What I already said: http://wisconsinwit.word.../23/dear-nra-youre-nuts/

Great piece, Ernie!

Great piece, Ernest,

As a rural dweller, I do appreciate the personal right to bear arms. But I keep hearing Right Wing talk radio hosts post-Aurora talking about how "They (Obama admin.) are just trying to take away our second amendment rights!" This is absolutely about our second amendment rights. When Congress refuses not to "well-regulate" guns, they have taken away MY rights as a citizen.

They'll say that any gun regulation is a "slippery slope" toward taking away all guns. But gee, what would happen if somebody legally was able to buy military style weapons and ammunition so they could mow down kids in a theater? That slope toward mayhem would seem pretty slippery, wouldn't it? Oh, wait, I'm sliding now..........

http://www.washingtonpos...25/gJQAFFjq9W_story.html

"... it was illegal for him to have many of those things already." Mitt Romney said.

So is Romney wrong?

Or is his quote, 'out of context'?

Admittedly, my perspective on gun issues is rather unique. I haven't owned or used a firearm for over 30 years. I adopted this posture for 2 basic reasons.

1. Disarmament starts with ME.

2. As a former member of Nuclear Weapons Handling Teams whose battle station tasked me to actually LAUNCH nuclear weapons, I've seen how this all ends; with shadows of people burned into the walls of buildings like they were in Hiroshima and Nagasaki when I visited there,

Do here are the arguments I make to gun fetishists out there:

1. Will your "sporterized" version of your Military arm du jour stop a drone-launched Hellfire Missile?

2.If the purpose of the right to bear arms is to provide a "well-regulated Militia", can we abolish the DOD and the Armed Forces and just Draft you gun nuts INTO that Well-Regulated Militia whenever we need to?

3.If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is as a check on governmental tyranny, Why not legalize private ownership of Nuclear Weapons? If an Armed Society is a "CIVIL" Society, think of how "Civil" everyone wil have to be if everyone posesses NUCWEPS.

It appears, G-Man @4 that it is you who has taken the words from the Washington Post article out-of-context. Worse, you present what that paper paraphrased as if it were an actual quote from the presumptive Republican nominee.

Had you read that short piece in its entirety, you would have already found the answer to your question. The article reads:

As reported by the Huffington Post, both the AR-15 and the high-capacity magazine were outlawed by the assault weapons ban, but Congress permitted the ban to lapse in 2004.

Some states still ban high capacity magazines, but Colorado is not one of them.

The Huffington Post, quoting Ginder Colbrun of the ATF, noted that there's "no restriction on the sale of bullets in the United States, except for armor-piercing rounds..."

Thus, Holmes' purchase of 6,000 rounds on-line was legal, as was his purchase of body armor.

That body armor, which included "a ballistic helmet, gas mask, throat-protector, tactical vest and pants" was so complete, "that responding officers almost mistook [Holmes] for a member of the SWAT team," according to the Huffington Post.

Thus, assuming Romney claimed that the items utilized by James Holmes in the Midnight Massacre were illegally acquired, one could safely say that the presumptive Republican nominee got it wrong.

That said, to date neither the President nor his Republican opponent have displayed the courage required to face down the threat posed by what Brad Friedman aptly described as the "terrorist-enabling" NRA.

For what it's worth, I wasn't sure what G-Man was getting at in his comment or who he might be giving some shit to. Seemed like maybe he was referring to the recent Obama misquoting but if he was I wasn't sure exactly how. I dunno.

What part of "Shall not be Infringed", does Congress and the Senate, and the Supreme Court, not understand?

Ernest #6

Ack! What? Eh? No, I did not misquote Romney according to the article:

“This person shouldn’t have had any kind of weapons and bombs and other devices and it was illegal for him to have many of those things already. But he had them,” Romney told NBC News in an interview. “And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won’t.”

I was trying to be sarcastic. Okay? I'm actually on your side. Sorry for the confusion!!

I was, as #7 eluded to, pointing out that Romney either is wrong about his use of the word "illegal", or that my quoting him was 'out of context', and that what he really meant (as a spokesperson of his said--but in another source) was that the "bombs" were "illegal".

