Scope of 2nd Amendment Questioned
Dec. 10th, 2006 02:22 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
yesthattomhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/07/AR2006120701001.html
[ Note: I have withdrawn the original post because it seems that using the term "gun freak" which is an overstatement. ]
Wow! Someone is finally putting together a lawsuit based on the kind of logic that I've been thinking about for a while. People that talk about the second amendment often forget the to include the part of the sentence that statest ath the right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals.
I'm personally in favor of guns. I think everyone should be able to shoot deer, bears, and homophobes from Long Island that come to The Village carrying baseball bats to beat fags for fun. I think every LGBTI person walking around Christopher Street should carry a handgun and shoot the fuck out of gay bashers.
However, the extremists have been in control of the debate too long, preventing reasonable laws from being adopted. Every time a reasonable law is proposed the response it to react as if it is an all-out ban. If this lawsuit is successful, it will permit more reasonable laws to pass.
[ Note: I have withdrawn the original post because it seems that using the term "gun freak" which is an overstatement. ]
Wow! Someone is finally putting together a lawsuit based on the kind of logic that I've been thinking about for a while. People that talk about the second amendment often forget the to include the part of the sentence that statest ath the right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals.
I'm personally in favor of guns. I think everyone should be able to shoot deer, bears, and homophobes from Long Island that come to The Village carrying baseball bats to beat fags for fun. I think every LGBTI person walking around Christopher Street should carry a handgun and shoot the fuck out of gay bashers.
However, the extremists have been in control of the debate too long, preventing reasonable laws from being adopted. Every time a reasonable law is proposed the response it to react as if it is an all-out ban. If this lawsuit is successful, it will permit more reasonable laws to pass.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-12-10 07:43 pm (UTC)I dunno Tom. There are gun nuts, and then there are antigun nuts. Neither view is necessarily correct. There should be a balance somewhere in the middle.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-10 08:13 pm (UTC)I've rewritten the post to clarify my stance on guns.
I have many friends that are self-proclaimed "gun nuts", so I assume that I can use that phrase. I'm sorry I used the term "gun freaks" instead of "gun extremists".
no subject
Date: 2006-12-11 03:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-10 07:55 pm (UTC)I'd like to reply to you in an intelligent and respectful conversation, but since disagreeing with your take would apparently tag me as a "freak" in your terminology, I'd just like to say that it was nice knowing you growing up. I'm sorry you've become so intolerant of other points of view in your own little way. You brook no disagreement, and assign people to the dustbin of freakdom and insanity if, perhaps, they have spent a decade studying the history of Britain and the formation of the United States. You remind me of the ultra-conservatives who brook no disagreement on what they deem to be moral issues, and who dismiss anyone even trying to discuss it as immoral.
Really leaves those of us in the middle ground who are trying to work rational solutions to real-world problems, with fully-articulated assumptions and self-critical review thereof... leaves us wondering which group of extremists is the more frightening for their lack of listening, eagerness to bend history, and lack of tolerance for dispute.
Is the historian and Judge Laurence Silberman, quoted as one of the judicial panel in the article you cite, a "crazy" because he notes that the interpretation you're in favor of is actually a modern one? While it's a reasonable reading, to argue that some "entire sentence" view, as you call it, is what was originally meant is simply historical revisionism.
To say it's an evolved, modern matter of interpretation of a living document is, however, reasonable. It's in reality a conflict between two ways of interpreting the Constitution. Don't call people crazies and freaks because of a highly respected way of interpreting the Constitution, ok?
no subject
Date: 2006-12-10 08:02 pm (UTC)There are moderate, rational limits that have been prevented because of the gun extremists (I'll refrain from using the word "freak"). I feel that this lawsuit has the potential to change the debate and make it easier to pass the more moderate, reasonable laws that have been hampered.
