Welcome to President Obama’s second term, America — that special place where ridiculousness replaces raison d’etre, and presidents give us things like gun control a’ la United Nations.
Obviously, Obama understood he would never get the support needed for a gun control bill from Congress, so the astute Constitutional professor chose to skirt around the Constitution by signing on to the United Nations (UN) Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) shortly after his re-election. Liberals certainly know how to get what they want, ethics aside. Remember in 2010, when former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi described how liberals would circumvent the electorate to pass Obamacare? Pelosi said they would “...go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, we’ll go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in.” And parachute they did.
Now Obama’s doing the same thing with gun control. On one hand, we have the administration telling us they are committed to protecting our Second Amendment rights; while on the other hand, the president is joining alliances with UN gun grabbers by giving them the green light for the ATT. In the real world, presidents work in conjunction with Congress to pass laws, but in Obama Land anything goes.
The administration claims ATT primarily applies to exporting weapons, thus posing zero threat to gun ownership domestically. ATT’s verbiage, instructing nations to take the necessary legislative and administrative measure to adapt, as necessary, national laws and regulations to implement the obligations of this treaty, is too gray, hence leaving room to dilute or supersede the Second Amendment.
It is clear Obama’s been a gun control advocate all along although he was too cowardly to admit it before re-election. According to the Washington Post, last year Obama told gun control activist Sarah Brady, whose husband Jim was shot during the Reagan assassination attempt in 1981, that gun control was “very much on his agenda...but under the radar.” History will not be kind to America’s 44th president who promised transparency, but governed mostly under the radar.
Of course, the UN wants us to believe that global gun control is for our own good and granting them authority to force us to register our guns with them will prevent weapons from getting into the “wrong people’s” hands, and will somehow make the world a safer place. For whom might it be safer? The easy answer is criminals.
In reality, government is the real problem. Case in point: that little scandal affectionately codenamed “Fast and Furious,” wherein the Justice Department made the injudicious decision to sell weapons to those linked to the Mexican drug cartel in Arizona. Their plan backfired when the weapons “walked” across the border into Mexico and into the hands of cartel thugs. It should have been codenamed “Dumb and Dumber.” And more than 50 million Americans voted to give them a second term.
The United Nations needs to mind its own business and stay out of ours, thank you. And President Obama needs to get over his attitude about those who, as he once put it, are bitter because they “cling to guns or religion.” Before he came along, we had the Constitution, need I say more? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist, or even this blond columnist, to deduce that if the UN is given an open door into our personal lives by way of the ATT, gun confiscations will, at some point, follow.
• Copyright Susan Stamper Brown, an opinion page columnist, motivational speaker and military advocate who writes about politics, the military, the economy and culture. Email Susan at writestamper@gmail.com or her website at susanstamperbrown.com.
downtownresident posted at 7:21 am on Fri, Nov 23, 2012.
This is, without a doubt the most ignorant, self serving piece of dirt I've read in awhile.
Especially this statement, " Liberals certainly know how to get what they want, ethics aside".
Karl Rove is the master of unethical politics in this country, bar none!!!!!!
Your arrogance is only outdone by your ignorance.
Closer to home, does the name of Olivia Cortez ring an ethics bell???
Greg Western and the Pearce boys can refresh your memory, if you have selective amnesia, as so many of you whiners do.
Get a life, girl.
JNelson posted at 8:24 am on Fri, Nov 23, 2012.
Downtownresident.....personal comments aside, the article is absolutely correct about the facts. Obama has been anti-firearms ever since he first put his position on the public record dating back at least to 1998. All of his major appointees are gun control advocates. His Supreme Court appointees (Kagan and Sotomayor) both have been gun control devotees forever. If you think pointing out these FACTS is ignorance, you have a much larger "think" coming yourself.
The only remaining fact which Ms. Brown might have added is that this ATT treaty needed to get unanimous approval and it failed to get that from the 159 UN global members who conferred. It was rejected on July 27th of this year but will be reconvened at some unspecified date in the future so we can expect it to arise again, most likely while Obama is still president. Some handful of members objected to various elements of the treaty, although the USA was not one of them. Had it been approved, the treaty would have been submitted to the US Senate for adoption, and if adopted, it would have become the law of the land just as all other treaties do. And that would have been the end of the 2nd Amendment.
Accuracy posted at 8:32 am on Fri, Nov 23, 2012.
Gun control . . . and Obama
Gun sales are up this month, according to vendors. During the presidential debates, President Obama said he would consider reintroducing a ban on assault weapons. During a presidential debate on Oct. 16, he said that he's trying to "get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally."
Just days after the election, gun sales have soared all across the nation. Since Obama's re-election and renewed fear of a gun ban, there’s now a run on gun sales, and it looks like guns and ammo are selling out.
Whether; it's fear of tighter regulations, Obama’s executive order or bill on gun-control, or fear of a deeper economic crisis, Americans are building arsenals of handguns, hunting rifles, assault weapons, and even machine guns.
