I’ve got a friend who is a liberal—probably the only liberal I call a friend—with whom I have regular “discussions” about current events. I can have these conversations with him because, unlike other liberals, he can “take it” as well as “dish it out”, and doesn’t resort to the furious insults that most liberals belch out any time their “righteous” arguments are contradicted. In other words, he’s idealistic and (in my opinion) naïve, but not a narcissist.
This friend openly admits he hate guns. Hates them. When we discuss President Obama’s record on taxing guns, on AG Holder’s and Sec. of State Clinton’s wish to reinstate the “assault weapon” ban (“AWB” for short in this article), he agrees that they should be banned. Why? “No one needs an Uzi to hunt ducks”, he once told me.
As if the Founding Fathers wrote the second amendment to protect our access to sporting goods.
That statement led to a series of arguments about the Second Amendment, and about the statistics about how rarely the “assault weapons” are used in crime in the USA.
I found another interesting link about the ballistics of assault weapons, which revealed the amazing statistic debunking the myth about their “deadliness”. In short, the thesis goes this way: assault weapons and their ammunition are designed for use in combat, and are not designed necessarily to kill, but rather, to maim as many enemy combatants as possible. The full metal jacket on the rounds is designed to penetrate and exit the body, causing significant but not overly severe wounds. A man shot in the belly—even the chest—can survive if given timely medical treatment. So, by shooting an enemy with an M-16 round (.223) or an AK-47 round (7.62x39), you not only take out the victim, but also his comrades who have to evacuate him. And you create a costly mass of casualties that the enemy must treat in hospitals.
The author performed a study of several mass killings by criminals. Some used “assault weapons” such as the AK-47. Others used shotguns. He analyzed the survival rate of the victims and found a surprising result:
While victims of an AK-47 attack had a 76% survival rate, the victims of a 12-gauge shotgun attack only had a 33% survival rate. In one case, 35 people were shot with an AK-47, and 30 survived—five people tragically died. In another, 21 people were shot with a shotgun, and only seven survived.
In other words: shotguns are more than twice as deadly when used in a criminal attack as an assault weapon. So, logically, why stop with the AWB? Progressives, I argued, will never be happy with that limited ban.
When I pointed out that statistics show that assault weapons are used in less than ½ of 1% of all criminal acts in our country, and that Shotguns are actually twice as deadly, I asked him, why should we reinstate the AWB? His response: “Because five died.”
Five deaths were too many, and constitute a reason to abandon the second amendment?
If we extend this illogical reasoning, we could come to the following rationale:
· When Jeanine Garrafolo insulted the 100,000+ participants by calling them “tea-bagging racists”, which hurt their feelings. 100,000+ insulted people versus Free Speech. Better restrict the first amendment so we’ll all be happier.
· 10,000 people per year die because we have our guns…better eliminate the second amendment; it will save thousands of lives.
· Thousands of people die each year because we weren’t able to search the property of criminals without cumbersome legal constraints. If we eliminate the fourth amendment; it will save thousands of lives.
· Forty million babies have been aborted: better revoke Roe V. Wade immediately to stop this holocaust.
· Thousands of criminals are released each year because of due process laws that restrict our ability to lock away these dangerous villains. We should eliminate the fifth amendment; it will save thousands of lives.
· Thousands of criminals are released each year because a it was not possible to gather the required proof of guilt, since everyone has a right to a speedy trial. We should eliminate the sixth amendment; it will save thousands of lives.
· Thousands of criminals are released each year because trial-by-jury failed to prosecute the murderers, who were released and killed again. We should eliminate the seventh amendment; it will save thousands of lives.
· Police, FBI, CIA, cannot use coercive methods (such as water-boarding and bugs in boxes) to interrogate terrorists with information about upcoming attacks (such as the one “illegally” and “immorally” thwarted by the Bush administration that would have taken place in LA). Better eliminate the eighth amendment; that will save thousands of lives.
He responded to this sarcastic analysis thusly; “I have no interest in barring anyone from owning a gun. I think people should own guns. I just don’t like them. It’s a personal feeling that I have and I don’t {like} them. No one is going to repeal any of the amendments that you’re talking about.”
But our Dear Leader has already telegraphed his intentions. He and his cohorts have repeatedly mentioned the reinstatement of the ban, and even altered the statistical facts regarding Mexico’s drug war to try to gain political steam and press forward.
