New York Times OP/ED
May 9, 2002
More Guns for Everyone!
By BOB HERBERT
Let's see. What America needs is more guns in the hands of more people, right?
That would almost certainly be the result of a new and potentially tragic initiative by John Ashcroft's Justice Department. In a reversal of federal policy that has stood for more than 60 years, the department told the Supreme Court this week that individual Americans have a constitutional right to own guns.
That sound you hear is the National Rifle Association cheering.
The N.R.A. has seldom had a better friend in government than Mr. Ashcroft. That was proved again on Monday when the Justice Department, in a pair of briefs filed with the court, rejected the long-held view of the court, the Justice Department itself and most legal scholars that the Second Amendment protects only the right of state-organized militias to own firearms. Under that interpretation, anchored by a Supreme Court ruling in 1939, Congress and local governmental authorities have great freedom to regulate the possession and use of firearms by individuals.
In the briefs, submitted by Solicitor General Theodore Olson, the department boldly and gratuitously asserted, "The current position of the United States, however, is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the right of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms, subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."
The move was gratuitous because there was no need for the government to take a position on the Second Amendment in the two cases for which the briefs were submitted. In both cases the Justice Department is defending gun laws. In one case it agrees that a man under a restraining order because of domestic violence should not be allowed to have a gun, and in the other it is opposing the appeal of a man convicted of illegally possessing machine guns.
The reference in the briefs to restrictions on "firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse" is interesting, and disingenuous. No gun is more suited to criminal misuse than a handgun, and that's exactly the type of weapon that Mr. Ashcroft and his N.R.A. pals are trying to make available to more and more American men and women.
I had a .45-caliber pistol hanging low on my hip many years ago when I was in the Army. And I can tell you, I'm not anxious to think about that kind of weapon (or something smaller and easier to conceal) being in the pockets and the purses and the briefcases and the shoulder holsters of the throngs surrounding me in my daily rounds in Manhattan.
How weird is it that in this post-Sept.-11 atmosphere, when the Justice Department itself is in the forefront of the effort to narrow potential threats to security, the attorney general decides it would be a good idea to throw open the doors to a wholesale increase in gun ownership?
Mr. Ashcroft telegraphed this transparently political move nearly a year ago in a letter to the N.R.A, which just happened to have been a major Ashcroft campaign contributor. The letter went from Mr. Ashcroft, who was already the attorney general, to the N.R.A.'s chief lobbyist, James J. Baker. Mr. Ashcroft wrote, "Let me state unequivocally my view that the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms. While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a `collective right' of the states to maintain militias, I believe the amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise."
Now that view is the policy of the Bush administration. It will encourage aficionados and accused criminals to challenge gun control laws on constitutional grounds.
"Now defendants are going to try to make this Second Amendment argument, relying in part on Ashcroft's position," said Mathew Nosanchuk, the litigation director for the Violence Policy Center, a Washington group that advocates gun control.
The center has pointed out that in 1999, the most recent year for which statistics are available, 28,874 Americans were killed with guns.
Neither Mr. Ashcroft nor the N.R.A. seems particularly concerned.
U.S. - More Guns for Everyone!
- Thread starter Bluga
- Start date
XZeroII
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2001
- 12,572
- 0
- 0
300 million people were protected last year from an oppressive government because of the second amendment. THAT is what the second amendment is for. How does saying that you support people having the right to own guns imply that someone thinks that everyone should have one? It's just people who like twisting words that say such nonsense. If you don't want guns, move to China. Guns are outlawed there and we all know how great things are there (hint: tiennemen square...)
[/quote]
hmmm, about 40-50,000 people die in automobile accidents every year
automobiles ARE registered, drivers MUST be licensed, i think its time to take the next logical step and outlaw automobiles, after all, 40,000 to 50,000 Americans are killed with automobiles each year, isn't it worth it?
