Ronald Bailey files his first report from the ACLU membership conference in Washington, banning himself permanently from The O'Reilly Factor in the process.
New at Reason
Comments to "New at Reason":
mediageek | October 17, 2006, 6:07pm | #
Strossen responded that we have a government of limited powers; unless the Constitution specifically gave a power to the government then it is reserved to the people, except for all those filthy, inbred gun-toting rednecks. They should all be disarmed, by force if necessary. She added that the United States is not a pure democracy. Some rights are so fundamental that no majority can take them away from even unpopular minorities, except for the aforementioned gun freaks, who have no fundamental or constitutional right to bear arms.Me?
Bitter?
Hue betcha.
Joseph Majsterski | October 17, 2006, 6:12pm | #
Yep, I like the ACLU except for that glaring hole in their logic.Does anyone remember the ACLU's reaction (if there was any at all) to the revelation that the Clinton White House had been amassing secret FBI files of US citizens? First it was a dozen, then 20, then 100, then over 1000. I rememer the Clintons blaming it on a secret service computer which must have "accidentally" printed the files. The head of the Secret Service later testified to Congress that this was not technologically possible. Just wondering if the ACLU cared,
MainstreamMan | October 17, 2006, 6:42pm | #
Mediageek,Your characterization of the ACLU position on the right to bear arms is consistently inaccurate.
The ACLU is neutral on the issue.
Neutral means : not engaged on either side; specifically: not aligned with a political or ideological grouping.
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
It's not really a "you're either with me or against me" kind of issue.
highnumber | October 17, 2006, 6:53pm | #
I was really hoping for some specific O'Reilly baiting (like bear baiting only sexier).joe | October 17, 2006, 7:04pm | #
Other groups who have failed to stand up for gun ownership include the American Heart Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and Motley Crue.Screw the heart researchers. Screw the small businesses. Screw the puppies. Screw Motely Crue. None of them have done a damn thing to protect gun ownership.
mediageek | October 17, 2006, 7:09pm | #
Joe, don't play dumb. None of the organizations you list have a stance on the 2nd Amendment.The ACLU is on record as having no problem with what I, and many others, consider draconian levels of gun control.
If the ACLU had no stance on the 2nd Amendment, I would happily support them.
Oh, but I forgot, joe, you don't believe that citizens have a right to possess arms, so I can understand why you would be puzzled by my stance.
K.T. | October 17, 2006, 7:12pm | #
It's not really a "you're either with me or against me" kind of issue.For many individuals who hold gun rights above all, it is indeed that kind of issue. Their lack of engagement on the issue, while claiming the mantle of defending constitutional rights, is reason enough for many to look elsewhere for a voice that defends all constitutional rights, not a select few.
Not to mention, for many strong advocates of gun ownership, the ACLUs collective approach to the second amendment is inconsistent with their "defense" of individual liberty.
And most of the organizations noted by Joe are fairly worthless to begin with.
RandyAyn | October 17, 2006, 7:30pm | #
Ron,You may have covered this at some point in the past, but what prompted you to become a card-carrying member of the ACLU in 2003?
Kwix | October 17, 2006, 7:37pm | #
MSM is correct in that the ACLU is "neutral" regarding the 2nd amendment. They shouldn't be, but they are.So fund CATO, or until a better organization steps up, support the ACLU for everything but the 2nd and get thee to Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership to correct for the ACLU's deficency.
Fuck the NRA as they support the Drug War and mandatory minimum sentences.
Gimme Back My Dog | October 17, 2006, 7:50pm | #
From the ACLU web site:"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government."
This doesn't sound very neutral to me.
K.T. | October 17, 2006, 7:56pm | #
F* the NRA as they support the Drug War and mandatory minimum sentences.I also agree with that... ever since they trashed a private company for prohibiting firearms on campus, they lost my membership dues.
There are also gays for guns... pretty funny.
http://www.pinkpistols.org/
mediageek | October 17, 2006, 7:57pm | #
GBMD nailed it. The statement regarding the 2nd Amendment is not neutral to anyone but those with a prohibitionist outlook."o fund CATO, or until a better organization steps up, support the ACLU for everything but the 2nd and get thee to Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership to correct for the ACLU's deficency."
