Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The FAA Rediscovers the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
David Codrea, who sounded the alarm about the Federal Aviation Administration's apparent endorsement of the view that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms, notes that the agency has published a correction in the Federal Register:
When the FAA issued a final rule on human space flight, it described one rule as consistent with the Second Amendment of the Constitution because, among other things, the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment is a collective right. The FAA now withdraws that characterization and amends its description.
The offending passage, part of the FAA's justification for its ban on carrying firearms aboard spaceships, originally read (emphasis added):
The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides that "[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.'' This right is not unfettered. Nearly every statute restricting the right to bear arms has been upheld. For example, in 1958, Congress made it a criminal offense to knowingly carry a firearm onto an airplane engaged in air transportation....Additionally, nearly all courts have also held that the Second Amendment is a collective right, rather than a personal right. Therefore, despite the Second Amendment collective right to bear arms, the FAA has the authority to prohibit firearms on launch and reentry vehicles for safety and security purposes.
It now reads:
The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides that "[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.'' This right is not unfettered. Nearly every statute restricting the right to bear arms has been upheld. For example, in 1958, Congress made it a criminal offense to knowingly carry a firearm onto an airplane engaged in air transportation....By analogy, and for the reasons given when the FAA issued its human space flight requirements, the FAA has, consistent with the right to bear arms secured by the Second Amendment, the authority to prohibit firearms on launch and reentry vehicles for safety and security purposes.
Explaining the correction, the FAA notes that "the Executive Branch, through the Department of Justice, interprets the Second Amendment as securing a right of individuals to keep and bear arms." Codrea, who pointed out the inconsistency in a letter to the FAA, concludes:
If you know you're right, keep pushing—even if those with vastly more reach ignore you and others actively oppose you or put you down for it—all of which happened in this case. We can't let that deter us from doing what's right.
Guy Montag|2.21.07 @ 11:57AM|#
Perhaps I have been at the office too long.
Is the FAA now saying they recognize my right to keep and bear
arms, but I still can't carry one aboard my own private
spacecraft?
How about if I launch from Tennessee and land in Florida, both
States that recognize my Handgun Carry Permit* but I take a path
that carries me over Maryland, New Jersey, New York and other
backwards parts of the world. Am I illegal on part of the flight
but leagal when I am on the ground?
No wonder those airlines flying to and from New Mexico are having
such a rough time!
*Second Amendment Permit issued in Tennessee, but more freedom
comes with it in Florida for some reason.
|2.21.07 @ 12:01PM|#
Ugh. Here's an issue where all sides are wrong.
I'm happy to acknowledge the failure of gun control. I'm even
happier to state that all proposed gun control measures are nothing
more than foolish, unenforceable, unnecessary, and
counterproductive.
Even so, claiming that the 2nd amendment gives an unambiguous right
to individual citizens is just Bullshit. The 2nd amendment
specifically refers to "a well regulated militia". Whatever you
think it means, those words are there and it doesn't mean the same
thing as if they weren't.
Furthermore the 2nd amendment is an anachronism. It's sole purpose
was to give the people the means to defend themselve's from their
own government. But that day is long gone. The government has the
means to overpower even the most well armed citizens (the Branch
Davidians e.g.)
Grotius|2.21.07 @ 12:08PM|#
Warren,
By the last count that I read forty-three states specifically
recognize an individual right to bear arms (indeed, a number of
these states have recently - in the least ten to twenty years -
passed referendums on the issue supporting such a right). In other
words, a lot of the discussion re: the Second Amendment is simply
moot.
Dan T.|2.21.07 @ 12:12PM|#
I'm happy to acknowledge the failure of gun
control.
How? It's never been tried, at least in America.
Guy Montag|2.21.07 @ 12:14PM|#
Warren,
Yes, the term "well regulated militia" is in the amendment.
Something that is key is how it is referred to and your statement
reveals a slight misunderstand of that key point.
|2.21.07 @ 12:16PM|#
Warren,
The state has alway been able to overpower the individual. An armed
citizenry at least has a fighting chance, and hopefully will make
the state think twice.
thoreau|2.21.07 @ 12:20PM|#
On the 2nd amendment, even back when I supported gun control I
thought that the thing needed to be rewritten. I mean, say what you
will about what it meant in the context of legal jargon in 1790 or
whatever year, I'm perfectly willing to believe (at least for the
sake of argument) that people who know far more about that than I
do can explain that it was perfectly unambiguous back then. OK,
great. Fact remains that today it's confusing. Yes, yes, I know, it
shouldn't be confusing, we should all just learn the
things that other people have learned and then it would all be
perfectly clear.
Well, fact remains, it is confusing to a lot of people today
because it starts off talking about a group ("militia") that is
subject to some sort of control ("well-regulated"). Then, it talks
about a "right" that "shall not be infringed." One can be pardoned
for being confused about whether that right is individual or
collective.
Mind you, I think it would be best if the right is recognized as an
individual one, and I am willing to believe people who have read
far more than me who say that it meant precisely that in the
context of legal jargon in 1790.
I still think it would be best if it was rewritten to say that in
the plain language of 2007. We can debate the best wording, but it
should probably be something that carries the same meaning in both
common usage (i.e. layman's terms circa 2007) and legalese (circa
2007).
I have no illusion that such a rewrite will take place, of course.
I'm just saying that the 2nd amendment is hardly the most easily
understood of the amendments.
Now, the parts about your right to a trial, however, those seem
pretty unambiguous even 200 years later. A shame that some don't
see it that way...
|2.21.07 @ 12:25PM|#
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the legal terminology, but this
whole "collective right" thing seems to be complete bullshit. I've
never met a collective, have you? On the other hand, I know lots of
individuals.
Since collectives must be made up of individuals, somewhere along
the line, individuals must have a right to something which is a
"collective right". Otherwise, what do we have here but a trick of
language to accept the existence of the right while simultaneously
denying it to everyone?
