Shootings are insane, but so is response

[babylonsister]

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tucker/stories/2009/04/12/tuckered_0412.html

Shootings are insane, but so is response
Cynthia Tucker

Sunday, April 12, 2009

snip//

Yes, these mass shootings are a form of madness, but what’s even more insane is our passive reaction. We shrug our shoulders, then turn the conversation to Octomom Nadya Suleman or North Carolina’s triumph over Michigan State in college basketball’s biggest game.

It’s strange. Americans grow furious over Wall Street bigwigs who wrecked the banking system and walked away with fortunes. We fume over an inept regulatory system that allows peanut butter to be infected by salmonella. We demand that politicians take back undeserved bonuses and clean up our food supply.

But the proliferation of weapons of war on our streets and in our homes? The indulgence of a gun culture that insists average Americans should own assault rifles? The complicity with a gun industry that supplies Mexican drug cartels? Who cares?

snip//

If these attacks were the work of foreign-born terrorists — say, al-Qaida — the White House would be swamped with protests, President Barack Obama’s poll numbers would be in free fall and Republicans would be readying to retake the Oval Office. But attacks by Americans on fellow Americans are met with public indifference and official cowardice.

Though gun sales have soared since Obama’s election, apparently spurred by fear of tougher gun laws, Democrats cower before the National Rifle Association. Recently, Attorney General Eric Holder backed away from a suggestion that the ban on assault weapons might be reinstated.

The gun lobby will dismiss my complaints as the overwrought hectoring of an anti-gun fanatic, but I’m no such thing. I grew up in the hunting culture of south Alabama, with a father who was a combat veteran and who loved nothing more than to get up before dawn on a cold November morning to sit in a deer stand and wait for a buck to amble by.

But he wouldn’t understand a culture in which it is harder for me to purchase over-the-counter sinus medication than to buy a firearm at a gun show. I don’t understand it either. It’s more than a little crazy.

[Possumpoint]

1. Go Read The Second Amendment

and consider the words "shall not be infringed". Gun control has and will choke Democratic candidate electability. Drop it.

[babylonsister]

3. I'm not 'dropping' anything.

This is someone's opinion I happen to agree with. What about doing the right thing, like promoting a ban on assault weapons, that are good for nothing except killing people?

[TheWraith]

11. You could say the same thing about any gun.

Functionally "assault weapons" are no different from any semi-automatic hunting rifle. And in any event, most gun crimes are committed using handguns, like the two the Binghamton shooter used.

[Possumpoint]

20. Go Ahead, Keep Pushing

It will cost elections.

[benEzra]

49. The most popular civilian target rifles in America are "good for nothing except killing people"?

You've been spun. More Americans lawfully own "assault weapons" than hunt, and they dominate competitive and recreational target shooting in the United States, and they are also by far the most common defensive carbines in U.S. homes.

I'm a nonhunter, like most gun owners, but if I ever take up hunting it will be with my SAR-1 (which Ms. Tucker would call an "assault weapon"); in hunting configuration, it's basically a 5-shot .30-30, quite suitable for eastern whitetail deer inside 100 yards.

[geckosfeet]

93. Every countries infantry units carry assault rifles/weapons. They are for killing.

Automatic rifles

The M16 is fielded in all its varying forms with armies all across the globe, similar to a reach as enjoyed by the M16's counterpart, the AK-47 and its variants.

[benEzra]

97. And those weapons are NOT available to U.S. civilians.

Possession of an M16 or an automatic AK-47 outside of police/military duty is a 10-year Federal felony under the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act, unless you first obtain Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4). They are as tightly controlled as howitzers, tanks, and rocket launchers in this country.

We're not talking about military assault rifles, we are talking about non-automatic CIVILIAN "assault weapons" that are not used by any military on this planet. Namely, the most popular civilian target rifles and defensive carbines in the United States.

[baldguy]

5. Ignore the misrepresentation of the Constitution by the RW, the NRA, & the corporatocracy?

If you actual read & comprehend the 2nd Amendment as it was intended, you'll drop the "individual right" propaganda. When the founders wanted to refer to the people collectively they said "the people"; when they wanted to refer to persons individually they said "persons". The 2nd Amendment says "people".

If you weren't indoctrinated by the GOP, you'd know that.

[hack89]

43. So the 2nd is the only collective right in the Bill of Rights?

don't think so. More importantly, the Supreme Court doesn't think so either.

[Dennis Donovan]

8. Oh, for Christ's sake...

"Gun control" as per traditional Democratic platforms, has NEVER meant "ban ALL guns." It's ALWAYS meant logical, practical regulation to protect citizens from gun violence. No one wants to take away your hunting shotguns or your ability to own a handgun AS LONG as you're a citizen in good standing.