JPFO is a decent organization, but they are not a lobbying group. They're more of an educational org. They can't go door knock members of congress.
"Fuck the NRA as they support the Drug War and mandatory minimum sentences."
Things that people are working to change. I am uncomfortable with much of the NRA's tactics to look tough on crime.
joe | October 17, 2006, 8:13pm | #
mediageek,"The ACLU is on record as having no problem with what I, and many others, consider draconian levels of gun control." So what? Do they lobby for more-restrictive gun laws? Do they do pro-bono work for groups that do? Do they organize efforts to elect anti-gun politicians?
What, exactly, are you bitching about? That, when pressed, they say stuff that has nothing to do with their political and legal advocacy?
Also, you don't seem to have noticed, but in this sentence, "Oh, but I forgot, joe, you don't believe that citizens have a right to possess arms" you seem to have substituted the word "forgot" for "imagined."
I believe the 2nd Amendment protects individuals' right to bear arms, and that, like the right to reproductive freedom, any law that imposes an undue burden on that right is unconstitutional. Although I'm sure you won't consider that good enough.
Terry | October 17, 2006, 8:29pm | #
Bailey writes, "Disclosure: I have been a card carrying member of the ACLU since 2003."And this guy writes for "Reason"? Why?
Fact: The ACLU lie and/or is dumb enough to believe that the second amendment is NOT an individual right.
Fact: The ACLU sued the minute in Federal court to prevent them exercising their first amendment rights of speech and assembly.
The ACLU by that action and many before, proves beyond all doubt and reason that they are a fraud.
Anyone who belongs to the ACLU CANNOT be a Libertarian and should not be writing for "Reason" if "Reason" wants to be true themselves and their readers.
BTW: Where can I get a profile of the Libertarian person? You know like education,what section of the country, married or single, ethnic, guns owned, etc. etc.
Thanks
Rich Ard | October 17, 2006, 8:53pm | #
BTW: Where can I get a profile of the Libertarian person?Apparently you're asking the wrong crowd.
I don't have a problem with the ACLU's neutral stance on gun rights. Isn't it a bigger problem that they are for affirmative action?
Stevo Darkly | October 17, 2006, 10:04pm | #
BTW: Where can I get a profile of the Libertarian person? You know like education,what section of the country, married or single, ethnic, guns owned, etc. etc.I believe questions along these lines were include in a poll by Liberty magazine of its readership in 1988 and again around early 1999. (And I think a similar poll was conducted by the Libertarian Party of the attendees of its 1988 convention.) Unfortunately, Liberty mag's "Liberty poll" (not to be confused with the gun-control poll given to politicians) does not seem to be available online anywhere anymore.
The only results from the poll that I remember were:
- Respondents are more likely than the average American to be male, unmarried and atheist (although Catholics were the largest bloc among libertarian theists).
- A minority of respondents, but a surprising large one (I think around a third), thought abortion was wrong.
- In 1988, 30% of respondents were outright anarchists; in 1999 that number declined to a still-sizable 13%.
A shame that Liberty didn't maintain the archive containing that poll's results. Maybe some other libertarian magazine could conduct a similar survey ... it's been almost 8 years now ...
Pro Libertate | October 17, 2006, 10:34pm | #
My reservations about--note that I don't say opposition to--the ACLU have nothing to do with their stance on the Second Amendment. I still think the ACLU does net good, but it has become overly politicized in many chapters. It's backed way down on what it considers protected speech, and even I, a big no-church-in-my-coffee kind of guy, think they've forgotten about the free-exercise part of the First Amendment.Lately, with the concerns about the war on terror, they seemed to have rediscovered the Fourth Amendment. That's a good thing.
Les | October 17, 2006, 10:40pm | #
Terry, in another thread you said a libertarian could never vote for a Democrat. Now you say a libertarian can never be a member of the ACLU.Can a libertarian vote for a Republican? Can a libertarian be a member of the NRA?
highnumber | October 17, 2006, 11:17pm | #
a big no-church-in-my-coffee kind of guyYou could never be a UU (Unitarian-Universalist).
Terry | October 17, 2006, 11:24pm | #
Les,Yes he can vote for a Republican if its a Goldwater/Reagan Republican. Not if its a Bush/Frist/Leach/Goddblatt(?)(last two sponsered the internet gambling ban.)
