Right, but even with that dodge, or with the related one that only a formally organized state militia or the National Guard constitutes a "well-regulated" one, the argument still does not make sense. Assume for argument's sake that (1) the National Guard is a militia, and (2) no other militia is "well-regulated" for purposes of the Second Amendment. We'd still be stuck with this:
The National Guard, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Under that reading, who has a right to arms, the National Guard, or the people? I submit that anyone who defends the "collective rights" rationalization of the Second Amendment is not really arguing that guns aren't "arms" or that ordinary citizens are not part of a "well-regulated militia." He's arguing that for purposes of the Second Amendment, ordinary citizens aren't really "people."
Of course the argument doesn't make sense. It's a pathetic rationalization by people who want to go expressly against the text and spirit of the Constitution in order to have power over you and tell you what to do.
Depends which gun-control movement you mean. The first go-round was in the context of Jim Crow, and goes all the way back to Dred Scott, in a sense. Read Taney's opinion in Dred Scott, and experience the RCOB (red curtain of blood, a la Kim du Toit). In terms of the broader anti-Second movement, I would say our dispenser of free ice cream is right.
Who gives a flying eff what the framers meant to write?!? The constitution is a living document, not a sacred scripture. The world is a much different place today and it will be a much different place in 20 years, but I'll agree, the right of law abidding citizens to own guns is one of our best laws. And I'm for strict gun-control laws, background checks and harsh penalties for those who break the law using a gun. I also have no problem with cities restricting gun carrying and possession.
The fact that the Constitution is written suggests that the words have immutable meaning. The fact that there is an enumerated procedure for amending it settles the question decisively.
The way I read it, the Second Amendment actually confirms two rights:
1) The right of the states to call up a militia;
2) The right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Reason 1 is why Reason 2 is necessary.
The fact that the National Guard exists does not mean that the states no longer have a right to call up a militia. The fact that the states still have that right mean that the people must be allowed to keep and bear arms.
It's the same right that allows sheriffs and local police forces to temporarily deputize people. Which still happens in small communities all over the country.
And in the tradition of reasonable Constitutional interpretation, you cannot separate the first part from the second, or vice-versa. Unless you wish to amend the document.
Good luck with that amendment process. Snowball. Hell. You do the math.
One might also note that it is still not in the least bit unusual for armed citizens to be temporarily deputized or otherwise pressed into service by the state.
It doesn't happen in big cities very often (although has occasionally during massive blackout and riot situations). It does happen semi-regularly in rural areas and even in some suburbs.
Tim (as usual) provides the expected norm of the idiot liberal point of view on cue...
Not that I think you're an idiot, Tim, but you do expound some idiot ideas. I cite the current thread as evidence... :)
Any claims of a "living document" face the challenge that the sponsor must provide convincing evidence and reason that s/he presents a compelling case. This is not the case here.
It is extraordinarily self-evident that the founding fathers anticipated the need to adapt to changing conditions. Thus the amendment system. On the other hand, they recognized the mischief which may be caused by temporary emotional waves or adherence to a particular political fashion statement (communism is the "new red" this year! {g}), hence the incorporated obstacles to easy changes to the Constitution.
An unconcious expectation has grown around Supreme Court decisions, in which they have become the supreme legislature as well. This is not the case. If a law is unConstitutional, it is directly in opposition to the Constitution (and should be struck) or it was poorly written, and should be returned to the legislature for repair.
It's that simple. No "living" documents need apply.
And, yes, Tim, I did read your entire post. In fact, your statement
The world is a much different place today and it will be a much different place in 20 years
pretty much underlines the point. What is currently popular or politically fashionable is and should not be the determining factor. Whether or not a law is Constitutional is. And that lies in simple reading and understanding the text.
I have to ask, why require strict gun-control laws? We don't have strict vote-control laws. Any simple-minded idiot over the age of 18 and move into a new town and promptly vote for higher taxes on property owners for school expenses, whether or not she owns property or has kids who could attend the local school. Even a basic literacy test is considered beyond the pale these days.
We don't have strict speech laws, although the idiot lefties are pushing for hate speech laws. Go check out how Europe is suppressing free speech in the noble cause of suppressing hate, and get back to me.
We also don't have strict laws regarding freedom of assembly, but you do have to remember the porta-potties! :)
Our "strict" laws regarding right to a fair trial include free lawyers for poor people.
So why is 2nd Amendment the only one which endegers a certain emotional need for strictness? No other rights I can think of require background checks. I'll bet Tim wets his pants in indignation over proposed requirements to ensure people really do live in a given district to vote there, but he thinks background checks vetting a Constitutional right is a great idea!
It is obvious, by the way, that Tim has never even taken ten seconds to view any section of national, state, or local criminal code of the United States, or he would know that crimes involving guns have included harsher penalties for over a century.
Even a casual perusal of the past thirty years of jurisprudence and crime statistics show that "can carry" laws increase personal safety and correspond to decreasing violent crime rates, not to mention the oft-hysterical predictions of "wild, wild west" shootouts have never occured.
In fact, if you go over the results of Australian and British attempts at gun-suppression, you'll find out that violent crime in Great Britain has skyrocketed, and Australia has considered legislation controlling (or outlawying) swords, since many citizens have (re)turned to edged blades in reaction to the difficulty of obtaining guns Down Under.
Tim is, in fact, a classic example of exactly why we finally enumerated certain rights in the Constitution: because a certain class of people allow their own mindless, ignorant prejudices to influence the political process, and eventually damage the rights of all citizens.
