# G.W. Bush the Ultimate Threat to Our Nation. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 28, 2000, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018 "2000-08-28T10:03:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Mr.Zambezi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7cd45c/32.png) [@Mr.Zambezi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Zambezi)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2000, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/81 "2000-09-05T14:49:19Z")
VZ said > [@](#): > > The circumstances of religious freeom, political debate, etc. have not fundamentally changed and never will. The circumstances of the militia and the common defense of the nation have. You and I will have to disagree on this. Quotes from the Framers indicate that they were concerned about tyranny and thought that an armed citizenry would prevent it. I think that thus is still an issue. Also, the police have no legal duty to protect the citizenry. That makes the ability to protect one’s self even more important. As for the “right to bera arms” I would agree that the 2nd does not necesarily guarantee this. Rather, it prohibits this pre-existing right from being infringed. see Cruikshank. Also, the court erred in it’s reasoning as far as collective rights go. They ignored Blackstone who was the source for English Common law at teh time of the Constitution. Instead, they looked back 100 years to common law that was no longer valid. Here is an excerpt from The Origins of an Anglo-American Right by Joyce Lee Malcom: > [@](#): > > Blackstone’s [a leading and influential English jurist] comments on this subject are of utmost importance since his work immediately became the great authority on English common law in both England and America. Blackstone emphatically endorsed the view that keeping arms was necessary both for self defence, “the natural right of resistance and self preservation”, and “to restrain the violence of oppression”. > By the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, parliament, the courts, and legal opinion were in agreement on the right of Protestant Englishmen to be armed and the place of this right in their nation’s delicately balanced constitution…The right of individuals to be armed had become, as the [English] Bill of Rights had claimed it was, an ancient and indubitable right. It was this heritage that Englishmen took with them to the American colonies and this heritage which Americans fought to protect in 1775. I will not argue citizens have the absolute right to any kind of arms without regulation. ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2000, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/82 "2000-09-05T20:15:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by astorian \* > \*\*The very title of this thread continues to baffle me. > > Look, you on the left, in case you’ve forgotten, the USA elected Ronald Reagan in 1980. When that happened, I heard EVERY possible (no, make that every IMAGINABLE) dire prediction! When Ronald Reagan was President, I heard… > > 1. That trigger-happy cowboy was going to launch an all-out nuclear war the first chance he got. > > 2. Lunch counters would be resegregated. > > 3. Social Security would be abolished, and poor grandma would starve to death, or have to live in a cardboard box and eat Alpo. > > 4. Jerry Falwell was going to be picking the Cabinet. > > Well, even if you didn’t like Reagan, I think you’ll have to concede that he DIDN’T blow up the world. We’re all still here, aren’t we? Even when the conservative’s conservative was President, he didn’t do a FRACTION of the things his enemies feared (and his supporters hoped) he’d do. And George W. Bush is NOT the conservative’s conservative. > > \*\* Guess what Astorian? I met Reagan personally and he didn’t impress me then or now. As to your various claims, let’s review them. 1. That trigger-happy cowboy was going to launch an all-out nuclear war the first chance he got. The increased dependence upon satellite reconnaissance that America underwent during Reagan’s presidency actually brought us closer to nuclear war than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis. If for any reason, our satellites had gone on the blink (i.e., terrorist sabotage of key satellite C cubed [Command, Control and Communication] sites) our country would have had no choice but to launch a massive preemptive strike. Reagan’s inflammatory rhetoric, “…the missiles are launching now…” brought the cold war to a fever pitch. 1. Lunch counters would be resegregated. How many people of color did you ever see in the background at Reagan’s Wonder Bread Rancho Mirage (what an appropriate name!)? Reagan never seemed like any sort of champion for civil rights to me. 1. Social Security would be abolished, and poor grandma would starve to death, or have to live in a cardboard box and eat Alpo. Care to think how many of our grandparents were forced back out into the working world when Reagan and his cronies looted the savings and loans? The repercussions of that corrupt orgy were felt for years as many high schoolers found fewer entry level jobs available because seniors were working them instead. We won’t go into how the Republican administration flushed out the mental hospitals onto the streets in the name of saving tax dollars. All of us suffered a dramatic decline in the quality of urban life as the homeless population skyrocketed. 1. Jerry Falwell was going to be picking the Cabinet. I don’t know what frightens me more, having a sleazy shyster like Falwell whispering in the president’s ear, or having important executive decisions depending on a stinking astrologer. Why don’t you pick? Maybe Reagan didn’t blow up the world, but the way American industry got sold down the river to the Japanese during his administration will haunt us for decades to come. Remember Reagan’s 45 minute speech that he gave in Japan after retiring. THE ONE HE GOT PAID FOUR MILLION DOLLARS FOR!!! Please tell me, what that was about? We won’t discuss the fact that Reagan SLEPT through numerous important staff meetings, or how the national debt ballooned during his watch. Now, on to George Bush. As difficult as it is to imagine, Shrub is far less politically astute than Reagan ever was. It is precisely that fact which makes Dubya an even greater danger. This mental midget will make it easier than ever for special interests and influence groups to steer this nation’s policies and decision making. This guy is an ultimate threat precisely because he lacks the savvy to determine his own agenda. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. ---
