There have been several pieces of good news lately relating to 2nd Amendment rights in the United States. By now everyone should be aware of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling striking down the 32 year old Washington, D.C. ban on citizens keeping guns in their homes. Florida has a new law which allows gun owners to transport their legally registered guns to work as long as they keep them locked up in their cars. There are exceptions to the law – those who work in schools are still prohibited from bringing their firearms onto school grounds. Lastly, Governor Sonny Perdue of Georgia signed legislation in May that allows the state’s 300,000 concealed weapons permit holders to carry hidden guns on public transit, in state parks and restaurants that serve alcohol. Congratulations to those political leaders in Florida and Georgia and the 5 justices on the Supreme Court that got it right for a change by supporting the Amendment to the Constitution that ensures all the others.
How does the 2nd Amendment ensure that the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights are honored by the federal government? We consult the Declaration of Independence for that answer:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.
Our Founders knew that historically, government as an institution is prone to abusing power and denying natural rights to its own citizens as well as citizens of other countries. So, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Washington and their brethren built a two tier system to guarantee that the same would not happen with the government they were instituting. First, Americans would have the ability to “alter” their government through the ballot box. If that option became unavailable to them they could take up arms and “abolish” it. Fortunately, in the United States, we have had a history of regular elections and smooth transitions to power. But, our past is no reason not to be vigilant about protecting 2nd Amendment rights, since a slow steady erosion of gun rights is as dangerous to the health of our republic as a sudden confiscation of the same right.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Baritone
Ken,
I don't share your enthusiasm. I just made a comment on another thread on this very issue:
"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."
The Supreme Court in its wisdom looked over a 27 word sentence and dispensed with the first 13 of them. As there is no other rationale presented in the Constitution regarding the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" the 5 justices took it upon themselves to simply "imagine" that the Founders had other justifications in mind.
The thought of the average college student or college professor "packing heat" sends chills up my spine. Nor am I comforted by the thought that now more and more people will likely be walking around armed - at the movies, at Mickey Ds, at WalMart, at a ball game enjoying a few beers. It's nuts.
Do you really imagine that the millions of folks out there who own guns in this country could somehow, by virtue of that armament be able to "take on" the government? And whose decision would that be? Are we to perhaps depend on the wisdom and judgment of members of one of the Michigan militias? How would it be organized? How could absolute carnage be avoided? Every nutball sporting an arsenal could decide that he (or she) will lead the charge by eliminating those who in his or her demented little mind are the cause of all our woes - be it blacks, gays, christians, jews, women, whoever happens to be walking along the street or Rob Schneider.
The idea of a "well regulated militia" in today's world is wholly ludicrous.
The Supreme Court is now responsible for opening up the dam. As the water spills over we will perhaps be both witness to and victim of the flood downstream.
Baritone
2 - Doug Hunter
That's right Baritone, resistance is futile. Don't question government, trust it.
3 - Baritone
I don't say "don't question government." Government should be questioned at every turn. Does that mean holding it at gun point? What kind of society would we be living in if any and all levels of government were under the constant threat of attack? First of all, who in their right mind would work for such a government? Who in their right mind would even consider running for office?
The entire basis for our government is predicated upon peaceful execution and transfer of power. Overall, it's worked reasonably well now for over 220 years. Are there flaws? Are their excesses? Are there injustices? Yes to all. But, given that, are we ready to storm the Congress and the White House and throw the bums out? That may appeal to a certain kind of cowboy crazy Michigan militia type, but I think most of us would be appalled at even the thought of it. That would truly be destructive to our Constitution.
B
4 - Clavos
"What kind of society would we be living in if any and all levels of government were under the constant threat of attack?"
Good question. Now, flip it:
"What kind of society would we be living in if any and all levels of society were under the constant threat of government attack?"
We're not there yet, but there have been incidents which accurately reflect that scenario, and which should be ringing alarms.
5 - zingzing
so you can transport your gun to work... but then you leave it in the car? what if it's a hot day? what if you get back to your car and your gun is dead from the heat?
if you can't be more than 1,000 feet from your gun for 8 hours a day, you need some help. or a deringer.
...really. what's the good of carrying your gun to work if you can't bring it in with you? what kind of situation is there that makes this sensible?
6 - zingzing
clavos: ""What kind of society would we be living in if any and all levels of society were under the constant threat of government attack?"