In fact, "progressives" just proposed a new ban on the possession of semi-automatic guns in specific zip codes in Illinois, mostly in primarily black and latino neighborhoods. And they have a provision in the law they passed that if there is too much outrage about it, they can simply remove the zip codes, making the law apply to all of Illinois.
So here’s your “good intentions” run amok again: because there is a high crime rate in certain neighborhoods, which also just happen to be primarily Black and Hispanic, they ban the legal possession of firearms there. This of course ensures that law abiding citizens in the most violent neighborhoods are unarmed, while the criminals can continue to be armed.
And, what’s the most astonishing aspect of the Democrat law? It unfairly targets minorities. No, progressives could NEVER be racist, or discriminate, or profile their constituents. They are too good, too kind hearted, for that kind of thing. That’s something only those evil ”tea-bagging racist” Republicans would do.
Showing posts with label second amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label second amendment. Show all posts
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
The tyrants fear our weapons
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:
“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.”
This right, enshrined in the constitution to prevent the government from infringing upon it, had its clear intention to maintain an armed populace to be able to maintain a free state, both from outside interlopers, and from the natural process that all governments display toward tyrannical usurpation of rights and powers. In other words, the framers of the constitution did not write the second amendment to allow people to keep guns for hunting: they intended the people to be able to defend themselves from criminals, or their own government, when it has become despotic.
Modern liberals think it totally barbaric that average citizens keep and bear arms, and consider the second amendment an inconvenient anachronism that must be eliminated. Unfortunately for them, the Supreme Court recently upheld the interpretation of the second amendment to mean that individual citizens shall be given the right to keep and bear arms, and not just “militias” (interpreted by some as National Guard and other state-run organizations).
But it is clear that liberals, also known as socialists, have every hope of finding a way of restricting citizens’ rights to their weapons, and President Obama is no exception. A liberal friend of mine naively stated that the guns are safe; the liberals cannot take them away. But this silly argument overlooks the historical fact that in the 1990’s, under the leadership of President Bill Clinton, the government did in fact place a temporary ban on what they called “assault weapons” (AW). They believed that this was a “reasonable” restriction, and that “reasonable” people would see that there was no real need for the people to keep and bear “assault weapons”. So if they did it before, why could they not do it again?
If there were NO comments by Obama administration leaders, then I’d agree that it’s just hype. But when the Attorney General E. Holder says he would like to reinstate the AW Ban, but make it permanent, and then Sec. of State Clinton blatantly distorts the statistics on weapons decommissioned in Mexico to make it sound like the weapons being used come from the USA, it sure sounds to me as if there is a clear intention of infringing on the rights of citizens to possess this class of weapons.
In order for this discussion to be more instructive, I’d like to clarify some terms.
“Assault Weapons”: Defined in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to include “certain semi-automatic so called "assault weapons" including military-style semiautomatic rifles, derived from assault rifles but with lesser capabilities. There was no legal definition of "assault weapons" prior to its enactment, but assault rifle is a technical term referring to rifles capable of semi-automatic and full-automatic fire…”
The first problem I have is with the term "military-style" weapons. Think about it: every rifle and pistol in use today had its origins in military designs. From the lever-action rifle, designed by Henry Firearms during the Civil war or the bolt-action hunting rifles that originated as infantry rifles and later became preferred as "sniper rifles", to revolvers and the semi-auto Colt 1911 .45 caliber pistols, from which the ubiquitous 9 mm semi autos evolved. The only difference between the lever-action or bolt-action rifles and the "assault rifles" is the self-loading nature of the newer designs, allowing more shots to be fired more quickly.
These are precisely the types of weapons that an armed populace would need in order to defend itself from the heavily armed gangs, such as the drug trafficking organizations that have spread around the country, or to combat a despotic government intent on oppressing the citizenry. In other words: these are just the latest evolution in firearms that the Founding Fathers wanted to defend, in order to keep a free people free!
The recent Supreme Court decision makes it much more difficult to ban the weapons outright. But there are other ways of making it difficult or impossible for citizens to acquire these weapons. One sneaky way is to tax them so heavily that the average citizen cannot afford to possess or fire them.
