Gun control would be easy??

[TXBO]

Registering cars had no effect on driving vehicular deaths down. Stricter penalties and enforcement did.

Guess it doesn't matter that murder rates are on a 10 year decline just like car deaths.... but without registration.

[sjfcontrol]

Registering cars had no effect on driving vehicular deaths down. Stricter penalties and enforcement did.

Guess it doesn't matter that murder rates are on a 10 year decline just like car deaths.... but without registration.

Don't know about stricter penalties and enforcement...

But I DO know that cars are MUCH safer today than they've been in the past. You're essentially driving around in a big bubble. Surrounded by air bags. (Assuming you don't have the air bags that fire shrapnel into your face!)

[JALLEN]

From the Houston Chronicle, this morning.

http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2015/08/ ... d-be-easy/

Two points.....

Insurance coverage is not usually available for intentional acts. Your homeowners insurance probably covers you for negligent acts with a firearm, but certainly not intentional shooting. Being unable to obtain required insurance, which is what they really intend, is certainly an infringement, wouldn't you say?

To the lib Progs, the Second Amendment cannot serve to protect citizens from government because government to them is the Supreme Being, the Source of all rights, mercy, order, benevolence, all powerful, all beneficial, all knowing. The very idea of keeping weapons to protect against a tyrannical government is utter nonsense, inconceivable, impossible, a divide by zero, etc. It was only put there by a bunch of superstitious zealots. Thankfully, enlightened people in modern times know better.

[Dragonfighter]

All these whackjobs think they can spew policies and then delegate the dirty "war-in-the-trenches" job of actual implementation and enforcement to our already overburdened law enforcement.

I'd invite him to have the courage to personally come and try to take my guns. It wouldn't end well.

These people do not realize the bloodbath they are talking about triggering (or they do not care).

Oh, they care. The glut of newsworthy incidents would finally sate their blood lust as in: "If it bleeds, it leads."

[TXBO]

Registering cars had no effect on driving vehicular deaths down. Stricter penalties and enforcement did.

Guess it doesn't matter that murder rates are on a 10 year decline just like car deaths.... but without registration.

Don't know about stricter penalties and enforcement...

But I DO know that cars are MUCH safer today than they've been in the past. You're essentially driving around in a big bubble. Surrounded by air bags. (Assuming you don't have the air bags that fire shrapnel into your face!)

My point is that registration has not been the catalyst to reducing driving deaths. Car registration predated the current trend by many,many years.

It would also be terribly hard to argue that the crackdown on DWI's and DUI's haven't been a deterrent but I'm not going to dig for any stats to prove it.

[The Annoyed Man]

From the Houston Chronicle, this morning.

http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2015/08/ ... d-be-easy/

Hi Jim,

I confess that I got this far and no further:

As we process yet another pointless horror delivered by our idiotic gun culture..........

........and I stopped right there because I realized that the author is not truly interested in any kind of equitable solution that includes a respect for my rights. Plus, it's not like he's writing about an original idea, as "his" idea has been yammered about for decades by thousands of people.

It would be far easier to simply enforce the laws we already have.....but enforcing existing law is not that popular with many people, nor with this administration in particular.

At least, that's how I see it.

TAM

[treadlightly]

I believe keener minds than mine have correctly identified the blogger in question as a pampered nutcase who believes laws create barriers to criminals. I've started to respond a couple of times but didn't because this won't be short.

This revisionist statement particularly bothered me:

As for my right to hold weapons as a method of “defending” myself from my elected government, that does not exist and has never existed. It is not in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights and never has been found under any Constitutional interpretation we have ever used. Pack the Supreme Court with nine Scalia’s and you still won’t have those rights.

He's an idiot. For those who can't recognize calm reasoning when they see it, I do not support revolution in the present context. We've taken some steps toward the need for the people to seek redress for governmental excesses, but we are a long way from justification for another shot heard 'round the world.

That is nonetheless the core reason the 2nd Amendment exists, and probably no surprise here. It is an ultimate check against a government run wild.

In High School, and later in UT American History, I learned about the Federalist Papers, but for some reason nobody ever mentioned the Anti Federalists, headed up by folks like Patrick Henry and George Mason.

Anyone not familiar with the Anti Federalists has a treat in store when they read up on the movement. Basically, the Federalist Papers were arguments in favor of a strong central government and against the criticism coming from the anti-feds. We have the Bill of Rights because the Anti Federalists insisted on the first ten amendments. The Federalists thought they were unnecessary. A blogger owes his recognized freedom of speech to rebels who did not trust America to institute a supreme government.

In the present question of gun rights, Federalist 46 comes to mind. Madison wrote:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

Madison was arguing that a standing army, one of the things the Anti Federalists wanted to prohibit, would not undermine freedom. Such an army would face an overwhelming opposing force - a militia (the people) "with arms in their hands."

If there is lingering doubt what Madison thought of the notion of a Federal army facing armed resistance from within the country, he continued in #46:

It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

So, yes, Sparkles, what you call our "idiotic gun culture" is a moderating influence. What you call "pointless horror" is nothing compared to the work of government without respect for the individual and outside the rule of law or the Constitutionally directed will of the people.

