What I Fear, What Made Me Drag my Feet on Gun Control: Brady-Style Gun Control

[TPaine7]

Last edited Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:11 AM - Edit history (1)

Why have I been so strongly opposed to gun control?

First I would like to be clear that some commonly cited reasons are low on my list.

Contrary to popular belief, the Second Amendment was intended to protect against government abuse. But that is a minor reason for me personally. Talk of armed revolution is unwarranted. Americans don’t have any excuse to dream of armed revolution when we can’t even be bothered to use EASY, peaceful methods to make our government stop reading our e-mails and listening to our phone conversations. We apparently have no problem with government feeling us up and looking at our naked bodies at airports; how can we pretend to be revolutionaries?

People who don’t value their rights enough to pressure their Senators and President don’t start revolutions. So if anybody starts fighting the government, they will be a ragtag group of outliers, not America. Only after America fully exhausts her peaceful power should she even consider armed action.

My personal safety is not a huge concern, either. I am fortunate to live and conduct most of my business in a low crime area. I don’t live in terror of a home invasion or mugging, though I know crime is possible anywhere.

No, these are not my motivators. My concern is primarily for others. As a person who has know folks who were victimized by crime, and has been privileged to listen to intense intimate accounts of brutal savagery perpetrated on innocent victims (including a close relative), I want to live in a country that does not deny people the right—and the means, without which the right is meaningless—to defend themselves.

Now there is a lot of talk by good and decent people about “reasonable,” “common sense,” “sensible” gun control. The Brady Campaign, powerful politicians, leaders and anti-gun scholars have also used these terms, but they haven’t always meant what you might think.

I can’t tell you exactly what the Brady Campaign and their fellow travelers mean (meant), but I can get close.

As the Parker case (the case that became the Heller case) was working its way through the courts, I went to the Brady Campaign website to see how the District of Columbia was rated.

The Brady Campaign maintained a grading system somewhat like the NRA’s. DC had a higher rating than any state in the union. DC’s grade was in the “B” range; if I recall correctly, the exact grade was a “B- “.

In other words, the District’s gun control, though not flawless enough to get an “A” was close.

And what was close to perfect? Here are descriptions of the laws, as outlined in an open letter I wrote to Obama at the time (these laws were overturned by Heller):

D.C. Code § 7-2502 says that no one can possess or control a firearm unless they have a valid registration certificate for the firearm. Registration certificates are available for rifles and shotguns, but D.C. Code § 7- 2502.02(a) forbids issuing a registration certificate for any pistol that was not registered to the current registrant in the District prior to September 24, 1976.

D.C. Code § 7-2507.02 requires that registrants keep all firearms in their possession “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.” The only exceptions are for guns kept at a place of business and guns being used for lawful recreational purposes within the district.

It is illegal to move a lawfully registered pistol on your own property. D.C. Code § 22-3204, an old law, once made an exception for people moving a gun within their own home or business or on their own land. The new law, D.C. Code § 22-4504, forbids any carrying of a handgun, even in your own house or business or on your own land.

“{W}ith very rare exceptions licenses to carry pistols have not been issued in the District of Columbia for many years and are virtually unobtainable.” Bsharah v. United States, 646 A.2d 993, 996 n.12 (D.C. 1994).
Quoted at http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/Parker_cross_petition.pdf app. 18, no 32.

“BTW, the issue in Heller is not the trigger lock requirement per se. It's that the there is no exception allowing the gun to be unlocked in a self-defense emergency; in the 1977 case of McIntosh v. Washington, the D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the home self-defense ban against challenges that it violated equal protection and the common law right of self-defense. The McIntosh court agreed with D.C's lawyers and recognized the statute as an absolute ban on home self-defense with any firearm; this was held to be rational because of the number of fatal gun accidents was (according to the McIntosh court) larger than the number justiable self-defense homicides with guns.”—David Kopel, Polls on handgun bans, March 16, 2008. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_03_16-2008_03_22.shtml .

Of course, people can always call the police. Here is some DC legal history on that:

Illustrative of this {police} failure is the case of Warren v.District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981.) In the late winter of 1975, three women (Warren, Taliaferro and Douglas, plus Douglas‟s four-year-old daughter) were asleep in a rooming house on Lamont Street, NW in the District. In the early morning hours, two burglars entered the property and raped Douglas. Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas‟ screams and called the MPD at 6:23 a.m. to report a burglary in progress. They were assured police were on the way. At 6:26 a.m., three cruisers were dispatched to the rooming house on a “priority 2” call. One officer knocked on the door while other officers remained in their cruisers. Receiving no response at the door, the officers left. Warren and Taliaferro watched in horror from the roof of their building before crawling back into their room, where they continued to hear Douglas‟ screams. They called the MPD again at 6:42 a.m. and asked for immediate assistance. Again, they were told assistance was on the way. The dispatcher never dispatched additional police, unbeknownst to the two who yelled reassurance to Douglas and were, as a result, discovered by the burglars. All three women were then abducted at knifepoint and held prisoner for 14 additional hours, while being beaten, robbed, raped and directed to perform sex acts on each other.