**Author:** ![SouthernStyle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@SouthernStyle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SouthernStyle)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2000, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/83 "2000-09-05T21:05:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Grendel69 \* > \*\*Southern…I hope that you are pulling down some serious coin because if you aren’t then the Bush tax plan won’t help you. > > As for the tax cuts, even if you were to benefit from the tax cuts, are several percentage points more important to you than decisions that affect your constitutional rights? > > If so, then it’s your opinion that’s scaring me. \*\* I do make a good living – considerably better than “average”. But please don’t put me in the “rich” column. Reiterating, Bush’s position that those that pay the bulk of the taxes are due a break because the government has taken more than they intend to spend is, to me, a far superior position than Gore’s philosophy of spend all of the surplus before it evaporates. And the “tax cut” vs “SC nominations” debate is a “chicken and egg” affair. Over the long haul, I can impact decisions by contributing to select political campaigns _if I have the financial ability to do so_. Once the government has taxed me into poverty I no longer have a real voice in the matter. (Never mind the “one man one vote” concept. I want to be able to have a say-so BEFORE the last two candidates are left standing.) And I don’t share the fear of some posters that GWB will reverse RvW, etc. ---
**Author:** ![jcgmoi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a9adbd/32.png) [@jcgmoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jcgmoi)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2000, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/84 "2000-09-05T21:58:00Z")
**Zenster** : I’ll match my contempt for Reagan and his presidency against anyone’s, but when you say > [@](#): > > Care to think how many of our grandparents were forced back out into the working world when Reagan and his cronies looted the savings and loans? you’ve reached to far. Ron didn’t loot anything. I suspect that many who did loot were active Reagan supporters and probably support Bush today. But too many Congressional Dems (who had majorities in both houses) neglected their oversight duties for this to be Ron’s fault entirely. ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2000, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/85 "2000-09-05T23:00:32Z")
jcgmoi, I should have said, “Reagan’s cronies”. Yes the Democrats were also involved in the Great American Loot Off, but these chaps come across like schoolboys compared to the Republican’s and their ability to Hoover up the ducats. In another fascinating vein, isn’t it funny how the Republicans are always involved in financial scandals (Hand In The Cookie Jar), while Democrats are always caught with their hand in the Nookie jar? If I had my druthers, I’d prefer that someone kept their hands off of my bank account. (Unless it were my daughter, of course.) Insert condemnation of hypocritical attitudes… (here). ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Zambezi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7cd45c/32.png) [@Mr.Zambezi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Zambezi)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2000, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/86 "2000-09-05T23:10:56Z")
I don’t know about that Zenster. In “THe Making of Al Gore” the author stated that much of Gore’s early money came from “cattle Auctions” at his Dad’s ranch. People who wanted political pull would come buy Al’s bulls at 10 times the going rate. ANd exactly where did Bill and Hillary get all of their money. Was it from the lavish Governor’s salary…or perhaps their real estate and futures market acumen is responsible. Honestly, the Kennedy family has covered almost all of the vices and illegal acts all by themselves. They prevent any blanket statement about the ethics of the Dems from being true. I found it very interesting that Old Ted, a person who avoided major jail time by using his privilege, was received so well at the convention by those who hate the concept of privilege. Go figure. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2000, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/87 "2000-09-05T23:31:32Z")