Humanity is mourning and prosecuting pointless horror. Tyranny is stripping civil rights in pursuit of some ephemeral greater good.

Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.

[The Annoyed Man]

Anyone not familiar with the Anti Federalists has a treat in store when they read up on the movement. Basically, the Federalist Papers were arguments in favor of a strong central government and against the criticism coming from the anti-feds. We have the Bill of Rights because the Anti Federalists insisted on the first ten amendments.

It's actually a little more complicated than that. The 9th and 10 Amendments were added by the Federalists. Here's a good video which explains the conflict between the two factions, and how that relates to life in the U.S. today:

[treadlightly]

Nice video!

I stand corrected. I believe the accurate statement is the Federalists didn't believe a Bill of Rights was needed, and the Anti Federalists weren't comfortable without it.

Am I right, in my unschooled reasoning, to believe the right to keep and bear was viewed by founding fathers as a check against the government?

Even when arguing government could refrain from tyranny without a specific Bill of Rights, the Federalists appear to acknowledge the people stand guard over their own freedom.

[b322da]

The first ten amendments to our Constitution were ratified 224 years ago, and, depending on the mind of the debater, we still quote both sides of an argument which existed at that time. We conveniently take our choice of which side of that argument we will quote today as we argue about what that Constitution means over two centuries later.

The more significant national debate is whether what something meant, to either a Federalist or Anti-Federalist, take your pick, is what it means today. That is, is our Constitution frozen in time, or does it take account of changed culture, conditions, mores, and such?

This question is the overriding question, and the answer to this question arguably determines all the other questions about which we use quotations from the long dead and buried. In fact, the answer to that question determines whether or not the arguments made by the founders are even relevant to the issues we have before us today.

I am not taking a position in this debate, I simply point this out, so that we keep our eye on the ball, and realize that in quoting the founders we display our answer to that overriding question, and perhaps display our ignoring the real question, which has not been at all settled. This question is still alive and well in the halls of the Supreme Court of the United States. To ignore this fundamental question can result in a meaningless debate, with the debaters talking over each other's heads.

Jim

[ScottDLS]

The first ten amendments to our Constitution were ratified 224 years ago, and, depending on the mind of the debater, we still quote both sides of an argument which existed at that time. We conveniently take our choice of which side of that argument we will quote today as we argue about what that Constitution means over two centuries later.

The more significant national debate is whether what something meant, to either a Federalist or Anti-Federalist, take your pick, is what it means today. That is, is our Constitution frozen in time, or does it take account of changed culture, conditions, mores, and such?

This question is the overriding question, and the answer to this question arguably determines all the other questions about which we use quotations from the long dead and buried. In fact, the answer to that question determines whether or not the arguments made by the founders are even relevant to the issues we have before us today.

I am not taking a position in this debate, I simply point this out, so that we keep our eye on the ball, and realize that in quoting the founders we display our answer to that overriding question, and perhaps display our ignoring the real question, which has not been at all settled. This question is still alive and well in the halls of the Supreme Court of the United States. To ignore this fundamental question can result in a meaningless debate, with the debaters talking over each other's heads.

Jim

YES. Our Constitution means what it meant when it was written and as amended. If it's a living, breathing, document to be re-interpreted at the whim of the judiciary, then we will end up with anarchy.

It's not designed to be re-interpreted in the face of changing times, it is designed to function as a fundamental document establishing the operation of the Republic. If we must interpret it to be malleable to changing fashion, rather than as originally intended, then it becomes meaningless moral relativism. There are ways to change the Constitution and they are not by judicial fiat. But we have already lost the battle, hence new Constitutional rights to abortion, sodomy, and gay marriage, and no right to keep and bear arms.

[92f-fan]

I hate that ANYONE with a keyboard and a blog is considered a news source now.
I dont want to hear from / about random kooks talking to themselves on a street corner and I dont want to hear from people like this guy. The fact that he is "published" on the internet does not give his opinion merit.

After all we are all "published" on the internet today as well - thanks to Charles and our ramblings have the same merit / impact...

I miss the days of editors and limited space above the fold - it held the news companies to a higher standard

[MechAg94]

As we process yet another pointless horror delivered by our idiotic gun culture, let’s take a moment to remember that effective gun regulation would be very simple.

I agree with others above. All I had to read is the first sentence to know the author is a gun control nutjob that has no intention of being objective. No reason to waste time with the rest of it.

[The Annoyed Man]

The first ten amendments to our Constitution were ratified 224 years ago, and, depending on the mind of the debater, we still quote both sides of an argument which existed at that time. We conveniently take our choice of which side of that argument we will quote today as we argue about what that Constitution means over two centuries later.

The more significant national debate is whether what something meant, to either a Federalist or Anti-Federalist, take your pick, is what it means today. That is, is our Constitution frozen in time, or does it take account of changed culture, conditions, mores, and such?

