An Update On Efforts To Prevent Gun Violence
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-01-07/update-efforts-prevent-gun-violence
The White House and Democratic lawmakers have vowed to introduce gun control legislation. A month after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, a panel joins Diane to discuss prospective new actions and whether the momentum for change is slipping.
Guests
Robert Spitzer
distinguished service professor and chairman of the political science department at the State University of New York, Cortland, and author of four books on gun policy, including "The Politics of Gun Control."
Jackie Kucinich
reporter for USA Today.
Carolyn McCarthy
Democratic Congresswoman from New York.
Thomas Menino
mayor of Boston and co-chair of Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
Dan Kois
a senior editor at Slate and contributing writer to the New York Times Magazine.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Francis, how is it a "separate question"? If you're going to thump your chest about the Second Amendment, then questions about regulations and restrictions are of utmost importance.
You say MAYBE. Is your idea of an acceptable restriction that someone has to be at least 16 years old before they can own a fully automatic machine gun or a bazooka? Is that what you mean by "maybe"?
You are avoiding my point about comparing restrictions on speech to restrictions on firearms. (Talk about strawman arguments!) In ALL cases, the one and only antidote to any "slippery slope" is an informed and involved citizenry. You could say that ANY law has a slippery slope risk. Does that mean there shouldn't be any laws?
I love your use of the term "proper" interpretation. Just like the Second Amendment, I'm certain you believe that your interpretation is not only the proper one, but the obvious one. :-)
In case you haven't noticed, our interpretation of the Constitution has changed over the years, decades, and centuries. Even at the time of its writing and adoption, the Founders debated many points. In fact, the debate over interpretation and implementation was there from the very beginning and it continues today.
Having said that, when people discuss the all-too-real problems we have with guns and violence in the US, it is perfectly reasonable to acknowledge some areas in which gun use is seen as perfectly okay, and one of those areas is hunting. A majority of Americans might also agree that it's okay for people to own a gun for self-protection in their homes, as a personal choice (as you might know, there were/are some cities that were requiring people to own guns).
Francis, you sound a lot like Ecgberht. I think you changed your ID again. This will be my last response to you (or anyone who sounds like you). I don't want to waste time talking to someone who believes in a Progressive/Fascist conspiracy.
"Francis, you sound a lot like Ecgberht."
And you sound a lot like the same old samcot on this subject, with the same old "talk about strawman" (you obviously can't distinguish between the strawman argument and an analogy - you're not mchaun are you?), and "you are avoiding my point" when I absolutely addressed it directly ... with the analogy. Sorry if you don't like the answer. The one thing I do notice is that you are singularly UNABLE to counter my statements about the purpose of the Bill of Rights ... of which the Second Amendment is a part, nor the purpose of the Amendment itself, yet you drift back into the "hunting is ok" meme. You can spout rhetoric all you want, but it's not a winner. And that you cannot grasp the fact that "the purpose of the Second Amendment" and questions about "regulation and restrictions" are two different questions is truly sad.
"the one and only antidote to any "slippery slope" is an informed and involved citizenry. "
That's rhetoric, samcot. You offer no evidence to back up that point and since it's the crux of your argument ... well ....
"You could say that ANY law has a slippery slope risk. Does that mean there shouldn't be any laws? "
THAT is strawman. Look up the g.d. definition of strawman and STOP USING IT.
"In fact, the debate over interpretation and implementation was there from the very beginning and it continues today. "
So in your view, we don't have a Constitution, we just have a continuing debate? (Hint: THAT's a strawman as well, which is why it isn't the argument I'm making).
WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION. IT'S WRITTEN DOWN. IT MATTERS ... except to fascist progressives like you who don't care what the Founders intended, oh ... and anyone who does suffers from Founder Worship!
BBBBBBBWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Oh ... and I change my ID, only as drshow mb requires me to. Now you've got me wondering who you used to be ....
ecgberht1 on January 10, 2013 @ 7:21 pm wrote: “WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION. IT'S WRITTEN DOWN. IT MATTERS ... except to fascist progressives like you who don't care what the Founders intended, oh ... and anyone who does suffers from Founder Worship!”
In your own “words”: BBBBBBBWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Conservatives have a long history of claiming to follow the Constitution as it’s written, while in practice doing the exact opposite. Take a good look at Plessy v. Ferguson which declared the “intent” of the Equal Protection Clause to be that Blacks could (literally) be treated like third-class citizens!