You've bought into the paranoid rantings of the NRA under Wayne LaPierre.:eyes:

[baldguy]

10. +1

NRA=GOP

[Tim01]

17. *NOT ok with banning rifles that look scary*

You are addressing the wrong problem.

[Dennis Donovan]

27. Rifles that LOOK scary? Are you referring to assault weapons?

They were designed to KILL SEVERAL mammals (actually, PEOPLE) at once. They are not just "scary" in appearance, they are "scary" in usage.:eyes:

[baldguy]

28. They make several normal semi-auto rifles LOOK like military weapons.

Some are nearly indistinguishable from REAL assault weapons, and these tend to be more popular with the toothless and conservative-minded gun worshipers.

It's a fashion statement.

[benEzra]

42. If by "more popular", you mean 0.000001% of gun owners own them,

I think that would be a somewhat misleading use of the phrase. It is the NON-automatics that are popular; automatics are restricted to police, military, and a small handful of wealthy collectors.

NON-automatic civilian "assault weapons" are the most popular civilian rifles in the United States, and more Americans own them than hunt. REAL assault rifles are so rare that I have been an avid shooter for 25 years and have never seen one in person.

And of course all proposed bans affect only non-automatics, not actual assault rifles.

[baldguy]

54. Civilian "assault weapons" are the most popular civilian rifles in the United States

And the reason they are is cosmetic - it is a fashion statement. Like the style of hat you might wear - totally arbitrary. It has nothing to do with the operation or mechanical function of the weapon, and everything to do with emulating Rambo. Yet the NRA & the GOP say people have a Constitutional right to this fashion.

Sorry, but the Constitution isn't arbitrary or subject to the vagaries of fashion.

[X_Digger]

55. Yes, you're right.. "the Constitution isn't arbitrary or subject to the vagaries of fashion"

So laws that ban a 'fashion' of rifle are unconstitutional, right?

If you hadn't been told why these rifles with features are actually better (*clue phone* nothing to do with 'fashion') I'd understand your confusion.

I'd tell you that a) many of these rifles are lighter, b) less prone to dings and scratches, c) have less recoil (the 'kick' described by Newton's Third Law), d) less prone to jam or wear (especially true of the AK pattern rifles), and e) in many cases, are able to be reconfigured to meet different needs (more mounting options for things like lights, optics, bipods, grips; as well as the ability to accept multiple calibers in the case of something like an AR-15.)

[benEzra]

56. Rambo used a full auto M60, a big knife, and big 1980's hair,

not a civilian AR-15. And I dare say that most Gen-Y gun owners have never even seen a Rambo movie.

I would say that ergonomics and modularity play as big a role as styling, but let's grant your hypothesis for a moment and assume that everyone who owns rifles with modern styling owns them because they prefer polymer to walnut and phosphate coated aluminum to blued steel.

If you really believe that, why would you expend all the political capital that would be necessary in order to merely shift the aesthetic back toward walnut and blued steel?



Let's say you make it a Federal felony to put a black plastic stock on that rifle. What have you accomplished, other than to piss off tens of millions of Gen-X and Gen-Y voters who own guns, resurrect the Dems'll-take-yer-gunz meme, and further divide the party over the issue? What does that do about the already-small percentage of murders that involve rifles?

That makes precisely as much sense as making it a Federal felony to paint a Honda Civic in bright colors or to put shiny wheels on it, in order to address drunk driving deaths. What you are proposing is all cost and no benefit. Of course, that pretty much sums up the 1994 Feinstein law...

[benEzra]

50. You are confusing military automatic weapons with civilian non-automatics.

They work exactly the same way as any other non-automatic civilian autoloader.

Here's the difference between an "assault weapon" and a non-"assault weapon":



Top stock, listed by name as "particularly suitable for sporting purposes" under the 1994 Feinstein law.

Second stock, still "particularly suitable for sporting purposes" under the 1994 Feinstein law, but restricted as an "assault weapon" in California.

Third stock, restricted as an "assault weapon" under the 1994 Feinstein law.

Same rifle, 3 different stocks. Same rate of fire, same small caliber (.223 Remington), same magazine capacity, same accuracy, same effective range, same lethality.

[baldguy]

58. And the 3rd one looks like it could unleash a hail of bullets

to kill everything in a three block radius, without closer inspection. But it should be legal because its mechanically the same as the first one?

I've got a .22-cal gun that I use to hunt squirrels. D'ya think I'll have a problem driving through downtown LA?



And no, you can't look at the mechanism.

[benEzra]

71. No, it doesn't. It looks like a rifle with a black polymer stock...

a trait which many popular civilian rifles happen to share.