Cincinnatus posted at 8:52 am on Fri, Nov 23, 2012.
There really isn't any good response to crazy. Try arguing with someone who thinks he's Napoleon.
Brown's thesis is out of some comic opera for the mentally unhinged. You almost have to wonder if Brown doesn't have some monetary agreement with arms manufacturers to disseminate this tripe. This kind of nonsense happened last election and now the same idiots who believed it then are back in the gun stores and gun shows frantically arming up for the impending invasion.
I especially love the way she frames the depiction of Obama as either being a coward for not submitting anti-gun legislation or an anti-constitutional tyrant for wanting to. Heads she wins-tails Obama loses.
What's even more disturbing is the Tribs decision to print this nonsense. I know there is plenty of intelligent well-written "conservative" commentary submitted or syndicated that could have served the community well but the Trib chose to publish this kind of paranoid garbage. Either the Trib is playing a brilliant game of liberal politics or somewhere in the bowels of the Trib some gnome seems to think Brown has something interesting to say: probably the same person who thinks Turley-Hansen is a fascinating read.
Apparently the Trib seems to think that in the interest of fairness all sides should be represented - even the crazy side. Maybe they should just put Glenn Beck and Ted Nugent on the editorial board. It is a kind of nihilistic journalism that believes objectivity and fairness requires providing a platform for ANY view. The conclusion drawn from such a stance is, that in the end, history is a farce and Truth doesn't matter.
sockratties posted at 9:04 am on Fri, Nov 23, 2012.
Ms. Brown is a master at taking things out of perspective to apply her own spin. Almost every reference used in this article is cut and pasted to imply innuendo not present in the original comment. Because of bias embodied in this article her arguments against gun control are void. Meaningful discussion cannot be based on supposition and innuendo.
For example, notice her clever insertion of the word “because” in the following. It relates to a speech Obama was making to workers who were out of work in the auto industry while on the campaign trial before the Democratic primaries:
“And President Obama needs to get over his attitude about those who, as he once put it, are bitter because they 'cling to guns or religion.'”
In reality he was explaining why he thought people were lashing out. He actually said:
“They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
If Brown is going to preach she should do so with some level of integrity. Unfortunately integrity is an ingredient persistently missing from her rhetorical flatulence.
Ms. Brown, Fox TV, Rush Limbaugh and the like all have a deft ability to make micro “slips” that are in fact out and out lies of desperation. Ms. Brown may be preaching to her choir but in this article she is singing off key.
Dale Whiting posted at 9:57 am on Fri, Nov 23, 2012.
Yes, sockratties, Ms. Brown does have a bolt or two loose. Clearly she is no constitutional law student, much less a professor. She claims that
"ATT’s verbiage, instructing nations to take the necessary legislative and administrative measure to adapt, as necessary, national laws and regulations to implement the obligations of this treaty, is too gray, hence leaving room to dilute or supersede the Second Amendment."
Susan, if a legislative action, even undertaken pursuant to a treaty [ratified or not] dilutes or supersedes a provision of the constitution, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That means the NRA may challenge it and be successful in striking it down And Barack Obama knows that. But clearly you do not!
Grow up Susy, and get yourself an education! You're misinformed, that or you know your audience is composed the undeducated who listen to you and pay you to misinform them. If the latter, then you are easily as smart as are Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh.
Dale Whiting posted at 10:01 am on Fri, Nov 23, 2012.
I said Susy has a bolt or two loose and was missinformed. The sensorship program will not permit the use of the thing the bolt secures [spelled backwards it's 'wercs'], and apparently the common term from nincompoop [sp?] [spelled backwards it's 'toidi']is also black listed!
Dale Whiting posted at 10:03 am on Fri, Nov 23, 2012.
When used in context, readers, are 'wercs' and 'toidi' profanities? I don't believe that they are!
bubba posted at 10:04 am on Fri, Nov 23, 2012.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but doesn't this treaty only effect the export of weapons? This from Reuters:...An official at the U.S. mission said Washington's objectives have not changed.
"We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout," the official said.
"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," he said.
U.S. officials have acknowledged privately that the treaty under discussion would have no effect on domestic gun sales and ownership because it would apply only to exports.
Irons1 posted at 10:32 am on Fri, Nov 23, 2012.
Some people that the Tribune prints clearly have a different mind set. This is why the Tribune is not a newspaper, but more along the line of the Inquirer. Printing material
that is not true or half true. One wonders why it is not out of business, which I guess it kind of is. They don't charge for the paper and most people pick it up and throw it away
Cerulean posted at 10:42 am on Fri, Nov 23, 2012.
Accuracy, gun sales are up every year in Nov and Dec. Though, you may have a point about paranoid gun owners. On the other hand, it could be that schizoid drug addicts are stockpiling guns.