I don't think that all guns should be banned. I do, however, feel that the current debate is driven by extremists and a new tactic is needed.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-10 08:35 pm (UTC)Actually, I am a social historian (really, a historical cultural anthropologist) and attorney, and for the last 10 years I have studied how property law changes have affected society in Britain and the US, from the late 1500s through the late 1700s, with comparison to the recent modern era (1990s). I chose to live in one of the most weapon-controlling parts of the U.S., and have for over a decade. But if I disagree with your interpretation, I must be a "gun nut (good kind)." When someone argues against a government imposition of religion, do you assume they are a religious extremist or atheist? When someone argues against unreasonable search and seizure, do you assume they are a druggie? When someone is upset about freedom of speech issues, is it because they must be a pornographer? Are all gay rights people gay? Women's rights people women? Religious freedom advocates fundamentalists?
Look, Tom. Treating the Constitution as a living document subject to change as the society it governs changes is a fine and rational point of view. In general, that's the approach I prefer, since I think original interpretation is just as subject to flux and can lead to a kind of utilitarian self-deception. I think a living document approach is necessary to the longevity and health of the country. But let's not go all righteous and claim some military-only second Amendment was actually the original interpretation of the guys that wrote it, that reading the sentence is all anyone needed to do, and that anyone who says different is a nut or freak.
When someone argues against THIS one thing, why do you automatically assume they are an extremist with a vested interest? What happened to the Tom I used to know - you know, the open-minded, unprejudiced one? You decry intolerance and prejudice - stop a second and read what you write! Why this one issue, Tom?
I also see you just rewrote your statement - actually, almost everything outside of hunting that you suggest you support... is in the "reasonable" bans you say extremists are against. There is no legal gun carry at all here in IL for citizens, for example, and many towns have total bans on handguns. Do you even know what you're supporting?
Tom, take some time and do some research.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-11 02:06 am (UTC)- People stop describing themselves as gun-nuts as a badge of honor.
- 2nd amendment advocates stop characterizing people like me as people wanting to remove all guns from society, and referring to people like myself as "faggots"
- The NRA admits that their rhetoric has been cooped by people that have passed The Patriot Act and other laws that remove more rights than the NRA ever sought to protect.
I wasn't making such a grouping. I was addressing the message to a subset of the people that read this LJ. I might have been more clear to have said, "To the gun [insert plural collective] reading this LJ:". I'm not being snarky here, by the way. That was my intent. I'm being ironic by name-calling people that generally stand firm in their believe that name-calling is ok. Do I know what I'm supporting? Nope, I'm no gun expert. Just like you aren't a LGBTI-rights expert. So why do you yell and scream and call me unfair and biased rather than try to win me over by educating me? (the education started on the second post). There are a few things that I know about 2nd amendment-related issues:- I don't want to be shot at.
- There are a lot of people that I'd like to see dead.
- I'd be really unhappy in prison.
- One of the charities that I volunteer with gives support to children that have watched their daddy kill their mommy. They probably wouldn't like to know that I think mommy should have had a gun... not for self-defense but to use at night while daddy was asleep.
- You can't mention anything gun-related on the internet without starting a flame war.
- I once saw someone drive by a gay bar and yell "faggot"; 100 men ran after the car. When they caught him they broke every window in the car with rocks, and the man ran to the safety of a police officer who kept him safe while the men continued to destroy the car. If those men had guns the gay-basher would have been dead, and a lot of 2nd amendment advocates would have been unsure how to react.
- I think http://www.pinkpistols.org/ is a pretty cool organization.
Nope. Not tonight. Tonight I'm too busy working on same-sex marriage in New Jersey. After that I'm working on transgendered rights, and a list of other legislative priorities in New Jersey. I have to choose my battles. However, I will continue to link to articles that are of interest to me, even if I have a mis-informed opinion about them.no subject
Date: 2006-12-11 04:05 am (UTC)You also seem to have an idea that 2nd A. advocates are anti-gay or by definition far right. Yet one of the most firearms-permissive states in the US is Vermont, where a civil union act is in place since 2000. I think there isn't a causal link save that in the last 20 years the Repubs have taken 2nd A. rights on as an issue, while a number of prominent Dems are on record saying they want to ban all firearms.