Yes, if the person is a member of the NRA.
I quit the Republicans in 1998 when they never followed through with abolishing the depts. of engergy and education.
Unfortunately the horizon is blood red if you get my drift.
Phileleutherus Lipsiensis | October 18, 2006, 12:24am | #
joe,Do you think the "undue burden" standard is some one size fits all approach to constitutional analysis? Are you aware that the "undue burden" standard is a fairly weak one?*
*Witness the erosion of the abortion right in the wake of its genesis in 1992.
Phileleutherus Lipsiensis | October 18, 2006, 12:36am | #
Anyway, as far as I can tell from briefly looking at their website the ACLU does not mention a lot of quite powerful scholarly literature on the Second Amendment that argues that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to bear arms. They also do not mention the recent Circuit Court case which recognized the individual right to bear arms re: the Second Amendment, nor do they mention the many states which recognize this right in their state constitutions (forty three was the last count that I saw).Grand Chalupa | October 18, 2006, 12:41am | #
Two words for all you that praise the ACLU:Affirmative Action
Anybody who supports this travesty has no respect for the consitution. I don't care if I agree with them on 90% of other issues, this is a deal breaker for me.
Bee | October 18, 2006, 12:48am | #
Huh, if that's what the ACLU really says about the 2nd Amendment, then I'm hornswoggled. I would completely interpret that as saying they disagree with the common interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I never knew that. Damn. Why cherry-pick your freedoms, for god's sake? Jesus.Maybe supporting the ACLU, or any other pressure group, is kind of like the debate about whether it's better to vote for Dems or Repubs, or stick squarely to libertarian candidates. I'm a little shocked by their position on the 2nd quoted above, but I don't think I'd reject them completely, because they fight some battles I want to see fought. I am rabid, myself, about those useless searches of bags, perhaps because I'm female and carry a handbag - lots of men sail through those stupid "searches" because they are not carrying a bag. And the ACLU rightly sees that crap for what it is.
Phileleutherus Lipsiensis | October 18, 2006, 12:49am | #
BTW, if I recall correctly, Prof. Volokh has a nice collection of primary material re: the Second Amendment on his website.Steven Crane | October 18, 2006, 4:38am | #
who made Terry the arbiter of what is and is not libertarian anyway?Chuck | October 18, 2006, 7:37am | #
Stevo and Terry--I still have my back issues of Liberty. If there was such a poll in 1999, then I have it in the archives. I will check when I get into the office today.
Seamus | October 18, 2006, 8:17am | #
Other groups who have failed to stand up for gun ownership include the American Heart Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and Motley Crue.Yeah, but none of groups advertise themselves as defenders of the Bill of Rights.
citizengnat | October 18, 2006, 8:35am | #
libertarians bitching about the ACLU. So predictable, so sad.They aren't perfect libertarians, but, despite their faults, they've done more to protect American liberty than the impotent purists at the LP ever have and ever will. Show a little pragmatism and shut up. The second amendment has plenty of other defenders.
You guys don't know an ally when you see one.
kohlrabi | October 18, 2006, 9:24am | #
Joe,"Other groups who have failed to stand up for gun ownership include the American Heart Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and Motley Crue."
That's really dishonest. I think you know that, too.
Anyway, Affirmative Action is my deal breaker, as well. ACLU can stuff it.
Art | October 18, 2006, 9:37am | #
Joe:My ignorance is showing again. I know the right to gun ownership is Number 2, which number is the right to reproductive freedom. I just looked and don't see it anywhere.
Phileleutherus Lipsiensis | October 18, 2006, 9:41am | #
Art,One of the dangers of an enumerated system of rights is that it will come to be seen as the only rights that we have. The Ninth Amendment was promulgated to deal with that issue.
________________________
I am neither a member of the ACLU or the NRA.
de stijl | October 18, 2006, 9:58am | #
"The ACLU is great in theory, but in practice they seem to do whatever is best for the Democratic Party..."Yeah, like when they filed an amicus brief in defense of Rush Limbaugh when the feds were after hie medical records.
joe | October 18, 2006, 9:58am | #
Seamus,"Yeah, but none of groups advertise themselves as defenders of the Bill of Rights."
