This is my third and final installment in a series of blog entries on guns and the second amendment. I promise no more, for the foreseeable future. I was planning on blogging about how the anti-gun movement has lost some steam since the Heller decision and wanted to discuss some aspects of that. I was in the middle of writing a response to Andy's comment on the previous entry, when I decided to include it in this post.
As is evident by the responses on this blog, I think the gun rights movement owes a fair amount to the intellectual honesty of most liberals. An article called, Liberals, Guns, and the Constitution makes this point very well. I wrote a paper on the 2nd Amendment for a Con Law seminar 4 or so years ago. The collective rights theory was definitely in the minority, but there were some prominent advocates. This isn't the case any more and that position seems to be on its way to history books and out of public policy and modern scholarship. The article mentions an excellent article by Sanford Levinson, called The Embarrassing Second Amendment. Levinson is, by no definition, a conservative.
I don't think this means that we are about to see AK47's being given to children on every corner, but I am hoping that we can see a more reasoned discussion. I would also like to see the laws regarding guns to respect liberty and the Constitution and protect rights while also ensuring the safety of the public.
Andy raised many points in his response to my previous post. I thought it should be included here, since it touches a great deal on rights:
I don't understand why anyone needs to own an assault weapon unless they are in the military.
This goes back to my original point. Individual liberties are not subject to the individual first demonstrating a need. This is just not the way it is done in a free society. Never has and never should be. I can think of a variety of reasons...some compelling, some not compelling. This makes no difference.
Can't use them for hunting.
The 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. It isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, nor is it mentioned in any commentary published it at that time. I doesn't appear anywhere in the Federalist papers. As much as I enjoy hunting, I understand that the legislature can regulate it in any way it wants, including an outright ban.
Hand guns or even semi-automatics will do for burglars and protection.
I am confused here. An "assault rifle", as defined by the AWB, is a semi-auto. If you are thinking machine gun, they are already highly regulated and out of reach of most people, in terms of how much they cost. What do you think and assault rifle is?
All things are basic rights, but Congress has the right to decide what the basic rights are.
No.they.don't.
All things aren't basic rights. The Bill of Rights lists certain rights, but fundamental rights don't owe their existence to the gov't, they are inherent to a free people. A religious person would say they come from God. A non-religious person would say they are inherent to all humans by our nature.
The gov't certainly has the ability to pass laws and regulate a variety of acts, but they cannot infinge upon basic liberties except for rare circumstances and under very narrow means.
I think the 2nd amendment allows for freedom to bear arms, but not the freedom to bear assault weapons.
I think the 1st Amendment allows for media outlets to publish unpopular views, but unless you are an employee of them, people should be arrested for speaking out against the government. This is a silly example, but you are saying the same thing. An assault weapon is an 'arm'.
The Brady bill was put in to ensure safety of the people.
1. It didn't lower crime or improve safety. There have been several studies that have proven this.
2. We need to be careful as to what we do in the name of safety. Some Asian country (IIRC, North Korea) instituted a curfew for everyone which had the effect of dramatically lowering crime. Do you think this is a good idea. I can guarantee if we allowed warrantless, random searches, we would catch many criminals and seize a great deal of contraband. Should we negate the 4th Amendment.
I think that it should be re-enacted. So do most Americans
Irrelevent, if we are talking about a fundamental liberty.
It only expired because the radical right in Congress let it.
This not how I remembered it. There was certainly support amond anti-gun groups and some in Congress, but most were content to let it die.
And there was an uproar.
More like a whimper.
Read more...
