If you ever had a Right to Keep and Bear Arms – you have it now – and Government can Never take it from you Lawfully. It is unalienable, and it is necessary to protect your own life and property, and the lives and property of your family and neighbors – even the Union – against all enemies foreign and domestic.The high court really has only one function in Heller--and that's to confirm that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Questions along the lines of which infringements are "reasonable" are indeed sophistry.
The notion that certain weapons are not suited to personal protection is also sophistry that preys upon gross ignorance.
I note that GOA is taking no small amount of heat from the no line in the sand crowd for its recent criticism of Alan Gura's concession, and that he has reacted heatedly.
This may surprise some of you, but I do agree with Gura that had he presented an absolutist argument he would have lost the judges--which tells us more about the sorry state we have allowed our government to degrade into than anything else. Gura "didn't make the last 219 years of constitutional law and [he's] not responsible for the way that people out there -- and on the court-- feel about machine guns."
He didn't and he's not. We can't expect him to undo all that for us.
But I don't agree that anticipating the question--and he must have--with a rejoinder that machine guns were outside the intentionally narrow and limited scope of the case being argued would have been perceived as "fudging," and objections for his totally misinterpreting Miller as excluding arms "not appropriate for civilian applications" are legitimate and appropriate.
I don't know where some get off acting like there's no room for criticism, and the expected reactionary hostility I've seen is way out of proportion to what was really a rather mild statement on the part of Larry Pratt & Co. If the "pragmatists" flipped over that, wait 'til they see what Vin Suprynowicz has to say.
[Via Ron W]
20 comments:
One particularly slimy unman actual called Pratt "slime". Yet, like you I did not see anything Pratt said that was too harsh.
I am not in Gura's shoes, but he did fuck up in that section. He could have just said, "that is not the issue before the court and we have are prepared to argue only this issue and not waste the court's time or my time for oral argument on tangential issues."
Or words to that effect.
Still, in all, Gura is fighting the good fight and it is easy to criticize from out here in the cheap seats without the pressure of performance.
I still wish he had been better educated on the issue. At least, enough not to fall for traps that aren't even on the path of case he is on.
having said the above, I probably would have spent the entire time going "uh, um, er , huh? ahem, uh, um, hmmm" .
Suprynowicz is one bright man. The no line in the sand crowd must be wetting their panties when they read him.
I'm not sure I agree that ackknowledging that machineguns are also protected "arms" would have been a loser. Yes, there is no way that it would have been a unanimous decision in that case, but I expect it would have still comeout as a 5-4 qualified win. The justices are not stupid and THEY know the stakes, especially with teh eyes of the nation on them in this case. Sadly, "our" side seem to be unaware of the stakes. The MG "understanding" was a way that the ussc could steer the question away from the areas they did not want to touch on. (Yes, I did not capitalize ussc as I do not believe that they are any greater than any other citizen, and in fact they have proven themselves to be lesser beings. This has been accomplished in past decisions, as well as in the current case where they ought to have pretty much slapped DC down since the law states "shall not be infringed" pretty unambiguously.)
Yet another 'controversy' from the armchair warriors. Has everyone already forgotten that the whole MG can of worms was broached by DC's attorney? We gunnies seem to be happiest when we're trying to cut one another's throats.
The first mention of 'collective rights' was in 1914, 25 years before the 1939 Miller decision, ie, we didn't get here overnight, nor are we going to turn it all back at once. Sorry, but that's the way it has to go, even though that means my Rights get Infringed each and every day until then. Unless you're advocating individual fatal 'last stands': I'm here in south Florida, and there are two front-line RKBA blogs based in the north of the state. In plain English, after I build my subgun and let it be known that I have such a thing, I then have to make my way through 250+ miles of Injun Country just to meet up with a known ally. And supposing I survive the intial assault, but along the way one of my bullets kill a little girl, will these RKBA bloggers ignore that and take up arms with me? Too many variables right now. With all the letters and comments I've left pretty much everywhere, I have to assume I'm on somebody's list, which means I'll be getting the full treatment. It would be stupid of me to throw my life away over a Point of Order that's not yet on the table. Stating the truth is fine, but it does no good if no-one is ready to hear that Truth. And judging from the editorials from the Sun-Sentinel and the Palm Beach Post (ad nauseum), that day is still some distance off. I'll glady sell my life to the highest bidder, but I won't throw it away. The issue at hand is self-defense in the home in the face of UnConstitutional restrictions, please let's focus on that first.