Now does this differiniate between homicide, suicide accidental and police shootings? Or do they lump them all together to make the number bigger? Also to they make note of which ones were done by law abiding citizens and which ones were done by criminals which no gun law has stopped yet?
the Second Amendment protects only the right of state-organized militias to own firearms.
I thought our right to bear arms was because of this statement in the Declaration of Independence:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government
How does the governed change or revolt against the government when they own all of the weapons? China is a good example of a country that does not want its people to revolt. It is the governed people of America's right!
I believe the second amendment says the right of the people, not the right of the state-organized militia.
I thought our right to bear arms was because of this statement in the Declaration of Independence:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government
How does the governed change or revolt against the government when they own all of the weapons? China is a good example of a country that does not want its people to revolt. It is the governed people of America's right!
I believe the second amendment says the right of the people, not the right of the state-organized militia.
How about Canada and Australia, would you say that their government is as oppressive as of China since both of those countries are more restrictive toward gun ownership?
The 2nd amendment does not protect an Individual?s right to own a gun but gives a certain right for a state to keep a national guard. So say the Supreme Court. And for those that don?t know the constitution, the Supreme Courts job is to define the laws and constitution. I don?t care what Ashcroft says. I think he is still mad that he lost his senate seat to a dead guy 
The little county I live in has more deaths by guns than a lot of European countries.
So all you right wing nuts that think the government is out to get you, you are more than welcome to move to the Middle East that gives guns to kids. More guns seem to be helping a lot in the Middle East, don?t you think.
The little county I live in has more deaths by guns than a lot of European countries.
So all you right wing nuts that think the government is out to get you, you are more than welcome to move to the Middle East that gives guns to kids. More guns seem to be helping a lot in the Middle East, don?t you think.
Marlin,
I don't recall any Supreme Court case in which the court has made a ruling on the true meaning of the 2nd Ammendment one way or another. I am almost positive that they have never ruled that the 2nd Ammendment only refers to the states maintaining militias. Do you have a citation for that?
Justin
I don't recall any Supreme Court case in which the court has made a ruling on the true meaning of the 2nd Ammendment one way or another. I am almost positive that they have never ruled that the 2nd Ammendment only refers to the states maintaining militias. Do you have a citation for that?
Justin
Marlin,
Are you referreing to US v. Miller 1939? I am wracking my brains trying to figure out what case you are referring to, and that is the only case I can think of. While I do admit that in that case the court seemed to define the 2nd Ammendment as referring to state militias, that was a long time ago in what has been recognized by most legal experts as an ambigous decision at best and a cryptic one at worst. The court has never since then specifically ruled on the individual right to own firearms. The issue of the 2nd Ammendment referring exclusively to state Militias is not settled yet by any means although I believe that ultimately the Supreme Court will end up having to rule on this issue.
Justin
Excellent Information on US v. Miller can be found here
Text
Are you referreing to US v. Miller 1939? I am wracking my brains trying to figure out what case you are referring to, and that is the only case I can think of. While I do admit that in that case the court seemed to define the 2nd Ammendment as referring to state militias, that was a long time ago in what has been recognized by most legal experts as an ambigous decision at best and a cryptic one at worst. The court has never since then specifically ruled on the individual right to own firearms. The issue of the 2nd Ammendment referring exclusively to state Militias is not settled yet by any means although I believe that ultimately the Supreme Court will end up having to rule on this issue.
Justin
Excellent Information on US v. Miller can be found here
Text
The Supreme Court of the United States has NEVER ruled much less implied any such thing. A couple LOWER federal court decisions have held that the 2nd amendment does not protect an individual right to own a gun, but a couple LOWER federal court decisions now have ruled that it does. The ONLY instance on which the Supreme Court has weighed the 2nd Amendment in the 20th century was the 1939 Miller decision referred to in the article. The Miller Court did not attempt to interpret the substantive right protected by the 2nd Amendment. What the Miller Court did do, was to create a 'test' to determine whether or not any particular weapon in question may be protected by the 2nd Amendment, not whether any particular individual could claim 2nd Amendment rights.
