🚀 go-pugleaf

In ca.general Dick <tjdick@my-deja.com> wrote:

: MERLIN:
:>      No constitutional rights are absoulute, if only because they
: conflict
:> with each other--most obviously, free press and fair trial.

: No constitutional rights are absolute because one can only exercise
: them "as long as they don't impinge on others."  (--Vince Bugliosi)  My
: right to own firearms under the 2nd Amendment has *never* impinged on
: anyone, except possibly some would-be intruders who assumed (correctly)
: that my home is inhabited by an armed and practiced marksman.

     Well I'm not a lawyer, I don't even play one on TV, but I don't
think the criterion for limitation of consitutional rights is
whether or not they impinge on other people.  Other constitutional
rights, perhaps--is that what VB meant?


: MERLIN:
:> The right to
:> bear arms has been restricted since the earliest days of this country.

: Nope.  In fact, firearms ownership was *required* by the state in the
: earliest days of this country.

    The two (required to have one, but some restrictions) are not
mutually exclusive.  Suppose you were required to own one, could
choose to own up to five, but were not permitted to own more than
five.  Or suppose you were required to own at least one rifle but
were not permited to own a shotgun.

....

: MERLIN:
:>  In
:> fact, it can be argued that "a well-regulated militia" permits
: Congress or
:> the states to restrict who is in the militia and limit gun ownership
: to
:> them!  (Can women own guns even by the loosest interpretation of the
: second
:> amendment?  They can't be in the militia per current laws!)

: This is incorrect; the 2nd Amendment unquestionably refers to
: *individual* ownership.  The Bill of Rights are rights granted to
: individuals (civil liberties).

     Yes, it refers to individual ownership, but the individuals
may be required to be in the militia.  It's been claimed that the
militia, by law, is all adult males.  Thus females are not in the
militia and could constitutionally be prohibited from owning
guns...if you accept the "militia" argument.
     And the Bill of Rights also grants rights to states, not just
to individuals.

: NOTE:  Just having them on paper does not guarantee them.  The 1st
: Amendment existed only on paper until Roger Baldwin came along.  There
: was an interesting history of the ACLU on Channel 58 earlier this
: year.  They mentioned a priest in Vermont who was sentenced to twelve
: years for distributing leaflets criticizing U.S. involvement in WW I!
: Can you imagine?  Talk about a flagrant violation of the First
: Amendment!

     No, I can't imagine, but funny things happen to the constitution
during war time.  Do you know any Japanese Americans over 60 years
old?
     I'm not sure who Roger Baldwin is/was.  I think the first
fight over the First Amendment was the Alien and Sedition laws,
which go back to about 1800.

: Speaking of the ACLU, the recent Clinton-Gore-Lautenberg legislation
: was so full of s%#$ that even the ACLU got involved.  Normally they
: concentrate on the other civil liberties since the NRA is devoted to
: the Second Amendment.

     Which was that--censoring the net, wire tapping, regsitering
computers,...?

....
: MERLIN:
:>      But when Chuck gets on TV to explain why it is important to let
:> people own guns, he always talks about hunting and target practice--
:> which leaves him wide open to "You don't need an Uzi to do that."
: <snip>
:>Nor does he say "It's important because we have to be
:> able to overthrow the government if it gets out of hand."  He doesn't
:> say that because...we've been discussing why not.

: I have never seen him on TV but take your word on this.  You
: have to admit that this talk about overthrowing the government is kind
: of wacko.  NRA is a "family" organization; are you suggesting they have
: Charleton Heston hold up a paramilitary rifle explaining that we should
: be able to overthrow the government?  Let's get off this.

     I'm saying that paramilitary guns are no good for defending
your home, hunting, or other purposes for which almost all
Americans agree gun ownership is legit.  They are good only for
killing a lot of people in a very short time.  This property is
useful only to the military, killers, and those who are concerned
that they may have to take on a tyrannical government.  So when
Chuck says we can't infringe the right to own such weapons, he
hasn't got many reasons to justify it.  (1) The constitution
doesn't permit restricting arms; to which the answers run from
"no it doesn't" to "let's change the constitution, there is no
good reason to permit ownership of THAT kind of gun."  (2) We
need to have these weapons available so mass murderers and drug
lords can get them (3) We need to be able to overthrow the
government if the need arises.  For obvious reasons he sticks to
(1), which invites the responses cited above.



: MERLIN:
:> He doesn't say "Because the Constitution allows us to own any guns
:> whatsoever, and it's important to preserve the Constitution at all
:> costs"--that invites comparison with slavery and other previously
:> legal/constitutional institutions and invites repeal of the second
:> amendment.

: WHAT?  This seems like a non-sequiter.  The only mention of slavery in
: the Constitution is in the 13th Amendment, which *abolishes* it.  I do
: not mean to be insolent, but I strained to glean meaning from the above
: sentence.  What did you mean?  BTW, I agree it is important to preserve
: the Constitution at all costs, if that is your position.