I am probably not even being to clear now. But I am quite taken aback by your comment.

I was attempting to be humorous/sarcastic. I feel bad that I was not clear enough. I will try to be clearer in any future comments.

You and Brad do great work! That is why I read Brad Blog! Sorry for my "gaffe"!

David #7

I was not trying to "give shit" to anyone, as I tried to explain in my previous comment.

I feel bad that this happened.

Should our scholars of the Senate and Congress, and the supreme Court, carefully read the Federalist Papers and the recorded written exchanges between several members of our concerned Congress, during the inception of the Bill of Rights, so to speak, were reviewed, intelligently, it would be clear, the true purpose of the "People" having the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, was to protect ourselves from a Corrupted, and Muck-running majority from making it easy to disarm and capture the "People" to regain the lost power and wealth which England had lost. This 2nd Amendment prevents a Tyrannous Government from Treasonous practices, thereby giving the "us" the ability to protect our Nation from such Treason and Tyranny, and/or to protect ourselves from Crimes from Criminals or that of our own Government.
Everyone should be in favor of protecting our Nation from Crime, should they, not? We also want to take pride in protecting our Congress from attack from an outside invasion of foreign attackers, and we must take pride to protect all of our Government Officials, unless, of course, they are suspected of Treason or other High Crimes and Misdameanors, and must be apprehended for the Justice Department to Prosecute, at our beconned call, to assist in the capture.

No one in their right mind would stop us from preventing a crime, would they???? I would think our Congress would be honored to have our interests of their safety, at heart.
Why would I ever imagine there would be a hint of Paranoia, as a reason to take our Guns, regardless of how short or long they may be, or number of projectiles they may deliver in a hours time, or perhaps less time at a higher rate of delivery. What would be the logic in restricting our ability to prevent crime. One would think, a Sheriff would be thrilled to assemble a Posse at the drop of a hat, to apprehend a Traitor, or worse, such as a wayward Junior Congressman, angry at the meager salary he may be getting for such important duties to his country. We may even have to apprehend a very experienced Congressman, gone wrong from the bad influences of outsiders trying to bribe him for favors from the Public Treasury, which should be a passionate watchful eye out for such folly.

Such a shame, that we must be watchful of our own, to save them from the temptation of others.

It's time to show some Honor and set the Cards on the Table, for all to see. Everyone wants to go to Heaven, don't they?? C'mon guys, give us our money back, so we can feed our children, and maybe a neighbor or two, who need a few cans of beans for a meal. We need our money to do those good things for the People.

Isn't it our Government Duty to protect our rights to exercise our Individual Responsibilities, and be protected from invasion from an enemy crossing our Borders, like boogy men, to steal our Horses and Mules, and have evil thoughts of our daughters and wives.

Protect us, as the Constitution implies, and demands, don't play those Legalese Games with us, with those confusing Latin Words and "Quid Pro Quo" stuff, or "Ex post facto laws" and invading our soverign homes and family parties, whereby we can mix up some rotten Watermellon rinds and drink the ugly tasting stuff, without being Rode down and shot, for enjoying life. We would even like to drink that stuff in 24 ounce bottles, not a disgusting 12 oz pudding glass, like they Slickers use in New York.

Let's get back to Basics and get those Farms Working, again.

We just want some Old Fashioned honesty and Respect. How can anyone be proud to live on Welfare. Let them get some exercise and clean out those bodies with a little Salty Sweat, so I can buy my family a new pair of shoes for Christmas, instead of buying Beer and Cigarettes for a lazy person to sit and watch a TV we all paid for.

More later. We need to stop this Run Away Liberal Freight Train, with no brakes on it. Let's back up a bit, until we can afford to buy those 50 M $ Electric Cars, until then, lets use up some of that cheap Oil in our own Lands until the Engineers can get a better education. Just slow down that Steril Mule, for a few years. have that President go to lunch on his own pay check, not ours.

Indeed: "Guns don't kill people."

It's people WITH guns who kill people.©

Heil profit !!!