Is there any difference between crazed militants like J.T. Ready, Holly Solomon and a paranoid meth addict?
Mike McClellan posted at 10:46 am on Fri, Nov 23, 2012.
As sockrattles points out above, Ms. Brown's column is based entirely on an erroneous story about what Obama's up to.
Here's the snopes report on it --
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp
In four years of the Obama administration, there have been no gun control laws passed or regulations added.
But the NRA and gun stores have made a killing -- to use a bad pun -- in hyping the rumor that any day now, "Obama will take our guns."
Ms. Brown takes the internet rumors and spins them into fact. Because it fits her narrative, she chose not to research it before printing it as a given.
No doubt, Ms. Brown is the spawn of Linda Turley-Hansen.
Accuracy posted at 11:09 am on Fri, Nov 23, 2012.
Susan Stamper Brown is correct; President Obama does favor the United Nations (UN) Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). And gun rights advocates must keep their eye on the ball regarding the constitutional right that ultimately preserves all others — namely the Second Amendment.
After several delays, the Obama Administration recently voted in the UN to move forward with negotiating the ATT.
According to Gun Owners of America (GOA), UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called "the unraveling" of the ATT merely a setback, and experts at the UN expect further discussions at the next meeting on the ATT that will take place during a March 2013 conference.
JNelson posted at 11:49 am on Fri, Nov 23, 2012.
Mike gives a link to Snopes which he thinks disabuses us of Obama's gun control mindset, or the nefarious aims of the UN ATT.....but it doesn't. In fact, it doesn't even give full and accurate analysis of what the ATT (Arms Trade Treaty) says. While it reports that the UN ATT's "aim" is to control international small arms trade, the draft's language makes numerous references to the need of "States" to exert control of firearms within their own countries, requiring registration from point of sale, throughout ownership, throughout any and all transfer of a weapon, to the final disposal of the weapon. This requires another huge record keeping, weapon tracking bureaucracy by the federal government, of course. Also within the draft's provisions is language which allows the "state" to restrict use of small arms, control the manufacture and sale and possession of ammunition, require micro-stamping of arms and ammunition, and include tracing methods on ammunition as well as arms, all WITHIN the individual member states which really has nothing whatever to do with international trade.
Finally, the draft also failed to include any recognition of an individual right to buy, own or use firearms of any sort, or ammunition. Several countries refused to agree to this and some other provisions on international trade as well, which doomed the conference Treaty act as unanimity was required to ratify it. However, the conference is to reconvene probably next March, 2013 for another try, something the Obama administration approved.
The failure of ratification occurred on July 27, 2012. On the previous day, a letter was delivered to President Obama which said: "As the Treaty (UN Arms Trade Treaty) process continues, we strongly encourage your administration not only to uphold our country's Constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure, if necessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference - that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defense. As members of the US Senate, we will oppose the ratification of any Arms Trade Treaty that falls short of this standard." This letter was signed by 51 US Senators.
Also, 130 US House members have also spoken out against the ATT.
Snopes infers that this treaty even if ratified by the US Senate would have no impact on the 2nd Amendment, but that is far from true. All international treaties thus ratified become the law of the land, but because the 2nd Amendment is among the Bill of Rights, some authorities conclude that it is beyond the purview of international treaties as well as Congressional legislation. Constitutional amendment is the only means of altering it. That point is far from settled, however.
What is not a matter of conjecture is Obama's long standing gun control mindset, something which traces back as far as 1998 at the least. He's made numerous votes and proposals to control guns and ammunition ever since he held a seat in the Illinois state government. He was on the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation for about 10 years, an organization quite rabid on gun control. As I indicated earlier, every major appointee of Obama favors gun control, including his two Supreme Court appointments, Sotamayor and Kagan.
The fact that Obama didn't propose any new gun control legislation in his first term disproves any such mindset is a faulty conclusion without logical basis except perhaps a conclusion that he couldn't get any past Republican opposition.
Mike McClellan posted at 1:29 pm on Fri, Nov 23, 2012.
A. The Constitution -- Article II, section 2 -- requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate to ratify treaties
B. Even if somehow the worst case interpretation of this treaty were true, think you'd get 67 Senators to approve a treaty that would do what those here claim it would?
C. The conclusion of JNelson's commentary above is a nice replica to the scare tactics of Wayne LaPierre of the NRA: Just because he didn't do it then doesn't mean he won't do it now.
Which is rich, given we have a Republican-controlled House -- which means any attempt by Obama to "propose any new gun control legislation" is going nowhere fast. And enough Republicans in the Senate to ensure that cloture would continue to be a de facto filibuster.
D. It's always good business to have a bogeyman . . .
JNelson posted at 1:32 pm on Fri, Nov 23, 2012.