We're not there yet, but there have been incidents which accurately reflect that scenario, and which should be ringing alarms."
now how is it that so many gun nuts veer towards republicans? well, i guess that the more rights bush takes away, the more people he tortures, the more he locks up without due process, the more he taps our phones and monitors our existence... it gives the gun nuts all the more reason to vote him in, just so they can feel like they have a reason to keep their guns...
"we love our guns! keep fucking us over just so we can keep our guns (to prevent you from fucking us over! if we so choose!)"
7 - Baritone
Clav,
Describe for me exactly how you or anyone or any group is going to fight the government with your guns.
It is likely that if the government decided to "take over" militarily, that it's superior firepower, tactical and logistic abilities would render such resistence - yes - futile - both comical and tragic. Do you imagine clandestine guerilla groups fighting the good fight for freedom and the American way? By then, any semblence of a constitutional government or society would be long down the tubes.
I must say, that I rather agree with zing above. It tends to be conservatives who embrace a more fascist, highly controlled social order.
It seems to me that in your particular case Clav, that you could, if need be, jump into your boat and be out of here in a whipstitch. Most of us land lubbers don't have that option.
Nevertheless, I think your concerns at least border on an alarmist level. Do you truly believe that we are on course for a government crack down on individual freedoms? Is it coming from the right or the left? Or does that matter?
There are those - including Ruvy - who actually expect the Bushies to declare martial law, suspend the election and pretty much end all individual freedoms in the name of national security. Does that fit within the scope of your fears?
B
8 - Clavos
"What kind of society would we be living in if any and all levels of government were under the constant threat of attack?"
Good question. Now, flip it:
"What kind of society would we be living in if any and all levels of society were under the constant threat of government attack?"
We're not there yet, but there have been incidents which accurately reflect that scenario, and which should be ringing alarms.
9 - Dave Nalle
I must say, that I rather agree with zing above. It tends to be conservatives who embrace a more fascist, highly controlled social order.
This is a rather selective viewpoint. There is one segment of the conservative population which favors more restrictions in a few limited areas, but on the whole the right (not necessarily all conservative) favors far less government control and fewer restrictions on individual actions.
Coming from a left-leaning perspective you don't see it, but the reality is that the American left is far more interested in curtailing rights and limiting the liberty of individuals on a broad basis.
Now, to go back to the article itself.
Kenn seems to have missed it, but the DC gun ban suit had less impact than he thinks. DC immediately rewrote the law with different ridiculous restrictions. Under current DC law you must get any gun registered and go through a background check far in excess of the normal federal background check for gun purchases. Any gun with a clip of 12 or more cartridges is prohibited, ruling out many common handguns. Finally, you have to keep any gun in your home either locked up or disassembled. As one person described it, it's like you have to make an appointment in advance if you want to defend yourself from a home invader.
The original plaintiff in the previous suit has filed a new suit against DC on the basis that their new restrictions amount to an effective ban, in direct violation of the Supreme Court's ruling.
Oh, and Baritone. Read the founding fathers on gun rights. There's no question at all that they intended the second clause of the amendment to apply to private ownership of guns for self defense.
Dave
10 - Clavos
now how is it that so many gun nuts veer towards republicans? well, i guess that the more rights bush takes away, the more people he tortures, the more he locks up without due process, the more he taps our phones and monitors our existence... it gives the gun nuts all the more reason to vote him in, just so they can feel like they have a reason to keep their guns...
Um, zing:
Isn't Janet Reno a Democrat?
Didn't she order the attack on Mt. Carmel?
11 - Dan Miller
Baritone,
I think the Supreme Court pretty much got it right in District of Colombia v. Heller. You disagree, and no useful purpose would be served by dissecting the Court's opinion here; it did what it did.
Reasonable limitations on gun ownership are permissible, and it now has to be decided what they are to be. We most likely agree that lunatics and convicted criminals should not be permitted to have guns.
As noted in a different thread, I don't own a gun, never have, and don't want to. Even though I live in a remote area where a "911 call" would be pointless, I don't feel that I need one. I did, however, have a conversation with another expat living in Panama who had looked into how gun registration works here. Please keep in mind that this is second hand information which may or may not be reliable. However, it was interesting and might be worth considering in the U.S.
As I understand the situation, registration of a firearm requires:
Obviously, these requirements are no less likely to be abused than any others, and probably do very little to prevent the unlawful possession of firearms, which we probably agree is a substantial problem.
Nevertheless, they seems worthy of consideration.
