You have to visit the website of the Libertarian Presidential Candidate, Michael Badnarik. I actaully like this guy. I don’t totally agree with him, but on the whole I think he “gets it.” With statements like:
“”Marriage partners, not government, should define the terms and spiritual orientation of their union in accordance with our nation’s guarantee of religious freedom.”
-and-
“First, allow me to dispel a myth. People in the Middle East do not hate us for our freedom. They do not hate us for our lifestyle. They hate us because we have spent many years attempting to force them to emulate our lifestyle.
-and most importantly-
“The erosion of our civil liberties since 9/11 does not represent a new phenomenon. It represents an acceleration of long-existing trends. As president, my goal will be to to reverse those trends and to restore, respect and enforce the Bill of Rights…[G]overnment does not grant rights-it acknowledges them. They exist independently of government. They’re part of who and what we are. And, as Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Independence, the only legitimate function of government is to secure them.’
Plus, he is endorsed by The Pink Pistols, “a national organization dedicated to educating the alternative sexual community on the need for armed self-defense.” That is a group that I’d love to see in a parade.
But seriously, I would urge everyone, especially those who don’t live in swing states, to vote for this guy (frankly, I think people in swing states should also, but many aren’t comfortable with that). The power of the Democratic and the Republican parties need to be broken. The only way to do that is money and votes. With Federal rules the way they are, a party needs to have a certain amount of support to get convention grants and at least $100,000 to get matching funds. I actually donated to his campaign 1) since I think he would be far better than either of the other two jackasses and 2) the only way to make the major parties not run jackasses is to create a threat to them. He will certainly be getting my vote.
The third parties need to be given a chance to attack the institutions without needing someone like Ross Perot backing them. Since the laws are unlikely to change, people need to start fighting back on their own.
September 17th, 2004 at 1:31 pm
I fully support the third party infiltration process — but Sujal — this guy supports the Pink Pistols. COME ON! It’s the Gay NRA — don’t kid yourself.
September 17th, 2004 at 1:32 pm
Oops! Sorry — I thought Sujal posted this — BRAM — don’t kid yourself!
September 17th, 2004 at 2:25 pm
I have a question:
When did it become a sin to own a weapon if one so chooses?
Does the 2nd ammendment guarantee the right?
September 17th, 2004 at 9:23 pm
Badnarik rocks! What other candidate supports, “All your freedoms, all the time?”
Yours truly,
Mr. X
…let Badnarik debate…
September 17th, 2004 at 10:07 pm
Some would argue it only protects the right to bear arms in the context of serving in your state militia.
And I’m afraid that the code words “armed self-defense” stand for something more than merely owning a weapon…
September 18th, 2004 at 7:49 am
Amendment II
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.
I think the basic core principle of… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is pretty clear.
September 18th, 2004 at 9:53 am
that’s a comma, doug, not a period. Please learn to read….
September 18th, 2004 at 9:57 am
because people think you won’t get it, your ellipsis above ignores the first half of the sentence… is that clearer, unnamed critics? The basic core principle is “A well regulated Militia” not the right to keep and bear arms… that part is HOW you achieve the core principle. The problem is that the NRA doesn’t believe in the “well regulated” part.
But long live the gay NRA!
September 18th, 2004 at 4:30 pm
I was about to argue with you about your previous statement ” A well regulated militia”… it is one of the most feeble arguments most people who try to control the argument make… but without understanding history, you don’t understand history… but, I wasn’t going to go there, except that I was reading the web site for Bram’s guy and I noticed his statement… so i figured what the hell?!?! post it:
http://www.badnarik.org/Issues/GunControl.php
Now, I agree with very little of badnarik’s stances when he expands some of his thoughts… I respect him for taking a position and for his run for the presidency…
September 18th, 2004 at 4:31 pm
but without understanding history, you don’t understand history should actually read:
but without understanding history, you don’t understand the language used and in the way it was used….
September 18th, 2004 at 4:32 pm
I have to stop doing five things at once and pay attention to one thing at a time.
September 18th, 2004 at 4:38 pm
Bram,
I have read the badnarik web site. I find it an interesting political position… You are right about one thing: you have to love this guy for his say it as I see it stances.
I do not agree with a lot or much of what he says… but I am normally in the minority anyway, so I am used to that.
Thanks for sharing…
September 18th, 2004 at 6:23 pm
you can debate what a “well-regulated militia” means, but I was pointing out that you have to evaluate the whole sentence, not just the end of it as you tried to do in your comment.
September 19th, 2004 at 2:33 pm
Well, Doug, I *do* understand history (was a history major, focused on legal history in law school), as well as Constitutional law, and I can tell you that a number of very smart people who have spent their lives studying this disagree with your statements above. But please, educate me on what “history” you’re referring to.
September 19th, 2004 at 3:35 pm
For an analogy that further explains how the “well-regulated militia” clause of the Second Amendment can be a limitation on the rights granted by it, check out the Plaintiffs’ briefs in Eldred v. Ashcroft, which discuss the limitation contained within the Copyright Clause of the Constitution (”To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”). You’ll notice that the structure of this clause is very similar to the structure of the Second Amendment.
Further, frankly, I wouldn’t be rushing to cite Badnarick to support my stance:
“First, it is impossible for the Second Amendment to confer a ‘community right,’ because communities HAVE no rights. Individuals are real. Communities are abstract concepts. You can have individuals without communities, but you cannot have communities without individuals. Ergo, individuals must come first, and only the individuals that make up a community can have rights.”
The number of problems with this argument are too numerous to post. (1) The amendment discusses militias, not some contemporary idea of “community.” Talk about decontextualizing history… (2) I can *assure* you that the Founding Fathers intended to grant what Badnarick derisively calls “community” rights. Heard of a little thing called “federalism”? How about “state’s rights”? What is a “state” other than an “abstract concept,” which requires individuals for its existence?
