How do idiots like this fail to choke on the irony of using television to complain about how the Constitution only guarantees the technology of 1791?
If our laws regarding free expression followed what O'Donnell sees as "original intent," he'd have to print up handbills to distribute his nonsense on the street.
Oh--and would someone please tell that insufferable prig about the Girandoni Rifle, in service well before the drafting of the Constitution (and over a decade before ratification of the Second Amendment), and with capacity for twice as much ammunition as is permitted in several states now (a limitation that some fanatics want to inflict on the entire nation)?
Keep in mind that I'm not claiming to have any hard evidence to back up my suppositions here, but you asked me for my thoughts on the matter.
I would suppose that one big reason was cost. I suspect these rifles were quite pricey compared to a "Brown Bess"-type firearm--probably well out of the range of the typical American militiaman. Remember that the Wikipedia article said that the air reservoirs were quite difficult to make with the manufacturing technology of the time, and were always in short supply.
And really, the existence of the Girandoni Rifle (and, for that matter, other repeaters, like the Puckle Gun--developed in the early 18th century) is only a small part of why O'Donnell's "argument" is stunningly ridiculous. The more important counterargument is that for O'Donnell's "original intent means muskets only" silliness to make any sense, one would have to believe that it never occurred to the Founding Fathers that major advances in weapons technology wouldn't occur over the centuries.
Does that sound even remotely sensible to you?
And as Greg says, if the Second Amendment doesn't protect civilian possession of repeating firearms, why does the First Amendment protect speech on radio, TV, and the internet?
C'mon, guys--you gotta do better than that. Debating gets boring when the other side is that feckless.
I think your explanation about why the Girandoni wasn't more popular makes sense. But, I don't think the comparison of 2A and 1A does. Of course, we could say that both amendments are subject to reasonable restrictions, as it should be.
But, I don't think the comparison of 2A and 1A does.
You know what would have been good right after that? Some kind of explanation as to why the comparison between the First and Second Amendments doesn't make sense. Some explanation, for example, about why the Constitutional guarantee of one right survives all the technological advances that make exercise of that right more powerful, but the Constitutional guarantee (know the one I'm talking about? The one that says shall not be infringed? You've heard of that one, right?) of the other does not.
And besides, you still haven't addressed the fact that O'Donnell's "argument" absolutely requires believing that it never occurred to the Founding Fathers that weapons technology would improve dramatically over the centuries, and you certainly haven't addressed the fact that a rifle with triple the firepower now permitted in the state of New York existed years before the Second Amendment was drafted.
The first two amendments talk about such diversely different kinds of rights, I don't find comparing them sensible. It doesn't make sense to me that "rights are rights," they're not all the same.
When we're talking about the 2A, we should just talk about it. Comparisons are bullshit.
On the other hand, if you insist on comparing them, they both are subject to reasonable restrictions. Greg's right that it all gets down to what we mean by "reasonable." One thing we can agree on is Kurt's extremist ideas about not accepting any restrictions at all on the 2A kinda puts him right out of the discussion. Don't you think?
Mikeb, your idea that Kurt's comments should be beyond the bounds of the conversation is not a reasonable restriction.
Here's what I mean about being reasonable:
First Amendment:
The way in America that we deal with libel and slander makes sense. Public figures are fair game, but private citizens have protection against people telling lies about them.
Incitement to break the law is generally discouraged, though we accept calls for civil disobedience and the like. Insurrectionists have to learn to be careful until the time comes.
We require some measure of truth in advertising, and manufacturers have to be honest about the ingredients labels.
Second Amendment:
The arms referred to are those that typically are used by one person against one other person. We're not talking shoulder-fired missiles, artillery pieces, explosives, or so forth--although some of those should be legal with some restrictions.
I don't mind making it illegal for violent criminals to possess firearms, at least for a period of some years until they can show themselves to be worthy to rejoin society fully.
Requiring carry weapons to be concealed within a city makes sense.
Those are some examples of what I mean by reasonable. But telling citizens in good standing that they can't express their opinions, state the truth about wrongs, or possess firearms is a violation.
It doesn't make sense to me that "rights are rights" . . .
Ah--the old "rights are not rights" argument. Good luck with that ;-).
. . . Kurt's extremist ideas about not accepting any restrictions at all on the 2A kinda puts him right out of the discussion.