FWIW, the silly hypothetical tracked .22 squirrel rifle would not be illegal, as in the eyes of the law it would be an off-road vehicle with a .22 rifle stuck on it. No, it wouldn't be street-legal, but neither is walking down the street with a straight-stocked .22 squirrel rifle:

[cleaner72]

95. 2nd amendment

Thats the problem with you liberals. You know nothing of history. You still believe that the 2nd amendment is about hunting. The 2nd amendment was never about hunting, it doesn't even mention hunting. Why did the founders believe the PEOPLE needed firearms at that time? For protection. Not just against criminals, but also against a TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT of the like that we had just defeated. How did we defeat a huge army like the British had? Because the citizens were armed. What good do the rest of the Bill of Rights do us if we cannot enforce them? If we are disarmed then the government can do whatever it pleases, just ask the citizens of Germany back in 1933. Again its all about HISTORY. I know the schools today no longer teach real history or god forbid they might offend someone, but We cant escape our past.

[VPStoltz]

12. Yeah, FIRST go to school to learn to read and then SECOND, read the amendment.

It has a prepositional clause - meaning - the second part of the sentence is qualified by the first.
A well regulated militia...
It's so sad that we have never had a Supreme Court or a President or a majority in Congress who have the balls to read the amendment for its true meaning.

[TheWraith]

14. Um, no, that's not the case at all.

The Supreme Court has clearly enunciated that the first part of the second amendment is a preamble explaining why the right needs to be protected. Not a qualification of its protection. Check out District of Columbia vs. Heller.

[baldguy]

15. The same court that "clearly enunciated" the selection of Bush in 2000. right?

Oh no, I'm sorry! The present court IS MORE CONSERVATIVE!

[TheWraith]

96. I mean the decision that all of the left-leaning justices agreed with...

...Albeit some placing the right to a handgun under the ninth amendment instead of the 2nd. The same court that I'm sure we all agreed on in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the 2003 decision throwing out the sodomy laws that still made it illegal to be gay in some states, and a dozen others.

Yeah, that court.

[doctor jazz]

23. Wow. Two hundred years of constitutional law trumped by one DU poster.

Why are you wasting time here, you should be advising Thomas and Scalia.

[paulsby]

60. IT IS NOT QUALIFIED

IT'S a prefatory clause.

try some english language study.

also read the commonplace 2nd amendment by prof. volokh.

or read any # of legal documents at the time of the constitution that also used prefatory clauses.

prof. volokh gives several examples.

[pokercat999]

22. You READ it! Why can't I own a fully automatic assault

rifle? How about an M79 grenade launcher? I really want my own ICBM but the damn liberals have violated the second so many times I'm limited to owning basic firearms that wouldn't stop an angry mob let alone a trained squad of militia.

We have had and must continue to have gun control.

[benEzra]

51. No one is trying to repeal the National Firearms Act or the Gun Control Act.

I support "gun control" in that sense. I do NOT support banning rifle handgrips that stick out, or legislating 1860's-era magazine capacities, or banning the most popular civilian rifles in America when only 3% of U.S. murders involve any type of rifle.

[depakid]

39. Like most absolutists who post stupid things to justify their obsessions

You don't have CLUE ONE aout the law works. Not only that, but you engage in fear tactics- which, of course, are often the halmark of cowards.

[alarimer]

44. Consider the words "well-regulated"

Fucking gun nuts always leave those out.

[X_Digger]

57. Let's go there, shall we?

"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html

or..

"That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions."
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(jc034117))

Do you honestly think they were worried about the Creek being under more rules than the Wabash, or does it make more sense to say they were better trained and more disciplined?

The historical context actually matters. Late 18th century English isn't the same as today's English.

[Doctor_J]

66. I have read it. It begins "A well-regulated militia..."

The way the NRA would have it, it should read, "Any psycho who wants a gun should be able to get one, so the right of...."

[X_Digger]

68. Read other historical documents..

Check out the constitution of PA and VT, then come back and talk..

Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights (1776): "...that the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state."

Vermont Constitution, Article 16.

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State..."

I'd love to see a cite where the NRA (or any gun lobby for that matter) says that psychos should be able to get a firearm.

[reggie the dog]

88. nominate a judge to the supreme court who has a shitty rating from the NRA

and you can overturn last years 5-4 decision. That is the easiest, most risk free way to gun control because the Dems in the legislature and the pres could say "this is a court decision, we did not vote for any law to change".

changing the interpretation of the 2nd amendment is a hell of a lot easier than actually changing the amendment.