D.C. v. Heller is another example. There, Scalia’s “originalism” resulted in a declaration that we could ignore the first 13 words of the Second Amendment entirely! And so, we are left with Kris’ double secret probation “implied” intent instead. Sorry, but as I’ve previously pointed out, the “intent” of the Amendment is spelled out in the document “as it’s written”. It’s purpose is to provide for the necessary security of a free State.
Self-defense is fine and good. Resistance to tyranny is noble and heroic. But neither of them have anything to do with the Second Amendment “as it’s written”, which is why Scalia had to write an eighty page or longer decision to avoid that awkward fact!
And the role of the “well regulated militia” the Amendment expressly talks of is also defined by the Constitution “as it’s written”: “to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions”. (Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 15) Funny how I don’t see you or Kris talking about that!
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
P.S. - The rest of your dispute with Samcot I’ll leave to the two of you, especially since I see no prior statements here by you as to “the purpose of the Bill of Rights”. I was taught its purpose was to limit the Federal Government in its use of the powers it was granted (delegated). Thanks to the 14th Amendment, some (not all) of those limits were later applied to the States as well. But, it’s important to note that the Bill of Rights is not the sole limitation on such power. Check out Article 1, Section 9, Paragraphs 2 and 3, Section 10, Paragraph 1, and Article 6, Paragraph 3, for example.
Kris on January 9, 2013 @ 6:39 pm wrote: “You used to use ‘militia’ as an argument for government formed armies, you have evolved in your misinterpretation. Pray tell, what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand.”
I did no such thing.
What I “understand” is that since you have no good response to make, you distort (and largely ignore) what I wrote so you can “reply” to a strawman of your own making. Indeed, if you knew anything about the Constitution (and its history) you’d know that one of the reasons for the militias was to avoid the creation of standing armies, something the Founders feared. (It’s the reason appropriations for armies can only last two years, while navies have no such limitation. See, Article 1, Section 8, Paragraphs 12 and 13.)
Indeed, Jefferson (in his first Inaugural Address) stated the role of the militia vis-a-vis the army: it was to act “in the first moments of war, till regulars [i.e.: the army] may relieve them”. (The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, page 324 (Random House 1972).
But, of course, this doesn’t preclude the creation of “government formed armies”, especially since the Constitution calls for their formation. So, your argument is nonsense.
I’ve already addressed, in my Comment to ecgberht1, your “implied intent” claim so I need not repeat it here, except to observe that the expressed intent is what should control our interpretation of the Second Amendment - the very point I made in my first Comment (and which you have blithely ignored).
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
As for “shall not be infringed”, you are begging the question: precisely what is the “right” which shall not be infringed? Once again, is it the unlimited “right” of every Tom, Dick, and Harry to arm themselves to the teeth, in the name of "opposing tyranny" (i.e.: being able to launch an armed insurrection), even if it means easy access for lunatics to weapons of mass destruction? As I noted, even the appalling D.C. v. Heller decision supports reasonable gun regulations. Something else I notice you’ve completely ignored!
And frankly, since you are ignoring what the Constitution plainly and expressly says, your claims about what the Supreme Court has or has not been doing “for well over a hundred years” is laughable. It’s been following, or at least trying to follow, what the Constitution actually says. Not what you imagine it says. (It hasn’t always gotten it correct, but that’s another matter.)
And “stop pretending” you have any idea what I want. Just because I don’t agree with Scalia’s misinterpretation of the Second Amendment, much less your and the NRA’s hallucinations about it, doesn’t mean I “want all guns banned”. Instead of imagining what I want, let me tell you.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART THREE
I want reasonable gun control. That does not mean banning all guns. Between that extreme position, and your own, there is a middle ground. I want reasonable regulations on the right to keep and bear arms, something even the Supreme Court agrees with. This should include limiting access to assault weapons, devices whose only real purpose is to kill or cripple the maximum number of people in the shortest possible time. I want gun magazines limited in size (ten bullets seems about right to me, but I’m open to rational counter-proposals). I want all guns registered, all gun sales and transfers recorded (the way car transfers are), and I want background checks on all who purchase, own, manufacture or deal in guns (no “gun show loopholes”, please). I want gun training and licensing to include mental and emotional evaluations (so the Adam Lanza’s of this world can’t legally own or have access to guns). And I want a waiting period sufficient to insure those background checks can be completed.