And the attempt to “refute” the “claim” that “‘militia’ refers only to the National Guard” is a straw man. *None* of the serious pro-gun control Second Amendment scholars state the argument in these terms (at best, it’s a second-grade reading level translation of a doctoral thesis – completely ignoring any nuance or context). Pretty easy to discredit an argument when you refuse to engage with what is actually being said…
Frankly, the fact that state militias no longer exist, and have instead been replaced by the National Guard, in my mind points out the fallacy of relying on “originalist” arguments about the Constitution - to borrow from Lessig, as the surrounding society changes, our “translations” of the Constitution need to evolve to keep up.
Of course, if I really believed in originalism, I could take Mr. Badnarick’s argument one step further (and this is not *my* argument, just one that could be made): The Constitution clearly states that the existence of state militias is a precondition to the right to keep and bear arms; since state militias no longer exist (nor are they still needed), the precondition fails, and there is no *right* to keep and bear arms (even for members of the National Guard). Instead, the power reverts to the states (as it is not among the delineated powers of the federal government), and thus the state *may* grant the *privilege* to keep and bear arms, but does not have to.
All of that being said, I still don’t know which side of the argument I actually agree with. But (as you can tell) throwing around unsupported accusations that others don’t “understand history,” and then citing to a source that clearly has even less of a clue about history and legal scholarship is a sure way to get my goat.
September 19th, 2004 at 6:47 pm
To “ex”: You need to listen to Badnariks constitution class to get a better sense but I will briefly try.
First of all you must realize that we are talking about a RIGHT. Rights, according to the founding fathers, PRE-EXIST government. Indeed, governments sole purpose is to PROTECT these rights. THus the RIGHT to bear arms cannot be continguent on any action of government at any level.
Second a gramatical arguement:
suppose we had the statement: “A well read citenzenry being necessary for the survival of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed”. Now would anyone in their right mind believe that this was intended to deny anyone who is not “well read” the right to keep and read books? I think not.
And finally a historical argument based on intent. If you read the work of those who supported and wrote the second amendment you will find out that a major purpose of the second amendment was to make sure the people were ENTITLED to have the tools to shoot AT government officials if, in the opinion of the citenzenry, that ever became necessary. SO obviously needing PERMISSION from the government to keep and bear arms was the LAST thing they wanted to require!
Does the first amendment give the government the right to require a “church permit”?
September 19th, 2004 at 6:49 pm
One last thing “ex”. Even according to YOUR interpretation of the constitution all FEDERAL gun control laws are unconstitutional, right?
September 19th, 2004 at 7:34 pm
What part of the following didn’t you understand?
1) “…but, I wasn’t going to go there, except that I was reading the web site for Bram’s guy and I noticed his statement… so i figured what the hell?!?! post it:”
or
2) “Now, I agree with very little of badnarik’s stances when he expands some of his thoughts…”
September 19th, 2004 at 8:30 pm
uh, but you DID go there, Doug… We’ve been through this before; pithy little disclaimers don’t excuse subsequent actions.
September 19th, 2004 at 9:13 pm
To Lewis:
Yes, those are Badnarik’s arguments. I have read very cogent refutations of every one of them. (Not everyone agrees with that interpretation of “rights,” even as understood by the Founding Fathers, and there are multiple interpretations of what the founding fathers “intended” by the Second Amendment. Check out Dennis Henigan, “Arms, Anarchy, and the Second Amendment” for one of the many refutations of the “insurrectionist theory” of the Second Amendment.) And the first amendment doesn’t contain a limitations clause, now does it? So the comparison doesn’t get you very far, I fear.
Second, I never stated it was *my* argument (in fact, I explicitly disclaimed that it was my argument, and stated that I’m undecided on the Second Amendment). Frankly, I think originalism is bunk. I also believe in an expansive view of the powers of the federal government. But yes, if you accept originalism and are an adherent of federalism, I do believe that the argument I stated (which, if you didn’t catch it, was intended to be an argument reductio ad absurdum of Badnarik’s “National Guard” argument - which I think is laughable on its face) leads to the conclusion that federal gun control laws are unconstitutional. But, as I said, I think orginialism and Badnarik’s arguments are both bunk.
To Doug:
Since you supplied no other evidence or arguments for your statement that “A well regulated militia’… it is one of the most feeble arguments most people who try to control the argument make,” and only cited to Badnarick’s arguments, there wasn’t much else in your post to refute. Sure, I could have laid out every piece and permutation of every version of the “limitations clause” argument about the Second Amendment to refute your (unsupported, unqualified) statement, but it seemed far simpler to refute the one version of the argument you put forth.
September 19th, 2004 at 9:24 pm
To qualify the last post. I think there are some valid, well supported arguments for a “personal rights” interpretation of the Second Amendment. I just don’t think Badnarick’s demolition of straw men and refusal to acknowledge context and complexity (on the site linked to by Doug) are among them. It may be that Badnarick has published legal scholarship that I have not read that takes a more nuanced and scholarly approach than that offered on his website. But if you really want to support the “personal right” interpretation of the Second Amendment, that page does not put the case in the best light.
To quote Henigan:
“Unlike the Declaration of Independence, our Constitution is not a charter for revolution; it is a charter for government. The Constitution establishes a system of democratic institutions and instructs us that, if the system is carefully protected, liberty will be ensured. It does not address the question of the individual’s rights against tyranny because its only subject matter is the creation of democratic institutions to ensure against tyranny. One can believe in a natural right to resist tyranny by force of arms without conceding that a democratic government is powerless to prevent insurrection or to regulate privately-owned firearms.”
September 20th, 2004 at 1:09 pm
“If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates, but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.”
– George Washington, 1796
In other words, if the government wants to gain a new power not already outlined in the Constitution (including the regulation of personal firearms), then there needs to be an Amendment. Not an interpretation, or a nuance, or an expansion… a clear, literal Amendment, eg: “Congress shall have the power to regulate the personal defense of individual citizens of every State, including licensing and selectively restricting the ownership of weapons of any kind.” Barring that, the 10th Amendment holds: “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.” That is Badnarik’s position, and it is mine. You cannot refute it with any twists of logic. It is perfectly clear. We the people retain our rights not otherwise given to governments explicitely. The Bill of Rights is meant to specifically list some of the rights we retain, but “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
September 20th, 2004 at 1:56 pm
Again, your comment assumes that the Second Amendment represents the grant of a personal right. Scholarship, as well as many people’s “plain reading” of the text, disagrees about that.
As I’ve said before, personally, I haven’t decided if the Second Amendment grants a personal right, or merely a right to participants in the defense of the state. (This is mainly the result of the fact that I am aware of and acknowledge the fact that my views on Constitutional law are internally inconsistent, and the Second Amendment is one of the places that this inconsistency is manifest.) However, there is no doubt in my mind, based on all of the scholarship I’ve read, based on my reading of the Constitution itself, and based upon years of Supreme Court and other precedent, that the government can place reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms.
Even if there *is* a personal right to keep and bear arms, it’s not an unqualified right. Even the First Amendment, which is stated in unqualified terms - “shall make no law” - has been recognized to be subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. Accordingly, the Second Amendment, which is stated in far less absolute terms, is likewise subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. What I mean by that is this: *assuming* that the Second Amendment grants a personal right, it only grants the right to bear arms in the abstract; it doesn’t specify which arms you can bear (for true originalism, let everyone have muskets!
). There’s no requirement that a person be allowed to bear any type of arms they can get their hands on. Prohibition of everything but shotguns and handguns would not infringe upon someone’s exercise of the right to keep and bear arms (although it might prevent them from keeping and bearing the precise *type* of arms they want). Likewise, it is perfectly reasonable to exclude felons from the right to keep and bear arms (just as they are excluded from exercising the right to vote). Accordingly, requiring background checks, even combined with a waiting period, is a reasonable method for enforcing a ban on gun ownership by felons, even if it affects non-felons. Making someone wait a few days before purchasing a gun does not take away from them the right to keep and bear arms. I could go on…
Frankly, I’ve done some looking into Badnarik’s “Constitutional law class” - he has absolutely no training in law, history, or social science. Many of his pronouncements are just plain wrong from a historical, legal, and jurisprudential stance. Now, if you want to convince me that there is a personal right granted by the Second Amendment, go read Tribe and parrot back his arguments.
September 20th, 2004 at 1:59 pm
Man-o…spend a few days working nights and this happens!
September 20th, 2004 at 2:32 pm
“ex”, the Constitution does not grant rights, it acknowledges them. The People’s rights predate and supercede the Constitution. The Constitution was written in order to protect the People’s rights. It does not grant privileges, as the Government has no power to do so… they receive all power from us, the People. The only granting of privileges in the Constitution is from the People to the Government, not the other way around. The Second Amendment does not assume anything about granting privileges… it simply enumerates one of the many, many rights which the Constitution explicitly does NOT allow the government to control. It does not matter what “a well regulated militia” means; the fact is that the Constitution does not give Congress any authority to write laws governing gun control because there is no Article, Clause, or Amendment which grants Congress that power. And they cannot simply usurp a right without an Amendment, which is exactly what George Washington said.
September 20th, 2004 at 2:54 pm
Wow, pedanticism from a Libertarian…
So, Tom, Lewis, et al, how do you reconcile regulations on speech by the government with the First Amendment? Here is the text:
So, why can’t you yell fire in a crowded theater? Or why can the police ask for safety zone between peaceful protesters and politicians or other targets of protest?
As for governing gun control, how about the commerce clause of Article II? From Article I, section 8:
Acquiring a gun is most often done through commerce, i.e. you buy it… Congress has a clearly enumerated right and responsibility to regulate commerce, which includes buying and selling guns… I believe most state constitutions have similar clauses for their own internal commerce…
September 20th, 2004 at 4:02 pm
As far as free speech in a theater, if you yell “fire”, and there is one, you’re a hero. If you yell “fire” and there is none, but people get injured as a result, you may have some responsibility in the consequences. Badnarik is all about personal responsibility. As far as protest, Badnarik acknowledges no limits to free speech, and in fact protested the Republican Convention in Central Park bearing a t-shirt that said “Permit? We don’t need no stinkin’ permit!” Free speech is absolute, but as with all freedoms, it comes with responsibility. Applying this to the Second Amendment, you’re free to own a gun, but if you brandish it at the wrong person at the wrong time, you may get yourself shot, and if you shoot your gun and kill someone, you may be responsible for murder. Responsibility is key.
As for your commerce argument, this is the one the government uses most often. They try to regulate everything they can under this loophole. But the fact is, it doesn’t apply intrastate. If I go to a gun show or a private owner, and I buy a gun, the federal government has no jurisdiction over that whatsoever.
September 20th, 2004 at 4:04 pm
As to being pedantic, in that same speech, George Washington warned that “[partiality for foreign nations] gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.”
September 20th, 2004 at 4:08 pm
The fact is that this very process has been eroding our rights “sometimes even with popularity” for almost one-hundred years now, and is no more apparent than under the current presidency. Washington practically describes Bush personally. And when social-ists slowly eat away our freedoms, or fascists eliminate them in one fell swoop, we have no recourse but to go back to our founding documents and demand where the authority comes from to take our freedoms away. Being pedantic is our defense against greed and over-extension of powers.
September 20th, 2004 at 4:32 pm
It’s clear that there’s a basic disconnect here - you and Badnarik believe in “natural rights,” and further believe that the right to arm yourself is one of those rights. That’s not a belief shared by all. (The list of refutations of both aspects of such argument would be far too long to post here. Not to mention the fact that it begs the question of what constitutes a natural right, and from whence such rights arise. Can I claim a natural right to all of the chocolate ice cream I want? How about a right to control my own body? What if that conflicts with a fetus’s “right” to be born? Frankly, the natural rights argument just raises a number of further questions that need to be answered.) Nor is it clear that either aspect of your view is actually enshrined in the Constitution. (George Washington, while one of the authors of the Constitution, was not the only, or even the primary, author. A review of the writings of all of the “Founding Fathers” would show that they’re all over the map. So citing the one that favors your position doesn’t really win you the argument.)
As for the “free speech is absolute” argument - I’m as much a Justice Black fan as anyone. But, the fact is that our society has long since recognized free speech is not an absolute. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is but one example. Using state authority to arrest a heckler who shouts unwelcome comments at a public figure in a privately-owned venue, while leaving unmolested those who shout “four more years” is another. But I bet I can come up with some restrictions that even most die-hard freedom of speech proponent would agree to. Unless you think the government would be powerless to prevent me from printing on the front page of the New York Times a list of every undercover agent anywhere in the world. Or the contents of a detailed investigation listing every known and exploitable weakness in “homeland security.” Or the nuclear launch codes. Frankly, if you are still saying “no, no, no, the government can’t stop that,” well, you’ve got 200+ years of jurisprudence to argue against (not to mention the historical fact that the very people sitting in Philadelphia hashing out the Constitution and arguing for ratification of the Bill of Rights later passed and enforced legislation that to our modern view would violate the First Amendment more than any of the examples cited above).
September 20th, 2004 at 4:50 pm
I challenge you to find any writings from James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, or any of our founding fathers, not taken out of context, which supports the gross abuse of power our government currently enjoys. Remember the historical context… the purpose of the Constitution is to create a government in which tyranny the likes of Britain is severely hindered and personal freedom is maximized. In fact, it’s hard to see where your confusion lies, when the war resulting in the Constitution began on these grounds: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” I’d be dumbfounded if you could make a case against “natural rights” in light of this simple fact. Our Constitution is the “foundation” of which the Declaration of Independence speaks, and its “priciples” are of “self-evident”, “unalienable rights”.
As a proponent of open-source programming, if you’re familiar with the subject, I’m of the opinion that openness is the best security. Therefore, public knowledge of the “exploitable weaknessess” is the best way to be safe since it is the surest way they’ll be fixed. As for undercover agents, we shouldn’t require them. And nuclear weapons should have a level of physical security such that knowing launch codes would be useless. So, no, you haven’t, and I challenge cannot, come up with any restrictions I would agree to. This is what makes America what it is. Without this, we have no hope of upholding our other rights.
September 20th, 2004 at 5:19 pm
It’s not “confusion.” All I can say is read Henigan. He expresses the problems with the insurrection theory of the Second Amendment far better than I have the time or the inclination to.
September 20th, 2004 at 6:04 pm
Well, clearly unless you can make an argument, I’ll assume you’ve acquiesced. It’s not my responsibility to decipher some book which has caused you to have the belief you do, just because you can’t formulate an argument on your own. The Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States of America are all the literature that really apply to this conversation. Various writings of founding fathers are supplementary and only provide additional context in which these founding documents were written and illuminate their main goals and purpose, and warn about their proper use (as Washington has). Later theories formulated by lawyers and historians are revisionist and irrelevant. Pointing to a highschool-level compilation of liberal propaganda is especially hypocritcal in light of the fact that you’ve accused Badnarik of having no “clue about history and legal scholarship”. Clearly you owe the man an apology.
September 20th, 2004 at 6:20 pm
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights:
“Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
“RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
“ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.”
Amendment II:
“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.”
It hardly seems like it should be necessary, but here is the plain-English interpretation of the Second Amendment:
http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=3962
September 20th, 2004 at 9:08 pm
Wow… Tom pulls out the “I win just because” argument… impressive. Then you go on to say, no one after the founding fathers have anything useful to say, again, because you say so… and that the Constitution is clear in it’s meaning, as long as you agree with the interpretation…
You’re saying a grad of a top 20 university (with high honors) and a graduate of Harvard Law School of being confused about a document which forms the foundation of our legal system… you know, one that she’s studied a bit, too, and with the help of several others who have made it their lifelong study…
Let me try to make this discussion productive instead of descending into pointless name calling…
I think “ex” is asking you 2 fundamental questions: 1) what are natural rights? 2) name them.
I’m asking you to say how prior restraint of free speech, in the case of something like national security, for example, jives with your claim that there is no limitations permitted by the second amendment…
Finally, I’m asking you why the Well Regulated Militia clause was added if the point was simply to reinforce the natural right to own a weapon? In fact, why even have a second amendment?
September 20th, 2004 at 11:31 pm
Thanks Sujal ;-). For my own response to Tom - refusing to “decipher some book which has caused you to have the belief you do” (translation: covering your ears and saying “LALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU” when someone points you towards something that disagrees with your argument) doesn’t make you well informed on the topic, or even right. Not to mention the fact that, had you bothered to follow the link I give above, you’d quickly realize that it’s not a book, but a relatively short (relatively being the operative term) article. (And no, it’s not a “highschool-level compilation of liberal propaganda.” It was originally published as a law review article - the cite is D. Henigan, “Arms, Anarchy and The Second Amendment,” Valparaiso Univ. Law Review, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Fall 1991) - and accordingly went through the law review’s internal vetting process before being published. But if you don’t like it, try Emory, Lucilius A., The Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 28 Harv. L. Rev. 473-477 (1915), or Weatherup, Roy G., An Historical Analysis of The Second Amendment,” 2 Hastings Const. L.Q. 961-1001 (1975). Or try an entire law review devoted to the subject.) There are entire classes on this topic in law schools, entire law review articles and books written on the subject, people who devote years of their life to formulating and refuting various purmutations of the arguments that I have (ever so briefly) outlined here - forgive me for trying to point towards one of the more “accessible” pieces.
The argument, actually, is far bigger than I’ve even delved into. Not only is there the debate about whether or not there’s a limiting clause contained within the Second Amendment and whether the Constitution allows for reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on even the apparently “unqualified” rights in the Bill of Rights, but there are entire philosophical debates about the nature and origin of rights, and the coexistence of those rights with a sovereign governmental authority (Locke versus Hobbes versus Rousseau, ad infinitum). Trying to regurgitate all of that here in little spoonfuls would take weeks or months, and would make this thread even more unruly than it is. And, frankly, since you keep refering to what I “believe” on this topic, I don’t think it would do any good, since you clearly haven’t actually read what I’ve already written.
Finally, how do you *know* what a clearly ambiguous phrase means (let’s face it - if it were as transparent and open to only one possible interpretation as you’d like to portray it, there would be no debate), or the “main goals and purpose” of such a phrase (let alone a document!) without resort to theories of some sort? Badnarik’s “theories” (for that’s exactly what they are) are no less “revisionist” or “irrelevant” than those of historians and legal scholars. Unless, of course, you’ve actually invented not only a time machine, but a device for reading the minds of every one of the “Founding Fathers”?
September 21st, 2004 at 12:30 am
(ex-)fake redhead:
Good, then had you read what I had actually written, you would have seen that I agree with very little of what Badnarik had to say when he opened his mouth beyond his original stance…
The reason I re-entered this debate. I wanted to answer your question (ex-)fake redhead from before because you asked a pertinent question to the debate (maybe the only real pertinent question):
——————————————————————–
“Well, Doug, I *do* understand history (was a history major, focused on legal history in law school), as well as Constitutional law, and I can tell you that a number of very smart people who have spent their lives studying this disagree with your statements above. But please, educate me on what “history” you’re referring to.”
——————————————————————–
I have read much of the debate above and I was trying to find in my free time a very good article I had read about the second amendment a long time ago. I had to actually look it up (which took me some time because I had to remember the last name of the law professor) …
and finally, in the back of a closet in a box marked old books I found it… the article, copied from Yale Law review for a course in diversity and power that I took a long time ago in college:
The article: The embarrassing second amendment by sanford levinson.
I was actually surprised to find a link to the article on-line. I will post a link to a reprint of the article online (which I found much more easily then the article in my old pile of books)
The interesting item to note is that in our political base or starting point, Mr. levinson and I come from very different places…
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html
It addresses the period of constitutionl language as well as how colloquial terms we take for granted in their literal form today had much more of a widespread meaning in the 18th century. Therefore the term “militia” did not expressly have the literal belief it does today.
I think the relevant point that is made is that if you disregard the 2nd amendment, why not the entire bill of rights?
He states:
There is one further problem of no small import; if one does accept the plausibility of any of the arguments on behalf of a strong reading of the Second Amendment, but, nevertheless, rejects them in the name of social prudence and the present -day consequences produced by finicky adherence to earlier understandings, why do we not apply such consequentialist criteria to each and every part of the Bill of Rights? [97] As Ronald Dworkin has argued, what it meant to take rights seriously is that one will honor them even when there is significant social cost in doing so. If protecting freedom of speech, the rights of criminal defendants, or any other parts of the Bill of Rights were always (or even most of the time) clearly cost less to the society as a whole, it would truly be impossible to understand why they would be as controversial as they are. The very fact that there are often significant costs — criminals going free, oppressed groups having to hear viciously racist speech and so on — helps to account for the observed fact that those who view themselves as defenders of the Bill of Rights are generally antagonistic to prudential arguments. Most often, one finds them embracing versions of textual, historical, or doctrinal arguments that dismiss as almost crass and vulgar any insistence that times might have changed and made too “expensive” the continued adherence to a given view. “Cost-benefit” analysis, rightly or wrongly, has come to be viewed as a “conservative” weapon to attack liberal rights. [98] Yet one finds that the tables are strikingly turned when the Second Amendment comes into play. Here it is “conservatives” who argue in effect that social costs are irrelevant and “liberals” who argue for a notion of the “living Constitution” and “changed circumstances” that would have the practical consequence of removing any real bite from the Second Amendment.
Read the entire article… I think you may like it. You may not agree but it does answer the question of why the “preamble” or the “militia” statement is ambigious at best… but not really a plausible argument in the gun control debate.
September 21st, 2004 at 12:36 am
http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/slevinson/
i found a home page for professor levinson
September 21st, 2004 at 11:20 am
Doug: I’ve read Levinson. Actually, Henigan is a direct refutation of Levinson. As are many of the Chicago-Kent State Law Review articles linked above.
September 21st, 2004 at 12:11 pm
I understand that, but I disagree with Henigan and agree with many parts of Levinson and herein begins the debate… just because henigan refutes levinson does not make him right. His opinion and that is the key word, opinion (or interpretation) of the Constitution may be such, it does not mean he is right. You agree with his opinion and I don’t. Two educated people, two well read people and yet, we have different conclusions.