I also didn't ask you to stop calling people gun nuts. I suggested you stop assuming that anyone supporting a non-military interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is a gun nut, but I accept that you meant no insult. Before you edited your post, though, it stated quite clearly that anyone disagreeing with your take on the 2nd amendment was a gun nut. I disagreed with your take - I resented the presumption, the prejudice, not the terminology.
Well, ok, ireful rankling over, some more bits to consider:
The D.C. law under question is a total ban of civvy possession of handguns anywhere in D.C., which in essence means that there is no permitted self-defense with firearms in D.C. except at home, with certain kinds of long arms like shotguns. That's the law in parts of Cook County, IL, and for most people in Chicago, NYC, and a few other places in the U.S.
The history of firearms-restricting laws in the U.S., aside from prohibitions on concealed weapons early on (which was to curtail dueling), has sadly been to oppress minorities. Slaves and free blacks were the first to have laws restricting their gun (and dog!) ownership in the new states and French colonies. Today, we have laws prohibiting inexpensive guns from being produced or sold, ultimately having the effect that the poor are less able to afford the legal purchase of reliable, inexpensive arms.
The history of the Second Amendment. Where to begin? Militia at that time referred to semi-organized groups, generally in smaller towns, as British incorporated towns had paid guards. Militias were not under government control, excepting certain limits on where they could practice. That separation from government was especially pronounced in the previous 100 years in Britain, where the nobility had a well-founded fear of any standing army or garrisoned troops, or armed clusters of citizenry under the control of the monarchy. Similarly, colonial militias were not under the command of the British governors (no duh, I know). They were locally organized.
The history of gun control in Britain goes back to issues of traditional power and property, and forms of medieval prestige symbols around who gets to hunt and have/kill/eat what kinds of animal. Over time, it came to be used as one among many tools for the wealthy to concentrate their wealth. In the 100 years after the American Revolution, Britain became extremely economically polarized country, with continual unrest in the countryside, and at one point over 80% of the rural population on the dole. Restrictions on travel, marriage, where you could live, and more became the norm.
Most of the Bill of Rights stemmed from a desire to not reproduce the abuses, social tensions, and conflicts that plagued Britain and which drove many of the colonists to come to the New World in the first place. The obviation of traditional peasants' rights, control of speech and religion, unjust taxation, extreme punishments tempered by arbitrary ability to lift sentences, taking of property by force, disarmament of the populace, and other acts seen as abusive of human dignity fed the notion of rights that was codified into the Bill of Rights.
The first ten amendments should be viewed with that in mind, whether one takes a living document view, or an original intent one.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-11 04:15 am (UTC)Let's look at the current law of the land, shall we.
Date: 2006-12-10 08:48 pm (UTC)Now, combine that with equal-treament-under-the-law, and about the most any such lawsuit could accomplish would be allowing restrictions on gun ownership those who don't fit that description.
Re: Let's look at the current law of the land, shall we.
Date: 2006-12-11 01:32 am (UTC)Re: Let's look at the current law of the land, shall we.
Date: 2006-12-11 01:41 am (UTC)Re: Let's look at the current law of the land, shall we.
Date: 2006-12-11 02:09 am (UTC)Re: Let's look at the current law of the land, shall we.
Date: 2006-12-11 02:29 am (UTC)We've already tracking along nicely towards having a theocratic police state. Eviscerate the second amendment, and you remove a major barrier to the worst extremes of that trajectory.
This country was born in violence by people who took up arms rather than have their liberties--and their ability to fight for and maintain them--further stolen from them. A total ban on infringement to the "RKBA" is imperfect. Some argue that so is the total separation of church and state. The problem is that I believe--and the bulk of the history both with respect to gun control and theocracy bears me out--that any exception to these total bans leads inexorably to totalitarianism.