I kinda disagree. I think I've been playing a fairly active role in the discussion. And good luck getting much agreement on that. I might hold a position that differs in the details from the positions held by many other gun rights advocates, but as rights advocates, we tend not to demand monolithic ideological purity. We'll leave that to the angry hive insects who comprise the "gun control" side.
I certainly don't think you'll find many gun rights advocates who think my positions should be grounds to deny my right to discuss gun rights. Again, stomping on rights is your sides M.O., not ours.
You're playing dumb again, Kurt and it really doesn't suit you. The discussion you've put yourself outside of with your bizarre extreme notions about restrictions is the very specific one that Greg brought up. It's the discussion of what do we mean by "reasonable." Of course you're an active participant in the general discussion, which contrary to the absolutely stupid remarks you made, I wouldn't want to prevent - obviously. You're commenting on my blog.
By the way, did you see that typo? I wouldn't want to [sic] you, man, but I wonder if this is a sign of moral deterioration on your part. That is what you said, wasn't it? It's a moral responsibility to avoid that kind of thing.
Thanks, Greg. I don't have to agree 100% with every one of your positions in order to be honored and grateful to be on the same side of the main debate.
My sincere apologies for the mistake. I do make an effort to avoid those, because my personal ethics demand that I do so, but sometimes the effort comes up short.
Again, my apologies.
Oh, and "reasonable" means shall not be infringed. ;-)
I'd still like to know if you think that a ban of the Girandoni rifle is "reasonable," despite it having existed well before the drafting of the Second Amendment, thus further eviscerating O'Donnell's ridiculous "logic." And if you don't think it's reasonable, then how do you justify New York's law limiting guns to about a third of the firepower of the Girandoni?
Wanna hear something funny? I'm being told that my thoughts regarding what's "reasonable" in terms of gun policy are "extremist," by someone who thinks that it's "reasonable" to forcibly disarm for life someone for dropping a gun, who thinks that forcible disarmament for physical infirmities is "reasonable," and that forcible lifetime disarmament of (what is it--about half of American gun owners?) tens of millions of gun owners is "reasonable." Now that's hilarious.
Keep talking, Mikeb--I think you'll find that most gun rights advocates are far more comfortable with my vision for armed American than with yours (time to look for a new "wedge issue," perhaps).
You like to keep coming back to talking about what is a reasonable restriction and what isn't, but according to positions you've taken here, a reasonable restriction is one that forbids half of the country, or more, from owning weapons and that restricts that weaponry to at least 100+ year old technology, if not older. After all, as long as we don't ban and confiscate all of the guns, you don't think we've violated the Constitution.
However, as Kurt keeps pointing out, the Constitution's language states that the RKBA "shall not be infringed." This seems to be as strong of a prohibition as the statement that "Congress shall make no law" found in the First Amendment. It would seem that any law affecting the RKBA should be given the same strict scrutiny that laws affecting First Amendment freedoms are given. (Of course, that statement could lead us into a whole other argument regarding whether the First Amendment is currently protected by enough scrutiny.)
Kurt, Greg, and I may argue over where the boundaries are where protection of other rights of other people require limitations on our ability to own and use what we want, but it is painfully obvious to us that your idea of "reasonable restrictions" goes way too far.
"Kurt, Greg, and I may argue over where the boundaries are where protection of other rights of other people require limitations on our ability to own and use what we want, but it is painfully obvious to us that your idea of "reasonable restrictions" goes way too far."
MY idea goes way too far? Are you kidding me? Kurt says NO RESTRICTIONS whatever, but my definition of reasonable restrictions, which would leave 150 million gun owners alone, goes too far? How do you figure?
Picture a clock. The 9 is extreme gun control, bans on everything, no civilian guns at all. The 3 is total "shall not be infringed," no restrictions at all. I'm at 11, you and Greg are at 2 and Kurt is at 3.
In other words, I hate to say it, but I'm the most reasonable one here.
Now I don't care who you are--that's the most hysterically funny thing I've seen in a long time. You need to do that on video--YouTube would pay for the traffic.
Nice clock picture. Of course, I could describe a similar clock where You are at 9:30, I'm at 2 and Greg is at 1. I could then indulge in false modesty and say that I hate to say it, but Greg and I are more reasonable than you.
