Whitewashing the Second Amendment / Mother Jones

[Demeter]

http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/supreme-court-gun-rights-heller.html

Racial politics dominated the talk in Washington this week as Barack Obama called on Americans to stop ignoring the country's racist past and move forward. The message, apparently, didn't reach the U.S. Supreme Court, where the justices were busy ignoring race during a hearing on the biggest case of the year. On Tuesday, at the same time Obama gave his big speech, the court heard oral arguments in D.C. v. Heller, a case challenging the District of Columbia's 30-year-old law banning handgun ownership. The case marks the first time the Supreme Court has reviewed the Second Amendment in 70 years, and its interpretation could have far-reaching implications for state gun laws. Heller is mostly about gun ownership, but it is also about race—not that you would know that based on the oral arguments.

First, by way of background: The key issue in Heller is whether the Constitution guarantees an individual, as opposed to a collective, right to bear arms within the context of a well-organized militia. The plaintiff, Dick Anthony Heller, is an armed security guard who, with the help of some rich libertarians, brought the lawsuit against the District, arguing that the city's handgun ban illegally prevented him from keeping his work weapon at home. Last year, in a 2-to-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed and ruled that the city's gun-control law was an unconstitutional infringement on an individual's right to bear arms. Fearing a flood of new firearms into the city as a result, the District appealed to the Supreme Court.

Dozens of interest groups, from the Pink Pistols to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, have filed amicus briefs, offering their take on the Second Amendment. But during oral arguments, Justice Anthony Kennedy and his conservative brethren seemed to fully embrace the gun lobby's favorite romantic myth that the founders, inspired by the image of the musket in the hands of a minuteman, wrote the Second Amendment to give Americans the right to take up arms to fight government tyranny. But what the founders really had in mind, according to some constitutional-law scholars, was the musket in the hands of a slave owner. That is, these scholars believe the founders enshrined the right to bear arms in the Constitution in part to enforce tyranny, not fight it.

[Vincardog]

1. I vote for "the right to take up arms to fight government tyranny." Fuck the slave holders

Remember according to some constitutional-law scholars Dim Son can do no wrong because he is the one who decides which laws are to be enforced. Fuck those over educated under informed jackasses too.

[Hugabear]

2. Handguns and rifles are hardly any match for tanks, Apache helicopters, and heavy artillery

If the intent is to afford ordinary citizens the means to fight back against a tyrannical government, then shouldn't we have access to the heavy duty stuff as well?

[Vincardog]

5. Duh arms is a non restrictive term. Are you going to argue that they should have included Space Base

weapons, in order to have given the people the right to defend themselves against the government?

[Hugabear]

8. Honestly, sometimes I wonder

The founding fathers were quite worried that their new government might itself become a tyranny someday.

So many gun-rights enthusiasts seem to be quite content with keeping arms confined to personal weapons such as pistols, assault rifles, shotguns, etc. Whenever one brings up heavy arms, one is often ridiculed as being "extreme". But if you really examine the 2nd Amendment, it doesn't specify any type of arms, it doesn't use the term "firearms" or anything like that. It just says the right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.

To this day, I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why the 2nd Amendment doesn't give me the right to own a M-1 Abrams tank, an Apache helicopter, or a 155mm howitzer.

[RC]

9. I don't know, the Iraqi's seem to be doing ok.

[Hugabear]

14. Two different situations

First of all, we're the invader, we're the ones on foreign soil. In the case of Iraq and Vietnam, it's relatively easy to engage in a guerilla campaign, to wear down the occupying force to the point where they throw in the towel and head home. Likewise, if we were faced with an invading force, we could resort to similar tactics in the hopes of driving them away.

However, if we were facing an oppressive regime, it would be different - they wouldn't be on foreign soil. They wouldn't have the same logistic problems that an occupying army has. Sure, we could nip at their heels, and become a royal pain in the ass. And we wouldn't be talking about taking down some third-rate power either, we'd be talking about one of the most advanced militaries in history.

Rag-tag outfits like the Montana Militia wouldn't really be much of a match against the full strength of the US military. In order to have a chance of defeating the US on its own soil, you'd have to have some pretty heavy weaponry yourself.