All three women subsequently brought a tort action against the MPD for its failure to respond and protect them from the assaults. All three had their cases dismissed. Amicus Brief of Buckeye Firearms Foundation http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wpcontent/
uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_buckeye.pdf , 37-8.

Let's summarize the legal reality in DC, the “best in the nation” gun control regime that got a “B-” rating from the Brady Campaign:

You were legally required to pay for police protection, but the police had no obligation to protect you.

It was a crime in the District of Columbia to have a gun in your home that could actually shoot bullets. Guns were OK, as long as they were useless. In order to ensure their uselessness, they had to be kept unloaded. In order to be doubly sure, they had to be kept disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. Making a gun useful by assembling (or unlocking) and loading it was a crime. The excuse that you were trying to protect your family—or repel a rapist or avoid death—would not do.

These were the laws regarding long guns—rifles and shotguns. The situation with handguns was even worse.

You could not possess a handgun that you did not register before Sept 1976. Even if you had a registered handgun, you needed a special permit to move it from room to room in your own house. Permits were impossible to get. And of course your registered handgun had to remain useless at all times. (You could load guns kept at your place of business.)

Basically, if your family was being killed, raped, tortured, or kidnapped in your own house, you were forbidden by law to load a weapon to defend them (or yourself). You were, however, allowed to load a gun to protect your money and goods at your place of business.

If that earned a good grade from the Brady Campaign, what would earn a perfect score?

When I hear terms like “reasonable” “common sense” and “sensible” coming out of the mouths of the Brady Campaign, I know what they really mean. And while I think the odds of them getting what they want in toto are slim, they got close to “perfection” with the District of Columbia. I don’t want any Americans to be ruled by laws approved by the Brady Campaign and their fellow travelers.

There are things that can be done to keep unfit people from getting guns, things most people would gladly accept. But I don't trust the anti-gun leadership. I laid out the reason for extreme caution long ago:

It would be stupid to attempt to negotiate in “good faith” regarding the regulation of your rights, when the person across the table refuses to admit the existence of those rights.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=170607&mesg_id=172751

[kelly1mm]

1. Thank you for your thoughtful post.nt

[villager]

2. Alas, when I hear terms like “reasonable” “common sense” and “sensible” coming out of the mouths of

...the NRA, I know what they really mean.

What they really mean is: More dead children.

[Hoyt]

3. Too bad so many dragged their feet while continuing to promote more guns.

[TPaine7]

5. I promote rights, not guns.

As I've often said, if you invent a nonlethal defense solution as capable as a gun, I would seriously consider supporting repeal or modification of the Second Amendment.

[Hoyt]

8. George Wallace and Strom Thurmond used to say crud like that.

[villager]

26. And a defense of unchecked gun proliferation, at this point, is about as historically astute

...as a defense of separate drinking fountains.

The moment has passed, though of course -- as per Wallace and Thurmond -- there will still be quite a struggle getting to the new, higher ground.

[Mojorabbit]

18. I agree with you. nt

[Major Nikon]

25. By your own admission, those "rights" were never intended to apply to self defense

Even though Scalia pretends to be an "originalist", his interpretation can only be described as judicial activism. There was never any intent on behalf of the 2nd amendment framers for self-defense.

[TPaine7]

43. Pls check out post 38 nt

[Major Nikon]

45. I'll go with justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

...

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

[TPaine7]

46. The guys I cited WROTE the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment is constitutionally correct

BY DEFINITION.

[Major Nikon]

47. And the people I cited were the most liberal justices at the time

Furthermore, if I'm going to have to choose between your opinions which clearly conflict with theirs and mirror Scalia's, I'm going to pick theirs. I've read both dissents in Heller and they make far more sense than anything you've posted.

The "individual" right just makes no sense unless you ignore the first thirteen words of the amendment which Scalia ridiculously claims is irrelevant. If yours (and Scalia's) interpretation is correct, that means the framers intended both a right for militias to be armed and a right for each individual person to be armed. This makes absolutely no sense. So the only other option is to ignore the first thirteen words and skip ahead to the last fourteen while pretending that Miller and other decisions got it wrong, even though there is no evidence you can offer that hasn't been available for at least the last 100 years. The "individual" right interpretation was simply an invention by people who have an agenda.

[TPaine7]

50. There is no need to ignore anything, and Scalia wasn't born when the Framer's wrote the 14th

Amendment.

Let's look at a similar construction:

"The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state it ought not, therefore, to be restricted in this commonwealth." Mass. Const. pt. I, art. XVI (1780)

What do you think that is saying?

My interpretation method is perfectly consistent with both constitutional provisions.

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.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

This says several things--but not what you apparently believe it says:

1. The right of the people to keep and bear arms exists
2. A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State
3. Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The necessity of a militia is not the reason the right exists. The militia (or the need for a militia) does not define the right. The need for a militia is simply the reason the right--whatever the pre-existing right is--shall not be infringed.