     The point is...things are constitutional unless the 
constitution says they are not.  Slavery was constitutional until
after the civil war when the 13th amendment was passed, because
it was realized that slavery should be unconstitutional.  It is
possible that people will want the unrestricted right to own
guns to be un-constitutionalized as well.  Chuck doesn't help
the cause of NOT doing this with the arguments I have cited.

: I keep trying to steer this thread away from gun technicalities, but
: semi-automatics are the firearms you DON'T want to ban because they
: make *lousy* murder weapons.  Why?  Because they throw brass all over
: the place.  A spent cartridge casing contains a plethora of evidence
: that will link it to the one gun that fired it, simliar to typewriter
: markings or fingerprints.  This only refers to tracing someone who's
: trying to get away with murder, not some nut who walks into a community
: center.

     Most of the people who have used Uzis etc. in mass murder are
not going to carry out this thought process in selectiong a weapon.

:>      Where does it stop?  Does the 2nd amendment entitle you to own
: and
:> use an M-60 machine gun?

: It does in Texas, with the signature of a judge or the local chief of
: police!  (Class III weapons are prohibitively expensive, however, (like
: as much as a new car) and no one like these homicidal nuts can afford
: one.)

:> A 20mm cannon?  What's the limit--anything you
:> can lift?  A bazooka?

: No.  No cannons or bazookas.  There's your limit.

     On what basis do you stop there?  It''s not in the
constitution.  Who's to say it's there rather than higher or
lower?  Who's to deny that the Texas law is an unconstitutional
violation of the second amendment, in that it infringes the right
to bear arms?

....

:>  I should decide what is right
:> and work for that, not for something "more radical" to defend against
: the
:> opposing "more radicals."

: Yes.  As Shelby Foote pointed out on the Ken Burns Civil War special on
: PBS, "We [Americans] like to think of ourselves as uncompromising but
: we're actually masters of it."  (Referring to compromise.)

     We are ready to compromise on things that are not absolutely
vital and central to our beliefs.  Luckily this means we are 
willing to do so on 99% of the questions that come up.  
Unfortunately there are some issues that we do seem to believe are
vital and we don't compromise--we get into all-out fights.  Slavery/
States Rights was such an issue.  Abortion is such an issue.  And
gun control may become one.

....
: MERLIN:
:>      Most of the more elderly people I know would have trouble seeing
:> a target, much less aiming at it, much less hitting it.  Unfortunately
:> some of them were guards at the place I  used to work.  Talk about an
:> argument in favor of repealing the 2nd amendment!  I hope any
:> crooks/trespassers felt half as insecure in that lobby as I did...

: How can you *possibly* know what someone else can see, let alone aim
: at, let alone hit?

     When I know a person. speak to them regularly, etc., I
can judge how well they can see and aim.

: This is the second time you've mentioned "repealing the 2nd
: amendment."  That, plus your denial that you're a gun abolitionist, has
: me suspecting that you are in fact just that!  That's you're choice,
: but it's the dishonesty that bugs me --you were quick to point that
: same quality out in the NRA's commercial.  Anyone knows that the 2nd
: Amendment will *never* be repealed any more than the other nine, ergo,
: the mere suggestion of it is ridiculous.

     I am opposed to repeal of the second amendment, if that offers
you any comfort.  I believe that the restrictions on guns that I am
in favor of are constitutional without any amendments.  I expect that
you are not in favor of those restrictions, and you may well regard
them as unconstitutional as well.

....
: Would you also aware (since you say you're all for it), that only a
: handful of people were prosecuted under the former Brady bill, out of
: the tens of thousands of violators?  Were you aware that only a handful
: of high school students were prosecuted for carrying to school, out of
: THOUSANDS who were caught in the last few years?  I can dig those
: numbers up if you're interested.

     The important point and objective of the Brady Bill is not the
people prosecuted for violating it, but the people who cannot legally
own a gun who are prevented from illegaly obtaining one.  I have
heard figures in the thousands for that statistic.
     I am in favor of prosecuting people who violate the law by
bringing guns to school...but I believe we are obligated to make
schools safe enough that kids don't feel they need a gun in
school for self-defense.

....
:>      And George Bush said, "We've tried a lot of things during this
:> Adminsitration; we've had a few failures, and we've had some sex..."
:> I wouldn't like to have my Freudian slips held against me, I don't
:> hold George's against him, and there are enough genuine reasons to
:> think ill of Clinton that we don't have to reach for something like
:> that.

: False analogy: the example you gave was a *true* Freudian slip.  The
: Clinton quote is not really that, it's something he apparently meant.
: I mis-used the term.

     Why do you say he apparently meant it?  Do you have the context?