You're not going to support a group that defends religious, political, and individual freedom - going to court, defeating the govenrment, getting people released from prison and forcing the government to change their ways - because you think they make overly-expansive claims in their advertising?
If they were working in opposition, in their political and legal advocacy, to gun rights, I could respect this as a position, but they're not. Like Motely Crue and the American Hearth Association, they simply are not involved in the discussion.
You're seriously talking about not supporting an organization that fights and wins cases involving personal, political, and religious freedom because their silence on gun ownership cases makes you feel snubbed?
This clearly isn't about the ACLU threatening your gun rights, which they do no more than the SPCA or Motely Crue. This sounds like it's about identity politics. Waah wah wah, they don't give me my props.
Sounds like, as a lover of liberty, you're using your second amendment rights to shoot yourselves in the foot.
rob | October 18, 2006, 11:31am | #
"The folks who vote for someone merely because they belong to a particular political party are fairly useless, it seems to me." - Les100% accurate. Speaking of which...
"I believe the 2nd Amendment protects individuals' right to bear arms, and that, like the right to reproductive freedom, any law that imposes an undue burden on that right is unconstitutional. Although I'm sure you won't consider that good enough." - joe
You sound so reasonable when you talk like that, joe...
Yet you are FOR all of these crazy limitations on life, liberty and the pursuit of freedom. (Granted, that's the Declaration of Independence, but still... You routinely weigh in with positions counter to property rights, the right to self-defense, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. And most of your positions routinely violate the 9th & 10th Amendment.
So let me get this straight... You think there's a right to "reproductive freedom," which isn't mentioned in the Bill of Rights but you disregard the concept of property rights in favor of property-grabbing urban planners?
Frankly, I believe in reporductive rights as well, but that's because I actually support the 9th & 10th Amendments.
Just a quick refresher:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
mediageek | October 18, 2006, 11:35am | #
Joe, their statement on their website is hardly neutral or silent.Honestly, do I really need to point this out?
rob | October 18, 2006, 11:40am | #
citizengnat - You're 100% right. I consider the ACLU and the NRA to be fellow travelers.Complaining about the ACLU's stance regarding the 2nd Amendment is like complaining about the NRA's stance on the first - you've got a point, but it is essentially quibbling.
The ACLU and the NRA are like the Democrats and the Republicans - you only get support for part of the Bill of Rights from either side. At least with the NRA & the ACLU you don't have to worry about either organization trying to curtail your other rights (affirmative action and drug war concerns aside).
mediageek | October 18, 2006, 11:41am | #
"I believe the 2nd Amendment protects individuals' right to bear arms, and that, like the right to reproductive freedom, any law that imposes an undue burden on that right is unconstitutional. Although I'm sure you won't consider that good enough."Not really, because your use of the phrase "undue burden" is, quite frankly obviously subjective. What you, as someone who doesn't own a gun and couldn't care less about the issue, consider to be an undue burden and what, say, a competitive Service Rifle shooter would consider to be an undue burden are two completely different things.
rob | October 18, 2006, 12:02pm | #
joe,While their web-site claims "The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control" that statement is followed by one that clearly contradicts it: "The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide."
I'd argue that Miller is fatally flawed by its nonsensical adoption of the mythical "collective right." The "collective right" concept is clearly a bogus one. There is no such thing as a "collective right" anywhere in the Bill of Rights, nor in the Constitution. Rights are individual and cannot be exercised "collectively."
The usual argument, that self-determination is the original "collective right," didn't come about until sometime before 1859. Clearly collective rights was not what the founders intended with the Bill of Rights.
The Declaration of Independence, however, was essentially being a legal brief for self-determination and secession. Such a collective right argument would have to take into context the idea that self-determination is a collective right of a people as a nation interacting with other nations, rather than of a government interacting with the citizenry.
MainstreamMan | October 18, 2006, 12:20pm | #
"This doesn't sound very neutral to me."--GBMD"GBMD nailed it. The statement regarding the 2nd Amendment is not neutral to anyone but those with a prohibitionist outlook."
Or is it that the statement doesn't look neutral only to those that are biased in the other direction? Is this only an issue for those on the extreme positions either pro or anti?
Mediageek spent a day trying to take me to task as anti-gun because I argue that open-carry is the more socially responsible practice (not calling for a law or anything). Because of this extreme position, I was accused of being either a criminal or having no experience with guns. Neither is true. Makes it ironic that he suggests that bias is skewing perceptions.