Similarly,

The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state it ought not, therefore, to be restricted in this commonwealth. Mass. Const. pt. I, art. XVI (1780)

1. Liberty of the press exists
2. That liberty is essential to the security of freedom in a state
3. Because the liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state, the liberty of the press ought not... to be restricted in this commonwealth.

The security of freedom in a state was not the reason the liberty of the press existed. The security of freedom in a state did not define the liberty of the press. The security of freedom in a state was simply the reason the liberty of the press--whatever the pre-existing liberty of the press was--should not have been restricted in the commonwealth.

Purpose clauses were common in that era. All you have to do is read the words as saying what they actually say, and NOT read extra meaning into the provision.

Even if the English were not so clear, putting ANY justices, conservative or liberal, up against the Constitution itself is a losing proposition. The Fourteenth Amendment itself applies the Second Amendment against the states. That's it. Full stop.

The only way around that is to amend the Constitution.

[Major Nikon]

53. It all boils down to your opinion

Which I don't agree with.

Cheers!

[TPaine7]

57. I thought the Republicans had all of the climate change deniers...

This is depressing—not even the lamest of attempts to refute the logic, not one challenge of the historical data, not one cogent argument or even probing question.

"Your opinion."

Am I still on DU?

Ok, then. What's your opinion? Do you agree with the old DC legal regime? Do you believe it was Constitutional? Do you think, perhaps that it was too permissive?

If you could go back and visit the Abolitionist Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, how would you explain their flawed interpretation of the Second Amendment to them? Would you quote Stephens?!

[Major Nikon]

66. So anyone who disagrees with Scalia is equivelant to a climate change denier?

I think we're done here. You can continue this line if you want, but you're going to have to do it without me as I have very little desire to debate egocentrics.

Cheers!

[TPaine7]

70. LOL!

Me:

The Fourteenth Amendment is constitutionally correct BY DEFINITION.

...Scalia wasn't born when the Framer's wrote the 14th Amendment...

If you could go back and visit the Abolitionist Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, how would you explain their flawed interpretation of the Second Amendment to them? Would you quote Stephens?!

You:

So anyone who disagrees with Scalia...

I would think most readers can see the lack of "egocentrics" in my arguments. The issue is not people who disagree with me or Scalia; the Fourteenth Amendment debates took place before I or Scalia were born.

The issue, as clearly stated, is that your argument is with the Framers of the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment and with the text of the Fourteenth Amendment itself.

But if you want to use my alleged egomania as a smokescreen, feel free. I think any thoughtful reader can see what's going on here.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

80. Why would you support a

repeal of the second amendment, which would deprive millions of hunters and sport shooting enthusiasts? That makes no sense to me.

The purpose of the "well regulated" militia was two-fold. There was no standing army in the United States at that time and there was serious debate about establishing one ...Madison abhorred the idea. Thus the militias were the only means of defense from foreign nations.

[TPaine7]

81. "or modification." I haven't really thought the details through, but modification of the Second

Amendment could easily allow for hunters and sport enthusiats.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

82. Do you have any idea

how difficult it is to get an amendment passed? What's wrong with simply passing several reasonable laws that deal with the issues? Why should ny private citizen own an assault weapon?

[TPaine7]

84. I'm confused. You spoke in your last post about "sport shooting enthusiasts."

You realize there are entire events and competitions that exclusively use so called "assault weapons"?

One difficulty with simply outlawing them is what the Supreme Court has said on the Second Amendment. First, the Miller court said that a gun is not necessarily protected by the Second Amendment unless it is militarily useful. They found that since, as far as they knew, a sawed-off shotgun was not militarily useful, they had no reason to rule that it was protected.

Of course, the semi-automatic so called "assault weapons" are militarily useful. (AFAIK, they are not used by any military in the world--their military counterparts shoot either 3 round bursts or as long as the trigger is held down, but many soldiers are trained not to use the three round bursts)

By the logic of Miller, since these guns are militarily useful, they are protected.

Secondly the Heller Court said that guns in common use for legal purposes are protected. By that logic, so called "assault weapons" are also protected; they are a subset of rifles, a category of weapons that are used to kill less than hands and feet (again based on remembered statistics), and they are definitely in common use—they're the most popular rifles in America.

So, by the logic of the Supreme Court—twice!—so-called "assault weapons" are protected weapons.

A better approach would possibly be licensing so called "assault weapons" and applying special storage requirements. Also, the owner should have a legal duty to prevent access to anyone who is, or who the owner suspects of being, unfit (due to criminal history or mental issues). If the shooter's mom, whose plan to have him committed is said to have set him off, had secured her guns away from the son she thought incompetent/insane, this might not have happened. It is possible that a serious law to that effect would have caused this law-abiding woman to store her guns away from her house.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

87. Assault weapon competitions

belong in the military. They don't use assault weapons at the Olympics and there are plenty of competitions that don't use assault weapons. Weapons of war do not belong in the hands of private citizens, period. On any given day a heretofore reasonable, rational human can snap. There is no way to prevent that, or to know who will.