At best, the 1939 Miller decision is highly ambiguous and offers nothing to 2nd Amendment case law or scholarship which might help determine the substantive right protected by the 2nd Amendment. The recent ruling in US v. Emerson by the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which positively affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms protected by the 2nd Amendment, cited the 1939 Miller case as one which is essentially too ambiguous or narrow to offer any guidance.
Moreover, the Ashcroft Justice Department's position is NOT a reversal of a 60-year old federal policy. It is not a "reversal" at all, since dozens of administrations since the framing have essentially held that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to personal firearms. Several presidents have been life members of the NRA, several vice presidents have been life members of the NRA, several US Solicitor and Attorney Generals have been life members of the NRA.
I own guns because I like guns not because I'm afraid of the government. If the US government want to suppress the people, using the latest weaponry in the US military arsenal (such as a government under Stalin or Hitler), they can do it with little difficulty, even if your local militia might think differently.
Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
Yep those damn gun nuts are going to be a problem, oh wait, I'm one of them
4 more years, 4 more years, 4 more years...
4 more years, 4 more years, 4 more years...
Wrong. If a tyrant wants to annihilate an entire population, he can do it easily enough. But an armed people cannot be enslaved or oppressed, even if it's a deer gun vs. an F16.
Pretty words from those who never faced real tyranny.
The British were pretty nice to the colonists compare to the Soviet Union under Stalin.
I'm sure a few nuts will fight to the death, but the majority of sheep out there will be willing to live under tyranny than being 6 feet under.
So much for the media reporting in an unbiased manner. That article is so full of misinformation it is not even funny.
Wait, the article is not biased, its just flat out incorrect.
Its good to see someone else that reads infowars.com around here too
Wait, the article is not biased, its just flat out incorrect.
Its good to see someone else that reads infowars.com around here too
i think it really comes down to two issues, not all this other BS people talk about
1 - do people have a right to defend themselves or should they only rely on a government agency (police) to protect them?
2 - will there ever come a time when the people will need to overthrow the tyranny of government again? (the US government will deteriorate into a dictatorship/autocracy that will NEED to be resisted/overthrown by freedom loving people)
that is how i see it
and my answers to these are YES
As far as I can remember, trying to make the right to keep and bear arms a collective one was just a Clinton-era ploy that ultimately failed.
After numerous fruitless discussions with my anti-gun friends I have come to the following conclusion: whether you choose to defend yourself next time you face a potentially lethal confrontation is up to you. However, please leave my individual right to keep and bear arms alone.
After numerous fruitless discussions with my anti-gun friends I have come to the following conclusion: whether you choose to defend yourself next time you face a potentially lethal confrontation is up to you. However, please leave my individual right to keep and bear arms alone.
A fanatic like Stalin would kill millions on a whim. But what of the men under his command? Would they risk their lives just to commit senseless violence against their own people?
Was there ever a popular movement against the Communists in the Soviet Union? I honestly don't know.
This has always been my favorite debating toolOriginally posted by: Emos
If it saves even ONE life it has to be worth it! Think of the children!
The sort of oppression, proper, of a populace to which the founders had envisioned the 2nd Amendment as a defense is not accomplished through military campaign. Oppression is accomplished through law enforcement tactics using paramilitary functions. Thus, the notion that an oppressive regime or government would use F-15's, B-2 bombers, and nuclear weapons to enforce oppressive laws or dictates on their own people is a fallacy. Oppression is enforced with law enforcement tools, not fighter aircraft.
Dictators want to RULE their people with an iron fist, they don't want to carpet bomb their own country.
While my .300 Win Mag or 30-06 rifle is no match for an F-15, both will melt through law enforcement body armor as if it were not there at all. They will also zip through a Kevlar helmet.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter