Posted on 12/04/2006 2:04:25 PM PST by neverdem
News By Us, not news bias
This caught my eye this morning: Paul Helmke’s anti-liberty rant Guns and Governing, on The Huffington Post, December 1, 2006. Helmke is head of The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence. Here is my response, December 1, 2006.
First of all, very first of all, when it comes to guns, there is no governing to be, with the exception of protection of the Bill of Rights. Since the right to bear arms is absolute, there is no governing over it. there can be only protection; you protect the rights of the people on that and that’s your oath. Simple. Anything else is an attack.
Refusal to understand this not only reflects a poor understanding of the law and practical values in America, but reveals a hidden agenda to overthrow us all. All of us, not just those who support rights, but all of us. That would include Mr. Helmke, himself, unless he wishes to own a gun secretly.
In fact, if any anti-gun activist owns positively any sort of weapon in the home for self-defense – I don’t care if it’s a baseball bat! – he/she supports self-defense and the use of up to lethal force. Or, don’t they realize what they’re saying and doing? Most anti-gun nuts do in fact own weapons. Right, Rosie? N’cest pa, Dianne?
The second amendment isn’t about guns, it’s about personal sovereignty and the use of force to back it up.
Anti-gun activists, therefore, are to be discredited utterly.
In three itemized issues, Helmke lays out mention of straw purchases, political clout of the gun rights lobbies versus election wins, and he mentions gun violence.
The first two arguments are themselves straw arguments, since straw purchases are way exaggerated as many, many writers have pointed out in the past in detail, and since the election wins and losses are not gun rights based, but far, far more based on republican disappointments, border control issues and size-of-government issues. Every voter knows it. It is silly to write that republicans lost because they listen to the NRA when voters (readers) know darned good and well their own minds and why they didn’t vote republican this time around.
The third argument got my attention: Gun Violence.
Again, there is the call for sensible gun laws, but in fact there is no such thing as a sensible gun law. Could there be such a thing as sensible censorship? The only sensible gun law exists purely as a civil right, and it is absolute. If you want sensible gun laws, try no one under eighteen owns a gun, felons don’t own a gun, and non-citizens don’t own a gun, and then, repeal all gun laws. Now, that’s sensible.
Here is my analysis as Mr. Helmke’s piece summons of me.
The Second Amendment was made absolute and impervious to due process for a reason. The Founding Fathers knew very well what they did not want any more of – no more over-reach, no more abuses of powers, no more warrants without local supervision (jury) and more – and just as certainly as the fact that they ratified it all, they knew that it all had to be backed by force forever. That force is in the hands of the People, individuals like you and me, and it is this sovereign authority that cannot be infringed. It is being infringed various different ways. It is your authority which is being infringed. Remember that gun control is attacking not guns, and it’s not attacking violence; it is attacking individual sovereign authority which is backed by lawful force.
In many ways, Americans are being bluffed out of their sovereignty.
Attacks on guns are attacks on personal sovereignty to undermine the power of the People to remain in control over the country: gun control is an attack to wrest that control from the people in an immense transfer of authority, convincing people or coercing people out of it. Remove the lawful force of the people, and the rest can simply be taken unopposed.
Many laws toward that goal come in the form of anti-crime measures, so that little by little, the people surrender – Americans cooperate – in handing over what they think will help fight crime. Americans will do a lot and put up with a lot if they believe it will help.
It’s a scam, a trap. Because of the sovereignty of the People and the People’s own lawful force to back it up, the idea of one-sided force in this country is a trap.
Helmke summarizes, “More guns are likely to make a home, a state, or a country more dangerous, not more safe.”
This is, of course, wholly untrue, and I’ll say just where.
Well, America, if you want to help fight crime and violence, listen up.
I’ve said a thousand times that police have no mandate to protect individuals. Most officers will nod and agree with this if asked. I’m surprised that some younger officers are not even aware of it. Hell, even some legislators aren’t aware of it, but it’s true. This is important for everyone willing to help to fully understand. As always, I am speaking not to gun owners, but to non-gun owners and the impartial, people looking for both sides of the issue. Heads of household who really want to understand. I know it’s hard to accept, but every head of household must come to understand that police don’t have to protect you.
Police join law enforcement to help, but in actuality, in the most critical moments of a crime emergency, you are on your own.
As benign as it might sound at first, ‘governing’ guns and people who own them means restricting before-the-fact your right to act at the moment action is needed most – when you are facing grave danger alone, and let’s be realistic: only you have the right to make that call. I support the idea of investigation for reasonableness under the circumstances, but before-the-fact restrictions (gun control) are entirely unreasonable and unlawful. It grows crime by permitting it to succeed unopposed in case after case after case, hundreds of thousands of times every year.