As to all the rest of the nonsense, a check, after a long drawn out legal battle, is no consolation to the family of the victim.

You are way over-stretching the "logic" of Heller and Miller. The court ruled people have the right to own guns for the legal purpose of protection...no one needs 30 rounds or a hundred rounds for personal protection. You want to shoot a weapon with military value, join the army.

[TPaine7]

88. "Weapons of war do not belong in the hands of private citizens, period."

That statement flies directly in the face of the history, text, spirit and letter of the Second Amendment. If you want that to be the law of the land, you need to amend the Constitution. Yes, it's hard to do, but its even harder if you complain instead of work.

Another thing you miss is that handguns and knives are "weapons of war." SEALS, Marines, Rangers and the like carry and use both in combat. If you think changing the Constitution to ban so-called assault weapons is hard, try banning knives and handguns.

On any given day a heretofore reasonable, rational human can snap. There is no way to prevent that, or to know who will.

The scholarship I've read says this is simply false. In fact, I just heard an expert on mass shootings say that NONE of the recent US mass shooters he studied "just snapped." They all planned, they all telegraphed their intentions to associates.

AFAIK, only drugs or a blow to the head that causes brain damage can make "a heretofore reasonable, rational human" suddenly and irrationally violent.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

89. Okay.

So there is no solution. We simply have to accept that the god of guns requires regular sacrifices of innocents of every age for appeasement. How incredibly enlightened.

When was the last mass murder carried out by a knife wielding maniac? Hand guns, while dangerous, don't produce 26 victims in the blink of an eye. Taking the extreme position doesn't serve any real purpose. But that's what you want isn't it? You want to keep the discussion on the extreme ends of the spectrum which means nothing will ever be done.

[TPaine7]

90. No, solutions must be rooted in reality. Amending the Constitiution would actually achieve your

policy objectives, and a mechanism for amending the Constitution does exist.

If we keep our current Constitution, we must work around what the Supreme Court has said and what the history and the text of the Second Amendment allow.

I have already suggested laws regarding so-called "assault rifles" requiring licensing, storage requirements, and forbiding access to unfit persons. Those could pass constitutional muster and could have stopped this killer from getting his mother's guns.

The goal should not be to "do something"—it should be to do something likely to be effective AND likely to survive legal challenges.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

91. Have you had a discussion yet

with any of those who resist licensing because it will enable the government to come and get their guns? The entire gun issue is rooted in the narrative that government is bad and a threat to your freedom. Americans, at least not large numbers of them, didn't always fear their own government. It's crazy and it's a tragedy, but as long as you have people who buy into the "only a government small enough to drown in a bathtub is good government" meme, we will continue to have these absurdities.

[TPaine7]

92. You can license the person instead of the weapon, and require record keeping.

If there is a will, there is a way to keep unfit people from getting guns. In my view, selling to a unlicensed person should make you an automatic accessory to any crime subsequently committed with that weapon. (Straw purchasing and selling 20 weapons could get you life in prison—and you would never see it coming until the weapon got traced back to you.)

Unfortunately, the government has given gun owners (as well as blacks, Asians, handicapped people, GIs, Native Americans and many other groups) lots of motivation to doubt their goodwill. It has also failed the general public (see the OP for one example among legion).

This nation was founded on distrust of government—it's in our DNA. My namesake called government a "necessary evil" at best, and I agree. All governments are corrupt, IMHO, it's simply a matter of degree. That being said, distrust of government can go too far, and has in the case of many gun owners.

I think the anti-gun crowd could go a long way towards easing the distrust by collectively and unambiguously declaring that there is a right for sane, adult, law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms throughout the United States with limited exceptions.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

93. I think that most people have said that...

However, the discussion is always carried out by the extremists on both sides to the detriment of society. I'm old enough to remember when the majority of both parties respected their government, even if they didn't always agree with it.

I think you misread the founders and disregard the fact that they would be appalled by the lack of respect for the institution they worked so hard to establish. No government is perfect, but ours has become the perfect reflection of a population that is selfish, mentally lazy and lacking any real sense of morality or justice. It is morally corrupt to believe that an individual's right to own a gun trumps the right of another individual to live. That is the position taken by the second amendment crowd, and because that is their alpha and omega
all reasonable discussion is DOA.

[TPaine7]

94. I think you mischaracterize the debate...

{The Second Amendment crowd} believe that an individual's right to own a gun trumps the right of another individual to live.

I have never, ever, met anyone who believes this. Neither have you, if my guess is correct; even the majority of insane people would not go along with that proposition.

The simple owning of a gun by one person does not cause the death of another person; that's a preposterous cariacature of reality, but it is the premise of much gun control thinking.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

95. No, I don't think I mischaracterize anything.

That is the very foundation of the pro-gun position. Would you give up your guns if by doing so I could guarantee 1 life would be saved? 50 lives saved? What about 100 lives? 500?

[TPaine7]

96. Of course...

Would you give up your guns if by doing so I could guarantee 1 life would be saved? 50 lives saved? What about 100 lives? 500?

Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that I owned guns and you convinced me that by giving up those guns I would save innocent life (and it wouldn't cost innocent life), of course I would give up my guns.

I would also be inclined to either worship you or ask you about your advanced alien technology.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

97. See how easy that was?

We have both moved off of the most extreme position as I have no desire to ban all guns and you would give yours up in order to save lives. Now, we need the next step, uncovering the areas upon which we agree.

[neverforget]

6. 300 million guns in the US. Are we safe yet?

[baldguy]

12. No, of course not. Lets have a few million more.

Insanity: Doing the same thing over & over, and expecting different outcome each time.

[ellisonz]

61. +1

[world wide wally]

76. They sure worked well protecting Lanza's Mother...Didn't they?

[Glassunion]

7. Hence you have the modern day NRA

The polar opposite and just as messed up.

The workable solutions lay somewhere in between the two.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. I'll take the 1920s NRA.

They actually advocated for gun control, and gasp...background checks.

[Glassunion]

22. They actually "supported" the Brady Bill IIRC.

But yes, the NRA of old was actually an admirable organization and in my mind a rather liberal minded organization. They were for conservation of land and wildlife, training and safety. Now they refuse to come to the table on anything and it's bull.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. For somebody using Thomas Paine's name as a handle

You really do not realize that

1.- The founders meant militias, nor people. So you want original intent, that's what they meant.

2.- We have had gun control laws since before independence and those pesky founders did not believe everybody needed a Glock 9, err a Kentucky Long Riffle either.

We have had that balance until recently, relatively speaking.

By the way when they start issuing Glock 9 to every citizen, I take dibs on a Glock .40. I am sure, in your expertise, you know why.

[RantinRavin]

13. The founders meant militias, nor people. So you want original intent, that's what they meant

Yet they specifically stated the right of the people to keep and bear....they didn't say the right of the militia, shall not be infringed

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Did you learn about dependent clauses in HS English?

And you should go read Federalist 29, the justification for the second amendment.

The history, and the context, for it is well known among historians and constitutional scholars.

The emphasis on more individual rights for self defense really started after 1812...and there was still tight gun control laws throughout our history. It's to a point, married to our race relations.

But them are facts.

Live with it or not. The ...to keep and bear arms is a current emphasis by a modern NRA that lost its way in an internal coup in the 1980s.

[RantinRavin]

16. Federalist 29 is not the only one

Federalist 28 and 46 also carry reasoning behind it. 28 specifically mentions reasons other than a militia.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Still the historic context is militias and distrust of a standing army

And we have had gun control laws throughout American history going to colonial times.

[TPaine7]

38. Please interpret another constitutional provision of the era.

The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state it ought not, therefore, to be restricted in this commonwealth. Mass. Const. pt. I, art. XVI (1780)

What do you think that is saying?

I went into my take at some length here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=76827

While it is true that the emphasis on individual self-defense was later, the right itself was ALWAYS an individual right. The very first time the Supreme Court mentioned the Second Amendment it called it a right "of person." The idea that this is a personal right is not some modern invention, it was well understood from the beginning:

For example, no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.

Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.

These powers, and others, in relation to rights of person, which it is not necessary here to enumerate, are, in express and positive terms, denied to the General Government;...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=60&invol=393

The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment enshrined in the Constitution their clear, uncompromising understanding that the right was individual:

“{The Fourteenth Amendment's} first clause, . . . relates to the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States . . . . To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be—for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature—to these should be added the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all of the people; the right to keep and bear arms. . . .

…The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees.”—Senator Jacob Howard introducing the Fourteenth Amendment to the Senate, quoted by Yale Professor Amar. Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights, Creation and Reconstruction (Harrisonburg, VA: R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company, 1998), 185-6 (emphases supplied).

While it is true that this was after 1812, it is also true that the Fourteenth Amendment is part of the Constitution, a more important part, I would argue, than the Second. It cannot be ignored. And the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, read in historical context, clearly shows that the Second Amendment is a personal, individual right that is enforceable against the states.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. I hate to point this out buddy

But the sands are truly shifting. No matter how much you scream and pounce. It just is. We are done with the talking points.

[TPaine7]

55. I thought Democrats—Democrats on DU at least—were not rooted, intellectually speaking,

Last edited Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:03 AM - Edit history (1)

in the shifting sands of public moods.

I did not get ANYTHING I posted here from the NRA. I searched original sources, laws and court opinions to reach my positions; they were earned, not copied. And you are smart enough to see it.

It is not necessary to deny reality, to turn your back on history and logic, to win the day politically.

I can acknowledge that the Constitution once counted people like me as 3/5 of a human being. I can acknowledge that some founders owned slaves. I can acknowledge the history of Jim Crow and Japanese internment camps and reneging on treaties with Native American peoples. I can acknowledge the Patriot Act and spying and George Bush and Dick Cheney's war crimes.

I thought Democrats were like that.

Republicans live in a world where waterboarding was torture when prosecuted by America, but is lawful "enhanced interrogation" when practiced by Americans, but Democrats face reality. Or am I wrong on that?