Once again, the foible of the language used by many revisionists is an easy task to state but one that is hard to undermine… one must begin at the derivation or the intent of the language in the 18th century and make the interpretation of that language applicable to 21st century standards… because if you want to go for literalism, we might as well start knocking out large chunks of the constitution (which is an irrelevant point to make because very few would advocate for anarchy but when you disregard one statement for a perception of language, you open the door or the precedent to do it in many other cases). So my statement above about having to truly understand the intent of the language used and make it applicable stands, in my opinion. (hell, I read Shakespeare… and it says one thing but every professor I have had swears to me it says another. And when you read Shakespeare in the terms of the language used at the time, the interpretation is clearer and makes sense in a 21st century world)
The simple question is this: do “the people” deserve the right to own guns? My answer is yes. Your answer is, you don’t know where you stand on the issue, and others will say outright, no.
Now if you ask me:
Does government have the right to strip the right to own guns? I would say no.
But if you ask, does the government have the right to regulate what types of guns people have access to? My answer is yes. States, in honest debate and work with the people of said state, have the ability to deny access to certain types of guns. Not unilateral decision but in concert with the citizenry of said state.
Responsible gun owners want to be able to protect themselves and their families. Responsible gun owners with documented weapons on file with government agencies after waiting for their background checks to be completed, are the least likely individuals to commit a crime with said gun. It happens, but it is rare.
The other reason responsible gun owners have guns; hunting. Whether you agree or disagree that hunting is barbaric or a sport, hunting has been a part of this country since our inception. John Kerry is a hunter. I believe, not 100% accurate, President Bush is a hunter (on this statement, I could be wrong). Hunting is a part of our societal fabric, right or wrong.
So the issue should not be about whether you or I have the right to own guns, the issue should be clearly stated as: “What types of guns should be possessed by individuals?”
The answer to that question is that gun ownership or the type of weapons owned by individuals is a state’s right. State leaders in concert with the people of the state should be able to decide what guns are permitted and what guns indicate a “clear and present danger” upon our society.
This is what I believe. This is my interpretation of the 2nd amendment in conjunction with many other sources and I will defend the right of the people to own guns.
September 21st, 2004 at 1:14 pm
> 1) what are natural rights? 2) name them
In regard to our discussion and our legal system, “among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, and more specifically, the Bill of Rights, and every right not expressly given to Congress. The 9th and 10th Amendments specifically say that all rights are natural rights, and that we willingly give some authority to Congress and to the States to regulate them, but otherwise keep them for ourselves.
“Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, [the Declaration of Independence] was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit call for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c.” — Thomas Jefferson, “Letter to Henry Lee” [May 8, 1825] in Thomas Jefferson, Writings (The Library of America) ; New York: Literary Classics of the United States, 1984), 1501.
“And on the distinctive principles of the Government of our own State, and that of the United States, the best guides are to be found in — 1. The Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental act of Union of these States. 2. The book known by the title of the Federalist, being an Authority to which appeal is habitually made by all & rarely declined or denied by many, as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed & those who accepted the Constitution of the United States on questions as to its genuine meaning. 3. The Resolutions of the General Assembly of Virginia in 1799, on the subject of the Alien & Sedition laws, which appeared to accord with the predominant sense of the people of the U.S. 4. The Inaugural Speech & Farewell Address of President Washington, as conveying political lessons of peculiar value; and that in the branch of the School of law which is to treat on the subject of Government, these shall be used as the text & documents of the school.” — James Madison, “Letter to Thomas Jefferson,” February 8, 1825 (Founder’s Library; The Claremont Institute), 1-2.
“The diversity in the faculties of men from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of Government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results….” — James Madison, “The Federalist 10,” in Debate on the Constitution; Bernard Bailyn, ed. (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, 1993), 405-406.
Jefferson proposed for the Virginia Constitution of 1776, “No freeman shall ever be de-barred the use of arms.”
“Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government, which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind.” — James Wilson, Lectures on Law, 1791
“Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings — give us that precious jewel, and you may take every things else! Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” — Patrick Henry, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
“It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused.” — John Jay, letter to R. Lushington, March 15, 1786
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment, quoted by Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book, 1774-1776
I could go on and on, but this should be sufficient context for the meaning of the Bill of Rights, and the 2nd Amendment in particular.
September 21st, 2004 at 2:15 pm
That doesn’t define what is a right, and how we identify them. The Constitution doesn’t say anything about the regulation of ice cream - is that a right? The Constitution doesn’t say anything about driving - is that a right? The Constitution doesn’t say anything about abortion - is that a right? The Constitution doesn’t say anything about gay marriage - is that a right? (Of course, I would argue yes as to the last two, but I can?t think of anyone who would make the argument that the Founding Fathers actually intended the last two.)
And, remember, there is a difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution/Bill of Rights. The authors of the Bill of Rights were perfectly capable of writing an amendment that says “The people’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness shall not be infringed” - but they didn’t. Further, they were capable of writing an amendment that included Jefferson’s prohibition — “No freeman shall ever be de-barred the use of arms” — again, they didn’t. What they *did* write is an amendment that contains the preamble “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” ? and all of the resort to quotes by Jefferson and Madison in the world won?t change the words that are actually written on that piece of paper.
And, of course, despite Jay’s quote, and the general condemnation of slavery in the Declaration of Independence, slavery was actually enshrined in the Constitution (3/5 compromise?). So if the Constitution must be considered and interpreted in the context of these other writings and quotes, it must be internally inconsistent, no?