Equally realistic is the fact that some Americans believe preparedness in self-defense to be an unwanted burden. Their over-reaction of being expected to grow up and protect loved ones manifests itself as name-calling gun owners as Cowboys and Vigilantes. It’s merely a denial or a refusal to take responsibility for something that unavoidably belongs only to them.
For an example of this, please visit the YouTube Video Confession Of A Rat: An anti-gun newspaperman admits to his wife (and to himself) that he can’t be counted on to protect her life.
‘Governance’ over guns and people who rise to meet their responsibility is a ruse to disarm individuals to pave the way to grow crime to the advantage of officials. In a very obvious way, the anti-gun crowd uses the crowd who refuse this burden to increase numbers of anti-gun voters. Minions. Minions by the millions.
As I say often – very often – personal disarmament is a trap for the American household and a payday for officials.
Who is the real thief in this issue?
Why is the Second Amendment absolute and made impervious to due process? Why can there be no such thing as so-called sensible gun laws?
Because the individual victim of crime is the first line of defense, and no matter what law you write, we always will be. Gun control takes away the power but leaves the ultimate accountability, the typical bureaucratic trap. This is anti-violence? This is American? Is it good for your household to be denied the power, but left with the responsibility anyway?
The individual is now and always will be the first line of defense. And when crime is an excuse to transfer liberty and authority out of the hands of the people, this then makes the citizen the first line of defense for the entire nation. Taking away that anywhere/anytime, instance-by-instance defense is in no way sensible.
Most have some provision. Some only mention the militia, some don't mention it at all. Many post civil war Constitutions allow for regulation (which has historically meant banning) concealed carry. In other states concealed and open carry of handguns is or was banned, even without such a Constitutional Exception. An example would be Nebraska (before they passed CHL at least). The state Constitution then read:
"All persons ... have certain ... rights, among these are ... the right to keep and bear arms, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof.” Then the people, in 1986, modified the Constitution to read:
"All persons ... have certain ... rights, among these are ... the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof.”
Yet the state courts have never thrown out a gun law on the basis of the state constitution, which originally made it clear that the right belonged to "persons", and was modified to make it clear that "all lawful purposes" were protected. So much for checks and balances, as well as the will of the people. Politicians don't like people owning guns, even in a rural generally socially conservative state like Nebraska, and will restrict, ban and confiscate them at all opportunities, at least as long as they do not pay politically or otherwise for doing so.
More like "properly functioning". A well-regulated clock keeps good time, a well-regulated firearm shoots to point of aim. (Also used in conjunction with multi-barrel firearms having each barrel shoot to the same aim point, or in the case of multiple arms, such as wing mounted machine guns converging at the desired range.)
Not what they were asked, they were asked to uphold the national firearms act, and to rule that the second amendment did not apply to individuals, among other things. However that is the question they answered, or at least the Chief Justice, who wrote the opinion did so. There was no dissenting opinion.
Neither Miller, nor his attorney made an appearance at the Supreme Court, only the government argued its case. Still the Court rejected most of the government's arguments. The Court ruled that the district court (the appeal by the Government was *direct* to the Supreme Court, without going through an appeals court) should not have ruled that the law violated the second amendment without taking evidence that a short barreled shotgun *could* be useful to a "well regulated militia", rather than merely taking "judicial notice" of that.
It was obvious to the lower court that the National Firearms act was in direct violation of the Second Amendment, and the case was dismissed *before trial* on the basis of a motion by Miller's lawyer.
All in all a very "irregular" case.
Tha antis try to twist what is clearly written in the opinion to suit their own "collective right" interpretive wishes.
Haven't read it have you? Well, Here it is
Arms is arms. Guns are only one kind of arms. The Second Amendment says "arms". Now if you want to change that, the proper method is by amendment, not passing laws that violate the provision, nor by having some Judge "interpret" "arms" to mean "guns" only.
All this was in pretrial motions, there never, never was a trial on the issue. At trial the burden of proof is on the prosecution, but in making a pretrial motion to dismiss, the burden would be on the person making the motion, if any such proof were required, rather than it be based on "common knowledge" that the judge could take "judicial notice" of, without any evidence.
No it doesn't. Unfortunately the courts have screwed this one up.
No. The leftist interpretation is that the States have the power to come up with whatever laws they want in the matter.
I think this interpretation is totally wrong, but I also think many of the arguments presented on FR are not sharpened enough to overcome them. Which is why I am playing devils advocate when I think the arguments are weak.
The Constitution itself tends to argue against this proposition. Article I, section 8, gives Congress the power to issue letters of Marque and Reprisal. Letters of Marque are in essence licenses to commit piracy against the ships of an enemy nation, although in such cases what would otherwise be a pirate is called a privateer. Doesn't make much sense to issue such a letter if no one can own a cannon armed ship, yet many did. Cannon were also privately owned.
So when the Second Amendment was written, the "ultimate weapon", a cannon armed warship, could be and were owned by private citizens.
