Being an Endowment-Level contributor, you probably know the background of the people running NRA/ILA. Are they primarily common folk who have risen through the ranks, or do they hail from the firearms industry?
But you don’t, I assume, read other amendments that way. I imagine you would argue that the First Amendment protects webpages and bloggers, even though they reach farther and are read by more people than any “press” in 1787 was.
What’s the legal rationale for reading the Second Amendment so restrictively and the First Amendment so expansively? Your personal dispproval of one and approval of the other?
If one of the major purposes of the 2nd Amendment is to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government, then it must allow us to use at least the same weapons a tyrannical government has on hand to use against us, otherwise this purpose is moot.
Would you agree?
Disclaimer: I do not share this opinion, but I think one can hold it without political bias.
One possible distinction is that some constitutional provisions embody principles, and others embody rules. For example, the “freedom of speech,” is a principle. Both speech and freedom are very vague–the provision is clearly meant to embody a principle. On the other side you have, say, “No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years.” That’s a rule, not a principle. We don’t read from that constitutional law about the necessity of experience, or about preventing nepotism (the ill intended to be fought by that provision). We don’t update it for our changing times given the changes in life expectancy.
One might coherently argue that the second amendment, like the Third and parts of the Seventh, and many parts of the Constitution, represents a rule. Arms–as many of the historians here can tell you–had at the time a much more discrete definition than speech. And the “right to keep and bear” is considerably more specific than “freedom of.”
So there is reasonable ground on which the First Amendment could apply to blogs, but the Second could not apply to modern rifles. I personally think the Second Amendment is better read as a principle, not a rule, but I don’t think people who disagree with me are automatically just political partisans.
I don’t know if I’d say “risen through the ranks” is the right descriptor, but neither is “hailing from the firearms industry.” I know Chris Cox, the director, who as many lobbyists do came from Capitol Hill where he was a legislative aide. The majority of ILA folks have lobbying, legislative, and legal backgrounds. To the extent that they were, in the main, NRA members before they took the jobs they have, then I suppose they “rose” from, if not throug, the ranks.
Sigh. So you feel the 2nd Amendment allows you to own guns, any kind of guns whatsoever, regardless of what they were designed for or what use they could possibly have in a non-military context? Fine. I will happily vote for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment solely so that we can take that attitude off the table.
There are restrictions on what kinds of chemicals private citizens can buy and own. There are restrictions on what kinds of animals, plants, biological agents, medical devices, machinery and god-knows-what-else that a person off the street with no special qualifications can get access to. These restrictions are generally looked on as necessary and desirable for the safety of the public at large (do you want your neighbor’s kids doing experiments on Yersinia pestis in his garage, even if it’s guaranteed to get him a First Prize at the science fair?). But guns are different. They’re constitutionally protected! God forbid someone try to prevent us from owning the absolute latest in technology designed solely and specifically to more efficiently kill people!
There are specific and legitimate reasons to own guns, just as there are specific and legitimate reasons to own blood-transfusion equipment and hydrofluoric acid. I support gun ownership only insofar as it serves those reasons. Anyone who argues that cyanide should be available without a permit would have to present a darn good reason before I’d support their position. Anyone complaining that they need to be able to buy an assault rifle has to convince me that their need serves a legitimate purpose.
JRB
Not necessarily. We the People outnumber the government, so one could argue that we don’t need to arm the People equally; they having numbers on their side.
Wow.
Well, I have to say that this distinction seems quite … er… arbitrary. “Arms,” I grant, but the idea that the use of “freedom” is more expansive than “keep and bear” finds zero support with not – not merely as a matter of disagreement, but as an absurd and unreasonable suggestion.
I must have missed that third sentence in their FAQ, the one that says “But after abridging those rights, we’re going to damned well give them an avenue to get them back, and if the ATF won’t do it, then we want the courts to do it.” They fight VERY hard for relief from disabilities sections in various legislation, and I don’t see them discuss that in public. Both the NRA and initially yourself in this thread argued that their stance is that all felons should have their right to posession removed. Period.
Yes, it’s wrong, but let’s break it down to see how wrong.