Some liberals claim that it is a myth that Obama is trying to tax guns and ammo. A Washington Post article supports that idea, and tries to debunk the “myth”. But there are some interesting misstatements. Obama was accused by the NRA of voting
…"to ban virtually all deer-hunting ammunition" and supporting "a ban on shotguns and rifles most of us use for hunting." The deer-hunting claim is based on Obama's support for an unsuccessful Senate amendment by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) that would have expanded the definition of "armor-piercing" ammunition. The other claim refers to semiautomatic rifles and pistols covered by the assault weapons ban, which expired in March 2004.
Contrary to Rusch's claim, the Kennedy proposal of July 2005, SA 1615, was not aimed at "virtually all deer-hunting ammunition." Instead, it would have authorized the attorney general to define types of illegal ammunition capable of penetrating body armor commonly used by law enforcement officials. During the Senate debate, Kennedy said that his amendment would "not apply to ammunition that is now routinely used in hunting rifles," a point contested by the NRA.
However, what’s wrong about this article is that any common “assault rifle” ammunition defeats the most common law enforcement body armor because it does NOT contain metal plates (see info on the North Hollywood shootout). The 7.62x39 (AK round), as well as the common US military round (.223) both defeat their armor. The police armor is only rated to stop handgun rounds, such as the 9mm, .32, .38, and I think the .40 Colt and .45 ACP. “Deer hunting” rounds start at .243, .270, and up to the .308 (which just also happens to be the NATO military round). My 1944 Mosin Nagant bolt action 7.62x54 (equivalent to .308 round) would easily defeat their armor, especially in full metal jacket (FMJ).
There are many semi-auto big-game and varmint hunting guns that are used in the legal and sporting taking of game, but which could be banned if they reinstate the previous “assault weapon” ban. AR-15s, SKS, and AK-47 are used nowadays to hunt varmints (such as coyotes) and deer in some states. They are not full-auto, just semi-auto. Ballistically, they are less powerful than other semi-auto rifles used regularly for hunting such as the Remington 760. Even the US M-1 Garand, which uses a 30-06 round and was the standard issue battle rifle of the military in WWII, would be legal and can be found for about $900. There are 9 mm carbines that would bypass the ban but would be just as deadly in a killing spree. So banning AKs and SKS or AR rifles makes NO sense!
Further study shows that FactCheck also tries to contradict the “myth”:
FactCheck appears not to have studied Obama’s words carefully. For example, one NRA claim is that Obama wants to “Ban the Manufacture, Sale and Possession of Handguns.” FactCheck accurately reports that Obama did endorse such a position in his 1996 Illinois State Senate race. (FactCheck also supplies the details of Obama’s 2008 claim that the questionnaire was filled out by an aide without Obama’s knowledge, even though Obama’s handwriting is on the cover of the questionnaire.) But FactCheck asserts that the NRA is lying because of Obama’s response to the same question in 2003: “While a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable, I believe reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns are necessary to protect the public safety.”
However, note that Obama DID try to support a handgun ban before the Supreme Court knocked those kinds of laws down. That shows his intentions. His 2003 statement suggests that he still supports “reasonable restrictions” on handguns, such as the Washington DC ban on guns. Gun owners can’t trust the “reasonable restrictions” suggested by a dude that had suggested their complete ban only 4 years before.
· 1994 to 2001 - Obama was on the board of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation. This foundation is the largest funding source for radical anti-gun groups in the country.
· 1996 - Obama supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.
· 1999 - Obama proposed a 500 percent increase in the excise taxes on firearms and ammunition. This tax would effectively punish gun owners for buying guns and ammunition.
· 2003 - Obama voted in support of legislation that would have banned privately owned hunting shotguns, target rifles and black powder rifles in Illinois.
· 2004 - Obama voted against legislation intended to protect homeowners from prosecution in cases where they used a firearm to halt a home invasion.
As was stated by Rights Pundits:
It’s hard to trust a man will uphold the Constitution {who} stated that the Constitution is fundamentally flawed.
In 2009, his AG and Sec. of State renewed their talks about reinstating the gun bans.
According to statistical reports, “assault weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes.” If this is true, then what is the logical explanation for all this talk of banning “assault weapons”? It surely cannot be to keep America safe from guns.
So, could it be intended to keep the tyrants safe from us?
“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.”