[marmar]

2. Here's a K and an R babylonsister, before the DU Gun Lobby takes over this post....

:kick: and :grouphug:

[babylonsister]

4. Thanks, and they've already started. nt

[Dennis Donovan]

9. Seconded.

:thumbsup:

[baldguy]

16. Thirded

[Redneck Socialist]

6. Hey Tucker! You're an idiot.

Maybe "the gun lobby" wouldn't be so quick to "dismiss" your "complaints" if you had some inkling of what you were talking about.

"Weapons of war" aren't flooding our streets, no one is insisting that people should own assault rifles and buying a gun, be it at a gun show or elsewhere is harder than buying "sinus medication."

Learn a little about your subject and mayhap people will give your arguments more credence.

[paulsby]

61. the "gun lobby canard"

makes as much sense as criticizing a pro-choice advocate as being merely a shill for the "abortion lobby"

same silly illogic

[doctor jazz]

7. So what other Constitutional Rights are you willing to give up in the name of expediency.

Are you also a big fan of the Patriot Act? TSA regs? Warrantless eavesdropping and spying? The American Taliban isn't only for Republicans obviously.

:grr:

[baldguy]

18. How about the right not to be intimidated by a standing army?

Or do you hate the military, too?

[doctor jazz]

21. wtf?

:eyes:
I have no idea what the hell you are babbling about.

[baldguy]

24. And that's your problem.

What do you think the intent of the 2nd Amendment was? It's very simple - says it right there in plain English.

Get a frickin' clue & stop believing the NRA's RW propaganda on the subject.

[doctor jazz]

74. Actually, I have owned guns for 57 years and up until this very week was never an NRA member

but that is different now...I joined precisely because of some gun grabbing assholes who don't care about my rights.

[baldguy]

78. Thank you for supporting the GOP.

Dick Cheney thanks you, Sarah Palin thanks you, Anne Coulter thanks you.

Your donation will ensure that America & Obama fails.

[doctor jazz]

79. Fuck you. I campaigned for Obama in a place where it was unpopular.

And I despise Cheney, Palin and Coulter. Are you like a 12 year old? What the hell is your fucking problem????

[baldguy]

81. My problem is with troglodites who think murder is OK

just as long as they get to play with their boomsticks.

If you support the NRA, you support the GOP. They are the same thing. No "if"s, "and"s or "but"s.

[doctor jazz]

82. Horse. Fucking. Shit. Nobody here supports murder and the fact that you even ACCUSE anyone of

that shows you're not even worthy of a discussion. So begone, and don't bother replying.

[baldguy]

84. Like it or not, your actions have consequences.

If you want guns to be easy to get for you, they'll be easy to get for Poplawski and Wong and the next mass murderer. If you give money to the NRA, and you KNOW they support Republicans 90% of the time, then you are supporting Republicans.

If you don't like these facts, perhaps you should reevaluate your actions.

[Tim01]

13. We try to hold a good line between individual freedom and government protection.

An assault weapons ban goes far into the realm of giving up freedom for the sake of the "feeling" of safety.

Is everybody cool with "reasonable privacy laws" in the interest of feeling safe?

[babylonsister]

26. Question: what exactly are assault weapons good for?

I'd love an honest answer. And if they're good for nothing, why not ban them?

I'm not suggesting all guns should be banned either, but am curious why gun enthusiasts think assault weapons are A-OK.

[Dennis Donovan]

29. "why gun enthusiasts think assault weapons are A-OK?"

Two words, my friend:

...penis extentions.

:rofl::hi:

[quiller4]

34. The assault weapon ban wasn't about assault weapons

The semi-autos banned were not military assault weapons. In function they were no different that any semi-auto hunting rifle.

I had a Mini 14 at one time. It was so inaccurate that I traded it off. Penis extension? Hardly. I'm a female senior citizen of the heterosexual persuasion happily married to the same man for 24 years. At the time I owned the rifle in question, I lived in a remote rural area. Police response times were often more than one hour on emergency calls. I was home alone in the evening a great deal because of my husbands work schedule.

Now we are both retired and living in the city. We no longer feel the same preparedness needs.

[Mojorabbit]

98. And as usual I will chime in here

as a woman who owns firearms.
The penis thing gets really old. It is a juvenile statement worthy of junior high school.

[X_Digger]

30. Hunting, target shooting, home defense

1) They are excellent for hunting (small game definitely, larger game depending on caliber)- lighter, less recoil, less apt to get dinged up carrying them through the woods.
2) They make excellent firearms for shooting competitions. Light weight and lower recoil are especially good for timed competitions where moving and acquiring targets faster is an advantage.
3) Since they use a relatively light round, they don't penetrate as many walls as other rounds, yet are easier to aim and actually hit something than many handguns (actually hitting something with a handgun is harder than the movies make them out to be.)