Why can't you look reality in the face? Admit reality, then try to change it, if necessary. If the Constitution is wrong, try to change it. The Abolitionist heroes—authors of the 14th Amendment—changed that little 3/5s problem and abolished slavery. They didn't pretend the Constitution said what they wanted it to—they changed it.

Disagreeing with me isn't the problem; living in your own reality is.

Alan Dershowitz nailed it, and he HATES the Second Amendment:

Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz#cite_ref-52

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. I recommend you read the editorial

Posted in this thread. It's written by a conservative fool who happens to be a judge.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2044234

On and since you brought it up, at one time slavery was real. We fought a civil war. I just hope we don't have to fight another one.

[TPaine7]

58. "We fought a civil war. I just hope we don't have to fight another one."

Am I on DU?

If anyone on the other side of this issue said something like this, they would be accused of being a Tea Party activist, a troll, a right wing lunatic and the like. I guess it's ok for you, though. Multiple standards.

That's ok.

Nothing of substance, however. Too bad.

I suppose I'll read the editorial, but an editorial by a "fool" seems to be a less than profitable source of information. (I do pride myself, on being able to learn from fools and children; I could take it as a challenge.)

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Yes you are on DU

And I guess you have not been paying attention. We have been in a cold civil war since 1996. Cold civil wars are followed by hot ones not rarely, and this might very well be the thing that lights it.

Way too many in a MINORITY are resistant to any changes to the precious gun laws. If anything they want to issue Glock 9 to everyone! (I prefer a Glock 40 if we insist on getting there).

Civil wars start with very unhappy minorities, not majorities.

[HiPointDem]

69. the poster hasn't 'screamed' or 'pounced' at all. he gave a well-grounded calm argument.

it seems to me rather, that once his argument started looking stronger than yours, you abandoned any pretense of rational argument & just went to the "me & my peeps don't care about your arguments"

which pretty much shows that your federalist paper citations were just bs in the first place. you're not interested in historical rationales, really.

[k2qb3]

23. I'm with Thomas.

“Could the peaceable principle of the Quakers be universally established, arms and the art of war would be wholly extirpated: But we live not in a world of angels...I am thus far a Quaker, that I would gladly agree with all the world to lay aside the use of arms, and settle matters by negotiation: but unless the whole will, the matter ends, and I take up my musket and thank Heaven He has put it in my power.”

― Thomas Paine

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. That's nice. But he was also aware

That gun control laws were common... You are denying that history?

[TPaine7]

44. Gun control laws should be common. "No discharge of weapons in town" (except in legitimate defense)

is a gun control law. "All weapons must be holstered" is a gun control law. "No guns for violent convicts or the criminally insane" is a gun control law. "No guns for toddlers" is a gun control law. Of course there were gun control laws.

Now you may be able to find illegitimate, unconstitutional gun control laws, too. But if you look, you can also find illegitimate, unconstitutional SPEECH control laws of the era as well. There are a lot of constitutional FIRST AMENDMENT principles that have just been upheld by the Court recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_involving_the_First_Amendment .

One very well known example of a blatantly unconstitutional law violating the First Amendment is the Alien and Sedition Acts. The fact that there were unconstitutional laws violating the Second Amendment is nothing special.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. i am sorry you feel that

Last edited Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:46 AM - Edit history (1)

There is no reason to have any kind of control the Weapons Control Act of of 1934 is legal

[TPaine7]

71. 1934 laws are beside the point, the point being laws of the founding era—the era of Thomas Paine nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. Ah a certain founding father

Who actually had a hand on this, is shaking his head vigorously. He was even a fan of whole sale changes every generation or so. But by this logic, you are 3/5 of a person and slavery is legal.

You can't have it both ways.

[TPaine7]

73. What in the world are you talking about?

We were talking about the laws of the founding era. I did not pledge allegiance to the laws of the founding era, in fact I said some of them were unconstitutional. But we were talking about the laws of the founding era.

My noting that you are trying to change the subject to laws passed well after the founding era is not the same as my necessarily approving of all founding era laws, constitutional or not at the time.

As far as my being 3/5 of a person, Thomas Paine defintely opposed that along with slavery. He didn't, however, oppose self-defense or the personal right to keep and bear arms. In other words, he agreed with me on slavery no less than he agreed with me on bearing arms.

No one is trying to have anything both ways; that is a figment of your imagination.

[nadinbrzezinski]

83. Thomas Jefferson

He knew this is an evolving document.

You can't have it both ways.

[Hoyt]

34. I prefer to think like a person living in this century and looking ahead to next.

[TPaine7]

59. Like DC did before Heller?

Do you agree with the old DC laws? Are they close to your ideal?

[Democracyinkind]

79. I'm with JA

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 3:475 (1787-1788).

[TPaine7]

85. And I am with both...

They are in perfect agreement, since your quotation has an exception for self-defense and for militia duty/supporting the legitimate police power.

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 3:475 (1787-1788).

In other words, except for private self defense or on orders of legitimate government, there is no reason for arms in the hands of citizens to be used at their individual discretion.