In the end, it doesn't really matter how reasonable each of us thinks we are, but how reasonable people think we are. As Kurt pointed out above, you've taken a lot of positions far beyond anything attempted in Manchin-Toomey--positions that would send most of the public running away as if their hair was on fire and their asses were catchin'.
Mikeb, it's no surprise that you find yourself to be the most reasonable person in your system of logic. We've discussed how much your system is worth before.
As for me being reasonable, I'm just being practical. I put my goals in order and fight for the most important first. For example, concealed carry reciprocity is more important to me than owning a machine gun. But that doesn't mean that I believe the laws restricting such ownership to be reasonable or even Constitutional.
I'm guessing, Mikeb, that you'll find some bones of contention with my latest JPFO piece, in which I describe the NRA as the only "moderate 'gun control'" group.
On your clock, I'd put them at 10:30, and you at one Planck Time unit after 9.
I would be somewhere around 1:30, I suppose. Maybe a little earlier, since I'm willing not only to spare the death penalty for the oath-breaking political officials who have pushed unconstitutional "gun control" (any "gun control," in other words) I would even advocate sparing them prison time, as long as they were barred forever from holding a government position, and had to register as Constitutional rights violators (for life).
Interesting. So you'd put yourself exactly equidistant from "extreme gun control" and from the NRA. Presumably, the well known "gun control" groups (Brady Campaign, "Everytown," CSGV, etc.) would be lower than 7, but nowhere near 4 (because your position on "gun control" is so extreme that the mainstream groups know better than to ever publicly espouse it, lest they be dismissed as kooks)?
You want to let them have muskets?
ReplyDeleteHow do idiots like this fail to choke on the irony of using television to complain about how the Constitution only guarantees the technology of 1791?
ReplyDeleteIf our laws regarding free expression followed what O'Donnell sees as "original intent," he'd have to print up handbills to distribute his nonsense on the street.
*Loud Clapping*
DeleteBravo, Sir!
To paraphrase Gunnery Sergeant Hartman, did O'Donnell's parents have any children who lived?
ReplyDeleteOh--and would someone please tell that insufferable prig about the Girandoni Rifle, in service well before the drafting of the Constitution (and over a decade before ratification of the Second Amendment), and with capacity for twice as much ammunition as is permitted in several states now (a limitation that some fanatics want to inflict on the entire nation)?
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think the Girandoni Rifle did not become the preferred weapon of the new Republic?
DeleteToo unusual and fragile to catch on. Now if Curt LeMay had been around then...
DeleteKeep in mind that I'm not claiming to have any hard evidence to back up my suppositions here, but you asked me for my thoughts on the matter.
DeleteI would suppose that one big reason was cost. I suspect these rifles were quite pricey compared to a "Brown Bess"-type firearm--probably well out of the range of the typical American militiaman. Remember that the Wikipedia article said that the air reservoirs were quite difficult to make with the manufacturing technology of the time, and were always in short supply.
And really, the existence of the Girandoni Rifle (and, for that matter, other repeaters, like the Puckle Gun--developed in the early 18th century) is only a small part of why O'Donnell's "argument" is stunningly ridiculous. The more important counterargument is that for O'Donnell's "original intent means muskets only" silliness to make any sense, one would have to believe that it never occurred to the Founding Fathers that major advances in weapons technology wouldn't occur over the centuries.
Does that sound even remotely sensible to you?
And as Greg says, if the Second Amendment doesn't protect civilian possession of repeating firearms, why does the First Amendment protect speech on radio, TV, and the internet?
C'mon, guys--you gotta do better than that. Debating gets boring when the other side is that feckless.
I think your explanation about why the Girandoni wasn't more popular makes sense. But, I don't think the comparison of 2A and 1A does. Of course, we could say that both amendments are subject to reasonable restrictions, as it should be.
DeleteBut, I don't think the comparison of 2A and 1A does.
DeleteYou know what would have been good right after that? Some kind of explanation as to why the comparison between the First and Second Amendments doesn't make sense. Some explanation, for example, about why the Constitutional guarantee of one right survives all the technological advances that make exercise of that right more powerful, but the Constitutional guarantee (know the one I'm talking about? The one that says shall not be infringed? You've heard of that one, right?) of the other does not.