G-Man @9&10,

Yeah, that's sorta what I meant by what I said, though I'm still not completely sure what you're getting at. I just wasn't sure Ernie was getting your meaning on that one. Words can be tricky.

"How can anyone be proud to live on Welfare."

I keep seeing various versions of this thought posted across the internet, yet there are a few questions the posters refuse to answer. Lets see if you're any different.

What is your evidence there are people who are "proud to live on Welfare"? And if you have such evidence, what percentage of welfare recipients fit your smear - er, description.

David, my first post was an "utter fail" at trying to communicate. I shall hope that it fades away from our minds as quickly as I dashed it off.

G-man @various.

It is I who should apologize for misinterpreting what you were trying to say.

I'm reminded of a line from the movie, The Last Emperor.

"A gentleman does not always mean what he says, but he should always say what he means."

Your endeavor to communicate your concerns was obviously an honest one, and it is respected as such.

Now that you've provided a complete quote, it would appear that Romney, whose lack of the ability to fully articulate his thoughts is all too reminiscent of dubya, was partially correct.

The bomb-like booby trap Holmes rigged in his apartment probably was illegal. The weapons, ammo and body armor he used for the Midnight Massacre were legally acquired.

I don't understand why people are arguing about 'original intent', when it's historically clear that the *entire bill of rights* did not apply to state or local governments until the 14th Amendment, and SCOTUS decisions in the 1890s that established the incorporation doctrine.

Lucid Lee said @ 8 -

What part of "Shall not be Infringed", does Congress and the Senate, and the Supreme Court, not understand?

So, when those bodies "infringe" the "right" for the people to obtain anthrax, rocket launchers, nuclear weapons, etc., you feel they are violating the Constitution, correct?

g-man said @ 10:

I feel bad that this happened.

Please don't. It happens. FWIW, I sensed you were not being Wingnutty with your question, just unclear, and that Ernie might have been a bit quick to pull his trigger. That's one of the reason I hadn't responded. Glad to hear that was the case! And very glad you're here!

Lucid Lee @ 11 -

Wow. I had to read that whole thing, waiting for your reveal that you were being satirical! Got all the way to the end and the reveal never came! I guess you actually believe what you wrote, despite the fact that I'd be hard-pressed to find a single sentence in it that was either accurate, or had any actual evidence to support it in any way, shape or form.

If you are not satirical, then it's so, very very sad. Apparently, the push to completely disinform folks like yourself has been a tremendous success.

That Lucid Lee comment seemed anything but to me. Kept on trying to make sense of it from either a satirical point of view or some kind of opposite gun-totin', cigar-smokin', hells-a-pokin' point of view and I kept on having very little idea where any of it was coming from.

I would concur with David Lasagna's observation that Lee @11 was anything but "Lucid."

Contrary to Lee's suggestion, Justice Stevens did, indeed, "carefully read the Federalist Papers and the recorded written exchanges between several members of our concerned Congress, during the inception of the Bill of Rights..."

Stevens, in his dissent, provided a detailed analysis of the discourse that occurred during the various state ratification conventions, along with both proposed language that was rejected in the final draft and language that was retained.

Stevens, after a careful analysis concluded:

That explains the purpose behind "the right of the People to keep and bear arms." It is a military purpose tied to the idea that a state militia could secure liberty against the potential tyranny of a standing federal army --- one which could be overcome if the power to fund and discipline the state militias were left exclusively in the hands of the federal government.

Stevens concluded that the 2d Amendment was motivated exclusively as a means to preserve state militias and:

This would be a good piece if it was accurate and based on the intentions of those that wrote the 2nd Amendment over 200 years ago. It's easy to take today's events and create a fictitious "translation" to suit your gun control argument, but I noticed a glaring omission in your references - that of the framers. Your piece would fall apart had you included those references. So, let me tell you what the framers intended using their own words.

George Mason was a co-author of the 2nd Amendment. Since you highlighted the "well-regulated militia" clause of the second amendment, it's important to ask, "what is a militia?" In Mason's own words, the militia is "the whole people." Doesn't sound like a limited band of government troops or even the National Guard to me.

In discussing the 2nd Amendment, Samual Adams also clarified the intent of the Constitution when his state was working on its own Constitution. He said, "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." Emphasis mine.

