution. There is a fundamental need for gun licensing to make sure dangerous felons or the mentally incapacited can’t use guns. And I assure you it’s a good thing.
[/quote]

Show me where in the constitution I should be reading about “gun licensing”. There is no fundamental need for gun licensing. I have no license for my guns, and none is required. The world has not ended.

What does licensing a gun have to do with running a background check anyway? My background was checked to make sure I am not a felon, but that has nothing to do with me registering my firearms or obtaining any kind of license for them.

I think you’re confused about this issue. Licensing and registration of firearms is a separate issue from performing background checks.