And NO! That “murdering psycho” could not have accomplished the same thing with a revolver (especially one limited to six, or even ten, bullets). The record of these mass murders is pretty consistent: the killing stops, and the killers are stopped, only when the bullets run out, and they have to reload!
P.S. - As for “gasoline bombs” (or bombs of any kind), last I checked it was illegal for civilians to own or use them. Funny, the Second Amendment doesn’t protect the “right” to keep and bear such arms!
francisgleiche on January 9, 2013 @ 7:58 pm wrote: “So the intent of the militia is to have 50 little armies.”
Yup, that’s exactly what the Constitution recognizes and calls for. Check out Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 16. While Congress has the power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia, the States appoint the militia’s officers and train its members. (The way the individual National Guards of each State do today, since they are the successors to the militia.) Read The Federalist Papers as well. They also discuss the relation between the State militias and the Federal government. (You might also look at Jefferson’s First Inaugural speech, which I referenced in an earlier Comment.)
And your babbling about the “purpose” of the Bill of Rights gets us exactly nowhere. If the Second Amendment was intended to take away the powers provided by Article 1, Section 8, why doesn’t it say so? You are “reading into” the Amendment things it never says.
You’re also ignoring what it does say. As I wrote before, the expressed purpose is “the security of a free State”. Those are the words used. There’s no mention of the other nonsense you (and the NRA) invoke. And that purpose is consistent with the powers granted to Congress, which include “suppressing insurrection” and repelling invasion. Again, as Jefferson observed, in the first instance that was to be the job of the well regulated militia - the necessity for which the Second Amendment expressly invokes.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
If I were going to engage in another conservative shibboleth (“strict construction”), I’d point out that the only change the Second Amendment actually makes is that whereas before the Congress had the power to arm the militia (although I don’t say it had the exclusive power to do so), after the Second Amendment it becomes clear that the “people” can arm themselves. (But that doesn’t mean they can do so free from any and all regulation.)
(And how do you hallucinate the claim that I think any provision of the Constitution is designed to insure the government is “armed, potentially against its own people”? To the contrary, the two year limit on appropriations for the army was put there precisely to “insure” a potentially tyrannical standing army couldn’t be formed. The Federal government would have to go back to Congress, elected by We, the people, every two years for further funding.)
Yes, the Bill of Rights, and other provisions of the Constitution, were enacted to restrain the power of the government. But how you get from a general principle of limitation to each specific claim of a limitation is the important question. I repeat, had the Founders wanted to secure the right of an armed citizenry to rebel against the government they would have written it into the Second Amendment. Funny thing, they didn’t! (However, they did write about the security of the State.)
(And, of course, your nonsense fails because the word “State” refers to the individual States, not the Federal government. If you really knew your history, especially about the Constitution, you’d know that the Founders constantly talked about the power of the States to resist Federal encroachments. Guess what? The State militias was one of those ways it could be done.)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART THREE
And don’t falsely accuse me of trying to re-write the Constitution (“arms at the ready”), not when you are busy doing it! Let’s compare the version that actually exists with the “re-write” you propose:
First, the actual thing:
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.
Then, your “version” (with the changes indicated by italics):
Because it will be necessary to maintain a militia to ensure the security of a free society, its citizens should be empowered to be armed as well; the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Obviously, the latter version only exists in your imagination, but the actual Second Amendment clearly talks about “the security of a free State” (not a "society") - and you’re stuck with it!
So, stop pretending you are following either the letter or the spirit of the Constitution. You are reading into it an “intent” you wish was there, but it’s not.
Get it!
Kris on January 9, 2013 @ 9:20 pm wrote: “All the founding fathers quotes above cannot sink into your skull, why would a bunch more accomplish anymore?”
There are a number of problems with playing the “game of battling quotes”:
First, you have to provide the source for the quotation, and by that I mean not only the original place the quote originated (Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address, as I’ve mentioned in prior Comments), but you should also provide the reference work you got the quote from, so that we can go back and check both its validity, accuracy, completeness, and whether or not you’ve taken the quote in context. (Again, I referenced The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, which you can get a copy of at the library, a bookstore, or on the Internet.)
Second, there’s the question of validity. For example, there’s a popular “quote” of Jefferson that many gun rights advocates love to use: “"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." There’s just one little problem: it’s a fake! According to the website for Monticello (Jefferson’s home, and now museum) not only is there no evidence Jefferson ever said or wrote any such thing, but the earliest known appearance of it was in 2007! (I trust you’ll take my word for this: Jefferson was long dead by then.)