Gah! I go away for a few days, and some semblance of sanity and reasonableness starts to break out. Let me see if I can stir up the pot a little bit… **Varloz:** No one here (or at the NRA) is arguing that the 2nd allows an unrestricted right of the individual citizen to keep and bear. Just as the 1st doesn’t allow for unrestricted freedom of Speech (can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded public place) or Religion (can’t start a murder cult). It’s the _boundary_ between individual freedom and public safety, and where that _boundary line_ is drawn, that is truly the crux of the matter. **But…since you can’t seem to recognize even the basics:** The 2nd _does_ guarantee the individual right to keep and bear arms. **What kind of arms?** The “it doesn’t guarantee the right to own nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers!” is one of the **Red Herrings** that the anti-gun types just _love_ to toss out. **Arms** , as envisioned by the writers of our Constitution, were the type that an individual citizen-soldier (coincidentally, one of the prime definitions of _militia_) could purchase, outfit with accoutrements such as powder, powder horn, bullets, bullet molds, and a supply of lead (for casting new bullets once the current supply is depleted), and carry onto the field of battle. Our modern-day analogy would be the M-16A2, a supply of ammunition and magazines to put the bullets in, possibly a bayonet, a cleaning kit; stuff like that. Cannons and mortars (artillery) and ships of war (cruisers and frigates) were _not_ the types of arms that a man could reasonably be expected to bear on the field of battle. Neither combat airplanes or helicopter gunships, for that matter. However, _U.S. v. Miller_ is one of the most mis-quoted ruling of the anti-gun crowd. A little history: Jack Miller was an Oklahoma bootlegger who got caught. Unfortunately for the two Treasury Agents that apprehended him, he wasn’t doing anything at the time except moving some bags of sugar. Sure, he was going to make that sugar into liquor, but he wasn’t actually caught doing that. Instead, they arrested him and prosecuted him for having a shotgun with a barrel of less than 18 inches _without having the Treasury’s affixed $200 tax-stamp_ proving that it was a Federally registered weapon. IIRC, the Judge’s reaction was: “A $200 tax on a $20 gun?!” The Federal Attorney tried the “well-regulated militia” but, and was soundly rejected by the Judge, who noted that _his_ short-barreled shotgun sure came in handy in the trenches of WWI, and that the FBI and the US Marshalls sure found them handy in the pursuit and apprehension of criminals. The case was dismissed. The US Attorneys, not being content, appealed. _ **IF** _ Jack Miller had been represented at the Supreme Court hearing (he skipped out and dropped off the face of the earth shortly after his acquital, thus his lawyer had no incentive to appear to defend his client and the lower court ruling), his lawyer undoubtedly would have recited the previous Judge’s ruling, and the many instances where sawed-off and short-barreled scatter-guns were and _currently are_ in use by the military, and thus a contributor to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. But he wasn’t there, and the US Attorney argued the militia bit again. The SC simply ruled: > [@](#): > > "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, **we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.** Certainly it is not **within judicial notice** that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158. (bolding mine for emphasis) Try reading the summary [here](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fsmultron.com%2F&vol=307&page=174#174). Notice up towards the top where it says “No appearance for appellees”. _U.S. v. Miller_ also touched a bit upon the militia, citing several state laws: > [@](#): > > By an Act passed April 4, 1786 (Laws 1786, c. 25), the New York Legislature directed: _‘That every able-bodied Male Person, being a Citizen of this State, or of any of the United States, and residing in this State, (except such Persons as are herein after excepted) and who are of the Age of Sixteen, and under the Age of Forty-five Years, shall, by the Captain or commanding Officer of the Beat in which such Citizens shall reside, within four Months after the passing of this Act, be enrolled in the Company of such Beat. … That every Citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within three Months thereafter, provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and Knapsack; …’_ ::AND:: > [@](#): > > The General Assembly of Virginia, October, 1785 (12 Hening’s Statutes c. 1, p. 9 et seq.), declared: \*‘The defense and safety of the commonwealth depend upon having its citizens properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty.’ > > It further provided for organization and control of the Militia and directed that ‘All free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years,’ with certain exceptions, ‘shall be inrolled or formed into companies.’ ‘There shall be a private muster of every company once in two months.’ > > Also that 'Every officer and soldier shall appear at his respective muster-field on the day appointed, by eleven o’clock in the forenoon, armed, equipped, and accoutred, as follows: … every non-commissioned officer and private with a good, clean musket carrying an ounce ball, and three feet eight inches long in the barrel, with a good bayonet and iron ramrod well fitted thereto, a cartridge box properly made, to contain and secure twenty cartridges fitted to his musket, a good knapsack and canteen, and moreover, each non-commissioned officer and private shall have at every muster one pound of good [307 U.S. 174, 182] powder, and four pounds of lead, including twenty blind cartridges; and each serjeant shall have a pair of moulds fit to cast balls for their respective companies, to be purchased by the commanding officer out of the monies arising on delinquencies.