US v. Miller, 1968 GCA, and "assault weapons" bans.

[Maeglin]

Ok. You said they repealed the GCA. They did not. Not even the bulk of it.

Yes, it did repeal the GCA. It did not dismantle all of its rather reasonable (in my opinion, naturally) planks, but it completely replaced the GCA for all points of law. Was the law in its entirety struck down by the Supreme Court? No, obviously not, but it was repealed in the legislature. The law was replaced, and broad provisions of the GCA were rolled back.

Everything else is just details.

The NRA evidently does not agree. They consider it a major victory, and last year they voted Volkmer another three-year term on their board.

Who disagrees? People like the good folks at www.guntruths.com:

The Prison Industrial Complex

The police state’s tents are made of concrete, barbed wire, careers, and contracts – not easily folded. The Prison Industry spent millions enacting 3-Strikes and prison-building laws, and voters bought the same bill of goods we’re buying on Exile – that it only affects real criminals.

Feeding a monster may keep it from eating us, for a while. But as it grows, so does its appetite, until nothing’s left but us. Millions of jobs and billions in profits are at stake. As real crime drops, new “criminals” will be created to arrest and to keep the industry “staffed” in more ways than one. Anyone notice that big business is “hiring” inmates? Victimless criminals make the best slave laborers, and gun owners are a huge untapped pool…

To appease our oppressors and score quickly forgotten public relations points, should we help expand the Police-Prison-Military Industrial Complex, leaders of which will surely come to view the unorganized militia as a political threat, citizen self-defense as an economic threat, and political prisoners as resources?

So apparently the government wants to put away a lot of righteous gun owners because they need prisoners in order to keep the “Prison Police Military Industrial Complex” happy. These are the people that even the gun nuts in the NRA laugh at.

To consolidate my response…

You do see the irony in this statement, correct?

I assume you’re implying that you think I’m arbitrarily interpreting the Constitution the way I want to see it. I, of course, may be wrong in my interpretation, but it doesn’t come from personal advantage, but objective analysis of the writings of those who wrote it, etc.

Reinterpreting the Constitution to get rid of rights, on the consent of the majority, is called “the tyranny of the majority”, and was something that was specifically warned against.

I believe that the very idea of “objective analysis” is a farce. Selective re-interpretation by the majority is a fact of life, unfortunately, hence there are numerous checks and balances in our government that makes it very difficult to bring such things about.

Speaking of analysis without self-interest, Justice Warren Burger, a lifetime hunter and gun owner, has some interesting remarks about the gun lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment.

…One of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime…

YMMV.

[Captain_Amazing]

The quote is by Thomas Paine’s “The Rights of Man”, but Alessan changed “Parliament” to “congress” and “1688” to “1789”.

[Alessan]

*Originally posted by Captain Amazing *
**The quote is by Thomas Paine’s “The Rights of Man”, but Alessan changed “Parliament” to “congress” and “1688” to “1789”. **

Bingo, Cap’n. It’s a passage that’s stuck with me ever since I first read it in college, and it comes to mind every time somebody mentions the “Framers” and their “Original Intent”.

[Captain_Amazing]

There’s another quote I like that I can’t remember. I think it’s by Jefferson, though. He’s talking about how he’s afraid that future generations will see him and his contemporaries as gods, with some sort of special insight, and therefore be afraid to change the government.

[SenorBeef]

One cannot create a government that prevents tyranny if the basic tenets of that government can be arbitrarily redetermined at any time. If a specific set of procedures, enumerated protection of rights, checks and balances, etc., are not permanent, then there is nothing to prevent tyranny.

People do have the right to choose their own government, but if a government is chosen in which it’s very principles are changed arbitrarily, there is absolutely no protection against tyranny - of the one, or of the majority.

Besides, we were given a specific method to change the Constitution to keep up with the times. We’re not talking about being honest and changing the damn thing, we’re talking about arbitrarily declaring it null and void by convincing ourselves that it means something other than what it clearly means.

So, if we all want a government that is vulnerable to tyranny, of the one, of the majority - so be it. We should just be honest about it, and throw the Constitution in the trash.

Giving lip service to continuing a form of government which is not truly adhered to by those who take an oath to do so is a horrible form of dishonesty.