Dan
12 - zingzing
"Didn't [janet reno, dem] order the attack on Mt. Carmel?"
yes, yes she did. it certainly didn't go as planned, i hope. she wasn't the one who started the fighting... that had been going on for some 50+ days.
your point?
my point is that the same republican officials who fight for your rights to have guns are the ones that give you the most reason ("lately," you could say,) to have them, if you want to say you're only keeping guns to protect yourself from the government (not to make up for the small size of your genetalia or anything).
there is some sort of logical disconnect there.
13 - Clavos
my point is that the same republican officials who fight for your rights to have guns are the ones that give you the most reason ("lately," you could say,) to have them, if you want to say you're only keeping guns to protect yourself from the government (not to make up for the small size of your genetalia or anything).
We probably could have kept this discussion on a higher plane, without resorting to snide remarks, but perhaps you're merely projecting.
You're right; lately, the nominally republican government has been the one attacking the citizens; I notice that the citizens they most attack are right wingers.
Government is inherently evil, and must be kept in check by the governed; that's the reason for the Constitution - all of it.
14 - zingzing
dave: "the reality is that the American left is far more interested in curtailing rights and limiting the liberty of individuals on a broad basis."
on the side of the left, we have the restriction of rights concerning:
guns
on the side of the right, we have:
habeas corpus
wire tapping
gay rights
immigration
torture
blurring of church and state
capital punishment
stem cell research
abortion
unjust wars (preemptive strike?)
environmental
PATRIOT act
i'm sure it goes on. please let me know where you see the left restricting rights, other than in the arena of gun control. i'm sure you can think of some.
15 - zingzing
clavos: "We probably could have kept this discussion on a higher plane, without resorting to snide remarks, but perhaps you're merely projecting."
it was a snide remark because you don't want to keep your guns merely to protect yourself from the government. that's why we have wilderness and survivalists and all the crazy that goes with it. if that's you're ONLY reason and you're not out in the woods with a ridiculous amount of firearms... well, then i think you're lying or covering up for something else.
but i could have kept it on a higher plane. i assure you, my massive genetalia is not to be questioned. besides, all it does is spit.
"You're right; lately, the nominally republican government has been the one attacking the citizens; I notice that the citizens they most attack are right wingers."
where have you noticed such a thing? unless you're talking about waco again... i never stopped to consider their political affiliations... the religious ones (bullshit that they were) were so far out there that i don't think you could blame the right or the left for that junk.
but what else are you talking about?
"Government is inherently evil, and must be kept in check by the governed; that's the reason for the Constitution - all of it."
yes, that's why we have the constitution. but, i don't think some unorganized bunch of gun nuts taking on the government, running wild in the streets with their bellies and beer stains is really going to add up to anything but a bunch of the rest of us dying and the government shooting all y'all dead. and then what do we have? i don't want to bury bodies all day.
16 - Clavos
it was a snide remark because you don't want to keep your guns merely to protect yourself from the government.
Guilty. One of my favorite pastimes is killing birds and animals.
where have you noticed such a thing? unless you're talking about waco again... i never stopped to consider their political affiliations... the religious ones (bullshit that they were) were so far out there that i don't think you could blame the right or the left for that junk.
Waco, Ruby Ridge, Eldorado.
ALL rightwingers, mostly religious, but definitely not lefties.
yes, that's why we have the constitution. but, i don't think some unorganized bunch of gun nuts taking on the government, running wild in the streets with their bellies and beer stains is really going to add up to anything but a bunch of the rest of us dying and the government shooting all y'all dead. and then what do we have? i don't want to bury bodies all day.
Funny, but most of the people running amok shooting up the streets are totally apolitical gang bangers, drug dealers, and other city dwellers; the beer belly guys are on the ranges, and as you pointed out, in the woods - and not killing anything but Bambi and Thumper, except when attacked by government thugs.
17 - zingzing
"Funny, but most of the people running amok shooting up the streets are totally apolitical gang bangers, drug dealers, and other city dwellers; the beer belly guys are on the ranges, and as you pointed out, in the woods - and not killing anything but Bambi and Thumper, except when attacked by government thugs."
yeah, well, come your fantasy government vs. the people beatdown, the gang bangers will be out on the street taking advantage of the situation. so add that to your troubles. and the beer belly guys will be dumbstruck by the actual situation, and even if they can get their shit together on an individual level, their total lack of organization (form a militia if you're really scared of this) is going to just let the government mow them down (and with a "good" reason, or "good enough").