\* So “the militia” wasn’t being called forth to provide, cannons, mortars, grenades (yes, they existed back then; bloody dangerous things!) or ships of war. Merely a rifle, powder, bullets, bullet molds, and stuff. Furthermore, the U.S. S.C. recently ruled, in _U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990)_, what _they_ felt the term “the people” means in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights: > [@](#): > > “(b) The Fourth Amendment phrase **“the people”** seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution and contrasts with the words “person” and “accused” used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures. This suggests that “the people” [494 U.S. 259, 260] refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.” Read it all [here](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fsmultron.com%2F&vol=494&page=259#259) You can twist the words, selectively edit, or outright truncate pertinent bits of data, but you can’t hide from The Truth. In closing, I’ll quote two of my favorite Jeffersonisms: > [@](#): > > “On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” ::AND:: > [@](#): > > “Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.” Now Varloz, you have been enlightened. _ **ExTank** “God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed… what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their 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 & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”_ **Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith on Nov. 13, 1787.** The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd, vol. 12, p. 356 (1955). ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2000, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/88 "2000-09-06T15:43:13Z")
Zenster: > [@](#): > > In another fascinating vein, isn’t it funny how the Republicans are always involved in financial scandals (Hand In The Cookie Jar), while Democrats are always caught with their hand in the Nookie jar? Hardly. What about Bob Packwood, Bob Livingstone, Clarence Thomas (Republican, “Nookie Jar” - I like that, BTW) and what about the Congressional Democrats heavily involved in the check-kiting scandal, the House Post Office scandal, the pay-raise “tea party” (“Cookie Jar”)? Power corrupts, both ways, both parties. Chaim Mattis Keller ---
**Author:** ![Grendel69](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7bcc69/32.png) [@Grendel69](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grendel69)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2000, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/89 "2000-09-06T16:15:40Z")
Southern: I have to say that, after spending the last week or so researching the history of the Court’s abortion rulings, I have come to agree with you. Even if Bush were to appoint partisan conservative Justices, Roe v Wade most likely would stand. Other issues (states rights v federal intervention, however,) might gravitate towards the conservative pole. I still disagree about the $ v SC appointments though. Money is a rather unpredictable beast. Simply granting tax cuts, while important, doesn’t guarantee anything specific. Appointing an SC Justice on the other hand is a rather definitive, long term, and specific action. Can anyone imagine what the legal, social, and political landscapes would be if Thurgood Marshall or Rheinquist had not been appointed? ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2000, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/90 "2000-09-06T19:08:49Z")
**ExTank,** First, simple courtesy: > [@](#): > > **But…since you can’t seem to recognize even the basics:** Can you post one reply to this thread without being needlessly offensive? This is the second time I’ve had to remind you to not personally insult those who disagree with you in a good-natured sort of way. Furthermore, I have quoted extensively from highly authoritative sources; clearly, I have an understanding of the basics. As for the issues. . . > [@](#): > > It’s the boundary between individual freedom and public safety, and where that boundary line is drawn, that is truly the crux of the matter. When I have I said anything that contradicts this? The boundry is thus: with regards to the second amendment, constitutional law says that individual freedom to own firearms ends where public safety is satisfied. > [@](#): > > IF Jack Miller had been represented at the Supreme Court hearing (he skipped out and dropped off the face of the earth shortly after his acquital, thus his lawyer had no incentive to appear to defend his client and the lower court ruling), his lawyer undoubtedly would have recited the previous Judge’s ruling, and the many instances where sawed-off and short-barreled scatter-guns were and currently are in use by the military, and thus a contributor to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. First,the arguments in front of the Supreme Court rarely have any meaningful impact on how the justices vote; they (and their clerks) do resarch independent of any argumentative formalities, and they base their decisions on such. You imply here that the SC was ignorant of the previous judge’s ruling in _US v. Miller_. Seeing as the judges were “unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgment must be reversed,” they had obviously read the decision. There is absolutely no reason to believe otherwise. > [@](#): > > So “the militia” wasn’t being called forth to provide, cannons, mortars, grenades (yes, they existed back then; bloody dangerous things!) or ships of war. Merely a rifle, powder, bullets, bullet molds, and stuff. You also quote extensively from the court’s history lesson of sorts regarding just what was expected of the militia and, indeed, the average citizen. You have, however, apparently misunderstood the significance of said section, as well as the reason for its inclusion. As I have already mentioned **twice** , the section was intended to show that a strict interpretation of the second amendment was completely anachronistic and wrong. In 1939, as today, no member of anything resembling a “well regualted militia” would be expected, or even allowed, to bring his own weapons. Therefore, the purpose of any second amendment protection of individual firearm ownership was moot, since it did not contribute in the least to public safety. Your quote from _U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez_ is completely irrelevant (inexplicably, you