"We acknowledge the 2nd amendment is a right of the collectve. Just
not of you. Or you. Or you. Or you. Or you. (repeat 300 million
times)"
So everybody (the collective) has a right to bear arms, but nobody
(all the individuals) has a right to bear arms? \
Imagine this logic applied to the first amendment. The populace as
a whole has the right to free speech, yet anyone engaging in free
speech is imprisoned because they do not have that right as
individuals. So where's the part where the collective is engaging
in free speech?
I don't think the second amendment was written to ensure the
military would be permitted to have guns.
Grotius|2.21.07 @ 12:26PM|#
thoreau,
I still think it would be best if it was rewritten to say that
in the plain language of 2007.
You could say that about much of the Constitution's language. I'm
not quite sure why you are pointing to one specific phrase for a
re-write.
|2.21.07 @ 12:33PM|#
kwais,
I can think of dozens of times where the presence of arms (or as
Radley has blogged about extensively, even the rumor of the
presence of arms) motivates the state to bring even more arms and
arrest people. In fact I'd say there must be tens of thousands of
such cases (but I am talking out my ass here).
Can you give me a single instance of a time when the state was like
"we were going to arrest this person/these people, but when we saw
what they were packing, we decided against it".
I suppose one could argue that a cop might think better of yanking
someone off the street for "questioning" without a warrant, but
that doesn't fit with my understanding of every cops mindset.
|2.21.07 @ 12:38PM|#
On Dr T's point:
Can anyone here tell me how the 2nd Ammendment would be phrased in
today's English?
|2.21.07 @ 12:39PM|#
"Well-regulated militia" is part of the amendment and it means something, also, the 2nd Amendment has never been incorporated against the states, so while the federal government's sphere of action is limited, a state may absolutely bar you from owning a weapon.
Grotius|2.21.07 @ 12:41PM|#
kwais,
Yeah, adopt one of the many state amendments which recognize an
individual arms right.
|2.21.07 @ 12:42PM|#
...so while the federal government's sphere of action is
limited, a state may absolutely bar you from owning a
weapon.
Yeah, but then there's that pesky 14th amendment.
JD|2.21.07 @ 12:46PM|#
The government has the means to overpower even the most well armed citizens (the Branch Davidians e.g.)
Why don't they do it in Iraq, then, so we can get the whole thing
over with and go home? Why don't the Israelis do it in Palestine?
Why didn't the Soviets do it in Afghanistan? Why can't OK, the
British managed it in South Africa, but it took them forever and a
day.
|2.21.07 @ 12:52PM|#
Unfortunately, the privileges and immunities clause has been pretty much read out of the Constitution. Further, the Court has upheld state gun control laws and some city laws ban them altogether. You can't get much out of the Fourteenth Amendment without an equal protection or due process claim, neither of which I can see how a gun control law would necessarily violate.
|2.21.07 @ 1:09PM|#
For the hairsplitters out there, the "well regulated" in confusing because the meaning of the word regulate has changed over the years. Today regulate relates to rules and regulations.Back then a "well regulated militia" was one that regularly trained with their arms and each other so as to be prepared in case the militia needed to be called up.In order for this to be possible you needed your own gun.
|2.21.07 @ 1:10PM|#
Was it Sheldon Richman who argued that the grammar of the 2nd amendment should be read to understand that because militias need to be regulated, individuals needed the right to bear arms so they could oppose any militias that got out of hand? There being no standing army at the time, it was precisely the unregulated militias that needed to be corralled by armed citizens.
|2.21.07 @ 1:19PM|#
I think the 2nd amnend is some of the worst kind of legalese, in
that it is far from clear to this day, if modern pro and con
arguments are any indication. The only thing that is clear is that
any claim of clarity is probably bogus or wishful thinking at
best.
JD:Why don't they do it in Iraq, then, so we can get the whole
thing over with and go home?
Why didn't Saddam have much trouble?
thoreau|2.21.07 @ 1:22PM|#
me-
You may be right, and no doubt numerous books and sources would
support that interpretation. I still think that the whole thing
about a militia complicates it somewhat, at least for modern
interpreters.
I'd be happy with something to the effect of "The right to
self-defense being essential to a free society, the right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Or even simpler: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed."
If you wanna restrict it somewhat, so that people don't get to own
nukes, or expend it somewhat to make it crystal clear that
concealed carry is OK, well, so be it. We can work on the wording.
But something that makes no mention of militias, and is 100%
focused on individual rights, would be a good start.
LatexSolarBeef|2.21.07 @ 1:29PM|#
this is a camel's nose in the tent kind of scene
we'll see bizarre pettifogger interpretations of what the
Constitution means more and more as time goes by
until (unless?) the courts step in
same kinda gig as the "unified executive theory" that the crypto
fascists are jerking off to these days
isn't someone supposed to stop them?
Grotius|2.21.07 @ 1:31PM|#
thoreau,
The major (and obvious) flaw in that language is the phrase "the
people." Who are "the people?" Citizens? May they exercise that
right individually?
|2.21.07 @ 1:33PM|#
Per federal law, Title 10 USCS 311--The militia consists of all able-bodied males aged 17 to 45, both citizens and those who have declared their intent to become citizens, and of female citizens who are officers of the National Guard.
|2.21.07 @ 1:47PM|#
I've found two things confusing with this issue.
1. The 2nd Amendment says that the right belongs to the people,
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed." How this gets confused with a milita's right is beyond
me. The first part is a "reasoning clause", "A well regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,". The
reasoning clause defines the reason but not whom the right applies.
The amendment does NOT say the right of the milita to keep and bear
arms, shall not be infringed.
It's quite clear, in plain english, that the right belongs to "the
people". Why can't some people get that, I don't know. It should be
a no-brainer for anyone with a six grade education.
2. I don't understand how a "collective" right is a right at all if
an individual can't exercise it. I have the right collectively have
a gun but I don't have a right to own a gun. That makes no sense
whatsoever. How many people are required to meet the threshold of
"collective"?
When we say collective right it usually implies everyone has that
right but you, the individual. Being that we are a country of
individuals, how do we exercise our "collective" rights?
It really sounds like a BS excuse to seperate an individual from a
right, whenever the opposing side thinks it's fit to do so.
JD|2.21.07 @ 1:49PM|#
JD:Why don't they do it in Iraq, then, so we can get the whole thing over with and go home?