This right, enshrined in the constitution to prevent the government from infringing upon it, had its clear intention to maintain an armed populace to be able to maintain a free state, both from outside interlopers, and from the natural process that all governments display toward tyrannical usurpation of rights and powers. In other words, the framers of the constitution did not write the second amendment to allow people to keep guns for hunting: they intended the people to be able to defend themselves from criminals, or their own government, when it has become despotic.
Modern liberals think it totally barbaric that average citizens keep and bear arms, and consider the second amendment an inconvenient anachronism that must be eliminated. Unfortunately for them, the Supreme Court recently upheld the interpretation of the second amendment to mean that individual citizens shall be given the right to keep and bear arms, and not just “militias” (interpreted by some as National Guard and other state-run organizations).
But it is clear that liberals, also known as socialists, have every hope of finding a way of restricting citizens’ rights to their weapons, and President Obama is no exception. A liberal friend of mine naively stated that the guns are safe; the liberals cannot take them away. But this silly argument overlooks the historical fact that in the 1990’s, under the leadership of President Bill Clinton, the government did in fact place a temporary ban on what they called “assault weapons” (AW). They believed that this was a “reasonable” restriction, and that “reasonable” people would see that there was no real need for the people to keep and bear “assault weapons”. So if they did it before, why could they not do it again?
If there were NO comments by Obama administration leaders, then I’d agree that it’s just hype. But when the Attorney General E. Holder says he would like to reinstate the AW Ban, but make it permanent, and then Sec. of State Clinton blatantly distorts the statistics on weapons decommissioned in Mexico to make it sound like the weapons being used come from the USA, it sure sounds to me as if there is a clear intention of infringing on the rights of citizens to possess this class of weapons.
In order for this discussion to be more instructive, I’d like to clarify some terms.
“Assault Weapons”: Defined in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to include “certain semi-automatic so called "assault weapons" including military-style semiautomatic rifles, derived from assault rifles but with lesser capabilities. There was no legal definition of "assault weapons" prior to its enactment, but assault rifle is a technical term referring to rifles capable of semi-automatic and full-automatic fire…”
The first problem I have is with the term "military-style" weapons. Think about it: every rifle and pistol in use today had its origins in military designs. From the lever-action rifle, designed by Henry Firearms during the Civil war or the bolt-action hunting rifles that originated as infantry rifles and later became preferred as "sniper rifles", to revolvers and the semi-auto Colt 1911 .45 caliber pistols, from which the ubiquitous 9 mm semi autos evolved. The only difference between the lever-action or bolt-action rifles and the "assault rifles" is the self-loading nature of the newer designs, allowing more shots to be fired more quickly.
These are precisely the types of weapons that an armed populace would need in order to defend itself from the heavily armed gangs, such as the drug trafficking organizations that have spread around the country, or to combat a despotic government intent on oppressing the citizenry. In other words: these are just the latest evolution in firearms that the Founding Fathers wanted to defend, in order to keep a free people free!
The recent Supreme Court decision makes it much more difficult to ban the weapons outright. But there are other ways of making it difficult or impossible for citizens to acquire these weapons. One sneaky way is to tax them so heavily that the average citizen cannot afford to possess or fire them.
Some liberals claim that it is a myth that Obama is trying to tax guns and ammo. A Washington Post article supports that idea, and tries to debunk the “myth”. But there are some interesting misstatements. Obama was accused by the NRA of voting
…"to ban virtually all deer-hunting ammunition" and supporting "a ban on shotguns and rifles most of us use for hunting." The deer-hunting claim is based on Obama's support for an unsuccessful Senate amendment by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) that would have expanded the definition of "armor-piercing" ammunition. The other claim refers to semiautomatic rifles and pistols covered by the assault weapons ban, which expired in March 2004.
Contrary to Rusch's claim, the Kennedy proposal of July 2005, SA 1615, was not aimed at "virtually all deer-hunting ammunition." Instead, it would have authorized the attorney general to define types of illegal ammunition capable of penetrating body armor commonly used by law enforcement officials. During the Senate debate, Kennedy said that his amendment would "not apply to ammunition that is now routinely used in hunting rifles," a point contested by the NRA.
However, what’s wrong about this article is that any common “assault rifle” ammunition defeats the most common law enforcement body armor because it does NOT contain metal plates (see info on the North Hollywood shootout). The 7.62x39 (AK round), as well as the common US military round (.223) both defeat their armor. The police armor is only rated to stop handgun rounds, such as the 9mm, .32, .38, and I think the .40 Colt and .45 ACP. “Deer hunting” rounds start at .243, .270, and up to the .308 (which just also happens to be the NATO military round). My 1944 Mosin Nagant bolt action 7.62x54 (equivalent to .308 round) would easily defeat their armor, especially in full metal jacket (FMJ).