didn’t even quote the part that mentions the seond amendment in passing); I mean that in the purest sense of the word: it has nothing at all to do with the issue at hand. I have already dealt with the _Verdugo-Urquidez_ case in a previous post (there’s a trend here; make sure you read previous posts before posting arguments that have already been soundly refuted), but it will suffice to say that whatever Rehnquist meant to imply about his opinion of the second amendment in _Verdugo-Urquidez_ (a case that has more to do witht rights of aliens than anything else, and nothing to do with the second amendment), it has absolutely nothing to do with what constitutional law actually is. > [@](#): > > You can twist the words, selectively edit, or outright truncate pertinent bits of data, but you can’t hide from The Truth. No, no; it was Mr. Zambezi who was doing each and every one of the things you accuse me of (and quite blatantly, I might add). However, unlike some, he was never rude or pompous so I saw no reason to do anything other than point it out. What truly befuddles me is that you act as if the truth of your argument is completely axiomatic, and that anyone whose beliefs are contrary to yours must be an ignorant, scheming fool. Supporting that assertion, primarily, is the NRA, a source that is inherently biased due to the nature of its membership. Supporting my assertion that the 2nd amendment does not guarantee private gun ownership is **every federal court for the past 61 years**. Since you have posted arguments that have already been refuted, and posted links that I have already posted, I must assume that you did not read my previous post dealing with the judicial history of the 2nd Amendment since _Miller_. I will include it here for you (as I said, it was taken from [http://www.nra.org](http://www.nra.org)): _. . . the Supreme Court and eight United States Courts of Appeals have considered the scope of the Second Amendment and have uniformly rejected arguments that it extends firearms rights to individuals independent of the collective need to ensure a well-regulated militia. See . . . Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 921 (1st Cir. 1942) (“The right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred upon the people by the federal constitution.”); Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.2d 610 (3rd Cir. 1973) (“It must be remembered that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right given by the United States Constitution.”); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548, 550 (4th Cir. 1974); United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106-07 (6th Cir. 1976) (“We conclude that the defendant has no private right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.”); Stevens v. United States, 440 F.2d 144, 149 (6th Cir. 1971) (“There can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm.”); Ouilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261, 270 (7th Cir. 1982) (“The right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the second amendment.”); United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1019 (8th Cir. 1992) (“The rule emerging from Miller is that, absent a showing that the possession of a certain weapon has some relationship to the preservation or efficiency of regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess the weapon.”); United States v. Tomlin, 454 F.2d 176 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Swinton, 521 F.2d 1255, 1259 (10th Cir. 1975) (“There is no absolute constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm.”)._ To say that current fedral court interpretation of the second amendment is incorrect is to say that 61 years worth of the most educated, studious, and objective jurisprudence has been universally wrong. That may be the case, but if you are going to say so you must provide better arguments and better evidence than you have been doing . . . and knock off the pomposity. Finally, as regards your Jefferson quotes: (1) The opinions of Thomas Jefferson are not the final word in Constitutional interpretation, just as “original intent” (even in the rare instances when in _can_ be reliably devined) is also not the final word. The framers were not of one mind when writing the constitution. (2) Again, as I said before, I _support_ the right to keep and bear arms, but I do not hold the illusion that this right is constitutionally protected. It is protected by every state legislature and session of congress that refuses to severely curtail firearm ownership. Direct your appeals to them, not the courts. ---
**Author:** ![SouthernStyle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@SouthernStyle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SouthernStyle)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2000, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/91 "2000-09-06T19:54:54Z")
Thanks **Grendel** , for those kind words of support. RvW is the law of the land and will be until science takes over for politics. Appointment of justices will have little or no effect. The money thing is without a doubt the number one issue in my mind. If the country is plunged into a 1930s type depression noone will care about the legality of abortion. Most people won’t be able to afford them. Those that can afford them and need them will have them regardless of the law. I think that rough economic times are in our future and the next president will suffer much of the blame – most of it undeserved. One of my prime fears is the nation’s debt being financed so heavily with short term bonds.With Mr. Gore at the helm, I fear the problem will be much worse. People are forgiving of a lot of things as long as they’re financially stable and happy. Take away a person’s ability to pay for food and clothing and everything else becomes secondary. As usual, I’m going to vote based on economics. Bush in 2000. ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2000, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/92 "2000-09-06T22:02:34Z")