The legacy of Heller is that we're left with a 'test' of 'in common use for lawful purposes' as far as bans go. There are cases working their way to the SCOTUS that may incorporate the second amendment via the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.

[baldguy]

31. Excellent for turning rodents into a fine red mist.

Now THAT'S huntin'!

[X_Digger]

33. You're ignorance is showing

Now I know you've never actually been hunting.. you pick a caliber appropriate to the game and distance you expect to have to reach. That entails effective distance, bullet drop, cartridge power, and bullet weight.

At 300 yards, a .223 will kill a ground hog and leave the meat pretty much intact. At 50 yards, a 22LR will do the same thing. At 200 yards, a .308 will stop a TX mule deer. At that same range, a .223 might not.

[doctor jazz]

75. Trying to educate people about guns when they've already made up their minds and

don't want to be inconvenienced by facts is pretty much an exercise in futility...like teaching pigs to sing. They just don't give a fuck about Constitutional Rights when they conflict with their petty little personal peeves.

[cabluedem]

89. Would those "Heller" cases include the California and New York state bans on AW's? nt

[X_Digger]

94. I know that the chicaco ban on handguns is pending..

Looks like there is at least one case in CA pending that leans heavily on Heller, Nordyke v King. The other one that seems to come up when you search for Heller and CA is a San Francisco Housing Authority compromise to allow residents to possess legal firearms.

No doubt Gura et al are looking for the perfect case(s).

[hack89]

46. Hunting, target shooting, plinking golf balls, self protection, ..

all the things that rifles are used for.

Since rifles and shotguns account for approximately 3 percent of all murders per year (about 500 a year), why are you so concerned about a ban that would not have a significant impact on public safety? If gun deaths are what you are concerned about then handguns should be your prime focus.

[benEzra]

52. Competitive and recreational target shooting, small game hunting, defensive purposes.

Upgraded to larger, hunting calibers, they can be fine for deer or elk hunting.

I posted the following elsewhere a while back, but I think it's apropos here:

The AR-15 platform dominates centerfire target shooting in this country. The ammunition it uses is the #1 selling centerfire rifle caliber in the United States, every year (7.62x39mm is #2, and .308/7.62x51mm #3).

F-class (long range) precision competition, 300 to 1200 yards:


http://www.f-classinfo.com/page11/page11.html


Camp Perry style target competition (restricted to iron sights only):




IPSC/USPSA carbine and 3-gun:




And hunting (with a .308 model, since .223 isn't powerful enough for deer):




And a book about how the AR-15 came to dominate precision target competition:


http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=276404


And a police officer using a civilian non-automatic AR-15 to serve and protect. I don't think the department issued her the rifle so she could "mow down people," do you?




More Americans own "assault weapons" than hunt (16-20 million or more), yet all rifles combined account for only 3% of murders. The overwhelming majority of U.S. civilian "assault weapons" are made and used for lawful, responsible civilian ownership.

[paulsby]

62. constitutional rights

never require a justification of "need".

i don't have to justify a reason for owning an "assault weapon" any more than i have to justify why i have a blog.

[madrchsod]

19. you do`t understand "shall not be infringed" means?

it means there should`t be any laws infringing on the ability to own a weapon or sell a gun of choice. just think of the people who are now being EXCLUDED from owning the gun of their choice. why do you want to EXCLUDE them from their second amendment rights?

you see it`s simple.... EVERYONE who wants to own a gun in the usa has a right to own a gun.





besides babylonsister, we can`t not infringe on their "happiness is a warm gun" now can we...

[baldguy]

25. "People" is a collective noun.

English doesn't agree with you.

[X_Digger]

32. Law scholars don't agree with you..

Published in the NYU law review:
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

Footnote notations removed, see link above
"The Second Amendment, unusually for constitutional provisions, contains a statement of purpose as well as a guarantee of a right to bear arms." This unusual attribute, some argue, is reason for courts to interpret the Second Amendment quite differently than they interpret other constitutional provisions -- perhaps to the point of reading it as having virtually no effect on government action.

My modest discovery is that the Second Amendment is actually not unusual at all: Many contemporaneous state constitutional provisions are structured similarly. Rhode Island's 1842 constitution, its first, provides

The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . .

Compare this to the Second Amendment's

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 1784 New Hampshire Constitution says

In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed . . . .

The 1780 Massachusetts Constitution -- followed closely by the 1784 New Hampshire Constitution and the 1786 Vermont Constitution -- says

The freedom of deliberation, speech, and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation or prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever.

I list dozens more such provisions in the Appendix.