And it strikes me that this GOA/NRA dissonance is the wrong argument: one side will brook no compromise and the other will entertain them all. Clearly we need a representative group in the middle somewhere...
David,
I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you (and Gura) here. I read the transcript of the oral arguments and the Justices opened the door wide to explore the logic behind the Second Amendment. No one did so. The logic is found in the Federalist 51 which I have repeatedly quoted. Whether we like it or not, whether anyone agrees with the Bible or not, the logic behind the Founders determination that everyone be armed, stems from man's basic nature — which is evil. Funny how they understood that and accepted it as a basic fact of life. No one in this case went there. They should have as it ends all argument about who should be armed, and whether that right is absolute or not.
BTW, I hit Quentin with that after the oral arguments in Wayne's case. I told him that we do not restrict the possession of words, only how they are used. His reply was that words don't kill people. Wrong answer. I told him that Hitler's words killed lots of people. So have Karl Marx' words, Josef Stalin's, Lenin's etc.
I did not tell him that unwise, unrestrained and unwarranted use of words have been responsible for the deaths of more people in the 20th century than all the guns combined. Perhaps I should have.
In fact, if could be that Gura's failure to explore the real underpinnings of the Second Amendment (and our constitutional form of government) may well be the words of justification used to put an entire nation under tyranny.
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." (Federalist 51)
All we needed from Heller was the confirmation that the 2nd is an individual right unrelated to military service.
We will get that.
The rest of the fight remains ours. We have to win the hearts and minds of our neighbors.
I disagree that he should have sidestepped. He had to be prepped for the question as the SG went into great gyrations in his amicus. If he hemmed, hawed, or sidestepped they'd have eaten his lunch.
We didn't lose our rights in the courts...we lost them in the legislature and that is where we need to win them back.
Besides, if you are a constitutional literalist, you wouldn't recognize the ability of the Supreme Court to override the legislature. The concept of judicial review was assumed by the early court and is not provided for in the Constitution.
If you are a constitutional literalist, you wouldn't recognize the ability of the legislature to override the Bill of Rights.
But good luck with majority rule democracy in Illinois. We're about to see how many hearts and minds we've won in November, and I don't think it will be pretty--certainly not in the presidential race, no matter who wins.
It is an uphill battle in IL and I suppose I could move to a friendlier state, but I'm a stubborn SOB! LOL.
Not so very stubborn. Your last sounded very malleably "reasonable".
Fuck reasonable, everybody trying to prove they were reasonable is what got us here. Not the legislatures, not the courts, but the knowledge that we would bow our necks and claim we were being reasonable when either of those institutions decided to abuse us.
Can rape be accepted as reasonable if the rapist promises to only put in in halfway? If not, why the Hell not, under all this reasonableness?
So when did "reasonable" become derogatory? Go ahead and keep whining and complaining bitterly and accomplishing nothing meanwhile criticizing those that are making things happen for us.
Aw you can't get it all in one big court case so you will continue impotently mouthing empty threats and promises of brave deeds.
I had a long post, but then I realized that the people who believe in "reasonable" and "reasonable restrictions" are just gun grabbers in different clothes. They don't care as long as their interests are not infringed on. They have the same old "Hooray for me and the hell with everybody else" attitudes. However, they feel kind of dirty, not that they know why, so they have to attack those who disagree.
I just hope that I am around long enough to say I told you so.
I'm not aware of a successfuly general that waged a war in one big battle.
"The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
-- Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
FF,
Newsflash for you, a court case is NOT a WAR. Wars are not decided by referees.
Besides, we lost the instant that the court decided to hear arguments on this case. They did not follow the law laid down in the Constitution. Shows that they will ignore whatever laws are passed whenever it is convenient to do so.
I'd be glad to hear your list of accomplishments. What have you done to secure the blessings of liberty lately and how successful was it?
Federal Farmer said...
"So when did "reasonable" become derogatory?"
When it became an excuse not to stand up the first time and it brought us to where we are.
Any more stupid questions?
"When it became an excuse not to stand up the first time and it brought us to where we are."
Not all of us are as old as the hills. I was 3 when they passed GCA68. Not even a glimmer in when NFA was passed.
It took us over 70 years to get here and you get pissed that it isn't unraveled overnight?
Thanks Mack. The quote is greatly appreciated.
Yeah, I'm pissed. Not at you,personally though.Perhaps you should acknowledge your youthful inexperience and listen to some of the older people who can tell you how it happened and that doing the same things we did then will have the same result. You know the definition of insanity.
Great, why not clue us in to what you tried that failed so we'll know.
Post a Comment