Mr. Zambezi and CM Keller, thank you for pointing up my oversights. It certainly levels the playing field to know that they are ALL a bunch of f\*\*king weasles. I will freely admit that corruption is a bipartisan occupation. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2000, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/93 "2000-09-07T00:59:00Z")
Varloz says: > [@](#): > > “Can you post one reply to this thread without being needlessly offensive? This is the second time I’ve had to remind you to not personally insult those who disagree with you in a good-natured sort of way. Furthermore, I have quoted extensively from highly authoritative sources; clearly, I have an understanding of the basics. As for the issues. . .” Offensive is: “You dirty !@#%^&, your so !@#%^& that it’s a wonder that your head isn’t up your !@#$%^&!” Debate is: “While you certainly seem to have done your research, you continually fail to grasp even your own words; let me shed some light on the subject for you…” In my last post, I merely accused you misunserstanding or misapprehending the very basis of your and the gun-control lobby’s arguments. You know of which passage I speak; you quoted it in your diatribe of offense. If you can’t handle being accused of logical myopia (I suppose I _could_ have merely _insinuated_ that you suffer from a logical failure, but that ain’t my style), then you had either grow a thicker skin or hang somewhere else. **On to the meat:** First off, the NRA isn’t considered an “unbiased” source of information. We pro-gunners regularly get slammed in these debates for posting info from _any_ pro-gun source. Just as anti-gunners do when they post from any anti-gun source (HCI, CPHV, CDC, AMA, ACLU, etc.,). So I’ve developed the habit of doing a bit of my own research, just to have an as unbiased source as possible. Secondly, (and this is a doozy!): > [@](#): > > “The boundry is thus: with regards to the second amendment, constitutional law says that individual freedom to own firearms ends where public safety is satisfied.” Cite? Third: the Supreme Court hears arguments as well as briefs; the defendant’s werent’ represented, and there’s nothing saying the Government’s case, oral or written, even had to mention the lower court’s ruling. Plus: > [@](#): > > “As I have already mentioned twice, the section was intended to show that a strict interpretation of the second amendment was completely anachronistic and wrong. In 1939, as today, no member of anything resembling a “well regualted militia” would be expected, or even allowed, to bring his own weapons. Therefore, the purpose of any second amendment protection of individual firearm ownership was moot, since it did not contribute in the least to public safety.” How, and where, did you draw this conclusion? If you read the summary cited [here](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fsmultron.com%2F&vol=307&page=174) at [FindLaw.Com](http://FindLaw.Com), completely through-and-through, you’ll come to the right and natural conclusion that your previous quote is dead wrong. I’ll quote the relevant quote: > [@](#): > > "Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. **But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.** (emphasis mine) This would, on the surface, seem to support your assertion, only if the statement is taken _in and of itself_ without the previous qualification of: > [@](#): > > “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.” Because the weapon in question wasn’t, in the court’s view (because no one showed up to argue that it _was_), of the type contributing to the efficiency of the militia, then the court ruled that the militias argument didn’t apply to _this case._ In the very next paragraph, they go on to say: > [@](#): > > “The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- ‘To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.’ U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. **With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.** ” (again, emphasis mine). Individual citizen-soldiers (the militia) showing up when called _without their own arms_ is like having a weenie-roast without any hot dogs. And the militia is _far_ from being a dead anachronism: the [The State Guard Association of the United States](http://www.sgaus.org/) has links to 15 states with member organizations. Fourth: I’ll debunk your entire list of cited cases one by one if you so desire, but I’ll first illustrate with the very first one you cited: _. Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 921 (1st Cir. 1942)_, which you claim merely asserts that : > [@](#): > > “The right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred upon the people by the federal constitution.” From the [Second Amendment Law Library](http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/fed/131f2d916.html): > [@](#): > > ``` > "The Federal Firearms Act undoubtedly curtails to some extent the right of individuals to keep and bear arms but it does not follow from this as a necessary consequence that it is bad under the Second Amendment which reads "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 right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred upon the people by the federal constitution. Whatever rights in this respect the people may have depend upon local legislation; **the only function of the Second Amendment being to prevent the federal government and the federal government *only* from infringing that right.