Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Stop the Insanity: Ban Guns

Gerald Ensley


The Tallahassee Democrat

I'm not talking about gun control. I'm not talking about waiting periods and background checks.
I'm talking about flat-out banning the possession of handguns and assault rifles by individual citizens. I'm talking about repealing or amending the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Second Amendment has been misinterpreted. It says guns are permitted to a "well-regulated militia." That means trained citizen soldiers called into action for emergencies — because in colonial times every able-bodied man was required to be a member of the militia. It does not mean everyone with $50 and a driver's license is entitled to own a gun.
That's what former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger said in 1990, when he called claims of Second Amendment protection of individual gun ownership, "a fraud on the American public." Earlier this year, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens called the Second Amendment one of the six great flaws with the U.S. Constitution. He called for it to be amended to say gun possession was only for state militias, not individuals.
Every legal opinion for 200 years denied individual gun ownership was a right — until the steady lobbying of the National Rifle Association created a climate that allowed a conservative U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 to strike down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia, and fuel the sense of entitlement of gun owners.

45 comments:

  1. "Every legal opinion for 200 years denied individual gun ownership was a right — until the steady lobbying of the National Rifle Association created a climate that allowed a conservative U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 to strike down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia, and fuel the sense of entitlement of gun owners."

    As we've discussed before, this nation has been moving steadily in the direction of supporting individual rights. Just because the court has backed something for over 200 years doesn't make it right. One might make the same argument with other individual freedoms. Gay rights, voting rights, minority rights, and the list goes on.
    I do wish he'd say where you can pick up a gun for fifty bucks. I'd like to see if its a drivable distance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Time will tell if gun rights is really in the category of the other rights you listed. I tend to think its rise in recent years is an aberration rather than a steady movement towards the future.

      Delete
    2. It's convenient that you list rights that don't exist like gay rights. Minority rights were not part of the Constitution, it took centuries to fight for those rights. There's a BIG difference between protecting rights already in the Constitution and fighting for freedoms that should be a right under the Constitution. Why should any black person have to fight for their individual freedom rights? Why should discrimination be legal against gays, just because they are gay? They are human right? Some (bigots) don't think so.

      Delete
  2. It's too bad that Justice William O. Douglas' comment in his dissent to Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972) isn't more widely cited: especially since Douglas was on the Court at the time the Miller decision was decided. He could have cited to Douglas a very good authority for a ban:

    The police problem is an acute one not because of the Fourth Amendment, but because of the ease with which anyone can acquire a pistol. A powerful lobby dins into the ears of our citizenry that these gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment, which 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.”

    There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted. There is no reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a State may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police.

    The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, “must be interpreted and applied” with the view of maintaining a “militia.”

    “The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia – civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” Id., at 178-179.

    Critics say that proposals like this water down the Second Amendment. Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second Amendment, as noted, was designed to keep alive the militia. But if watering-down is the mood of the day, I would prefer to water down the Second rather than the Fourth Amendment.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Replies
    1. Thats the load of SHIT the left keeps trying to get us to buy isn't it....But but we just want common sense gun laws we are not going to take your guns, well except the ones we dont like of course.

      MBIAC.....

      Delete
    2. This guy's opinion is a rare example of gun control extremism. Much more commonplace is its counterpart, well represented by some of the commenters around here.

      Delete
  4. Laci - you keep citing comments from dissenting opinions as if they are law. Does anything in the dissenting opinion affect the majority decision in a case? If say one of the justices in Roe v. Wade said abortion should be illegal under all circumstances would that then be considered the law of the land?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm not for banning guns because of the criminal activity it would cause.
    This idea that 200years of 2A interpretations being overturned recently means that's more correct than the decisions of those 200 years, is a ridiculous gun loon stance. It doesn't even meet the logic, or common sense standard, much less nullify legal precedent in any permanent manner. It signifies the Supreme Court has become much more political in a partisan way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "This idea that 200years of 2A interpretations being overturned recently means that's more correct than the decisions of those 200 years, is a ridiculous gun loon stance."

      Anon, I'm sure there were many feeling the same way after Brown vs. Board of Education. After all, it changed a status quo that had been in force for over a hundred years. Just because its just been recently overturned, doesn't make it more correct, does it?
      As for your assertion that SCOTUS has become more political, I sort of doubt it. It was likely just as political back then. Just fewer pesky emails to get out into the public eye.
      Mike is quite up front in his anticipation for the political direction of the court to change through future appointments.

      Delete
    2. Another gun loon compares human rights to gun rights. You must be in a fantasy world to not know the history of the court and understand it has shifted to the right and made decisions based on politics.

      Delete
    3. "You must be in a fantasy world to not know the history of the court and understand it has shifted to the right and made decisions based on politics."

      Yes, that must explain it's support for other trademark right wing causes like privacy and gay rights.

      Delete
    4. You are such a sick liar and now proven what an idiot you are, thanks for that.

      Delete
  6. By the way, about this part (bold emphasis mine):

    We're coming for your guns. And someday, we'll take them.

    Based on that, would you suppose that he intends to participate personally in the mass confiscations (oh please, oh please)? I don't. He's a gun ban zealot, making it difficult not to assume that he's an abject sniveling coward.

    But I do hope I'm wrong. Wrong, and first on his list.

    How thick do you think his body armor is? Not thick enough, I'd wager.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One of our anonymous commenters is right about you. It's reprehensible if not actually criminal the way you revel in the possibility of killing someone. You're like the worst of the gun rights movement who long for the chance to kill - sick, weak, insecure men who get their strength from an inanimate object and their fantasies.