Why didn't Saddam have much trouble?
Shecky - Exactly. It's about strategy, not tactics. You can win
nearly any fight if you're willing to slaughter people
indiscriminately, as Saddam was. (And I notice he still couldn't
keep the Kurds down.) The US could start nuking Iraq tomorrow. But
on a political level, that's not acceptable to anyone who isn't an
evil dictator. And it's still not usually wise even if you
are an evil dictator - look where it got Saddam,
ultimately. So when people say "Personal arms are useless because
the military can do XYZ", they are ignoring the political realities
of the situation. Sure, personal arms would be useless if the
military were willing to, say, drop a nuke on East Egypt, Kansas.
But as a practical matter, they won't. So the situation reverts
back to one where personal arms do matter...
mediageek|2.21.07 @ 1:50PM|#
The collective rights meme looks particularly stupid in light of
the preamble to the Bill of Rights, which states:
"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of
their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to
prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further
declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as
extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will
best insure the beneficent ends of its institution"
But if someone can please explain how ensuring that the government
is the only entity with a right to arms also works as a way to
check the authority of an abusive government, I'm all ears.
|2.21.07 @ 1:55PM|#
Mediageek, the idea would be that the other 50 governments in the US would restrain the 1.
|2.21.07 @ 1:57PM|#
"Cheeseburgers being necessary for the happiness of the general
public, the right of the people to grind up cow shall not be
infringed."
Does this mean or even imply that you only have a protected ability
to grind cow if you cook it and slap a piece of cheese on it, or is
it just enumerating at least one reason you need to have such a
right? Is there any question what 'the people' means here?
|2.21.07 @ 2:02PM|#
For the record, I support an individual right to keep and bear
arms, I just think it would be a bit easier to preserve that right
if the amendment recognizing it wasn't written in an unusual
manner, starting off with some mention of an organized group.
Does anybody think we'd be better off if instead of just
recognizing a defendant's right to have "...the assistance of
counsel for his defense" the Bill of Rights said something like
"The Bar Association being a crucial element of a justice system,
the right to hire a criminal defense lawyer shall not be
infringed..."? No, I suspect somebody would twist it and argue that
there should be a government-sanctioned cartel that assigns you a
defense lawyer. (Yeah, I know, there's a bar exam, but at least the
people who practice it get to compete against each other in
drumming up business.)
I know that just about every part of the Constitution has either
been ignored or distorted in a statist manner, but the more
explicit and simple parts have (generall) been less mangled over
time than the more confusing parts.
Again, for the record, I support an individual right to keep and
bear arms. I just think that it would be better if the part of the
Constitution protecting it didn't add any explanatory language that
talked about organized groups rather than individuals. That's
all.
|2.21.07 @ 2:07PM|#
"""The major (and obvious) flaw in that language is the phrase
"the people." Who are "the people?" Citizens? May they exercise
that right individually?"""
The term people is defined in the first the words of the
Constitution as "we". This is not a flaw, the flaw is in the minds
of those who can't grasp the concept that the bill of rights
applies to the citizens of this country.
The word people is also used in the 4th amendment. "The right of
the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
seized.".
It would stand to reason that whomever the "people" are, the
definition would be consistent throughout the document.
Having said that, it could be argued that the "people" that gets
the guns are the same "people" with the 4th amendment rights.
Someone called out the difference between state rights and federal
rights which is an iffy argument and a complex one. Say, would a
state have a right to pass a law against free speech, or is due
process something a state can remove. Both answers are no. The
state is bound to allow it's citizen rights afforded by the
Constitution, otherwise, the Constitution is meaningless outside of
federal law.
I dare say when a state decided to join the union, it accepts the
idea that what it does as a state must conform to federal rules
except when there are no federal rules, part of which would be the
allowance of rights as written in the Constituion. If this was
false a state could do whatever it wants with no federal recourse.
The 10 amendment applies, "The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are
reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
The bill of rights is a power delegated to the United States.
|2.21.07 @ 2:14PM|#
The bill of rights is a power delegated to the United
States.
WTF? I thought it was a list of restrictions on the power of the
United States.
|2.21.07 @ 2:15PM|#
"""Cheeseburgers being necessary for the happiness of the
general public, the right of the people to grind up cow shall not
be infringed." """
Sorry, Nice try Jason but your analogy falls a little short because
the "general public" and "people" are the same, no doubt
there.
But to make it more like the argument at hand I make the following
change.
"Cheeseburgers being necessary for the happiness of the restaurant
patron, the right of the people to grind up cow shall not be
infringed."
Now we can argue if the right belongs to the "restaurant patron" or
"the people", or if there is any difference between the two
|2.21.07 @ 2:27PM|#
the idea would be that the other 50 governments in the US
would restrain the 1.
Please see Article 1, Section 10.
"No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of
tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace,..."
There is no right there. The issue had already been addressed.
wayne|2.21.07 @ 2:29PM|#
I am a minimalist when it comes to writing, so I would rewrite
the second amendment to say: The right of the people to keep and
bare arms shall not be infringed.
The question about the states being able to ban arms ownership
because the second amendment has not been "incorporated" is beyond
my legal ken. I don't see how the constitution of the US can be the
supreme law of the land if a state can pick and choose which parts
to "incorporate".
|2.21.07 @ 2:31PM|#
The way the other fifty governments would restrain the one is called "revolution." A standing militia would partially vitiate the need to organize a military.
Grotius|2.21.07 @ 2:44PM|#
TrickyVic,
The term people is defined in the first the words of the
Constitution as "we".
If the language were changed we'd be looking at what that phrases
means in 2007, not 1790.
|2.21.07 @ 2:44PM|#
I can't, for the life of me, think of a really good
justification for being able to own a handgun that you are
permitted to carry with you anywhere you go. And it's not clear to
me that the 2nd Amendment guarantees that right.
However, that said, I do support the right to bear arms
(disclosure: I have never owned one, have fired hardly at all,
live in MD, and have never seen any of that as backwards - just
different) as I believe that there are responsible gun owners
and that they should be permitted to have guns and use them. More
people die playing football and in their own backyard pools
(http://www.gunowners.org/sk0702.htm) than by guns. If the people
(collective and in the individual case, whatever that means)
demonstrate responsible behavior, a free society shoud not stand
opposed.