George Washington recognized that had the King disarmed the populace, we may very well still be ruled by a monarchy. Nearly all of the Revolutionary Warriors' arms were personal weapons. Of the right to carry firearms by the individual, Washington called it the "American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence."

Gun grabbers may say, "well, they couldn't imagine the guns of today?" Really, so the 2nd Amendment only includes muskets? Wrong again. Washington also said that "the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

So, the only one "misinterpreting the 2nd Amendment is the writer of this blog post.

It is unfortunate, CJ @23, that you didn't actually read Justice Stevens' dissent before leveling your blast about the "framers' words."

Had you done so, you would see that, among others, Stevens directly quoted the same George Mason that you cite as proof that the 2d amendment was intended to prevent regulations of personal possession of firearms for the protection of the health, safety and general welfare of the public at large.

Stevens wrote:

There is simply no viable evidence to support the construction that the framers had intended to prevent state legislatures, let alone the national government, from imposing restrictions upon the personal use of firearms.

To the contrary, per Justice Stevens, whose views were shared by Justices Souter, Ginsberg & Breyer:

The history, the language and long-standing precedents all demonstrate that the purpose of the 2d Amendment was inextricably tied to the maintenance of "well regulated" state militias.

I guess, like global climate change, those who support the profits of the arms manufacturers find that to be an extraordinarily inconvenient truth.

Brilliant piece on our gun madness by Phil Rockstroh. For me really gets going after the initial paragraphs on the new Batman movie.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/07/31-4

(I'd also guess that there is next to no chance that people who are really into guns are gonna understand this critique.)

Thanks for the link, David.

Interesting take on The Dark Knight portraying the 99% as rabble, but I especially loved Rockstroh's line:

While that doesn't detract from the fact that the framers had designed the 2d amendment in order to insure that state militias could not be extinguished by Congressional neglect, it does add perspective when gun advocates, like CJ @23, search out obscure, out of context quotes from Mason and Washington, as if these were the word of God --- so how dare we question the insanity of policies that lawfully placed an arsenal in the hands of a sociopath like James Holmes.

yo Ernie, I am a nurse who has concelled her oldest sister to take my advice and have her daughter arrested. My sister hesitated and then my other sister who is a psychologist called me up and told me I had to go into the detectives's office with her because she basically hadn't come to terms with the truth. To make a long story short, ( and a very few success story) my niece is now clean for 7-8 years as well her husband.) He is now a lawyer and she is a communications grad. they are having a clean baby and I'm to be an Auntie again. Let me tell you about the human cost of our country's bs. Any who, thought I'd share, on a discussion of how guns effect illegal drug trade.

My mom always told me I was a poor speller... that would be "counseled" above. But hey' even she recognized I was her smartest kid!

Ernest A. Canning has been an active member of the California state bar since 1977. Mr. Canning has received both undergraduate and graduate degrees in political science as well as a juris doctor. He is also a Vietnam vet (4th Infantry, Central Highlands 1968)

I'm surprised by your credentials.You don't seem very bright or well informed.

Brian @29 --- Did it ever occur to you that a gratuitous insult is a far cry from a fact-based argument?

Brian.

Congrats. We got some doozies around here, but I do believe you just won the dickishness award.

From the Dred Scott decision:

...The legislation of the States therefore shows, in a manner not to be mistaken, the inferior and subject condition of that race at the time the Constitution was adopted, and long afterwards, throughout the thirteen States by which that instrument was framed; and it is hardly consistent with the respect due to these States, to suppose that they regarded at that time, as fellow-citizens and members of the sovereignty, a class of beings whom they had thus stigmatized; whom, as we are bound, out of respect to the State sovereignties, to assume they had deemed it just and necessary thus to stigmatize, and upon whom they had impressed such deep and enduring marks of inferiority and degradation; or, that when they met in convention to form the Constitution, they looked upon them as a portion of their constituents, or designed to include them in the provisions so carefully inserted for the security and protection of the liberties and rights of their citizens. It cannot be supposed that they intended to secure to them rights, and privileges, and rank, in the new political body throughout the Union, which every one of them denied within the limits of its own dominion. More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own satiety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.