See: http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/beauty-second-amendment-quotati...
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
Third, quotes can be distorted by being “edited” (that is, only selected portions used), being incomplete (with the omitted portions actually refuting what the quote is employed for), or taken out of context to distort what is being said. (Good examples of the latter: “You didn’t build that”, and “I like firing people”. Both were taken out of context to “spin” them into something else entirely.)
Since almost none of the quotes you apparently refer to provide the necessary information, forgive me if I decline to accept their authenticity, completeness, accuracy, or relevance. (After all, we are discussing the Second Amendment, added to the Constitution in 1791. What someone wrote or said in 1776, 1781, or even 1787 hardly aids us in understanding what Congress wrote, and the States ratified, thereafter.)
Finally, for every quote one can find there are almost always counter-quotes that can be employed. So, ultimately, such quotes are only useful to the extent they match what the Constitution says! And I’m afraid the "double secret implied intent" you invoke finds no support in the text of the Second Amendment.
francisgleiche on January 9, 2013 @ 10:23 pm wrote: “The point is, when you tread around the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, you'd better tread carefully.”
On that point I agree, but then it’s also true for all aspects of Law. And the kind of blunderbuss approach to interpreting the Second Amendment you employ (‘Never mind what it actually says, it’s meant to limit the government, so any limitation is a valid interpretation.’) is a good example of failing to tread carefully.
The “fire in a crowded theatre” example is a good one, because it demonstrates what happens when people substitute “urban legends” for actual law. After all, shouldn’t one yell “Fire!” in a theatre (crowded or not) if there’s a fire!
The actual quotation (which even Supreme Court Justices have gotten wrong from time to time, so don’t feel bad about it) comes from the case of Schenck v. United States:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.
Note the key word I emphasized, it helps explain why the First Amendment will not apply. Falsely crying fire (with the implication that the person intends to cause panic) is obviously harmful and even criminal conduct, and it won’t be immunized simply because the “conduct” is speech. (After all, fraud, blackmail, extortion are crimes all committed by speech.)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
But this also demonstrates why there’s no “slippery slope” (an argument usually employed as a last resort, by those who really have no good argument to make). We can punish speech that is used to cause harm without punishing mere speech (however repulsive it may be). (And by harm, I mean physical harm, not emotional upset.) And this is especially true when causing the harm is the point of the speech.
That also is what distinguishes “hate speech”, or more precisely hate crimes. One cannot be prosecuted merely for expressing hate, but if in the process you engage in a criminal act (burning a cross on someone else’s property, beating someone to death), then the fact you were motivated by hate (instead of greed) is as valid an “element of the offense” as any others.
(And in my experience people often deride as “political correctness” what normally would be considered good manners. Plus, the people expressing the derision tend to be “politically correct” themselves, when it comes to their favored subjects.)
As for discussing “what weapons are and are not appropriate for the private citizen to own”, I agree context is important. After all, if we buy into the “resistance to tyranny” argument, there should be no restrictions at all. In an age where nuclear equipped drones can be sent to wipe out an entire area, or a conventionally equipped one targeted at one house (ask Al Qaeda about that), shouldn’t the “armed citizenry” have access to ground-to-air missiles? Indeed, why not a nuclear drone of their own. (What better way to resist a tyrannical government then by “nuking” its leader?)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART THREE
Which brings us to those first 13 words of the Amendment, I agree that the “right to keep and bear arms” should be measured (at least in part) by the expressed purpose those words declare. Thus, only weapons suitable for a “well regulated militia” should have the strongest protection, and thus completely unsuitable weapons (the infamous “Saturday Night Special” for example) should not. Similarly, only those persons fit to be in a militia can enjoy such rights. The Adam Lanza’s of the world shouldn’t.
Of course, “the devil is in the details”, and doing this requires other regulations (background checks, etc.). But just as the Second Amendment doesn’t mean unrestricted access to all weapons by all people, neither does it mean all weapons can (much less should) be banned. There is a middle ground between those two extremes. However, the NRA and its fellow travelers don’t believe in it.
"And your babbling about the “purpose” of the Bill of Rights gets us exactly nowhere. "
Well, it gets YOU nowhere, because you have no answer for it. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is set in historical fact. Deal with it.