A little off-topic: I believe that had the founding fathers
foreseen the creation of the DEA or of organized opposition to
unsanctioned gambling, they would've added amendments to insure
those rights as well (although, they might also have been worded
likewise ambiguously). The point is, whether something is
specifically addressed by the Constitution should not be the only
means by which we measure the limits what we're entitled to
do.
I also strongly support the constitutionally unguaranteed right to
grind cows.
|2.21.07 @ 3:10PM|#
"I also strongly support the constitutionally unguaranteed right
to grind cows." - Pi Guy
I know what you MEAN with that sentence, but for some reason what
popped into my head was a vision of Johnny Knoxville wearing a
Speedo and doing something vastly and bovinely inappropriate.
As for the 2d Amendment, it seems like the right to self-defense -
with a firearm if that is what the individual so chooses as his/her
tool of self-defense, is certainly the kind of right the Founders
had in mind. Both self-defense as an individual citizen against
other citizens, against attacks on the nation by foreign powers,
and against one's own gov't should such a situation arise.
Those who argue that "resistance is futile" in the face of gov't
power are exactly the sort of folks who end up in the galley of
slave ships, IMO, and they also fail to recognize the vast number
of successful revolutions against larger, more powerful and better
armed national forces. (See also: Everything from the U.S. &
French Revolutions to Russia, Cuba, etc. - of course, not all
revolutions turn out as well as the U.S.'s...)
|2.21.07 @ 3:13PM|#
Warren wrote:
Can you give me a single instance of a time when the state was like "we were going to arrest this person/these people, but when we saw what they were packing, we decided against it".
The 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban. When it was in effect,
purchasing new assault weapons was outlawed, but those who already
owned them were allowed to keep them, as pre-ban firearms were
grandfathered. Therefore two classes of Americans were created, one
with the right to own an AW, one without, and the difference was in
the former group being already armed with them.
Why? A while back I recall reading a gun-politics article in the
MSM that quoted a gun shop owner: "Ever try to repossess a
gun?"
Note that when new molecules are added to the DEA's schedules,
existing possessed stock is not grandfathered.
JD wrote:
So when people say "Personal arms are useless because the military can do XYZ", they are ignoring the political realities of the situation.
Exactly. And the same technological advances in the past 200+ years
that created the superweapons also created a highly networked,
media saturated world. Slaughter and oppress your citizenry and the
whole world knows about it within hours or even minutes; can you
afford the political consequences? Technology helps David even more
so than Goliath.
To which I add, we're libertarians, folks, don't forget the
economics. In Iraq some insurgent uses his car to knock down a
power line. A civilian contractor shows up to fix it. He is shot
and killed by an insurgent sniper. Now the repair job isn't a
single Iraqi Power & Light guy and his truck, it becomes a
mission with an Abrams tank, a half dozen Humvees, 20
troops, an Apache orbiting overhead, and the next IP&L guy.
Multiply this by 1000x each and every day, all over the country,
for five years. Eventually the world's preeminent economic and
military superpower says, "you know what, this simply isn't worth
it anymore," and goes home. Small arms in this context don't win
military victories, they win economic victories. Sure, an AK-47 is
no match for a tank, 6 Humvees, a helicopter, and 20 troops. But
the AK-47 is a capital investment of $300, the opposing lot
$30,000,000. Knocking down the power line took 1 minute and a few
pennies worth of gas, fixing it took a few days' planning and
coordination, and six figures' worth of manpower and asset
depreciation. Asymmetric warfare, indeed. That kind of war is
unsustainable for Goliath, no matter how many Davids he kills.
|2.21.07 @ 3:23PM|#
"I can't, for the life of me, think of a really good
justification for being able to own a handgun that you are
permitted to carry with you anywhere you go. And it's not clear to
me that the 2nd Amendment guarantees that right."
The justification is that the firearm brings equality in violence.
Defending yourself is hard in any circumstance because you are
usually reacting while the other guy is acting. If you throw in the
disparity between men and women in physical ability, or the
disparity between the young and the old, it sure is nice to have an
option that turns who wins into a trigger pull sized problem.
Too, consider the alternative. A restriction on the right to carry
a means of effective self defense means that the government is
employing police to tie the hands of crime victims - essentially
saying that they have to take it, and if they are alive afterward
call the cops. A more inhuman exercise of police power I can't
readily imagine.
|2.21.07 @ 3:32PM|#
"""The term people is defined in the first the words of the
Constitution as "we".
If the language were changed we'd be looking at what that phrases
means in 2007, not 1790."""
That "if" has not materialized.
The definition of "we" or "people" is the same today as it in
1790.
Why people can't understand that the Bill of Rights applies to all
Americans is beyond me. Why any citizen would argue to the contrary
is beyong me too. I though people would cherish their rights, it
pretty much sums up why liberty is fleeting in Virgina, few truly
believe in it anymore.
|2.21.07 @ 3:34PM|#
Also not to mention that anyone who wants to take a gun out into
space has to be mind-boggingly stupid, for the following
reasons:
1) What are you going to shoot? BEMs? Alien was a MOVIE, for
gossakes.
2) Recoil. Have fun in zero-gee not slamming youself in reverse up
against some important switches, guys!
3) Air and atmosphere INSIDE, vacuum OUTSIDE. Do you really want to
bring something on board that could breach that?
4) I'd talk about bringing something explosive on board, but then
you're sitting on top of tanks of LOX and Liquid Hydrogen, which is
about as explosive as you can get....
5) Potential puncturing of tanks. An Atlas-Centaur can't stand up
under it's own weight unfilled--the walls are too thin.
Again, are you people totally insane?
Grotius|2.21.07 @ 3:38PM|#
TrickyVic,
That "if" has not materialized.
Yet the context of the question was such a proposed scenario. In
other words, your statements have nothing to do with the question
that I asked.
|2.21.07 @ 3:42PM|#
Grumpy,
Actually, the Russians include in their Soyuz capsules a sawed-off
shotgun, and have since the beginning of their space program.