This question is the overriding question, and the answer to this question arguably determines all the other questions about which we use quotations from the long dead and buried. In fact, the answer to that question determines whether or not the arguments made by the founders are even relevant to the issues we have before us today.

I am not taking a position in this debate, I simply point this out, so that we keep our eye on the ball, and realize that in quoting the founders we display our answer to that overriding question, and perhaps display our ignoring the real question, which has not been at all settled. This question is still alive and well in the halls of the Supreme Court of the United States. To ignore this fundamental question can result in a meaningless debate, with the debaters talking over each other's heads.

Jim

Hi Jim,

Here is my best answer as to the "meaning of the Constitution".....

Until it is amended by subsequent generations, it has exactly the meaning that the Founders intended. There was no real debate between the Federalists and anti-Federalists as to the meaning of Articles 1 through 7 as ratified. The debate was over the necessity for a Bill of Rights, which the Federalists acceded to with the addition of their own 9th and 10th Amendments. So, the Bill of Rights aside, the Constitution means today what it meant back then. Enter the Amendment process.

In their overall wisdom, the Founders realized that succeeding generations might want to amend the Constitution further, in order to make it work with their changing society. BUT.... they also made it deliberately difficult to amend, to act as a damping effect on the more ephemeral whims of changing society. Thus, it IS possible to change it by amendment, but it CANNOT be easily changed without due consideration being given to the rights of those who will be most significantly impacted to the negative by any impending change.

So, unless and until the meaning is changed through amendment, it continues to have the same meaning as it once was understood to mean by the men who wrote it. An old friend of mine who is an attorney in California (and a confirmed left of center democrat) once told me that he believed the Constitution was a living, breathing thing, and that its meaning changes over time. So I asked him several followup questions.... I asked him if he believed in the rule of law. He said he did. I then asked him whether or not he believed that the law was generally hung upon the framework of the Constitution, and he agreed that it was. And so I then asked him the coup de grace, "so if the law is hung upon the framework of the Constitution, and if the Constitution changes without amendment to mean whatever you want it to mean, then do you of course believe that the law changes to mean whatever you want it to mean? His answer was "that's why we need lawyers".

Now, I agree that a world without lawyers would be a bad place, and please don't take this as an attack on the profession because I highly value and respect it; but there IS such a thing as too much of a good thing. I believe that if lawyers had not convinced one another AND a gullible (and intellectually lazy) public that the law means whatever you want it to mean, we would need a lot fewer lawyers. It's kind of like people taking their advice about coronary good health from Whataburger.

The simplest plausible explanation for almost anything is almost always the best explanation. The simplest and most plausible explanation of what the Founders actually thought about a changing Constitution is that it meant exactly what they said it meant until such time as a future generation amended it to mean something different. I'm not much of a fan of judicial "penumbras and emanations"......because they resist any definition which originates from any part of the as-yet-unamended Founders' intent.

And of course, any amendment subsequent to the 10th had IT'S own intent as added to the Constitution, and there is plenty of documentation as to the original intent of each subsequent amendment to know exactly what Congress and the state legislatures meant when they ratified those amendments. There is NO need for any kind of legal fiction from a judge to invent what ain't there.

We already have the answer on how to proceed with these things.

Until Roe v Wade, the Constitution made no mention of abortion. Therefore, under a strict interpretation, it had no authority over it one way or the other. You want to ensure its national legality? Amend the Constitution. You want to ensure a national right to life? Amend the Constitution.

Until Kelo v New London (which turned out to be a financial boondoggle for which nobody has yet gone to jail) AND Berman v. Parker, the restriction on government in eminent domain cases consisted of two things: a "just compensation" requirement, and that the seizure of property must be for "public use"......with "public" understood to mean owned and operated by the public ["Explicit in the just compensation clause is the requirement that the taking of private property be for a public use; the Court has long accepted the principle that one is deprived of his property in violation of this guarantee if a State takes the property for any reason other than a public use." SOURCE]. It was a 5th Amendment guarantee. Then a "conservative" court upholds a government seizure of private land for the purpose of gifting it to a privately held, for-profit, corporation. That changed the meaning of the 5th Amendment from its original intent (to facilitate transportation, the supplying of water, and the like,184 but the use of the power to establish public parks, to preserve places of historic interest, and to promote beautification has substantial precedent..... see same link above), to meaning and old darn thing they want it to mean, NO MATTER the injustice perpetrated against the property rights of the individual. That HARDLY squares with original intent. If powerful interests want the property right guarantee inherent in the 5th Amendment to have the modern meaning, then let them amend the Constitution......or course being aware that it can then be used against them just as they do against others. If not, then JUSTICE is best served by adhering to the original intent.....which brings me to the point of this thread:

If you want to curtail individual gun rights in some manner, then amend the Constitution. Until then, respect the phrase "shall not be infringed".

Jim, you and I may not agree on this thing, but that is the reasoning by which I arrive at my conclusion.

I would add just one other thing...... It boggles the mind to imagine that the same Founders who had just fought a bloody revolution against an oppressive government in the name of liberty, would agree that ANY future amendments ought to in any way restrict that liberty for which they fought.