Mike, you also said: "In four years of the Obama administration, there have been no gun control laws passed or regulations added." What about the BATFE regulations imposed on the 4 southwest states' gun dealers in 2011 which required them ---- dealers in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas ---- to "report anyone who purchased or attempted to purchase more than one semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine and which uses ammunition greater than .22 caliber." (Taken directly from the regulation). This isn't a new regulation during Obama's first 4 years? And this regulation was upheld by Federal Judge Rosemary Collyer in a lawsuit opposing it by the National Shooting Sports and 2 Arizona gun dealers.
You admonished others to do their research before making erroneous posts, Mike. Maybe you should take your own advice more seriously.
bobunf posted at 1:57 pm on Fri, Nov 23, 2012.
When will Brown be abducted by the aliens?
Haddie Nuff posted at 2:21 pm on Fri, Nov 23, 2012.
Too bad Ms. Brown didn't avail herself of the Thanksgiving sales to purchase new foil. The hat she's currently wearing isn't working too well.
Mike McClellan posted at 3:47 pm on Fri, Nov 23, 2012.
I was referring to what Ms. Brown was squawking about.
But since you brought up the requirement to report multiple sales of semi-automatic rifles along the border states:
A. Does that in any way hamper someone from purchasing them?
B. Does that seem to be a reasonable requirement, given the gun-running that goes on in our state?
C. Does it have anything in any way to do with Ms. Stamper-Brown's contention?
D. Do you believe that the bogeyman treaty you've conjured up -- if it is as real as you think it to be -- would be ratified by the Senate, given its make up?
geekette posted at 4:20 pm on Fri, Nov 23, 2012.
Cinncinnatus, you're right, there are plenty of intelligent, thoughtful conservatives out there, but you wouldn't know it from reading the Tribune. Maybe the smart conservatives are too expensive and these whackos are the only ones the Trib can afford? It's a shame, really, because this policy gives a skewed picture of conservatism.
onerebel posted at 5:19 pm on Fri, Nov 23, 2012.
I agree with Susan's assessment of what this administration is up to also, however those on the left will NEVER believe it. Case in point, many Liberals still refuse to admit Obama broke the following promises.
I promise 100% transparency in my administration.”.
“I promise NO NEW TAXES on a family making less than $250K a year.”.
“I will allow 5 days of public comment before I sign any bills.”.
“I will remove earmarks from PORK projects before I sign any bill.”.
“I will end Income Tax for seniors making less than $50K a year.”.
"I will bring ALL of our troops home within ONE year."
“I’ll put the Health Care negotiations on CSPAN so everyone can see who is at the table!”.
“I’ll have no lobbyists in my administration."
"I'll close Guantanamo."
"I'll resign if I don't cut the deficit in half by the end of four years."
So did the President tell the truth on these? Yet after all the lies and broken promises, some on the left will still believe ANYTHING this man says, and then label Conservatives as the mindless sheep!
CooperG posted at 8:32 pm on Fri, Nov 23, 2012.
This is the most absurd, baseless and stunningly paranoid rant I've seen ever published in a metro newspaper. This woman is simply crazy.
k33j88 posted at 8:36 pm on Fri, Nov 23, 2012.
The progressives (liberals) on this site should register all of their firearms. They obviously have a twisted view of our 2nd amendment and shouldn't be allow to posses weapons. They probably never had formal training in the safe handling of such. Progressives even support assailants rights when their victims use force to deter crime.
chatmandu002 posted at 10:09 pm on Fri, Nov 23, 2012.
The 2nd amendment to the Constitution can be effectively changed by a decision of the Supreme Court, which Obama may radically change during his second term.
bobunf posted at 12:35 am on Sat, Nov 24, 2012.
Onerebel must realize that he hasn't quoted the President accurately on any of his ten so-called "promises."
That's no surprise; we had an awful lot of that by Romney .
But maybe he hasn't realized who won the American Civil War.
Cincinnatus posted at 10:13 am on Sat, Nov 24, 2012.
K33j88,
Been there, done that. I'm a veteran, gun-owner, registered my firearms and have had extensive training in firearm use and concealed carry. As do many of my liberal friends.
I don't have one iota of a problem with reasonable gun control laws and restrictions. I also have a degree in Political Science with some training in law and I'm perfectly able to judge the history and context of our 2nd Amendment.
What are your qualifications?
Mike McClellan posted at 10:16 am on Sat, Nov 24, 2012.
Ms. Stamper-Brown and JNelson both neglected to mention that one actual piece of gun legislation that passed before Obama over the last four years.
The one he signed into law after it passed in Congress.
The one that allows folks to bring guns into national parks.
Cincinnatus posted at 10:29 am on Sat, Nov 24, 2012.
geekette,
You're right. Conservatism has some very powerful voices to moderate the excesses of the left. Unfortunately, all you get from the Trib are faux-conservatives, radicals or John Bircher types, whose grasp of conservatism is either flawed or non-existent. They hi-jacked the label but are shameful corruptions of a rich intellectual tradition.
