Historically Great Day For Liberty

Paul Seale has a good take on that here

It should have been a unanimous decision, or perhaps 8-1 with Ginsburg or Stevens out in the cold. That's very worrying to me and the fact that it was 5-4 (I was personally hoping it might be 6-3 but I was also very worried about Kennedy and was buckled down for a 5-4 the other way) and it really underscores the need to join and contribute to organizations that support your 2nd Amendment rights even if you don't intend to own a firearm.

Joining the NRA doesn't require you to be a firearm owner or ever own one in the future. Neither do most of the other reputable groups, and I consider it the best $30 a year someone can spend to protect a Constitutionally enumerated right which predates the Constitution and has so much importance for your long-term liberty.

And just to set the record straight, because some people have asked me privately: I do not work for the NRA and I receive no benefit from them other than the membership benefits everyone who is a member receives, and I never have. Wayne LaPierre doesn't send me private emails, and I've never even been to an NRA annual meeting. Nobody in my family works for (or even owns stock in, so far as I know) a firearms manufacturing company. I just know that they are head and shoulders above the rest of the pro 2nd-Amendment groups in this country in terms of their national reach and scope, their competence and number of members, and their ability to stay on top of legislative developments nationwide; therefore I support them first.

I'd also encourage people to have a look at my two follow up comments this afternoon at Redstate concerning the outright LIE that Reuters is promulgating about this ruling. When you think about whether or not to give your dollars to the NRA, take into consideration the fact that Reuters has no compunction about simply LYING about what the decision said.

The only way to responsibly and legally fight this is by standing up and realizing that you should join an organization whose single-issue mandate is to help protect and preserve your rights. There isn't anyone else in this country better situated to do that and keep you informed and aware than the NRA, particulary at the national level. It's time to join if you haven't already.

Of course, the corollaries in terms of the upcoming Presidential election are crystal clear to most of the people here -- I don't have to spoon feed them to anyone.

Because once you begin the process of caveating and watering down rights, it reaches a tipping point. Those rights eventually cease to exist. If the right inconveniently crops up somewhere, while some statist is asleep on watch, another caveat just gets invented to make that inconvenient right go back into its hole and vanish.

Boo-Yeah!

But that seems to be an argument for an ABSOLUTE right to keep and bear arms. Do you believe that an individual has an absolute right to walk around with a "suitcase" nuke or hang around near an airport with a Stinger on his shoulder?

no obligation to consider collatoral the collatoral impacts of their rights, once they have been granted such a right. A person with a suitcase nuke could theoretically trip on a shoelace and significantly change the local topography. A person who owns a handgun has very limited opportunity to accidentally damage more than a small group of others.

Another thing to consider. The right to bear arms is not the right to indiscriminantly employ them against others as you see fit. A law against murder, armed robbery, or aggravated assault is still legally binding; whether you use an M1 Tank or a whiffle bat.

Boo-Yeah!

Your second paragraph is irrelevant because it would apply equally to the guy holding the suitcase nuke or the Stinger (as long as he doesn't detonate/fire them, he's just bearing arms).

As for your first paragraph, I don't see how it fits with your (slippery slope) argument that you can't start infringing on a right (or this right in particular) because it could go too far. By that (slippery slope) rationale, the greater DEGREE of danger of the suitcase nuke vs. a handgun (if used for a crime or involved in an accident) is irrelevant. Also, you didn't address the Stinger missile.

I'm seeing a lot of internal inconsistencies in your arguments so far.

I asked a question. If you have an answer, please share.

translation: you don't know. If you knew, you could give me a nutshell answer.

You are asserting to something not in evidence. You're still a guest here (member for 2 hours, 21 minutes), after all. Play nice.

I don't know for certain, but it could be that no one buys your militia argument. Start here (caveat - hardly an unbiased source) for some thoughts on the subject.

FWIW, the Court today seems pretty clear that the right is not absolute, that the state has the right to regulate the sale, possession, transport, etc. of guns, but that they cannot outright ban their possession within their jurisdiction. Thus the right to arms is, seemingly in the Court's mind at least, uncoupled from any sort of militia and there is (from the link above and others) substantial contemporary evidence that today's Majority decision was precisely what the founders would have intended.

---------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Thanks for that link. I scanned it and printed it out to read later. Looks like it will probably answer my question either fully or partly.

Apparently the answer is that there is, according to some, sufficient indications in other documents/writings that are considered relevant that the right was intended as in individual right per se or for purposes other than serving in a militia (or readiness to serve in a militia or effectiveness of a militia). If that's the premise, the conclusion is not illogical, whether one agrees with the premise or not. I do wonder, though, why they would have included the militia clause in the way they did if their intent was not to offer it as the sole rationale for the right.

coming home, otherwise I would have been able to join this discussion earlier. You make the assumption, that the right ot bear arms was ONLY for the purpose of a militia to protect the nation. Our founding fathers were every bit as afraid of their own government becoming tyrannical as they were outside dangers.

Take a look a the third amendment. something about housing troops? You might surmise from that amendment that the founding fathers saw that the federal government COULD try to infringe on individual right -- could make demands on the citizenry -- could become tyrannical.