One may find people who find free speech too free, such as those who object to Hustler magazine, or Howard Stern. Or -for that matter- fracking Illinois Nazis (I hate fracking Illinois Nazis!!). Other groups object to free lawyers for the "obviously" guilty, or habeus corpus during a time of war.
Do you get the point, yet, Tim? It's not what you think is (or should be) legal, or what I think, or Dean thinks; it's about protecting the rights of all citizens to make their own adult decisions without government interference.
Just a follow-up to last nights post, after reading again tonight.
Yes, I tend to react negatively to the phrase "living document." I also have a short fuse when it comes to people who confuse their own personal prejudices with responsible political policy.
So with that in mind, I'll say: If my last post sounded like an attack on Tim personally, I'll be glad to apologize to him. It was intended to be an attack upon what I consider to be two very silly ideas.
4.1.2007 10:46pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
That really doesn't work from an historical perspective, but it's the most common claim.
Under that reading, who has a right to arms, the National Guard, or the people? I submit that anyone who defends the "collective rights" rationalization of the Second Amendment is not really arguing that guns aren't "arms" or that ordinary citizens are not part of a "well-regulated militia." He's arguing that for purposes of the Second Amendment, ordinary citizens aren't really "people."
1) The right of the states to call up a militia;
2) The right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Reason 1 is why Reason 2 is necessary.
The fact that the National Guard exists does not mean that the states no longer have a right to call up a militia. The fact that the states still have that right mean that the people must be allowed to keep and bear arms.
It's the same right that allows sheriffs and local police forces to temporarily deputize people. Which still happens in small communities all over the country.
And in the tradition of reasonable Constitutional interpretation, you cannot separate the first part from the second, or vice-versa. Unless you wish to amend the document.
Good luck with that amendment process. Snowball. Hell. You do the math.
It doesn't happen in big cities very often (although has occasionally during massive blackout and riot situations). It does happen semi-regularly in rural areas and even in some suburbs.
Not that I think you're an idiot, Tim, but you do expound some idiot ideas. I cite the current thread as evidence... :)
Any claims of a "living document" face the challenge that the sponsor must provide convincing evidence and reason that s/he presents a compelling case. This is not the case here.
It is extraordinarily self-evident that the founding fathers anticipated the need to adapt to changing conditions. Thus the amendment system. On the other hand, they recognized the mischief which may be caused by temporary emotional waves or adherence to a particular political fashion statement (communism is the "new red" this year! {g}), hence the incorporated obstacles to easy changes to the Constitution.
An unconcious expectation has grown around Supreme Court decisions, in which they have become the supreme legislature as well. This is not the case. If a law is unConstitutional, it is directly in opposition to the Constitution (and should be struck) or it was poorly written, and should be returned to the legislature for repair.
It's that simple. No "living" documents need apply.
And, yes, Tim, I did read your entire post. In fact, your statement pretty much underlines the point. What is currently popular or politically fashionable is and should not be the determining factor. Whether or not a law is Constitutional is. And that lies in simple reading and understanding the text.
I have to ask, why require strict gun-control laws? We don't have strict vote-control laws. Any simple-minded idiot over the age of 18 and move into a new town and promptly vote for higher taxes on property owners for school expenses, whether or not she owns property or has kids who could attend the local school. Even a basic literacy test is considered beyond the pale these days.
We don't have strict speech laws, although the idiot lefties are pushing for hate speech laws. Go check out how Europe is suppressing free speech in the noble cause of suppressing hate, and get back to me.
We also don't have strict laws regarding freedom of assembly, but you do have to remember the porta-potties! :)
Our "strict" laws regarding right to a fair trial include free lawyers for poor people.
So why is 2nd Amendment the only one which endegers a certain emotional need for strictness? No other rights I can think of require background checks. I'll bet Tim wets his pants in indignation over proposed requirements to ensure people really do live in a given district to vote there, but he thinks background checks vetting a Constitutional right is a great idea!
It is obvious, by the way, that Tim has never even taken ten seconds to view any section of national, state, or local criminal code of the United States, or he would know that crimes involving guns have included harsher penalties for over a century.
Even a casual perusal of the past thirty years of jurisprudence and crime statistics show that "can carry" laws increase personal safety and correspond to decreasing violent crime rates, not to mention the oft-hysterical predictions of "wild, wild west" shootouts have never occured.
In fact, if you go over the results of Australian and British attempts at gun-suppression, you'll find out that violent crime in Great Britain has skyrocketed, and Australia has considered legislation controlling (or outlawying) swords, since many citizens have (re)turned to edged blades in reaction to the difficulty of obtaining guns Down Under.
Tim is, in fact, a classic example of exactly why we finally enumerated certain rights in the Constitution: because a certain class of people allow their own mindless, ignorant prejudices to influence the political process, and eventually damage the rights of all citizens.
One may find people who find free speech too free, such as those who object to Hustler magazine, or Howard Stern. Or -for that matter- fracking Illinois Nazis (I hate fracking Illinois Nazis!!). Other groups object to free lawyers for the "obviously" guilty, or habeus corpus during a time of war.
Do you get the point, yet, Tim? It's not what you think is (or should be) legal, or what I think, or Dean thinks; it's about protecting the rights of all citizens to make their own adult decisions without government interference.
Yes, I tend to react negatively to the phrase "living document." I also have a short fuse when it comes to people who confuse their own personal prejudices with responsible political policy.
So with that in mind, I'll say: If my last post sounded like an attack on Tim personally, I'll be glad to apologize to him. It was intended to be an attack upon what I consider to be two very silly ideas.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.