JNelson posted at 12:12 pm on Sat, Nov 24, 2012.
Mike.....I responded to your statement: "In four years of the Obama administration, there have been no gun control laws passed or regulations added.", by giving one example of a regulation added. I didn't think it was necessary to include anything more to disprove your contention.
However, whether or not this regulation hampers someone from purchasing the named firearms is immaterial to the question, which was, to repeat: ""In four years of the Obama administration, there have been no gun control laws passed or regulations added." And whether or not it is a "reasonable" requirement seems to have been answered as I stated, Federal Judge Rosemary Collyer having ruled that it is. So, even though I might disagree, the legal answer already is before us.
Your opinion that the UN effort to control small arms is a "bogeyman treaty" only indicates your lack of knowledge about its proposed provisions, to say nothing of an understanding how imprecise language and deliberate obfuscation which leave wide gaps for interpretation leads to trouble, witness the recent Chief Justice Roberts decision on ObamaCare. Such "bogeyman" proposals may seem inconsequential to you since apparently you favor more gun control laws but they are serious issues to those of us who wish to protect the 2nd Amendment and preserve it as the Founders intended. Given just that piece of irrationality by Roberts, there is no sound reason to believe that the Senate would automatically ratify, or reject, any UN treaty on small arms control. Better to prevent it from coming up in the first place.
Finally, if the BATFE multiple-gun reporting issue relates to Ms. Brown's commentary at all, it is because you brought up the false conclusion that no new laws or regulations have been put in place in the last 4 years. And since ALL laws and regulations which purport to control firearms must be examined in the context of what the 2nd Amendment protects, it isn't a waste of time at all to question even this regulation, IMHO.
JNelson posted at 12:16 pm on Sat, Nov 24, 2012.
Cincinnatus......Just a few basic questions on your understanding of the 2nd Amendment, OK? What is your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, including the initial phrase? What is an "infringement"? What does it mean to say that there shall be NO infringements? What did the Founders mean when they used those terms? Why did the Founders include the 2nd Amendment in the first place as an "inalienable right"?
Cincinnatus posted at 12:58 pm on Sat, Nov 24, 2012.
Gosh, it's going to turn into a nightmare thread if we begin with English history of gun control to early colonial, 18th century suspicion of standing armies to early 20th century ideas on the evolution and idea of guns in society and the last 60 years of Constitutional law and arguments on either side.
Suffice it to say I have a fairly standard interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as securing the right to bear arms, at least until it changed into a religious doctrine in the 1960's.
However "inalienable" the right, it is not an absolute right or one that cannot be regulated or legislated on anymore than any other Constitutional right. No right is absolute. And we have a pretty good history of the Supreme Court interpreting constitutional prohibitions as less than absolute so "Infringement" is certainly not a bar to regulation.
It should be noted that even in the 2nd amendments absence most state constitutions have a constitutional provision providing the same right.
There is a middle ground.
Mike McClellan posted at 1:13 pm on Sat, Nov 24, 2012.
JNelson, the question of whether it hampers someone from purchasing the named fireams is in fact very material.
Here's why: Ms. Stamper-Brown's thesis is that with Obama, we're going to have our guns taken from us.
Or, as she puts it at the end of her column, "It doesn’t take a rocket scientist, or even this blond columnist, to deduce that if the UN is given an open door into our personal lives by way of the ATT, gun confiscations will, at some point, follow."
So a regulation that has no bearing on "gun confiscation" is not really a part of her thesis nor my critique of it.
But it is revealing that President Gun Control signed into a law a bill that actually expanded gun use in our country.
And as to the bogeyman, you know as well as I do that any treaty that actually said what you and Ms. Brown purport to say would never pass the Senate by a 2/3 vote.
By the way, since you lump yourself in with an interpretation of the Second Amendment as the founders intended, as you put it, another guy who feels like that says there is room for more gun control: That'd be Antonin Scalia. Maybe you've heard of him
onerebel posted at 3:00 pm on Sat, Nov 24, 2012.
So Mr. Bobinuf, What did I miss quote? I have seen the news stories with Obama personally making these promises. If your watching MSNBS they alter tapes remember? As for the civil war, my great great grandfather lost an arm fighting for the union. What about you? Next time you should get some facts before you look down your Liberal nose at someone!
Irons1 posted at 12:12 am on Sun, Nov 25, 2012.
Oh and Fox News doesn't alter anything and is really "fair and balanced"? Yeah, right. Next time you should get some facts from somewhere else other than Rush
JNelson posted at 9:03 am on Sun, Nov 25, 2012.
Mike....obviously, we differ on what might lead to more restrictive gun control in the USA. The language in the UN ATT calls for states (national governments) to control all aspects of firearms and ammunition, from manufacture all the way through disposal of the firearm, and with no acknowledgement whatever of individual rights to purchase, own, keep and bear arms as the 2nd Amendment provides. You may discount all that if you wish, but I prefer not to put my rights into the hands of some international organization, especially the UN.