There are many semi-auto big-game and varmint hunting guns that are used in the legal and sporting taking of game, but which could be banned if they reinstate the previous “assault weapon” ban. AR-15s, SKS, and AK-47 are used nowadays to hunt varmints (such as coyotes) and deer in some states. They are not full-auto, just semi-auto. Ballistically, they are less powerful than other semi-auto rifles used regularly for hunting such as the Remington 760. Even the US M-1 Garand, which uses a 30-06 round and was the standard issue battle rifle of the military in WWII, would be legal and can be found for about $900. There are 9 mm carbines that would bypass the ban but would be just as deadly in a killing spree. So banning AKs and SKS or AR rifles makes NO sense!
Further study shows that FactCheck also tries to contradict the “myth”:
FactCheck appears not to have studied Obama’s words carefully. For example, one NRA claim is that Obama wants to “Ban the Manufacture, Sale and Possession of Handguns.” FactCheck accurately reports that Obama did endorse such a position in his 1996 Illinois State Senate race. (FactCheck also supplies the details of Obama’s 2008 claim that the questionnaire was filled out by an aide without Obama’s knowledge, even though Obama’s handwriting is on the cover of the questionnaire.) But FactCheck asserts that the NRA is lying because of Obama’s response to the same question in 2003: “While a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable, I believe reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns are necessary to protect the public safety.”
However, note that Obama DID try to support a handgun ban before the Supreme Court knocked those kinds of laws down. That shows his intentions. His 2003 statement suggests that he still supports “reasonable restrictions” on handguns, such as the Washington DC ban on guns. Gun owners can’t trust the “reasonable restrictions” suggested by a dude that had suggested their complete ban only 4 years before.
· 1994 to 2001 - Obama was on the board of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation. This foundation is the largest funding source for radical anti-gun groups in the country.
· 1996 - Obama supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.
· 1999 - Obama proposed a 500 percent increase in the excise taxes on firearms and ammunition. This tax would effectively punish gun owners for buying guns and ammunition.
· 2003 - Obama voted in support of legislation that would have banned privately owned hunting shotguns, target rifles and black powder rifles in Illinois.
· 2004 - Obama voted against legislation intended to protect homeowners from prosecution in cases where they used a firearm to halt a home invasion.
As was stated by Rights Pundits:
It’s hard to trust a man will uphold the Constitution {who} stated that the Constitution is fundamentally flawed.
In 2009, his AG and Sec. of State renewed their talks about reinstating the gun bans.
According to statistical reports, “assault weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes.” If this is true, then what is the logical explanation for all this talk of banning “assault weapons”? It surely cannot be to keep America safe from guns.
So, could it be intended to keep the tyrants safe from us?
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Second Amendment barely upheld.
If you haven’t read the Supreme Court’s decision on the Second Amendment, you should.
I'm disgusted that the decision was only 5 to 4. How can there be FOUR Supreme Court Justices who DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE REST OF US ALL UNDERSTAND!?
Actually, let me rephrase that. I'm sure they understand what we understand. But they have a vision for America that is different than what the founding fathers envisioned, and so they actively try to mis-interpret the constitution to fit it to their arrogant ideas.
But, anyway, I am extremely amused by the language used by Justice Antonin Scalia. It is unusual, I think, for the level of sarcasm and biting humor which appears throughout the argument. You can tell that there must have been some intense discussion between Scalia and Stevens. And it is also clear that Scalia, having garnered a majority decision, and knowing that this is a truly historic decision, enjoyed very much jabbing Stevens for his foolish attempts to creatively alter the meaning of the constitution.
Just for clarity, here is the Second Amendment:
The Second Amendment provides: “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.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the
principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood
by the voters; its words and phrases were used in
their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical
meaning.”
So Stevens sets out to try to find hidden meaning in the text, by suggesting first that the phrase means that only state militia (national guard) could have weapons, and that “keep and bear” does not mean to own and carry… It becomes clear that Stevens has a desired outcome in mind and sets out to change the meaning of the words in order to fit it to the desired outcome.
And Scalia takes him to task personally.