      Delete
    2. Nothing wrong with wanting to take out the trash, making the universe a better place.

      And thank you for the despised-by-the-despicable kudos.

      Oh, and speaking of "fantasies," do you agree with me that Ensley, with his "[w]e're coming for your guns," and "we'll take them," is almost certainly just blustering, too cowardly to participate in any role more active than mindless cheerleader?

      I do so hope I'm wrong . . .

      Delete
    3. It's reprehensible if not actually criminal the way you revel in the possibility of killing someone.

      I love the "if not actually criminal" part, as if any degree of liberty would exist in a society in which it is illegal to "revel in the possibility of" anything.

      Delete
    4. It IS illegal to revel in the possibility of the things you support. Like taking the law in to your own hands and attacking the government at gun point because YOU disagree with a law. Especially in a system that tells you how you can rightfully and legally change laws you don't like. Thinking anything is fine, saying you would commit a crime, encouraging breaking the law, and planning to break the law, is criminal and against the law.

      Delete
    5. "do you agree with me that Ensley, with his "[w]e're coming for your guns," and "we'll take them," is almost certainly just blustering,"

      Actually, I took the "we" to be a reference to the gun control movement as he envisions it.

      Delete
    6. "It IS illegal to revel in the possibility of the things you support."

      Speaking of which, Kurt, aren't you supposed to be in jail by now? At least being followed by men in suits driving dark sedans? I recall someone here saying they were going to report you.
      They have broadband in jail maybe? *grin*

      Delete
    7. Actually, I took the "we" to be a reference to the gun control movement as he envisions it.

      So "the 'gun control' movement" is coming for our guns, and will someday take them? I seriously doubt it.

      But just in case, I'll get some more ammo and large magazines. Can't be too careful.

      Speaking of which, Kurt, aren't you supposed to be in jail by now? At least being followed by men in suits driving dark sedans? I recall someone here saying they were going to report you.

      Yeah--I've been wondering about that, too, SSG. Guess the FBI is still not checking their email.

      Delete
    8. He should be, but as we have learned police are to easy on gun loons committing crimes and threatening people.

      Delete
  7. The language of the second amendment is clear: the necessary evil of a state militia is not a pretext for denying the natural, pre-existing right of private individuals to own guns. Why is this so hard to understand?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "natural, pre-existing" part is bullshit. That's what's so hard to understand.

      Delete
  8. Does anyone know what court case 200 years ago he is talking about? I see this mentioned by antis all the time, but not a citation of the actual case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wasn't talking about one case, and it's no surprise you don't understand.

      Delete
    2. I was asking about the one 200 years ago, but I am willing to discuss any one. Which case(s) so we can discuss?

      Delete
    3. You still don't get it idiot. You are just a waste of time.

      Delete
  9. FYI, Mike, you have this tendency to insert the word "all" into our words when we talk about gun banners, but in this case you are actually doing it to one of your own. He said he only wants to confiscate handguns and "assault rifles". So given that, how is his position much different than yours?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good one. I hadn't even noticed that, I guess, being so inured to your continual exaggerated use of the word.

      Delete
  10. This is my sober, calmly reasoned, level-headed response to this reeking, subhuman sack of tragically-not-dead-yet filth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wishing death on those who disagree with you, that's great, Kurt. That makes you a fanatical extremist even further out on the spectrum than Ensley is on the other end.

      Delete
    2. I believe in giving people their due, and this filth has earned a Julius Streicher award.

      I suppose I'm guilty of somewhat excessive ambition in my hope that I might be the one to personally present that award, but one betters oneself only by occasionally shooting for the stars, right?

      Delete
    3. Twice now you called this man an "extremists" after I revealed to you that he's not calling for a ban on all guns, but rather his position seems to be inline with yours. Again I ask what differentiates you from this extremist?

      Delete
    4. TS, please show me where I have called for a civilian ban on all handguns. Otherwise, I'll gladly accept your admission that you made an honest mistake.

      Delete
    5. Well, you like handgun bans in cities like DC, Chicago, and San Francisco. Is it that you don't support handgun bans in rural areas? Is that what separates an extremist from a " reasonable supporter of common sense regulation"?

      Delete
    6. I repeat, show me where I've supported a total ban on civilian ownership of handguns.

      Delete
    7. I repeat, show me where I've supported a total ban on civilian ownership of handguns.

      Shouldn't be hard, since one of your definitions of "ban" is subject to regulations, restrictions, and penalties for misuse--all of which you have long and shrilly advocated with regard to handguns.

      Delete
    8. That's true, Kurt. But did you really have difficulty following this discussion? Did you have any doubt what kind of "ban" we're talking about in this particular case?

      Delete
    9. Really?

      http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/11/proposition-h-in-san-francisco-2005.html?m=1

      Do I really need to post a link to your disapproval of the Heller/McDonald decisions too?

      Delete
    10. Do I need to link you to my post called Proper Gun Control. I've posted it several times.

      Delete
    11. Stop supporting handgun bans if you don't want people to think you want to ban handguns.

      Delete
    12. To have restrictions, regulations, and penalties for guns defines there is no "ban" on guns, but a sensible and constitutional system to ensure those whoi should not have guns don't get them.

      Delete
  11. "natural, pre-existing right"
    What?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I liked that one too. Those words were invented by some exaggerating gun nut and taken up by the others like a kind of slogan. Made up bullshit that sounds good, at least to their way of thinking.

      Delete