Anyway, I’m afraid none of those quotes delineates what are natural rights (or even how to recognize what is a natural right) or from whence they arise. (Who decides what is a natural right versus what isn’t? And note that, with the exception of the proposed Virginia amendment, which was not codified in the Constitution, none of the discussions of arms above label it a “natural right” - at best, it states that the right to bear arms is *desirable*, but not a *right*.)
September 21st, 2004 at 2:32 pm
And Doug: There you go again - “foible of the language used by many revisionists.” This so called “revisionist” interpretation of the Second Amendment was the accepted interpretation for most of our country’s history. It wasn’t until the last 30 years or so that serious scholarship arguing for a “personal rights” interpretation of the Second Amendment began to gain enough momentum to rise above the noise. And as you’ve stated - you believe Levinson; I’ve pointed out a number of people who say that a) he’s wrong or b) he has taken historical evidence out of context. And everyone of them can back it up. So what, other than the fact that you buy into Levinson’s arguments, makes the other sides’ arguments “foibles” or “one of the most feeble arguments most people who try to control the argument make,” such that rejecting Levinson *based on the historical record* means that one doesn’t “understand[] history”? Frankly, in my opinion, the best way to “understand” the language is to compare it to other (contemporary) provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. And notably, only *one* other clause granting a right/power has a “purpose” preamble - the Copyright Clause. All of the other delineations of rights contained within the Bill of Rights contain no such preamble. Thus, simply assuming that they can (or should) be interpreted in the same way appears to me to be a logical fallacy. So, despite your claims that you are attempting to “truly understand the intent of the language used and make it applicable,” it seems to me that the grounds for asserting that your interpretation of the “intent of the language” is the correct one stands on shaky ground, at best. Again, I keep going back to the fundamental rule of statutory interpretation - you assume that the legislature/Congress/whoever have a basic grasp of the English language, and are fully capable of writing what they intend. (Of course, the corollary of this rule is that you assume the language has a purpose. Thus, if a word is included, you assume that it was included for a *reason*. Likewise, if a word is omitted, you assume it was omitted for a reason.) Thus, absent complete ambiguity, you should look at *what they wrote*, not what they said about what they wrote, or what you think they indended by what they wrote. As our friend Tom pointed out, Jefferson and the other authors of the Bill of Rights new how to write an unambiguous statement of the people’s right to keep and bear arms. But when it came time to write the Bill of Rights, they didn’t.
September 21st, 2004 at 3:16 pm
And, in the end, guns will never be taken out of the hands of the citizenry. Thus, implying, that the interpretation of either side is in the right or in the wrong.
And just like a lawyer, because you and your side belief it is wrong, he must be or I must be. Opinions are not fact. I give creedence to levinson’s opinion… did not state it as a fact but as one mere reference to the use of language and it’s application.
I don’t to the myriad of supporters you have listed, I didn’t say they or you were wrong, I just stated I had a difference of opinion. Respect for the opposing position opinion implies understanding. You asked why I believe the language argument of the 2nd amendment is more complex then you believe and I supported my position.
Simple reality, reading yours and Tom’s posts, we can all beat our heads against the wall for another 50 posts and we will be entrenched in the same places. The argument has to move out of whether or not to give creedence to the 2nd amendment… it exists and will for years to come. Trying to use the language that exists to render the amendment null and void will never happen. To do so will result in (a) the break down and attack of many different factions within the US on the rest of the Constitution and (b) a lot of current militias in this country handing over their weapons when you pry them from their cold dead hands.
That said: I don’t own a gun. I choose not to have one in my home for my own reasons but I support the right of anyone, who legally passes a criminal background check, to own a weapon if he or she so chooses. It is their constitutionally protected right via the 2nd amendment and until the “scholars” can pass an amendment to the US Constitution that reverses that right, I believe the protected right stands.
September 21st, 2004 at 3:25 pm
“ex”: EVERYTHING IS A RIGHT! People have all rights, whether that’s to eat ice-cream, to drive, whatever! Government has NO RIGHTS. We the people grant government the power to ensure that my rights don’t overrule your rights, and that’s all. My right to own and shoot a gun ends at your right not to be shot. There is no need for “The people’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness shall not be infringed”, because that’s what the entire document says! Government has no power to regulate anything unless it was expressly given that power by the people in the form of an Article of the Constitution or an Amendment to the Constitution. You’re running in circles. First I specified how the text declared this, so then you asked for context. I gave context, and now you say it is irrelevant compared to the literal text. Yes, exactly… I gave you both, the literal text which describes our rights clearly, and the context in which that text was written which further explains the precise meaning. There can be no further confusion on this. The words of the Constitution and the additional statements by the founders who wrote it not only provide the exact statement, but also the spirit of the statement. The 2nd Amendment means “No freeman shall ever be de-barred the use of arms”, but in what was surely considered at the time a more elegant and meaningful statement. It is beyond comprehension to me that anyone can read anything else into it. This is not a complicated matter unless you simply dislike what it says and want to invent another meaning because of that.
September 21st, 2004 at 3:38 pm
ex- I would also like to point to our own state constitution:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm
PART THE FIRST
A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin.
Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
we can argue all you want but “The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.”
Once again, I emphatically reiterate: This is a state’s rights issue under the basic protection of the 2nd amendment… but it is clearly defined here.
oh, I can see it now, are we going to have fun with the term common defence…
September 21st, 2004 at 3:40 pm
the first statement is the amended version under CVI that exists and superceds the original text written before…
September 21st, 2004 at 3:47 pm
http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/beararms/testimon.htm
Then we have the testimony of Eugene Volokh before the Senate in 1998 and we see in his testimoney the statements of other states in the Union:
(I include here all the state rights to keep and bear arms enacted in 1820 or before, plus the provision from the first [1842] Constitution of Rhode Island, the last of the original states to set up a constitution.)