** (p.922)United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed. 588; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.Ed. 615. But the Supreme Court in a dictum in Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 282, 17 S.Ct. 326, 41 L.Ed. 715, indicated that the limitation imposed upon the federal government by the Second Amendment was not absolute and this dictum received the sanction of the court in the recent case of United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 182, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206. > > In the case last cited the Supreme Court, after discussing the history of militia organizations in the United States, upheld the validity under the Second Amendment of the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934, 48 Stat. 1236, in so far as it imposed limitations upon the use of a shotgun having a barrel less than eighteen inches long. It stated the reason for its result on page 178 of the opinion in 307 U.S., on page 818 of 59 S.Ct., 83 L.Ed. 1206, as follows: **"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."** > > Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it **cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.** > > However, we do **not** feel that the Supreme Court in this case was attempting to formulate a **general** rule applicable to **all** cases. The rule which it laid down was **adequate to dispose of the case before it and that we think was as far as the Supreme Court intended to go.** At any rate the rule of the Miller case, if intended to be comprehensive and complete would seem to be already outdated, in spite of the fact that it was formulated only three and a half years ago, because of the well known fact that in the so called "Commando Units" some sort of military use seems to have been found for **almost any modern lethal weapon.** In view of this, if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus. But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities,-- **almost *any* other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day,** --is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute. > > Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, even though under the circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such a weapon. It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result. > > **Considering the many variable factors bearing upon the question it seems to us impossible to formulate any general test by which to determine the limits imposed by the Second Amendment but that each case under it, like cases under the due process clause, must be decided on its *own facts* and the line between *what is and what is not* a valid federal restriction pricked out by decided cases falling on one side or the other of the line.** > > ``` Gotta read the _whole_ thing to gleen the _true_ meaning of the ruling. Your quoting _one_ single sentence in a sea of verbage is the equivalent of the media quoting complex issues in a five-second sound bite. To even attempt to equate a list of single-sentence quotes to: > [@](#): > > “61 years worth of the most educated, studious, and objective jurisprudence” is fallacious at best, disingenuous all around and deleterious to the conduct of an informed debate and the quashing of ignorance. The NRA’s interpretation of _Cases v. United States_ > [@](#): > > "In this case, the court held that the Supreme Court in Miller had not intended “to formulate a general rule” regarding which arms were protected by the Second Amendment and concluded, therefore, that many types of arms were not protected. Nonetheless, the court in Cases expressly acknowledged that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right when it noted that the law in question "undoubtedly curtails to some extent the right of **individuals to keep and bear arms…"** Id. at 921. Emphasis added. Moreover, the court in Cases concluded, as properly it should have, that Miller should not be read as holding that the Second Amendment guaranteed the right to possess or use large weapons that could not be carried by an individual. I don’t know where you plucked that one-liner from, as your link is inoperative. Try this one: [National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action](http://www.nraila.org/). Click on the “Research and Information” button on the left-hand side of the screen. When that page opens up, scroll approximately 2/3 of the way down to **Fact Sheet: The Second Amendment In Court** , and click on the link. When _that_ page opens, scroll down past the **Supreme Court Cases** to the **U.S. Courts of Appeals Cases** ; the _U.S. v. Cases_ cite is the very last one before the **U.S. District Court Cases** section. In closing: > [@](#): > > "Finally, as regards your Jefferson quotes: (1) The opinions of Thomas Jefferson are not the final word in Constitutional interpretation, just as “original intent” (even in the rare instances when in can be reliably devined) is also not the final word. The framers were not of one mind when writing the constitution. (2) Again, as I said before, I support the right to keep and bear arms, but I do not hold the illusion that this right is constitutionally protected. It is protected by every state legislature and session of congress that refuses to severely curtail firearm ownership. Direct your appeals to them, not the courts. **1.** I never claimed he was the final word, just a respected authority. Can you locate and cite _any_ other Founding Father with a contrasting opinion? And as far as their “original intent” is concerned, there is hardly a dearth of information concerning that subject. A simple word search for “Thomas Jefferson” at Barnes and Noble yields several books available on the subject, some of them also mentioning Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Aaron Burr, James Madison, John Jay, Patrick Henry, John DeWitt…I could go on… **2.