Here are couple of jewels {bolding is my emphasis}:
***
In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners
and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes)
idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a
hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the
actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an
idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No
dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have
been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried
that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy
to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the
hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning
would cause the protected right to consist of the right
to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no
commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of
the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase
“keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word
“Arms” would have two different meanings at once:
“weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of
“bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying
“He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled
the bucket and died.” Grotesque.
If “bear arms” means, as we
think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit
the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of selfdefense”
or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear
arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the
carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply
cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to
carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game”
is worthy of the mad hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying
phrases positively establish that “to bear arms” is
not limited to military use.11
The next selection is from a footnote, where Stevens was trying to twist the meaning of the amendment so that the citizen can “keep” or store a weapon but cannot “carry” or bear it:
14 Faced with this clear historical usage, JUSTICE STEVENS resorts to
the bizarre argument that because the word “to” is not included before
“bear” (whereas it is included before “petition” in the First Amendment),
the unitary meaning of “to keep and bear” is established. Post,
at 16, n. 13. We have never heard of the proposition that omitting
repetition of the “to” causes two verbs with different meanings to
become one. A promise “to support and to defend the Constitution of
the United States” is not a whit different from a promise “to support
and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
***
I tell you what, between the recent horrendous decision that violates state rights regarding the death penalty for child rapists, and the clear attempt by Stevens to twist the constitution, there can be no doubt that Stevens needs to be removed from the court—which is probably not possible. We definitely need to get more constructivist judges onto the court to counter Stevens and Bader.
I'm disgusted that the decision was only 5 to 4. How can there be FOUR Supreme Court Justices who DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE REST OF US ALL UNDERSTAND!?
Actually, let me rephrase that. I'm sure they understand what we understand. But they have a vision for America that is different than what the founding fathers envisioned, and so they actively try to mis-interpret the constitution to fit it to their arrogant ideas.
But, anyway, I am extremely amused by the language used by Justice Antonin Scalia. It is unusual, I think, for the level of sarcasm and biting humor which appears throughout the argument. You can tell that there must have been some intense discussion between Scalia and Stevens. And it is also clear that Scalia, having garnered a majority decision, and knowing that this is a truly historic decision, enjoyed very much jabbing Stevens for his foolish attempts to creatively alter the meaning of the constitution.
Just for clarity, here is the Second Amendment:
The Second Amendment provides: “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.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the
principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood
by the voters; its words and phrases were used in
their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical
meaning.”
So Stevens sets out to try to find hidden meaning in the text, by suggesting first that the phrase means that only state militia (national guard) could have weapons, and that “keep and bear” does not mean to own and carry… It becomes clear that Stevens has a desired outcome in mind and sets out to change the meaning of the words in order to fit it to the desired outcome.
And Scalia takes him to task personally.
Here are couple of jewels {bolding is my emphasis}:
***
In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners
and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes)
idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a
hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the
actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an
idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No
dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have
been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried
that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy
to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the
hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning
would cause the protected right to consist of the right
to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no
commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of
the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase
“keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word
“Arms” would have two different meanings at once:
“weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of
“bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying
“He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled
the bucket and died.” Grotesque.
If “bear arms” means, as we
think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit
the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of selfdefense”
or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear
arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the
carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply
cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to
carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game”
is worthy of the mad hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying
phrases positively establish that “to bear arms” is
not limited to military use.11
The next selection is from a footnote, where Stevens was trying to twist the meaning of the amendment so that the citizen can “keep” or store a weapon but cannot “carry” or bear it:
14 Faced with this clear historical usage, JUSTICE STEVENS resorts to
the bizarre argument that because the word “to” is not included before
“bear” (whereas it is included before “petition” in the First Amendment),
the unitary meaning of “to keep and bear” is established. Post,
at 16, n. 13. We have never heard of the proposition that omitting
repetition of the “to” causes two verbs with different meanings to
become one. A promise “to support and to defend the Constitution of
the United States” is not a whit different from a promise “to support
and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
***
I tell you what, between the recent horrendous decision that violates state rights regarding the death penalty for child rapists, and the clear attempt by Stevens to twist the constitution, there can be no doubt that Stevens needs to be removed from the court—which is probably not possible. We definitely need to get more constructivist judges onto the court to counter Stevens and Bader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