Second Amendment: 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.
English Bill of Rights: That the subjects which are protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law (1689). 22
Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state (1817). 23
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818). 24
Indiana: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power (1816). 25
Kentucky: [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792). 26
Maine: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned (1819). 27
Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence (1780). 28
Mississippi: Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State (1817). 29
Missouri: That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned (1820). 30
North Carolina: [T]he people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power (1776). 31
Ohio: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power (1802). 32
Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power (1776). 33
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1790). 34
Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (1842). 35
Tennessee: [T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence (1796). 36
Vermont: [T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State — and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power (1777). 37
Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power (1776). 38 [The Virginia Constitution didn't mention a right to keep and bear arms until 1971.]
September 21st, 2004 at 4:13 pm
By the way, I can tell that we are all potato chip people
September 21st, 2004 at 4:14 pm
Doug, you’re a moron sometimes, you know that? And I mean that in the nicest way possible… this is a discussion of gun-control not gun-elimination. Tom and Kim are arguing about whether it’s OK to restrict the sale of weapons to people with a background check. You’re a moron because we agree with you, but you’re sitting there spouting arguments and wasting my time, my server resources, and your brain power banging your head against a wall that isn’t there.
The discussion is whether regulation is prohibited by the Amendment and whether it’s OK to ignore clauses like “for the common defense” or “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” because you like what the rest says.
You don’t read what people write and persist on arguing for the sake of arguing… no wonder you’re running for office. Then you portray yourself as the common victim, this time fucking saying you’re in the minority compared to a LIBERTARIAN while running as a Republican candidate… well, boo-hoo, Doug… too bad not everyone see everything the way you do.
September 21st, 2004 at 5:09 pm
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”
1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”
1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”
1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”
1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”
The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
http://www.2ampd.net/Meaning%20of%20the%20phrase%20well-regulated.htm
September 21st, 2004 at 5:47 pm
Doug:
Hello, pot: You’re black. You state that “And just like a lawyer, because you and your side belief it is wrong, he must be or I must be. Opinions are not fact. I give creedence to levinson’s opinion - did not state it as a fact but as one mere reference to the use of language and it’s application.” Check again. I did not say Levinson was wrong. I said that other people have offered substantiated arguments that Levinson was wrong. I stated that my opinion is that the clauses of the Constitution have to be read in context (although I acknowledge that there can be disagreement with what the proper context is). I then went on to argue that enough questions have been raised about Levinson and his historiography that disagreement with Levinson/you does not mean that Sujal or any one else fails to “understand[] history,” or that the contrary argument “is one of the most feeble arguments most people who try to control the argument make” or is a “foible.” Yes, these are all opinions (although some opinions have more historical/logical underpinnings, i.e. Levinson, Henigan, than others, i.e. Badnarik - and yes, that is one opinion I will absolutely stick by for the reasons stated up-thread). PRECISELY!
Which brings me back to my original point in all of this: Where the hell do you get off calling Sujal or anyone ignorant of history (especially with no explanation, no substantiation, nothing to back it up), or making any of the other dismissive, condescending statements you’ve made in this thread (as well as in other threads), just because he disagrees with what you surely have to admit is not a rock-solid, irrefutable argument (historical or otherwise)?! And yes, my frustration is showing. But, frankly, I’ve found the tone of a sizable minority of your posts to be infuriating. I’ve kept quiet until this thread, because I don’t know you, have no idea who you are, and have no idea where you’re coming from. But as I stated up-thread, the comment that your opponents fail to understand history is what prompted me to play devil’s advocate in the first place, in order to show you that arguments on the other side are as well-grounded in history as the arguments that you’re putting forth. Believe it or not, it takes quite a bit these days to get me riled up enough to engage in a sustained debate with someone I disagree with (although, as Sujal can testify, that wasn’t always the case). But your post the other day put me over the top.
And I know you’ve called for peace, Sujal. But I had to get this out there, and felt I needed to be more explicit about it than I was in previous posts.
Finally, as to your citation of the various state constitutions: Massachusetts is not *my* state constitution.
September 22nd, 2004 at 3:13 pm
Speaking of hypocrisy, “ex”, you started out in this discussion by saying that Badnarik had “even less of a clue about history and legal scholarship”, without anything to back up that statement, even knowing that he teaches an eight-hour Constitution class. So now calling out Doug on the same type of statement truely illustrates that you’re playing the role of the Kettle in the last post. Hopefully my fairly long list of quotations shows that Badnarik’s position is well within the realm of historical fact. The revisionism of the kind you’re trying to portray is simply not within the context of the framing of our founding document.
September 22nd, 2004 at 3:41 pm
I’ve looked at Badnarick’s statements on his website and reviewed excerpts from his “constitutional law class.” I stated above some of my reasons for rejecting his statements about the Second Amendment, and pointed out a few of the many logical and historical fallacies contained in his statements. (Feel free to Google for the rest - I’ve read plenty of detailed refutations of most of his views.) I posted my reasons and evidence for that conclusion *at the same time* and *in the same post* as the comment you’re quoting. I stand by my statement. Anyone can “teach” a “constitutional law class” - especially one that is self-produced an not affiliated with any reputable school like Badnarik’s “class.” And again, he has *no* training in law or history. NONE. His education is in CHEMISTRY, and he worked for many years as a computer programmer.
September 22nd, 2004 at 4:12 pm
I have a lot more faith in the reasoning capability of a chemist / computer scientist than I do in a lawyer.
September 22nd, 2004 at 8:46 pm
Damn. If only I had completed my chemistry degree…