The ACLU are neutral in that they do not take action on the issue. They do not defend prohibitionist laws, they don't promote prohibitionist laws, they do not defend gun owners, they do not oppose gun ownership... they are neutral.
"The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. ...If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide. "
Sounds neutral to me.
Just like the abortion issue, if it was clearly and unambiguously protected by the constitution, there would be less controversy.
Phileleutherus Lipsiensis refers to a scholarly literature that I don't think provides a strong refutation of the ACLU position (see some of it here http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm).
In some of those 43 states (if that's the number), there is an unambiguous individual right to bear arms (compare Connecticut & Kentucky to Virginia and North Carolina). This probably makes me an anti-gun prohibitionist to some on this thread.
MainstreamMan | October 18, 2006, 12:27pm | #
Rob,It's neat how you know what the intent of the founding fathers was.... clearly there is no room for debate on the idea of collective rights.
Was the word you used "bogus?"
Seamus | October 18, 2006, 12:28pm | #
You're seriously talking about not supporting an organization that fights and wins cases involving personal, political, and religious freedom because their silence on gun ownership cases makes you feel snubbed?And here I thought gun rights was an issue of personal freedom.
wellfellow | October 18, 2006, 12:31pm | #
You can not be neutral while positing your stance on whether the right is collective or individual. Frankly, you can not be neutral if you are positing a stance.Why is it that people don't understand that the word 'neutral' actually has a meaning?
MainstreamMan | October 18, 2006, 12:37pm | #
Wellfellow,You are confusing their explanation of why they stay neutral with taking a position on the issue. They take a neutral stance (in terms of action) based on a considered look at the issue. They are not saying they are neutral because they can't decide what the amendment means, they are saying they are neutral because this is how they see the issue. They are explaining why they think it falls outside there scope of practice.
MainstreamMan | October 18, 2006, 12:44pm | #
Rob,Look at the bill of rights. Explain to me the difference between the use of "person," "persons" and "people" in the various amendments. The typical reading of the difference between "persons" and "people" is to that "persons" refers to a collection of individuals with emphasis on the individuality of each person, while "people" refers to the group as a group. Len Talmy has a nice discussion of this kind of distinction in language.
http://linguistics.buffalo.edu/people/faculty/talmy/talmyweb/TCS.html
Phileleutherus Lipsiensis | October 18, 2006, 12:47pm | #
MainStreamMan,Phileleutherus Lipsiensis refers to a scholarly literature that I don't think provides a strong refutation of the ACLU position (see some of it here http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm).
The sources are a strong refutation of the "collective arms right" notion. Anyway, as far as I can tell the ACLU's remarks point to (or rather criticize) a position that no one that I know of in the individual rights "camp" takes - that the government has no power to regulate arms. So I simply don't take their position seriously.
Phileleutherus Lipsiensis | October 18, 2006, 1:01pm | #
Let's take some language from the ACLU website, and illustrate its flaws:If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.
One of the problems with this statement is that it doesn't appear to take into account the historical nature of the arms right up to the Second Amendment; namely that the right in 1791 did not encompass all arms or the carrying of arms in all circumstances (indeed restrictions on conceal and carry were common in the American colonies). What the arms right did protect in 1791 was the individual's right to bear certain types of arms, namely the sort of arms that non-artillery units would wield in war (e.g., rifles, swords, halberds, knives, etc.)*. In light of this a statement like that of the ACLU is just plain odd.
*State v. Kessler, 614 P.2d 94
Phileleutherus Lipsiensis | October 18, 2006, 1:08pm | #
ACLU link: http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.htmlPro Libertate | October 18, 2006, 1:31pm | #
Phileleutherus Lipsiensis is right. Small arms was always the idea, not nuclear weapons. The ACLU knows that, so it is an odd remark to make. Note that the exact same reasoning could justify speech prohibitions. Granted that there is some truth to the idea that even speech is regulated, but I somehow don't see the ACLU talking about "reasonable restrictions" in that context.As a libertarian, my beef with a large number of ACLU chapters is that their focus is on what I see as liberal causes, not necessarily libertarian ones. Some chapters are openly partisan, which I believe for strategic as well as philosophical reasons is a huge mistake. I generally support the ACLU as an ally, but one more like Saudi Arabia than Great Britain :)
Buckshot | October 18, 2006, 2:02pm | #
Here's an argument for the right of individuals to own guns that I came up with and I haven't read elsewhere. If someone else said it before me it shows how little I read.2nd Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessay to the security of a free State, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
1st Amendment:
......or THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
4th Amendment:
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.....