I repeat:
Unfortunately, the errors in your reasoning come from a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the Bill of Rights. And in introducing the text of Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 15, you prove categorically that your interpretation of the Second Amendment is simply ... well ... wrong.
"You’re also ignoring what it does say."
No! I'm embracing EVERYTHING it says, not just the first 13 words. The first 13 words provide the rationale for the last 14. Sorry, that's just a fact. I suggest your re-read the blurb from archive.gov that I posted earlier.
Stolen fire arms are used in most crimes and murders Question is how to locate and eliminate these weapons.I have a few ideas.
1.Create a national data base listing stolen guns by serial numbers,That is accessible to the public.
This information is already out there.Local and State Police and Insurance Company's have this on file.However it is in hundreds of different data bases.
2.Once the consolidated data system is in place,All Citizens will be able to check there guns against the system,Have a six month amnesty grace period .
the Gov.could buy back all stolen fire arms,no questions asked.
3.After the grace period ,enact a fire arms protection law,Severe mandatory penalty's for the theft sale or possession of a stolen fire arm,Even more severe for committing a crime with a stolen gun.
Why this would be practical and would work.
Buyers could run a serial number before any purchase them selves,Be it a private sale,flea market or gun show.
Gun owners do not want there guns stolen or sold to criminals.
This would enable millions of Citizens to check for stolen fire arms ,as opposed to the occasional police check.
It would make it much more difficult to sell or pawn a stolen gun.
Gun owners would support such a law and pro actively participate in its implementation.
Why it is better than other proposals.
National fire arms registration (sounds good) will not work ( why) People simply will not comply,Even Canada had to scrap registration due to non compliance.After spending 4 billion dollars.
Any one serious about reducing gun violence and crime will think this over.
It is better to ride the horse you have than try to ride the horse you cant catch,If you want to get any where that is. If you read this Thanks.
Stolen fire arms are used in most crimes and murders Question is how to locate and eliminate these weapons.I have a few ideas.
1.Create a national data base listing stolen guns by serial numbers,That is accessible to the public.
This information is already out there.Local and State Police and Insurance Company's have this on file.However it is in hundreds of different data bases.
2.Once the consolidated data system is in place,All Citizens will be able to check there guns against the system,Have a six month amnesty grace period .
the Gov.could buy back all stolen fire arms,no questions asked.
3.After the grace period ,enact a fire arms protection law,Severe mandatory penalty's for the theft sale or possession of a stolen fire arm,Even more severe for committing a crime with a stolen gun.
Why this would be practical and would work.
Buyers could run a serial number before any purchase them selves,Be it a private sale,flea market or gun show.
Gun owners do not want there guns stolen or sold to criminals.
This would enable millions of Citizens to check for stolen fire arms ,as opposed to the occasional police check.
It would make it much more difficult to sell or pawn a stolen gun.
Gun owners would support such a law and pro actively participate in its implementation.
Why it is better than other proposals.
National fire arms registration (sounds good) will not work ( why) People simply will not comply,Even Canada had to scrap registration due to non compliance.After spending 4 billion dollars.
Any one serious about reducing gun violence and crime will think this over.
It is better to ride the horse you have than try to ride the horse you cant catch,If you want to get any where that is. If you read this Thanks.
Stolen fire arms are used in most crimes and murders Question is how to locate and eliminate these weapons.I have a few ideas.
1.Create a national data base listing stolen guns by serial numbers,That is accessible to the public.
This information is already out there.Local and State Police and Insurance Company's have this on file.However it is in hundreds of different data bases.
2.Once the consolidated data system is in place,All Citizens will be able to check there guns against the system,Have a six month amnesty grace period .
the Gov.could buy back all stolen fire arms,no questions asked.
3.After the grace period ,enact a fire arms protection law,Severe mandatory penalty's for the theft sale or possession of a stolen fire arm,Even more severe for committing a crime with a stolen gun.
Why this would be practical and would work.
Buyers could run a serial number before any purchase them selves,Be it a private sale,flea market or gun show.
Gun owners do not want there guns stolen or sold to criminals.
This would enable millions of Citizens to check for stolen fire arms ,as opposed to the occasional police check.
It would make it much more difficult to sell or pawn a stolen gun.
Gun owners would support such a law and pro actively participate in its implementation.
Why it is better than other proposals.
National fire arms registration (sounds good) will not work ( why) People simply will not comply,Even Canada had to scrap registration due to non compliance.After spending 4 billion dollars.