And besides, you still haven't addressed the fact that O'Donnell's "argument" absolutely requires believing that it never occurred to the Founding Fathers that weapons technology would improve dramatically over the centuries, and you certainly haven't addressed the fact that a rifle with triple the firepower now permitted in the state of New York existed years before the Second Amendment was drafted.
You've got a lot of work to do, Mikeb.
As always, the point of contention is that word, reasonable. When you figure out what it means, you'll be on our side.
DeleteSince the 2A has A LOT more restrictions than the First, are you suggesting we we need to add more "reasonable" restrictions to speech?
DeleteThe first two amendments talk about such diversely different kinds of rights, I don't find comparing them sensible. It doesn't make sense to me that "rights are rights," they're not all the same.
DeleteWhen we're talking about the 2A, we should just talk about it. Comparisons are bullshit.
On the other hand, if you insist on comparing them, they both are subject to reasonable restrictions. Greg's right that it all gets down to what we mean by "reasonable." One thing we can agree on is Kurt's extremist ideas about not accepting any restrictions at all on the 2A kinda puts him right out of the discussion. Don't you think?
Mikeb, your idea that Kurt's comments should be beyond the bounds of the conversation is not a reasonable restriction.
DeleteHere's what I mean about being reasonable:
First Amendment:
The way in America that we deal with libel and slander makes sense. Public figures are fair game, but private citizens have protection against people telling lies about them.
Incitement to break the law is generally discouraged, though we accept calls for civil disobedience and the like. Insurrectionists have to learn to be careful until the time comes.
We require some measure of truth in advertising, and manufacturers have to be honest about the ingredients labels.
Second Amendment:
The arms referred to are those that typically are used by one person against one other person. We're not talking shoulder-fired missiles, artillery pieces, explosives, or so forth--although some of those should be legal with some restrictions.
I don't mind making it illegal for violent criminals to possess firearms, at least for a period of some years until they can show themselves to be worthy to rejoin society fully.
Requiring carry weapons to be concealed within a city makes sense.
Those are some examples of what I mean by reasonable. But telling citizens in good standing that they can't express their opinions, state the truth about wrongs, or possess firearms is a violation.
It doesn't make sense to me that "rights are rights" . . .
DeleteAh--the old "rights are not rights" argument. Good luck with that ;-).
. . . Kurt's extremist ideas about not accepting any restrictions at all on the 2A kinda puts him right out of the discussion.
I kinda disagree. I think I've been playing a fairly active role in the discussion. And good luck getting much agreement on that. I might hold a position that differs in the details from the positions held by many other gun rights advocates, but as rights advocates, we tend not to demand monolithic ideological purity. We'll leave that to the angry hive insects who comprise the "gun control" side.
I certainly don't think you'll find many gun rights advocates who think my positions should be grounds to deny my right to discuss gun rights. Again, stomping on rights is your sides M.O., not ours.
You're playing dumb again, Kurt and it really doesn't suit you. The discussion you've put yourself outside of with your bizarre extreme notions about restrictions is the very specific one that Greg brought up. It's the discussion of what do we mean by "reasonable." Of course you're an active participant in the general discussion, which contrary to the absolutely stupid remarks you made, I wouldn't want to prevent - obviously. You're commenting on my blog.
DeleteBy the way, did you see that typo? I wouldn't want to [sic] you, man, but I wonder if this is a sign of moral deterioration on your part. That is what you said, wasn't it? It's a moral responsibility to avoid that kind of thing.
Thanks, Greg. I don't have to agree 100% with every one of your positions in order to be honored and grateful to be on the same side of the main debate.
DeleteMy sincere apologies for the mistake. I do make an effort to avoid those, because my personal ethics demand that I do so, but sometimes the effort comes up short.
DeleteAgain, my apologies.
Oh, and "reasonable" means shall not be infringed. ;-)
I'd still like to know if you think that a ban of the Girandoni rifle is "reasonable," despite it having existed well before the drafting of the Second Amendment, thus further eviscerating O'Donnell's ridiculous "logic." And if you don't think it's reasonable, then how do you justify New York's law limiting guns to about a third of the firepower of the Girandoni?
DeleteWanna hear something funny? I'm being told that my thoughts regarding what's "reasonable" in terms of gun policy are "extremist," by someone who thinks that it's "reasonable" to forcibly disarm for life someone for dropping a gun, who thinks that forcible disarmament for physical infirmities is "reasonable," and that forcible lifetime disarmament of (what is it--about half of American gun owners?) tens of millions of gun owners is "reasonable." Now that's hilarious.