I agree with both statements. The only legitimate reasons for people to carry weapons are:

1) Private self-defense
2) Acting as a militia under government orders
3) Acting to aid police (also under state authority)

Other reasons—private armies, crime, pretending to be a cop, etc.—are inappropriate and illegal.

[Democracyinkind]

86. I read it that way too.

I tend to agree, it was not meant to refute your op, rather to the opinion that no founding fathers had further thoughts on the limits of 2A.

Though the right to self defense is not universal as your part about DC shows. Switzerland, for example, does not generally allow the use of privately stored military weapons for self-defense and IMO there are good reasons for it. Depends on the militia system. These kinds of problems do of course not exist for non-military weapons.

[sadbear]

11. How very magnanimous of you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. It is them who want more guns.

So I am just stating what I prefer. There are good ballistic reasons for that.

I wonder if the issuing of the gun will come with a level IIIA ballistic vest? I mean just to save on health care. Broken ribs are better, cheaper, than full fledge trauma response.

[TPaine7]

37. You have no idea how magnanimous I am.

Last edited Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Not being gay, I support gay rights.

Not being a woman, I support gender equality.

Not being handicapped, I support the Americans with Disabilities Act.

And that's just the beginning. You can hardly conceive of my greatness; no doubt my life will still be studied thousands of years from now.






And for those who don't get it:

(It's no more magnanimous to support self-defense for others than it is to support any other right for others.)

[madinmaryland]

19. So when Occupy decides to carry openly their weapons, you will finally take them seriously.

Maybe that's what they need to do to get rid of the GIC.

nt

[Fumesucker]

20. It seems to me that the strongest gun rights supporters were most eager to give up other rights

Patriot Act? The gunners fell all over themselves to vote for it in Congress.

Drug War? The gunners love it.

Invade Iraq? Gunners led the charge in Congress.

Military Commission Act? Gunners led the charge, we don't need no stinking civilian trials for terrists.

And on and on and on..

I don't mean every single gun owner but the large majority of them, particularly the conservative ones.

Only when the Precious is threatened do they then balk at losing rights.

Fuck it and fuck them, they eagerly and happily traded away their other rights for a mess of pottage, they deserve to lose their Precious.

ETA: Gunners have built up a huge surplus of ill will amongst some of us who don't care about guns, their eagerness to sell everyone else's rights down the river is going to come back around and bite them right on the ass.

[Honeycombe8]

28. You are lumping everyone in with NRA supporters.

I own a gun for protection.

I am not an NRA supporter.

I support strong gun controls and always have.

I was, and am, horrified by the Patriot Act to the point where I've had nightmares about wires in the walls.

I have had several attempted break-ins and have had to pull my gun on one so that hopefully he didn't get through the locked door.

Your stated feelings...I have heard those before, only they referred to other groups. Like blacks (they have a high rate of criminals, so fuck 'em...they probably all deserve to be in prison), or hispanics (so many are illegals, so they if some legal ones have to be stopped and frisked because they speak Spanish, so be it), or other groups.

You are lucky to have led such a safe, protected life. It's a jungle out there. I have learned the hard way that you have to protect yourself; the police can not get there in time to prevent a crime, only for you to report it (if you're still alive).

[Fumesucker]

33. Gun owners allowed the NRA to become their public face, so be it

Just like the liberal and moderate Christians allowed the fundies to become public face of Christianity because they loathe the idea of having a theological food fight with them right out in front of God and everybody.

Now you get to live with the consequences of that choice, everyone who's not a gunner thinks the NRA speaks for you.

If there's not a really big movement of gunners speaking out loudly against the NRA you're all going to get more and more painted with their radical rhetoric and insane positions. Personally I don't think it's going to happen and the roughly 2/3 of America that doesn't own guns is going to become more and more disgusted with those who do because of idiotic statements like first graders should mass charge a shooter and children are slaughtered because God is a gentlemen who won't go into schools because he's not wanted.

It won't be long before there's another massacre, they're running about two a month now on the average and then we'll get to play this whole disgusting show over again and gunners will lose a bit more credibility.

It's hardly bigotry or prejudice to say that those who have made a bed of nails for others should sleep in it themselves.

[TPaine7]

60. Do you accept the Brady Campaign as your public face? nt

[Fumesucker]

67. I don't have a problem with it

I haven't noticed the Brady campaign advocating first graders engage in unarmed human wave assaults, I haven't noticed Brady Campaign members rushing out to buy the very same weapon that just slaughtered a classroom or two full of first graders. To the best of my knowledge Ted "I crapped in my pants for a week" Nugent is not on the board of the Brady Campaign.

You might want to review how the Brady Campaign came about in the first place.

[TPaine7]

74. Ok then, you are properly grouped with those who think the pre-Heller DC legal regime

was too lenient, and that people shouldn't be allowed to use guns for self-defense in their own homes.

[TPaine7]

36. So, do you or do you not agree with the old DC legal regime? nt

[GeorgeGist]

21. Do you have any idea why Brady gave DC a B- ,

and not an A+ ?