The Constitution and the Amendments to it do NOT give us our rights. The constitution and the amendments lay out the limits of government -- the rights come from God.

When the government takes away the right to bear arms, that government takes away the right of the citizen to defend himself -- from other citizens or from that government.

Just as the founding fathers, in the first amendment sought to protect the citizens from a GOVERNMENT MANDATED religion -- (SEE CHURCH OF ENGLAND) rather than protecting citizens FROM religion, the second amendment was designed to protect us from the government.

And, by the way, the typical liberal talking point of the suitcase nuke becomes a tiresome cliche. Don't do it again. If you want an intelligent debate, start with an intelligent premise.

Yes, the Constitution defines rights in the sense of what liberties government cannot take from us. If you want to call that something other than "rights", be my guest. Not interested in a battle over semantics.

But back to substance, do you believe that an individual's right to keep and bear arms is absolute, or that it can be constitutional for government to restrict ownership and possession?

And if the latter, what, in your view, defines how much (or what type of) restriction is constitutional vs. unconstitutional?

And regardless of what you think of the suitcase nuke example (which by the way I thought of all by myself, and not only did I not consider it creative, but it's simply the most obvious extreme example), on what basis would it be constitutional to deny an individual the "right" to own and transport such a weapon be infringed?

Same question for a Stinger missile that someone would like to walk around with near an airport. How can it be constitutional to prohibit doing so?

Should a mental incompetent be allowed to bear arms? How about a felon? How about a 12 year old? A six year old?

Are you a Libertarian, arguing for your right to buy claymours, or are you arguing for disamament?

What exactly is YOUR point here?

Let me narrow my first question:
(1) Do you believe that an adult person whose sanity is not in question and who has no criminal record (you, for example, assuming you meet those criteria) has an absolute right to keep and bear arms, or do you think that it can be constitutional for government to restrict ownership and possession in some way in terms of type of weapon and/or location (e.g., home vs. outside the home or particular public location, etc.)?

(2) And if the latter, what, in your view, defines how much (or what type of) restriction is constitutional vs. unconstitutional?

(3) And if you think it's possible for a law banning ownership and carrying around a suitcase nuke to be constitutional, on what basis? Why wouldn't it be unconstitutional if the 2nd Amendment says very clearly "shall not be infringed".

(4) Same question for a Stinger missile that someone would like to walk around with near an airport. How can it be constitutional to prohibit doing so?

As for what is MY point, I'm trying to understand the argument of some people who say or imply that they see the 2nd Amendment as guaranteeing an absolute right (for sane, adult, non-felons), yet then turn around and say some restrictions or bans could be constitutional. Those two positions seem contradictory, and I'm trying to find out if they are or if I'm missing something. That's why I'm asking you those questions, which hopefully you'll answer.

What "endless line of questioning"? And why must I state my opinion in order to get a couple of straight answers to a couple of straight questions from people who have presumably thought this through and may hold the positions to which I refer?

I see what seems to be a contradiction in the arguments of some people, and I'm asking questions to see if there is indeed a contradiction (which is to say, a logical flaw) or not (i.e, if I'm missing something on which someone here can enlighten me). Why anyone would find that objectionable is beyond me.

Is anyone here going to answer those questions? I'm sensing some evasiveness with a hint of paranoia? Geez, it's not like I'm the Gestapo or the Stasi coming around asking questions that can land you in some awful place if you speak your mind. If anyone would just be so kind as to answer my questions I'd appreciate it.

Here's my guess:

Some people come to particular blogs just to hurl talking points or throw out rhetorical questions without any real interest in legitimate discussion or debate.

Other people come to ask real questions to get your perspective and better understand your position and gauge the validity of the arguments behind your position, and you just assume they are like the first group, particularly if they don't agree to shift upon your request to presenting THEIR position and argument (if they have a position) and then debating THEIR position and arguments. And I think you do that mainly to avoid having to answer tough questions from people outside your circle or ideology (but under the pretext that they are just the first type of person, just seeking to cause trouble, not engage in legitimate discussion or debate). Same thing on left-wing blogs.

I can tell you I'm sincerely interested in your (plural "you") answers to those questions, and I'm open to the possibility that what I see as a contradiction in the arguments I've mentioned either is not really a contradiction or does not really reflect the premises or logic behind your position.

At this point I'll have to think that if no one answers, it's out of some paranoia or fear of or disinclination toward real discussion or debate with someone who may not be a member of your club (so to speak).

but first, whether you realize it or not you've been using a strawman argument or at least asking your questions in way that (1) makes us all question your motives for asking them and (2) taking a tone that smacks of condescension and superiority -- like you're smarter than the people who post here... hint... you aren't! Creating black and white strawman arguments to somehow set up a gotcha type scenario has been done to death in the blogesphere and frankly it's lame!!!

Also this:

The fact that you find something not logical is of zero importance or relevance to the facts!

and this:

Because we're all long time bloggers that have had these same arguments and battles with lefty trolls for years! So it's not that we find the questions objectionable we find the intent suspicious and the tone objectionable!