These provisions, I believe, shed some light on the interpretation of the Second Amendment:

1. They show that the Second Amendment should be seen as fairly commonplace, rather than strikingly odd.
2. They rebut the claim that a right expires when courts conclude that the justification given for the right is no longer valid or is no longer served by the right.
3. They show that operative clauses are often both broader and narrower than their justification clauses, thus casting doubt on the argument that the right exists only when (in the courts' judgment) it furthers the goals identified in the justification clause.
4. They point to how the two clauses might be read together, without disregarding either.

The provisions also suggest two things about interpretation more generally. First, they remind us that the U.S. Constitution is just one of the at least fifty-one American constitutions in force today, and one of the dozens of constitutions that existed during the Framing era. The legal academy's understandable focus on federal matters can blind us to some important details.

Second, these provisions help show the value of testing interpretive proposals against a politically mixed range of texts. On a topic as incendiary as gun control, it's obviously tempting for people to reach an interpretation based largely on their policy desires. If we want to be honest interpreters, a broad set of test cases for our interpretive method is a good tool for checking our political biases.

[baldguy]

36. One guy - who happens to be an extreme RW Republican nutcase.

Opposes marriage equality
Opposes affirmative action
Thinks sexual harassment is free speech
Thinks abortion is infanticide
Thinks evolution is a dangerous idea
Likes Clarence Thomas
Likes Dick Cheney
Likes Sarah Palin

And a member in good standing of the Federalist Society (just like Anne Coulter, John Roberts & the rest of the corrupt Bush "Justice" Dept.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Volokh#Politics

Basically, no a guy who should really get much play on a liberal Democratic board.


On the other hand - the ACLU, which is an organization of with 500,000 members & 200 attys dedicated to defending the Constitution from infringement, has a different view:

http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/35904res20020304.html

[X_Digger]

41. How about Akhil Reed Amar, Saul Cornell, Leonard Levy, Jack Ravoke, Laurence Tribe..

William Van Alstyne and Garry Wills?

Can you actually refute any of Volokh's points, or are you just going to impugn the source?

Here's a good book-
http://books.google.com/books?id=7NZ1HwAACAAJ&dq=isbn:0253351596

[baldguy]

53. Akhil Reed Amar, John Yoo's mentor?

I guess the Constitution supports torture also?

Leonard Levy is criticized for his ideas about the 2nd Amendment by many other constitutional scholars for being unsophisticated and incomplete - Levy basically ignores history.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_law_according_to_levy

Laurence Tribe actually believes the two clauses of the 2nd amendment are independent of one another - which is one step above most gun worshipers who tend to ignore the first, primary clause. And incidentally, this absurdist view is totally contrary to the common practice everywhere else in the law.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=397

Some of those others aren't even advocates of "gun rights" - they're just listed in a Wiki article - seemingly in the exact same order YOU list them! Hmmm.... isn't that interesting?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Later_commentary

The really sad thing is that you have no clue who these people are. You just c&p them from a Wiki article you didn't even read.

Garry Wills actually believes the phrase to keep and bear arms "refers to military service"; "arms," Wills said, "means military service in general." "History, philology, and logic," Wills found, "furnish no solid basis for thinking the Second Amendment has anything to do with the private ownership of guns."
http://hnn.us/articles/51600.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Military_service_meaning

Saul Cornell says "The Second Amendment Doesn't Prohibit Gun Regulation - It In Fact Compels It."
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/029


Why don't you try to find someone who's not a RW tool, bought & paid for by the NRA and the GOP?

[X_Digger]

67. So more inpugn the source..

Did you do more than google the names and skim? I've stepped over puddles deeper than the thought you put in that response.

I'm not surprised that the wiki article has them in that same order- the wiki author and I probably got them from the same place- the book I linked to above.

Did you even read the articles you linked??

"Prof. Dorf ignores these textual fundamentals and submits his own inferential construct. The Second Amendment begins with the declaration, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state . . . ." This supposedly limits the substantive right to militia participation. But as Emerson explains, this preamble announces the objective of securing a free state by a militia, which in turn is encouraged by and drawn from the people who exercise the right to keep and bear arms."

.. which supports the prefatory clause interpretation- ie, "Pizza being necessary for an all-night study session, the right of the people to grow tomatos and spin dough shall not be infringed." Doesn't mean dough and tomatos are only to be used for making pizza.

(I can get you the westlaw cite for US v Emerson if it will help.)

Interesting that you completely ignored my previous post's last point.. still nothing re Volokh's point? Must be tough when presented with evidence that the prefatory clause was in common use at the time.

[baldguy]

69. Have you found anyone to cite who are not RW tools?

I've seen none so far, other than those you've deliberately misrepresented.

