T Nation

Cheney Opposing D.C. Gun Ban

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/08/AR2008020803802.html?hpid=topnews

Wow! Cheney sided with the Constitution. On another note is anyone nervous about this being in the SCOTUS. If they rule that fireams ownership is not a right then would it pave the way for firearms confiscation

But, but! If they break the ban on handguns in DC, just think of how high the crime rate will go!

Oh, wait…

It’s nice for Cheney to step up. Broken clocks, and all that jazz.

Of course!

How’s he going to shoot old people in the face otherwise?

Well how about that? That just made my day.

mike

Is anyone surprised by this?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Is anyone surprised by this?[/quote]

Sure, neither Bush administration has been terribly gun friendly.

mike

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Is anyone surprised by this?

Sure, neither Bush administration has been terribly gun friendly.

mike[/quote]

They have not been unfriendly. To the best of my knowledge Cheney has long been pro 2nd amendment.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Is anyone surprised by this?

Sure, neither Bush administration has been terribly gun friendly.

mike

They have not been unfriendly. To the best of my knowledge Cheney has long been pro 2nd amendment.[/quote]

Bush 41 signed an assault weapons ban in '88. Bush 43 has brought anti-gunners into his cabinet in important positions. I’m thinking Alberto Gonzalez off the top of my head. I remember listening to Gonzo on the news talk about how the admin does not want guns in schools following the VT massacre. The admin is also siding against the people on the D.C. case. Cheney is going against the position of the administration in which he resides by taking the right side.

mike

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Is anyone surprised by this?

Sure, neither Bush administration has been terribly gun friendly.

mike

They have not been unfriendly. To the best of my knowledge Cheney has long been pro 2nd amendment.

Bush 41 signed an assault weapons ban in '88. Bush 43 has brought anti-gunners into his cabinet in important positions. I’m thinking Alberto Gonzalez off the top of my head. I remember listening to Gonzo on the news talk about how the admin does not want guns in schools following the VT massacre. The admin is also siding against the people on the D.C. case. Cheney is going against the position of the administration in which he resides by taking the right side.

mike[/quote]

You may misunderstand the admins position on this issue. They support individual gun owner rights but don’t want this law to throw out bans on rocket launchers etc. I am not sure how they are going to argue it.

“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.”

Notice the framers were non-specific about which arms the People have a right to. One cannot fight a battle against a tank with a handgun.

The People require tanks and missiles and any other arms the State could possibly use against them to defend themselves with. If the second Amendment were actually respected the State would have no power to tell the People what to do.

“Uh, yeah, did someone just mention income tax? Say hello to my little fren” [sic]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
“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.”

Notice the framers were non-specific about which arms the People have a right to. One cannot fight a battle against a tank with a handgun.

The People require tanks and missiles and any other arms the State could possibly use against them to defend themselves with. If the second Amendment were actually respected the State would have no power to tell the People what to do.

“Uh, yeah, did someone just mention income tax? Say hello to my little fren” [sic][/quote]

Are you in favor of no regulation on the ownership of weapons?

Stinger missles for whover can afford them?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

Are you in favor of no regulation on the ownership of weapons?

Stinger missles for whover can afford them?[/quote]

I want a customized F-16. It qualifies.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Are you in favor of no regulation on the ownership of weapons?

Stinger missles for whover can afford them?

I want a customized F-16. It qualifies.
[/quote]

Watch out for the neighborhood kids with stingers.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Are you in favor of no regulation on the ownership of weapons?

Stinger missles for whover can afford them?

I want a customized F-16. It qualifies.
[/quote]
Hey, its in the constitution and is says “arms…right…shall not be infringed…”

If the government didn’t steal our money they couldn’t afford them either.

Maybe the amendment needs to be rewritten to keep the citizenry from uprising. But I think that was the intent of that right. If the intent is to protect the individual from the state then it seems foolish to limit the word “arms” to mean handgun.

The original Amendment capitalized the word Militia and not the word people. It was later changed to militia and People. I think they intended the People to have the power.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Is anyone surprised by this?

Sure, neither Bush administration has been terribly gun friendly.

mike

They have not been unfriendly. To the best of my knowledge Cheney has long been pro 2nd amendment.

Bush 41 signed an assault weapons ban in '88. Bush 43 has brought anti-gunners into his cabinet in important positions. I’m thinking Alberto Gonzalez off the top of my head. I remember listening to Gonzo on the news talk about how the admin does not want guns in schools following the VT massacre. The admin is also siding against the people on the D.C. case. Cheney is going against the position of the administration in which he resides by taking the right side.

mike

You may misunderstand the admins position on this issue. They support individual gun owner rights but don’t want this law to throw out bans on rocket launchers etc. I am not sure how they are going to argue it.[/quote]

Well, they’d have to start allowing for machine guns and gasp short barrels before they need to fret about rocket launchers and I don’t see anyone letting up on that anytime soon.

mike

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
“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.”

Notice the framers were non-specific about which arms the People have a right to. One cannot fight a battle against a tank with a handgun.

The People require tanks and missiles and any other arms the State could possibly use against them to defend themselves with. If the second Amendment were actually respected the State would have no power to tell the People what to do.

“Uh, yeah, did someone just mention income tax? Say hello to my little fren” [sic]

Are you in favor of no regulation on the ownership of weapons?

Stinger missles for whover can afford them?[/quote]

I think this is a reasonable question. It seems to me that we should be allowing all weapons integral to an infantry battallion. Machine guns and short barreled shotties are no-brainers. But this would also include rocket launchers (SMAWs, TOWs, Javelins, ect.) This would not include tanks, planes, artillery, ect.

The idea isn’t that we would be going force on force, but rather operating as a guerrilla force. We would have MORE guns, not necessarily BETTER guns.

But here’s the rub: If you don’t think that we should have the right to own rocket launchers, artillery, ect, wouldn’t cannons have fallen under that category 240 years ago? How were privateers to be armed? I suppose we could say that you can’t have modern “cannons” until you get your letter of marque, but how then would you train with them? And more importantly, how would you get them released to you in the event of a revolt? I don’t have the answer but it is something to think about.

So far as rockets and machine guns go, what is the great fear of them? They are no more fearsome than a handgun. I can respect (though not completely) the fear of artillery, or bomber planes, but why fear a SMAW or AT4? (Stingers aren’t TO to an infantry battalion)It goes boom and kills a few people. Sure, now you can blow up vehicles, but you aren’t killing more people, just better protected ones.

All said, this is a pretty solid topic worth debating if some of you guys can keep from slapping dicks together.

mike

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
“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.”

Notice the framers were non-specific about which arms the People have a right to. One cannot fight a battle against a tank with a handgun.

The People require tanks and missiles and any other arms the State could possibly use against them to defend themselves with. If the second Amendment were actually respected the State would have no power to tell the People what to do.

[/quote]
With respect to Lifty, to Mikeyali, and others.

It is no secret that I am not a constitutional law scholar, and I am not part of the gun culture.

I would like to point to something that, I would be sure, has been used in 2nd Amendment cases previously. It says “[a] well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State…”

It is the only title of the Bill of Rights–if not the entire constitution–which states explicitly the reason for its inclusion.
Reason, in law, typically directs context and practice.

Now, Madison and the other framers were not sloppy writers. They did not write, “Necessary to the security of the people,” or " Necessary to the security of the States." If the right to bear arms was not ever to be infringed–ever, under every circumstance–would not the Framers have written, simply, “The right to bear arms shall not be infringed?”

The gun culture prefers to emphasize the 2nd Amendment’s second clause, but, even respecting the 9th and 10th amendments, why do we not consider the primacy of the first clause?

Here’s a link to a series of posts discussing all the briefs in this case:

http://www.volokh.com/posts/chain_1202366725.shtml

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Here’s a link to a series of posts discussing all the briefs in this case:

http://www.volokh.com/posts/chain_1202366725.shtml

[/quote]

Great citation. Read the principal briefs: I feel almost prescient, but not unchallenged.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
“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.”

Notice the framers were non-specific about which arms the People have a right to. One cannot fight a battle against a tank with a handgun.

The People require tanks and missiles and any other arms the State could possibly use against them to defend themselves with. If the second Amendment were actually respected the State would have no power to tell the People what to do.

With respect to Lifty, to Mikeyali, and others.

It is no secret that I am not a constitutional law scholar, and I am not part of the gun culture.

I would like to point to something that, I would be sure, has been used in 2nd Amendment cases previously. It says “[a] well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State…”

It is the only title of the Bill of Rights–if not the entire constitution–which states explicitly the reason for its inclusion.
Reason, in law, typically directs context and practice.

Now, Madison and the other framers were not sloppy writers. They did not write, “Necessary to the security of the people,” or " Necessary to the security of the States." If the right to bear arms was not ever to be infringed–ever, under every circumstance–would not the Framers have written, simply, “The right to bear arms shall not be infringed?”

The gun culture prefers to emphasize the 2nd Amendment’s second clause, but, even respecting the 9th and 10th amendments, why do we not consider the primacy of the first clause?

[/quote]

This is a solid argument. Actually, I don’t subjugate the first clause to the second. In fact I think they complement each other well. The militia is you and I.

The militia act of 1792 makes is pretty clear. All white males between 18 and 45 were part of the militia with a few exceptions. They were required to provide arms at their own expense and drill twice a year.

At the time, and even now, the myth of the martial prowess of the citizen soldier has been emphasized. Truth be told, the militia sucks when placed against well drilled troops. But to claim that the militia had no effectiveness does it a disservice. The official purpose of the militia was to repel Indian attacks, foreign invasion and to keep the public in line in putting down unrest in situations like the Whiskey and Shay’s Rebellion.

So if you and I are in the militia, how are we to become well drilled and regulated if we are unarmed? You wouldn’t be able to train. The fact is that even now we have a duty to be armed. The fact that we as citizens have failed to uphold that duty is no excuse to ignore its existence.

This opens the door to arguing that of all the reasons the militia has been established, it isn’t written down that it was designed to overthrow the gov’t if necessary. So I’ll go there.

Every single article of the Bill of Rights was written as a response to a specific perceived infringement upon the rights of the citizens. The first was emplaced as a response to life under the Townshend Acts. The fourth was there to respond to tax collectors writing their own warrants and searching homes to ensure that citizens have been paying for the proper stamps on their items. Every single amendment is a response. They didn’t just make up rights that sounded cool and put them to paper.

Remember what got the war started. British troops had come to take John Hancock and Sam Adams into custody and to confiscate weapons and powder. It was armed men that stopped them, not a man on a bridge waving Locke’s second treatise or reciting the works of Algernon Sydney.

The second amendment was put in writing to protect the others, just as they had done a decade prior. The concept isn’t something we made up. New Hampshire put it in writing just as you would suggest. “All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.”

Why is New Hampshire so clear? Let’s look at article 10: “Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.”

Actually, I’m going to make this a separate thread as my response is getting long. See you there.

mike