Soyuz capsules touch down on land, in the Russian wilderness, and a
gun was seen as an essential survival tool in case the helicopters
took a few days to find the capsule.
Paul|2.21.07 @ 3:42PM|#
Even so, claiming that the 2nd amendment gives an
unambiguous right to individual citizens is just Bullshit. The 2nd
amendment specifically refers to "a well regulated
militia".
Warren, Warren, Warren, what a tangled web we weave. I'm sorry, but
you're wrong. So very,
very wrong.
Furthermore the 2nd amendment is an anachronism. It's sole
purpose was to give the people the means to defend
themselve's
One could argue the exact same of the first amendment, couldn't we?
The fifth, and hell, the fourth is such an anachronism no one takes
it seriously any more. In fact the ninth? Oh hell, that's been gone
for a while, too.
This is exactly the kind of "Living Constitution (weeeeeeee!)"
bullshit that keeps me up at night. First you say it doesn't convey
an individual right, then you attempt to deflect future criticism
by declaring it an "anachronism" (someone's been channeling Warren
Berger, again). Sorry, that dog don't hunt. And justices who claim
amendments are "anachronisms"-- as Mr. berger did-- should be
removed from the bench.
The Bill of Rights was not penned to keep power and rights in the
hands of government, it was intended to secure power in the hands
of the people. This is why the "Living Constitution (weeeeeee!)"
was born. People with an agenda wanted to turn over more and more
power to a government which was surely only going to do "good
works" with it, had to start reinterpreting the text.
Paul|2.21.07 @ 3:51PM|#
A restriction on the right to carry a means of effective
self defense means that the government is employing police to tie
the hands of crime victims - essentially saying that they have to
take it, and if they are alive afterward call the cops.
JasonL nailed it. Years ago, in a debate, I postulated that the
purpose of totally disarming the populace was effectively the
equivalent of the government claiming that a criminal had a basic
right, once engaged, to commit his crime unfettered. If the police
are able to intervene, all the better for the victim. But if no
police are present, then the crime and criminal are to proceed
without interference. Only after the fact can the victim act-- and
act only through the arm of law enforcement.
|2.21.07 @ 3:57PM|#
"""The bill of rights is a power delegated to the United
States.
WTF? I thought it was a list of restrictions on the power of the
United States."""
Thanks RC, sorry for the confusion. I admint it didn't come out
quite like I meant it to. By all means it is a list of restrictions
on the power of the US.
My point was that the United States is the one to enforce
compliance of the bill of rights (or not) upon any state that wants
to join the union. A state cannot usurp the bill of rights and
accepting statehood into the union means the federal government has
the right to enforce, upon the state, the federal bill of rights.
If the federal cannot do so, states could do as they wish and the
bill of rights would be meaningless unless the feds were knocking
on your door.
If this is not true, then a state police SWAT team has never
violated anyone's rights under the federal Constitution because
they are an agent of the state, not the feds.
It can't be both ways.
|2.21.07 @ 3:58PM|#
The second amendment and all the others are, theoratically,
Constitutionally, off the table.
No more discussion, means what it says, etc.
Well, its time to make it a reality, off the table.
And the only way to do that is have the Libertarian militia respond
to these ignoramous the right, with a shot across their bow, if you
get my drift.
|2.21.07 @ 4:22PM|#
""If the language were changed we'd be looking at what that
phrases means in 2007, not 1790.""
Not totally true, your generalizing. Both sides of the camp would
still exist as they do today. Those who wish to "interpet" what it
means in 2112 and those who wish to take it at face value, as
written in 2007. I do not think a language change would not alter
that debate.
But, would you doubt to whom the changes apply? Would it be all of
America, or not? That is what the "we the people" debate is
about.
Certainly the federal government can take the "Animal Farm"
approach to the Constitution. I know Bush is a fan of this and
there is little that half of the citizenry can do about it when the
other half condones it.
Grotius|2.21.07 @ 4:31PM|#
TrickyVic,
Not totally true, your generalizing.
If we were to enact an amendment which changed the language the
Second Amendment we'd look most properly to what that language
generally meant as of 2007. Now there would be history, etc. to
consider in that process, nevertheless we'd like to know the
general understanding of the ratifiers of that amendment, that is
their current understanding.
Anyway, the whole point of my question was to illustrate that in
our own day there are terms which would be more clear than "the
people" if one thinks that there is a need to more clearly to
enshrine an individual arms right in the constitution.
mediageek|2.21.07 @ 4:34PM|#
"Also not to mention that anyone who wants to take a gun out
into space has to be mind-boggingly stupid, for the following
reasons:"
I've known plenty of competitive shooters who have flown from one
location to another, and checked their firearms with the
airline.
One could certainly imagine a day when competitive rifle shooters
hold long-distance matches on the surface of the moon. Stuff like
that. It would be pretty cool.
*sighs dreamily*
|2.21.07 @ 4:34PM|#
"a state may absolutely bar you from owning a weapon."
What about the 14th Amendment? Doesn't that guarantee that we
within the states have the same rights as those in the several
states?
|2.21.07 @ 4:49PM|#
Is anybody familiar with the book "A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America" by Saul Cornell? I have it on my list of books to read. I was curious about it because the author claims that both the left and right are wrong in their interpretations of the 2nd Amendment.
|2.21.07 @ 4:54PM|#
""Anyway, the whole point of my question was to illustrate that
in our own day there are terms which would be more clear than "the
people" if one thinks that there is a need to more clearly to
enshrine an individual arms right in the constitution."""
When writing a document (Constitution) that is going to govern a
set of people (the US) it is elementry that if you use the word
people it applies to those under the scope of the document. No one
seems have a problem with whom the 4th amendment covers when it
says "people".
The only reason it gets confused in the 2nd amendment is because
some people want to use it as a technicallity to exclude some
people from that right. If we removed the reasoning clause, nobody
would be debating who "the people" are.
|2.21.07 @ 5:08PM|#
I can't, for the life of me, think of a really good
justification for being able to own a handgun that you are
permitted to carry with you anywhere you go.
Why isn't "Because I want to" a good enough reason?