As for the contention made that no Senate would ratify such a treaty, I again point to the fiasco of the passage and confirmation by the SC of ObamaCare. No telling these days what a political body might do. I prefer not giving them the opportunity to do the wrong thing.
IMHO, dismissing potential rights-altering attempts by calling them "bogeyman issues" is not exactly facing reality, but you certainly have the right to do so.
JNelson posted at 10:28 am on Sun, Nov 25, 2012.
Cincinnatus......You said: "I have a fairly standard interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as securing the right to bear arms...." What does that mean, exactly? That you believe it is OK to put infringements upon that right? That it is OK to have infringements if the Supreme Court says so? You failed to answer my question as to what you think an infringement is, and what it means to say that there shall be NO infringements.
You also say that no right is absolute, that none are immune to legislation or regulation. What does that mean, exactly? Do you equate laws against yelling "fire" in a crowded theater to infringing legislation on the 2nd Amendment's protection of an individual's right to keep and bear arms? If so, by what logic? What is the comparison?
I'm not asking these things of you just to provoke an argument but because I've often been given responses like yours by well-intentioned people who want controls on firearms, but when I pose these questions, they seldom have reasoned answers. Perhaps you do. I'm ready to be convinced......
Cincinnatus posted at 1:48 pm on Sun, Nov 25, 2012.
Jnelson,
That means I don't deny that the Founders intended to provide an individual right to bear arms. The militia clause notwithstanding, the Founders has a fairly consistent view on an individual right that had as much to do with a suspicion of state power as personal defense and hunting. It has to be recognized though that these views were a consequence of the English monarchical experience with arms control and the necessities of a defence of sovereign states with no standing armies in an agrarian frontier society. Both rationales are eroded by a national military with thermonuclear weapons and a national government.
But, like any other right enumerated in the Constitution, the Supreme Court and the Congress can put limits on the exercise of those rights. Liberty without limits is degenerate license. Those limits should be grounded in the general welfare and in the interest of civic order.
I could go on but I have to go.
JNelson posted at 4:21 pm on Sun, Nov 25, 2012.
Cincinnatus....I was with you all the way on your understanding of why the Founders inserted the 2nd Amendment into the Bill of Rights. But I balk at the notion that Congress or the SC can put limits on that (and other inalienable) right. After all, the Founders said that those first 8 rights don't come from government at all but from a higher power; thus, it stands to reason that government has no power to regulate them. It also stands to reason that government has authority to regulate harmful use of them, and on that I'm sure we do agree. That's why there is no government effort to limit one's physical ability to shout "fire" in a crowded theater; but it may impose a penalty for mis-using one's free speech in a way which impinges upon the rights of others. And that is a legitimate restriction upon THE USE of free speech; ie., punishing those who abuse the use of it. Slander is another limiting factor, for example, but again it is on the improper use of speech, not upon the ability to speak.
If we are to make a legitimate comparison of limiting free speech with limiting the availability of the inert object where arms are involved, we would have to somehow interfere with a person's actual ability to use his voice. Gun control efforts, however, mostly attack the very ability to keep and bear arms, or it imposes restrictions on the physical nature of the object itself and thus is far different when we equate one's voice to the firearm. I have no objection whatever to punishing people who abuse the right to keep and bear arms by using them to endanger or harm others; that's only just, and it also is equivalent to the "shouting fire" example. It seems to me that addressing firearm issues in such a manner fits perfectly with your idea that certain limits on liberty based upon one's acts are in the interest of civic order without circumventing the actual Constitution.
Lastly on this point, I am adamant that the actual wording of the Constitution means what it says, and that current circumstances do not provide legitimate reasons to change, ignore or circumvent them. If that is acceptable, then the Bill of Rights means nothing at all. Gun control advocates may well be right that in today's world it would be better to modify or eliminate the 2nd Amendment (if possible) because too many people abuse the privilege of having arms, but the proper means to accomplish control of or reduction of the firearm violence in society is by honoring the Constitution and using its stated methods to make the required change, not by simply ignoring or working around what exists. Maybe we can agree on that?
Thanks for your thoughts.
Cincinnatus posted at 6:22 pm on Sun, Nov 25, 2012.
Jnelson,
The Founders used religious language to make a point but I think they intended to refer to natural rights - not theological grants. It's always tricky when politicians invoke religion. The Civil Wars in England were fought in large part to separate religious belief from the administration of government and the Founders ideas came out of that intellectual stream.
I think the 1st Amendment analogy fails because there is no mechanism for ensuring that someone will not shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. There are mechanisms for ensuring the reasonable regulation of firearms. Just as we would interrupt someone shouting "fire" so can we interrupt the "rights" of criminal, anti-social, irresponsible or mentally unfit individuals who are a threat to the community.