One of the arguments made in support of the 14th Amendment was that State militias in the post-war Southern States were disarming freedmen. Northern congressmen insisted that former slaves had the same rights as white citizens, including the right to keep (have at hand) and bear (carry) arms.
Further, the US Constitution, Article I section 8, gives to Congress the power to grant letters of mark. A letter of mark is authorization from a government to the owner of a warship to make war in the name of that government. It makes the difference between a privateer and a pirate. The authors of the Constitution expected that private individuals (or, more likely, trading companies) would own warships.

The author makes a common mistake about the meaning of the words 'well-regulated militia.'

A 'well-regulated militia' means a well-trained militia who can move as a unit, fire to a commanded point of aim, and who will not break under fire.

You would be more familiar with the opposite term, an 'irregular militia'. The most likely fiction you would have come across the term in is Sherlock Holmes's books, movies, and cartoons; where he maintains what he calls the 'Baker's Street Irregulars.' They are his pack of orphans and street kids whom he pays to keep him informed and whom he can marshal into a dangerous slingshot-wielding cadre at a moment's notice. You might see them in the next Sherlock Holmes movie.

'Irregulars' can be dangerous troops to fight, but have a tendency to break and run. Famously, President Theodore Roosevelt fought in the American First Irregular Cavalry in his famous charge up San Juan Hill. The First Irregular Cavalry was made up of highly skilled volunteers - all famous lawmen, trackers, sharpshooters, and rangers - but because they had never had the opportunity to train together, they were called 'Irregular Cavalry' as opposed to 'Well-Regulated.'

If you ever read western fiction, or histories from the Western and Civil war area, people often refer to 'regulars' or 'reg'lars' in dialect. In Disney's The Ballad Of Davy Crockett, they rever to 'Andy Jackson is our gen'ral's name, his reg'lar soldiers we'll put to shame.' A related term is 'regulators' which means means an armed group who is trained to work together, likely to impose the will of a landowner more than a government. The Pinkertons (the first modern detective agency) maintained 'regulators'.

Currently, the army of a state is called the 'regular army' while guerilla forces who may work for a state at some remove, like terrorist groups with deniable contacts, are called 'irregulars.' Someone who has been through US Army Basic Training used to be called an 'Army Regular.'

Obviously, in the Revolutionary War period, the United States did not have a standing army and would not for many years. A 'well-regulated' militia did not mean one controlled by rules from the government, but one which had drilled together and practiced with their weapons so that when they were called out, they could march to where they were needed and shoot at what they were supposed to shoot at.

What puzzles me is that it isn't recognised the "Militia" of 2d is the same militia defined in Article 1 Section 8 (powers of Congress). I don't think the Founders were so slipshod as to create a total new military force with the same name as one previously defined. The language that defines the militia is the same language that defines the National Guard - a name change doesn't require a Constitutional amendment.

Justice Stephens' opinion answers your puzzlement, Carver:

One of the principle reasons for adopting the 2d Amendment arose, according to Justice Stephens, because, while Article 1 “empowered Congress to organize, arm, and discipline the militia, it did not prevent Congress from providing for the militia's disarmament.”

The 2d Amendment was adopted, in part, to insure that Congress didn't utilize the power of the purse to eliminate state militias even as it erected a feared, national standing army.

The above passage also refutes Luagha's mistaken belief that the founders were not concerned with a "well-regulated militia" that is controlled by rules from government.

I am certain that the founders were concerned with the militia - that is why it is mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution and in US Title Code.

I don't see how that refutes that 'well-regulated militia' as written in the Second Amendment is a referent to definitions 2, 3, and 4 of the word 'regulate' from dictionary.com:

2.
to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.
3.
to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.
4.
to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.

and not:
1.
to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.

I gave many examples of past and even current usage that indicate the meaning of 'regular', 'regulate' and 'irregular' in the context of militias. A better dictionary than the free one at dictionary.com will give you far more than that.

The first clause is of the second amendment is to ensure that we have access to militias that are up to spec, that are accurate, that are capable, and in good order.