And if you just can't bear to let peacable law abiding citizens do
what they want, why isn't "because I might need it to defend myself
or others" a good enough reason?
Grotius|2.21.07 @ 5:28PM|#
R.C. Dean,
Why isn't "Because I want to" a good enough reason?
Such a standard is ultimately unworkable I'd say. I mean, after
all, I may "want to" do lots of things, yet some of those things
properly have legal sanctions against them.
|2.21.07 @ 5:40PM|#
Why isn't "Because I want to" a good enough
reason?
Same reason you can't drink and drive. [I actually believe this. I
can even live with it in the libertarian theme park of my mind.
(One price admission! Fun for the whole family!)]
And if you just can't bear to let peacable law abiding citizens
do what they want, why isn't "because I might need it to defend
myself or others" a good enough reason?
Because you are mistaken in your belief that you need it to defend
yourself. You actually increase the danger to yourself and those
around you by having one.
[I kinda sorta believe this, but am really playing devil's advocate
on this one]
Paul|2.21.07 @ 5:40PM|#
I have it on my list of books to read. I was curious about
it because the author claims that both the left and right are wrong
in their interpretations of the 2nd Amendment.
Is this the book with the radical interpretation that only militias
have the right to bear frozen yogurt?
Paul|2.21.07 @ 5:51PM|#
Because you are mistaken in your belief that you need it to
defend yourself. You actually increase the danger to yourself and
those around you by having one.
Warren, you're zero for two, tonight. Explain why the firearms in
my home are increasing the danger to myself and those around me by
their mere existence? Oh, and if you suggest "suicide" is the
danger, you're so fired.
|2.21.07 @ 5:59PM|#
Paul,
There are many, but I'll give you just one.
Someone breaks into your house. You get your gun and go downstairs.
You catch the bugler bagging up your silver and hold him at gun
point while yelling to your wife to call the cops. His partner
blows your brains out.
mediageek|2.21.07 @ 6:15PM|#
"Because you are mistaken in your belief that you need it to
defend yourself. You actually increase the danger to yourself and
those around you by having one."
As a person who shoots regularly and handles firearms daily, I'll
just state that you're entitled to your opinion of my ability to
defend myself, despite the fact that we've never met and you don't
know anything about my level of skill.
/rebutting your advocation for Mssr. Mephistopheles, Esq.
KoWT|2.21.07 @ 6:17PM|#
supposing a confidential informant secretly fingers you for
being a cocaine dealer
and the cops, after looking through their gun license database,
become aware you have guns in the house
the cops tells the judge about the guns
making a no-knock entry prudent
for safety's sake
your guns are now a liability that earned you a SWAT team visit
when they come looking for the coke the CI told them about
mediageek|2.21.07 @ 6:17PM|#
"Someone breaks into your house. You get your gun and go
downstairs. You catch the bugler bagging up your silver and hold
him at gun point while yelling to your wife to call the cops. His
partner blows your brains out."
Idle speculation from someone who hasn't read much on how to use a
defensive weapon.
Besides, the prevailing strategy is that you don't go out looking
for trouble. You hole up, dial for the cops, and if the criminal
enters your room in the meantime, you light him up.
Clearing a building on your own is stupid.
mediageek|2.21.07 @ 6:19PM|#
KoWT-
Exactly that happened to a young man in Florida last year. Radley
Balko blogged about it.
But, let's face it, given that the cops are increasingly using
militaristic tactics even for non-violent suspects, it's becoming a
moot point.
Paul|2.21.07 @ 6:26PM|#
Warren:
Nice speculation. Let me try:
Someone breaks into your house. You get your gun and go downstairs.
You catch the burglar, who is holding a small, sharp object-- maybe
a knife, maybe a tool for the break-in, you point your gun at him
while shouting a warning and he bolts. Family safe- no hand-to-hand
struggle with desperate, knife wielding street thug. Or how about
this one: Burglar in your home, you cower in the corner bedroom,
sans firearm, hoping that they don't enter your room, or worse, the
room of your sleeping five-year-old. You dial 911, and hope the
police arrive soon.
We can do this all day.
Sorry, but speculations and mock scenarios cooked up in our minds
are of no value. Aside from the rather tired (and non-relevant)
suicide argument, I know of no source or study that has shown that
an in-home firearm increases the dangers to the residents of said
home.
If stranger(s) are in my home, rummaging around in the middle of
the night, I choose firearms.
Paul|2.21.07 @ 6:38PM|#
Ok, ok. I give. I just thought of one scenario where the presence of a gun in the home can at minimum, endanger your neighbors. Most home burglaries and break-ins are committed by neighbors. Ergo, if you confront the burglar with a gun, you're endangering your neighbor. So touche', I'll give you that one.
|2.21.07 @ 6:55PM|#
I agree with one of the points that was made here about the
benefits of a 2nd amendment written in more modern language, but is
there ANYBODY involved in this conversation that believes that our
fearless leaders wouldn't give us something worse than what we have
now if they tried to amend it? If you think that "A well regulated
militia" is ambiguous, you aint seen nuthin yet.
I'll take it as written, thank you.
Larry A|2.21.07 @ 6:59PM|#
I'm happy to acknowledge the failure of gun
control.
How? It's never been tried, at least in America.
Really? Don't go to Mexico with a firearm. Or even a single .22
rimfire cartridge rattling around in your trunk. Complete gun
control, except for the politically connected who have bodyguards,
drug dealers, law enforcement officers, etc.
Oh? Then why didn't you say the U.S. Then see
Washington D.C., Chicago Illinois, and the state of Maryland.
Or check out what's happened in Britain. As individual firearms
were banned it went from being the only country where police
officers didn't need to carry to the most violent industrialized
country in the world.
Because you are mistaken in your belief that you need it to
defend yourself. You actually increase the danger to yourself and
those around you by having one.
Federal crime data (unfortunately not on line) shows that
responding to a criminal attack by fighting back with no weapon or
any weapon but a firearm results in the highest rate of injury to
the victim. Not resisting, letting the criminal do whatever he
wants with you and yours has the second highest rate of victim
injury. The lowest rate of victim injury results when the victim
fights back with a firearm.