Another counter argument, from the US Army Ordinance Corps site (under "The Corps/Mission"):
The United States Army Ordnance Corps
A Brief History
Historically, the Ordnance Department has been recognized for its significant contribution to the Industrial Revolution and to our present way of life. It is credited with pioneering the development of mass production by adopting new manufacturing techniques and improving machine tools.
The Ordnance Corps dates back to the early days of the American.Revolution. In 1775, a Continental Congress committee., which included George Washington, convened to study the methods of arms and ammunition procurement and storage. As a result, Ezekiel Cheever was appointed as the Commissary General of the Artillery Stores, making him essentially the first Chief of Ordnance. In 1776, a Board of War and Ordnance was created, with the responsibility of issuing supplies to troops in the field. The next year, the first Ordnance powder magazine was established at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, followed shortly thereafter by the first arsenal and armory operations at Springfield, Massachusetts. Other arsenals and armories were also established at Harpers Ferry, Philadelphia, and Watertown, near Boston.
On May 14,1812, the Ordnance Department was formally organized by Congress as part of the preparations for the second British war. The department assumed responsibility for arms and ammunition production, acquisition, distribution, and storage in a much broader geographical base than in the War for Independence.
I've suggested sometimes, facetiously, that voting booths should require voters to stand back 20 feet from the ballot and punch a hole for the candidate of their choice. I would guess most people here would have no difficulty. The people at DU, however, might.
Don't misunderstand me. I do have concerns about her on a couple of fronts. She has no elective experience at all. And I think our policy in palestine is completely wrong-headed.
But I recognize that, while she has no elective experience, the experience of being national security advisor and Secretary of State during 8 years of war and momentous change are an experience no one else can match.
I also recognize that, as wrong-headed as our palestinian policy is, it is Bush's policy, State's policy, and the same policy the last several president's have pushed over the last couple of decades. It is the same policy the last several Israeli prime ministers have followed, sadly. So I don't lay it entirely at her feet. She is continuing to commit the same mistakes we've been committing for the last 20 years or so. She is making the mistake of carrying out the consensus policy.
There is only one Repub likely to run that I'll refuse to vote for, but there are few Repubs likely to run that I would be happy to vote for. She is one I would happily pull the lever for (or, color in the dot for). But her towering intellect has got to figure out at some point that appeasing outlaws and terrorists in the palestinian territories is going to lead only to more of the same.
I did see evidence in the recent Lebanese war that she was egging Olmert on, running interference for him and prodding him to finish the job. It looked to me that Rice was pushing for a clear victory while Olmert was trying to manage stalemate.
I liked that. I was very disappointed in the outcome of the war, but what it revealed of her character I liked.
I am looking for a candidate that isn't afraid to wage war, someone who is a strict constitutionalist, and someone tough enough to take the political pounding that goes with the office. I believe she is at least two of the three; I'm not sure she's a strict constitutionalist, but she's a second ammendment buff, and that is half the battle.
So, that is why Vermont is the crime capitol of the US. all the criminals from surrounding states go there to buy guns and take them to NYC. And I thought they went to Georgia to buy them. Silly me. Sarc/ off.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But Vermont HAS a large population of sexual perverts who strangle their victims, or beat them to death.AKA a target rich environment.But the liberal moonbats who live in the cities ( Rutland and Burlington) and who control the electorate of this small state of less than a million,think that we must have local gun laws. There are few break-ins into occuppied homes in rural Vermont. That and a little noise will raise the number of dead immediately in Vermont
The gun laws we have feared for so long would be law now in Vermont, but for the sizeable number of Democrats who have firearms, and know how to use them, and know that such laws would be useless here. Few would obey them.
Shotguns, yes. Less than 18", no.
100 years after the 14th amendment was ratified, activist courts started using it to selectively "incorporate" the Bill Of Rights, making them applicable to the states. Since the early 60's, almost every clause in the Bill of Rights has been incorporated with the exception of the 2nd and 3rd Amendments, the grand jury indictment clause of the 5th Amendment, and the 7th Amendment.
Prior to this, yes, each state's constitution defined what rights were protected and to what extent. Some states suppressed the press, some had their own state-sponsored religion, and some had no fourth amendment protection. The Bill of Rights, as written, only applied to the newly formed federal government.
But, assuming that it did qualify, does the tax stamp pose an undue burden? Miller was allowed to possess the shotgun -- that right was not denied. He simply neglected to obtain a stamp. Wasn't that the federal charge?
Secondly, assuming the shotgun is a militia-type weapon, doesn't Miller have to be at least registered in the militia -- per the Militia Act?
Third, the National Firearms Act also covered machine guns, weapons that are undeniably militia-type weapons. Per your argument, it would follow that a tax stamp on those weapons also would be unconstitutional.
I think you should have to buy a tax stamp to post on Free Republic.
I was unaware that the Militia Act predated the Second Amendment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.