…they’re reluctantly willing to concede that currently incarcerated prisoners cannot carry guns…
I’m assuming the “reluctantly” was intentionally over the top, but I agree that the NRA would never advocate prisoners owning guns, so Little Nemo was incorrect.
…but they have argued that ex-convicts should have all their gun ownership rights restored - even if they were convicted of using a gun in the commission of a felony…
With this, on the other hand, Little Nemo is completely correct. The NRA has in fact argued in favor of ex-convicts having all of their gun ownership rights restored, even those who were convicted of various firearms violations. You’ll note that I said all rights, not all ex-convicts, just as Little Nemo said, and that’s true.
No. The weapon that we are granted against a tyrannical government is the democratic process. The day that the guy down the block can buy functioning ICBMs and fully-armed strategic bombers is the day I move to Canada. Or maybe Tierra Del Fuego.
JRB
Well, it’s hard to debate you because you haven’t given any reasons why it is absurd. I mean, on the face of it, “keep and bear” is much more specific than “freedom of” isn’t it? One talks about two very specific acts, the other talks about a very vague range of undefined acts.
It is clear what contravenes the “keep and bear.” The people have the right to own, possess, carry around, and use arms. You can’t prevent people from doing so unless you pass strict scrutiny.
Infringing the “freedom of speech” requires considerably more interpretation, doesn’t it?
My math is a little rusty, so maybe you can help me out here-How many people armed with semi-automatic weapons=one nuclear warhead? And how many citizens with Glocks=a small supply of nerve gas? And how many paranoid “militias”=the combined Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard and Marine services?
When the standing army was made up of common citizens, this argument made sense. Now? Not so much.
Um…
Whaaa…?
A reasonable reading of …they have argued that ex-convicts should have all their gun ownership rights restored - even if they were convicted of using a gun in the commission of a felony… doesn’t remotely suggest “some.” It suggests that the NRA favors an automatic restoration of rights after a sentence is served, especially when combined with the first claim, which you concede was over-the-top wrong.
Give that sentence to ten people and ask them if it means all convicts, and you’ll get nine ‘yes’ answers.
When you get there, look me up and I’ll treat you to a hot steak and a cold brew.
Sure. And when “press” meant a guy hand-cranking out some printed sheets, freedom of the press made sense. Now, it’s too much impact and too much power to place in the hands of ordinary citizens, where reputations can be ruined nationwide in moments. Right?
Czarcasm, that’s a silly argument and you know it. The government has nukes. Big deal. Are they going to nuke an entire city to root out a band of rebels? Not likely. And if they do, it just pushes more people into the rebellion.
No, an armed and politically aware populace is the best defense against tyrrany. 3 million people with rifles and an opinion outweigh an army any day. Especially domestically.
We are talking about the power of the government versus the power of citizens, not the power of powerful citizens versus the power of less powerful citizens, which is a totally different argument. I’ll tell you what-you start a thread about the freedom of the press, and I’ll jump right into it, o.k.? This thread is about the right to keep and bear arms, and I’d rather stay on topic.
Actually, I said the NRA agreed that prisoners should not own guns, which I assume is their genuine position. But yes, I did intend this part as irony.
And I’m standing by this one.
Bricker, you seem to feel there’s a substantial difference between “they have argued that ex-convicts should have all their gun ownership rights restored - even if they were convicted of using a gun in the commission of a felony” and “extended relief privileges to those who had been convicted of crimes involving a firearm.” I don’t see it. What is the difference you’ve referred to?
The best defense against tyranny is this country is a well-informed populace. Of your 3 million people with weapons, how many voted to put the supposed tyranny in power, and how many would continue to support said tyranny against those who would attempt to overthrow it? We don’t have a single 3 million strong citizen militia-we have 3 million individuals with weapons, and more than a few might view me, or you, as the enemy to be fought.
Actually, while I certainly understand your desire to reframe the question to your advantage, I would say that this thread is about the meaning and effect of the Second Amendment – which makes the method of interpreting other amendments a valid question. Ifyou choose to apply a hyper-technical, limiting approach when reading the Second Amendment, and an overly expansive approach when reading other amendments, I may fairly conclude that your method of interpretation is chosen solely to produce the result you wish.