Also, the crime rate in the forty right-to-carry states is lower
than in the ten states that restrict or prohibit concealed
handguns. Even without including the District of
Columbia.
|2.21.07 @ 7:19PM|#
JLM-
Oh, I agree, I don't want whatever our current politicians would
give us. My point was simply that the ambiguity is real and
unfortunate.
Guy Montag|2.21.07 @ 11:31PM|#
Oh? Then why didn't you say the U.S. Then see Washington
D.C., Chicago Illinois, and the state of Maryland.
Don't forget New York City.
Guy Montag|2.21.07 @ 11:43PM|#
Paul,
I prefer this one:
Someone is inside of my front door that I closed and locked myself.
My in-service weapon, a Benelli Nova Pump, 12 GA. blows him back
against the door with a blast of #6 shot. No "racking" noise, just
the blast and then the racking noise when I prepare for his buddie
I have not found yet.
Can run the whole thing back with the Saiga-12 too.
|2.22.07 @ 12:16AM|#
"""I agree with one of the points that was made here about the
benefits of a 2nd amendment written in more modern language, but is
there ANYBODY involved in this conversation that believes that our
fearless leaders wouldn't give us something worse than what we have
now if they tried to amend it? If you think that "A well regulated
militia" is ambiguous, you aint seen nuthin yet.
I'll take it as written, thank you."""
I agree with JLM
You would not have any rights. We'll they would call them rights,
but it would also say they reserve the right to revoke them at
their discretion.
Mike Logos|2.22.07 @ 12:27AM|#
"The 2nd Ammendment is obsolete. The entire Bill of Rights, and hell the entire Constitution is obsolete. It was made in a day when the American people believed in individual rights and limited government. Now that we're all enlightened and mindless, we know that our lives are all worthless and that we exist solely to serve the collective."
GunShowOnTheNet|2.22.07 @ 12:32AM|#
Warren - You are incorrect in your assessment. To Wit;
The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of
adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent
misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further DECLARATORY
and RESTRICTIVE clauses should be added, and as extending the
ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the
beneficent ends of its institution;
Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses
concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the
Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the
Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles,
when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution,
namely:
...Amendment II
declaratory; (Common Defense)
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state,
restrictive; (Self-Defense/Preservation, The First Law of
Nature).
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed.
See the Senate Journal of SEPTEMBER 9, 1789;
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/SenateJournal09091789.html
Mr. Madison put it this way;
"Mr. MADISON thought the regulation of the militia naturally
appertaining to the authority charged with the PUBLIC
defence...."
- August 18. (1787), The Debates in the Several State Conventions
on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Vol.
5]
Self-preservation is the First Law of Nature. The Right to keep and
bear arms was one of the specific ones fought for in the
Revolution. It is a preexistent NATURAL RIGHT. To Wit;
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/LawsofNature.html
Also See;
http://gunshowonthenet.com/SecondAmend/TheRight.html
And lastly, here is what George Washington had to say about
it;
http://gunshowonthenet.com/SecondAmend/GeorgeWashingtonArms.html
Mike Logos|2.22.07 @ 12:43AM|#
sorry, I forgot to add my point after the satire. The worse thing that could happen to America is if we had another Constitutional Convention. Can you imagine just how much those aristocrats would try to screw us over. The country would turn into a totalitarian state, which would make our lives much worse in the years before the country would be consumed by total anarchy. I'm sorry but we don't need another Dark Age. They use the "living will" meme to screw us over way too much as it is. Holding our ground against the statists is the best strategy we have other than declaring the Constitution to be sacred script handed down by God and any deviation from it to be sacriledge.
|2.22.07 @ 2:19AM|#
"[I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of
the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the
neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The
meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom
the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear
arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the
purpose." - Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional
Law, Third Edition [1898].
"For, in principle, there is no difference between a law
prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the
wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional,
the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten,
that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the
constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at
the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right
be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial
the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by
the constitution." - [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90,
at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)
To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is
an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep
and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot
unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented
by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation
of constitutional privilege. [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560,
34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then,
that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress
have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other
terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an
American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands
of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in
God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Tench Coxe,
The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)
The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be
infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the
people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a
free country... - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8,
1789.
Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing
degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?
Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and
under our direction, and having them under the management of
Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms,
in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal
safety to us, as in our own hands? - Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot,
Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia,
1836
That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize
Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of
conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are
peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms... - Samuel Adams,
Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston,
1850).
The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one
to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical
constructions. [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at
224 (1921)]
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess
over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of
subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by
which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against
the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a
simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the
military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which
are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the
governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. - James
Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men,
women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of
every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia,
shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the
smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained:
the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally
necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any
law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void,
which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243,
at 251 (1846)]
The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left
in full possession of them. - Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates
at 646
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms....the tree of liberty must be
refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and
tyrants. - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in
1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy p. 20, S. Padover ed.,
1939
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them,
may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be
occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their
power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are
confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their
private arms. - Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the
Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym "A
Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
at 2 col. 1.
|2.22.07 @ 9:33AM|#
"Such a standard is ultimately unworkable I'd say. I mean, after
all, I may "want to" do lots of things, yet some of those things
properly have legal sanctions against them."
The only actions that should have legal sanctions on are the
actions that infringe on others' rights.
|2.22.07 @ 9:38AM|#
"Someone breaks into your house. You get your gun and go
downstairs. You catch the bugler bagging up your silver and hold
him at gun point while yelling to your wife to call the cops. His
partner blows your brains out."
What if you blow his brains out and then you call your wife to call
the police?
|2.22.07 @ 9:48AM|#
"Sorry, but speculations and mock scenarios cooked up in our
minds are of no value. Aside from the rather tired (and
non-relevant) suicide argument, I know of no source or study that
has shown that an in-home firearm increases the dangers to the
residents of said home."