Luckily, totalitarianism generally implodes from within or is exploded from without--it's not some sort of governmental heat death. Regardless, it's awfully hard on the people who live under its thumb while it exists. I'd rather not be counted among those unfortunates.
--Pete [who, FWIW, keeps his weapons secured in a safe and unloaded except when they are in use]
Re: Let's look at the current law of the land, shall we.
Date: 2006-12-11 02:50 am (UTC)Or what about stealing an election? If someone tried to steal an election by stopping the constitutionally required re-count, would you have encouraged your fellow citizens to take up arms and demand that the constitutional process continue?
Sadly, neither of those things have ever happened, so we'll never know.
(yes, I'm just turkin' ya)
Re: Let's look at the current law of the land, shall we.
Date: 2006-12-11 03:03 am (UTC)I wonder how bad it must have been, that we actually had to take up arms and fight. We're actually damned lucky that we can sit on our computers, with our beverage of choice, streaming bits across our broadband connections, and debate these points of law, fact, and history...
maybe that's exactly why we HAVEN'T seen any sort of organized revolt...for all that we do have to complain about, we really have a lot to be happy about, too.
At leasts we aren't killing each other dozens--thousands--at a time every day over which tribe we were born in, which Imans we believe were holy, and which were heretics, and the like.
Re: Let's look at the current law of the land, shall we.
Date: 2006-12-11 03:17 am (UTC)IMO, in today's world, minute-man fantasies actually do more to encourage usurapations than to inhibit them. People (well, men, really, and only some men) want to believe that if it was all that bad, they and their buddies would all by themselves go down to Washington and take the government down. And since they haven't actually roused themselves to go on that suicide mission, it must not be all that bad.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-10 10:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-10 10:41 pm (UTC)I can't wait until the First Amendment becomes a collective right too, granted only to the Department of Defense "news" office and Sinclair-Clear Broadcasting, a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-11 01:35 am (UTC)I ask that because when libertarians tell me that I shouldn't try to enact anti-discrimination lays for LGBTI people, they use that logic. I can never come up with a good reply. Can you help me come up with a good reply?
(and yes, I am just turkin' ya.)
no subject
Date: 2006-12-11 02:10 am (UTC)The disparity of unequal distribution of human defense mechanisms makes the "take all guns away" counterexample less true. If everyone was equally unarmed, then strong men could out-force weak women for example.
It's just like jumping off a building: It's not the velocity that kills you, it's the delta.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-11 02:14 am (UTC)like the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness...
Date: 2006-12-11 02:39 am (UTC)I suppose you could say that a chicken in every pot and a gun in every gun safe "promoted the general welfare."
Don't worry, though, promoting the general welfare is not intended to suggest that the federal government should GIVE any "welfare" as we know it today--be it food, guns, or tax subsidies--to anyone. The intent was to enjoin the government from taxing or harming the people en masse for the benefit of a select few--specifically "nobility" in any of its guises.
Re: like the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness...
Date: 2006-12-11 02:55 am (UTC)Please, Pete, tell me it ain't so!
(yes, I'm just turkin' ya. This kind of argument can go on forever until it is ludicrous, and I'm just trying to make it ludicrous now to save time for both of us.)
Re: like the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness...
Date: 2006-12-11 03:05 am (UTC)Re: like the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness...
Date: 2006-12-11 03:28 am (UTC)Re: like the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness...
Date: 2006-12-11 03:19 pm (UTC)Actually, I didn't say that baning handguns is a "reasonable" restriction. In fact, I wrote that I thought that every gay person in the village should carry one.
You didn't ask what I thought was reasonable but you made an assumption.
So, what is your middle-road solution? So far you have been critical of anything I've said, and lectured me on history of things without explaining why I should care. So now it's your turn... tell me your solution.
Re: like the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness...