[X_Digger]

72. Poor poor baldguy..

Can't actually refute the argument, has to attack the source.

Can you honestly read the historical documents and not say that the prefatory clause usage wasn't in common use at the time?

(hint: check early drafts of the constitution, it was littered with them.)

[doctor jazz]

80. If he knew 9 more things, he would be an idiot.

Sorry, just a fact.

[baldguy]

83. So, the answer is "no"?

That's what I thought. If you're going to link to Anne Coulter or Michelle Malkin next, don't bother.

[X_Digger]

85. *snort* here's an easy one..

Find a prefatory clause in a historical document that actually limits the rest of the clause.

Hell, at this point, I'd like to see _anything_ pertaining to that time that supports your interpretation- really a modern interpretation that comes mostly from Burger's article in Parade magazine, after he left the bench, btw.

I love levinson's article, it's so le mot juste-

"I cannot help but suspect that the best explanation for the absence of the Second Amendment from the legal consciousness of the elite bar, including that component found in the legal academy, is derived from a mixture of sheer opposition to the idea of private ownership of guns and the perhaps subconscious fear that altogether plausible, perhaps even "winning," interpretations of the Second Amendment would present real hurdles to those of us supporting prohibitory regulation. Thus the title of this essay — The Embarrassing Second Amendment — for I want to suggest that the Amendment may be profoundly embarrassing to many who both support such regulation and view themselves as committed to zealous adherence to the Bill of Rights (such as most members of the ACLU). Indeed, one sometimes discovers members of the NRA who are equally committed members of the ACLU, differing with the latter only on the issue of the Second Amendment but otherwise genuinely sharing the libertarian viewpoint of the ACLU."

Man, if it isn't 'oh noes, the commas', then it's 'oh noes the militia', or 'oh noes, the people', or the last refuge of the embarrassed, 'oh noes, well-regulated'.

[paulsby]

64. you are wrong

prof. volokh is a libertarian, not a repub/right winger.

read his blog

[baldguy]

70. Same thing.

Only fools believe otherwise.

[paulsby]

73. only people who understand political philosophy

you mean.

i've been reading prof. volokh's blog for years. he is an EXTREMELY well respected legal scholar.

i could give a flying fuck what his political ideology is, as i read him for his LEGAL ANALYSIS not his politics.

regardless, his legal analysis is consistently well researched.

you might discover this if you actually tried reading his blog vs. calling him (incorrect) names

[paulsby]

63. thank you for quoting prof. volokh

those examples alone prove that the claim that the prefatory clause is just that.

[depakid]

40. You forgot the sarcasm tag....

[barbtries]

35. Error: You've already recommended that thread.

this is easily one of the most divisive issues i've observed on DU. i agree with the OP

[thelordofhell]

37. The question that should be asked is.....

How many of these shooters bought their guns and ammo when the NRA told them that Obama was "Takin' away all da guuuuuuunnnnnnnns!!!"

[Still Sensible]

38. At the risk of stating the obvious

the issue isn't whether or not the government "of the people" should regulate or restrict the "right to bear arms," but rather where the line is drawn between acceptable and unacceptable arms that can be owned. Obviously, individuals are not allowed to own bazookas or gatling guns or Uzis or rocket propelled grenade launchers, but all of these are considered "arms."

Generally speaking, but not universally accepted, liberals and progressives would like to see that line drawn in a more restrictive way than conservatives. Every attempt to place any further restrictions on the right of individuals to own weapons is vigorously opposed by the well organized, fully funded NRA. They oppose any and all attempts to restrict, register and/or control availability of weaponry.

All of this notwithstanding, I don't believe that it is politically feasible to pursue further restrictive legislation at this time. Personally, I would appreciate the NRA and their attempts to protect second amendment rights more if they were open to some common sense (in my opinion) legislation, particularly with regard to registration and gun purchasing. But they oppose every measure, regardless.

JMHO.

[alarimer]

47. The NRA won't be happy until everyone is dead.

So who cares about some dead people, right?

The NRA is simply the lobbying arm of the gun industry, aided and abetted by those paranoid fools who think it is their god-given right to own an arsenal.

Some NGO needs to start airing ads with the latest statistics on it, with as much carnage as possible. Maybe people will wake up and demand more and better gun laws.

OVer 50 people have been killed in the last month and that is just the mass shootings. It doesn't include the usual violence that occurs.

It is NOT acceptable that thousands of Americans are killed by guns every year. And thousands more injured.

[baldguy]

59. Correction: The NRA won't be happy until everyone is ARMED & dead.

Their primary purpose is to help sell guns.