[TPaine7]

39. They were not strict enough, I guess. nt

[Honeycombe8]

27. Excellent post to point out this aspect of guns. I'm a woman living alone. I know. nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

29. Why is it nearly always the barely literate that invariably insist that their interpretation of

18th century political language is what we should all follow.

[TPaine7]

35. Is your question rhetorical, or are you going to explain the thinking of the barely literate to

the rest of us?

[Egalitarian Thug]

63. My apologies. n/t

[TPaine7]

65. Accepted. nt

[Loudly]

30. All I ask TPaine is that you take "attack by SOA" out of the equation.

SOA = state of the art.

That is the trap which Scalia and Thomas want to net us with.

If the general public can be legally armed by whatever arms are available to the general public, then that is a downward spiral to the worst of the worst.

It is the great danger their horrible legacy on the federal bench leaves us with.

In their view, the standard of what the public should have access to is continually being degraded by what the public can get its hands on?

No. Reject that and reject them.

[TPaine7]

42. I don't think so. Machine guns can be heavily regulated and even banned per Heller.

It's good to see you think DC laws were to extreme; at least that's what I'm inferring from your "All I ask...."

Am I right?

[NashvilleLefty]

31. So, you are one of those that thinks that by carrying

you can magically shoot the gun out of the shooters hand, or something like that?

Even though every, I mean EVERY civilian was either wounded or killed....

And I don't even want to get into how many innocent people were killed by Rambo types...

You people scare me.

[TPaine7]

40. Yes, I believe in magic. And shooting guns out of someone's hand was the subject of the OP. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

32. So in summary you are an RKBA absolutist.

Great. Your access to your precious toys must be preserved regardless of the resultant slaughter.

[TPaine7]

41. Are you a Brady absolutist? Do you believe that DC's gun laws were too permissive for an "A"? nt

[Tommy_Carcetti]

49. You want know what I fear?

A mentally unbalanced person getting access to an assault rifle and shooting up my daughter's school.

That's what I fear.

[TPaine7]

51. I also fear that, though obviously not as much as you do.

And I think there are ways to make that much more unlikely. Constitutional ways.

The bad news is that many mass murderers are VERY intelligent and VERY determined and VERY disciplined. They sometimes take years to plan their attacks.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to stop them, but I don't think banning semi-automatic rifles with 30 round magazines--or even making all guns disappear--would stop that type of person.

I think a special license for "assault weapons" could be Constitutional. Also special storage requirements and laws for preventing access to the mentally unfit.

I find it troubling that this woman, who was reportedly trying to have her son committed, didn't think to remove the guns from her home. Guns and people who should be committed don't mix, and if she thought that of her son, she should have stored her guns elsewhere.

I favor a law to make that mandatory.

[Jennicut]

52. What some people want is for mass shootings or home invasions to never happen.

That is impossible, really. We do need better, more organized guns laws. We need better mental health benefits and better special ed programs in schools. We need to have an honest talk in this country about the glorification of violence we seem to have. We may need to improve school security in certain schools. But none of that means nothing bad will ever happen in the United States again. Including protecting yourself from a home invasion.

I know too much about home invasions. I wish I didn't know, really. I grew up in Cheshire, Connecticut. Down the street from the Petit family home invasion. Sorghum Mill Drive. I went there on Halloween nights. Had friends from middle school and high school that lived in that neighborhood. Mr. Petit did not own a gun but even if he did he was asleep when the bad men came and beat him with a baseball bat. His wife was asleep when they tied her up and then tied her daughters up. They are dead now. Except Mr. Petit who remarried and is due every right to have a new life after the hell he went through. My parents still live down the street. Cheshire went through hell too. My parents lock their doors now. People in Cheshire used to not.

Newtown was to me the town where my husband met his lead singer, bass player and drummer from the band he has had for over 10 years. Peaceful little town but nothing unusual about it in CT. Now it will be known as one of the worst school shootings in the US.

I know too much that there is no perfect solution to any of this. We need a balance between the rights of individuals and the rights of the public as a whole.

[TPaine7]

64. Thanks for a thoughtful, rational post. nt

[HiPointDem]

68. yes, the devil's always in the details. one reason i'm leary of new regulations is because so

much new regulation seems directed against the people it's supposedly protecting. i don't really trust the national surveillance state to construct useful regulations these days.

[hootinholler]

75. I thought DC's strict GC laws predated Brady?

I have to say I pretty much agree with you here. The DC GC laws were also completely ineffective in curbing gun violence.

[merrily]

77. What "made" you drag your feetl? Did you mean what "makes" you drag your feet?

This is not an attempted grammar correction.

I am just trying to figure out if you stopped dragging your feet or not.

[TPaine7]

78. I support, and have supported, several ways to prevent crimes like the recent shooting.

I have not been willing to yield on so-called "assault weapons" but now I am thinking perhaps a licensing scheme would be appropriate.

The OP's tense is correct. However, I don't trust the Brady Campaign or the lying, scheming, and/or ill-informed anti-gun leadership in general.