Now, all these Rights were listed in the same document, so THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE should necessarily mean the same thing in each Amendment. For the People to peaceably assemble and petition the government, they would have to be INDIVIUAL persons, not society. For the People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, they would have to be INDIVIDUAL persons, not society. SO, for the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, the people must be INDIVIDUAL human beings, not society.
The problem with the ACLU interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that "society" is an abstraction, wereas indvidual persons are real.
I'm no lawer, but this makes sense to me.
mediageek | October 18, 2006, 5:18pm | #
"What the arms right did protect in 1791 was the individual's right to bear certain types of arms, namely the sort of arms that non-artillery units would wield in war (e.g., rifles, swords, halberds, knives, etc.)*. In light of this a statement like that of the ACLU is just plain odd."What is really, really odd if you go read US vs. Miller, which ruled that the federal government was free and clear to regulate possession of a sawed-off shotgun because it isn't a military arm!
Phileleutherus Lipsiensis | October 18, 2006, 5:47pm | #
mediageek,Yeah, I should have mentioned that. Thanks for getting my clank. :)
Pro Libertate | October 18, 2006, 6:05pm | #
The bigger question to me is whether the ACLU believes in our right to bear swords. If sword-banning can happen in Scotland, it can happen here. Heck, I actually own two swords.What? There can be only one, after all.
MUTT | October 18, 2006, 6:10pm | #
Catchin up here, and I see both Buckshot & Mgeek stole my thunder. Well stated, fellows.Ill kick in this: I was a nuts & bolts what youd call "far left" political agitator since I got back from Viet Nam in '69. No brag, just background. I have been, since I was old enough (as determined by Pop & the Law) a shooter and handloader. It was my civilian trainin as a marksman I owe the fact Im typin right now.
Ive always been deeply aware of the hostility of "liberal" & "progressive" so called folks to citizens owning firearms (not such a big deal with the Weathermen) and Ive rubbed a LOT of shoulders over the years. You have to analyize WHO makes up the ACLU to understand its general hostility- for that is what it is- to firearms ownership by citizens. Urban, upper class, academic, to a large extent Jewish- for some bloody reason, hostile to civil firearms ownership, always a mystery to my very culturally Jewish Smarter Half- for the ACLU rank & file, owning firearms isnt "responsible", or in the case of "progressives", perhaps an inconvenience when they finally Sieze the Levers of Power, and want to make playing tag & having a BBQ felonies.
Other than THAT, they do good work, unless they are burning up bucks & making unnesscessary enemies by focussing on xmas creches.
And in US Vs Miller, Miller NEVER SHOWED UP. The decision was made in the absence of any actually tried case. He was on the lam, the Ct decision was by default.
I know enough ACLU folks (and thier far more fiesty Lawyers Guild comrades) to know by and large they grew up in & swim in anti gun owner worlds. They are useful- irreplaceable! in thier place. The 2nd Amendment, the one that safeguards all the rest, isnt that place.
The NRA has been hijacked, as has the party of Goldwater. (PLEASE dont mention Goldwater & Reagan in the same friggin sentence, will ya?)
The ACLU isnt who you call about gunlaw. It might be high on the list if the State decides you are a supporter of "terrorists", as I most certainly have been, according to the States definition.
There IS no "one size fits all" defender of human rights here. Me? I like to demystify firearms to citizens previously hostile. Ive done it enough to get various prog elites quite pissed. No more party invites for me.....sigh.
Just doin my job.......
(I wish i was as effective as Nauau'i stickybud.....)
MainstreamMan | October 18, 2006, 9:23pm | #
"a position that no one that I know of in the individual rights "camp" takes - that the government has no power [read should have no power] to regulate arms. So I simply don't take their position seriously."Mediageek, do you take the position that PL says no one takes? Larry A? Anyone?