Any one serious about reducing gun violence and crime will think this over.
It is better to ride the horse you have than try to ride the horse you cant catch,If you want to get any where that is. If you read this Thanks.
francisgleiche on January 11, 2013 @ 8:43 am wrote: “Well, it gets YOU nowhere, because you have no answer for it. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is set in historical fact. Deal with it.”
Ahem:
“If the Second Amendment was intended to take away the powers provided by Article 1, Section 8, why doesn’t it say so? You are “reading into” the Amendment things it never says.”
* * * *
“Yes, the Bill of Rights, and other provisions of the Constitution, were enacted to restrain the power of the government. But how you get from a general principle of limitation to each specific claim of a limitation is the important question. I repeat, had the Founders wanted to secure the right of an armed citizenry to rebel against the government they would have written it into the Second Amendment. Funny thing, they didn’t! (However, they did write about the security of the State.)”
Hmm, that sounds like a pretty good set of answers (along with everything else I previously wrote). And I note you haven’t replied to any of that, because you have no answer for it.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
But let’s try your ‘the Bill of Rights limits government power, so anything goes' argument on a few other issues. The Bill of Rights also declares that we have unenumerated rights. (The Ninth Amendment.) And the Fourteenth Amendment further limits government power. Put them all together and what do we get? Gay marriage should be mandated by the Constitution - after all the Constitution limits government power. Abortion should be legal without any limits - after all the Constitution limits government power. Child pornography, “snuff” films, murder and arson for hire, rape, incest, bestiality, anything goes! And, on the other hand, torture, police interrogations, wiretaps (with or without warrants), imprisonment, should all be struck down. After all: the Constitution limits government power.
Too bad it doesn’t actually say any of that! Just like it says nothing about a "right" to overthrow the government by force of arms. I believe that's called treason! (Or was Article 3, Section 3, Paragraph 1 also "impliedly" repealed by the Second Amendment?)
francisgleiche on January 11, 2013 @ 8:43 am wrote: “No! I'm embracing EVERYTHING it says, not just the first 13 words. The first 13 words provide the rationale for the last 14.”
Hogwash. You are ignoring what those first 13 words say, and “writing into” the Amendment words that cannot be found there.
You said it yourself, those first 13 words provide the rationale for the last 14. Get yourself a dictionary, and look up that word:
“rationale 1. a statement of reasons. 2. a reasoned exposition or principles. 3. the fundamental reasons serving to account for something.”
The American College Dictionary (Random House, 1967)
So, what is the “statement of reasons” for the Second Amendment? What is the “reasoned exposition” of its principles? What are “the fundamental reasons serving to account for” its existence? Why, the ones it expressly states: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State”.
That’s not only what it says about the Amendment’s purposes, it’s the only thing it says. There’s no babbling about a “right of self-defense”, or a “right” to overthrow the government (or any of the rest of the nonsense you and the NRA prattle about).
The words on the printed page are what count, and none of what you assert are printed there. Yes, the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. But why? Because “A well regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State”.
Deal with it.
P.S. - And the fact that you don’t. The fact that, instead, you evade and avoid these awkward facts, only proves how wrong you are.
Dear foundelk:
It's not necessary to repeat the same Comment two or more times. Once is quite enough.
I don't know if the problem is a "heavy finger" on your mouse button, or a deliberate decision to be repetitive (because of an illusion that it adds credibility), but I'm sure I don't speak only for myself when I ask: Knock it off!
Let's start with the strawmen, shall we?
" had the Founders wanted to secure the right of an armed citizenry to rebel against the government "
"Just like it says nothing about a "right" to overthrow the government by force of arms."
"There’s no babbling about ... a “right” to overthrow the government (or any of the rest of the nonsense you and the NRA prattle about)."
Really? Where did I "prattle on about that"? Chapter and verse, please. But the re-emergence of the strawmen in your posts does tell me one thing ... you know you're losing.
"But let’s try your ‘the Bill of Rights limits government power, so anything goes' argument on a few other issues. The Bill of Rights also declares that we have unenumerated rights. (The Ninth Amendment.) And the Fourteenth Amendment further limits government power. Put them all together and what do we get? Gay marriage should be mandated by the Constitution - after all the Constitution limits government power. Abortion should be legal without any limits - after all the Constitution limits government power. Child pornography, “snuff” films, murder and arson for hire, rape, incest, bestiality, anything goes! "
Utter nonsense, of course. When you can explain how any of the things you list do not violate the rights of their victims, c'mon back. Until then, try again.