Now to your answers

Yes! an adult has the absolute right to keep and bare arms...period!

as to what type of restriction is constitutional vs. unconstitutional? Justice Scalia said it best in his opinion today

From Dave Kopel

So you see, your "suitcase nuke" (which is completely bunk because of the illegality of the fissile material needed to create it) and your "Stinger missile" falls under the established "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” and reaffirmed in todays decision!

Thanks for stopping by

You say:

You then proceed to tell me that the ruling today contradicts the notion of an abolute right to keep and bear arms -- i.e., it limits the right to keep and bear arms.

How is that not a contradiction?

And what is the RATIONALE for such restrictions? In other words, if the plain language of "shall not be infringed" means an absolute right (at least for sane adult non-felons), then on what basis can ANY restriction be constitutional, be it a ban or resrtriction on ANY type of weapon (suitcase nuke, Stinger) or ANY public location?

And does the "Thanks for stopping by" mean that no one here will provide actual answers to my questions and that everyone here will insist that I'm just a "troll" trying to cause trouble rather than seeking legitimate discussion or debate?

This is really getting pathetic. Does someone really have to state his position on an issue in order to ask others about some aspect of their position (or what he thinks is their position)? Of course not. Only people who are paranoid or insecure would insist upon it prior to answering the kind of questions I've asked.

I see what seems to be a contradiction in the arguments of some who seem to be stating or implying that there is an absolute constitutionally-guaranteed right, yet also accept that limitations on that right can be constitutional.

I'm asking what, if anything, I'm missing here. It's ridiculous that it is like pulling teeth just to get people to answer those questions (and no, responses that don't really address the questions doesn't count as answers).

Instead of devoting energy to NOT answering those questions, why not just answer them?

and your intentional lack of comprehension of this issue by the parsing of words and understanding of their meaning is ridiculous.

Because you don't like the answers you've received here doesn't mean they were in any way not actual or legitimate.

The "Thanks for stopping by" was my way of saying your question is a non starter on its face and debating what the meaning of is is a complete waste of my time!

It would take me hours to explain our judicial system, the way the supreme court uses precedent and federalism

If you don't understand what we've been saying there's little else we can do for you.

your black and white absolutes are blinding your vision and comprehension!

I came up with a saying years ago for situations like these in which someone has apparently contradicted himself but won't reconcile his apparently contradictory statements:
"I can't insist that you agree with me, but I can insist that you agree with yourself."

You don't have to "take hours to explain our judicial system, the way the supreme court uses precedent and federalism" to me. But it would be nice if you explained the apparent contradiction in your own statements in the previous comment.

You say it's an absolute, constitutionally-guaranteed right, "period!"

You then point to a part of the ruling with which you presumably agree (re: constitutionality) that limits the extent of constitutional protection of that right.

If a right is absolute per the Constitution, then how can limits on that right be constitutional?

Simple question, no?

If "balancing rights" means that a given right is limited, than it is not an absolute right, right?

And if it's not an absolute right, the question becomes: On what basis is one type of limitation of that right constitutional and another limitation unconstitutional?

Maybe if someone would just answer my questions I could gain a better understanding of your perspective. But no one seems to want to give real answers.

in answers nor in debate. Your intent is merely to prolong the discussion, waste OUR time, and revolve in endless circles. Your intent is merely to waste bandwidth.

You express NO opinion while castigate us for not presenting our own. You are a waste of our time.

Thanks for stopping by. Here's hoping that the next time, you are able to contribute to society, instead of merely being a burdon on same.

on Kelo. I mean do we, as citizens have an absolute right to private property? I mean, according to Kelo, the answer must be NO!

A right cannot be absolute if there are instances where the government can come in and simply take it away, right?

So, if private property is NOT an absolute right, does private property even exist? Is the notion of property rights just a quaint anachronism? Does the government hold all property rights in this country, and we are allowed to live on our property only at the forebearance of that governmnet?

and I thought of a really pithy comment to use when I zapped him today -- 'cause we KNOW he was not going to EVER actually ANSWER a question.

Oh well, I'll file it away for the next troll.

You guys have all the fun :-(

... for getting stuck in thunderstorms.

---------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

The oft-overlooked Third Amendment follows closely on the Second----and Judge Scalia referred to this context:

The Third bears on troops or militia barracking in the private homes of citizens without their permission.

The Second is anti-Federalist and actually gives citizens the right to bear arms to oppose the overbearing Federalist central government the Jefferson wing feared would impose a single-party dictatorship on the country----much as like what was happening contemporaneously in France in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was ratified.

Put into stark terms, we can bear arms to oppose a military/totalitarian takeover of our entire country!

And just as a purely common sense argument:

Hand gun bans only work on people who don't already brake the law! Criminals obviously wouldn't be abiding by the ban anyway so this fails as a way to stop crime!

I doubt very much that DC had a plurality of law abiding gun owners going around shooting the place up... although I could be wrong ;0)

By the way welcome to TMR just a friendly reminder this is not a left vs. right debate site like SwordsCrossed ;0)