Date: 2006-12-11 05:17 pm (UTC)Tom, you said, "Every time a reasonable law is proposed the response it to react as if it is an all-out ban. If this lawsuit is successful, it will permit more reasonable laws to pass."
This lawsuit IS about a total handgun ban. Less extreme laws already can and do pass. What DID you actually mean?
"...tell me your solution."
Please state the problem as you see it and the goals you want to achieve. "The problem" with talking about "the problem" is that it is actually a suite of conflicting problems and solutions.
Re: like the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness...
Date: 2006-12-11 06:20 pm (UTC)See? You don't have anything useful to say. Anyone can be a critic, coming up with solutions sure ain't fun, is it?
Re: like the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness...
Date: 2006-12-11 06:35 pm (UTC)As for not having something useful to say, Tom, that's a cheap rhetorical shot and you know it.
What is the problem you mean? "The gun problem?" It's not one problem. It is a set of complex issues. I wanted to know which "problem" you meant, because a lot of them are not "gun problems" but "problems that also sometimes involve guns."
- Criminal possession of firearms
- Violence escalations involving firearms
- Children killed/injured while playing with firearms
- Armed domestic violence
- Police abuse in minority communities
- Defense of self and family in riot or civil unrest conditions
- Hate crimes against the defenseless
- Nutjobs shooting up public places
- Armed home invasions on the rise.
- Domestic violence against the defenseless.
- Police not required to enforce restraining orders
- Police not required to prevent crime at all (Supreme Court case from years back)
Re: like the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness...
Date: 2006-12-11 09:07 pm (UTC)Re: like the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness...
Date: 2006-12-11 09:19 pm (UTC)So, if you look carefully at that list, you'll see quite a few are not about guns being used to harm, but are about people harming the powerlessness and defenseless. The weak are powerless against the strong if unarmed, and law enforcement has -legally- no obligation to help any particular person, not even when a restraining order is actively reported to them as being violated by a person with a violent history.
Guns can be used by attackers, but are also an equalizer and were seen as far back as the founders as one of many insurers of equality. Why else did early states start the gun control movement by disarming former slaves and free blacks? It's a sordid history, but taking arms away is usually the start of the more sordid bits, not the end.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-12 03:32 am (UTC)reply 2: That's fine and good, but the NRA has so few african-americans it makes me suspicious of that justification.
from my cell... sorry about typos
no subject
Date: 2006-12-12 02:42 pm (UTC)Based on the email you sent me, Tom, I understand you are not interested in discussing this further so I will refrain from further comment.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-11 02:45 am (UTC)I prefer the "all guns" side because it puts power back in my hands, rather than the restraint of other folks, and the best-efforts of government.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-11 03:20 pm (UTC)If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their ass a'hoppin!
So why don't you come to reality and tell me what you would do that WOULD work.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-11 03:44 pm (UTC)Here's what both ends mean:
Arming _everyone_ is impossible. Some people (like my wife) will resist anyone's attempt to give them the power to protect themselves. We can't give everyone in the country a laptop either, because some luddites will use them as bookends.
Disarming _everyone_ is impossible. Violent gun crime not only exists but flourishes in DC and Baltimore where open carry, hidden carry, and everything else but the "Castle doctrine" is prohibited by law. Criminals will still carry, and will become disproportionately powerful compared to law-abiding citizens.
So the ends are out. I believe that a high proportion of armed citizens would work and would be safer than a low or approaching-zero proportion.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-11 06:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-11 07:06 pm (UTC)Do you wait until you have the absolute perfect solution to all the concerns of the LBGTI community before attemping to convince anyone of the merits of your argument or pointing out what you see as shortcomings in theirs?
A statement that I had the perfect solution to a far-reaching social issue would make me a blowhard and a liar (or a deity). Your expectation of one is disingenuous in what I think is a fairly interesting thread.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-11 08:39 pm (UTC)Now I understand why people yawn when I start talking about LGBT rights.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-11 08:45 pm (UTC)