[doctor jazz]

77. Okay, what is your "solution" to the "problem" you're obviously "concerned" about?

I've seen hundreds of posts lately from folks who want SOMETHING DONE but none of them have proposed anything with a chance of being adopted. Are you one of those who want to take away everyone's guns? If so, I suggest you reincarnate into a real world somewhere because you're just pissing in the wind.

In case you haven't noticed, at least HALF of DUers are gun owners and in the real world, far MORE than half of all Americans including Democrats are too. The NRA doesn't sell guns and gets very little support from gun makers. Are you actually stupid enough to believe they -depend- on arms manufacturers (who can't even keep up with demand) for funding??????????????

[paulsby]

65. rubbish

the nra is no more the lobbying arm of the gun industry, than NARAL is the lobbying arm of the "abortion industry"

[doctor jazz]

76. The only reason some people care about dead people is if they're dead by firearms.

No other means of carnage gets their juices circulating. It really is pathological.

[Mojorabbit]

99. But 48 percent of the population

own firearms and I would guess a very small percentage have ever committed a gun crime. It is a losing argument for the Dem party to pursue at this time. There are bigger fish to fry.

[benEzra]

48. The line was settled by compromise long ago.

Automatic weapons, burst-mode weapons, sound-suppressed firearms, disguised firearms, sawed-off rifles and shotguns, guns over .50 caliber (except shotguns), and guns easily convertible to full auto are on the restricted police/military side of the line. Non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed small arms under .51 caliber are on the civilian side of the line, and always have been.

The "assault weapon" fraud is an attempt to move that line and ban the most popular civilian target rifles and defensive carbines in the nation, and to turn the clock back to the 1860's with regard to civilian magazine capacities. Given that only 3% of U.S. murders involve ANY type of rifle, fighting to outlaw the most popular rifles in the nation is counterproductive and wrongheaded.

FWIW, it was not until relatively recently that restricting gun ownership among the lower and middle class was viewed as a "progressive" issue. Historically, most gun banners have been conservatives, who view egalitarian gun ownership with distaste, and even in the 1990's it was the right-leaning DLC/Third Way types, not liberals, who made the "assault weapon" fraud a legislative priority. The original Federal "assault weapon" regulations were the brainchild of arch-right-winger William J. Bennett, czar something-or-other under Bush the Elder, and were implemented by a Bush the Elder executive order that later became codified in 18 USC 922.


----------------------
The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

Thoughts on Gun Ownership

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

[benEzra]

45. "Weapons of war" are ALREADY tightly controlled.

But the proliferation of weapons of war on our streets and in our homes?

"Weapons of war" are ALREADY tightly controlled. M16's, actual AK-47's, and all other automatic weapon are restricted to police/military in this country. The "assault weapon" fraud is NOT about "weapons of war."

The indulgence of a gun culture that insists average Americans should own assault rifles?

"Assault rifles" are already tightly controlled, as by definition an "assault rifle" is selective-fire and hence subject to the strict Title 2 restrictions of the National Firearms Act.

Is the idea of average, responsible Americans owning small-caliber, non-automatic civilian rifles with modern styling really THAT scary?

Cynthia Tucker was a vocal proponent of the original "assault weapon" fraud in 1994, that helped hand the House and Senate to the repubs on a silver platter. I think she is still stuck in 1994; the rifles she wants to ban are now the most popular civilian rifles in America, and more Americans own them than hunt.

[AbortTheRight]

86. Why is it that...

Folks on DU are quick to get up in arms over violations to every amendment in the Bill Of Rights, except of course the second one??

[babylonsister]

87. Why were witches burned?

Today, modern Americans look back on ancestors who burned witches at the stake and who enslaved their brethren and shake their heads, unable to fully understand a culture that condoned such cruelty and harbored such lunacy.

A hundred years from now, historians and social scientists will look back on our own crazed obsession with guns and wonder why the madness lasted so long. They’ll shake their heads over a time in which a church or nursing home or community center could suddenly fall prey to a gunman armed with a determination to murder indiscriminately.

[benEzra]

92. Because of taking action based on baseless fearmongering.

Similar, in fact, to your demonization of 80+ million nonviolent, mentally competent gun owners who have not, and will not, kill anyone, or MSM fearmongering about small-caliber rifles with modern styling even though rifles are typically the least-misused category of firearm.

Legislation based on ignorance and fear has a pretty bad track record.

[cabluedem]

90. Sorry, but that old canard wont work in several states where assualt weapons are banned. n/t

[benEzra]

91. What are you talking about?

Automatic weapons are controlled at the Federal level, not the state level. And all the states that ban NON-automatic rifles with protruding handgrips, you can count on one finger (California), and even then only if the magazine is detachable.

It would be helpful if you had quoted which part of my post you were replying to, because I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.