As for how the Constitution is interpreted, I am not an originalist and see nothing wrong with a Supreme Court interpretation that takes into account the changing circumstances and nature of the world. The Founding Fathers were arguing about what the Constitution meant before the ink was even dry. So, the Constitution means whatever the SC says it means at any point in time barring Congressional action. Communities and states, without SC interference, spent the first 175 years of the republic implementing all sorts of restrictions on firearms and it was understood that the community superseded any individual warrant if that liberty threatened the civic order. As some jurist once said, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact.".
I do agree that it would be cleaner if it was amended but we can't, to paraphrase , make the good the hostage of the perfect. "Reasonable" people can come to a middle-ground on this issue but not with folks like Ms Brown and LaPierre whose cynical manipulation of the issue only serves to gin up populist paranoia and fear.
Appreciate the exchange.
onerebel posted at 6:30 pm on Sun, Nov 25, 2012.
So Mr. Irons1, you want to give me some facts to back up the talk? I never said anything about FOX News being perfect. However it appears you must have some dirt with facts about FOX that you would like to enlighten the rest of us with? Please do. I hate the way so called news shows try to deceive us. Like NBC altering the George Zimmerman tapes, or when NBC producers strapped model rocket motors to a GM pickup frame to make it catch on fire in a side impact accident for the show Dateline. So please give us the facts you have, then we can check them out to see if FOX ends up in the can't be trusted category like NBC has!
JNelson posted at 8:29 am on Mon, Nov 26, 2012.
Cincinnatus.....Well, I see that we put a different weight on some things here. I for one believe that the Constitution says what it means and means what it says. My rationale is, what good is it to have definitive rules and procedures if we don't have to live by them? Your comment that infers we should be making "lawful" changes because times and circumstances themselves change is well taken, but that is why the Constitution provides the proper means to make those changes. I don't think it useful or wise to do so if we want to preserve ALL of our rights under the Constitution, don't you?
But you didn't reply to my question about what the 2nd Amendment means, and what the Founders intended it to mean, when they specified that the right to keep and bear arms must have no "infringements" placed upon it. That seems about as plain and simple an instruction as one could ask; after all, it doesn't say the right exists but with whatever exceptions government at any level might want to enact.
I'm afraid that at this stage of our country's history, it is too common and too much accepted that circumventing the plain language of the Constitution is OK if enough people, or enough politicians in office, determine that there is a "need" to do so. That was the force behind the creation of the Social Security System and nowhere in the Constitution or in any debate among the Founders that I've seen was there any notion of allowing Congress to operate outside Article 1 Section 8 simply because of "need" by some group of citizens or by government itself or because the political class found it useful to do so.
But, maybe I'm just too old-fashioned anymore in believing that words have meaning, that being especially true where our governing principles are concerned. Just as I'm prepared to live by the terms of ObamaCare, even though I don't find authority for it in Article 1 Section 8 (despite Chief Justice Roberts!), as a responsible citizen I'll do the same if/when more restrictions or regulations are imposed on firearms.
Thanks for your responses.
Cincinnatus posted at 8:58 am on Mon, Nov 26, 2012.
Jnelson,
Point taken. However, the Constitution is not so narrowly written that interpretation is confined to 18th century opinion and mores. It is not a dead document frozen in time. And while the Founders made it exceedingly difficult to amend the document it should be noted that legislative and social changes often began taking place prior to and leading to those amendments. Historically, the country did not just flip a switch to amend the document.
I thought I had dealt with the interpretation. We have to read it in the historical context it was written. I dealt with that. The impetus for it lay in the recent historical experience with monarchy, the requirement for frontier defense and the requirement to have a contingent of citizens armed for militia duty. None of those are relevant today. What is left are justifications based on self-defense and sport.
Neither of the latter reasonably construed allow every nimrod with two-brain cells to stockpile AR-15's and semi-autos with cyclic fire rates of 40-60 rpm.
I understand the limits to interpretation and agree basically with what you are saying but I think the gray area is wider.
JNelson posted at 11:29 am on Mon, Nov 26, 2012.
Cincinnatus.....I may be making an incorrect assumption here concerning your view of the written words of the Constitution but I think your view differs from mine in that you believe we are now able to "interpret" what the words there mean in terms of today's society.....thus, the changes in society and even in word meanings allow for a more "generous" application of Constitutional provisions. I couldn't disagree more, if that truly is what you mean.
I do agree completely with your statements on how and why the Founders reached the conclusions about good government that they did, and why they then incorporated them into the new Constitution, but I am convinced that they intended the words they used to be taken literally for all time. That's why they made provision for altering the Constitution by the amendment process if future events and evolution of society required it, but not by simply expanding the power of government beyond the chains the Constitution had put upon it.
Reading the 2nd Amendment in that context tells me that, although we now have a National Guard, it does not fully or legally replace the citizen militia which the Founders deemed so important as a bulwark against oppressive federal government that they included a reference to it in the 2nd Amendment as one of the principle reasons why citizens must have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms.