DeleteKeep talking, Mikeb--I think you'll find that most gun rights advocates are far more comfortable with my vision for armed American than with yours (time to look for a new "wedge issue," perhaps).
Mike,
DeleteYou like to keep coming back to talking about what is a reasonable restriction and what isn't, but according to positions you've taken here, a reasonable restriction is one that forbids half of the country, or more, from owning weapons and that restricts that weaponry to at least 100+ year old technology, if not older. After all, as long as we don't ban and confiscate all of the guns, you don't think we've violated the Constitution.
However, as Kurt keeps pointing out, the Constitution's language states that the RKBA "shall not be infringed." This seems to be as strong of a prohibition as the statement that "Congress shall make no law" found in the First Amendment. It would seem that any law affecting the RKBA should be given the same strict scrutiny that laws affecting First Amendment freedoms are given. (Of course, that statement could lead us into a whole other argument regarding whether the First Amendment is currently protected by enough scrutiny.)
Kurt, Greg, and I may argue over where the boundaries are where protection of other rights of other people require limitations on our ability to own and use what we want, but it is painfully obvious to us that your idea of "reasonable restrictions" goes way too far.
You can bet the ranch that if the Founders had had AR-15's, they would have been tickled to death.
ReplyDelete"Kurt, Greg, and I may argue over where the boundaries are where protection of other rights of other people require limitations on our ability to own and use what we want, but it is painfully obvious to us that your idea of "reasonable restrictions" goes way too far."
ReplyDeleteMY idea goes way too far? Are you kidding me? Kurt says NO RESTRICTIONS whatever, but my definition of reasonable restrictions, which would leave 150 million gun owners alone, goes too far? How do you figure?
Picture a clock. The 9 is extreme gun control, bans on everything, no civilian guns at all. The 3 is total "shall not be infringed," no restrictions at all. I'm at 11, you and Greg are at 2 and Kurt is at 3.
In other words, I hate to say it, but I'm the most reasonable one here.
Now I don't care who you are--that's the most hysterically funny thing I've seen in a long time. You need to do that on video--YouTube would pay for the traffic.
DeleteNice clock picture. Of course, I could describe a similar clock where You are at 9:30, I'm at 2 and Greg is at 1. I could then indulge in false modesty and say that I hate to say it, but Greg and I are more reasonable than you.
DeleteIn the end, it doesn't really matter how reasonable each of us thinks we are, but how reasonable people think we are. As Kurt pointed out above, you've taken a lot of positions far beyond anything attempted in Manchin-Toomey--positions that would send most of the public running away as if their hair was on fire and their asses were catchin'.
Mikeb, it's no surprise that you find yourself to be the most reasonable person in your system of logic. We've discussed how much your system is worth before.
DeleteAs for me being reasonable, I'm just being practical. I put my goals in order and fight for the most important first. For example, concealed carry reciprocity is more important to me than owning a machine gun. But that doesn't mean that I believe the laws restricting such ownership to be reasonable or even Constitutional.
I'm guessing, Mikeb, that you'll find some bones of contention with my latest JPFO piece, in which I describe the NRA as the only "moderate 'gun control'" group.
DeleteOn your clock, I'd put them at 10:30, and you at one Planck Time unit after 9.
I would be somewhere around 1:30, I suppose. Maybe a little earlier, since I'm willing not only to spare the death penalty for the oath-breaking political officials who have pushed unconstitutional "gun control" (any "gun control," in other words) I would even advocate sparing them prison time, as long as they were barred forever from holding a government position, and had to register as Constitutional rights violators (for life).
Thanks for the link to your JFPO article. I posted it, you've probably seen that already.
DeleteYou lost me with the clock image. How about this? A scale of 1 to 10, 1 being extreme gun control and 10 being extreme gun rights.
I'm at about 4, the NRA is about 7 and you're at about 9.5.
Interesting. So you'd put yourself exactly equidistant from "extreme gun control" and from the NRA. Presumably, the well known "gun control" groups (Brady Campaign, "Everytown," CSGV, etc.) would be lower than 7, but nowhere near 4 (because your position on "gun control" is so extreme that the mainstream groups know better than to ever publicly espouse it, lest they be dismissed as kooks)?
Delete