"ALL rightwingers, mostly religious, but definitely not lefties."
well, they don't just go in when there's nothing totally illegal, like fucking little girls... which, funny enough, that's the direction all these religious organizations go in...
ruby ridge was just a big, stupid misunderstanding between two sides too willing to use too many guns.
"Guilty. One of my favorite pastimes is killing birds and animals."
with what? your pistol? or your semi-automatic machine gun? eh?
18 - Dr Dreadful
"...totally apolitical gang bangers..."
Not totally, Clav. A significant part of gang culture is political.
It just ain't Washington politics...
19 - Clavos
well, they don't just go in when there's nothing totally illegal, like fucking little girls...
The HELL they don't. That wasn't happening, and after investigating, the court ruled against the state.
ruby ridge was just a big, stupid misunderstanding between two sides too willing to use too many guns.
A "misunderstanding," eh? Oh well, that's OK then.
with what? your pistol? or your semi-automatic machine gun? eh?
Stupid comment...
20 - Clavos
Point taken, Doc.
21 - Jordan Richardson
As an outsider (Canadian) from a country in love with hunting (yes, with guns!) and sport-shooting (not sure if that's the word for it?), I find it interesting to see how many of my friends from south of the border hold on to gun rights and their guns out of fear, paranoia, and the like.
Form a militia? Government agents going after beer belly guys? Guns used as protection from the government? No offense, but it all sounds like some ridiculous Fantasyland in which evil and death lurks around every corner.
Then there's the tug-of-war played with the Holy Second Amendment. "No, it means this!" "No, you idiot, it means this!" It's pretty clear that you can frame the Amendment in its proper context and see what it means. Is this idea of "self-defense" something that should evolve with time? If the Amendment had evolved with time, would people even need guns for self-defense? This hilarious Hero notion that so many Americans have of defending their homes with guns blazing, perhaps jumping sideways through a pane of glass while a burglar tries to steal the flatscreen, is enough to keep me in stitches for quite a while, so I am grateful for that!
This idea, like the title of the article says, that the Second Amendment is "the Amendment that ensures all others" is quite laughable given that most Americans you meet keep harping on how "free" they are. Listening to the babble on this topic and others, you'd start to think the only reason Americans believe they're free is because they can pack heat. Is that really freedom? Freedom to be deathly afraid of your neighbour is more like it.
I don't think there'd even be a peep about this type of thing if more Americans knew how to use their guns properly, were less inherently violent and paranoid, and cared just as much about their other Amendments and their Constitution as they do the bloody Second Amendment. Jaysuz!
22 - zingzing
"The HELL they don't. That wasn't happening, and after investigating, the court ruled against the state."
ok, fine. they don't go in there without a "reasonable" suspicion that little girls are getting married and raped. i'm not so sure that was NOT going on there. unless those girls got unpregnant... i know that's not a word.
"[ruby ridge was a] "misunderstanding," eh? Oh well, that's OK then."
yeah, well, that's what happens when you've got stupid people with guns and stupid government people with guns. you going to say "misunderstandings" like this don't happen every day?
"with what? your pistol? or your semi-automatic machine gun? eh?
Stupid comment..."
how so? i have relatively few problems with rifles. i mean, there are snipers, etc, but that's fairly rare. i'm more interested in getting semi-automatics and handguns off the streets. you don't use those things for hunting. so how the fuck is that stupid? i'm not going to call you dumb, but damn, man, if you can't figure that one out, you need to check out what's going on upstairs.
23 - Clavos
This hilarious Hero notion that so many Americans have of defending their homes with guns blazing...
And yet, it happens; on a near daily basis, somewhere in the country.
Google it: store owners shooting would-be holdup artists, homeowners confronting burglars.
Crime is so out of control in this country, the police can't and do not cover everyone.
24 - zingzing
"The HELL they don't. That wasn't happening, and after investigating, the court ruled against the state."
besides, are you saying that the mormons should have had guns and should have killed those raiding the compound? how do you think that would have ended?
25 - Dan Miller
Jordan, you say
As previously noted, perhaps less emphatically, I don't give a rat's ass about guns. I do agree that those who own them should know how to use them, safely. My concern is that as we slide down the slippery slope toward interpreting the U.S. Constitution out of existence, we do a substantial disservice to our other Constitutionally protected rights, which I view as more important. Go kill all the cute little animals you and your colleagues want to. (although if you do, I hope that you eat them). I have no wish to kill them, but neither do I have any desire to impose my views on you.Dan