** The state legislatures of New York and California seem to have just about forgotten this. Until we get a ruling saying that the _entire_ Bill of Rights is protected under the 14th Amendment, then any tin-pot Diane Feinstein, George Pataki and Charle Schumer can pass gun-control laws so restrictive that, effectively, there is no private ownership of firearms anymore. _ **ExTank** _ ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2000, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/94 "2000-09-07T15:34:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by VarlosZ \* > \*\* > No, you couldn’t. Arguments? Yes. Good arguments? No. \*\* Good arguments eh? Ok, maybe not really good one, but some acceptable ones. When the founders wrote the constitution atheism was nearly noon-existent. So was polytheism and wiccanism. The idea that people would need to be free from religion never occured to them. Now, with the world being a very different place we need not only freedom of religion but freedom from religion. Free speech was envisioned in an era when the elements of society that currently exist were not around. The founders would have never dreamed of protecting the hate speech that is currently on the internet. They also would not have wanted people to have the freedom to diseminate drug information. _(note: I don’t agree with either of these arguments, simply putting them forth as evidence)_ > [@](#): > > \*\* > No, it isn’t. This is essentially rhetorical nonsense, and, more imporatantly, you know it. Answer to the debate with meaningful replies. \*\* Cool. You have access to my inner mind, you know what I do and do not know. I don’t have to post anymore. I can just have you do it for me. Oh wait, actually you don’t. oh well. See it goes like this. When the second amendment was writen, our government was not taking illegal un-constitutinoal action against it’s own citizens (COINTELPRO, McCarthyism, knowingly condemning innocent people to the death penalty). In light of these actions it becomes apparant that the right for individual citizens to bear arms is even more important. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2000, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/95 "2000-09-07T23:38:45Z")
Now now, OldScratch; Mr. Offensisensitivity _did_ warn everyone that he was drunk, and that his post should be taken with a grain of salt (I suppose he was drinking tequila or margaritas). I have, nor make, any such excuse. I stand by my words (but will retract or admit my error, when such have been pointed out to me). Must be the Irish in me. Or the German. :wally Cheers! _ **ExTank** _ _“That’s right folks, I said it: I have no excuse!”_ ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2000, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/96 "2000-09-08T04:25:10Z")
If, even by accident, Bush appointed two Supreme Court Justices who turned out to be the equivalent of Clarence Thomas, that, alone, should scare even a moderate conservative. I don’t take Supreme Court Justices nearly as lightly as I do whomever we chose as President. The President, as a figurehead, ain’t dick. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2000, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/97 "2000-09-08T04:46:12Z")
**Tank** said > [@](#): > > What kind of arms? The “it doesn’t guarantee the right to own nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers!” is one of the Red Herrings that the anti-gun types just love to toss out. > > Arms, as envisioned by the writers of our Constitution, were the type that an individual citizen-soldier (coincidentally, one of the prime definitions of militia) could purchase, outfit with accoutrements > such as powder, powder horn, bullets, bullet molds, and a supply of lead (for casting new bullets once the current supply is depleted), and carry onto the field of battle. > > Our modern-day analogy would be the M-16A2, a supply of ammunition and magazines to put the bullets in, possibly a bayonet, a cleaning kit; stuff like that. > > Cannons and mortars (artillery) and ships of war (cruisers and frigates) were not the types of arms that a man could reasonably be expected to bear on the field of battle. Where would a bazooka fit into your list? Or a shoulder-fired rocket? I think both of these items would fit nicely into a modern day extention of what the writers of our Constitution envisioned. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2000, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/98 "2000-09-09T02:19:59Z")
Explosive ordinance was not the type of weaponry the individual citizen/soldier was expected to bring to drill in the late 18th/early 19th caenturies, or during the militia call-ups (state-sponsored) of the Civil War. I feel that such is still the case today. Fully-automatic weaponry, on the other hand… _ **ExTank** “Machine Gun go BANGBANGBANGBANGBANG; Cluster Bomb go BOOM.BOOM.BOOM.BOOM.BOOM. Know the difference.”_ ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2000, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/99 "2000-09-14T04:34:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zenster \* > \*\*Please remember that the next sitting President will be able to load the supreme court bench like no other in modern times. This alone should terrify anyone into voting for Gore. \*\* Unless, of course, we agree with Bush, in which case we’ll be terrified into voting for him. oooh! Aren’t two-party systems great? With all this terror, no one will vote for the _best_ candidate, _John Hagelin_. But, y’know, bubeh, I resent your assumption that _everybody_ shares your “liberal” beliefs. And I scoff at it. :wally: ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2000, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018/100 "2000-09-14T04:38:22Z")
Oh yeah. The right to bear M16’s. :rolleyes: That makes me feel secure. :rolleyes: Teeny gangbangers and drunken hicks with guns that fire a shell a good mile or pierce brick walls. :rolleyes: Ha! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/g-w-bush-the-ultimate-threat-to-our-nation/31018.md?page=6)