[Vincardog]

16. Tell Agent Mike we are not that stupid. We will not plan a revolt on a public Message board.

[Doctor_J]

20. Oh fer chrissake. We have the most ridiculously armed populace

in the world, and it hasn't helped one fucking bit while we've been taken over by fascists in the form of fixed elections, eligible voters having their franchise taken away, innocent citizens being wire tapped and disappeared, the treasury bankrupt, the executive branch ignoring any laws it doesn't want to obey,peaceful protesters locked in cages, and an illegal invasion waged for 5 years against our will. Where were the gun-toting patriots when Tom Delay's storm troopers were halting the recount in 2000? Where were they when hundreds of thousands of Ohioans weren't allowed to vote in 2004? Where were they when NOLA was taken over by the SS? Where were they when * and Cheney were amassing a private army?

Pssh. It MIGHT keep you safe in your home, but it hasn't done and won't do a damned thing against an oppressive government.

[Vincardog]

21. And letting the oppressive government disarm us helps how?

[cliffordu]

3. So apparently the phrase "well regulated militia"

is just a nod and a wink to slaveowners. I'm glad it's not a guarantee that the Fed would never try to disarm any state's militia.


I love MoJones most of the time, but this kind of specious bullshit distracts from valid argument on the subject, one being close to my heart, as I am a heavily armed democrat.

Free African Americans and freed slaves owned firearms under these laws too, didn't they??

[ingac70]

6. Yep. All free men had the right. n/t

[ingac70]

4. Oh bullshit...

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1803. ME 10:365

"The great object is, that every man be armed. <...> Every one who is able may have a gun."-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."-- James Madison, The Federalist Papers

[Demeter]

7. You May Quote the Founding Fathers

but remember, they brought North and South Carolina into the war kicking and screaming. There were some ugly compromises made, of which the continuing institution of slavery was only the most obvious.

[ingac70]

11. Not every state had slavery...

and free blacks had guns.

[cliffordu]

13. Here, Lemme help you with that.....

If you try and stretch too far to lift that much bullshit, you could strain your back.

Guns 'n roses == a pretty good band once -

Guns 'n slavery == a specious argument at best, complete bullshit at worst.

:headbang:

[defendandprotect]

10. The Founders had no way to forsee the future of arms . . .

violence could win land and disputes in their times ---
but in the end violence creates only more violence ---

and as we reflect back upon this history, the taking of this land by violence and genocide.

Followed by slave labor ---

The Founders, the Constitution, are frequently talking out of both sides of their mouths.

The question now is ... does it benefit society to have armed citizenry?

My answer is NO.

[ingac70]

12. Think all you want...

But I like ALL ten of the Bill of Rights just the way they are.

[cliffordu]

15. Did you just say:

"The Founders, the Constitution, are frequently talking out of both sides of their mouths."

The Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration are sacred documents to me. To denigrate them because their authors were deeply flawed human beings is repulsive. There isn't a history of peoples anywhere that doesn't include genocide, violence and slavery.

The authors of the constitution invented none of those, and attempted to end one. The line about slavery being an abomination was stricken to get one of the southern states aboard for the signing.

As far as your beliefs on gun ownership I think you have a right to them, but I disagree.


With a username of 'defendandprotect' I think you're not what you seem, maybe you're here feeling about for rabid anti-gun, anti-american posters.....

As an armed, lifelong Democrat I have to say I think you're an idiot. Sorry, I just do.

[Gormy Cuss]

17. Interesting. That's a theory that I've never heard before.

More from the article:

This doesn't mean that it was the only reason. In the Founding Fathers' recent past there were also Indian Wars and raids, skirmishes with the French and with the British. Skirmishes with the Spanish couldn't be ruled out.

To assert that one reason is a true reason for support by a group (in this case, a state) doesn't assert that it's the only reason for support by that group. Moreover, even if it's true that, say, N. Carolina had that as the sole reason (which remains to be proven), that doesn't mean that Massachusetts or Vermont had this as a reason for supporting the amendment.

But this is what Mother Jones tries to do or wants the reader to infer. It's specious reasoning.

On edit: Took out anachronism.

[Gormy Cuss]

19. I haven't had a chance to read Bogus's article yet but

it surprises me that someone hasn't used the same citations as part of the case for the collective ownership view.

I find it fascinating that I've never heard of slavery and Southern militias as even a contributing factor.

[Igel]

22. Neither had I.

Although I had heard of impromptu militias formed to put down the odd uprising. Sounds plausible that some people could also have those militias, either as a primary or secondary (or tertiary) reason for supporting the Second Amendment.

That everybody had it as the primary reason sounds unlikely.