There are statistics that show burglaries while the occupants are
home are on the increase in England. Could it be that the burglars
are emboldened because it's a good bet the occupants don't have
guns because of England's gun laws?
|2.22.07 @ 9:51AM|#
I beleive that even if the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect an individual's right to own and use a gun in self defense, the 9th Amendment could be construed as protecting that unenumerated right.
dhex|2.22.07 @ 11:11AM|#
"Why people can't understand that the Bill of Rights applies to
all Americans is beyond me."
one obvious point would be that it didn't apply to all americans
until 1920. before the frothing begins, i don't think this point is
actually hammered home enough to begin with. less than one century
of actual full citizenship is not just some kind of historical
curiosity, but a definite impediment to viewing the constitution as
some kind of truly venerable document rather than something
conservatives point to when they want to fuck over women and
minorities.
another obvious point is that there are nuances, injunctions and
arguments about even the most obvious of amendments; "free speech"
as a category of behavior doesn't cover a number of actual actions
(yelling fire in a crowded theatre; the sedition act; and so forth)
because none of these amendments are to be taken at utter face
value. there are exceptions to nearly everything.
Paul|2.22.07 @ 7:55PM|#
There are statistics that show burglaries while the
occupants are home are on the increase in England.
Yes, these are called "hot burglaries". They have risen in direct
proportion to the gun restrictions of that country. It is believed
by most that these hot burglaries are occurring because of lack of
the "unknown" on the part of the burglar.
I once proposed that proponents of gun control should place a sign
on their lawn reading:
"This home contains no firearms as the occupant doesn't believe in
a right to own them-- including a right to own tnem for self
defense."
Paul|2.22.07 @ 8:00PM|#
(yelling fire in a crowded theatre; the sedition act; and so
forth) because none of these amendments are to be taken at utter
face value. there are exceptions to nearly everything.
dhex:
Yeah, and? Of course there are nuances to everything. I don't have
so much trouble with some reasonable limitations on what kind of
weapons the citizenry can own. For instance, I don't really mind
that I may have restrictions on say, explosive ordinance. I can't
own a rocket launcher, I can't own a .50 caliber machine gun,
etc.
Methinks you're confusing one's belief that the 2nd amendment
guarantees my "right to bear arms" with a belief that one can bare
any arm whatsoever.
|2.22.07 @ 8:08PM|#
So, you feel safer if only the government has rocket launchers, .50 caliber machineguns, etc?
|2.22.07 @ 8:09PM|#
Warren wrote:
"Can you give me a single instance of a time when the state was
like "we were going to arrest this person/these people, but when we
saw what they were packing, we decided against it"."
Yes.
The Battle of Athens (Tennessee) 1946.
dhex|2.22.07 @ 10:29PM|#
"Methinks you're confusing one's belief that the 2nd amendment
guarantees my "right to bear arms" with a belief that one can bare
any arm whatsoever."
not in the slightest. someone asked why people would believe in the
non-application of what seems to be straightforward statements of
rights, and i answered.
|2.23.07 @ 12:11AM|#
Okay, then, how about this scenario?
You, carrying a shotgun, surprise a cat burglar breaking into your
home in the middle of the night. "Take off your ski mask," you
order the burglar, and long glossy tresses come tumbling out. My
god, the burglar is a girl! The most beautiful girl you have ever
seen! And, now that you look more closely, you realize that her
formfitting black leather catsuit displays an audaciously
curvaceous body.
"I have no weapons," the burglar says in a husky contralto, and
offers to prove by disrobing. Slowwwlllly she unzips her catsuit,
revealing naught but voluptuous female flesh underneath. Kicking
her clothing aside, she slowly turns, allowing your gaze to roam
over her nude form. My god. Suddenly you are painfully aware of
your aroused manhood.
The burglar aplogozies and explains that she meant no harm, but has
secretly had a crush on you for weeks, and in desperation decided
to break into your house and steal an unwashed shirt from your
laundry for her to sleep with. She begs you not to press charges,
and offers to perform an act of pleasure upon you if you'll only
let her go.
You agree.
And while you're in the process of being fellated, your enraged
wife comes up behind you and smashes in the back of your cranium
with a cast-iron skillet.
Beware the dangers of firearms, you who think they can be wielded
in "self-defense" without actually increasing the danger to
yourself!
Actually, all your goofy scenarios aside, as Larry A
already mentioned, when victimized by a criminal, statistics
show that the safest thing you can do is to resist with a
firearm. Not only are you less likely to be harmed than if you
resist with pepper spray or some other weapon, but you are safer
than if you -- as "authorities" unfortunately so often urge crime
victims to do -- do not resist at all.
Bravo for a great post, Larry A!
By the way, I think the stats you mentioned might actually be on
line somewhere. I've cited them myself in the past; I'll see if I
can find them.
|2.23.07 @ 12:28AM|#
Ah, found it.
The stats were posted on the Web site of the Second Amendment
Sisters, who unfortunately have since added a "cute" background to
their Web page that makes the info hard to read.
But I originally cited the stats on H&R *** here ***,
after being inspired by the late and unlamented poster Jersey
McJones.
Excerpt:
Kleck's findings from 1979-1985 national data:
Percentage of robbery/assault victims suffering an injury:
- When resisting with a gun: 12.1% to 17.4%
- When not resisting at all and totally submissive: 24.7% ro
27.3%
- When "resisting" by screaming: 40.1% to 48.9%
- When trying to reason with or verbally threaten the attacker:
24.7% to 30.7%
- When "resisting passively or trying to evade": 25.5% to
34.9%
- When resisting with a knife: 29.5% to 40.3%
- When resisting with some other kind of weapon: 22% to 25.1%
- When resisting bare-handed: 50.8% to 52.1%
...
Another interesting statistic: "97% of the women who resist a
rapist with a firearm do so successfully, meaning that they are not
raped and are not otherwise injured."
Linky-poo:
http://www.2asisters.net/tx/resources_references.htm
AND ALSO:
Quote: Data from subsequent years have yielded confirming results.
"A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon."
U.S. Dep't of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns and Crime
2 (1994); U.S. Dep't of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Selected Findings from National Statistical Series: Firearms and
Crimes of Violence 8 (1994).
------------------------
I urge you to click on my *** link ***
above to the original thread, if you'd like to enjoy the spectacle
of Jersey McJones making a tremendous ass of himself.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245