As I said before, while I prefer to keep the 2nd Amendment sacrosanct "AS IS" within its true and plain meaning of no infringements, and I would oppose attempts to change it, but I would live lawfully by the consequences if it were changed. Seems to me that is the proper way to go about these things.
Again, thanks for the discussion. Frankly, I wish there were easier ways to do this outside such a forum but I know most people hesitate to extend an invitation to use their e-mail addresses and I don't blame them as I'm reluctant to do that myself!
Cincinnatus posted at 4:00 pm on Mon, Nov 26, 2012.
Jnelson,
That is what I'm saying - so we do differ on how to interpret the meaning. As I indicated, I am not an originalist.
To deny wholesale a right to bear arms is plainly unconstitutional. But by your reading, to deny the right to a tactical nuclear weapon would be equally so. That's obviously absurd. There should be some standard of reason that takes into account the drafter's intention and the current state of technology and culture that reasonable people can agree on.
The whole argument that the 2nd Amendment provides a bulwark against an oppressive federal government may have been rational 200 years ago but in today's world with the force of arms and technology our military has it's a fantasy. The bulwark against an oppressive government is the Constitution and the ballot box - not bullets. Besides, unless the military has changed drastically since I was in service the officer corps is still sworn to uphold the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. These are serious folks so I'm pretty comfortable.
Yes, it is awkward.
k33j88 posted at 9:15 pm on Mon, Nov 26, 2012.
Dear Cin: Political discourse aside-----Thank you for your willingness to offer the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our liberties that are currently slipping away. Now for the reality check: Register your firearms? Are you also willing to hand them over to the feds when they come for them? Reasonable gun control and restrictions? Doesn't sound like you agree with the "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' clause. Are you a member of that right-wing extremist group-----the NRA? If you profess that you are a progressive(liberal), then you cannot serve two masters. You sir, are a hypocrite.
Cincinnatus posted at 7:11 am on Tue, Nov 27, 2012.
k33,
It's all about political discourse so I do not put it aside. That's how we solve problems in a civilized society - political discourse. The alternative is throwing verbal or literal bombs at people; which is what you do. Learn to make an argument otherwise you're just a troll.
And no, like most gun owners I am not a member of the NRA - I don't like being lied to.
JNelson posted at 11:57 am on Tue, Nov 27, 2012.
Cincinnatus......I attempted to answer your post from Monday at 4:00 PM but it was labeled "appears to be spam" and never appeared. Same thing happened with my post Monday at 11:29 AM although that one did get through. Don't know why this is happening??? I called the Tribune, left a message via voice-mail with someone who is supposed to be the moderator but no reply yet.
It seems very odd to me that cordial and civil discussion between us should raise spam alerts. Maybe someone can clue me in as to why, because I haven't the slightest notion.
Cincinnatus posted at 1:34 pm on Tue, Nov 27, 2012.
Jnelson,
I got the same thing also. Strange.
It's the Press - maybe if it doesn't bleed or scream they don't want to cover it?
JNelson posted at 2:10 pm on Tue, Nov 27, 2012.
Cincinnatus.....I've also sent an e-mail to the Tribune asking for an explanation. If I ever get a reply, I'll post it here for everyone's benefit.
k33j88 posted at 6:35 pm on Tue, Nov 27, 2012.
Cin: Even though I see through your smoke and mirror rhetoric attacking me, you couldn't even thank me for my respect for your service in the Armed Forces. I'm well aware of the importance of civil political discourse. My logic cuts to the bone, however ill-perceived it may become. I may reject your arguments, but I'll defend to the death your right to express it. Race card, victim card, personal attacks----you're true to the liberal playbook. Trash me if you like, but leave the most respected and admired gun rights lobby alone. If you knew the fine men and women that belong to this organization, you would hold your head in shame. Then again, liberals aren't Constitutional-loving, Bill of Rights supporting, individual sovereignty upholding citizens.
k33j88 posted at 6:45 pm on Tue, Nov 27, 2012.
Cin: I've met Dale Whiting and he couldn't hold a candle to my logic and political leanings. Conservative ideals are the pillars of our society that uphold the freedoms we enjoy today. Sorry kiddo----your convictions are as of sand that washes away with time.
Cincinnatus posted at 7:58 am on Wed, Nov 28, 2012.
K33,
I wasn't quite certain if your gratitude was sarcasm but I'll apologize for not recognizing it. I don't need to be thanked however - it was a duty, not a gift.
Don't really know how to respond to you - like trying to communicate with someone who has their own special version of English - anything I say you will either not understand or simply not have the vocabulary to unpack. That's not meant to be insulting just a recognition that you inhabit a political culture that appears to me so narrow, paranoid and uninformed that even to an old dog like me it's nearly unrecognizable - and I was alive during the McCarthy Era.
I don't know who Dale Whiting is so your reference escapes me.