"One of the problems with this statement is that it doesn't appear to take into account the historical nature of the arms right up to the Second Amendment; namely that the right in 1791 did not encompass all arms or the carrying of arms in all circumstances (indeed restrictions on conceal and carry were common in the American colonies). What the arms right did protect in 1791 was the individual's right to bear certain types of arms, namely the sort of arms that non-artillery units would wield in war (e.g., rifles, swords, halberds, knives, etc.)*. In light of this a statement like that of the ACLU is just plain odd."
But, SCOTUS addressed this in Miller and the ACLU refers to it in their statement.
Your position PL, that the 2nd only protects certain kinds of arms and allows for restrictions (eg, no concealed carry) is the same one that the ACLU takes, even if you don't like the inelegant argument they make for why they agree with you. Problems with the concept of "collective rights" are a separate issue, but constitute a second reason they decided to stay neutral.
Buckshot... aahh if only it were that easy.
A simple restrictive element (eg, "A well regulated Militia, being necessay to the security of a free State") can change the implicature of a sentence considerably. Your argument is more coherent than most... I'll give you that.
rob | October 19, 2006, 1:09pm | #
"Look at the bill of rights. Explain to me the difference between the use of 'person,' 'persons' and 'people' in the various amendments." - MSMI think you've already admitted to Buckshot that your bogus "collective right" nonsense would mean that there are no individual rights, based on the language in the rest of the Bill of Rights.
"Len Talmy has a nice discussion of this kind of distinction in language."
Maybe Talmy does have a nice discussion, but it can't prop up your argument, because your argument is that such language indicates a collective rather than an individual right, and I don't see you scrambling to give up your other (clearly individual) rights as belonging only to some undefined collective.
"It's neat how you know what the intent of the founding fathers was.... clearly there is no room for debate on the idea of collective rights. Was the word you used 'bogus?'" - MSM
Clearly there is no room for debate on the concept of collective rights. And yes, the word I used was "bogus." If you can read English, you can track the intent of the founders. It isn't rocket science.
However, if your argument is that the 2nd Amendment protects an imaginary (BOGUS) "collective right" of the individual states to regulate a militia of its own but not an individual right, I've pulled up each state's actual language on the subject of the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. Only six states omit specific language regarding the right to keep and bear arms. Most of those states have other language/laws that would reasonably fill the gap to providing an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
It's clear to anyone without a desire to compel his fellow citizens to give up the natural right to self-defense that the 2nd Amendment is intended to ensure the right to bear arms for several compelling reasons including self-defense, defense against tyranny, defense against a standing army, and to use the self-armed militia as a means of defending to nation to alleviate the requirement for a standing army.
It's also obvious that the overwhelming majority of the states support an explicit INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms.
For a couple of states you might argue that this is not the case because the language was added more recently or that the language does not explicitly refer to an individual right to bear arms. However, I would argue that such a right is implied by the language of the other enumerated rights regarding the dangers of standing armies and the idea of a well-regulated militia.
You mention the problems that stem from language that links the concepts that standing armies are bad, maintaining a militia is necessary because standing armies are bad, and the individual right to bear arms.
Part of the problem is that standing armies were considered a "Very Bad Thing" when the Constitution was written, and individual firearms owned by the citizenry were considered the solution to this problem. A nation needs a military, but a standing army is a bad thing, therefore a militia of citizens subject to call by the government is the solution - no standing army, but the ability to call one up at short notice to defend the country.
New Hampshire is a good example of this, which added an explicit "right to bear arms" amendment in 1982 that was, I would argue, simply explicitly re-enforcing the 1784 concepts regarding the dangers of standing armies, the preferability of a militia to a standing military, and - this is KEY - the "Right To Revolution." (My personal favorite is this language from the New Hampshire protection for the natural right to revolution: "The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.")
I think it's pretty clear that playing grammar games with the way the 2nd Amendment is written to try to remove the an individual right to bear arms is pretty obviously BOGUS.
I've can post the pertinent language from each state's constitution to this thread if you'd like... The reason it took me so long to respond was that I researched the language in each state's constitution.
The overwhelming majority of them are clearly denoting an individual right and are in no way subject to what you claim is 'A simple restrictive element (eg, 'A well regulated Militia, being necessay to the security of a free State) [that] can change the implicature of a sentence considerably."