Oh ... and the "so anything goes'" part is, yet another ... wait for it ... STRAWMAN.
Not surprisingly, you misinterpret the 9th amendment as well. It is not a "get out of jail free card". It simply says that just because a right is not mentioned in the Constitution does not mean that the people abrogate or eshew that right. That's it.
Part duex:
"The words on the printed page are what count, and none of what you assert are printed there."
Of course what I assert is there. Look, the fact is the words of the amendment may be interpreted two different ways and the sticky point is the latter 14 words. So here are the two interpretations:
1) A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because they may be needed to be part of the militia.
2) A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because the militia of the state is armed and consequently, an armed citizenry is our guarantee against tyranny.
Now, what was the intent? What I assert is that the intent of the Bill of Rights is to limit the power of government against its citizens [this is THE key point, and I refer you again to the archives.gov post], and in the case of the Second Amendment to secure against the tyranny of the government, not to provide a method of staffing a militia! So, yes, a “right of self-defense” certainly is there (and an amendment that simply staffs a militia is completely out of place). And I know that is the intent, because it is the intent, language, and historical context of every other of the first ten amendments.
Oh ... and the fact that, instead, you evade and avoid these awkward facts, only proves how wrong you are.
Part duex:
"The words on the printed page are what count, and none of what you assert are printed there."
Of course what I assert is there. Look, the fact is the words of the amendment may be interpreted two different ways and the sticky point is the latter 14 words. So here are the two interpretations:
1) A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because they may be needed to be part of the militia.
2) A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because the militia of the state is armed and consequently, an armed citizenry is our guarantee against tyranny.
Now, what was the intent? What I assert is that the intent of the Bill of Rights is to limit the power of government against its citizens [this is THE key point, and I refer you again to the archives.gov post], and in the case of the Second Amendment to secure against the tyranny of the government, not to provide a method of staffing a militia! So, yes, a “right of self-defense” certainly is there (and an amendment that simply staffs a militia is completely out of place). And I know that is the intent, because it is the intent, language, and historical context of every other of the first ten amendments.
Oh ... and the fact that, instead, you evade and avoid these awkward facts, only proves how wrong you are.
"It's not necessary to repeat the same Comment two or more times. Once is quite enough.
I don't know if the problem is a "heavy finger" on your mouse button, or a deliberate decision to be repetitive (because of an illusion that it adds credibility), but I'm sure I don't speak only for myself when I ask: Knock it off!"
In case you hadn't noticed, as mb's go, drshow mb is a piece of ... well, you know. It is slow and unreliable. Sometimes it appears that a post did not "stick" so posts get out there twice ... I just did it myself when I got an error back on the first try. A little tolerance is in order.
Sorry having some trouble with the site I have no Idea why it did that?
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote: "And NO! That “murdering psycho” could not have accomplished the same thing with a revolver (especially one limited to six, or even ten, bullets). The record of these mass murders is pretty consistent: the killing stops, and the killers are stopped, only when the bullets run out, and they have to reload! P.S. - As for “gasoline bombs” (or bombs of any kind), last I checked it was illegal for civilians to own or use them.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:"Funny, the Second Amendment doesn’t protect the “right” to keep and bear such arms!"
Are you sure about that? I think it does. Things started unraveling fast after the 1934 NFA.
This shows a total lack of imagination, quite frankly it plays right in to your deliberate attempts to undermine the intent of the constitution.
Lanza could have had six loaded revolvers ready to go, revolvers are cheap and easy to come by.
He could have had a back pack of Molotov cocktails.
"illegal for civilians to own and use bombs" Since when do criminals care about what is legal or not! That comment of yours is embarrassing.
What you want as far as gun control is clearly unreasonable "infringements" Incidentally, what you prescribe is always the first thing that happens before a total ban i.e. forced registration.
I had no idea this conversation was still going on. I was busy with Fridays. Actually I am glad because I prefer real time, but I did miss ecgberht. Ecgberht is much better at filling in the details, thank you!
ES would have us believe it is Constitutional for the government to regulate rights within a hair's breadth of completely eliminating them, to set up laws in the name of safety and security to the point where a feather could push us into to tyranny. At least that is how I see it, I totally reject that as being the intent of the Constitution.
We have enough gun laws. What we have is societal moral decay, the left only encourages it, progressive republicans go along with it.